Like clockwork, the snobby elites lost their collective defecation when the President referred to North Korea’s leader as “Rocket Man.”

The very same people who had recently participated in the “Nazi Bucket Challenge” on social media were now concerned about word choice impacting the seriousness of a message.

The same people who recently had become experts on the authenticity of Nazis, boldly vowing to confront Nazis by punching them, suddenly began to agonize over rhetoric that wasn’t peaceful or diplomatic enough.

This curious contrast isn’t new.

Ever since 9/11, every incident of Islamist terrorism was greeted with the axiomatic admonition: “You can’t respond harshly because terrorists will use it for recruiting.”

We were initially told that the attack on Benghazi was triggered by an offensive video uploaded it to social media. That was followed by an assurance from the 44th President that “the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam.”

Similar reasoning was employed during the imbalanced deal with Iran to deter nuclear pursuits. And it’s being used now to caution us all not to make Rocket Man angry, because he might…follow up on his threats?

What I find so curious about that position is why it isn’t applied to Nazis, the KKK, “white supremacists” and other groups we’re told pose such an immediate threat.

Think about it…if strong language is relayed to an Islamist or to Rocket Man, and it provokes them to violence, why doesn’t it have the same effect on Nazis? If terrorists in the Middle East use jingoistic words of American leaders to successfully recruit more jihadis, couldn’t the KKK use words spoken against it to recruit also?

I’ve long felt leftists show such irrational deference to Muslims because they’re afraid of them. They’ve seen the work of Al-Qaida and ISIS and they don’t want to be the next victims. That’s always been the most logical explanation for how the invertebrates approach radical Islamists.

Likewise, their bold stance against “fascism” and “white supremacy” can be explained by the lack of actual fear of those antagonists. There’s no real fear because they don’t perceive an actual threat anywhere near the magnitude of the one they rail against with their hashtags.

People who say “punch” in the morning and “pacify” in the afternoon need to more clearly articulate the logic that determines who gets punched or pacified, and why.



It’s an exciting time to be alive. And especially inspiring if you’re an American.

Yes, I recognize may people see today as anything but glorious. In Mexico and places in the path of what appears to be an unrelenting stream of storms. Some of our neighbors in the southern United States are rebuilding from that as we speak. Mexicans are furiously working to find and retrieve survivors from the rubble. Believe me, an America that recently commemorated a 15th anniversary of 9/11 understands that all too well.

So how can I say it’s a glorious day?

Because yesterday, our President spoke truth to power. He delivered a powerful message that Americans have long demanded our leaders give to the United Nations. He addressed matters of substance that many of us had long given up on ever hearing come from the lips of our elected leaders. He did it with a style that ensured the message could not be ignored.

He voiced explicitly what so many Americans recognize about our country and the world…that this is a time of both great peril and great opportunity.

It’s a glorious day because the hopes, dreams, and concerns of everyday Americans are now coming out of the mouth of the leader of the free world with visceral honesty.

A strong America means a better world. You can respond with all the weeping and gnashing of teeth you desire, but it’s beyond dispute.

America broke from England and quickly went from a unique experiment to a global superpower. In the letters of Samuel Adams, he referred to “the unconquered mind of America.”

That unconquered mind literally went to war with itself after challenging itself on its shortcomings. Just as Adams and his generation understood it would. America recovered, continued to build.

Eventually a great evil arose. One so reprehensible the nation that spawned it disavows it. One so brilliant in strategy it was able to systematically make allies of its neighbors. One so brutally fierce it could conquer those it couldn’t or didn’t want to acquire.

What did America do?

America allied with the nation it once split from, England. It also joined with Russia, a rival power with an incompatible worldview in an alliance of necessity.

Together they saved the world.

America effectively ended that war completely by getting the surrender of Japan, who pioneered the art of sneak attacks on America, and were the first to realize what the consequences were.

After that brutal display of power, and being the only ones wielding it, America could have ruled the world.

In keeping with its identity, it simply chose not to.

That decision came at a price. Russia eventually got their own apocalyptic-grade weapons. That led to a “Cold War” that occasionally caused teenagers like me to go to bed wondering if we’d live to see adulthood.

