Mike Rowse A voice from New Mexico


Quick hits

It was announced this week that Pres. Trump will be attending the billionaire boys club meeting in Davos Switzerland. I believe this meeting takes place every year and it’s essentially a place where billionaires talk to millionaires about economic policy, globalization, climate change and income inequality. Which I think essentially means they’re talking to each other about how they can make more money, even though the information they release makes it sound like they are trying to solve these problems. But he got me to thinking especially about income inequality. If they believe that income inequality is really a problem than what would be the easiest thing for them to do to solve that? Give away some of their money to people who don’t have any. Most of the people attending this conference every year are liberals who push governmental programs to essentially redistribute other people’s wealth. Yes some of theirs is redistributed as well but they always push for other people to pay more taxes and try and pay fewer taxes when it comes to themselves. But don’t you think it’s odd that so many people who are middle-class or from lower income strata put their trust in people like Hillary Clinton, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, or other rich people to solve a problem like income any quality. It just goes to show the irony that so many people hate the rich and think they don’t pay their fair share of taxes but they lionize the aforementioned people and support them when they run for political office. If there is income inequality because of the devious actions taken by the rich, who steal from everyone else to make themselves rich, then why would you trust them to solve the problem of income inequality? That’s like trusting the Wolf to take care of your sheep yet so many people do it willingly, especially when it comes to the politicians we put in office. You know the ones that go in with $1 million net worth, make $174,000 a year and then 25 years later they are worth $500 million?

I was perusing the Internet earlier this week going back to some websites that I have not visited for a while but that had been good sources of information whether serious news or fun stuff. One of the articles that I came across discussed images that had been taken by Google Earth’s satellites and could not be identified or clearly explained. You’ve seen these on the Internet or there’s even a television show about what on earth. One of the photos was taken in 2016 and it purports to show a picture of it in an area of Antarctica where no one goes. It clearly shows what appears to be a man-made structure that is buried in the ice at the top of it has become visible. Of course many of the climate change proponents are saying that this is a man-made pyramid, which it does appear to be, and the fact that it is now visible to us is definitive proof of global warming. Despite all of the data from NASA and other scientific organizations that show the ice At Antarctica is getting bigger and deeper and the temperatures are colder than they have been, to these people the whole continent is melting. But think about what they are saying, if they are correct in that the ice cap is melting and now this pyramid that was built by some unknown civilization that apparently lived in Antarctica thousands of years ago probably, that doesn’t that mean that Antarctica was at one time free of ice? Why would someone go there and build a pyramid on an ice flow? The scientists say that this is on actual soil or earth and not on a icecap. Wouldn’t that also say that climate change is part of Earth’s history in that man cannot control it? If people were really living in Antarctica they had to have food sources at the time didn’t they? That means that the temperature had to be mild enough that they could grow food or maybe there were animals living there, there had to be trees and plants to feed those animals. So what did those humans do to cause the earth to cool and destroyed their homes? It’s just ridiculous sometimes. Even more ridiculous is the fact that some people take them seriously.

It’s official; Oregon is full of mentally defective snowflakes many of whom are senior citizens. Oregon has been pretty liberal over the years so it’s no wonder that there are a lot of laws in Oregon that dictate how you can or cannot do almost everything. But on January 3 of this year a new law took effect in rural counties of Oregon only, defined in the law as any county with a population of less than 40,000 people. This new law allows gas station owners to open up self serve pumps. That’s right in Oregon until January of this year you could not pump your own gas, with one exception. There was one rural county that had a co-op which issued cards to its members that allow them to pump gas 24 hours a day. Otherwise you had to have an employee of the gas station and convenience store to pump your gas. And Oregonians hit the roof. Whether it was twitter, Insta Graham or Facebook, the comments from native Oregonians were telling. A 62-year-old woman wrote to the local TV station and said I don’t even know how to pump my own gas. I’m 62 years old and do not want to smell like gasoline. Another woman wrote, no! Seniors, people with disabilities and people with small children in the car need help. Not to mention getting out of your car with transients around and not feeling safe. So you would rather put somebody else’s well-being or life at risk? Because they’re being paid minimum wage to pump your gas. I have lived in this state all my life and I refuse to pump my own gas. This is a task that only qualified people should perform I will literally sit at the pump until someone comes to pump my gas. A man from outside Oregon posted on the TV stations webpage that citizens of Oregon, fear not summation point I am coming to Oregon to open a school to teach you how to pump your own gas safely. I will also be available to teach you how to sweep the floor, wash your windows, put air in your tires, take out the trash or any other menial tasks that you are on able to perform yourself. Another woman from Wisconsin wrote, in response to an Oregonian woman who had said it was too cold to get out of her car, said it is currently -17° in Wisconsin. I just finished showing my tank and guess what? I did not die, get frostbite or otherwise suffer harm in any way shape or form. Grow up Oregon. Not for some convenience store and gas station owners pushed for this bill because having to keep someone at the gas station or store 24 hours a day when they would otherwise not be open was not cost-effective plus they had a difficult time finding people to work at night. The current law did not require them to be open 24 hours a day but if someone needed gas after hours, they could call the state police who could bring them a small amount of gas or they could call the station owner and asked them to come over and pump the gas for the individual. And it should be noted that the new law which took effect in January does not require anyone to get rid of their gas pumping employees. As one owner of the Chevron station said, I will keep my employees who pump gas because I believe that will give me an edge over my competitors. Imagine that, free market principles working. I wonder if the first gas pumping death has already occurred in Oregon?


