UNHOLY TRIO

Is this a resurgence of the old KKK?  Is David Duke now a kingmaker?  Is Donald Trump really that stupid?

The answers are:  No, No and No.

The KKK is the same old yesterday's news that it has been since the Roosevelt administration and before.  It raises it's ugly old head every four years and then falls back into seeming oblivion for the next four.  There will always be those who hate, those who lie in wait to come forth and spew their vitriol when the populace is generally upset over something completely at an angle from their beliefs.

But there is no resurgence, only a splinter in it's ass.

David Duke, like the KKK, is a figure from the past who has outlived his message.  Sure he was a power in his heyday, but that old power is gone forever.  And, sure, like the KKK, he gains some respectability every now and then, but it is like a snake that has had it's head cut off.  It will twist and turn,  causing great concern among the uneducated for a short while, but will soon lose even the ability to do that.

Donald Trump is far from stupid.  He is really a brilliant mind, but also a consummate liar and braggart.  And, as with so many, practically all liars, sometimes he gets trapped by his lies.  When you tell so many, it is really difficult to remember all that you have told, and, sooner or later, will find that you contradict yourself.  When it happens, the consummate liar will then tell a covering lie that dismisses all previous ones on the subject.  If you need proof of that, check out the tale of the two Michigan legislators and their love affairs that surfaced about a year ago, and is just now resurfacing again.

I really do not think that the United States needs an arrogant consummate liar as president.

FBI vs. Apple

Anent the flap over FBI vs. Apple, a few thoughts in passing...

Hacking a telephone or a computer or computer system is a crime.  Be it a misdemeanor or a felony, state or federal, it is a crime.

No one, private citizen, government official or corporate citizen can be compelled to commit a crime.

Check it out with any competent constitutional lawyer.  It seems a number of amendments speak to this attempt by the FBI to force Apple to commit a crime (s).

The media hacks and pundits and just plain liars are constantly squawking that Apple must bend to the FBI.  'Taint so, McGee!

And they use the most outlandish reasons for saying so.  It's to prevent a crime--the crime(s) are already committed.  And by forcing Apple to bend to their will, the FBI is committing another crime and making Apple complicit with them.

It's to prevent terrorism--same answer, Charlie.

It's their duty to do so--nope, one's duty is to obey the laws, ALL the laws of his country.

For every argument put forth by the FBI and it's flacks, there is one simple answer--it is unconstitutional to force any being, private or corporate, to commit a crime. 

All the lollygagging about it is so much spoiled milk.  It is a power grab attempt by the federal boys
and must not be countenanced by any person who has a basic smattering of common sense.

KATZENJAMMER, IT AINT

Well, the GOP kids are at it hot and heavy.

You would think that they would understand that the more they tear in to each other , the fewer are the votes left for the 'winner'.

I admire John Kasich for his refusal to get involved in personal attacks.  Also Ben Carson.  Also, for the most part, Marco Rubio.

On the other hand, such fantasizers as Donald Trump are the world's greatest turn-off to politics that I have experienced in my 70 plus years.  He is the epitome of the old joke about  "I can tell when he is lying, because his lips are moving."

I have lost a lot of enthusiasm for Ted Cruz, as he seems to want to engage in the fight with Trump, when the best way to handle ignorance is to ignore it.

I have never lost my liking for George W. Bush.  I am not sure his outright campaigning for Jeb Bush will be effective.  And Jeb seems to want to be drawn into the catfighting ala Trump and Cruz, at times.

So where do I go from here? 

I admit, I am really partial to Marco Rubio, have been for quite some time.  Sure he's a raw untested kid, but the guy who is in the White House now has less successful experience, even now, that Rubio does.  And I have noticed that Rubio hasn't gotten rattled since that New Hampshire debate.  Indeed, he is much stronger now in public appearances.  I like his ideas on immigration, foreign affairs, defense, and the economy but I am not too familiar with his views on domestic policy.

Carson is a lost cause.  Probably the most honest and likable person in the race, he just does not project the aggressiveness I feel we need.  Be a great vice-president.