Eventually other nations began to pursue these weapons. Some acquired them.

Quite simply, America has a right to determine who gets and doesn’t get nuclear weapons…because we could have stopped anyone else from it. We had the moral clarity not to conquer the world when we could.

So if we don’t think it’s safe for “RocketMan” to get them, he doesn’t. It’s that simple.

People tried diplomacy with the Third Reich. It failed. Diplomacy and patience have prevented an untold magnitude of human suffering by preventing conflict.

But it doesn’t always work. And sometimes entire nations live and die by knowing where the line is drawn.

The violence at Pearl Harbor is remembered by Americans as “infamy.” But rather than begrudge the Japanese, Americans like me want to see Japan survive and thrive. We recognize Japan’s contributions. And if we didn’t, we recognize their right to exist and will defend it.

We settled that score years ago. After becoming friends with England and repairing after a Civil War, America knows how to let that stuff go.

Perhaps one day we’re friends with North Korea, just like we’re now friends with Germany and other nations we once fought.

But that means they stop threatening us and our allies. Full stop.

It’s a glorious day to be an American because the “unconquered mind of America” has returned without ambiguity.

And many places in the world are safer because of it.


We all know the date. We also know that entire regions of the southern United States are either recovering from or still experiencing devastation from hurricanes.

If I were a radical Islamist terror planner, I would hit America as hard as I could today. I would look at the attacks on America that succeeded since 2001. Benghazi. Orlando. San Bernardino. My only conflict would be whether to hit one of these places again or try to replicate the attacks in a different area that hadn’t experienced a local attack.

If my resources were limited, I’d hit Orlando. Attacks have worked there, and between thinking about 2001 and the storms, a terrorist attack would probably be the last thing on their minds.

The fallout from a successful attack would be quite valuable. Priceless, actually.

You’d have reporters (with their faces being peeled by wind) trying to simultaneously tell you about hurricane damage and why your worldview and behavior are more to blame for the attack than radical Islamist ideology.

Political opportunists in media and elected office would rush to the cameras to blame it on failures of the opponents. The most frequently overturned court in America would say the attack was the result of the President’s rhetoric. The President would blame them for overturning every attempt he’s made to scrutinize potential terrorists.

The fallout from an attack today would be the functional equivalent of dropping a ping pong ball into a box full of armed mouse traps.

If you are horrified that I can wrap my brain around this, you’re probably the person who needs to hear this the most. Because you can’t wrap your brain around it.

But terrorists can wrap their brain around you. The hijackers from 2001 spent a lot of time on social engineering in advance of their attacks. The Pulse shooter was said to have visited the club before his attack. Almost any successful attack going back to Oklahoma City in 1995 involved some level of getting in the mindset of the victim, looking for those most valuable weaknesses.

Sun Tzu said if you know yourself and the enemy you can win a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, you’ll incur a loss that will offset every victory. If you know neither yourself or the enemy, you’ll lose every time.

Hopefully by now my point is clear: BE CAREFUL today.

I know this is literally the last thing you want to be thinking about today.

Someone out there might be banking on that.


So I was abducted by aliens. I know, right? But it was the friendly Greys who did it, not the hostile Reptilians.

Because they’re telepathic, they communicate with humans via a rectally administered device that uses sensations of the excretory system to send detailed messages to the brain. After the procedure they released me and I received periodic incremental enlightenment from them. The messages would most frequently come to me when I was sitting on the toilet.

Anyway, they asked me to warn you all NOT to celebrate “Earth Day.” That is seen by their section of the universe as terrestrial jingoism, and the hostile Reptilians actually intercept and use Earth Day messages beamed out by SETI as a recruitment tool to grow an army for the invasion.

Anticipating that you all would dismiss such an admonition, the Greys told me they could loan me one of their rectal data transmitters. I guess they read my mind when I thought to myself that I wasn’t going to do anything that icky to save humanity. Earthlings would heed written warnings from their own species, or the chips would fall where they may.

The Greys warned me that the Reptilians also created devices for insertion into human sphincters. But those are not communication devices. Actually, the Greys described them as plasma fragmentation grenades. That will be your reward for the continued flaunting of your xenophobic “Earth Day.”