Net Neutrality – because we didn’t have an open internet before, right? Right?

I have seen a lot of my friends buying into the panic being set in motion by the media and others regarding the repeal of so-called net neutrality rules put in place by the Obama administration. Of course the professed goal of the rules was to keep the Internet free and open for innovation. Those rules were put in place in 2015 if I remember correctly. So think back to 2014 and the decades prior to that. Didn’t we have a tremendous amount of growth in the Internet including service providers, websites, and so much more? The Internet did not explode only in the last two years. In fact I could argue that there has been less growth in the last two years than the two years prior to the implementation of the net neutrality rules.

I watched former FCC chairman Robert McDowell being interviewed on MSNBC by Ali Vashi. Of course, Vashi was sounding all the alarms about repealing net neutrality especially the belief that Internet giants like Facebook and Amazon could freeze out startups limiting our access to competitors. I’ve also seen some of the alarmists talk about not being able to set up personal websites for your small business, your music group, your personal blog, and those types of websites. Because there were none of those before net neutrality right?

Former Chairman McDowell pointed out that prior to the net neutrality you had the Clayton act, the Sherman act, and the Federal Trade Commission act that kept the Internet open and free prior to 2015 and these very powerful tools would remain in force.

Mr. McDowell pointed out that the so-called net neutrality rules were basically imposing Title 11 regulations from the Communications Act of 1934 upon Internet companies. He pointed out that the imposition of those rules served to stifle competition and innovation as well as investment in the Internet companies because of the onerous regulations and requirements faced by startups. Many people who were able to start Internet companies or websites in the past with very little investment now had to hire a myriad of attorneys and experts just to get there Internet doors open.

Of course as we talked about last week, many people believe that companies like Facebook or Amazon could subsidize faster Internet speeds for themselves, gaining preferential treatment and making it difficult for startups or smaller companies to compete. Mr. McDowell pointed out that, if that were the case, Section I & Section II of the Sherman act and Section III of the Clayton act would be triggered for their antitrust violations and prevent that from happening. People and companies successfully used those regulations prior to 2015 and they will continue to use them in the future. It worked pretty well prior to 2015, didn’t it?

Of course the facts are not going to get in the way of many on the left as they run through their Chicken Little, “the sky is falling” emotional arguments to gin up the ignorant masses.


Should Obama be given credit for this economy?

I find it interesting that Obama is not on television or radio more often. Remember he was the left wing’s second coming of John F. Kennedy if not their Savior. He has certainly been making the rounds with some interviews and a lot of speeches as well is now organizing a new community action effort to undermine our current administration. During his talks or speeches he is telling everyone that will listen that it is his policies responsible for our economic turnaround.

Those of you that have followed this page with the radio show over the years know that one of the principles in which we believe is that a new president can’t really do anything about an economy for the first six months of his term. There are always exceptions to the rule such as under Ronald Reagan and now Donald Trump. They were so aggressive in making changes that things changed rapidly.

