10/11/2020 An Open Letter to My Democratic Party, Leftist, and Liberal Friends

Hi! So, how are you today? I've got a favor to ask of you. Well, really a couple of things to ask. First of all, you know I support the President in his re-election bid. I don't think he's perfect, far from it. But my honest opinion is that his policies and actions have been good for me, my family, and for most of our country, no matter how they look, pray, or where they live. That's what I think. Prior to him coming along, I felt very disaffected by the GOP. They said what I wanted to hear, but they administered and governed in exactly the way I opposed again and again. And candidly, the other party, likely your party, not only hasn't seemed to want my support or vote at all. They honestly to me seem to be running against me every bit as much as Trump. I mean that. Because I'm a white, Christian, man who played the game by a set of rules the left questions or rejects, this has somehow made me out to be the bad guy. And you, my friends, have either glommed onto it, or you have kept your mouths shut rather than to reject the blanket blaming on and denunciation of white, Christian, men especially. 

I love my country. I know our history is imperfect, but I love her anyway. I was happily brainwashed with things like the Pledge of Allegiance, songs like God Bless America, and have been known to have tears in my eyes during a meaningful or moving rendition of the Star Spangled Banner.

I worked hard to reach my modest dreams. I changed jobs, moved across the country three times, and endured the pressures of sometimes extremely stressful and difficult work to provide for my family and to amass enough savings to provide a retired life for Caroline and I. A lot of less determined people would have quit a few of the jobs I had, or they would have withered under the pressure and failed. But I didn't.

So here are the three things I ask. And I ask sincerely and kindly:

1) Please stop with generalizing about Trump supporters being stupid, science deniers, uneducated, uninformed, etc. That includes posting memes and re posting articles by academics, opiners, entertainers, athletes, politicians, news reporters and writers. When you report that stuff from Keith Olbermann or Dan Rather, or some Georgetown professor who 'explains' the error of our uneducated and unadvanced thinking, realize that I see that and I see YOU telling ME that's how YOU feel about ME. Get that? I hope the capitalization helps. The fact that I think the Paris Climate Accords were bad for my country do NOT mean I deny global warming, that I'm a science denier, or that I'm stupid.

2) Please stop with generalizations about my skin color, and the presumption that if I don't agree with some of the social justice movement of today's premises, beliefs, or goals. Just because I don't agree with that stuff is NOT a license to presume I am a racist. I know you're going to disagree with this, but I don't believe Donald Trump is a racist, either. Matter of fact, almost nobody, except for some tenants with whom he had lease and occupancy disputes who alleged those disputes were predicated on race. I tend to believe the disputes were predicated on money, but that's my opinion. When you posts memes, post articles about white privilege, about Trump supporters generalizing we're bad people and racists because of supporting him or our positions on issues, I see YOU telling ME that's how YOU feel about ME.

 3) Lastly, I need help understanding what it is you think America should look like. I mean how should our history books have been written? What should the role of our city, state, and federal government entities be in the lives of everyday Americans like you and me as opposed to now? I think the pandemic illustrates some of the difference in perspective I see. Seems like leftward leaning people see government's responsibility, and with that responsibility additional authority over our everyday lives and activities to control our lives is different from mine. I don't deny the government has a role, and has some authority, but I get uneasy when I see personal freedoms compromised or removed. There is personal responsibility, too. I see a different balance. But beyond and not necessarily excluding the pandemic, where is it that you believe the government should have a larger role in our lives, and in your life. And if the larger role you see is in areas of benevolence, like healthcare, food or shelter for poor people, or expanded government funded education, etc., what are the limits on how deep into my pockets (my 401k, company stocks and investments, social security, pension, etc.) would be acceptable to achieve those things? What do you think immigration should look like? Open borders? Are all the aforementioned benefits and social welfare items I touched on to be afforded to everyone who should desire to come here, or is there some reasonalbe point at which limitations to immigration and benefits to immigrants would stop?

I'm asking the questions in 3 above, because many, many times I've found myself totally lost on what it is the left thinks America was, is and should be, who Americans were, are, and should be, and what our history and government, were, are and should be. It often feels like we're not even looking at different sides of the same coin. It feels like a different coin from a different country, in a different pocket, in a different world. I want to understand. I started trying to answer my own questions by reading Joe Biden's 110 page platform document. Again, and again I felt as if the vision there was so far from my own it was totally foreign to me. It didn't seem to represent me, to be for me, about me, or by me. Are we that far apart that we can't even try to understand one another? Are the insults of #'s 1 and 2 above the best we can do to come to understand one another?