I guess warning us about invasion was the mission of the “Braxton County Monster” that touched down in Flatwoods, West Virginia in the 1960’s. He was on a diplomatic mission to Washington, DC, but his navigation computer mistook West Virginia for Virginia and botched the landing coordinates. He was using Milky Way map info that hadn’t been updated for over a hundred years. But he was trying to warn us about how we shouldn’t antagonize the Reptilians. He approached the young people thinking they’d be understanding but they screamed and called him a “monster” and he got scared and flew away. I’m told that corner of the universe is still offended over that incident.

So rather than declare another “Earth Day” maybe we should have “Universe Day” and show other planets that we are excited to be part of the greater galactic community.

Of course, the Reptilians will still exterminate you. But they’ll certainly remember you more fondly as they feast on your charred flesh.


In matters of citizenship and the political activity through which I express it, I don’t have many “hard lines.”

There are really three that material affect my citizenship work, all of which can be traced to amendments of the Constitution of the United States.

The first is the right to life. I’m stating the obvious when I say that all other rights depend on that one. If you don’t have a right to live that originates with the beginning of your existence and persists with you all the way to its end, you don’t truly have other rights. You may believe you do. Your environment may assure you that you do. But in truth, those perceived rights are at best, temporary, or at worst, illusory.

The second is the right to bear arms. At this time in my life, I am persuaded that this right is necessary for all the other rights to be guaranteed, and that was understood by those who placed it in the Constitution with such priority. Without this one, the remaining rights in the Constitution are subject to the whims of “evolving” people in government.

Today, it’s not really hard to find people charged with upholding the Constitution who openly dismiss its importance and proudly announce they will only enforce the parts they currently like.

The next is expression. This is a single term that embodies the various fundamental liberties enshrined in the First Amendment.

As a teen, I gained a very strong appreciation for expression. My favorite things were not always popular in my periphery. Those included comic books, heavy metal music, horror movies, and role-playing games.

It wasn’t just my area. Senator Al Gore and others spent some of their Cold War downtime holding hearings about rock music lyrics. A degree of my frustration was felt by teens across the nation. But for the ones like in small rural areas, the tolerance for distinct expression seemed most elusive.

Sometimes folks would say government officials like Gore should enforce Christian values by eliminating the troubling music in my cassette deck. I asked what they thought would happen if government officials like Gore one day stopped caring about Christianity or even turned actively against it.

Everyday I’m seeing someone new openly pine for censorship of those who disagree with them.

I ask these folks what they believe will happen to them when the paradigm shifts?


On this first day of a new month, I am announcing some major changes in my 2016 presidential election approach.

First, I am officially declaring that I will vote for Kasich. Yes, that contradicts my previous statements where I indicated I was less than impressed with the Ohio governor as a good match to take on Hillary Clinton.

Indeed, when Kasich recently asked what he would tell his daughters if he ended up supporting Trump, my response was “tell them you voted for someone with a spine who can do what you can’t do.”

But that’s in the past, as the opacity of my own oblivion prevented me from truly grasping the inherent greatness of Kasich.

I had thought perhaps he wasn’t really running for president, but instead trying to get his own show on MSNBC. Now I realize that his tendency to run to leftist microphones and denounce the other Republican candidates only makes him that much more formidable.

I was afraid…fearing what would happen to him when the leftist media turns on Kasich and helps the Clinton campaign successfully define him as a racist, misogynist, xenophobic, homophobic, islamaphobic, phobiphobic extremist. But I now realize that the time he spent with leftist media showed them how infectious his charisma truly is, and they will surely not attack him the way they did Romney and McCain.

To that end, I recant my opposition to a contested convention. Indeed, only this outcome can prevent Trump’s nomination, and is the only available avenue for my party to install Kasich as the nominee and override the desires of voters who once thought as I did (if they aren’t similarly moved to support Kasich by epiphanies of their own).

Also, I’ve decided not to be so hard on Hillary Clinton. I expect her to run a very positive race against Kasich. In fact, their race will be model for the high road approach that will inspire all Americans and our posterity.

So I now expect that she and her media allies will NOT resort to calling Kasich a “fascist” or “Nazi.”