Because of trumps actions we now have two quarters in a row with at least 3% growth in gross domestic product. We now have 69 records this year alone in the Dow Jones industrial average. The stock market has taken off which means everyone with a retirement account is making money. There has been real growth in wages, more people in the job market, more people working full time, and so many other metrics that are trending positively for our economy that it is time-consuming to go through all of them. So should we give Obama credit?

The only thing we can give Obama credit for is that he prolonged the recession because of his policies and made it much easier for Donald Trump to look like a hero. Remember Pres. Obama said that a basically stagnant economy was the “new normal”. He said that we were going to see people go from rags to riches anymore. We weren’t going to see manufacturing jobs in America anymore. We weren’t going to see real wage growth created by the private sector and free market; rather that would have to come through government intervention. In his tenure he did not even have two quarters that exceeded 3% growth in the gross domestic product much less two in a row. That’s what he should get credit for.

I realize some of you will say that he put in place the principles and mechanisms for our economy to take off. Other than what I said previously, that is absolutely untrue. If his policies were responsible for turning this economy around then why didn’t it happened during his tenure. The only reason that the stock markets state high is because there was no place else for people to invest their money. Certificates of deposit or bonds were paying less than 1%. In fact people were investing in bonds that had a negative return rate because they did not believe the stock market or any other investment was going to lose less money than a negative return bond. We have never seen that in our history.

And I have to remind those of you that say Obama inherited a terrible economy, it wasn’t the worst that we have seen in the last 30 years but it wasn’t great, admittedly. Quite simply though with one exception in our history every economic downturn that has been left alone by the government has lasted less than two years and usually less than a few months. But when the government becomes actively and overly involved in trying to run the economy, they prolong negative results.

There is no reasonable way to say, with a straight face and a pure heart, that Obama is responsible for this recent economic upturn. But when have facts ever gotten in the way of a good story for Obama?


Who’s in charge here? Us or the politicians?

If Judge Roy Moore is elected to the United States Senate in today’s election in Alabama, current members of the United States Senate have said they will open an ethics investigation into him with the sole purpose of expelling him from the Senate. Of course they are pointing to allegations made against him that occurred decades ago. Some of the allegations made against him have been proven to be false while others are questionable and he has admitted to having an interest in younger women. None of the allegations made occurred within the last 10 years so maybe he has changed his ways.
But the bigger picture problem here is that his opponents in Congress are usurping the power of the people. These allegations against Judge Moore have been well publicized and known for quite a while. The people in Alabama have had the opportunity to judge the character of Mr. Moore and the veracity of his accusers. If they choose to believe that either he did not commit these acts or that he has reformed his behavior for a significant period of time, that is their right. It is also their right to elect him as their representative to the United States Senate.
For the self centered, egotistical politicians in Washington DC to try and deny the people this right is a very slippery slope. Ethics investigations are almost exclusively concerned with behavior or actions that took place while the individual was in office. To say that a member of the Senate or the House of Representatives could be denied his or her seat because of actions that took place decades ago means we are headed towards an oligarchy. It means that any duly elected representative from any state could be denied their rightful seat if the people already in power disagree with that person in any way shape or form. It does not have to be limited to unacceptable social behavior or even criminal activity, especially if it was known prior to the election.
If the leaders of Congress are going to adopt this standard that let’s open an ethics investigation into each and every one of them and get rid of them all. I will guarantee that the majority of the 535 members of Congress would not survive. In fact I would put the over under at 490 to be expelled. I would also bet that if the investigation were done in a truly impartial manner, most of them would be expelled for behavior or activities that have occurred since they were elected to whichever body in which they sit. This might be the best way to get a new group of representatives into Washington that are not part of the current power structure.
Some of you liberals might say that I’m being hypocritical when it comes to Al Franken. It appears the allegations made against him occurred prior to his being elected to the Senate. But I would point out that while a few members of Congress called for an ethics investigation into Sen. Franken, one was not conducted and he chose to resign his seat himself. The pressure may have come from members of his party or an outcry from his constituency as well as the media but he was not booted out by his peers.
I would also point out that the allegations made against Sen. Franken were not known at the time he was elected to office. The voters did not have an opportunity to make an informed decision. However, I would say the same thing regarding he or anyone else; if they have reformed their behavior and any offenses took place prior to them being elected to office, that I don’t think the Senate or the House of Representatives has a right to remove them for those actions. Certainly public pressure can be brought upon them to resign but it should be up to their constituents to make that decision, which they could ultimately make the next time he runs for reelection.
This is just another example of power protecting power. The party leaders on both sides of the aisle know that Judge Moore will support Pres. Trump’s policies and they cannot have another “renegade” in Congress. This would threaten their control over not only those bodies but the American citizens as well. That is all this is about, power. End of story.

