Obama Shows How Dangerous a Rogue President Can Become

President Obama’s executive action effectively legalizing up to 5,000,0000 illegal aliens in America is actually a bit of a nothing-burger policy-wize.

Most common-sense conservatives and Republicans don’t have a substanative problem with:

1) Allowing illegal aliens who have lived here for at least five years and who have children here who are U.S. citizens getting themselves right with the law and applying for a green card.

2) Allowing people who arrived here as children five or more years ago to do the same.
It’s really not that big a deal substanatively from a policy standpoint.

If Ronald Reagan were recommending this and went through the proper legislative channels, most of us would not have a big problem with this.

Actually, Reagan did do something like this, with Congress’s approval.

The title of the legislation was the Simpson-Mizzoli Act.

Under this legislation,, it was envisioned that about 4,000,000 illegal immigrants would apply for legal status through the act and that roughly half of them would be eligible.

In other words, about what Obama’s executive order is envisioning.

So the policy substance of what Obama is doing is not a huge deal.

What is a huge deal is HOW Obama is doing it.

He told us he had grown impatient with Congress’s inaction. So he decided to go it alone.
That’s not how our republic works.

In our system, Congress makes the laws. It’s the President’s job to “faithfully execute” the laws of the land.
He’s the executive, not a lawmaker.

Congress is the lawmaking body.

This is how “separation of powers” works — the foundational principle of the American structure of government.
So President Obama went rogue, decided he did not like the law as written. So went ahead and decreed his own law. This is what emperors and dictators do. This is what happens in a banana republic.

The trouble is there is no remedy to stop Obama from doing what he’s doing short of Impeachment by the U.S. House of Representatives, followed by a trial in the Senate and a vote of expulsion by the Senate.

This has never happened in the history of our Republic.

It would have happened to Richard Nixon. But he resigned.

Obama knows he’s safe. It would take a two-thirds super-majority in the Senate (67 votes) to expel him from office. That’s an impossible bar.

So Obama is free to do just about anything he wants short of killing a little girl with his bare hands in front of cameras on the White House lawn.

The problem is our system is ill-equipped to deal with a President who acts in bad faith.

For example, the Constitution gives the President the power to pardon criminals.

If President Obama wants, he can pardon every criminal now in prison (including every murderer, gang member, and rapist) and they would be free to go back out on the street to commit their mayhem.

Short of impeachment and expulsion by the Senate, there’s nothing we could do.

Even the case for impeachment in this case would be difficult because technically Obama would not be breaking any laws if he just released every criminal in America’s prison through his Constitutional power to pardon whomever he chooses.

Theoretically, Congress can impeach and expel a President from office if they just view him as grossly neglecting his duties as President, or as grossly acting against the nation’s interest. But technically, he would not be violating any law by pardoning every criminal in America.

President Obama might well decide to pardon every illegal alien living in America.

That’s certainly not out of the realm of possibility, given what he just did.

Now clearly, the Constitution does not envision any President pardoning every criminal in America . . . because that would be just nuts.

But the Constitution doesn’t say he can’t. So technically he can.

So there’s really nothing we can do to prevent Barack Obama from destroying the country — if he wants to.
He can fire every General, Admiral, Colonel, and Major in the military if he wants to. He can move all our military forces and troops to the South Pole as a joke.

And there’s absolutely nothing we could do about it short of Impeachment and a vote of expulsion by the Senate, which requires a two-thirds super-majority vote.

He can also use the IRS and Department of Justice (which he controls) to harass, prosecute, and destroy his political opponents — which he’s been doing. There’s nothing much we can do about that either.

He can also pack the courts with radical leftist ideologues who will rubber stamp whatever he wants to do. He’s basically done that.
So this is a serious question America’s Constitution does not handle well.

What happens when America elects a President who really doesn’t like America very much, who says he’s out to “fundamentally transform” America — who says he’s out to “remake America” . . . and apparently will use any means to do so, whether legal or not?
We’ve never before had a President of the United States who just did not much like America.

We’ve had incompetent Presidents — such as Jimmy Carter and James Buchanan.

Incompetent Presidents can also do a lot of damage to the country. But at least they aren’t purposefully trying to destroy the country.

What happens when we have a President who sees it as his mission in life to knock America down a few pegs, to punish America for being so successful, or even destroy America completely?

President Obama knows that if he can find a way to simply allow Mexico and Latin America to move to America, that’s the end of the Republican Party. He can turn America into a one-party state, like Venezuela or any number of other Latin American countries.

Our system does not have an adequate remedy for a President who decides to go rogue.

The Case for Runoff Elections

I love the runoff election system, as we see possibly playing out in Louisiana and Georgia.


The reason can be summed up in two words: Adolf Hitler

Adolf Hitler became dictator of Germany when his party, the National Socialist Workers Party  (NAZI) won 33.09 percent of the vote.

If elections can be won with less than 50 percent of the vote plus one, we can have situations where the majority did not vote for the winner.

So the majority is then not represented.

Bill Clinton never won as much as 50 percent of the vote.

Reform Party candidate Ross Perot siphoned off 19.7 percent of the vote in 1992 and 8.4 percent of the vote in 1996.

Most likely George H.W. Bush would have won reelection in 1992  if it were not for Perot.

Of course, we can never know for sure what would have happened.

Neither George W. Bush nor Al Gore garnered 50 percent of the vote in 2000.

Al Gore would have been elected President in 2000 were it not for Green Party candidate Ralph Nader.

In the 2014 Senate election in South Dakota, we see the possibility of the election winner receiving only a plurality of the vote.

That’s because two Republicans are now running against one Democrat.

The former Republican U.S. Senator from South Dakota Larry Pressler decided to jump in the race as an Independent.

So it’s possible he’ll siphon off enough votes from the official GOP nominee Michael Rounds and throw the election to the Democrat Rick Weiland — even though Weiland would have little chance in a one-on-one contest with either Rounds or Pressler..

If this happens, the majority of voters of South Dakota will be represented by someone they did not want and would not have voted for, even as their back-up choice.

Democrat Rick Weiland would be the least desirable of the three candidates for a majority of South Dakotans.

Yet, he might win with 35 percent of the vote.

What a runoff election would ensure in South Dakota is that a majority of South Dakotans would have a chance to vote for their back-up choice if their first choice isn’t elected.

Another benefit of the runoff election system is that it encourages people to vote for who they really like — instead of making political calculations on who is the most “electable.”  Because they know they will have another opportunity to vote for their second choice if their candidate fails to make it to the runoff.

I also suspect this runoff election system would diminish the influence of the two major political parties — which would be a good thing in my opinion.  It would open up the political process for more interesting candidates to shine.

We would not be limited to the stultifyingly bland offerings served up by the Democrat and Republican Political Establishments.

Politicians would feel more freedom to make up their own mind on issues instead of bowing to pressure from party bosses to tow the party line all the time. Politics would become less partisan and more interesting.

Imagine how boring the NFL would be if there were only two football teams playing every week.

The NFL is fun to watch because there are many teams.  The season then ends with the Super Bowl.

The Super Bowl always involves two teams, not three.

This is how elections should be conducted.

The requirement in Louisiana and Georgia that a U.S. Senator must be elected with at least 50 percent of the vote plus one, or there is a runnoff election between the two top vote getters, is a good system.

Every state should adopt this rule for federal elections, including the awarding of Electoral Votes in the Presidential Election.

There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents the states from holding runoff elections to determine which candidate is awarded Electoral Votes in the event that no candidate receives more than 50 percent of the vote.

Under the Constitution, the states, not Congress decide how Electoral Votes are awarded.

If a candidate wins 270 or more electoral votes on Election Day, there would be no need for states that were unable to award electoral votes to hold a runoff election.

But if no candidate is able to get to 270 electoral votes, imagine how exciting it would be to have the Presidential Election decided by a runoff election 30 days later in, say, New Hampshire.

Or to have a runoff election involving many states that were unable to award the Electoral Votes because no candidate was able to win more than 50 percent of the vote in these states — as would have occurred in 1992 and in 2000.

Now this system still does not guarantee that the President of the United States will always be elected with a majority of the vote. If one candidate wins overwhelmingly in a big state like California, but the other candidate wins narrow victories in the other states, it would still be possible to lose with a majority of the popular vote.

