Justplainbill's Weblog

August 20, 2019

All Hands: Rice & CO2, The Galileo Movement, thanks to Butch for sending

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 4:41 pm

Go read the first post on this site, then visit:



July 20, 2019

Iran vs NATO

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 4:32 pm

I may not be the brightest bulb in the lamp, but:

My understanding of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is that if one member is attacked, then all must respond when the treaty is invoked. If the United Kingdom declares that Iran’s attacks on its shipping to be Acts of War, then ALL of the NATO members must respond. This includes the U.S.

As a matter of reality, how long would Iran last in such a conflict? And, is this necessarily a bad thing?

Think about it. All of Iran’s terrorist activities would end and we could move all of the Palestinian “refugees” could be moved to Iran and given land to farm or otherwise work as they would.

July 18, 2019

The Selfish Actors of Illegal Immigration, by Dr. Hanson, [nc]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 8:55 pm

The Selfish Actors of Illegal Immigration

Migrants from Central America run towards the Rio Bravo river to cross into the United States from Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, June 12, 2019. (Jose Luis Gonzalez/Reuters)

Many people benefit from the lawbreaking: The Mexican and Central American governments, the Democratic party, employers, ethnic activists, rich progressives, and the illegal border crossers themselves.Almost every party invested in open borders proves utterly selfish, without regard for the legitimate interests of others or of the law itself.

The Illegal Immigrant
The immigrant is the pawn of Latin American governments who view him as inanimate capital, someone who represents thousands of dollars in future foreign-exchange remittances, as well as one less mouth to feed at home — if he crosses the border, legality be damned. If that sounds a cruel or cynical appraisal, then why would the Mexican government in 2005 print a comic booklet (“Guide for the Mexican Migrant”) with instructions to its citizens on how best to cross into the United States — urging them to break American law and assuming that they could not read?

Yet for all the savagery dealt out to the immigrant — the callousness of his government, the shakedowns of the coyotes and cartels, the exploitation of his labor by new American employers — the immigrant himself is not entirely innocent. He knows — or does not care to know — that by entering the U.S., he has taken a slot from a would-be legal immigrant, one, unlike himself, who played by the rules and waited years in line for his chance to become an American.

He knowingly violates U.S. immigration law. And when the first act of an immigrant is to enter the U.S. illegally, the second to reside there unlawfully, and the third so often to adopt false identities, he undermines American law on the expectation that he will receive exemptions not accorded to U.S. citizens, much less to other legal immigrants. In terms of violations of federal law, and crimes such as hit-and-run accidents and identity theft, the illegal immigrant is overrepresented in the criminal-justice system, and indeed in federal penitentiaries.

Certainly, no Latin American government would allow foreigners to enter, reside, and work in their own country in the manner that they expect their own citizens to do so in America. Historically, the Mexican constitution, to take one example, discriminates in racial terms against both the legal and illegal immigrants, in medieval terms of ethnic essence.

NOW WATCH: ‘Will the DOJ Change How They Handle Immigration Hearings?’

Will the DOJ Change How They Handle Immigration Hearings?
Volume 0%

Press shift question mark to access a list of keyboard shortcuts

Keyboard Shortcuts
increase volume
decrease volume
seek forwards
seek backwards
toggle captions
toggle fullscreen
seek to %
Next Up
Hong Kong Activists Urge G20 Leaders to Help ‘Liberate’ City

Ad: 11 seconds

Watch: 0:32
Will the DOJ Change How They Handle Immigration Hearings?

Mexican and Central American Governments
Some $30 billion in remittances are sent back by mostly illegal aliens to Central American governments and roughly another $30 billion to Mexico. But the full implications of that exploitation are rarely appreciated. Most impoverished illegal aliens who send such staggering sums back not only entered the United States illegally and live here illegally, but they often enjoy some sort of local, state, or federal subsidy. They work at entry-level jobs with the understanding that they are to scrimp and save, with the assistance of the American taxpayer, whose laws they have shredded, so that they can send cash to their relatives and friends back home.

In other words, the remitters are like modern indentured servants, helots in hock to their governments that either will not or cannot help their families and are excused from doing so thanks to such massive remittances.

Remittances also explain the hostility of our southern neighbors, who will do almost anything to prevent their cessation.

In sum, they promote illegal immigration to earn such foreign exchange, to create an expatriate community in the United States that will romanticize a Guatemala or Oaxaca — all the more so,  the longer and farther they are away from it. Few of the impoverished in Mexico paste a Mexican-flag sticker on their window shield; many do so upon arrival in the United States. Illegal immigration is a safety valve, by which dissidents are thanked for marching north rather than on their own nations’ capitals.

Latin American governments really do not care that much that their poor are raped while crossing the Mexican desert, or sold off by the drug cartels, or that they drown in the Rio Grande, but they suddenly weep when they reach American detention centers — a cynicism that literally cost hundreds their lives.

If thousands of the Mexican or Central American affluent were fleeing their homelands and taking their money and skills with them, their governments would probably be barring their passage.

The Ethnic Industry
America is increasingly becoming not so much a nonwhite nation as an assimilated, integrated, and intermarried country. Race, skin color, and appearance, if you will, are becoming irrelevant. The construct of “Latino” — Mexican-American? Portuguese? Spanish? Brazilian? — is becoming immaterial as diverse immigrants soon cannot speak Spanish, lose all knowledge of Latin America, and become indistinguishable in America from the descendants of southern Europeans, Armenians, or any other Mediterranean immigrant group.

In other words, a Lopez or Martinez was rapidly becoming as relevant or irrelevant in terms of grievance politics, or perceived class, as a Pelosi, Scalise, De Niro, or Pacino. If Pelosi was named “Ocasio-Cortez” and AOC “Pelosi,” then no one would know, or much care, from their respective superficial appearance, who was of Puerto Rican background and who of Italian ancestry.

Such a melting-pot future terrifies the ethnic activists in politics, academia, and the media who count on replenishing the numbers of unassimilated “Latinos,” in order to announce themselves the champions of collective grievance and disparity and thereby find careerist advantage. When 1 million of some of the most impoverished people on the planet arrive without legality, a high-school diploma, capital, or English, then they are likely to remain poor for a generation. And their poverty then offers supposed proof that America is a nativist or racist society for allowing such asymmetry to occur — a social-justice crime remedied best the by Latino caucus, the Chicano-studies department, the La Raza lawyers association, or the former National Council of La Raza. Yet, curb illegal immigration, and the entire Latino race industry goes the way of the Greek-, Armenian-, or Portuguese-American communities that have all found parity once massive immigration of their impoverished countrymen ceased and the formidable powers of the melting pot were uninterrupted.

If Latino immigrants were of the conservative upper-middle class, as refugees fleeing socialist tyranny, arriving with English fluency, legality, and capital, then the current Latino ethnic industry would oppose open borders and its activists perhaps would go to the border to turn them away.

The Democratic Party
Democrats once were exclusionists — largely because they feared that illegal immigration eroded unionization and overtaxed the social-service resources of their poor citizen constituents. Cesar Chavez, for example, sent his thugs to the border to club illegal aliens and drive them back into Mexico, as if they were future strike breakers. Until recently, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton called for strict border enforcement, worried that the wages of illegal workers were driving down those of inner-city or barrio American youth. What changed?

Numbers. Once the pool of illegal aliens reached a likely 20 million, and once their second-generation citizen offspring won anchor-baby legality and registered to vote, a huge new progressive constituency rose in the American Southwest — one that was targeted by Democrats, who alternately promised permanent government subsidies and sowed fears with constant charges that right-wing Republicans were abject racists, nativists, and xenophobes.

Due to massive influxes of immigrants, and the flight of middle-class citizens, the California of Ronald Reagan, George Deukmejian, and Pete Wilson long ago ceased to exist. Indeed, there are currently no statewide Republican office-holders in California, which has liberal supermajorities in both state legislatures and a mere seven Republicans out of 53 congressional representatives.

Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado are becoming Californized. Soon open borders will do the same to Arizona and Texas. No wonder that the Democratic party has been willing to do almost anything to become the enabler of open borders, whether that is setting up over 500 sanctuary-city jurisdictions, suing to block border enforcement in the courts, or extending in-state tuition, free medical care, and driver’s licenses to those who entered and reside in America illegally.

If most immigrants were right-wing, middle-class, Latino anti-Communists fleeing Venezuela or Cuba, or Eastern European rightists sick of the EU, or angry French and Germans who were tired of their failed socialist governments, the Democratic party would be the party of closed borders and the enemy of legal, meritocratic, diverse, and measured immigration.

Employers over the past 50 years learned fundamental truths about illegal immigrants. The impoverished young male immigrant, arriving without English, money, education, and legality, will take almost any job to survive, and so he will work all the harder once he’s employed. For 20 years or so, young immigrant workers remain relatively healthy. But once physical labor takes its toll on the middle-aged immigrant worker, the state always was expected to step in to assume the health care, housing, and sustenance cost of the injured, ill, and aging worker — thereby empowering the employer’s revolving-door use of a new generation of young workers.

Illegality — at least until recently, with the advent of sanctuary jurisdictions — was seen as convenient, ensuring asymmetry between the employee and the employer, who could always exercise the threat of deportation for any perceived shortcoming in his alien work force.

Note that those who hire illegal aliens claim that no Americans will do such work, at least at the wages they are willing to, or can, pay. That is the mea culpa that employers voice when accused of lacking empathy for out-of-work Americans.

If employers were fined for hiring illegal aliens, or held financially responsible for their immigrant workers’ health care and retirements, or if they found that such workers were not very industrious and made poor entry-level laborers, then both the Wall Street Journal and the Chamber of Commerce would be apt to favor strict enforcement of immigration laws. 

The Elite Caring Progressive
Wealthy progressives favor open borders and illegal immigration for a variety of reasons. The more immigrants, the cheaper, more available, and more industrious are nannies, housekeepers, caregivers, and gardeners — the silent army that fuels the contemporary, two-high-income, powerhouse household.

Championing the immigrant poor, without living among them and without schooling one’s children with them or socializing among them, is the affluent progressive’s brand. And to the degree that the paradox causes any guilt, the progressive virtue-signals his loud outrage at border detentions, at separations between parents in court and children in custody, and at the contrast between the burly ICE officers and vulnerable border crossers. In medieval fashion, the farther the liberal advocate of open borders is from the objects of his moral concern, the louder and more empathetic he becomes. Most progressives also enjoy a twofer: inexpensive immigrant “help” and thereby enough brief exposure to the Other to authenticate their 8-to-5 caring.