Filed under: Politics No Comments

Liberals in another panic; because they just don’t know

the liberal mind is a unique organ in that hypocrisy and irony rule their thought processes. They just do not know it. We have given many examples over the years of how liberals will criticize conservative for doing the exact same thing that liberals do. And one of the other things that liberals are very good at is creating panic where none should exist. Once again that's because they want power not to change the world in a better way.

One of the things I said repeatedly during the tenure of Barack Obama was that he was in acting laws by using executive orders. He did not have the constitutional right to do so but remember he infamously said, if Congress doesn't act I have a pen and a phone, I will. I warned you liberals that this was the rule of man and not to the rule of law upon which our nation was founded. I pointed out that if a conservative were in power in doing the exact same thing you would be screaming bloody murder and here we are; but are we in the same place?

No we are not. The most recent uproar from the left side of the aisle is about Pres. Trump repealing Obama's executive order known as DACA. This is commonly known as the Dreamer's Act. Pres. Obama wanted to ensure that children who came here illegally to the United States through no fault of their own could stay and he wanted to reassure them that they would not be deported to a country they really did not know anything about. He could not get Congress to pass the provisions of the act that he wanted so he issued an executive order basically enacting legislation which is unconstitutional. For you recent public school graduates, all laws must first originate in and be passed by Congress and signed by the president of the United States. This prevents a single individual from having complete authority over our lives by enacting laws that he or she wanted to.

The law was originally designed to be a temporary order lasting about two years which Obama felt would give him time to get legislation through Congress to accomplish his goals. The executive order was challenged in the courts where the fifth District Court ruled against the Obama administration and the matter was headed towards the Supreme Court where it faced a likely loss. Again, not because of the content of the executive order but because it was unconstitutional. Executive orders originated as a way for the president to clarify how duly passed laws should be implemented. Remember, one of the president's duties is to implement duly passed laws on a daily basis. Because legislation can that anticipate all situations or does not clarify how the law should be implemented, that is the president's responsibility. But as time has gone on some presidents have used executive orders to basically bypass Congress, something that Obama was notorious for doing.

So Donald Trump issues in order telling the Justice Department and other agencies that DACA will no longer be effective or enforced. The reason he gave and the reason that Jeff sessions gave him his press conference was that the order was unconstitutional. Pres. Trump gave the agencies involved six months to begin winding down the program and to allow Congress to do their job. You need to know that the provisions in Obama's executive order or provisions that were rejected by both Democrats and Republicans in Congress when considering immigration reform. So all this rhetoric about Pres. Trump being bigoted or the Republicans being bigoted is a load of crap.

All of the panic about the so-called dreamers being rounded up and shipped out of the country is also a load of crap. Pres. Trump has issued no such order and has no such plans. He is trying to put pressure on Congress to pass immigration reform, specifically his proposed immigration reform plan. Included in that plan is a fast track to citizenship not only for dreamers but other illegal immigrants who can prove that they are contributing members of society. That is they have not committed any serious crimes, they have been employed or have been students while they been here, and so on. That legislation would not only build a wall but it would widen the door for other aliens to come here legally and make it easier for them.

So if you look at the facts, much of what Pres. Trump has proposed regarding illegal immigrants is exactly what the liberals have proposed. And if you sit back with an open mind you cannot come to the conclusion that Pres. Trump is trying to deport all of these children. But the liberal elite want control back so they will say anything including lying to accomplish that goal.

Filed under: Politics No Comments

Random thoughts and quick hits

the Democrats and liberals have become so wound up in identity politics, which is their formula for keeping them in power, that they don't know anything else. That's why they haven't really had a message about how to improve the economy, international relations, any problem is faced assassination for 40 years. But you know the one biggest problem with identity politics we can never be united again as long as that is the primary motivator for our politicians. Because the inherent message in identity politics is that if my group get something then your group doesn't or vice versa. It's as if there is a finite amount of opportunity or wealth or anything else and that my group must get it in order to keep your group from taking it away from me. Until we go back to identifying ourselves as Americans, were going to have the strife that we are seeing now in America.