There’s nothing we can do about the Electoral College. It’s in the Constitution and there are good reasons for it, having to do with protecting the sovereignty of the states.

No system is perfect or foolproof.

Barack Obama was elected twice with more than 50 percent of the vote.  So America is getting what it deserves with Obama.

But what this runoff system would do is prevent spoiler candidates — like Ross Perot in 1992 or Ralph Nader in 2000. Perot and Nader launched their candidacies not because they thought they could get elected, but mostly to sabotage the campaigns of candidates they did not like for personal reasons.

Federal Elections should not be sabotaged by this kind of mischief.

More importantly, a runnoff election system would prevent what happened in 1933 in Germany, when Adolf Hitler was elected dictator with a plurality of just 33.09% of the vote.

It was quite evident in 1933 that Hitler was a madman.   He had written and published Mein Kampf in 1926. His thuggish Brownshirts used terror to enforce Nazi Party discipline in the period leading up the the election of 1933. The Nazis and Hitler’s Brownshirts were frightening, not popular.

Hitler and his Nazi Party could not have won a majority of the vote if there had been a runoff election system in Germany in 1933.  And we could have avoided 60,000,000 deaths in World War Two — which amounted to the extermination of 2.5% of the world’s total population.

Can’t Two Things Be True? The Iraq War Was a Mistake. It Was Also a Mistake to Abandon Iraq to ISIS.

The debate over whether the disintegration of Iraq was George W. Bush’s fault or Barack Obama’s fault is a false debate.

They were both wrong.  Both their policies were disastrous for U.S. interests.

The verdict is in on George W. Bush’s decision to oust Saddam Hussein.

We found no WMD program, no nuclear weapons program under Saddam in Iraq – the pretense for going to war. As thuggish a dictator as he was, he turned out to be a bulwark against Islamic extremism.

He was no threat to the United States.  He was actually an asset.

Saddam hated al Qaeda and the Islamic radicals as much as we do. He did a superb job at killing them.
This is why W’s father, George H.W. Bush made the decision in Operation Desert Storm to push Saddam out of Kuwait, back to Baghdad, and to leave him there.

Reagan also understood Saddam’s value.

He was a counter to the even worse Iran — which is why we sided with Saddam in the Iran-Iraq War.

We had an alliance with Incredibly awful Joseph Stalin against the even worse Adolf Hitler.

Not that Saddam was even close to as bad as these fellows.

But in 2003 W Bush made the decision to go to Baghdad to get rid of Saddam, and set up a flimsy replacement government that needed a permanent U.S. presence to survive.

Dumb decision to replace Saddam with this un-serious government.

We’d be far better off with Saddam still in place.

But even dumber is Obama’s decision to abandon Iraq to ISIS.

Obama compounded one mistake with an even worse blunder.

Pulling all U.S. forces out of Iraq suddenly and completely left a power vaccum that was filled by ISIS.
Obama is doing the same in Afghanistan.

Just about everyone agrees we had to go to Afghanistan to get rid of the Taliban and hunt down bin Laden.
But we’re now leaving Afghanistan to the Taliban – which no doubt will also become a safe haven for ISIS and every other fanatical Islamic group.

Two years ago, Obama thought it was a great idea to arm rebels in Syria in the hope that they might overthrow the regime of Bashar al-Assad – another Saddam-like strongman dictator.

The problem is these rebels included ISIS and other fanatical Islamists.

Obama claimed he thoroughly vetted the rebels and was only arming “moderate” Islamic rebels.

Are there any “moderate” Islamic  guerrilla rebels?

If you believe that, I have horse-racing bet portfolio I’d like you to invest in.

Now Obama is bombing ISIS in Syria, who he used to think it was a good idea to arm.

Meanwhile, ISIS is riding around in U.S. tanks with U.S. rockets and weapons beheading people.

Obama also thought it was a great idea to help the Islamists get rid of the dictator in Libya Muammar Gaddafi. So now Libya is in a state of anarchy and terrorists are using the former U.S. Embassy as their headquarters.

Obama also sided with the Muslim Brotherhood against U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak – another strongman dictator. But at least he was a friend of the U.S. and not out to erase Israel from the map.

The good news in Egypt is that the Muslim Brotherhood has since been thrown out by the Egyptian military. So we have another Mubarak-style regime in Egypt, no thanks to Obama.

But that’s good for the United States.

The truth is Democracy doesn’t work in Islamic countries — at least not those that take the Koran seriously.

Sharia Law and democracy are incompatible.

If you have a vote in these countries, you will have one election one time.

If Saudi Arabia had an election, al Qaeda or ISIS would likely win.  We don’t like the corrupt Royal Family that runs Saudi Arabia.  But they’re better than the alternative.

We don’t like Assad, but he’s better than what would replace him.  We certainly did not like Saddam or Gaddafi. But look what we have now. These countries have become Jihadist Wonderlands.

George W. Bush made one mistake. And it was a biggie – the Iraq War.

He should have just left Saddam in place. Saddam was a “managaeble problem,” to borrow the words of Obama.

Actually, he wasn’t the problem.  Turns out he was a pretty good solution to radical Islam, which he hated.

So Bush made a big strategic mistake.  Huge.

But Obama has taken the wrong side in literally every conflict in the Middle East. Not once has he chosen the correct side.

He sides with Hamas over Israel. He sides with the Muslim Brotherhood over Mubarak. He sides with “moderate elements” of the Taliban over Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan.

There are no “moderate elements” of the Taliban.

Obama has spent much of his Presidency trashing the Iraqi government — I guess as a way to justify America’s exit from Iraq.

As a result of Obama’s policies , ISIS now controls an area of Iraq and Syria the size of Indiana.

As flawed as George W. Bush was, do you think this would have ever happened if he were still President?

The entire Middle East is now in flames now because of Obama.  We have no friends in the Middle East anymore, except Israel – who Obama constantly trashes.

Is Jordan a friend?

It doesn’t matter much because they’re in the process of being overrun by ISIS.

For what it’s worth, George W. Bush assembled a coalition of 48 countries to take on Saddam — the misguided venture though it was.

Barack Obama has persuaded a grand total of nine countries(including the great nation of Albania)  to join his coalition to take on ISIS.

Great Britain and Germany have said “no thanks” to Obama’s idea of bombing ISIS in Syria.

That’s how much confidence our allies have in Obama.

Barack Obama makes Jimmy Carter look like Winston Churchill by comparison.

A few random thoughts on the Ray Rice episode

Ray Rice has been caught on video delivering a left hook to his fiancée’s jaw, knocking her out.

The Baltimore Ravens cancelled his $50 million contract and the NFL suspended Rice indefinitely.

So here are a few random thoughts I have on all this.

1) Ray Rice must have an IQ of somewhere around 10 to do what he did.

The video speaks for itself.

2) Bill Clinton hasn’t been banned from anything.

Juanita Brodrick claims he raped her. Kathleen Willey says she was sexually assaulted by Clinton. Paula Jones was clearly sexually assaulted by Clinton. Plus Clinton preyed on and ruined the life of White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

Seriously, who’s worse — Ray Rice or Bill Clinton? Who’s the bigger threat to women?

3) Ray Rice’s then fiancée, Janay, went on to marry Ray even after the KO punch.

She is now blasting the media for ruining both their lives. She apparently thinks there’s a lot to like about Ray Rice.

And she’s probably none too happy that the Ravens cancelled his $50 million contract.

4) If Michael Vick can come back and play in the NFL after his longtime involvement in dog-fighting, Ray Rice can come back.

Rice threw one ill-advised, impulsive punch at his fiancee — who has forgiven him.

Vick promoted and participated in dog fighting (animal torture) for years.

Rice is impulsive and stupid. Vick is evil.

5) We knew exactly what Ray Rice did before we saw the video of the actual punch.

We knew he had knocked Janay unconscious in the elevator because video footage showed him dragging her unconscious body out into the corridor. This must have been a brutal beating to produce this result.

The court ordered Ray Rice to enter a domestic violence program prior to sentencing to avoid jail time.
The NFL suspended Rice for two games.

The actual video of the single punch is what created the public uproar against Rice.

But, in truth, the video makes Rice look a bit less bad.