If border crossers were temporarily housed in vacant summer dorms at Stanford, Harvard, or Yale, or were accorded affordable-housing tracts for immigrant communities in the vast open spaces of Portola Valley and the Boulder suburbs, or if immigrant children were sent en masse to language-immersion programs at St. Paul’s, Sidwell Friends, or the Menlo School, then the progressive social-justice warrior would probably go mute.

American Citizens
They have no agenda other than assuming that immigrants will obey the same laws that they do.

July 16, 2019

Of Progressive Carnivores and Cannibals, by Dr. Hanson, [nc]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 3:25 pm

Of Progressive Carnivores and Cannibals

By | July 14th, 2019
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Obama-era Democratic Party bears little resemblance to the themes embraced just 11 years ago by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton during the 2008 primaries.

The parameters of marriage, in Obama’s words “between a man and woman,” has now transmogrified beyond gay civil unions to legal gay marriage to transgendered fixations.

Obama once protested that he was no king who could open the border and grant amnesties by fiat. Yet his view of immigration has metamorphosed well beyond DACA and Dreamers into Democratic candidates going into Mexico to escort aliens unlawfully into our country, and 500 sanctuary jurisdictions in which federal immigration law is all but null and void. An American citizen convicted of using a fake Social Security Number and phony ID is a felon who is all but unemployable; an illegal alien who commits the same crimes learns quickly that these are not deportable offenses and mostly never prosecuted.

In a nanosecond, Betsy Ross’s iconic colonial flag, which once emblazoned the backdrop of the 2012 Obama inauguration ceremony, have become racist icons—or so Nike pitchman Colin Kaepernick has decreed, ordering his corporate bosses to remove them from commemorative sneakers.


Obamacare has abruptly morphed into “Medicare for All”—including illegal aliens who are to be eligible the moment they cross the border, despite never having paid a dime into the system.

The old affirmative action protocols designed to accommodate the historical grievances of blacks and Mexican-Americans have been reinvented with revolutionary speed as “diversity”—loosely defined as anyone “not white.” Thus, the vast new rubric is inclusive of wealthy Chinese-Americans, recent South American middle-class immigrants, well-off Punjabi arrivals, upscale Middle Easterners and almost anyone else, including those who fake a nonwhite identity in the manner of Elizabeth Warren or Ward Churchill. Suddenly the “woke” nonwhite were no longer 15-20 percent of the population, but comprised a supposed 30-40 percent powerful “constituency,” all united by their loathing of supposed “white privilege” and victimization from “white supremacy.”

The progressive-socialist party has absorbed what is left of the old Democratic Party. Its iconoclasts are not satisfied with erasing the images or commemorations of old white public enemies of the past—Father Serra, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson—but have quite logically turned their identity politics venom on all old white people of the present, including some of their own left-wing brethren.

At first, the progressive Old Guard in Congress, like good Girondists, found the revolutionary carnivores useful in reducing the ranks of the Trumpians, the Tea Party, Reagan Democrats, old Perot voters, and the white working class to the inanimate status of “deplorables,” “irredeemables,” “clingers,” and “dregs”—and with them, the bigoted, racist, sexist, nativist, classist, homophobic, and xenophobic Republican Party. Certainly, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and a few geriatric sympathizers, such as Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), enjoyed the progressive feasting on the Ancien Regime—especially the unity offered by shared hatred of the obviously soon to be impeached, deposed, exiled and discredited Donald J. Trump.

But revolutionary carnivores are rarely sated. Once they run out of easy hostile targets—and they have with the collapse of the Mueller hoax and all the other impeachment melodramas—they get hungry and as cannibals start to eye their own.

We have already seen that autophagy in the initial primary debates in which all the major Democratic presidential candidates—Cory Booker, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, Robert O’Rourke, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren—shouted out the most outlandish agendas possible in a desperate effort to ensure that no rival could possibly pose more to their left.

Poor, condemned Joe Biden renounced almost everything he once believed in and yet still was reduced metaphorically to screaming for his life on the guillotine stage that he was a revolutionary after all! Had Biden in his first debate only yelled back at his attacker, Harris, “If you really want the return of federally mandated busing of school children, then go out and run on busing and see where it gets you!”

The candidates, of course, were the cleaned-up versions of their handy Jacobin street fighters, the thugs of Antifa, the motley remnants of Occupy Wall Street, the loud ranks of Black Lives Matter, and the assorted provocateurs who inhabit the activist groups and most college campuses, and who do the dirty work of kicking incorrect enemies out of restaurants, stalking conservatives, beating up journalists, shouting down speakers, swarming the homes of incorrect politicians and newscasters, and taking over coffee shops and intersections.

All the while, Pelosi, Schumer, and a host of old Democrats enjoyed the new energy that was directed against the evil Trump. To revolutionary cheers, one million illegal aliens crossed the border in the first six months of 2019. The media-leftwing-celebrity nexus sought to devour Trump through impeachment, law suits, evocation of the Emoluments Clause, the Logan Act, and the 25th Amendment, the unleashing of special counsel Mueller, the pathetic coup attempts of a discredited FBI, and the circus of Stormy Daniels, Michael Avenatti, Michael Cohen, and Jeffrey Epstein.

Once all these efforts to destroy Trump failed, so too waned superficial revolutionary solidarity. After all, the subtext of the new revolutionary progressive party was that a changing demography brought on by open borders, a new diversity chauvinism, and the suicidal tendencies of a supposed shrinking, embittered and white working class had permanently changed America. A series of identity candidates would both follow in the footsteps of Barack Obama, and also make him look tame in comparison, in the way the Black Panthers, H. Rap Brown, and Stokely Carmichael once used to mock the “appeasement” of Martin Luther King, Jr.

In the manner that Robespierre and his Committee of Public Safety guillotined naïve Girondists, so too, “the Squad” of Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez(D-N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) are now damning Nancy Pelosi as a racist. No matter that just hours earlier Pelosi herself had called Donald Trump a racist who wanted to turn away all nonwhite people at the border simply because they were nonwhite.

Again, Pelosi is old, and in the way, and is a target of her party’s quick adoption of her own identity politics. What were the Pelosi generation, the left-wing journalist crowd, and the professoriate thinking when they harangued nonstop about the forthcoming irrelevancy of supposed old white dinosaurs? That thereby, such woke white liberals somehow had purchased exemptions from the very executioners whom they had helped create?

What is the next wrinkle in this revolutionary trajectory to the guillotine? Pelosi, now playing the role of a Thermidor, hinted the other day that the Squaders, for all their social media savvy and obsessions with fame, power, and influence, still represent just a few thousand constituents in gerrymandered minority leftwing districts. She reminded her party that they bring to the table no more than four votes in a House of Representatives of 435 members.

Pelosi is on to something, given that white and especially Jewish left-wingers are starting to sense that the Squad and their followers consider them ultimately as hostiles in the manner Jacobins redefined all the opponents of the Bourbons as insufficiently revolutionary and equally deserving of decapitation.

Just as the Jacobin agenda was nihilistic, so are the fantasies of the adolescent Ocasio-Cortez and her crowd. No sane American would ever willingly embrace the ludicrous Green New Deal (designed not so much to address climate change as to impose government-ordered redistribution), the abolition of the Electoral College, the end of ICE, extending the franchise to 16-year-olds, cancellation of college debt, free tuition, reparations, a wealth tax, or legal infanticide.

Mostly, the Jacobins frighten the old guard progressives. They empower Donald Trump. They make what is left of the NeverTrump Republicans look even more ridiculous. Ultimately, they are racists, who self-define by their appearance and their ethnic backgrounds in an ever more integrated, multiracial country in which the effort to transcend those Neanderthal considerations was largely the story of the last century.

Where will it all lead?

To the metaphorical collective Democratic guillotine—until and unless some sane Democrat stands ups and says no more—and learns that the revolutionary mob might prefer to guillotine the guillotiners.

July 12, 2019

Dem Candidates are Inauthentic, by Dr. Hanson [nc]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 9:10 pm

Democratic Candidates Are Running a Race of Inauthenticity

By | July 10th, 2019
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

An epidemic of false identities, massaged resumes and warped ancestries has broken out among the current Democratic presidential primary candidates.

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) for years claimed Native American ancestry. An embattled Warren ironically took a DNA test that only proved her critics’ contention that she was no more of Native American heritage than the vast majority of Americans.

Another Democratic candidate, Robert Francis O’Rourke, is a rich white male who grew up in affluence. O’Rourke some time ago adopted the name “Beto,” an abbreviation for the Spanish “Roberto.” The Spanish-speaking, Irish-American O’Rourke, with a wink and nod, has assumed a useful near-Latino identity.

That ruse became a caricature in O’Rourke’s 2018 race for the U.S. Senate in Texas. The second-generation Cuban-American incumbent, Senator Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz, was portrayed by the media as the non-Spanish-speaking “white guy” pitted against the more authentic Irish-American Latino “Beto.”


Few would know that New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio was actually born with the alliterative European name Warren Wilhelm Jr. With today’s politically correct calibrations of avoiding Northern European nomenclature, the Latinate “de Blasio” apparently ranks higher than the overtly German “Wilhelm.”

It has long been a populist tradition that presidential candidates downplay their financial success or even fabricate a “born in a log cabin” myth of early poverty and adversity. But recently, Democratic candidates have taken that trope to identity-politics extremes.

Former San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro emphasizes his common-man Latino roots. But Castro never spoke fluent Spanish. Castro’s parents were solidly middle-class, and he took Latin and Japanese in school.

Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.) often poses as a spokesman for the African American inner-city and is hoping to gain the nomination on the strength of his minority bona fides. But Booker grew up in the affluent and nearly all-white suburbs of New Jersey, the child of two IBM executives who sent him to Stanford, after which he became a Rhodes Scholar and Yale Law School graduate.

Senator Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) attacked former Vice President Joe Biden in a recent debate by claiming that his opposition some 40 years ago to court-mandated busing had endangered her own chance at a good primary-school education. Perhaps. But the city of Berkeley, where Harris briefly lived in as a child before migrating to Canada, was well-integrated. A local school district, not a federal court, instituted the busing program she joined. Both of her parents have Ph.D.s, one a former Stanford professor, the other a scientist who often flew the young Harris to India to visit relatives.

Senator Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) is running again as an unapologetic socialist, waging rhetorical class warfare against the haves on behalf of the have-nots. But while Sanders was often underemployed in his earlier years, after a lifetime of public office he is now a millionaire. He reportedly owns three homes and earned nearly $1 million from book royalties in both 2016 and 2017.

All of these candidates are running hard against President Donald Trump, the assumed wealthier, whiter, and more toxic male in the White House.

Trump may be many things, and he may exaggerate data and fudge facts. But he at least seems authentically Trump. He does not claim to be a poor victim, but instead brags about, or even exaggerates, his billions.