Kind of along the same lines is that we are often told at least we white males are often told, that we can't understand the plight of any minority. Whether that be an ethnic minority women, whatever the identified group is, we can't understand their plight. The inference is that we are the root cause of all problems facing any demographic group in America. But it goes deeper than that. By saying that, for example, I cannot understand the plight of black men in America, you are saying that I do not have the ability to learn. I don't have the ability to observe, to read, to listen and to use consequential thinking skills to be able to understand the plight of any downtrodden individual or group. That is completely incorrect. We all have the ability to learn. We may not be able to feel the way they feel because of the experiences they've had but we can come darn close. Yet, while the liberals tell me that I can't understand their plight, they can tell me they understand everything that motivates me, everything that I feel, everything that I think, etc. So how does that work?

Marshawn Lynch, the current running back for the Oakland Raiders said he will not stand during the national anthem at NFL football games. He said one of the main reasons he will not stand is because of America's past transgressions when it comes to race relations and his inability to forgive and forget. So I guess his ability to look at history and see how we have improved, even though there is more improvement to be made, and his ability to forgive is nonexistent. I'm not asking him to forget what has occurred in America but and asking him to think about all of the products we may ask how much more needs to be made in other parts of the world. I'm asking him to look at history and see that it was not just white men that participated in the slave trade. Is he unwilling to forgive his black ancestors in Africa that sold the slaves to white European males? Is he unwilling to forgive the Muslims who enslaved people of all ethnicities, religions, etc.? Or does he even know about the full history of slavery in this world? Maybe not because the left wing is trying to erase all offensive history.

Nick Robertson, a reporter for CNN, said that Bowl Cut Jr. of North Korea will not enter into any agreement with the United States because he doesn't trust us after what we did to Mohamer Qaddafi of Libya. In Robertson's opinion Kin Yung Un believes that Qaddafi did everything the United States asked yet we still had him killed. Or in the alternative he was killed by his own people and we stood by and watched not living up to the perception that we were going to protect him. So North Korea won't give up their weapons and become peaceful because he believes that we will allow at the very least his people to rise up and overthrow him. He enjoys a very lavish lifestyle and doesn't want to give it up. But you're also assuming that Bowl Cut Jr. thinks rationally. We have practice a policy of appeasement for 25 years and North Korea has never lived up to their end of the agreements. The ultimate endgame has to be to remove the dictator from power in North Korea. Because as long as he lives there and has complete control over his people they will never rise up. The difference between North Korea and Libya, the biggest difference, is that the people of Libya had contact with the outside world the people of North Korea have very little idea what the rest of the world is like and don't know anything about freedom. Besides, Kim could take his wealth and find refuge in another country and let the lifestyle he wants. It's been done before Nick, check your history.


We can take back healthcare…

I was reading an article on a webpage I go to frequently, I think it was freedom outpost, but the author of the article had posted a question on his Facebook page. The question was, “what do we do to fix the health care system in the United States?”. One thing I want to point out is the current debate that is taking place in the public forum is not truly about reformation of healthcare. All of this discussion about Obama care and the solutions to curing the problems that legislation caused as well as the problems that legislation was supposed to fix, are about paying for healthcare. We now have not really had a discussion about resolving any problems in the health care system itself and that is a much deeper discussion that we will not delve into in this article.

Some of the responses to the question were things that we have talked about, such as getting the federal government out of healthcare altogether, establishing a free market system like we used to have, and cracking down on Medicare and Medicaid fraud. But there were also some comments that show there is still a lot of ignorance in the general population.

For example one commentor said that insurance companies should be forced to compete across state lines. Now I am sure there are some insurance companies that use this lack of freedom to do business in multiple states to their advantage, but having been in this industry for a long time I know that the majority of companies do not want to have to go through all of the regulatory processes that are required to be able to enter the market in each individual state. More importantly, they also want to be able to combine small state markets with larger state markets in order to improve actuarial accuracy and to be able to spread losses out over a larger group of insureds. This brings costs down for them because it makes losses and income more predictable and it reduces premiums for the consumer. To say that insurance companies don’t want to be able to compete across state lines is buying into a liberal fallacy.