Without the video, one might imagine Rice rained repeated blows on Janay, rendering her unconscious. The video shows he delivered just one punch – though clearly well-targeted (unfortunately for both Rice and Janay).

As she was falling, it appears she hit her head on the railing, which might have produced the knock-out. So the knock-out was probably unintentional by Ray Rice.

Also, it appears from the video that Janay spit on Rice prior to the knock-out blow delivered by Rice.

If she spit on Rice, that certainly doesn’t justify Rice’s punch. But spitting on someone is assault under the law. So a lot appears to have been going on between them.

6) There appears to be no lasting physical damage to Janay Rice.

Though that’s always difficult to know with a concussion — which this certainly was.

7) This appears to be a first-time offense for Rice.

Unlike other NFL players, Rice is not a habitual bad actor. He seems to have no past record of serious misconduct, no previous incident of hitting women.

NFL Hall of Famer Jim Brown (greatest running back ever) was famous for beating up women. Not much happened to him.

Baltimore Ravens linebacker Ray Lewis was accused of being involved in a murder (a nightclub shooting), but nothing much happened to him either. In fact, he’s now a commentator on ESPN’s Monday Night Football.

8) Ray Rice had the misfortune of running afoul of the “War on Women” mantra.

Ray Rice probably had no idea what “Political Correctness” meant, until now.

He probably still doesn’t fully understand what’s happening to him.

Barack Obama won reelection in 2012 in part by advancing the absurd notion that Republicans are conducting a “War on Women.”

So now every politician, every corporate CEO, everyone (especially every man) in a leadership position is desperate to show how pro-woman they are.

Plus the NFL is desperately trying to appeal to women, which is why the NFL requires every player to wear pink during “Breast Cancer Awareness Month” — but nothing during “Prostate Cancer Awareness Month.”

Oh wait. There is no “Prostate Cancer Awareness Month.”

9) This shows society has concluded that men and women should NOT be treated equally.

If Ray Rice had KO’d a man, this would have been no big deal — might have been a badge of honor for Rice.

It’s the fact that he hit a woman (who appears to have been spitting on him) that’s so egregious.

I agree that a man hitting a woman is egregious.  It’s downright unmanly.

Men and woman are different.  Men tend to be physically much stronger — especially an NFL football player.

This truth calls into question the issue of having women serve in military combat roles, women as firefighters, women as cops on the street.

Do we really want to put women in dangerous combat-style situations?

America appears to be saying “NO” to this idea.

This is a big setback for feminism.


Ray Rice should certainly be punished by the Ravens and the NFL for his abhorrent conduct. Perhaps sitting out football for a year would be appropriate if no further misconduct by Rice occurs.

Clearly his fiancee (now his wife) sees a lot to like about Rice because she went on to marry him after the KO.

This is a first-time offense for Ray Rice. He and his wife should not lose their livelihood permanently over this.

Ray Rice would do well to go on a media tour to stress how much he regrets the incident. He should have Janay by his side.

He should go on “The View,” “Oprah,” “Dr. Phil,” “Nancy Grace,” and “Dr. Drew.”

This alone would be substantial punishment for Rice — having to endure being badgered hour after hour by these people.

He should explain that he’s entered an anger management program and will spend ten hours a week volunteering at a battered women’s shelter.

If “Oprah” absolves Rice of his sin, this should be enough for the NFL to reinstate Rice after a one-year time-out.

Why I think Glenn Beck has become a buffoon and is no longer much worth listening to

Perhaps he can redeem himself at some point. But he sure is displaying some unsound thinking.

I’ve been a pretty big fan of Glenn Beck over the years.

I liked his show on FOX.

He did a good job there with his diagrams, helping people connect the dots and showing viewers how Obama was hiring all these Maoists and Communists in key positions — i.e. Anita Dunn (White House Communications Director and self-professed Maoist) and Van Jones (self-professed Communist) and others.

What I liked most about Glenn Beck is he seemed to really appeal to women.

My wife Wanda loved Glenn Beck – used to DVR all his shows on FOX.

She wasn’t at all political. But Glenn connected with Wanda, helped engage her in politics, helped turn her into a conservative.

I’m sure she still likes him.

My three daughters have also been big fans of Glenn Beck.

I think one reason females like Glenn Beck is all the emoting and weeping.

He seems to really care.


I’m not a big emoter and weeper myself, but I can deal with that. If Glenn Beck can appeal to women by emoting and weeping, I’m all for him.

But when I’ve listened to his radio show lately, I really can’t find much of value. I actually like his cohost quite a bit better than Beck. I don’t know what his name is. He’s a young guy who generally makes more sense than Beck has been making lately.

In my opinion, Glenn Beck is talking too much about religion — at least for me.

Sorry, I’m not a Mormon. I’m a traditional Christian. Sometimes I go to Catholic Mass. Sometimes I go to an evangelical Bible Church.

But to me, Mormonism makes no sense. I like most Mormons as individuals. But I’m not going to take spiritual advice from Mormons.

Also, when I tune into conservative talk radio, I want to hear about politics and what Obama is up to. I’m not looking for spiritual guidance.

I get spiritual guidance from the church I attend, also from books I read.

So Glenn Beck’s big push of late is to make a big deal about his Mormon faith and how he’s delivering Teddy Bears, Soccer Balls and, I guess, food and other necessities to the tens of thousands of Central American children who are showing up in U.S. border towns.

Fine. It’s a humanitarian crisis — created by Obama.

But that’s really the point, isn’t it?

The crisis is created intentionally by Obama to achieve his Open Border policy objectives. That is, to destroy the United States of America by transforming the electorate.

So we have this humanitarian crisis — created by Obama. And now we have Glenn Beck — the dupe that he is — lecturing us about how we have a Christian obligation to these children who Obama brought into the country.

Certainly we have a Christian obligation to do what we can for these children — to make sure they don’t starve, that they received medical care, that they aren’t killed or sold as sex slaves by gangs and cartels.

But then we need to send them home.

There really is no other solution, no other answer.

If we say, fine, all of you can stay here, this just sends the message out to the rest of the world that if you find a way to get to America, you can stay in America,

All you have to do is set foot on American soil (by hook or by crook) and you get to stay. You even get to become an American citizen.

You become a voter . . . for the Democratic Party.

And that’s really what all this is about, at least as far as Obama and the Democrats are concerned.

They are trying to create millions of new voters for the welfare state.

But even that’s not quite the point about Glenn Beck, is it?

What Glenn Beck is doing is feeding into the Obama propaganda machine.

If you don’t believe me, ask yourself the following questions:

1) Do we have impoverished American citizens here at home we should be feeding and caring about first?

2) What about the people living in shacks in Appalachia or slums in the Bronx or Chicago’s Southside? Why aren’t they deserving of Glenn Beck’s food, diapers, soccer balls, and Teddy Bears?

3) Shouldn’t we be rushing emergency food to impoverished U.S. citizens and creating shelters for them (due to the Obama economy) before doing this for people from other countries?

4) Do we not have plenty of problems here in America before we start addressing the problems of people from other countries?

5) What is Glenn Beck’s stunt really all about? Why hasn’t he rushed trucks full of stuff to the Bronx or Chicago’s Southside? Why is he less concerned about impoverished Americans than impoverished Guatamalans?

Very strange. It makes no sense whatsover.

Basically, the answer is that he’s become a dupe for Obama.

I always say that when you see something really strange happening that can’t be explained by logic, follow the money.

Follow the money and you will find your answer.

Mormon Church-owned media is a massive enterprise that has consistently supported amnesty for illegal aliens. Glenn Beck is a product of the Mormon media enterprise.

Many business interests benefit from amnesty for illegal aliens. The Mormon Church’s public policy arm has been a dogged supporter of amnesty for illegal aliens.

And let’s not forget that the second most powerful man in America Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is a Mormon and is in a position to provide significant federal support and benefits to the Mormon Church.

So Glenn Beck, an outspoken Mormon convert, a product of the Mormon Church’s enormous sprawling worldwide media empire, has a clear financial interest in keeping his powerful and wealthy patrons in the Mormon leadership happy.

Glenn Beck’s media enterprise would not be anywhere near as big as it is now without the backing of the LDS church leadership — which fervently backs Amnesty.

Here’s a good paper on the Mormon Church leadership’s massive lobbying efforts for Amnesty >>>

As often happens throughout life, money trumps principle.  Money trumps the “rule of law.”