Trump does not downplay his politically incorrect Scottish and German background. Instead, he often emphasizes both to the point of overstatement.

He always appears with his customary comb-over hair, orange tan, long tie and suit, and he speaks in the same Queens accent whether he is talking to Alabama farmers, West Virginia miners or Michigan auto workers.

In contrast, Trump’s Democratic rivals do not seem especially forthcoming about who they are. When convenient, they play down their advanced degrees, the success of their parents, their own advantaged upbringings, successful assimilation and stereotypically bourgeois lives. And based on their attacks on front-runner Biden, they seem to want to distance themselves from anyone upper-middle-class, white, male, heterosexual, Christian or old.

Yet at this late date in the American Republic, it is hard to find middle-aged presidential candidates without successful business or political backgrounds, much less any who were or are poor—or who are victimized women or ostracized minorities.

No matter. The mantra of the new progressive movement is that racism, misogyny and class oppression are everywhere—and that no one is better acquainted with such endemic hatred than upscale Democratic candidates, who have supposedly lived through such ordeals.

No wonder such fantasies so often result in far

July 10, 2019

America’s Social Contract, by Col Dr Sam Holiday, US Army (Ret)

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 11:56 pm

Social Contract–by Dr Sam C. Holiday, USMA ’48, Col USA (Ret)


  • Joseph R. John <jrjassoc@earthlink.net>


Jul 10 at 4:34 PM

                                                                                    America’s Social Contract


By Capt Joseph R. John, July 10, 2019: Op Ed # 441


Every American citizen who values their precious freedoms outlined in The Bill of Rights, should read Dr. Sam C. Holiday, USMA ’48, Col USA (Ret) article listed below, especially millions of millenniums, who for over 20 years, had been misled in classroom instruction by leftist teachers and professors about success of Socialism in comparison to the failure of the Constitutional Republic of the US. 


Socialist governments have suppressed, enslaved, and murdered hundreds of millions of people throughout the world for over 100 years in Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia, Castor’s Cuba, Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Ho Chi Minh’s Vietnam, Nyerere’s Tanzania, Jaruzelski’s Poland, Najibullah’s Afghanistan, Ortega’s Nicaragua, Ceausescu’s Romania, Dubcek’s Czechoslovakia, Zinvkov’s  Bulgaria, Tito’s Yugoslavia, etc.  Most recently, The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights issued a report on Venezuela, noting that between January 2018 and May 2019, Nicolas Maduro’s Socialist thug-regime murdered nearly 7,000 people.


Millenniums should have been able to easily compare the failures of brutal Socialist regimes in the 37 countries where they gained control, with the success of the Founding Fathers Constitutional Republic, that has freed so many oppressed people in the world. and received so very little in return.   Unfortunately for over 20 years, the Common Core Curriculum forced upon states by Department of Education, required the use of revised US History textbooks, funded by George Soros, that lie about the remarkable History of the Republic.


The below listed narrative is presented to provide a more in depth understanding of the creation of the Constitutional Republic, and the three Pillars of the Republic; it is the glue that strengthened the Republic for 243 years.  The three Pillars are:


    1. The Declaration of Independence which formed the moral basis of government in the new Republic.


    1. The  US Constitution that sets the legal basis for the government, of and by the people.


    1. Together, they check and balance each other, to establish America’s unwritten “Social Contract”, i.e. what is right and legal in the  government, of and by the people, of the Republic.


The genius of the Founding Fathers was to combine the Western idea of God, with the Chinese concept of nature, and the teachings of Confucius, in order to form a new and unique government, of and by the people, that established the “Social Contract”—an unwritten agreement between the Colonists and their new government.


The Founding Fathers were convinced that a government founded on the basis of the Three Pillars of The Republic would secures and fosters a nation for future generations of Americans that would bring peace, justice, order, safety, and happiness in the Republic.

Members of the US Armed Forces and Law Enforcement Officers have always sworn to protect and defend one of the pillars that established the legal basis for the government of the Republic, the US Constitution.


The Founding Fathers believed as long the” Social Contract” continued, it would foster a Republican form of government, and a way of life, that would create a stable noble nation.


The Founding Fathers understood the meaning of “Equality”, it is not what Socialists have been indoctrinating America’s youth, for the last 20 years, that equality means.  Equality did not mean that everyone is the same, that everyone has the same duties, everyone has the same rights, or the same responsibilities.


The Founding Fathers knew that human being are not equal in background, upbringing, physical, and intellectual endowments, or motivation.   Equality, as referred to in the US Constitution, meant that all humans beings have received their natural rights from “God”, which are inherent and inalienable, and that includes life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, property, and religion.


In the below listed article, Dr. Holiday explains how the complex interrelationships developed between the government and people for 243 years, and why America’s “Social Contract” has been so important.


For the last 20 years, the Pillars of the Republic have been under attack by the Progressives, Socialists, Marxists, Communists, The Muslim Brotherhood, and the Democrat Socialist Party run by Tom Perez, who was appointed as the Chairman of the Democrat National Committee by Barrack Obama before he left office.

Perez has a long history of anti-white views, including making the declaration “White people should not be entitled to protection under the Voting Rights Act.”  Perez was the longtime leader of a Communist, militant open border immigration group, Casa de Maryland, that since 2000, has continued to work toward giving Illegal Aliens the right to vote.  Support for Illegal Aliens voting rights was also voiced by Nancy Pelosi.  Her most recent quote: “You need to voted for Democrats, otherwise Illegal Aliens will lose their rights.”

Hugo Chavez, the former Communist President of Venezuela, and protégé, of the Communist Dictator Fidel Castro, sent $1 million to Perez’s Casa de Maryland annually, with instructions to keep the southern border wide open.  Perez worked to keep the southern border wide open by applying Chave’s funding, and continued for the last three years, with the help of Pelosi, Schumer, and Rinos in Congress. 

Perez’s Democratic Socialist Party refusal to help stem the massive flow of illegal immigrants invading the United States, has resulted in over one hundreds thousand Illegal Aliens from 52 countries being interdicted each month, meaning that two hundred thousand Illegal aliens entered the US illegally without being interdicted each month.  The Illegal invasion of over 300,000 Illegal Aliens each month, is resulting in the Republic close to losing its sovereignty, and massive drug smuggling has gotten completely out of control. 

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, 35,000 African migrants have arrived in Central America, and are now en route to enter the United States illegally; failure to quarantine those 35,000 African migrants is posing the dangerous threat of an Ebola epidemic to the lives of all Americans.  

The Common Core Curriculum’s vilification of US History continues, and its indoctrination of the benefit of Socialism, has resulted in millions of millenniums demonstrating in the streets against Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly, and against closing the wide open southern border.  Millenniums are instead demonstrating in support of Socialists candidates for president, for post birth abortion, free health care for all Illegal Aliens, and open borders, resulting in the enslavement of female children for prostitution.


By misleading and polarizing America’s youth for the last 20 years, the dark forces in the nation, funded by George Soros, with the support of Leftists, Progressives, Socialists, Marxists, Communists, The Muslim Brotherhood, and the Democrat Socialist Party have been intent on destroying the Republic the Founding Fathers created, and The Free Enterprise System.  They are intent on replacing the Constitutional Republic, with a Socialist State controlled by a very few brutal and oppressive Marxist leaders.


That polarization currently being fostered by the left of center liberal media establishment, Progressives, Socialists, Marxists, Communists, The Muslim Brotherhood, and the Democrat Socialist Party, are undermining the unity that the Founding Fathers achieved, by they fostering the 3 Pillars of the Republic—unity is close to being lost. 


In order to restore the unity of the American people and the Republic in a government, by and for the people, that the Founding Fathers envisioned, Patriotic Americans should come together to re-invigorate America’s “Social Contract” by supporting a number of national initiatives to:


    1. Provide the US Border Patrol with support they need to build a wall to close the wide open Southern Border.


    1. Put pressure on 50 State Education Departments and County School Boards, to eliminate the Common Core US History curriculum, with the revised US History textbooks that degrade, misrepresents, and eliminates positive facts about the remarkable History of the Republic. 


    1. Support identity measures to prevent massive voter fraud perpetrated in 2016 and 2018, by putting pressure on elected legislators to require all voters to present the same type of IDs in order to vote at the polls, that is required to board an aircraft, cash a check, obtain medical treatment at a hospital, check a book out of a library, etc.


    1. Oppose “Political Correctness” in all its formas, in order to prevent the abridgment of “Freedom of Speech


There are many more initiatives “The American People” must develop and support to “Right the Ship of State”.  We encourage you to read Dr. Holiday’s below listed article.


Copyright by Capt Joseph R. John.  All Rights Reserved.  The material can only posted on another Web site or distributed on the Internet by giving full credit to the author.  It may not be published, broadcast, or rewritten without the permission from the author.


Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62

Capt    USN(Ret)/Former FBI

Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC

2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184

San Diego, CA 92108






Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
-Isaiah 6:8


From: Dr. Sam C. Holliday, USMA ‘48
Sent: Monday, June 03, 2019 8:41 PM
To: Joseph R. John
Subject: America’s Social Contract


America’s Social Contract


America’s Social Contract is an unwritten agreement between Americans and their government. It not the Constitution alone that is the foundation of America. The Declaration of Independence reflect the soul of the American nation and forms the moral basis of government among Americans. The Constitution states what is legal. Together they check and balance each other to establish the Social Contract of America. The Declaration is a clear and concise statement of the principles based on custom and tradition that caused the American Revolution, and served as the basis for an appeal under British rights to natural law (Sacred Authority) for the creation of the new nation from the former colonies. It asserted that man-made laws have limits, set by “self-evident truths based on the laws of God and nature” which is supreme. This is the Social Contract that combines what is legal and what is right. Although this concept was based on the Western idea of God it has much in common with a Chinese concept based on nature and the teaching of Confucius.

One meaning of equality is that no one is by nature, i.e. God, the ruler of another; this is specified in the Declaration. But equality does not mean everyone is the same or has the same duties and responsibilities. Moreover, those who rule, i.e. members of the body politic, must earn that privilege through character, dedication and hard work. Equality also  means all humans have natural rights from God, which are inherent and inalienable, and include life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, property, and religion. The body politic is to insure there for everyone living in the country.

To secure these rights, human beings consent to leave the state of nature and form a government of Secular Authority, i.e. a state, which protects their rights through such means as national defense, local security, criminal laws, civil laws, and minimal support for the disadvantaged. This concept has been, and is still, misunderstood because of  the phrase “all men are created equal”. The Founders knew that human being are not equal in background, upbringing, physical and intellectual endowments, or motivation. But they held the Stoic-Augustinian view that the only equality of importance was the human soul before God, and thus secular differences were unimportant. But they knew that success was most likely when the best held the reins, and therefore they accept the concept of the body politic. In the 21st century many have another view: that equality means uniformity of outcomes with diversity, not merit, being the primary goal.