Food for thought, and written with feelings of great exasperation, frustration, and frankly, sadness.

10/8/2020 California Senator Bad!

I know how Democrats feel. And while I know that our feelings are a stupid way to assess Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates, I recognize how their feelings impact their assessment of President Trump. He's gotten on their last nerve so many times the discomfort is endless.

The irrational Orange Man Bad syndrome is real, very real.

This is how good ol' Matty P feels about Senator Kamala Harris. In her I see the kind of politician who would kill a puppy, or commit some other immoral act to advance her political career. Then along came Jussie Smollett and Justice Brett Kavanaugh. I don't know that I'll ever be able to think rationally and untainted by my immense dislike for her about anything she says or does. I watched a few minutes of the debate last night. But before she was finished with her second response, I realized that reading my book was better use of my time, rather than getting pissed off and then trying to get a good night's rest.

Democratic Party VP Candidate Kamala Harris

And f*cking Joe Biden thinks this woman is the right choice to be next in line for the presidency behind his 78 year old decrepit behind? My Democratic Party friends: I know how you feel about Donald Trump. It's been obvious for almost 4 years. I recognize that you can't see anything about him objectively. I hope I don't have to live that way, but I recognize that if Joe wins and then wakes up dead one morning, it's possible. It's really possible. Now, where's my damned ballot? I think I'll vote today!

California Senator Bad!

10/5/2020 Trump Derangement Syndrome in Two Tweets

Jennifer Rubin is a poitical commentator for the Washinton Post. First of all, she's one of their token conservatives. She ain't conservative. Secondly, she has one of the worst cases of Trump Derangement Sysndrome ever. Compare and contrast her Tweet from Friday and the other from Sunday.

On Friday she's whined because he took a helo and could have been driven in a car.

 

On Sunday she complained he put the Secret Service in danger by getting into the car.

This is what he's up against, folks. The pandemic is another example. Of the list of things that needed or could have been done early on: testing, experimenting to find a cure or cures, closing international travel, providing hospital beds/medical support, ventilators, etc., which ever he did would 100% be touted an being absolutely the wrong one or ones. Trump is ALWAYS wrong, no matter what. 

 "He did this? Should have did that!" 

"He did that! Huge mistake! Should have did the other thing." 

"He did the other thing? Only a fool would do the other thing! He should have did this and that!"

10/4/2020 Who Peddles the Divisiveness?

If you ask me, the single most damaging thing to my friendships since Donald Trump came on the scene is the narrative that Trump is a Nazi, a fascist, a racist, and a white supremacist AND that we who support him at a minimum tolerate those things or that we're just stupid. We are also accused of all those things in blanket generality again and again and again. If you're a liberal and your seeing this AND you have pushed any or all of the "Trump is a..." and "His supporters are..." or, "At a minimum, his supporters tolerate and support..." narratives, YOU doing so it what drove a wedge between us. I don't fucking appreciate it and if you really think that about me, say so. But if you don't think that about ME, but you pushed those narratives, YOU fucked up our friendship. YOU. Some of my friends do, I don't deny it, but I do not use the "libtards" "democRATS" or "DemoKKKrats" stuff or anything like that. Why? Because while I have different perspectives on issues, generally speaking, I think my friends are intelligent, good people.

What is a real pisser is that this nonsense is still out there same as ever was. From when Hillary called up deplorable, right through today. I see it from Twitter's famous 'blue check marks" and from just regular people. This morning I searched Twitter for Nazi, fascist, Hitler, racist, and white supremacist. Here are the first four things I found searching for "latest".

 

An asshole named Den Quin pushing the Nazi bullshit.

 

Annette says that Trump surviving the virus is analogous to the failed assassination of Hitler

Twitter blue check marker and Actor Chad Lowe calls us one of: rich, white nationalist racists, or stupid. Who the fuck is Chad Lowe? Never heard of him. Fuck him.

One of my favorite is people who don't seem to have a single fucking clue what a fascist is who call Trump and or his supporters fascists. This one who also seems to be protecting the 'beloved' idea of communism from being corrupted by Trump fascism is a real dumbass.