Business interests trump patriotism and love of country.

It’s all about the money.

This is a big problem with many church organizations — not just Mormon, but Christian churches even more so. The Catholic Church in America receives billions of dollars from the U.S. government. The largest protestant denominations also receive billions of dollars from the federal government.

Catholic Charities received $2.9 BILLION from the U.S. government in 2010 — more than half its budget. No doubt, this figure has increased since then.

That’s just one small arm of the Catholic Church. Who knows what the rest of the Catholic Church is receiving from Uncle Sam?

Billions more, no doubt.

The churches have been bought by the U.S. government, meaning bought now by Obama. He controls the cash.

In other words, so much for the “separation of church and state” principle.

The churches have been bought and corrupted by the federal government.

Even the National Association of Evangelicals is now supporting what Obama calls “Comprehensive Immigration Reform.”


Because either their most powerful members are getting lots of money from Uncle Sam. Or, they have a misunderstanding of Scripture.  I think the former.

World Vision, a member of the National Association of Evangelicals, receives $200,000,000 per year from the U.S. government. So they’d better keep playing ball with Obama to keep the money, favors and special treatment flowing from Uncle Sam.

The Bible celebrates hospitality. The Bible says we should be welcoming to strangers, travelers, foreigners. This is what we are hearing from the pro-amnesty propaganda machine.

But hospitality and care is a far cry from saying the stranger, the traveler, the alien, the foreigner should be able to just move into your home — permanently.

We want to help the homeless. But should the homeless just be able to move into and take over your home — permanently?

What exactly is ”Comprehensive Immigration Reform” anyway?

Basically, it’s amnesty and pretty much citizenship for the illegal aliens who are here now, then secure the border later.

That’s the promise.

But we now see how well that works.

If people know they can get amnesty (and soon U.S. citizenship) simply by setting foot on American soil, border security can’t work.  There’s always a way around, under, or over a border.

Amnesty undermines and destroys even the strongest, most secure border.

And without secure borders, we really aren’t a country anymore — just like if anyone can move into your home, you don’t really have a home.

A+ for Dinesh D’Souza’s AMERICA. It’s Even Better Than His First Film

Honestly, I was not looking forward that much to seeing Dinesh D’Souza’s AMERICA.

Documentaries are not really my thing. When I go to a movie, I’m looking for an escape, pure entertainment.

But I loved his first film — 2016: Obama’s America.

D’Souza’s new film far surpasses that one.

I was rivetted by every minute of Dinesh D’Souza’s second film: AMERICA.

I wish this film could have gone on for another two hours.

What’s great about the film is he really allows the Left to make their case against America. The Left’s case is that:

1) We stole the land from the Indians.
2) We stole half of Mexico
3) We stole the labor and lives of Africans
4) We’ve plundered the world for its resources
5) Capitalism is a sophisticated system of theft.
6) The American idea was flawed from the start because the founders of the country owned slaves and our Constitution tolerated slavery.

In summary, the Left’s case is that the world would have been better off if America had never existed.

We now have a President of the United States who subscribes to much, if not all, of these six points. He views his mission in life as to correct the injustices wrought by America.

D’Souza skillfully deals with all these precepts.

He does not gloss over the inhumanity of slavery. He makes the case, as Abraham Lincoln did, that both America’s Declaration of Independence and America’s Constitution sowed the seeds of slavery’s demise.

The southern states never would have signed onto the Constitution had we insisted on the total and immediate abolition of slavery.

If the South had never signed onto the Constitution and had become its own country or many countries, slavery likely would have lasted much longer.

The South’s economy was dependent on slavery.

D’Souza notes that the economy of the South was far behind the economy and industry of the north. He quotes Alexis de Tocqueille, who attributed the differences in the economies to slavery.

In the South, the slaves had no incentive to work hard because they could not keep the fruits of their labor. So they did the bare minimum of work to avoid the lash. The owners were lazy and unproductive because their slaves were doing the work.

Meanwhile, in the North, the non-slave states, industry and enterprise were booming. This ultimately proved the Confederacy’s undoing. The Confederacy did not have the industrial engine to produce a war machine anywhere near the level of the Union army.

Ultimately, slavery could not stand up to the primary founding idea of America: “That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

The Declaration does not say all “white men.” The Declaration says “all men” — meaning, of course, all people.

Abraham Lincoln completed the American Revolution.

He fulfilled the original American Proposition that “all men are created equal” — meaning equal under the law.

Obviously, not everyone is created with equal talents and abilities.

Not everyone is created with equal drive and motivation.

But in America, everyone is supposed to be equal under the law.

America was the first country in the history of the world to fight a civil war to end slavery. At least 300,000 union soldiers died in that war. Upwards of 700,000 Americans lost their lives on the Civil War battlefields.

Furthermore, slavery was the norm throughout the world. Slavery was the norm in Africa. It was Africans who sold their own people into slavery. It was the American idea that ended slavery in the British Empire.

Slavery still exists throughout much of the world today.

By the way, there were many white slaves in colonial America — indentured servants.

The American Idea ultimately ended all that.

Did we mistreat the Indians?

Certainly, we did. They also horrifically mistreated each other.

Did we take land from the Indians? Certainly we did. But they took lands from each other.

Should General Sherman have burned the South to the ground?

Let’s face it. Humans can be brutal. War is brutal. Certainly America has been brutal. Who can admire General Custer?

Don’t most of us think General Custer got what he deserved at the hands of Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse?

But it is precisely the American idea — as stated in America’s Declaration of Independence and the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, plus the Bill of Rights — that causes us to recoil in horror at what we did to African Americans and the Native Americans.

We’ve done our best to make it up to them.

How many African-Americans want to return to Africa?

I don’t know of any.

Are millions of Americans desperately trying to get over the border into Mexico and become Mexican citizens?

When Mexicans manage to get in here, how many want to return to Mexico?

Would the Mexican-Americans living in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and Southern California want the American Southwest returned to Mexico so they could be Mexicans again?

Would they like to see America become more like Mexico?

The production value in the movie is superb. It’s very well made. I loved the soundtrack.

Don’t believe the leftist film critics who are trashing the film.

Dinesh’s movie is receiving a 90% thumbs up rating from the audience on Rotten Tomatoes.

Every high school and college history course should have the students watch “America” and deal with the arguments?

It won’t matter then if the teacher or professor is a Leftist.

That leftist teacher or professor can then stand there for the entire semester telling the students why D’Souza’s movie is wrong.

Some students will be persuaded by the teacher or the professor.

But many will not be persuaded.

The film makes a powerful (frankly irrefutable) argument for America. It also makes a tremendous emotional impact.

My wife Wanda and I went to the theater on a Sunday afternoon in Chicago. The theater was packed. Every person in the theater stayed through the entire rolling of the credits at the end, with our national anthem as the soundtrack . . . and sang along with it.

The Left wants you to feel bad about America (which they love to spell AMERIKA). They want you to feel bad about being an American.

We have a President of the United States who subscribes, for the most part, to this view of America. He’s trying to take America down a peg, or two, or three.

Let’s not forget that Barack Obama’s political career was hatched out of the livingroom of anti-American terrorist Bill Ayers and that Barack Obama and his family were faithful parishoners of the church of the America-hating Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

And now we see President Obama opening America’s borders to anyone who wants to walk in. Why?

Because that’s the fastest way to end America — to merge America with Mexico and Latin America — which are such successful countries.

Is it any wonder that Barack Obama’s Justice Department has found a way to put Dinesh D’Souza in prison? . . . for a hyper-technical violation of federal campaign finance law that happens all the time and that no one else has ever been jailed for.

Not that I’m condoning. We should all try to avoid breaking laws, even laws that contradict the First Amendment of the Constitution — as campaign finance laws do.

Still, you’re better off not breaking even these unconstitutional laws. Or you risk having a heap of trouble pour down on your head. Fighting the federal government in federal court will cost you a minimum of $300,000 — if you want to go bargain basement.

Few of us can afford this. Most of us will just cry uncle and try to get the best deal we can from the prosecutor.

But don’t worry too much for Dinesh.

He’ll be fine.

He might go to jail for 10 months or so.

Then maybe he will create another documentary on how any and every American commits on average three felonies a day.