The right to consent requires the agreement of the individuals who have accepted the Social Contract, and who except the Secular Authority of  government (rule of Law) to check and balance Sacred Authority (what individuals consider right), in return for having their free will and freedom secured by government. The representatives of the majority of the body politic establish  rules, regulations and laws, and  maintain  and administer them as the result of elections within the body politic. Should a government become unjust, violating rather than protecting rights (loses the Mandate of Heaven, or violate the Social Contract), the people may exercise their right to change the government. Of course skillful politics can twist this concept for very different purposes. The Founders saw it as a way to decentralize governance to the lower possible level, while the Chinese saw it as a way to justify authoritarian rule.

The Founders thought that government founded on the basis of these principles would secures and fosters a republican way of life for America that would bring peace, justice, order, safety, and happiness to all of those living in the United States. But the polarization currently in the United States reflects the fact that the unity which the Founders wanted to achieve by these principles has been lost, and America’s Social Contract has been violated.

It is now up to Americans to rebuild America’s Social Contract. If this is not done America will continue on the cycle into decline and decay, but with knowledge, determination, skill and will Americans can reverse the cycle and have the united nation with liberty and justice for all that the Founders visualized.

Dr. Sam C. Holliday, Col. US Army, Armiger Cromwell Center, LLC

July 7, 2019

Bill Clinton on illegals, from C-Span

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 11:09 pm


Donald Trump should just
televise this Bill Clinton speech from 1995 and then simply state “I’m
Donald Trump and I approve this message.”

Oh, please, please let this go viral.  Not one word of
commentary needs to be added. 
Very short video – about 84 seconds.

 https://www.c-spanorg/video/? c4351026/c

June 25, 2019

Trent England, J.D., on not doing away with the Electoral College [concur]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 5:51 pm

Trent England
Director, Save Our States

Trent EnglandTrent England is executive vice president and the David and Ann Brown Distinguished Fellow at the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, where he also directs the Save Our States project. He earned his B.A. in government from Claremont McKenna College and his J.D. from the George Mason University School of Law. He previously served as executive vice president of the Freedom Foundation and as a legal policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation. He hosts the podcast, The Trent England Show, and has written for numerous publications, including The Wall Street Journal, Christian Science Monitor, and The Washington Times. He is a contributor to The Heritage Guide to the Constitution.


The following is adapted from a speech delivered on April 30, 2019, at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C.

Once upon a time, the Electoral College was not controversial. During the debates over ratifying the Constitution, Anti-Federalist opponents of ratification barely mentioned it. But by the mid-twentieth century, opponents of the Electoral College nearly convinced Congress to propose an amendment to scrap it. And today, more than a dozen states have joined in an attempt to hijack the Electoral College as a way to force a national popular vote for president.

What changed along the way? And does it matter? After all, the critics of the Electoral College simply want to elect the president the way we elect most other officials. Every state governor is chosen by a statewide popular vote. Why not a national popular vote for president?


Delegates to the Constitutional Convention in 1787 asked themselves the same question, but then rejected a national popular vote along with several other possible modes of presidential election. The Virginia Plan—the first draft of what would become the new Constitution­—called for “a National Executive . . . to be chosen by the National Legislature.” When the Constitutional Convention took up the issue for the first time, near the end of its first week of debate, Roger Sherman from Connecticut supported this parliamentary system of election, arguing that the national executive should be “absolutely dependent” on the legislature. Pennsylvania’s James Wilson, on the other hand, called for a popular election. Virginia’s George Mason thought a popular election “impracticable,” but hoped Wilson would “have time to digest it into his own form.” Another delegate suggested election by the Senate alone, and then the Convention adjourned for the day.

When they reconvened the next morning, Wilson had taken Mason’s advice. He presented a plan to create districts and hold popular elections to choose electors. Those electors would then vote for the executive—in other words, an electoral college. But with many details left out, and uncertainty remaining about the nature of the executive office, Wilson’s proposal was voted down. A week later, Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts proposed election by state governors. This too was voted down, and a consensus began to build. Delegates did not support the Virginia Plan’s parliamentary model because they understood that an executive selected by Congress would become subservient to Congress. A similar result, they came to see, could be expected from assigning the selection to any body of politicians.

There were other oddball proposals that sought to salvage congressional selection—for instance, to have congressmen draw lots to form a group that would then choose the executive in secret. But by July 25, it was clear to James Madison that the choice was down to two forms of popular election: “The option before us,” he said, “[is] between an appointment by Electors chosen by the people—and an immediate appointment by the people.” Madison said he preferred popular election, but he recognized two legitimate concerns. First, people would tend toward supporting candidates from their own states, giving an advantage to larger states. Second, a few areas with higher concentrations of voters might come to dominate. Madison spoke positively of the idea of an electoral college, finding that “there would be very little opportunity for cabal, or corruption” in such a system.

By August 31, the Constitution was nearly finished—except for the process of electing the president. The question was put to a committee comprised of one delegate from each of the eleven states present at the Convention. That committee, which included Madison, created the Electoral College as we know it today. They presented the plan on September 4, and it was adopted with minor changes. It is found in Article II, Section 1:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.

Federal officials were prohibited from being electors. Electors were required to cast two ballots, and were prohibited from casting both ballots for candidates from their own state. A deadlock for president would be decided by the House of Representatives, with one vote per state. Following that, in case of a deadlock for vice president, the Senate would decide. Also under the original system, the runner up became vice president.

This last provision caused misery for President John Adams in 1796, when his nemesis, Thomas Jefferson, became his vice president. Four years later it nearly robbed Jefferson of the presidency when his unscrupulous running mate, Aaron Burr, tried to parlay an accidental deadlock into his own election by the House. The Twelfth Amendment, ratified in 1804, fixed all this by requiring electors to cast separate votes for president and vice president.

And there things stand, constitutionally at least. State legislatures have used their power to direct the manner of choosing electors in various ways: appointing them directly, holding elections by district, or holding statewide elections. Today, 48 states choose their presidential electors in a statewide, winner-take-all vote. Maine and Nebraska elect one elector based on each congressional district’s vote and the remaining two based on the statewide vote.


It is easy for Americans to forget that when we vote for president, we are really voting for electors who have pledged to support the candidate we favor. Civics education is not what it used to be. Also, perhaps, the Electoral College is a victim of its own success. Most of the time, it shapes American politics in ways that are beneficial but hard to see. Its effects become news only when a candidate and his or her political party lose a hard-fought and narrowly decided election.

So what are the beneficial effects of choosing our presidents through the Electoral College?

Under the Electoral College system, presidential elections are decentralized, taking place in the states. Although some see this as a flaw—U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren opposes the Electoral College expressly because she wants to increase federal power over elections—this decentralization has proven to be of great value.

For one thing, state boundaries serve a function analogous to that of watertight compartments on an ocean liner. Disputes over mistakes or fraud are contained within individual states. Illinois can recount its votes, for instance, without triggering a nationwide recount. This was an important factor in America’s messiest presidential election—which was not in 2000, but in 1876.

That year marked the first time a presidential candidate won the electoral vote while losing the popular vote. It was a time of organized suppression of black voters in the South, and there were fierce disputes over vote totals in Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina. Each of those states sent Congress two sets of electoral vote totals, one favoring Republican Rutherford Hayes and the other Democrat Samuel Tilden. Just two days before Inauguration Day, Congress finished counting the votes—which included determining which votes to count—and declared Hayes the winner. Democrats proclaimed this “the fraud of the century,” and there is no way to be certain today—nor was there probably a way to be certain at the time—which candidate actually won. At the very least, the Electoral College contained these disputes within individual states so that Congress could endeavor to sort it out. And it is arguable that the Electoral College prevented a fraudulent result.

Four years later, the 1880 presidential election demonstrated another benefit of the Electoral College system: it can act to amplify the results of a presidential election. The popular vote margin that year was less than 10,000 votes—about one-tenth of one percent—yet Republican James Garfield won a resounding electoral victory, with 214 electoral votes to Democrat Winfield Hancock’s 155. There was no question who won, let alone any need for a recount. More recently, in 1992, the Electoral College boosted the legitimacy of Democrat Bill Clinton, who won with only 43 percent of the popular vote but received over 68 percent of the electoral vote.

But there is no doubt that the greatest benefit of the Electoral College is the powerful incentive it creates against regionalism. Here, the presidential elections of 1888 and 1892 are most instructive. In 1888, incumbent Democratic President Grover Cleveland lost reelection despite receiving a popular vote plurality. He won this plurality because he won by very large margins in the overwhelmingly Democratic South. He won Texas alone by 146,461 votes, for instance, whereas his national popular vote margin was only 94,530. Altogether he won in six southern states with margins greater than 30 percent, while only tiny Vermont delivered a victory percentage of that size for Republican Benjamin Harrison.

In other words, the Electoral College ensures that winning supermajorities in one region of the country is not sufficient to win the White House. After the Civil War, and especially after the end of Reconstruction, that meant that the Democratic Party had to appeal to interests outside the South to earn a majority in the Electoral College. And indeed, when Grover Cleveland ran again for president four years later in 1892, although he won by a smaller percentage of the popular vote, he won a resounding Electoral College majority by picking up New York, Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, and California in addition to winning the South.

Whether we see it or not today, the Electoral College continues to push parties and presidential candidates to build broad coalitions. Critics say that swing states get too much attention, leaving voters in so-called safe states feeling left out. But the legitimacy of a political party rests on all of those safe states—on places that the party has already won over, allowing it to reach farther out. In 2000, for instance, George W. Bush needed every state that he won—not just Florida—to become president. Of course, the Electoral College does put a premium on the states in which the parties are most evenly divided. But would it really be better if the path to the presidency primarily meant driving up the vote total in the deepest red or deepest blue states?

Also, swing states are the states most likely to have divided government. And if divided government is good for anything, it is accountability. So with the Electoral College system, when we do wind up with a razor-thin margin in an election, it is likely to happen in a state where both parties hold some power, rather than in a state controlled by one party.


Despite these benefits of the current system, opponents of the Electoral College maintain that it is unseemly for a candidate to win without receiving the most popular votes. As Hillary Clinton put it in 2000: “In a democracy, we should respect the will of the people, and to me, that means it’s time to do away with the Electoral College.” Yet similar systems prevail around the world. In parliamentary systems, including Canada, Israel, and the United Kingdom, prime ministers are elected by the legislature. This happens in Germany and India as well, which also have presidents who are elected by something similar to an electoral college. In none of these democratic systems is the national popular vote decisive.

