Would Anyone Utter These Words?

Any candidate for president or even the nomination, that is…

(1) I intend to go to Washington D.C. not to build up its powers but to tear it down and release the shackles that have for over 50 years slowly but surely bound the American people. The only power to be projected from Washington will be on the international stage.

(2) How unfortunate, how revolutionary an act it is that the preservation of the political system established by the constitution of the United States should be entrusted to the maggots that currently infest the political class. If lesser men have ever existed in history it is only right that their names have been forgotten or else associated with abject surrender.

(3) When these same men surrender on the concept of co-equal branches of government and the inherent checks and balances it offers; what else would they not surrender?

(4) The exceptionalism we often hear about our country was created by some white men; it’s history, it’s in the past, get over it. They were not perfect but what they handed down to us was the closest the world has ever come to a perfect system of governance. The left’s relentless attack on our country is simple; it is on the one hand to gleefully distribute the fruit borne out of our exceptionalism to buy and thus enable the political power to uproot the very same fruit-bearing tree. It has become imperative that we confront, defeat and roll back these efforts.

(5) In order to return our country to what it was intended to be, I will lead the effort to repeal the 16th and 17th amendments to the constitution. The former will also lead, necessarily, to a simpler revenue system and the latter to the original intent and a purer form of republican representation. Senators were not meant to lord over us as creatures of the federal government or of a party but rather of the states.

(6) On the subject of the constitution, I also intend to lead an effort to reform the electoral college by awarding votes based on congressional districts won in the various states rather than the winner-takes-all we currently and mostly have. It is my view that this reform would be most in keeping with the original intent of our system of government.

(7) Regulations are the tentacles by which unelected bureaucrats reach deep into every aspect of our lives and pocketbooks and it’s permitted because the Congress either does not provide enough guidance or simply does not care about the means used to an end. Once again, they abdicate on their responsibilities and delegate their powers to department heads and political appointees. In courthouses across this country there are constant disputes about the “intent of Congress” and I say, they must do a better job of making intent clear during the comment period by holding hearings on published regulations.

(8) We did not defeat socialists, communists and fascists abroad only to surrender to them here at home.

(9) At a time when trans-this and trans-that is all the rage, let me be the first to say that I intend to be the first trans-party president. It is self-evident that the apparatus of our two party system is used by a powerful few to force conformity of thought and action to the same predetermined outcomes. In this process, a government of, by and for the people has long ceased to be.

(10) In industry, one often hears of “disruptive” technologies or ideas, at no time ever does one hear this about government. Let me propose a few; I will use every tool at my disposal and work with congress to devolve the powers of the departments of education and energy, the EPA and HUD to the states; just to start.

(11) The notion that government can force equality of outcome should be rightfully derided as the delusional nonsense it is for any government that is capable of doing this will be a tyrannical beast. We’re all born in equality with freedom of choice and the desire for liberty; it is when government gets involved in our lives that these are eroded.

(12) I will not pander to hyphenated Americans; we are all Americans and my message is simply that what is good for one American must be necessarily good for all Americans and therefore the country as a whole.

(13) We’ve been told that we need illegal immigrants in our country because they are here doing “jobs Americans wouldn’t do.” How is it excusable, how is it acceptable, how is it not discriminatory, to the supposedly most humane people on the left, that we’d define and designate a group of people to do “jobs Americans wouldn’t do.” How is this not modern day slavery and why would Americans not do these jobs; is there something superior about us? I will submit to you that the reason there are jobs Americans wouldn’t do is because the social welfare state has made unemployment a “job” too many are willing to do.

(14) Imagine what might be if the current administration worked as assiduously as it has on enforcing our existing laws rather than in figuring out ways around them to issue social security numbers, green cards and amnesty to some. Is it not criminals who’d operate in this manner and to the detriment of their country and the very laws they swore to uphold?

(15) With regard to the sweeping collection of our phone data; we’ve been told, it’s meaningless “metadata.” If this is true, why is it collected at all? Why are we afraid to collect data by profiling rather than pretend that everyone of us is a potential terrorist?

(16) The people who would have us believe that they are the premier proponents of science lose all credibility when they also ask us to believe that XX chromosomes can miraculously become XY and vice-versa by elective surgery.

(17) If we must believe that they are “born that way” and if we accept evolutionary theory, adaptation, in particular, could any of the true science believers explain, what, precisely, are the conditions to which gays are adapting? Is it not settled science, observable by even the most obtuse among us, that males and females is the most natural order? Make no mistake, these people have every right to be who they are or want to be and similarly, the rest of us should have the exact same right or are there some of us more equal than others? Our objection then is that the cudgel of the government is used to force and coerce acceptance of these lifestyles and this unquestionably, is robbing us of our freedom.