That’s actually true by the way. That’s the average.

Here’s the book on that topic — titled Three Felonies a Day

The Federal Register of regulations is now more than 80,000 pages.

These regulations are not laws duly passed by Congress — as the Constitution requires. Congress is supposed to be the law-making body. These reams of regulations are enacted by bureaucrats, acting on their own, who not accountable to voters.

These regulations carry the force of law.

The U.S. tax code today is 73,954 pages.

Who can possibly follow all these laws and rules without a team of lawyers and accountants?

Most Americans just try to keep their head down and do their best to avoid getting in the cross-hairs of some government bureaucrat who might have an axe to grind.

But if you happen to have the misfortune of having an aggressive federal prosecutor rummaging through every area of your life, he’s going to find violations of federal law — felonies.

Almost every violation of federal law — no matter how technical — is a potential felony these days.

That’s how screwed up our laws have become. You are committing three felonies a day without even knowing it.

But that’s another topic — that I hope might be the subject of Dinesh’s next film.

But here’s the takeaway point of this post.

If you want to feel good about being an American, watch Dinesh D’Souza’s AMERICA.

I loved it. You will too. It was a tour d’force.

Tears were welling up in my eyes by the end of the film.

Why tears?

Because it’s hard to imagine anyone hating the most magnificent, the most generous, and most gentle superpower in world history.

But, for some reason, the Left truly does hate America — which is why I have always thought Leftism is a mental illness.

By the way, I do distinguish liberalism from Leftism.

JFK was a liberal. He loved America.

He hated Communism. JFK was a patriot.

He and I might not have agreed on every issue. His biggest mistake was to allow government employees to unionize — which FDR opposed (also a liberal, but a patriot).

Fine. Everyone’s entitled to screw-ups. JFK was a patriot. So was Martin Luther King.

Thomas Jefferson was also a liberal for his day — the author of America’s Declaration of Independence. He was a classical liberal.

He believed “All” are endowed with unalienable rights. And that these rights are unalienable because they come from God. These rights are “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Obama opposes at least two out of three of these rights.

Barack Obama is not a liberal. He’s a Leftist.

He doesn’t seem to be a fan at all of America — at least not the original American proposition.

He might like the territory of America, the land, the scenery. He would probably agree that America is a beautiful place.

But Obama seems to have a real problem with the original American idea — of the first nation in human history to be “conceived in liberty.”

Obama believes in big government — the more government, the better for Obama.

He loves the Nanny State idea. He wants to micromanage your life. He loves government bureaucracy. His Soviet-style ObamaCare law is 2,700 pages long. Another 20,000 pages of regulations have been added, with new regulations being added every day.

This is the opposite of liberty. All this government bureaucracy is crushing liberty.

Barack Obama has spent his entire political life trashing capitalism, trashing America’s history — constantly pointing out all he thinks is wrong with America.

He calls America’s Constitution “flawed,” attacks it as a “charter of negative liberties,” and promised to “fundamentally transform” America.

How can you love something you say you want to “fundamentally transform”?

If I were to tell my wife that I am out to “fundamentally transform” her, I am quite sure she would not take that as a compliment. We’d likely be headed for divorce court.

Barack Obama is an existential threat to the original American idea.

D’Souza is an existential threat to Obama and the anti-America Left.

No wonder Obama wants Dinesh D’Souza in jail.

An Objective Ranking of Recent Presidents by Economic Performance

My goal with this piece is to be as objective as possible in ranking the actual economic performances of the six most recent Presidents, without letting my own political biases slip in.

In determining performance, more than just the raw numbers matter.  For example, what was the situation inherited by each President?  And did they leave the country heading in the right direction at the end of their Presidency?

Among the six most recent Presidents, clearly the best two in terms of economic performance

are Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

The two worst were Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush.

George H.W. Bush and Barack Obama are in the middle.

My Rankings:

My ranking of the six most recent President from best to worst in terms of economic performance are as follows:

1) Ronald Reagan
2) Bill Clinton
3) George H.W. Bush
4) Barack Obama
5) George W. Bush
6) Jimmy Carter

Ranking Purely by the Numbers

If you looked purely at GDP growth under these respective administrations, the ranking would be as follows:

1) Bill Clinton: 3.6% annual GDP growth on average
2) Ronald Reagan: 3.4%
3) Jimmy Carter: 2.65%
4) George H.W. Bush 2.17%
5) George W. Bush 1.98%
6) Barack Obama 1.1%

If we calculate Presidential rankings by saying the first year’s GDP growth of the next Administration really belongs to the previous Administration, the rankings look like this:

1) Ronald Reagan: 3.54%
2) Bill Clinton 3.53%
3) Barack Obama: 2.3%
4) Jimmy Carter: 2.02%
5) George H.W. Bush: 2.0
6) George W. Bush 1.4%

The Case for Ranking Ronald Reagan Ahead of Bill Clinton

Objectively, you would have to say Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton are tied in terms of the performance of the economy under their watch.

So why do I rank Reagan ahead of Clinton?

The reason is the economy Reagan inherited from Jimmy Carter and the Democrat-controlled Congress.

The U.S. economy shrank in the final year of the Carter Administration. Inflation also reached a high of 14.8% in March of 1980 under Carter, while the prime interest rate hit a peak of 18% that year.

“Stagflation” and “Misery Index” became part of the national lexicon.

The economy grew just .4% during Reagan’s first two years in office before his economic program of tax cuts and deregulation kicked in. Although Reagan’s tax cut program passed in 1981, Reagan’s tax cuts did not begin kicking in until the following year and were phased in over three years.

Reagan’s 1981 tax cut bill cut the top income tax rate from 70 percent to 50 percent.

Reagan then enacted a second round of tax cuts in 1986 that cut the top rate from 50% to 28%. If we omit the first two years of the Reagan Presidency from the GDP growth calculus, average annual GDP growth under Reagan becomes 4.3%

Remember also that Reagan had a Cold War to fight.

He engaged in an enormous defense build-up and bankrupted the Soviet Union. The price for that was to run up large budget deficits.

Bill Clinton had the luxury of no Cold War to fight. He had the benefit of the so-called “Peace Dividend.”

Not only was he free to scale back America’s military. But peace always helps the economy.

You also have to give a lot of the credit to the Republican-controlled Congress, which started in 1994. For six years of his Presidency, Clinton was boxed in by Republicans controlling both the House and the Senate.

Newt Gingrich and the Republicans simply would not allow President Clinton to spend as much money as he would have if it were up to him.   Clinton even signed Newt Gingrich’s welfare reform into law, declaring that the “era of big government is over.”

Clinton is a pragmatist. So you have to give him credit for going along with Gingrich and the Republicans. But you can’t really call the good economy of the late 1990s Clinton’s economy either.

The economy certainly performed well under Bill Clinton. But you would be hard-pressed to point to any Clinton policy that caused the economy to perform so well. His primary legislative initiative — HillaryCare — was defeated.

Mostly, Clinton did nothing, or went along with what Newt Gingrich and the Republican-controlled Congress wanted.

Often doing nothing is great policy. The rule of good governance is: “First, do no harm.”

The U.S. economy was also rebounding in George H.W. Bush’s final year as President, growing at 3.4% in 1992 after shrinking .2% in 1991. So Bill Clinton inherited an economy that was gathering speed after a brief slowdown.

Bill Clinton had the good fortune of inheriting the Reagan economic boom and then a Republican Congress that protected Clinton from himself by not letting him change course.

Keep in mind also that Reagan’s economic growth numbers are dragged down by Jimmy Carter’s economy not just during Reagan’s first year, but really for the first two years of the Reagan Administration.

It’s fair, I believe, to call the first two years of the Reagan Presidency Jimmy Carter’s economy.

The economic boom America experienced in the final six years of his Presidency was clearly triggered by the Reagan tax cuts and massive deregulation.

Reagan turned the country around — transformed the Carter disaster into the longest period of continued economic growth(without a recession)  in America’s history. Bill Clinton was more of a caretaker President.  A Republican-controlled Congress forced Clinton to keep Reagan’s economic policies mostly in tact.

So the good economy kept rolling.

The Case for Putting Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush at the Bottom

Similarly, you would have to say that at least the first year of the Obama Presidency belongs to George W. Bush – when the U.S. economy shrank by 3.5%.