Another person wanted the federal government to go after big pharmaceutical and hospital companies for the greedy pigs they are. Now certainly these companies can make a lot of money and sometimes we see predatory practices such as we saw with the EpiPen. But while these incidents get a lot of press and create a lot of outrage the bigger problem is the regulatory process that governs the medical industry. Bringing a drug to market for example can take years or even decades and it costs a lot to do the research. Those companies would not engage in the research and bring life saving drugs to market without some guarantees that they’d have a chance earn a return on their investment. You wouldn’t like it if you invented a product and then the day after you began selling it, another company was able to copy you and sell the product for less because they didn’t have the initial investment that you did. Part of the cure to this problem is being able to bring those drugs, treatments, medical equipment, etc. to market sooner by shortening the regulatory process. Several studies have shown that the vast majority of products did not get safer because of additional reviews that are often required by the FDA. That would also make medical care less expensive for us.

Then there’s the complaint that Congress doesn’t have to enroll in Obamacare or they have a health insurance plan that is different than what we are required to have or is available to us. That’s something we’ve talked about for a long, long time. Turns out that may not be exactly true. It appears that federal employees were required to participate in Obamacare but that elected officials and their staff were not eligible for subsidies. Because these employees, many of whom make in excess of $100,000 couldn’t afford insurance in the private market, they complained loudly. Obama issued an executive order that placed staff and elected officials under the federal payroll system which then made them eligible for subsidies and then gave them all a subsidy in excess of 70%. Now you and I don’t qualify for that type of subsidy and most of us make much less than $100,000 a year. There is a lot of misinformation or confusion about this issue, but the simple fact is that elected officials and their staff ARE being treated differently than the average citizen. It also amazes me that our elected officials don’t seem to be able to put 2 & 2 together; if they and their well paid staff can’t afford health insurance premiums, how the heck can the average person?

There are other things we can do to bring down the cost of healthcare, tort reform and making it easier to form groups to band together to purchase insurance but none of these seem to be getting a lot of traction or discussion. I think one of the biggest solutions is putting the consumer back in the equation but those proposals are not getting much discussion either because the big lobbyists would lose money if that happened. We’ve seen examples such as medical clubs that not only reduce costs to the consumer but improve the level of care and access while increasing profits. These work but they don’t make the lobbyists or politicians any money so clubs won’t be part of their solution. That’s why the consumers have to become educated and demand action from our medical providers; let them know we’ll participate if they decide to change their business model.

Essentially, we can get the federal government out of much of the health insurance and health care debate if we just bypass them and take them out of the equation.


More proof we need to drain the swamp…

The Republicans have failed to accomplish much this year despite having the numbers that put them in control of the federal government. Now I am not including Pres. Trump in this criticism because he has done as much as any other president in the first six months of his time in office. Could he be a little more forceful in pushing the political elite to get something accomplished? Probably so but he has taken a step in that direction with his comments regarding letting Obama care in load if Congress can’t get a bill passed. But those are thoughts for another day and another column.

Despite what the liberals in the media, the political elite, or the general population will tell you, Pres. Trump was elected to drain the swamp in Washington DC. I think that is the one common denominator among all of the people who supported Donald Trump, in addition to not liking Hillary Clinton. I don’t know that there was any other one issue, whether it be building a wall, improving the economy, decreasing the size of federal government, or any other big issue that United supporters of Donald Trump more. We are tired of the way our elected officials and bureaucrats in the federal government treat us as serfs.

Clearly it was not going to be an easy job but I don’t think any of us thought that the pushback from the powerbrokers in Washington DC would be this vituperative. (You public school graduates can ask Siri what that means.) I think most of us knew that those on the left side of the aisle would push back as hard as they could against Pres. Trump, that includes those in the media, but the hatred they have shown has gone beyond anything we could have imagined. I don’t think any of us thought that the Republican leadership would fight this hard against Pres. Trump, to the point that they have abrogated their duties and once again failed to deliver upon their own campaign promises.

Every one of them has campaign for example making a promise to repeal Obama care. In fact Republicans voted seven times to pass legislation that would have repealed Obama care sending it to the president’s desk for his signature on a couple of occasions, where it was vetoed. Now that they have the opportunity to present that very same legislation again they don’t have the backbone to do so. It proves once again that it’s not about keeping promises to us but about retaining power and control over us.