(18) Recently, we were told that the confederate flag is a symbol of hate and an incitement to murder. Would it be illogical to ask those who have advanced this theory whether or not the Quran (see Chapter 5:33) is similarly responsible for Islamic terrorism or would this only expose their hypocrisy?

(19) The reduced argument for man-caused climate change or global warming or whatever leftists want to call it and it depends on what’s observable at any given moment; is that we need fewer people on earth. So, the next time someone suggests that we need to curb our activities, the right and proper response would be to accept the notion and propose a solution as follows: suggest they lead by example, help the rest of us, the planet and their cause by being euthanized. If it’d help, make a promise to consider following their lead.

(20) There are many among us who believe that government is the solution to all of our problems and that it is benevolent. These past few years should fundamentally dispel this notion but of course it wouldn’t.

(21) If the government is indeed benevolent, why do we need public sector unions? Does the benevolence not trickle down to excellent labor relations, proper working conditions and pay for these people? These unions need to be abolished.

(22) No institution receiving federal funding shall be allowed to make campaign contributions to any party or candidate for elected office. History tells us that this practice is nothing less than quid-pro-quo, racketeering and the fact that it is typical that one or the other of the two parties is the usual beneficiary while the other acts as an enabler should really remind us that there is little difference among the political class.

(23) Why does anyone cede the moral high ground to the left on issue after issue? Why is it generally accepted and why are we continually fed the propaganda that these people “care” more about everything than anyone else? No group of people or organization that supports abortion on demand should be allowed to claim the moral high ground on any subject. They must be constantly reminded of this. Period.

(24) We need to have a 21st century voting system which will also lead to all votes being cast on the same day except for absentee ballots. But more importantly, we need to institute a system that demands proper voter identification. If there is a sacredness associated with the ability of someone without an ID to vote then the same sacredness applies to those who do have an ID and both must demand that their vote is not diluted by those who are not allowed to vote. Therefore, we will work with the states to establish a viable and cost-free for the poor means for identification for voting purposes. The preservation of our country relies entirely on this change.

The Beltway Brigade and Donald Trump

Perhaps it is incredibly naïve to think that the people who profess to believe in conservatism, smaller government, free market capitalism and liberty (pursuit of happiness) would apply some of these basic principles to the nomination process for the Republican party. Instead, we have the Beltway brigade, the self-appointed (on the right) elites who believe that, in spite of the fact that they live in a bubble, they know what is best for the unwashed rabble out there. What these people might really know is what is best for the political class and their fellow elites in D.C., New York and LA. Just like the politicians whose first and foremost preoccupation is to be re-elected, the Beltway brigade’s is to preserve the status quo, tell the rest of us what and how to think, get rich in the process and importantly, preserve their social availability for cocktail parties no matter which “side of the aisle” wins. I am sorry, this is not how it works; this is not conservatism at its most basic which, in my view, is about freedom. What it is, is the model of the left where people succumb to groupthink and will gladly do as their told in exchange for putting control of their lives in the hands of some chosen few. We have heard now from every single one of these vessels of the establishment, each trying to be the David to bring down the goliath that is Donald Trump; the reward and accolades would be historic, spectacular! If any of these people (and there is really no need to name names) have taken on the sell-out wimps that control the Republican party leadership with the same venom that they’ve been attacking Mr. Trump, I have missed it. None of them, to my knowledge, has vociferously defended conservative principles when they are attacked and undermined by the current Congressional leadership; none.

My advice then to the Beltway brigade, you’ve all said your piece and opinion with respect to the ongoing primary race, it’s out there, we’ve heard you. Now, act in accordance with the principles you profess to believe in and let the chips fall where they may. It may also help to accept that if none of the other candidates can beat Mr. Trump in this race, it is very likely that he/she will not be able to beat the Democrat party nominee. Mr. Trump fights (and actually fights back) as well or better than the cabal that is that party and its minions in the media; so conversely, if someone else in the race can take him on, on his terms and win, there is every likelihood that this person will have the fortitude to prevail in the general election.

The Audacity of that Hopeless Reprobate Clinton (HRC)

What seems to be missing from the discussion of what Mrs. Clinton has been up to is the utter audacity, chutzpah, of the woman.  Here we have someone, the Prince Charles of American politics as I have previously referred to her, whom we all know has lusted for the power of the presidency since, well, at least 2007.  This person had to have known for sometime now and particularly during her time at the State Department, that she will run again for the office.  And yet, with the run likely being a near certainty (with the possible exception being for her health), she knowingly, willfully and with reckless disregard for security, setup her very own email server in Chappaqua.  This, necessitated by the single “fact” that she didn’t want to carry more than one mobile device.  Who, out there, actually believes this?