I’m certainly no fan of Barack Obama’s policies. I think his economic policies are wrong, are hurting the economy. But the 3.5% shrinkage of the U.S. economy in 2009 objectively belongs to Bush, not Obama.

So, objectively speaking, at this point we would have to rank Barack Obama’s economy ahead of both Jimmy Carter’s and George W. Bush’s. You could also make the case that George W. Bush left America in even worse shape than Jimmy Carter.

Here’s why I think Carter is the worst of the last six Presidents in terms of economic performance.

Jimmy Carter inherited a healthy economy.

Economic growth during the first two years of his Presidency was 4.6% in 1977 and 5.6% in 1978.

Economic growth during his final two years was 0.7% in 1979 and minus 0.3 percent in 1980. Inflation spiked up to 14.8%, the prime interest rate zoomed up to 18% so people could not buy homes or start new businesses.

So Jimmy Carter took a good economy and quickly turned it into the worst economy since the Great Depression.

George W. Bush also did this, inheriting a strong economy from Bill Clinton along with a balanced budget and turning that into an economy that shrank by 3.5% in 2009 and trillion-dollar annual budget deficits. It would be tough to get much worse than Bush. You can certainly make a strong case for putting Bush at the bottom, behind Carter.

At least Jimmy Carter did not get America into a trillion-dollar war by mistake.

The multi-trillion-dollar Iraq War certainly hurt the American economy and cost thousands of American lives.  We would be far better off today with Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq than what we see going on there now.  Saddam was a counter to the even worse Iran and a bullwark against al Qaeda-Isis-style terrorism.

Reagan sided with Saddam in the Iran-Iraq War — for good reason.

I’m starting to persuade myself that W. Bush might have been even worse than Carter.

But I remember the Carter economy. The 14% inflation rate, the 18 percent prime interest rate, people waiting in line to buy gasoline, and the unemployment rate at 7.5 percent and heading toward 10% as he was leaving office  felt a lot worse than the W Bush recession.

Why I Rank George H.W. Bush Ahead of Obama

You can reasonably make a case for putting Barack Obama ahead of George H.W. Bush in the economic performance rankings.

George H.W. Bush turned a booming Reagan economy into a mediocre 2% growth economy – about what the economy is growing now under Barack Obama. He did this, in part, by increasing taxes, reregulating the economy, and undoing parts of the Reagan economic program.

He also launched an expensive war in Iraq that put a further drag on the U.S. economy.

Both HW Bush and Obama presided over an economy that’s growing at a rate of about 2% annually on average. The difference is Obama inherited a terrible economy from W, while Bush senior inherited a booming economy from Reagan and turned that into a mediocre 2% economy.

So that would seem to be “Case Closed” for ranking Obama over HW Bush.

But there’s also the natural business cycle that needs to factor in.

I would make the case that there is always a natural cooling of an economic boom, and that HW Bush had the misfortune of being in office on the downside of the business cycle.

Conversely, economies tend to rebound sharply after a recession, as should have happened after the Great Recession of 2008, but didn’t because of ObamaCare and massive regulation of the U.S. economy by Obama and his bureaucracy.

The so-called “recovery” under Barack Obama has  been just 2.3% per year from 2010 on forward, since coming out of the recession. Typically, the U.S. economy grows 5%+ in the year following a recession.

Under Reagan, the economy grew 7.2% in 1984, following the Jimmy Carter recession.

That’s what should happen in a recovery.

That’s why I rank Barack Obama behind George H.W. Bush.

Bush did not do nearly as much as Obama to actively harm the economy.

Barack Obama is taking a sledge-hammer to the economy in the form of ObamaCare and massive regulation.

So far the U.S. economy is showing some resilience. At least it’s mustering some growth.

But recent signs are that even this meager 2% growth we’ve been experiencing might be coming to an end.

The economy in the first quarter of this year shrank a stunning 2.9%. This will make it very difficult to reach even a 2% growth level for 2014. If we have another consecutive quarter of shrinking GDP, America will be back in a recession.

This would put Obama down in Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush territory in terms of being among the worst Presidents in America’s history for the economy.

Also, the ObamaCare drag on the U.S. economy, I believe, is just beginning. The 2.9% Q1 2014 shrinkage of the U.S. economy occurred exactly in the same quarter that ObamaCare started taking effect.

I don’t think that’s a coincidence.

It’s also important to note that if we were measuring inflation the same way we measured inflation in 1980, the annual inflation rate is not 2%, but closer to 10%.

The true 10% annual inflation rate we are now experiencing is in Jimmy Carter Land.

The government keeps changing the way we measure inflation, unemployment, and GDP growth to make the government look like it’s not doing quite as miserable a job as it really is.

The reason I rank Obama behind George H.W. Bush is also my view that he’s moving America in the wrong direction. HW Bush was moving America in no direction. But  no direction is better than the wrong direction.

I’m confident we would have had a much stronger economic recovery if it were not for all the uncertainties introduced by ObamaCare and the massive regulation of the economy, much of it by the EPA. We could be doing much better if the Obama Administration would allow more oil exploration on federal lands and would approve the Keystone Pipeline.

Also, much of the growth in GDP under Obama has been brought about through massive deficit spending.

So the meager GDP growth we’ve seen is phony — more like a sugar high, soon to be followed by a crash. I can live better and buy more if I run up massive credit card debt. But that’s temporary. Eventually, the piper must be paid.

So I would take HW Bush’s 2% GDP growth over Obama’s 2% GDP growth – because at least HW Bush was not generating this growth with massive deficit spending, at least nowhere near on the level of Obama’s deficit spending.

HW Bush ran up $1.03 trillion in debt during his four hears in office — not good.

HW Bush ran up the same amount of debt in four years in office that Reagan ran up in eight years.

But Obama makes HW Bush look like a piker on deficit spending.  Obama has added $7 trillion to the federal debt so far — in just five years.  The $7 trillion in borrowed money Obama has pumped into the U.S. economy is making Obama’s economy look better than it really is.  Not that Obama’s 2% GDP growth is anything to boast about even if this were not an artificially high number inflated by massive deficit spending.

A big factor for me in ranking the Presidents is the direction the country is heading when they finish their term in office. Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush are at the bottom because the U.S. economy was clearly dramatically worse off at the end of their Presidencies, due in large part to their policies.

We still don’t know what America will look like after another 2 1/2 years of Obama.

Given ObamaCare, the mountain of new regulations he’s piling onto business and entrepreneurship, the unprecedented deficit spending, the steady devaluation of the dollar by the Fed’s printing press, plus a foreign policy in shambles on every front — the prognosis for Obama’s economy can’t be good.

Why (as a sports fanatic) I can’t get interested in soccer

I’m a sports fanatic. I love almost every sport.

I’ve tried to get interested in soccer. I just can’t.

Soccer is about as exciting as watching paint dry.

There’s almost no scoring in soccer. Too many games end 0-0 and 1-0.

Hours can go buy with barely a shot on goal – when no one even comes close to scoring.

I think there’s too much scoring in NBA basketball. But I’d rather have too much scoring than no scoring.

If this sport is ever to catch on in America, soccer needs to make adjustments to make the game more exciting to watch.

Adjustment #1: Dramatically shrink the size of the field.

Make the field about half the size it is now.

This will help increase the action in front of the goal.

Adjustment #2: Increase the size of the goal.

An increase in the width of six inches or so would probably be enough.

Adjustment #3: Put sideboards up around the field so the ball doesn’t go out of bounds so much.

Indoor soccer has this feature. Indoor soccer is much more fun to watch than outdoor soccer.

Passes that carom off the walls make the passing more complicated and interesting, like hockey.

Adjustment #4: Allow hitting in soccer, like in ice hockey and lacrosse.

Soccer need not make all these changes at once.

Try one or two changes at a time and see what happens.

People want to see goals. And people like to see hitting.

The National Football League is constantly tweaking the rules to make the game more exciting.

If the NFL never changed the rules, there would be no scoring because defense always catches up to the offense. Almost all the rule changes favor the offense.

Even the football itself has changed shape over the years to enhance the passing game.

Baseball created more home runs by bringing in the fences. Basketball created more scoring by adding a shot clock. Boxing created more action by making the ring smaller.