So if you want life to get back to normal and friendships to get back to normal, how about dropping this shit from the conversation. Stop reposting and retweeting this stuff. You really do think we're Nazis, fascists, racists, white supremacists, and stupid? Go fuck yourself. Get out of my life. Today. Now.

9/27/2020 The Richness of Political Hypocrisy

Politics in the U.S. is a study in hypocrisy. I'm seeing it in extreme and widespread measure in President Trump's nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett for Senate confirmation as a Supreme Court Justice. For the better part of the last week there has been an outpouring of love and admiration at the news of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg's passing. Justice Ginsberg was just the second female justice on the court. (Sonia Sotomeyer and Elena Kagan, respectively, are the third and fourth). The respect, love, admiration, and signs of those feelings were everywhere. Why? Well, as a woman, to rise to the highest level in the legal world in our country is an amazing accomplishment. It's an honor and a privilege for any judge to be nominated to that high office. And Justice Ginsberg wore the robes of a Supreme Court Justice with every bit of the dignity befitting that office. She is a role model for every young woman in our country that if you set out to do great things, to be a great person, and to make a great difference, you can. She epitomized greatness.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg

 

Judge Amy Coney Barrett

Now we come to Judge Amy Coney Barrett. If conformed by the Senate, she'll be just the fifth female Supreme Court Justice. At 49, she's at the pinnacle of the legal profession in just being nominated for the position. I have great admiration and respect for her for what she's achieved and for reaching this pinnacle. I give credit to President Trump for sticking with her by making the nomination. Judge Barbara Logoa, a Hispanic judge from Florida might have been a more clever pick for the politics of the situation in the election season. But Trump went with who he thought was his best choice, those other considerations aside. And Judge Barrett is a brave woman, a "lot of balls" I told a friend last night. She knows what's coming from a bunch of vile, evil scumbags who are so blinded in their partisanship that attacking motherhood, adoption, children, and a woman of great achievement is all good to them. Someone of weaker constitution, no pun intended, wouldn't knowingly enter this briar patch.

 Last night Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley tweeted "Barrett is dangerous & unfit to serve on the highest court." Senator Richard Blumenthal (Danang Dick) said "Judge Barrett’s views would harm real lives—real people—in real ways, from children with pre-existing conditions to women who just want to be able to decide when & how to have a family." Senator Kirsten Gillibrand tweeted that "Alongside her dangerous, ultra-conservative record, she’s not fit to serve on the Supreme Court." Senator Sheldon Whitehouse portrays Judge Barrett as some kind of puppet with strings being pulled by unseen, evil forces: "It doesn’t matter who the Supreme Court nominee is; it matters who’s behind this pick. And the answer is special interests out to capture our courts."

Someone named Vanessa Grigoriadis Tweeted: "I guess one of the things I don't understand about Amy Comey Barrett is how a potential Supreme Court justice can also be a loving, present mom to seven kids? Is this like the Kardashians stuffing nannies in the closet and pretending they've drawn their own baths for their kids, when she portrays herself as a home-centered Catholic who puts family over career, isn't she telling a lie? The tweets and comments get worse.

Someone named Becca T explains via tweet: "They aren't attacking her for adopting. They want to make sure it was a good adoption. A lot are not. That is not an attack on her children. That is questioning Barrett's character. If a liberal had adopted kids from Haiti, the GOP would be doing the same." Someone named Zoë wants us to know the maybe Barrett's really a racist: "All these conservative clowns are out here talking about how there’s no way Amy Barrett could be racist because she adopted two black kids. Ooooh boy, do I got news for y’all..."

Christine D fills us in on Judge Barrett's motivation for adoption: "If your main reason 4 adopting a black kid is solely done to "prove" that you're not a racist, or in order to spruce up your image/ career. Then you're a racist. Amy Barrett didn't adopt those children to help them. She adopted them so she could improve her chances 4 nomination."

Dangerous. Unfit. Harm real lives real ways: pre-existing conditions an reproductive choice. Dangerous. Not fit. Puppet. Unseen evil forces. Special interests. Like the Kardashians. Stuffing nannies in the closet. Pretending. Portrays herself. Telling a lie. Questioning Barrett's character. Racist... ooooh boy, do I got news for y'all. Reason for adopting to prove you're not a racist. To spruce up your image/career. A racist. Didn't adopt to help them. Adopted to help chances for nomination.

I've got a question for all the scumbags who said all these and other nasty, vile, uncalled for things about Judge Barrett: Were you wearing your Justice Ginsberg lace collar tribute while you said these things?