But it also goes deeper than that. The media won’t cover this or want to discuss it, but many of us still support Pres. Trump and are really upset with our elected officials in Congress. In fact we are so upset with them that there will be primary challenges for them in 2018 and/or 2020. Many of them could lose those challenges. Or will they? There is no doubt in my mind that many constituents are flooding their elected officials offices with emails, letters, and phone calls expressing their dissatisfaction with the way they have acted over the last six months. But those elected officials are not scared of their constituents. If they were we would have health insurance reform and a tax cut already.

But clearly they are not afraid of being reelected or the wrath of those people they supposedly represent. Some of that could be due to the way the media is portraying us and the bubble in which those in Washington DC live. But I think there’s a bigger reason they are not afraid of being reelected or ousted in the next election. The money people, the lobbyists, the billionaires, corporations are the ones that are really in the years of our elected officials telling them not to listen to us. Those are the people that are pushing our elected officials to ignore their own campaign promises and the clear message we sent to Washington with the election of Donald Trump.

When Trump was elected I said that we had the duty as citizens to ensure that our elected officials adhered to the promises made during their campaigns and his. That we had to be vocal in our support of those promises made to us. There can be no greater example of why the swamp needs to be drained than what we have seen over the last six months. We must be vocal right now in letting our elected officials know we want things to change. But more importantly in 2018 we must elect new representatives who promised to return the power to the people and take it away from the morass that is Washington DC and our political process. The changing of the way things have been done for 40 years will not happen overnight but it will happen if we keep our focus and hold people accountable. Something we have not done in decades.

Filed under: Politics No Comments

Quick hits

More liberal logic: California State Atty. Gen. has banned travel by government employees to several states such as Texas, that have policies regarding LGBT issues with which the California State Atty. Gen. does not agree. However they oppose Pres. Trump’s travel ban from countries where members of the LGBT community are put to death because of their lifestyles.

Talk about a swamp. The investigation into Michael Flynn has not turned up any credible evidence about collusion with the Russians. What it has turned up is the fact that the acting director of the FBI, Andrew McCabe, had sexual discrimination and harassment charges filed against him by a female special agent in 2014. Michael Flynn gave a statement supporting the agent’s claims. Guess who started the investigation into Michael Flynn? That’s right, Andrew McCabe. Doesn’t that seem like a conflict of interest at best and a political witch hunt at worst?

The Congressional Budget Office has scored the Senate Republicans replacement for Obama care. First of all let’s be very clear that the Congressional Budget Office has never even come close when scoring bills like this. For example they thought 4 million small business owners would enroll in Obama cares small business program. To date, 230,000 businesses have enrolled. Their estimates of the amount of subsidies needed for the Obama care exchanges have been off by over 100% every year. That being the case, they anticipate that 22 million people will leave the exchanges between now and 2026 if the Senate’s plan is implemented. Of course you’ve heard that in the media and from the left wing in Washington. Approximately 15 million of those people will leave voluntarily, that’s the part that are not telling you. The bill gets rid of the individual mandate and many of those leaving the exchanges will likely purchase insurance in the private market again because several analyses of the bill find that premiums in the private market will decrease. In fact a couple of insurance companies have said they believe the premium reduction will be 30 to 40% and they will be able to offer plans with low deductibles and lower premiums. That doesn’t sound quite as bad doesn’t. Not to mention that with the elimination of the 30 hour work week requirement under Obama care, many more people will return to full-time work and should be able to afford their own insurance again.

Think about this; the telephone was invented in 1876 but it wasn’t until 1982 that you can actually take the phone out of the house. Four 106 years you were relegated to a 4 foot circle around your refrigerator while talking on the phone and now you’re ticked off because you can’t get coverage in the middle of the Gila Wilderness.

It is amazing what people will say to try and rationalize the outcome of the election. On Rachel Maddow’s show shortly after the Democrats lost the election in Georgia’s sixth Congressional District one of their analysts was saying that the rain, which was very heavy, negatively affected the Democrat turnout. So what he’s saying is the Democrats didn’t feel strongly enough about either voting for the Democrat candidate or against Pres. Trump or that they were afraid they would melt in the rain. Which isn’t a stretch given the fact that the liberals continually tell people that they can’t handle adversity themselves. The same analyst went on to say that more rain fell on the heavily Democrat populated portions of the district as compared to the Republican portions of the district. So you’re telling me that God or Mother Nature doesn’t like the Democrats?

