Continuing Dialog


You make a good point.  In my haste to reply to your last message I overlooked the smiley you inserted in the last sentence. I now recognize that the smiley should have signaled me that all your foregoing comment was just kidding and should not be taken as serious.

I too am troubled that we seem to face an implacable foe in a political system masquerading as a religion. Our political leadership finds endless evasions explaining why each terrorist incident is just a crazy lone-wolf event with no political or religious overtones.  I agree with you that the number of illegal alien immigrants who are likely to be terrorists is very small, but I find it interesting that while not all Muslims are terrorists, most all terrorists are Muslims.

No French or Spanish Catholic terrorists, no German Lutheran terrorists, no English Anglican terrorists.  Why not?  Have we Americans not oppressed and occupied them all equally?  Do they not harbor old pains from the egregious Americanisms that we have imposed on them?  French fries?  Cheese burgers? Spam? Taco Cabana frozen taquitos?

Oh, the cultural horror.

As a gun owner, I find it inconceivable that I would ever commit a gun crime; it is not in my nature.  If I am to be judged as a potential criminal because I own a gun and periodically some nut shoots a shopkeeper, why not judge you as a potential hit-and-run driver because you own a car and could kill a pedestrian. Is there some intrinsic danger factor that guns have and cars do not?

If so it seems fair to me that we both be equally damnable because of our potential criminality.

I do not accept that “endless occupation” by Americans has created terrorists among the world’s poorest and most desperate citizens.

I can see your point though about how the 9/11 terrorists were oppressed by free student visas, forced to enter the US and to study how to fly airliners and to drink alcohol in strip clubs. I must keep in mind how the US overran Saudi Arabia, closed mosques, blocked religious ceremonies and oppressed the common folk.  That must have been a bitter burden for the devout Saudis.

Oh wait; none of that happened.  My bad.

For all these things, I am embarrassed for America’s wanton denial of the rights of disgruntled citizens of the Middle East to kill anyone, any time and for any reason (Muslims and family members included) in the service of their god.

As you said, “If our positions were reversed, I’m sure we would be doing everything possible to evict the invaders from our country, right?”

Yes I am.


Today one of my progressive readers has taken me to task about my writing.

Me: Perhaps we will have a glorious future, barring a religious war or political takeover that would return the West to a 7th century economy.

Tom: You mean our war machine policing the world, the NRA zealots stocking their arsenals and the Trump radicals?  😉

Herewith my reply:


Yes.  As a proud NRA life member “zealot”, my arsenal already contains sufficient guns and ammo. I am not a Trump “radical” but he is vastly preferable to the criminal liar HRC and the Clinton Crime Family (AKA Clinton Foundation).

You may not have noticed but we are no longer policing the world; haven’t for some years. Barack bin Hussain al-Obama II does not confront the moon-god cult-parading-as-a-religion as it kills innocent Americans on our sovereign soil. Obama has likewise abandoned the middle-Eastern Christians to the tender Jihadi mercies of beheading, bombing, burning, crucifixion and the murder of innocent gays by casting them off tall buildings head-first.

Contemporary reports say their heads split open like a ripe melon when they hit the ground; sounds correct but I would not know. Boggles my mind that there is not a great progressive outcry about islamic attacks on innocent gays.

Can you help me understand that careful silence?  Is it because the Christians won’t push back while the jihadis are quite eager to kill critics?  Better to mouse down in safe silence and hope that they come after you last?

Cowardice, some?



Hear the brilliant oratory of Daniel Hannan at the Oxford Union and ask how we could possibly find any US political mumbler inspiring.

Obama, really?  Hannan now wears the mantle of Churchill.  Listen and you may see why the Brexit vote went against the EU.

That is all.


Politicians are dangerous to the Republic and the citizenry. Of this no sensible person can argue. Vested great power and the ability to conceal their motivations, relationships, actions; to delay revelation of outcomes, politicians are in a constant pursuit of intrigues, great and small.

To advance one’s career, to disadvantage an enemy, to assure re-election.

Ah, yes. That latter is the prime pursuit of all political action. To gain office, to retain office and to profit from office.

These things only.

Any thing else publicly stated is a false goal offered in furtherance of the first objectives.  And is not to be believed by sensible citizens.

Do all politicians start this way?  Probably not, but with the passage of time and observing the obvious ease others have with this pathway, the temptations assuage the conscience until taking personal gain from political life becomes a just and earned part of the compensation.

How else to retire as a millionaire from a job that pays only $174,000?

Citizens, you must accept the foregoing observations without complaint; it is the universal order of political nature and is essentially incontrovertible.  It is too deeply embedded in the body politic.

Consider a greater risk: among politicians, which are the most dangerous?

Is a politician who lies to you, laughs and rubs your face in his lies, celebrates his lies and moves on to lie and humiliate you again and again the most dangerous?

I submit not; for all the false claims of “working for the people”, fighting for the common man, rectifying past injustice, preventing future injustice and the whole rigmarole…

we know.

We know that beneath the mask of the charming rogue, beyond the folksy good-old-boy sinner that expects to be forgiven “because everybody does it” lies the untrustworthy scheming, lying politician.

Everybody knows him and has no illusions of trust.

The more dangerous is the pious politician who claims to be opposed to the obvious liar, who falsely espouses “your” values and goals, who “works” to expose the lies and past deceits of the charming rogue, who promises that this time will be different.  We really want; perhaps need to believe that this one is really trustworthy, duping ourselves that somewhere still beats the pure heart.

Examples? Three.

That lovable rogue/rapist/pedophile Bill Clinton who has always seemed  so charming that everything he did was OK; just let him slide by this time and all will be well.  He didn’t really mean any harm after all.

The uncorrupted newcomer, Paul Ryan.  Fresh on the scene, suddenly thrust on center stage to mysteriously depose 24-year veteran House Speaker John Boehner and to set everything right by blocking further  Obama executive usurpations.  First act? Capitulation to all of Obama’s demands without a squeak.

Shocked, I tell you. Shocked.

Need another example?  I give you Trey Gowdy.

Firebrand ex-prosecutor, impaler of bureaucrats on red-hot spikes of merciless questioning while slowly drizzling the wounds with acid belittlement. Promiser of much more to come as he would slay the demons of the IRS (IRS head John Koskinen and long-since comfortably-retired Fifth Amendment claimant Lois Lerner).

Another? How about MIT PhD economist Jonathan Gruber, the braggart author of Obamacare’s labyrinthine and tortured legal design language. Gruber gloated that the law had to be complicated so that the “stupid” American people would agree to it.  Gowdy forced Gruber to admit that he had lied so he would appear to be an expert.

Swallow another mouthful of bile, Gruber.

So, what has come of Gowdy’s piercing the bureaucrats? Just to watch them wiggle?

Absolutely NOTHING.  Except for a brief moment squirming on the House hot seat, no more wiggling; business as usual.

The muck and slime of the Congress overcomes all who approach it. None can escape except by diving in and beginning to choke down the filth.  After a while, Congresspersons apparently become inured to the vile stench and then come to prefer the smell and smooth feeling of the slime in their mouths. Swallowing effortlessly becomes daily survival.

Each polling place should have a warning sign: “Abandon hope all ye voters who enter here“.

Obama has used 8 years to prove that hope is not a rational approach to hiring “public servants”.

Vote against all incumbents and all progressives.