More well-qualified people will inform us about the legal ramifications of what she has done so, let’s focus for a minute on what it suggests.  What it shows is a person who simply does not believe that the law and rules should be an impediment to her ambitions or personal interests.  The “smartest” woman in the world had to know that her use of a personal server would become public or at minimum, that the risk of this exposure could be problematic and yet, she forged ahead in the unprecedented manner (nevermind the spin from her eunuchs about Colin Powell, etc.).  So, what made her do it?  Did she really think it was not a problem (knowing differently and again, presumably, knowing the security risks), did she think it would have been kept hidden or did she do it because she thought there was no downside at all?  We have to eliminate the first of these because, surely, someone would have advised her that the security risk alone was not worth it (it is simply unbelievable that Mrs. Clinton has actually attacked the Chicoms for hacking into the US Government protected OPM database and yet, some how, we are to believe that her little server in Chappaqua escaped attention).  This leaves us with either the thinking that the server would have been kept secret (willing accomplices in the media) or that the risk of exposure and potential damage from it were far outweighed by whatever there was to gain; that is, carrying only one mobile device, does anyone believe this?

If you don’t, you have to think what this says about Mrs. Clinton and what it’d mean if she has unfettered and fully confidential access to the levers of power in Washington, D.C.  The audacity of this person and her history (and we only need go to the infamous Youtube/Benghazi lies for affirmation) should disqualify her from even running for the presidency in the minds of most fair and serious minded persons.  Mrs. Clinton needs to understand that at some point, her baggage will and should make a difference.

By the way, when she relaunches her campaign (inevitably), this should be her calling card:

New Trump and Hillary Logos…



To be clear, it says: “I TRUMP TRIUMPH” or simply “TRIUMPH” over “H.”  “H” being, well, see below…Any other interpretation of this is NOT intended.  This is not an endorsement of the man (not yet, anyway) but rather of his fighting spirit which has been severely lacking in the Republican party.



Before charges of sexism, war on women, etc. are made, let’s be clear: the letters H (Hillary) and O (Obama) obviously and coincidentally spell the word “HO.”  The intent of the logo is NOT to suggest that Mrs. Clinton is one in the normal sense of the word…of course, in the political sense, the word is applicable; as it is to 99% of all politicians.

A dozen reasons why Letterman’s a Loser…

This, as a response to his “coming out of retirement” to do a top ten list on Trump.   Note: Letterman’s list should be read before the following in order to grasp the reason for the nature of this response.

12 Brian Williams said he was at a taping of his NBC show once and it was,  “really, really, funny, really…”

11 Even Paul Shaffer didn’t have to pay the interns

10 He is so slow it only took him about 30 years to finally understand he is not funny; then he retired

9 The cost of paying off interns on sex harassment charges became too high

8 He couldn’t stand appearing on TV with a beard on his face that was transplanted from Trump’s ass

7 He finally realized that he was nothing but a tool for liberal politicians and a shill for Hollywood

6 The gap in his front teeth is several orders of magnitude less than the gap in the humor part of his brain

5 He was only competitive against Leno when Leno went on vacation

4 In the key 18 – 35 demographic, infomercials were pulling better ratings

3 He was 127.882% of the “BS” at CBS

2 The gap in his teeth is not the only frontal gap he has and

1 That “thing” (as he called it) on Trump’s head attracts hotter women than his “humor”

what has happened? – 10/6

(Women. They really can get us to do crazy things, can’t they? I don’t know why I let her talk me into it but there we were sitting in an Amtrak train heading to the nation’s capital. I mean, we hadn’t even talked about why she wanted me to do it but I just had to go meet her parents. Why does this happen? Typically, it’s a prelude to the big day, an initial rite in the process, isn’t it? And yet, as I said, we hadn’t talked about any thing of the sort. But we were on our way to my grand unveiling to a couple who probably had much bigger plans for our princess. Oh well…)

– Why did you talk me into this?

+ What else were we going to do this weekend?

– The usual…

(She knows I rarely leave Manhattan…even seeing my own folks in Queens is a big deal.)

+ It’s a nice getaway; you’ll see…are you nervous?

– What do you think?

+ You needn’t be; I’ll be there with you the whole time!

– That really doesn’t help.

+ Why not?

– Because you won’t be you as much as I won’t be me…

+ That’s nonsense! Who else would I be if not myself?

– It isn’t. Would you be able to so much as give me a hug there? And the whole time I’ll have to be on my best behavior and I don’t pretend too well…

+ Well, you’ll just have to manage. Be yourself.

– Right. Sure. All I have to do is charm your Mom…

+ What about Dad?

– He’ll come along, the important thing is to persuade your Mom that I am at least okay, harmless.

+ Are you an expert at this?