But boxing is being overtaken in popularity by martial arts caging fight because there’s a lot more action, a lot more actual fighting.

All other sports that I can think of constantly review and change the rules – to make their sports more exciting to watch.

Why can’t soccer make adjustments?

There is no sport that I can think of that is more boring than soccer.

Even golf is more exciting.

There are tense moments in golf, such as when Phil Mickelson is trying to sink a five-foot putt to win the Masters.

Baseball is slow. But it gets tense when the bases are loaded in a close playoff game if your team is involved. The tension in golf and baseball is created by the situation.

But there are few situations in soccer that create any tension because so much of the action takes place so far from the goal.

Is there strategy in soccer?  I assume there is, but I can’t discern it.

It’s obvious there’s strategy in baseball and football. The fans can see it.   The fans can question the strategy.

The fans can boo if the football coach decides not to go for it on fourth down.

Should they pass or should they run?

The fans can question whether it’s the right move for the baseball manager to take the pitcher out of the game.

Should the hitter bunt and try to move the runner over, or should he swing away?

Strategy is a big part of the appeal of football and baseball.

There’s a chess-match aspect to these sports.

There’s a lot of thinking involved.  Should we do this?  Or should we do that?

I’d Watch Soccer If It Were More Like Ice Hockey

I’m not sure there’s a lot of strategy in hockey either.

But hockey is exciting. Hockey is basically the same game as soccer. But it’s fast. It’s on skates. The rink is small compared to a soccer field.

Hockey is mayhem.

There are lots of shots on goal in hockey, lots of action in front of the net. There are fights. Many hockey players have missing teeth. They look cool. They look rugged. They are rugged. The puck is hard as a rock. It caroms off the boards. There is checking in hockey, where the player gets to slam the other player into the boards. You hear a loud thud when that happens.

Hockey is more like a gang fight on skates. The players are carrying a weapon – their hockey stick. Their skates are razor sharp.

Hockey is a truly dangerous game.

Hockey is much more of a man’s sport than soccer. In soccer, the players fall on the ground if they are barely touched. They then writhe around
on the field screaming in hopes of drawing a penalty.

When the penalty comes or doesn’t come, that same player who  was writhing around on the field crying suddenly jumps to his feet and resumes playing, perfectly healthy.

Hockey players don’t act like this. They would be laughed off their teams as sissies if they did.

In soccer, the clock keeps running during the alleged injury.

So if a team that’s winning by one goal just wants to run out the clock, that team can just fake all kinds of injuries — which often happens.

That sure makes for an exciting game.

And what’s up with the obsession with the hair of certain World Cup soccer stars?

The star player from Portugal (I forget his name) has a completely different hairdo and hair color every game. How much time is this guy spending in the hair salon?

Shouldn’t he be spending that time watching film or practicing?

Something else I’ve noticed.

Recent immigrants to America learn to love NFL football.

There’s a Mexican restaurant that I go to a lot in Chicago that doubles as a sports bar.

Mexico is known for soccer. It’s their national sport.

But at this Chicago Mexican sports bar I go to, the preferred sport there is NFL football.

Mexicans who move to America quickly become NFL football fanatics. So do Asians and Africans who move here.

These recent Mexican immigrants admit to me that American football is a whole lot more fun to watch than soccer.

They also love boxing and caging fighting.

Something else that bugs me about soccer is that it’s a sport that I feel is being forced on me by liberals who hate American football, who hate violent, dangerous sports.

Liberals are doing everything they can to feminize the NFL. There’s Breast Cancer Awareness month when all the NFL players are expected to wear pink. Kick-off returns are being phased out because they are so dangerous. Defensive players can no longer hit the quarterback, for some reason.

Former NFL great Terry Bradshaw suggests putting a skirt on the quarterback so the defensive player understands more clearly who he can’t hit.

During Super Bowl Week, there’s always the obligatory article in The New York Times on how violence against women (husbands beating their wives) rises during Super Bowl week.

Turns out this is a myth – a complete canard.

Violence against women actually seems to decline during Super Bowl week – probably because husbands are wrapped up in the game. The wife beating seems to resume after the Super Bowl is over.

There’s now the obsession with concussions in the NFL – as if concussions never occurred before now.

So now the NFL has banned leading with your head.

If we want to reduce concussions, maybe football should be played without a helmet, like in the old days. That would discourage players from engaging in head-on collisions with each other.

Some liberal writers have proposed banning football, banning boxing, banning caging fighting, banning car racing, banning all these dangerous sports.

But liberals love soccer.

Soccer’s not the least bit dangerous. About the worst injury you see in soccer is a pulled hamstring.

Well there is that guy in the World Cup from Uruguay who keeps biting the opposing players.

What’s up with that guy?  And why doesn’t someone break his nose?

Do you remember when liberals tried to force the metric system on Americans?

I feel they are trying to do this to us with soccer.

Liberals told us we needed to adopt the metric system because that’s what the rest of the world uses.

They told us the metric system makes more sense and is easier to understand.

Not sure that’s true.

A foot is about the length of my foot.

Seems pretty straight forward and simple to me.

I have no idea what 2.34 centimeters is.

Is that like a centipede?

I think America’s measuring system is a lot easier.

But liberals continue to try to push the metric system on us, just like they are desperate to get America to love soccer – so we can be just like the rest of the world.

I don’t want to be like the rest of the world.

Frankly, I was also turned off by the big celebration in the media over USA’s soccer victory over Ghana.

Where the heck is Ghana?

I had to look it up on a map. What’s their population? Do they even have enough people in Ghana to field a soccer team?

Apparently they do.

If America is this excited about its World Cup victory over a dinky little country like Ghana, that’s pathetic.

We’re a nation of 320,000,000 people.

Yet we barely beat Ghana — 2-1.

If  Wisconsin played Ghana, that would seem to be a more fair contest.

Then we went on to tie Portugal — another dinky country. This was also hailed by the media as great news for the USA.

If this is great news, America really is in decline.

UPDATE: Germany defeats USA, you guessed it . . . 1-0.


Here’s something else that’s off-putting.

USA keeps advancing in this World Cup tournament without winning.

We beat Ghana, and that’s it.  We then tied Portugal and lost to Germany.

Yet we continue to advance in the tourney.

Why aren’t we eliminated?

Maybe that’s another reason liberals love soccer so much.

Nothing is at stake in these games. Your actual performance in the game makes little difference.

Everyone’s a winner.  It’s almost impossible to lose at this game.

So no one feels bad.

UPDATE: Apparently, we are now finally eliminated after losing to Belgium 2-1.

I now see banner headline articles saying USA has finally achieved respect in soccer on the world stage.

We have?

We played four games, and won just one — against tiny Ghana.

That’s a 0.25 win percentage.  If that’s success for the USA, what would failure look like?

Thad Cochran and GOP Establishment: “By their fruits you shall know them”

We now know that African-Americans who normally vote Democrat turned out in droves for Thad Cochran in the Mississippi Republican primary runoff election against Tea Party favorite Chris McDaniel because of this flier, and others like it:

This flier and similar messaging was distributed and disseminated by GOP Establishment allies of Thad Cochran in African-American neighborhoods throughout Mississippi as a way to frighten black voters who usually vote Democrat into turning out to vote for Thad — in a Republican primary!

That’s how much these fliers and similar messaging by the Thad Cochran camp frightened African-American voters .  . . about the GOP, about conservatives!


The result: black voter turnout boosted Thad’s vote total by 10 percent statewide.

Thad’s margin of victory was just 1.8%.

So Thad Cochran won by repeating the Big Lie Democrats have been telling black voters about Republicans and conservatives.

The Big Lie is that Republicans and Conservatives don’t like people who aren’t white.

Of course, nothing can be farther from the truth.

Conservatives believe what Martin Luther King, Jr. said: that people should “not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

Conservatives believe in equality before the law — that the law should be color-blind. Conservatives think government is out of control and needs to be scaled back down to Constitutional size. Conservatives believe government should live within it’s means and that for government to be taxing 40 cents of every dollar earned in America is too much. Conservatives believe the purpose of government is to “secure the blessings of liberty.”

This is what most Americans believe.

But winning was so important to Thad Cochran and the GOP Establishment that they decided the best strategy was to reinforce the Left’s Big Lie about conservatives and even their own Republican Party in the minds of African-American voters.