More to the point, in our own political tradition, what matters most about every legislative body, from our state legislatures to the House of Representatives and the Senate, is which party holds the majority. That party elects the leadership and sets the agenda. In none of these representative chambers does the aggregate popular vote determine who is in charge. What matters is winning districts or states.

Nevertheless, there is a clamor of voices calling for an end to the Electoral College. Former Attorney General Eric Holder has declared it “a vestige of the past,” and Washington Governor Jay Inslee has labeled it an “archaic relic of a bygone age.” Almost as one, the current myriad of Democratic presidential hopefuls have called for abolishing the Electoral College.

Few if any of these Democrats likely realize how similar their party’s position is to what it was in the late nineteenth century, with California representing today what the South was for their forebears. The Golden State accounted for 10.4 percent of presidential votes cast in 2016, while the southern states (from South Carolina down to Florida and across to Texas) accounted for 10.6 percent of presidential votes cast in 1888. Grover Cleveland won those southern states by nearly 39 percent, while Hillary Clinton won California by 30 percent. But rather than following Cleveland’s example of building a broader national coalition that could win in the Electoral College, today’s Democrats would rather simply change the rules.


Anti-Electoral College amendments with bipartisan support in the 1950s and 1970s failed to receive the two-thirds votes in Congress they needed in order to be sent to the states for consideration. Likewise today, partisan amendments will not make it through Congress. Nor, if they did, could they win ratification among the states.

But there is a serious threat to the Electoral College. Until recently, it has gone mostly unnoticed, as it has made its way through various state legislatures. If it works according to its supporters’ intent, it would nullify the Electoral College by creating a de facto direct election for president.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, or NPV, takes advantage of the flexibility granted to state legislatures in the Constitution: “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.” The original intent of this was to allow state legislators to determine how best to represent their state in presidential elections. The electors represent the state—not just the legislature—even though the latter has power to direct the manner of appointment. By contrast, NPV supporters argue that this power allows state legislatures to ignore their state’s voters and appoint electors based on the national popular vote. This is what the compact would require states to do.

Of course, no state would do this unilaterally, so NPV has a “trigger”: it only takes effect if adopted by enough states to control 270 electoral votes—in other words, a majority that would control the outcome of presidential elections. So far, 14 states and the District of Columbia have signed on, with a total of 189 electoral votes.

Until this year, every state that had joined NPV was heavily Democratic: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The NPV campaign has struggled to win other Democratic states: Delaware only adopted it this year and it still has not passed in Oregon (though it may soon). Following the 2018 election, Democrats came into control of both the legislatures and the governorships in the purple states of Colorado and New Mexico, which have subsequently joined NPV.

NPV would have the same effect as abolishing the Electoral College. Fraud in one state would affect every state, and the only way to deal with it would be to give more power to the federal government. Elections that are especially close would require nationwide recounts. Candidates could win based on intense support from a narrow region or from big cities. NPV also carries its own unique risks: despite its name, the plan cannot actually create a national popular vote. Each state would still—at least for the time being—run its own elections. This means a patchwork of rules for everything from which candidates are on the ballot to how disputes are settled. NPV would also reward states with lax election laws—the higher the turnout, legal or not, the more power for that state. Finally, each NPV state would certify its own “national” vote total. But what would happen when there are charges of skullduggery? Would states really trust, with no power to verify, other state’s returns?

Uncertainty and litigation would likely follow. In fact, NPV is probably unconstitutional. For one thing, it ignores the Article I, Section 10 requirement that interstate compacts receive congressional consent. There is also the fact that the structure of the Electoral College clause of the Constitution implies there is some limit on the power of state legislatures to ignore the will of their state’s people.

One danger of all these attacks on the Electoral College is, of course, that we lose the state-by-state system designed by the Framers and its protections against regionalism and fraud. This would alter our politics in some obvious ways—shifting power toward urban centers, for example—but also in ways we cannot know in advance. Would an increase in presidents who win by small pluralities lead to a rise of splinter parties and spoiler candidates? Would fears of election fraud in places like Chicago and Broward County lead to demands for greater federal control over elections?

The more fundamental danger is that these attacks undermine the Constitution as a whole. Arguments that the Constitution is outmoded and that democracy is an end in itself are arguments that can just as easily be turned against any of the constitutional checks and balances that have preserved free government in America for well over two centuries. The measure of our fundamental law is not whether it actualizes the general will—that was the point of the French Revolution, not the American. The measure of our Constitution is whether it is effective at encouraging just, stable, and free government—government that protects the rights of its citizens.

The Electoral College is effective at doing this. We need to preserve it, and we need to help our fellow Americans understand why it matters.

June 14, 2019

Dr. Hanson essay re 2020 election

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 3:13 pm


May 31, 2019

Trump has become the Dems Great White Whale, Dr. Hanson [c]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 4:39 pm

One way of envisioning the Democratic obsessions with Donald Trump is as an addiction. We have seen the initial impeachment efforts; the attempt to get him under the emoluments clause, the Logan Act and the 25th Amendment; the Russian collusion hoax; the Mueller investigation; the demand for his tax returns; and the psychodramas involving Michael Avenatti, Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels. Relentless progressives have needed a new Get Trump fix about every two months.

More practically, their fixation also substitutes for a collective poverty of ideas. The Democratic Party has no plan to secure the borders other than to be against whatever Trump is for. They would not build a wall, deport illegal entrants, end sanctuary cities, fine employers or do much of anything but allow almost anyone to enter the U.S.

On abortion, the new Democratic position seems to be that the unborn can be aborted at any time the mother chooses, up to and including the moment of birth.

The Green New Deal has been endorsed by most of the current Democratic primary candidates, even though they privately know its utopian fantasies would shut down the U.S. economy and destroy the present prosperity fueled by record energy production, deregulation, and tax reform and reduction.
Abroad, were Democrats for or against abrogating the Iran nuclear deal, moving the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and prodding China to follow reciprocal trade rules? How do they propose to deal with North Korean nuclear-tipped missiles that seemed to suddenly appear as Barack Obama left office?

Have Democrats proposed canceling the new pipeline construction that Trump has fast-tracked? Would they scale way back on the natural gas and oil production that has made America energy-independent and on the cusp of becoming the world’s greatest energy exporter?

Democrats have occasionally talked of implementing reparations for slavery, a wealth tax and free college tuition, and of eliminating college debt, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Electoral College. Yet they have never spelled out exactly how they would enact such radical proposals that likely do not appeal to a majority of the population.

Would they reverse Trump tax cuts, stop hectoring NATO members to pay their promised defense contributions, restore NAFTA or revive the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement?

For now, no one has much of an idea what Democratic candidates would actually do, much less how they would do it.

Instead, the fallback position is always that “Trump stole the 2016 election,” “the Mueller report did not really exonerate Trump of collusion and obstruction,” and “Trump must be impeached or somehow stopped from finishing his first term.”

When the Mueller report found no collusion and no indictable grounds for obstruction of the non-crime of collusion, for a moment progressives suffered an identity crisis. The temporary paralysis was prompted by the terror that without a crusade to remove Trump, they might have to offer an alternative vision and agenda that would better appeal to 2020 voters.

The Democratic establishment has become something like novelist Herman Melville’s phobic Captain Ahab, who became fatally absorbed with chasing his nemesis, the albino whale Moby Dick. The great white whale once ate part of Ahab’s leg, and he demands revenge—even if such a never-ending neurosis leads to the destruction of his ship and crew.

Democrats can never forgive Trump for unexpectedly defeating supposed sure winner Hillary Clinton in 2016 and then systematically—and loudly—undoing the eight-year agenda of Obama.

So far, Trump seems to have escaped all of their efforts to spear and remove him before the 2020 election. Trump, like Moby Dick, seems a weird force of nature whose wounds from constant attacks only seem to make him more indestructible and his attackers even more obsessed with their prey.

Even if the quest to destroy Trump eclipses every other consideration and entails the destruction of the modern Democratic Party, it seems not to matter to these modern Ahabs.


[Yet, there are those who will vote Left regardless.]

May 21, 2019

On Reparations

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 6:13 pm

On Reparations

Printed; 5/21/19

The recent “debate” on racial reparations based on descent from those held in slavery within the confines of these United States of America and of the Thirteen Colonies needs some historical perspective, rational thought, and some just plain common sense. At the end of this essay, will be a bibliography that, if followed, will open some eyes as to the racism and arrogant ignorance, or, maybe, the hidden agenda of those proposing these reparations.

Starting at the beginning of the thirteen colonies, not one of the original thirteen allowed slavery. Slavery was absolutely prohibited by the original charters and beliefs of the colonists. In the New England and Atlantic Colonies, religious beliefs that all are God’s creatures, caused the colonists to prohibit slavery; in the Southern Colonies, the economics of pre-cotton industrial agriculture, hemp, potash, & indigo, and the political & religious beliefs of the colonists, prohibited slavery.

Slavery was injected through the economic necessity of Mercantilism, the emerging economic philosophy of today’s American Leftist politicians and as exemplified in Venezuela, Cuba, The Peoples’ Democratic Republic of North Korea, Iran, The People’s Republic of China (PRC) & most African People’s Democratic Republics (PDR’s), as well as most Muslim countries.

In the XVIIth Century British Empire, the king had a monopoly on the slave trade. Thus, the King received a commission on each trade, a commission that was not regulated nor restricted by parliament. The money that the Crown received from each trade was uniquely his. His to do as he willed. His to spend as he would. Thus, a political necessity for going around Parliament’s hold on the purse strings. Not dissimilar to our own separation of powers, where the executive keeps trying to find ways to use resources which congress has allocated to programs with which the executive either disagrees with, or wants to use for purposes which congress has not authorized. The current disagreement over the southern border wall is only one of many that started with President Washington’s administration.

The existence of slavery in the early colonies was not only frequently challenged by Evangelicals as morally wrong, but the Scottish Reformation influenced The Founders in profound ways such that many slave owners either manumitted their slaves upon their deaths, or entered into labor contracts with slaves such that after they credited their books  for their labor, this credit went against their purchase price, and they were manumitted upon equity.

The pre-1787 societal interests in slavery, with the rare exception, were fraught with guilt and moral sorrow. The open conflict between the two groups within the three colonial regions, New England, The Atlantic States, and The South, with the nascent West, defined as that region West of the Appalachian Mountains and frequently referred to as The Ohio River Valley Territories, although integral to The War of 1861, a.k.a. The American Civil War, was only one of several issues, among which the economic issue of illiberal and sectional taxation and spending was a more paramount issue.