Accordingly, I have cancelled my plans to encourage folks to call her “Hitlery Clinton” and explore the comparisons between her potential administration and a Fourth Reich.

I will apologize to those who’ve threatened to blacklist me and conform my thoughts and speech to that which is acceptable to them.

Finally…APRIL FOOLS!!!


Yesterday, Donald Trump made a statement about abortion that triggered something of a firestorm…in the event that abortion became illegal, there should be “some form of punishment” for having one.

This statement was so controversial that it not only sent the usual cast of invertebrates to the microphones, it drew instant rebuke from the “March for Life.”

Even enthusiastic supporters of Trump are playing down the statement, saying he didn’t anticipate the question and therefore have time to “think through” his answer.

Here’s the thing…if he didn’t think it through, he must have instinctively gone to the idea that laws…have to be…enforced.

Remember that he raised eyebrows early on by simply suggesting that we enforce our nation’s immigration laws.

There’s the controversy. Our culture rewards selective enforcement of laws.

Consider that many folks now angered over potential enforcement of a nonexistent abortion ban previously supported a health care reform law that requires someone to have insurance, and penalizes them if they don’t, even if the person lost insurance because of the law.

President Obama told a woman to her face on live television that her mother should just “take the painkiller” at a certain age, because laws can’t be “subjective.” He spent the next several years subjectively enforcing the law and rewriting it through executive actions.

There’s no intellectual integrity, nor is there even an attempt at it.

There’s no longer any debate that abortionists know exactly what they’re doing. We’ve now seen the recordings of Dr. Savina Ginde saying “it’s a baby.” We’ve seen Planned Parenthood personnel say “it’s another boy” before procuring his organs.

Only in the minds of Planned Parenthood’s extenuators and enablers is there any remnant of ambiguity about whether a human baby is actually being killed.

The politicians who are financed by the abortion industry have increasingly diminished the value of life. “Black lives matter” to them only when convenient…not when they’re being taken by Dr. Ginde’s tools.

The outrage over Trump’s response isn’t borne of concern for women. It’s an expression of disbelief that anyone would actually do more than pay lip service to the issue.

When DC politicians failed to defund Planned Parenthood, it was the last straw for many. It’s part of why many voters want a President from the outside.

There must be some form of punishment for failure of elected officials.

Now you’re seeing some.


Another patch of political land I walk was scorched yesterday as Twitter exploded over a discussion about a National Enquirer article alleging a sex scandal involving Ted Cruz and five women. In a different time, I would have been surprised and disappointed. Yesterday, I was neither of those. Welcome to post-Obama presidential politics.

Cruz had spent the week talking about how “disgraceful” Donald Trump’s reaction was–to a conflict Cruz supporters started. I’ve discussed that in other blogs this week.

Early on in the day, supporters of Cruz were doing their social media rounds and wanted to talk about anything except the NE article. Curiously, the same media that obsessed over the integrity of Herman Cain’s marriage in 2012 seemed initially uninterested in the NE allegation. Eventually, Cruz denied the allegations, blamed Trump for them (which Donald used to hit Ted back), and Cruz supporters and some leftist media channels cooperated.

Some observers on Twitter identified one of the women in the NE article as Amanda Carpenter. I had seen that name on tweets regurgitated by the Cruz crew. I remembered her name because her tweets were extremely irritating. She was asked about the article and her response was “talk to my lawyer.”

I did my due diligence to ensure I was identifying the correct person and searched her name in DuckDuckGo. Among the ensuing results, I came across Amanda Carpenter’s “blacklist.”

On March 16, Amanda asked Twitter if anyone had compiled a “definitive list of conservatives who should be blackballed for supporting Trump.” If not, she said she would. On March 17, she clarified that her “blacklist is limited to people who have formally endorsed Trump” not those trying to explain him.

Others who offered support for her blacklist effort adopted the rallying cry “no forgiveness” which is a phrase I’ve heard a lot from anti-Trump zealots. That’s funny given how many Cruz supporters are screaming that real Christians can’t vote for Trump. Christians forgive.