– Ha! It’s the last thing I’d want to be an expert at but it’d seem that if one’s Mom approves of anything, it’s just a matter of time before the Dad caves. Should we talk politics?

+ Not unless they bring it up. I’ll try to lead the way on things; just go with the flow and don’t embarrass yourself.

– Easier said than done when you have the social skills of an engineer…

+ Stop generalizing so much. You’ll be fine.

+ Are they putting us in separate rooms?

+ I think so; I haven’t talked to Mom about it so I guess it’s what she’ll do.

– See, right there. How will you be with me the whole time?

+ I’ll sneak into your room during the night.

– Would you?

+ Yes.

– Hmm…would be nice for at least a private cuddle. I wonder if…

+ Your mind is on a single track!

– We both know that but it is a part of who I am. I wonder if there might be bedbugs on this train?

+ What?

– Bedbugs on this train…

+ Oh. I hadn’t thought of it and now wish you hadn’t mentioned it.

– Sorry. I have a fear of those things because of what happened when I was a kid…

+ All right, tell me.

– I was about 8 years old when they were discovered in our house. Had to get rid of all the mattresses and what not to be rid of them…

+ A one time event then.

– Yes but it has stayed with me all these years. The funny thing is, well, funny now anyway, is that the mattresses were basically just jute bags stuffed with a marsh reed. So, they were easy to get rid off and replace. Same for the pillows. We burned them all.

(She was silent for a while. I stared out the window.)

+ Would you ever stop telling me how poor you were?

– That wasn’t the main point of my story; it was about the genesis of my bedbug-phobia…

+ Of course. Never mind.

(She held my hand and rested her head on my shoulder. I think she was nervous herself but would never admit it.)

– You should know though, babe…that there are days when my mind wanders back to the world I came from and on those days I actually believe that I would live a good, maybe better, life that way. Would you join me?

(I chuckled knowing the question was absurd.)

+ Stop it!

– You know, thinking about this trip; the other day, I took down the one picture I have of my parents, cleaned it and the frame and inspected it with a magnifying glass. Seriously. It was a long time since I did this.

+ Well, that was nice.

– Yeah. You should take a closer look at it some time.

+ Remind me.

– During that inspection, I thought, wouldn’t it be awesome if I can do something that they would have been so proud of.

+ I thought that was my job…

– Your job? Well, it’s a lot more than that. What and where would I be without you?

(stopped…as the arrival was next…)

Unsolicited Advice to Republicans: Grow a Pair (or Borrow Nancy Pelosi’s)

This was originally posted on 1/30/2014 but a re-post was thought necessary on the eve of “Executive Amnesty.” Let’s see, on the one hand we have elected Democrats and indirectly, Gruber’s “stupid people” who support them, egging on the President to “go big” with his theft of power and disregard for his constitutional duties and the constitution itself and on the other hand, we have the rest of the American people who recently voted to stop all of this and yet, the RINOS are wavering. But, let’s see how this plays out.

From 1/30/2014:

Again, on the amnesty issue. The previous post (see here: https://mononymous1.wordpress.com/2014/05/28/the-broken-windows-theory-now-applies-to-government/) commented on how the Democrats wield power. The President is playing a dictator with absolutely no regard for the constitution and the case has clearly been made about their use or abuse of power. In this regard and in particularly with respect to amnesty; the dimwitted Republicans need to take a page out of Nancy Pelosi’s playbook. Their simplest approach to amnesty and indeed, on any other issue, should be WWNPD if the situation were reversed – meaning, what would the Democrats do if they were opposed to amnesty with a Republican Senate and President? Do they think, for instance, that NP as Speaker, would be entertaining any of these considerations right now? The answer: hell no.

They might have, for example, passed a border security bill first and send it over to the Senate where it’d probably die. They would then go into the election saying, “Hey, we started the process but the President and his party refused to take action on the first step. Don’t blame us!” They could then go on to explain why border security is an extremely important first step and try to rally the country in getting something done about it. Perhaps they’d even go on to warn that, unlike the Obamacare monstrosity that has spawned so many unintended consequences, a “comprehensive reform” bill of 2000 or more pages is absolutely not the way to go. They could then point out that the President has seen fit to act unilaterally on enforcement of laws, has been busy using regulations to circumvent them, that these things are not acceptable and that this is yet another basis for refusing to act on a total reform package because, simply put, he cannot be trusted.

But no. In their typical spineless fashion, the Republicans are willing to cave to whatever unseen forces guide them because it certainly isn’t the will of their constituents. It is still quite interesting as to what these unseen forces are. Where are the “conservative” members of the House and why wouldn’t they come out and expose what is going on here? Anybody, somebody, grow a pair or borrow Nancy Pelosi’s!


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.