The South paid taxes amounting to over 75% of the Federal Income. The Atlantic States and New England receiving over 75% of that income in the form of National Improvements for the encouragement of industry and transportation. This was part of Hamilton’s plan for industrial growth and Federalist supremacy, and in direct opposition to Jefferson’s Yeoman Farmer philosophy and Christian personal accountability. (DiLorenzo, Thomas J., PhD, Hamilton’s Curse, ISBN 978-0-307-38285-6) Thus, the viral infection of slavery was entered directly into the 1787 constitution and becoming one of two major killers of the original nation; the other issue being the Right to Secede, often included as one of the legalities generally called, States’ Rights.[1]

Slavery is an economic issue structured on the incorrect concept that labor is a commodity separate from the laborer. Except for the current practice in places such as India, China, and Africa, where parents can exchange the labor of their children for currency, slaves have been created almost exclusively through military conquest. Over 80% of those African slaves entered into the North Atlantic Slave Trade were taken in raids by one African tribe over another. This tribalism is still going on in Africa as shown by the slave raids of such groups as Boko Harim, Isis, and other Islamic groups. Slavery being approved of in the Qur’an. The other 20% of said slaves were taken in raids by professional slavers.

Slavery, being a mercantile concept, race, gender, religion, +/or place of origin are irrelevant to the slaver. Only the theft of labor is important. Proof of this is in the U.S. Census of 1860. Broken down by the historians, twins Ronald & Donald Kennedy of New Orleans LA, show that 58% of slaves in the U.S. were of African origin, 38% of Native American origin, working predominantly on plantations of varying sizes or in urban, both Northern and Southern, settings, 3% Chinese, predominantly owned by railroad companies or labor companies located in California selling labor to the railroads, and 1% Irish Catholic, almost exclusively in domestic positions in The North.

Of even greater interest, 32% of slaver owners were of African origins, mostly manumitted slaves. Think back to the suppression of this data when made public after Spielberg’s Amistad was released. Over 50% of slave owners owned five or fewer slaves working on smaller agricultural plots with the slaves living in the same homes as their owners, eating together, working together and attending church together. The richest slave owner in Charleston S.C. in 1861 was a Black gentleman, named Jackson, who owned 693 slaves on seven plantations, who, when it became apparent that Lincoln would be elected president, sold his holding for gold and moved Northwest to Canada. When Lincoln’s General “Butcher” Butler took military control of New Orleans in 1862, he confiscated all of the cotton that he could get his hands on as contraband, sold it at a bargain to British textile agents, and bankrupted the private citizens, amongst which the second largest land owner was a Black widow, who then moved her family Westward to Texas.

As of 1866, the actual economic benefits the American slave experience accrued either to Great Britain or the “Union.”[2]

From the 17th Century through 1866, the economics of the Slave trade was that of a triangle. Agricultural produce from The South, was sold to Britain, where a factor purchased British goods from the proceeds for reshipment to The South. Northern and British ships shipped the goods, British and Northern Banks provided the credit and currency, and the Federal government accrued the excise taxes which went predominantly to the expansion of Northern industry, or various government canal, railroad, and industrial development schemes. Consider, John Adams died well-to-do, Thomas Jefferson died 10’s of thousands of dollars in debt[3].

As to what leftover wealth accrued to Southern States, General Sherman’s Army Reunion speech of 1866 says it all. General Sherman openly acknowledged that his army pillaged over $100,000,000.00 of wealth from along his march route, and took another $20,000,000.00 North as compensation from the Rebels. All taken from unarmed citizens under the guise of protecting and keeping The Union[4]. All taken from along his march route. How much was taken from the rest of the Confederacy as ‘retribution’ for owning slaves by ‘Union’ armies?

With the Potato Famine of the 1840’s and 1850’s in Ireland, thousands fled to the U.S. Shortly after, the unrest on the Latin Peninsula surrounding the formation of Italy as a State, more legal immigrants fled to America’s shores. Almost exclusively, they entered through New York City, with some to Boston and Philadelphia. No record of any of these, then nor after, mentions them bringing slaves with them. And, given the times of their arrivals, they could not purchase slaves after the passage of the 13th and 14th Amendments.

The history of outright theft of labor, slavery, in the United States, ends in 1866. Not one person held in slavery is alive today, not one!

Why is this important on this issue? Because in order to claim either reparations or restitution, one must be able to show that one was the one damaged. None of the people held in slavery are alive in order to make this claim!

Another important piece on this is that over 60% of the people living in these United States today, have nothing to do with, nor are descended from, slave owners, nor the slave owning culture of this country. And, how many of the Colored are descended from people brought here as slaves, and how many simply emigrated here? Oral histories being notoriously inaccurate or down right false, embellished for dramatic purposes as was Jason Blair’s NYTimes reporting or Alex Haley’s compilation of numerous family histories presented as his actual family history in Roots, all for personal financial gain or fame, rather than history or accurate reporting. What ‘proof’ will be used to establish damages? It certainly won’t comply with The Federal Rules of Evidence.

Consider this: if allowed to even make the claim, then I, as a descendant of Polish serfs, am permitted to sue The Russian Federation for generations of stolen labor for the time period when Russia controlled the region around Krakow, Poland; that most of those Irish descended from those born East of the Shannon can sue the British People; that Chinese can sue Manchuria & Mongolia for the decades of oppression; and on in absurdum.

The history between 1866 and 2019 regarding the theft of labor, is more along the lines of suppression and repression. Rather than get into the weeds, read Dr. Sowell’s works and that of Bruce Bartlett[5]. Basically, it is a matter of labor economics coupled to resentment over the results of The Civil War. The destruction of the Southern Economy, the loss of capital in the form of released labor, steam technology[6], excess labor due to automation, the influx of legal immigrants, limited skill sets, and the rise of federal mercantilism since 1866, all contribute to unfounded & unreasonable racism as a restriction on labor costs and availability. Note particularly, that every time there’s a labor shortage, such as that in 1917, 1941, and again in 1966, each fostered by a war economy, race as an issue is either reduced or disappears completely in the hiring process, which immediately goes to a meritocratic standard.

The likes of educated Liberals, like FDR[7], and personified by academics like Woodrow Wilson, simply made matters that were progressing nicely due to market economic factors retrogress. As former slaves and their descendants became educated and learned skills, they entered the Industrial Revolution of the late 19th Century and became forces in both government and industry only to be forced out because of political agendas. Remember, all of those former slaves and their descendants, were fluent in English, and for the most part, were Protestants, as was the predominant population. Immigrants spoke little or no English, the Irish with a patois or accented English, and the Italians with almost no English. Former slaves were already assimilated, a condition changed over time through the Liberal Balkanization of America, and the Irish and Italian Catholics became assimilated as generations progressed, even though strong anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic sentiment survives.

In all of this, not only is who should pay to be considered, but how to calculate what compensation should be made, there is to whom should reparations be made.

Having discussed that there is no possible way to figure out to whom reparations should be made, let us look at how to calculate compensation.

Since, as noted in the first section, much money went to Great Britain, how do we assess their liability? Books were kept by most of the banks and shipping companies, as well as The Crown, and are, or their legal successors are, still in existence. Profits made from slavery by these legal entities, plus interest and allowance for inflation, can be easily calculated by computers, once the original data is collected and inputted. However, are we to include that wealth stolen by the Union Army? How do we allocate that stolen wealth? How do we calculate what they stole and destroyed? And, who has it now?

Do we subtract the costs of Affirmative Action, a program originally designed and SCOTUS approved as actual reparations to those descendants of slavery and of racism? Do we subtract Pell Grants? Again, an expense designed specifically as reparations for slavery and racism. What about, “The War on Poverty?” Again, a taxpayer expense designed specifically as reparations for slavery and racism. And, if we believe the proponents of Reparations, the White citizen-taxpayer paid for these programs and the Black citizen-victim collective received these monies. Latinos, Asians, and Native-Americans, as shown by recent lawsuits against Ivy League schools, have, allegedly and incorrectly, been excluded from these reparation programs. And, by the way, what happened to those tax dollars? Chicago has certainly not, as a city, benefitted from any of these programs. What happened to those trillions of dollars spent over the last 60 years?

A legal concept regarding this issue, is that a sum certain must be stated or at the least ascertainable. There is absolutely no way to figure out what the indeterminant victim-collective is owed, even if we could determine who the victim-collective is, for if it is to be determined by race, then, according to my 23andme results, I am to be included in the victim-collective.

Which brings us to, who IS to be included in this victim-collective and to what extent?

Recently, federal statistics by various departments,[8] although in conflict, suggest that less than 50% of those of Color currently residing in these United States, are actually descended from those held in slavery in 1865. Prior to the 1960’s Civil Rights movement, Latinos and Hispanics were considered Caucasians, and, as noted above, have never been held in slavery by citizens of these United States. How is it that these groups are being included as part of the victim-collective? Further, how is it that they were included in all of the Affirmative Action programs when there is no evidence of their having been discriminated against any worse than The Irish, Catholics, Jews, The Italians, &c.? Will these reparations proponents expand the victim-collective to include all of those who have had their labor stolen or oppressed?

The very proposal of reparations is stupid. It cannot logically be done. It defies most legal concepts of liability, damages, and remedies. It is corrupt racism and mercantilist redistribution of wealth based on narcissistic self-serving greed and moral bankruptcy.

Last question: who would implement this stupidity, and what would their cut be?

Based on The War on Poverty, The War on Drugs, Common Core, and Affirmative Action, a racial bureaucracy led by Al Sharpton[9] and Rev. Jesse Jackson, both of whom have been proven liars and racial provocateurs rather than assimilated Americans. Will they include Negan, the former mayor of New Orleans LA? Or former Gov of Illinois Blagovich?

Who will pick the bureaucracy that would implement such a program? And, how much will they keep for themselves and their bubbas?

It will just be another Chicago.





Sowell, Thomas, PhD

Intellectuals and Race                             ISBN 978-0-465-05872-3

The Vision of the Anointed                     ISBN 978-0-465-08995-6

Discrimination and Disparities           ISBN 978-1-51116-4560-8

Mason, Matthew, PhD

Slavery and Politics in the Early American Republic

ISBN 978-0-8078-3049-9

Adams. J. Christian, JD

Injustice; Inside the Obama DoJ          ISBN 978-1-59698-277-2

Freehling, William W., PhD

The Road to Disunion, Vol I, Secessionists at Bay 1776 – 1854

ISBN 0-19-507259-6

The Road to Disunion, Vol II, Secessionists Triumphant 1854 – 1861

                                                                                          ISBN 978-0-19-505815-4

Thomas, Hugh, PhD, Oxford Don

The Slave Trade; a history of the North Atlantic Slave Trade

                                                                                          ISBN 0-684-81063-8

Lefkowitz, Mary, PhD

Not Out of Africa                                        ISBN 0-465-09838-X

Adams, Charles, PhD

Slavery, Secession, & Civil War            ISBN 978-0-8108-5863-3

Bartlett, Bruce, JD

Wrong on Race                                           ISBN 978-0-230-60062-1


There are numerous other works in the public domain upon which I touch upon, but as the slavery/ mercantilism issues are tangent to their focus, I have not included them. One such work is David Detzer’s, PhD, Allegiance, ISBN 978-0-15-100641-5. Dr. Detzer’s work deals with the immediate events in Washington, D.C., and Charleston S.C., leading up to the firing on Fort Sumter. Dr. Detzer comments tangentially on how city slaves, butchers, carpenters, and teamsters, were instrumental in the supplying of Fort Sumter with food and water under the supervision of the SC Militia. Although the property of plantation owners, these slaves lived in the city, on their own, operating their own businesses, and when the owner came to town, the books were audited and the owner took his predetermined share of the income.