They decided the best strategy was to reinforce the lie that Republicans and conservatives are racists — except, of course, for Thad Cochran.

So now, when MSNBC commentators call the Tea Party, other conservatives, and even Establishment Republicans “racist,” they can cite as evidence statements made by the Thad Cochran campaign. They can’t point to fliers, such as the one depicted above.

So even the Thad Cochran campaign says Republicans are “racist.”

He’s basically saying our philosophy of limited Constitutional government is illegitimate — inherently racist (somehow).

How does this help the GOP brand?  How does this strategy help the GOP win the votes of African-Americans in general elections?

How does this help stop the growth of the ever-expanding federal government leviathan?

Yet, this despicable, dishonest, evil strategy was undertaken by leaders of the national Republican Party — including Karl Rove, Haley Barbour, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, John McCain, and all the usual suspects.

They don’t care that this messaging hurts the GOP brand with black voters, Hispanics, and other minorities.

We believe ALL Americans benefit from limiting government power.

When I talk to African-Americans who voted for Obama (and I know many), they believe this too.

They also believe government is too big and out-of-control.

They don’t like it.  Unfortunately, they believe that Obama is out there to somehow protect them from “The Man” — when the exact opposite is the truth.

But for the GOP Establishment, it’s win the immediate contest at all costs, no matter what the long-term damage to their party and their country.

These people have no principles. They stand for absolutely nothing except their own unquenchable lust for political power.

They love being insiders. GOP power brokers love the millions of dollars they can earn by knowing how to wire the system to their liking.

A big part of this is being comfortable with an ever-expanding federal government . . .  because that makes them and their connections more important and influential.

I actually prefer Barack Obama to these lying, corrupt GOP Establishment types.

At least Barack Obama stands for something.  I disagree with Obama’s political philosophy. But at least he has one. At least he has principles.  He’s a socialist.  He’s made it clear that’s what he is.

The American people can then choose whether or not they agree with Obama.

Thad Cochran, Karl Rove, Haley Barbour, and these GOP Establishment types have no core beliefs. They are soulless.   They are the “Hollow Men” in T.S. Eliot’s classic poem.

There’s nothing they won’t do to win.

The GOP Establishment-types (like Karl Rove and Haley Barbour) are the classic “wolves in sheep’s clothing” that Jesus warned us about.

“By their fruits you shall know them,” Christ told us.

These are very bad people. They don’t have America’s best interest at heart. They only care about their own power and influence, and feathering their own nest to the detriment of America.

Is it any wonder the GOP is so unpopular with voters?  Is it any wonder the GOP Establishment-led U.S. House of Representatives stands at 9% public approval?

Americans don’t like what Obama is doing to America.  But they dislike the GOP Establishment even more.

Thad Cochran managed to eek out a narrow tactical victory by a margin of just 1.8% by outspending McDaniel 6-to-1, by telling African-American voters the outrageous lie that the Tea Party was trying to prevent blacks from voting, by telling black voters McDaniel is some kind of racist, by smearing the Tea Party as racist, and by campaigning in the black community as champion of Barack Obama’s socialistic programs.

To call someone a racist in America today is the equivalent of calling someone a Nazi. If not true, it’s the worst kind of smear because it’s so difficult to prove a negative — that is, to disprove the charge. It’s like calling someone a child abuser or a wife beater.

Yet, this is the kind of gutter politics the GOP Establishment engages against their own supporters — Tea Party people and other rank-and-file conservative voters — people they need to win in November.

How can they expect in November to get the support of people they just smeared as racists?

Thad Cochran also campaigned (with help from the GOP Establishment) on the theme that McDaniel was dangerous (some kind of fanatic) because he wants to reduce the size of the federal government, wants the federal government out of education.

Isn’t this what all conservatives want?

Chris McDaniel’s positions line up exactly with the official platform of the national Republican Party — positions Cochran, Rove, and the GOP Establishment in Washington evidently oppose.

Thad Cochran, Karl Rove, Haley Barbour, and the GOP Establishment are basically telling voters the official National Republican Party Platform is inherently racist. They are telling voters MSNBC is right when they call Republicans racist.

Cochran’s message to African-Americans in Mississippi in summary was this: If you like the direction Barack Obama is taking America, vote for me, Thad Cochran. If you’re happy with out-of-control federal spending and the monster $18 TRILLION national debt, vote for Thad. If you love the status quo in Washington, Thad’s your man.

Thad Cochran and his GOP Establishment enablers won by making it clear to African-American voters that he would do nothing to alter the current trajectory of the country.

But this begs the question: What’s the point of being a Republican if that means perpetuating and continuing Barack Obama’s and the Left’s march toward bigger and bigger government — toward more socialism?

Is it any wonder that the American people are confused about what Republicans stand for?


Bush-Cheney wrong about Iraq War. But that doesn’t mean we should let ISIS-Al Qaeda take over

The truth is George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were wrong to go to war in Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein.

Yes, Saddam was a brutal tyrant. Brutal dictatorship is what’s required to rule in that part of the world.

The Shah of Iran was the best we could hope for in a place like Iran. He was tough, but at least he was an American ally, propped up with the help of the CIA.

Hosni Mubarak in Egypt was certainly no Jeffersonian Democrat. But he was an American ally and wasn’t going to eliminate Israel.

Saddam was an especially ugly tyrant — almost on the level of what Idi Amin was in Uganda. He would shoot a general on the spot in the face for disagreeing with him, or for no reason at all. His kids had their own rape rooms. He used poison gas to the kill about 20,000 Kurds.

But it turns out he wasn’t much of an immediate threat to the U.S. We were unable to find his weapons of mass destruction or his nuclear bomb program. Turns out he hated al Qaeda and these terrorist groups as much as we do because they were a threat to him. So he killed them.

Ronald Reagan sided with Saddam over Iran in the Iran-Iraq war because he saw Saddam as a counter to the even worse Iranian regime. We supplied Saddam with weapons, including WMD, so he could fight Iran to a stalemate.

We would be better off if Saddam were still in charge of Iraq.

Turns out Bush the elder was right not to go to Baghdad in the first Iraq war to take out Saddam.

He understood the value of keeping Saddam in place, as bad as Saddam was.

Bush the son had this crazy idea that we could spread democracy throughout the Middle East.

How did that work out in Egypt when Obama got rid of Hosni Mubarak, only to have the Muslim Brotherhood win the election?

Fortunately, the military has since reasserted control over Egypt.

That’s what happens when you allow the vote in these Middle East countries.

You get one election. And that’s it.

So Bush the son made the wrong call. He should have just let Saddam sit there as a counter to Iran and a bulwark against al Qaeda and the radicals.

The question is: What do we do now?

Clearly Nouri al-Maliki and his government are not up to the job. Of course, any government in the Middle East that is remotely friendly to the West is doomed without U.S. and Western support.

Obama blew it by not getting a “Status of Forces” agreement with Maliki. Obama did not want a “Status of Forces” agreement.

Obama wanted no U.S. military presence in Iraq at all.

If we had left a residual U.S. military force there of 10,000 well-trained troops (including Special Ops) plus drones and air power, we certainly could kill off ISIS without much trouble.

If you leave a power vacuum, someone’s going to fill it. So that’s what ISIS is doing. ISIS sees the opportunity, and they’re taking it.

We will certainly see the same scenario play out in Afghanistan once we’re completely out of that country.

We can’t let ISIS and al Qaeda take over Iraq, or much of it. We can’t let them get control of an entire nation state so they can launch more 9/11-style attacks (or worse) against America and the West.

We need to go back in there and kill them.

That’s now going to be a lot more expensive than if we had gotten a “Status of Forces” agreement so we could have had a military presence in place.

And we need to install a tough pro-Western Shah of Iran-style dictator to run the place. Most likely we will need to prop up this dictator with a permanent military presence.

In other words, forget democracy if you want to bring some semblance of civilization to a place like Iraq and eliminate these terrorists. We’ll need to run Iraq much the same way the British Empire ran India and Hong Kong.

We need to do the same in Afghanistan. If we’re going to have some semblance of civilization, sometimes we need to impose it.

I doubt we’re up for that. Nor will this happen with Obama at the helm. But that’s what’s required at this point.

Login to Join Discussion!