So would Kasich.  I feel that Kasich would be able to tackle the economy and do wonders with it.  He and I disagree on a few of his social issues but I think he is strong on defense and he seems pretty aggressive in his views overall.  A great guy to have at your back.  But he want to be out front.

Well, here goes - in order of preference - Rubio, Bush, Kasich, Cruz, Carson.

You are correct.  I did not rank Trump.  I will not vote for Trump, period. I guess I agree with GWB on that, (paraphrasing), usually the poorest choice is the loudest boor in the room.

339 - AND HOPE AND CHANGE RIDES HIGH

So Governor Tomblin is asking the Legislature to loan 60 million bucks to the Workers Compensation fund from the Rainy Day Fund.

Huh?  Did I hear that right?

Aint the Workers Compensation in West Virginia covered by private insurance now?  Ever since the state government funded Brick Street, a private corporation, fully funded b y the state of West Virginia at start-up?

And we now have about five or six private insurance companies handling Workers Compensation payments?

Then why in all good billy hell would the state still be involved in any monetary way?

I know I aint the quickest rat in the pack, but what am I missing?  I've been out of the world of business for a few years, but it seems to me that the state would hold only a supervisory position in Workers Comp now, the same way every other state that privatized Workers Comp is.

And a couple of  months ago it seems I heard that Brick Street was doing great.

Now, change topic, but not--what does Tomblin mean a "loan"?  I have never heard of a government making a 'loan' like this that was ever repaid.  The federal boys have never paid back all that Social Security money they 'loaned" to fund Medicare.  The federal boys have no intention of repaying Medicare for the $750 billion they "loaned" Obamacare.

So when does Tomblin expect to repay the Rainy Day Fund for this "loan"?  Hell, he will be out of office before the first payment comes due.  Why should he worry about it?

The answer is, he doesn't.  Only the taxpayers will.  Just like with the loan to Obamacare.  That president will be out of office, too, before anyone wises up and poses the same question to him.

Wonder what pet program will get the "loan" from Obamacare?

ONE LITTLE, TWO LITTLE, THREE LITTLE INDIANS...

Let's see, now.

After the loss of one Supreme Court justice, there is left only eight.  And yesterday I heard a guy pontificating that we have to have nine.  That we have always had nine.

And he is supposedly a learned person.  One who has no facts based in reality.

The Constitution assigns responsibility for establishment of a Supreme Court to the Congress.  It does not specify the number which must be to compose a Supreme Court.  The Constitution wisely leaves that n umber up to the Congress.  Sure, the President must approve any bill to change the number, but the bill must originate in the Congress and be approved by Congress before the President gets his/her shot at it.

History?  Over the course of it's existence, the Supreme Court has been composed of as few as four and as many as twelve. 

The last time it was attempted to change the number of justices was way back in FDR's administration, when he tried to pack the court.  He failed miserably.

Under the 'advise and consent' rule, the President has the responsibility to appoint a nominee for the court.  The Senate then has the responsibility to 'advise and consent', more correctly in parlance the advise or consent" rule, for the Senate can advise the President his choice is not advisable or, contrariwise,  to consent to the nomination.  Neither the President nor the Senate is under any time constraints.

Past practice has been for the President to not nominate anyone to the Supreme Court during a year in which a presidential election is held, but this is simply a practice and not a law that must be adhered to.

The Democrats insist now that the president MUST appoint someone and the Senate MUST either approve or disapprove quickly.  The Republicans insist the Democrats are wrong on both counts.  The Republicans in this case are correct.  The Republicans seem to be split - some insist that the president can make an appointment and the Senate can either sit on its thumbs or take up the appointment and deny it.  They are CORRECT also.  But some insist that based upon prior practice, the president should sit on his thumbs and do nothing.  I do not think that is correct, as there are no prohibitions on the president about the time needed or used to make appointments.

The Democrats insist the Senate must take up any such appointment the president may make.  They are completely wrong in that insistence.  I would refer them to Senator Schumer of their own party, back in 2007, who then proclaimed loudly and clearly that the Senate at that time would not take up discussion of any Supreme Court appointments the then president G. W. Bush might make in 2007 or 2008.