[1] Shelby Foote’s, The Civil War; a narrative, has much more on these issues, and Cmdr. Matt Shipley’s blog, www.americanfoundingprinciples.wordpress.com has several references that include references to states’ ratification articles specifying that they were joining the union with the understanding that at anytime they could leave the union.

[2] When 1/3 of the population and governments are held in military occupation, the use of the word ‘union’ must be taken with more than just a grain of salt. For how long this military occupation lasted and its terrible and detrimental effect on The South is left for another essay. Just note the still prevalent and extensive poverty throughout the former Confederacy.

[3] Much of this had been accrued by his father-in-law, but through-out his life time, he was never able to reduce it, as plantation agriculture was not profitable for the planter. Note how George Washington went from unprofitable cotton to vegetables sold in the local markets.

[4] A reading of The Declaration of Independence and a review of various Federalist Papers essays on the Right of Man to self-governance may be of interest at this point, but only tangentially relevant to reparations. See also the writings of Thomas Paine from this time. Particularly, Common Sense and The Rights of Man.

[5] Publishing/purchases details are in the bibliography.

[6] One of the many stupidities of this war, is that slavery was dying because slave labor is so much more expensive than automation. In 1861, steam engines were being used on tractors, harvesters, railroad engines, and threshers. Slavery, as an issue for war, was disappearing. Lincoln’s use of it in The Emancipation Proclamation, is what caused so much hatred among Southerners toward the former slaves. For loads more, read Adams’ Slavery book, noted in the bibliography.

[7] FDR’s labor laws and policies provided that race could be a determination for terminating employment. Thus, in order to keep White Blue Collar and Union political support, his administration allowed employers to fire Blacks before Whites as a matter of course, merit & seniority held irrelevant.

[8] HUD, DoC(ommerce), Bureau of Labor Statistics, DoL(abor), IRS, DoJ(ustice) and a few others.

[9] From what seminary did Rev. Al graduate? Specifically, who ordained him and what was his academic record?

May 6, 2019

Core Competencies, from John [c]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 2:35 pm

[I have not verified these stats. I have not located the reference sources. However, I know from memory and reading The Wall Street Journal, that from Johnson forward, memory says that they are correct or very close to what I remember. The Reagan stats were a big news item several times throughout his tenure as prez.]

Core Competency

This is chilling! These numbers are prima facie evidence as to why every president that

we have had in our lifetime was incapable of running the country successfully. I submit

that even with 50% having been in business, it is simply not enough for our country’s

problems to be addressed with solutions that work. And here we are today, with Trump

running against a flock of RATs any one of whom would make things even worse. I

hope you are including DJT in your daily prayers, because if he fails to be President for

the next six years, we may never be the same again at any time in the future save an

armed revolution, and today, even that would be an iffy proposition.

These numbers help explain why these last eight years were disastrous for the USA. I

read the last item and then looked at Trump’s Cabinet. No wonder Washington, DC is

in a turmoil. Trump’s picks are bosses who expect their employees to work. These are

Eye Opening Numbers. This is what bothers a lot of people about Trump. He won’t

accept a can’t do attitude, or inexperienced, incompetent performance. He will get

results; it just might not be smooth or pretty.

Here are some amazing stats: Make sure you read to the bottom. An eye opener!

1. These 10 States now have more people on welfare than they do employed!


New Mexico






New York

Maine, and

South Carolina

2. Last month, the Senate Budget Committee reports that in fiscal year 2012, between

food stamps, housing support, child care, Medicaid and other benefits, the average

U.S. Household below the poverty line received $168.00 a day in government

support.  What’s the problem with that much support?  Well the average household

income in America is just over $50,000, which averages out to $137.13 a day.

To put it another way, being on welfare now pays the equivalent of $30.00 an hour for

40 hour week, while the average job pays $24.00 an hour.

3. Check the last set of statistics!!

The percentage of each past president’s cabinet who had worked in the private

business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet. You know what the private

business sector is: A real-life business not a government job.

Here are the percentages:

38% T. Roosevelt

40% Taft

52% Wilson

49% Harding

48% Coolidge

42% Hoover

50% F. D. Roosevelt

50% Truman

57% Eisenhower

30% Kennedy

47% Johnson

53% Nixon

42% Ford

32% Carter

56% Reagan

51% GH Bush

39% Clinton

55% GW Bush

8% Obama

90% Trump

This helps explain the bias, if not the incompetence, of the last administration: ONLY

8% of them have ever worked in private business!

That’s right! Only eight percent – the least, by far of the last 19 presidents! And these

people tried to tell our corporations how to run their businesses?

How could Obama, president of a major nation and society, the one with the most

successful economic system in world history, stand and talk about business when he’s

never worked for one?  Or about jobs when he has never really had one? And, when

it’s the same for 92% of his senior staff and closest advisers? They spent most of their

time in academia, government, and/or non-profit jobs or as “community organizers.”

Probably a good idea to pass this on, because we’ll NEVER see these facts in the

main stream media, or from the alphabet networks.

May 2, 2019

Chinese Prof & Harvard Colleague youtube video

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 2:03 pm

Worth the 90 seconds. A visiting professor from China is asked by his Harvard colleague about religion and democracy. Video is prepared by the Harvard Prof and not by Harvard, and is his personal opinion on the matter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch_p opup?v=YjntXYDPw44&sns=em

April 13, 2019

CA Has Become America’s Cannibal State, by Dr. Hanson [c]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 3:22 pm

California Has Become America’s Cannibal State

By |April 10th, 2019
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

For over six years, California has had a top marginal income tax rate of 13.3 percent, the highest in the nation. About 150,000 households in a state of 40 million people now pay nearly half of the total annual state income tax.

The state legislature sold that confiscatory tax rate on the idea that it was a temporary fix and would eventually be phased out. No one believed that. California voters, about 40 percent of whom pay no state income taxes, naturally approved the extension of the high rate by an overwhelming margin.


California recently raised gas taxes by 40 percent and now has the second-highest gas taxes in the United States.

California has the ninth-highest combined state and local sales taxes in the country, but its state sales tax of 7.3 percent is America’s highest. As of April 1, California is now applying that high state sales tax to goods that residents buy online from out-of-state sellers.

In late 2017, the federal government capped state and local tax deductions at $10,000. For high earners in California, the change effectively almost doubled their state and local taxes.

Such high taxes, often targeting a small percentage of the population, may have brought California a budget surplus of more than $20 million. Yet California is never satiated with high new tax rates that bring in additional revenue. It’s always hungry for more.

Scott Wiener, a Democratic state senator from San Francisco, has introduced a bill that would create a new California estate tax. Wiener outlined a death tax of 40 percent on estates worth more than $3.5 million for single Californians or more than $7 million for married couples.

Given the soaring valuations of California properties, a new estate tax could force children to sell homes or family farms they inherited just to pay the tax bills.

Soon, even more of the Californian taxpayers who chip in to pay half of the state income taxes will flee in droves for low-tax or no-tax states.

What really irks California taxpayers are the shoddy public services that they receive in exchange for such burdensome taxes. California can be found near the bottom of state rankings for schools and infrastructure.

San Francisco ranks first among America’s largest cities in property crimes per capita. The massive concrete ruins of the state’s quarter-built and now either canceled or postponed multibillion-dollar high-speed rail system are already collecting graffiti.

Roughly a quarter of the nation’s homeless live in California. So do about one-third of all Americans on public assistance. Approximately one-fifth of the state’s population lives below the poverty line. About one-third of Californians are enrolled in Medi-Cal, the state’s health care program for low-income residents.

California’s social programs are magnets that draw in the indigent from all over the world, who arrive in search of generous health, education, legal, nutritional and housing subsidies. Some 27 percent of the state’s residents were not born in the United States.

Last month alone, nearly 100,000 foreign nationals were stopped at the southern border, according to officials. Huge numbers of migrants are able to make it across without being caught, and many end up in California.

A lot of upper-middle-class taxpayers feel that not only does California fail to appreciate their contributions, but that the state often blames them for not paying even more—as if paying about half of their incomes to local, state and federal governments somehow reveals their greed.

The hyper-wealthy liberal denizens of Hollywood, Silicon Valley and the coastal enclaves often seem exempt from the consequences of the high taxes they so often advocate for others. The super-rich either have the clout to hire experts to help them avoid such taxes, or they simply have so much money that they are not much affected by even California’s high taxes.

What is the ideology behind such destructive state policies?

Venezuela, which is driving out its middle class, is apparently California’s model. Venezuelan leaders believed in providing vast subsidies for the poor. The country’s super-rich are often crony capitalists who can avoid high taxes.

Similarly, California is waging an outright war on the upper-middle class, which lacks the numbers of the poor and the clout of the rich.

Those who administer California’s plagued department of motor vehicles and high-speed rail authority may often be inept and dysfunctional, but the state’s tax collectors are the most obsessive bureaucrats in the nation.

What is Sacramento’s message to those who combine to pay half the state’s income taxes and have not yet left California?

“Be gone or we will eat you!”

Photo Credit: Frederic J. Brown/AFP/Getty Images

[One of many stupidities currently erupting from the left, is this state ordinance for circumventing the Electoral College, aka ‘the popular vote for president.’ CA’s change in their election laws, the only allowing the top two candidates from the primaries to be put on the ballot, has led to their one party government and their destruction. The Founders called this, “the tyranny of the majority.”