Democrats had already started Amanda’s blacklist on a site they created to track governors who endorsed Trump. Some of Amanda’s work might be duplicating effort her allies already did.

It will be interesting to see if these folks can forgive the person who said “I like Donald Trump. I think he’s terrific. I think he’s brash. I think he speaks the truth.”

The person who said that was none other than Ted Cruz himself.


A pro-Cruz superPAC created a meme aimed at Trump’s wife. Trump responded by threatening to “spill the beans” about Mrs. Cruz.

In the era where a Vice-President calls out to crowd to help him find his “old butt buddy” and the President goes on morning television contemplating “whose ass to kick” nothing should surprise us. And the battle over the wives doesn’t shock me. I expect this stuff daily, and so should you.

This incident was good fodder for Cruz supporters. They rushed to take his side and denounce Trump as though this were the worst offense ever. Cruz himself responded by declaring that the initial attack on Mrs. Trump came from a superPAC that Cruz, by law, cannot control. If he denounced the meme, I missed it.

Voters don’t know all the rules around superPACS. Democrats think they’re inherently evil–unless the PAC is theirs. What Cruz said may have been technically correct, but his behavior regarding the incident didn’t seem very noble. I felt like Cruz was channeling less of Ronald Reagan from the 80’s and more of Ric Flair from that decade.

I feel that both Cruz and Trump behaved viciously over the wives, and I was glad to see it. Hopefully it portends how either would handle the daily assault from the left, when it comes down to binders, birth control, and Big Bird.

Of course, John Kasich wasn’t involved and took no damage. Which is fascinating, because he has famously said he will not “take the low road to the highest office in the land.”

Kasich appears to have surged in Pennsylvania, which may be problematic for Cruz. As I’ve said, the goal of a growing number in the GOP is a contested convention. Cruz supporters believe that would give Ted the nomination if he can’t get more delegates than Trump before then. But there’s an incessant stream of material from the left that Hillary would crush Trump. Cruz has echoed that. But Kasich touts polls that say ONLY HE can beat Hillary. If Kasich wins Pennsylvania, he gains more credibility going into the convention.

If the GOP is willing to do a contested convention and nominate an anti-Trump, WHY NOT give it to Kasich?

This week, Cruz reminded me of the “dirtiest player” in pro wrestling.

Will Cruz get hit in the back with a chair before or during the convention?


By now, you might have heard the term “open” or “brokered” associated with the upcoming political convention. For my part, I prefer the term “contested.”

But I definitely don’t prefer to HAVE a contested GOP convention in 2016.

Since I joined the Republican Party in 2010, I’ve seen dubious decisions made, but this is far and away the craziest thing I’ve witnessed since then.

To those just joining us…

Contested conventions apparently were normal in the past…or so I hear…until later 20th Century. But for anyone my age or younger, they are NOT normal. It’s been a while since we had one. Which makes us ask why some Republicans want one NOW.

There’s a simple answer…Jeb Bush isn’t happy that he spent a lot of money for so few votes.

To illustrate the magnitude of Jeb’s epic failure, consider this: A former elected official in our area actually got on the ballot in Iowa. I think he ended up with 5 votes. Based on a reasonable estimate of what that cost him, this guy…who had few friends left here and had no name recognition outside Allegheny County…actually got a better dollar-vote ratio value than Jeb Bush. If Jeb Bush had listened to people, he’d have known they weren’t interested in another Bush for President yet. In fact, the Washington elites so badly misread voter sentiment, they ended up adopting their previous nemesis Ted Cruz as their poster child. All of this was necessary because Donald Trump got more traction and votes than they could. The idea of this contested convention is simply to take the nomination out of the voters’ hands. It isn’t much more complicated than that.

To those seeking a contested convention…

This “contested convention” some of you desire is an absolute disaster in the making. There is very little Trump could do as President and NOTHING he could do if he loses that will be as disastrous and damaging to you as an open convention that gives the nomination to someone else.

Nominating Cruz in a contested convention just because he couldn’t get more votes than Trump would be bad enough. But why is Kasich in the race? Other than a contested convention that simply gives the nomination to the last man standing that isn’t Trump or Cruz, Kasich has NO POSSIBLE path to the nomination. Get that?