Similar to the protests certain Republicans are making now.

Paybacks are hell, aint they?

EMINENT DOMAIN

Cruz and Trump are locked in a battle in South Carolina and one of the bones of contention seems to be eminent domain.

Cruz brought it up in New Hampshire.  He and Trump went at it for a short while and neither of them made their case properly.

There is no doubt that Trump did attempt to use eminent domain to oust a little old lady from her home of many years in order to build a parking lot for his casino in New Jersey.

Cruz, quite naturally, brought it up during the debate and a small tiff ensued.

When they got to South Carolina, Cruz put out an ad that pinches Trumps toes regarding eminent domain.  But the ad is deceptive.  It does not address the real issue.  Cruz apparently sees the issue as a political issue.  But it is far more that that.  It is a constitutional issue.

The real issue is whether the government can take a person's property and then turn it over to a commercial enterprise.  The constitution flatly says no, the Supreme Court backhandedly said yes.  So many states have reinforced their laws regarding eminent domain.  Those who have done so have done well in protecting their citizen's rights.  Those who have not have been niggard and slothful in doing so.

One of the ten issues covered by the Bill of Rights denies the state from seizing private property.  It has been so ingrained in our system of government that there was no question until some @(^%4# decided that he needed a parcel to complete his designs for a mall or a store or whatever it was.  The property owner refused and the case went to court.  Eventually the case went to the Supreme Court and it ruled in favor of the usurper.

No one seems to be overly upset about it.  But I am.  Just as I am upset about the proposed pooling deal that eh WV legislature seems hellbent on forcing.  That would essentially state that if a company or combine was involved in fracking and everyone in the are had agreed to allow them access to their property but you did not, the state could force you to abandon your property to the drilling company under the forced pooling arrangement.

That is just wrong.  As eminent domain is wrong when used to force anyone to abandon their property for the enrichment of another.

I'll fight it tooth and nail.

343

Almost forgot to put in the number.

OH, YOU KID!!

Barry, where are you when we so desperately need you?

What this Republican campaign needs is a big dose of old fashioned CONSERVATISM.

No one wants to tell us what they plan to do about the excessively high tax rates we currently endure, based upon the output for those taxes.

What new programs do they expect to initiate, what cost they, and how will it improve our situation?

BARRY BARRY MAKE YOUR BID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do they agree to eliminate the income tax, both state and national, on Social Security benefits?

Will they eliminate fwt withholding on pensions and annuities unless specifically asked to do so by those same pensioners and annuitants?

Oh, and while I'm at it, will they  stop the states from defining that state's income as the same as federal adjusted gross income, as WV does?   AND, then, WV forces you to complete about six or more pages to reconcile the two.  Ignorant damned Democrats to set up such a stupid system.  (Yes, they WERE in complete charge for about the past eighty years, until last year.) I filed state income taxes in about six different states and the WV system is the most difficult for anyone to understand--it's almost like, how much you got left?  SEND IT IN!  AND YES, I WAS A TAX ACCOUNTANT!!!

Will they keep their cotton-picking paws off the Justice Department and let it do its job?  Except, will they have the guts to tell the Attorney General to prosecute and call Grand Juries?

I LOVE JOHN BIRCH------------------------------------------------------------

Do they have ANY solid plans to do anything about ISIS?  NORTH KOREA?  UNLEARNED AMERICANS who think they have a right to disrupt any and all governmental AND non-governmental activities, whether lawful or unlawful, whenever they get a whim?

I'm rambling.

I am waiting for the reporter who has the fortitude to look Trump, Sanders and Clinton in the face and insist that they tell HOW they intend to accomplish what they propose.  And how much it will cost, how funded, and DO THEY REALLY THINK CONGRESS WILL PASS THE REQUIRED LEGISLATION TO DO IT?   I honestly do not think there is one out there who has the guts to do it.

I'll be back another time, I aint near done yet.