Both Venezuela and California are the result of the lock-step demagoguery of the left. Contact your state legislators and have them either repeal or fight against the ‘popular vote for president;’ contact your state legislators and have them support The Convention of States Project. http://www.conventionofstates.com ]

April 1, 2019

John Adams, on Property

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 9:14 pm

John Adams, on Property

The Founders’ Constitution, Ch 16 doc 15


Suppose a nation, rich and poor, high and low, ten millions in number, all assembled together; not more than one or two millions will have lands, houses, or any personal property; if we take into the account the women and children, or even if we leave them out of the question a great majority of every nation is wholly destitute of property, except a small quantity of clothes, and a few trifles of other movables. Would Mr. Nedham be responsible that, if all were to be decided by a vote of the majority, the eight or nine millions who have no property, would not think of usurping over the rights of the one or two millions who have? Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty. Perhaps, at first, prejudice, habit, shame or fear, principle or religion, would restrain the poor from attacking the rich, and the idle from usurping on the industrious; but the time would not be long before courage and enterprise would come, and pretexts be invented by degrees, to countenance the majority in dividing all the property among them, or at least, in sharing it equally with its present possessors. Debts would be abolished first; taxes laid heavy on the rich, and not at all on the others; and at last a downright equal division of every thing be demanded, and voted. What would be the consequence of this? The idle, the vicious, the intemperate, would rush into the utmost extravagance of debauchery, sell and spend all their share, and then demand a new division of those who purchased from them. The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If “Thou shalt not covet,” and “Thou shalt not steal,” were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable percepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.

March 28, 2019

Reality Check, thanks to Myron for sending

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 8:29 pm

When one tries to “reason” with a lefty democrat, remember you are dealing with a person that believes that a man can be a woman and a woman can be a man and that such a delusion should be encouraged, not discouraged. Discouragement of the delusion is considered immoral and bigoted. Thus our society has unnecessary dilemmas concerning bathrooms,  athletic competition at all levels, and “pronoun” controversies subjecting ourselves to all manner of laws, rules, regulation and more needless government control… 

Here is a suggestion to break the left’s ridiculous gender ideology and denial of biological reality: 
President Trump should make a declaration that he is identifying as a woman. The left will have to admit the absurdity of their gender ideology or accept and celebrate “Donna Trump” as the first woman President, thus beating Hillary, Liz Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, et.al. to the glorious goal of one of their “female firsts”.  Furthermore, if he remains married to Melania he will also be the first gay president and the first lesbian president. He will also be the first lesbian president married to an immigrant! 
What a glorious event for the democrats to celebrate.


Feel free to pass it along!

March 13, 2019

Open Letter to Jason Crow, member of congress

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 3:17 pm
Yes, I learned similar things in the U.S. Marine Corps. I disapprove of using the troops as political pawns.
Now, it seems that AOC, and you, don’t want to close the border. AOC wants to use MMT, a 1904 economic theory with its roots in Marx’s Das Kapital, and earlier Charlatist works based on XIXth Century data for this imbecilic New Green Deal.
MMT is absolutely useless in the XXIst Century. For info on how the New Green Deal doesn’t work, I suggest that you see how well, or not, Australia’s insulation program worked and how much it cost and how little a difference it made.
Because of politicians voting along party lines instead of for the best interests of the people, my share of the funded National Debt is $67,000 if counted as a citizen, $163,000 if counted as a taxpayer. My share of the unfunded National Debt, is appx $468,000.
According to the Heritage Foundation, if you bother to look for it, the overall burden counting health care, SSA expenditures, education costs for minors, &c., the financial burden of the over 30M illegals in the country, is over $700,000,000.00 (700MUSD).
How about you close the border, either kick out or tax the illegals, and renounce Pelosi & AOC?
As a disabled veteran, I sure as hell don’t have anything like that to pay off what you, your party, and the RINOS have indebted me to.

February 27, 2019

On Property, James Madison, Mar 29, 1792 [c]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 10:44 pm

On Property

James Madison, March 29, 1792

This term (property) in its particular application means “that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man’s land, or merchandise, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; As well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.

According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.

More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man’s religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man’s house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man’s conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most complete despotism.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favor his neighbor who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the economical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials! A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species; where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.

If there be a government than which prides itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.

If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments.

[James Madison, considered The Father of the Constitution, wrote this so that everyone would know what he meant by the word, property. Given the current political climate, the brutal assault & battery on conservatives on UC Berkeley campus, AOC, et al this should be required reading to all legislators of both parties!]


Reality Check, thanks to FASB for sending

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 5:29 pm

Good one!


 An Airbus 380 is on its way across the Atlantic. It flies consistently at 800 km/h at 30,000 feet, when suddenly a Eurofighter with Tempo Mach 2 appears.

The pilot of the fighter jet slows down, flies alongside the Airbus and greets the pilot of the passenger plane by radio: “Airbus flight, boring flight isn’t it? Take care, and have a look here!”

He rolls his jet on its back, accelerates, breaks through the sound barrier, rises rapidly to a dizzying height, only to swoop down almost to sea level in a breathtaking dive. He loops back next to the Airbus and asks, “Well, how was that?”

The Airbus pilot answers: “Very impressive, but now have a look here!”

The jet pilot watches the Airbus, but nothing happens. It continues to fly stubbornly straight, at the same speed. After five minutes, the Airbus pilot radioed, “Well, what do you say now?”

The jet pilot, confused, asks : “What did you do?”

The other laughs and says, “I got up, stretched my legs, went to the back of the aircraft to the bathroom, got a cup of coffee and a cinnamon cake and made an appointment with a stewardess for the next three nights — in a 5-Star hotel, which is paid for by my employer. “

The moral of the story is when you are young, speed and adrenaline seem to be great. But as you get older and wiser, comfort and peace are not to be despised either.

This is called SOS : S lower, O lder, S marter.

Dedicated to all my friends who, like me, prefer the SOS approach.

February 26, 2019

A New Replacement for Facebook, Google, and Twitter, by Joseph John, Capt USN USNA [nc]

Filed under: Political Commentary — justplainbill @ 5:25 pm
A New Replacement For Facebook, Google, and Twitter, That Will Not Restrict “Freedom of Speech”2
  • Joseph R. John <jrjassoc@earthlink.net>
    ‎Feb‎ ‎26 at ‎5‎:‎35‎ ‎AM

                         A New Replacement For Facebook, Google, and Twitter, That Will Not Restrict “Freedom of Speech”


    By Capt Joseph R. John, February 26, 2019: Op Ed # 424    


    A new replacement for Facebook, Google, and Twitter, will be launched on Wednesday, it is called USA.Life, the search engine will be called 1776Free.comFacebook repeatedly lied to Congress about being “a platform for all ideas”. 


    Facebook, Google, and Twitter have been consistently restricting and censoring “Freedom of Speech” by Christians, members of the Jewish Faith, Conservatives, Law Enforcement Professionals, Members of the US Armed Forces, Supporters of the Right to Bear Arms, Supporters of The Right to Life, Veterans, and President Trump Supporters.


    USA.Life is necessary, because Facebook, Google, and Twitter’s censorship affects elections, people’s lives, “Freedom of Speech”, “Freedom of Religion”, “Freedom to Bear Arms, interpersonal relationships, and the very survival of a free and independent Republic. 

    Founder of USA.Life and CEO Steven Andrew said he decided to use his Silicon Valley tech leadership experience to launch USA.Life after he saw Facebook, Google, and Twitter block millions of people from getting his posts.  “Facebook blocked 99 percent of my reach, which means 5 million people are missing per month from my account alone,” he said.   

    Andrew has led multi-million dollar initiatives for Cisco, Better Homes and Gardens, Sega and Stanford in Silicon Valley, and has the technical expertise to develop and launch USA.Life, however he is spending millions of his own dollars to launch USA.Life.  

    “We don’t have the billions of dollars Facebook, Google, and Twitter have, so we need people who want freedom and privacy to contribute what they can,” he said, to sustain the site. A Crowdfunding  Page is being set up to launch USA.Life, saying “USA.Life  is for all who love America.” 

    Democracy and “Freedom of Speech” has been under assault by elected Socialists, Communists, and Progressives members in Congress


    By clicking on the below listed link you will understand why Democracy has survived in the Republic for 243 years:



    Financial supporters are encouraged to donate “any amount” that they are capable of donating.  The amount donated is not important, the importance it to demonstrate their support for USA.Life , and that millions of Freedom Loving Americans support “Freedom of Speech”. 


    Donors will receive a special reward, depending on how much they are able to donate, such as having a name or organization credited in the computer code with a keepsake PDF to print and other perks.  Larger donors, individuals, and organizations can get their name on The Founder’s Wall or receive other benefits.


    Over the past 243 years, members of the US Armed Forces have given the last full measure of devotion to the Republic, other military personnel have sustained life’s debilitating injuries in defense of the Republic on Foreign Fields of Fire, and millions of Veterans have also served while protecting and defending the US Constitution, and The Bill of Rights—-especially their support for “Freedom of Speech”.   


    The endorsed Combat Veterans For Congress have always strongly supported “Freedom of Speech”, the Bill of Rights, and they continue to protect and defend the US Constitution while serving in Congress, as they once did while in combat in the US Armed Forces.


    We strongly encourage you to “Pay This Message Forward” to all those American Citizens in your address book, and please ask those who you send this message to, to also “Pay It Forward” to everyone else in their address books as well. 

    Joseph R. John, USNA ‘62

    Capt    USN(Ret)/Former FBI

    Chairman, Combat Veterans For Congress PAC

    2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-184

    San Diego, CA 92108



    Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” Then I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
    -Isaiah 6:8



    ‘Conservative answer’ to Facebook launches

    USA.Life also developing Google alternative


    Describing itself as the “answer to Facebook and Twitter censoring Christians, conservatives and liberty,” a new social-media platform called USA.Life will officially launch Wednesday.

    Founder and CEO Steven Andrew said he decided to use his Silicon Valley tech leadership experience to launch the project after he saw Facebook block millions of people from getting his posts.

    Andrew believes Facebook lied to Congress about being “a platform for all ideas,” since they restrict President Trump supporters, Christians and conservatives.

    “Facebook blocks 99 percent of my reach, which means 5 million people are missing per month from my account alone,” he said.

    Andrew has led multi-million dollar initiatives for Cisco, Better Homes and Gardens, Sega and Stanford.

    USA.Life is necessary, he said, because “censorship affects elections, people’s lives and relationships.”

    Users can share photos, updates, news, videos and messages, and join groups.

    “People can connect with those most important to them, too,” he said.

    Andrew set up a crowdfunding page to launch the project, saying USA.Life is for all who love America.

    “We don’t have the billions of dollars Facebook, Google and Twitter have, so we need people who want freedom and privacy to contribute what they can,” he said.

    For larger donations, individuals and organizations can get their name on the founders wall.

    Andrew is also building a search engine, 1776Free.com.

    Calling it “America’s new search engine,” he believes it will provide better results than Google.

    Users will get “President Trump, conservative and Christian real news that Google hides,” he said.

    “The USA.Life and 1776Free.com are needed to protect the free speech assured by the First Amendment. We will unite the nation,” said Andrew.


Older Posts »

Blog at WordPress.com.