The Democrats are also claiming all four losses in official elections they are claiming that the narrow margins of victory actually show that people are getting tired of Pres. Trump already. That doesn’t appear to be the case but let’s not forget a couple of key facts: first of all Pres. Trump’s margin of victory in Georgia for example was just over 1%, the Republican candidates victory was about 6% so that seems to be a move in the direction of the Republicans and Pres. Trump doesn’t it? Also, in Georgia’s congressional district, that district has been redrawn a couple of times since people like Mike Price and Newt Gingrich one by large margins so you are not comparing apples to apples..


Let’s get real, John was right

With the left it is always about identity politics. They are the ones that continually put labels on someone and they are the ones who framed every discussion about some identity. The latest victim of the smear campaign is John McEnroe who is under fire by the left, at least some of the left, for saying that Serena Williams would be ranked number 700 in the world if she played the men’s tennis tour full-time.

Now let’s put this in context; McEnroe was appearing on an NPR show to promote his latest book. I believe the host’s name was Lulu Navarro Garcia. The topic turned to Serena Williams and her place in history. McEnroe said she is the greatest female tennis player ever, bar none. Navarro Garcia asked why he felt it necessary to qualify her as the greatest female player in the world and not just the greatest tennis player. McEnroe replied quite simply, she’s not the greatest tennis player in the world.

McEnroe said that he was not trying to take away from Serena and that on any given day she might be able to be some of the best men’s players in the world. However if she were to play the men’s circuit full time she might be ranked like number 700 and the world simply because it’s a different game. He went on to point out that no female in any sport could be consistently successful in the men’s version of that sport.

What the WNBA champion stand a chance against the Golden State Warriors? Not even close. With the Connecticut lady Huskies be able to compete against the University of Kentucky or Duke men’s teams? No not a chance. In fact the most dominant team in women’s college basketball over the last 15 years probably could not beat a good Division II team. The best female golfers of all time have tried to compete on the men’s tour with little or no success. They certainly couldn’t compete for the win.

This is not to denigrate women’s sports but to point out, as Michael Willbon put it, women physically are not yet capable of competing over the long haul against men. At least not at the elite levels found in college sports and the professional ranks. Certainly there are examples of female athletes at the high school or lower levels competing with the male counterparts but we know from biology that women tend to develop more quickly physically than teenage boys do.

Even Serena agrees with John McEnroe. After hearing what McEnroe said in the interview Serena sent out a tweet asking McEnroe to leave her out of this. However a couple of years ago in an interview with David Letterman, Serena was asked if she could compete with or beat Andy Murray. Serena quickly answered, “no way.” She went on to say that it would last about 15 to 20 minutes and she would lose 6-0, 6-0. She did seem to infer that she might be able to beat a lower level player, maybe around number 100 or so, but she understood that even though she is a very strong, physical tennis player, the strong physical men’s players are bigger, faster, stronger and there are more of them.

Of course some of those in the femi-nazi crowd point to Billie Jean King beating Bobby Riggs back in the 1970s. Okay so she beat a 70-year-old man when she was the best women’s tennis player in the world. Could she have beaten John McEnroe, Jimmy Connors, or any of the other top-ranked men’s players at the time? No.

There will come a time and maybe not in the very distant future that certain female athletes will compete on the same level as their male counterparts. Maybe it will come in the running sports or possibly even golf. I think we are also about to see the first female player in the NFL, it will be a kicker and not a position player but I think it will happen.

The bottom line is this, no matter what your gender or other demographic characteristic if you earn the position through your skills and abilities, then you should be allowed to play at the highest levels of your sport. Maybe the more appropriate discussion to have about Serena is whether or not she is the most dominant player in her sport as compared to the best players in other sports. I think that puts her into the discussion with Tiger Woods, Babe Ruth, Wilt Chamberlain, and others who dominated in their field of endeavor. Saying you are the best in your sport is a huge compliment and saying that you are the best female player in your sport is not denigrating to most people, only those who play identity politics with every facet of our lives.