Yes! Girls can aspire. But only if they agree with us.

 

9/20/2020 Proposed Constitutional Amendment re SCOTUS Justices, Nominees, and the Confirmation Process

 

U.S. Supreme Court Building, Washington, D.C.

I propose a Constitutional Amendment permanently setting the Supreme Court at nine (9) Justices (maximum) as a fixed number. The amendment would also eliminate lifetime appointments and instead set a 25 year maximum tenure on the SCOTUS, and further, establish a minimum age of 35 (same as POTUS), a maximum age for new appointees (65 or 70) and a maximum age for Justices sitting on the bench of 80 that requires all Justices to retire before their 81st birthday, exempting all sitting SCOTUS Justices from the 25 and 80 old year limits. The amendment would REQUIRE the Senate to take up every single nominee formally submitted by POTUS for a vacancy, establish a formal methodology for appointment submission (NOT Twitter), allow the Senate, based on the recommendation of the Judiciary Committee if so supported by the Majority Leader to petition the President one time to withdraw a nominee not supported by the Committee. If the President is firm, the nomination would stand, despite the objection. This would have thwarted the Merrick Garland situation altogether. Either POTUS or the nominee may withdraw nominee for consideration at any time prior to the Senate vote. Lastly, the amendment would set a timeline from nomination to confirmation (either 45, 60, or 90 days), after which, if the full Senate hadn't voted yet, the appointment would be automatically confirmed.

 

• Sets the SCOTUS at 9 members permanently.
• Eliminates lifetime SCOTUS appointments.
• Establishes a 25 year maximum SCOTUS tenure.
• Minimum age of SCOTUS Justices of 35 years old.
• Maximum age for SCOTUS nominees (either 65 or 70 years old).
• Maximum age for active SCOTUS Justice set at 80 years old (mandatory retirement before their 81st birthday).
• Current SCOTUS Justices exempt from all new age and tenure limitations.
• Established formal nomination process by POTUS to the Senate.
  
• Requires a full Senate vote on ALL POTUS' nominees to SCOTUS.
• Allows the Senate to petition POTUS one (1) time per nominee to withdraw the nominee before the full Senate vote.
• Either POTUS or the nominee may withdraw the nominee from consideration at any time prior to the Senate vote.
  
• Set a hard timeline for confirmation (45, 60, or 90 days, probably 60).
• If Senate does not act within the (45, 60, or 90 day) timeline, the nominee's confirmation becomes automatic.
  

So it is written. Let it be done.

9/19/2020 Top Five Reasons Trump Should Not Wait to Replace RBG

 

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

 

I have nothing bad to say of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. I don't care for some of the vitriol in today's political lexicon, and surely some of it is already coming her way. Let her rest in peace. Really. 

Some on the left on social media are threatening riots if the President nominates a replacement before the election. Surprise! When it comes to whether or not President Trump should name a replacement, I say that he should. Here are my Top-5 reasons why he should:

5) It's his job to do so according to the U.S. Constitution. He's President for 4 years. Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell have both taken confirmation actions in the Senate that their opponents didn't like. That's on the Senate. When one party has the Senate and the White House, confirmations happen as a matter of course.

4) The Trump-Russia coup d'état. The same Democrats (with Deep State Republican help) who will scream bloody murder over the 'injustice' of the President fulfilling his Constitutional duty to name Supreme Court Justices bastardized law enforcement, intelligence, diplomatic, and the military to screw a political opponent.

3) The Schiff/Nadler/Pelosi Impeachment. Another scam perpetrated by Democrats and the Deep State. Payback is a bitch.

2) The 2020 Election WILL be contested in the Supreme Court at some point. Almost nothing can convince me otherwise. State Supreme Courts are already setting the stage, allowing ballot collection AFTER Election Day and disallowing challenging of ballots due to signature problems. The steal is in.

And, the #1 reason Trump should name a replacement.

1) Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Perhaps the most vile and disgusting political dirty trick of the Trump presidency, the Kavanaugh smear left me seething. And along with #'s 3 and 4, above, they've set the precedent that anything goes. They'll stop at nothing and do anything. If their doing all that coloring OUTSIDE the lines was OK, then a President coloring INSIDE the lines has to be OK, too.

He's got to do it. He's the President. It's his right to do it. It's within his authority to do it. It's his job to do it. Do it! And call out the riot squads.