Senator Farm Boy

OK. So I’ve been whining about our current crop of ‘Republican’ representatives in Washington not doing their jobs. So what, you might ask, would a Senator Farm Boy do differently?

Well, first off, I wouldn’t move into a house. I would stay in a hotel on a six year contract. I would do this because I would only serve ONE term. Even if requested, I would not return to for a second term, this because I a headache just driving into that damn city. One term is enough of a sacrifice of my sanity.

By committing to only serving one six year term (or two years if I were a House member) I would negate any power that special interest groups or lobbyists might normally have with the normal House or Senate members. This would free me to do the things that I felt were right for the country without worrying if it would affect my chances for re-election.

I would vote against any tax bill that didn’t eliminate the current IRS and implement the Fair Tax. For those of you who don’t know about the Fair Tax, it eliminates all federal taxes and replaces them with a final consumer sales tax. According to the creators of the Fair Tax it would be revenue neutral for the government but would eliminate the burdensome IRS. For those of you who would like to know more about the Fair Tax you can go here: https://fairtax.org/about/how-fairtax-works

Before I would vote for any bill I would have to determine if the regulation would infringe on anyone’s life, liberty or property. If the bill did not infringe on these, I would then evaluate it for its constitutionality. Assuming it met constitutional muster, I would then need to be convinced that it would be better than not doing anything or that there were no better, simpler options that the free market couldn’t provide more efficiently and at a lower cost. If these conditions were met, I would then be able to support a bill. But my basic rule would be, the less government involvement the better.

I would be a strong supporter of our military and law enforcement but would not want to see us become entangled in foreign affairs that were not in our national interest. Regime change is not a legitimate activity for our government to be involved in. And while I don’t believe we should be involved with replacing governments, neither do I believe we should be bringing loads of refugees to our shores. Instead, I believe we should work with other countries in the conflict regions to create safe zones for the refugees so that they could easily be returned to their homelands as soon as the conflict scenarios have been resolved. This would keep scenarios where refugees refuse to assimilate like we see playing out in France, Sweden and Germany.

I would also support logical plans to secure the boarders, whether they be a physical wall or some other option. For a country to be a country it must have defined boarders and be aware of any and all persons entering and exiting the country. As far as illegals who are currently in the country are concerned, I would support the current efforts that are taking place. I would support offering the so called ‘Dreamers’ a path to citizenship that would require them to serve a term in the military and be honorably discharged. Otherwise, they would be subject to return to their countries of origin.

I would also oppose all regulations/bills that were designed for social engineering purposes. It is not the governments job to be charting the course of human development, nor should we be funding any agencies, such as universities, that are attempting to do so. Rather, we should be encouraging the open and free exchange of all ideas, not just those that are deemed appropriate by some self appointed social scolds.

At the conclusion of Senator Farm Boy’s term in office, I would happily pack my suit case and exit that cesspool of a city with as much haste as humanly possible.

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.

Fair Warning Old School Republicans

Attention old school republicans! (That’s YOU Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, et. al.)

I’m giving you a little heads up here. 

The voters who put Donald J. Trump in office as the President of the United States did so because they wanted him to: 1) put a conservative judge on the SCOTUS and install conservative judges in the lower courts, 2) secure our boarders, 3) stop or slow the exodus of jobs to other countries, 4) simplify and cut the tax code, 5) repeal and replace Obamacare, 6) improve the business environment by reducing regulations, 7) retool and support the military, 8) make America be a trusted ally and a feared enemy, and 9) take the fight to radical islamic terrorists (or any other terrorist group that might threaten us, say MS13 or some similar group).

Now if we look at what has been accomplished to date, the things that have been accomplished in D.C. are things that POTUS has been able to do virtually without the help of the congress. (The exception being the approval of Justice Gorsuch and the installation of his cabinet.)

By merely turning off the OPEN light and picking up the welcome mat from the boarder, he has staunched the flow of illegal immigrants into the country, though we still want the wall where it makes sense. 

We have seen that he has been able to slow the exodus of jobs by working with companies and insuring that they understand that their products will face tariffs upon returning to the US. Carrier, Ford and others have already altered plans to move their operations to Mexico. 

He has issued directives that for each new regulation that is issued, 2 previous regulations must be eliminated. By undoing some limitations instituted by the previous administration, he has begun the revitalization of the coal industry with mines reopening that had been closed due to over burdensome regulations. This has helped in the reduction in unemployment as well as the decreased amount spent on welfare.

His trips over seas coupled with his meetings with foreign leaders here have re-established America as a trusted ally and his efforts against terrorism, coupled with those of our allies, seem to be paying dividends in the dismantling of ISIS.

So where are the shortfalls in what he was sent to Washington to do? Hummm???

Well, by golly, it sure looks like it’s you weak-kneed Republican senators and congressmen. The ones who seem to be more concerned with what the entrenched Washington Press Corps and the Media Elites think of you than what your constituents want.

I’m giving you a heads up right now. If you all don’t start making some serious headway on repeal and replace and on improving the tax code, many of us will be supporting those challengers who will be springing up like crabgrass to replace you. You had seven years to come up with a plan you could agree on to repeal and replace. It should have been a no brainer once DT took the oath of office in January, but here it is nearly August and you are still trying to come up with a plan. And don’t try and tell us about that weak tea the House offered up. Yes, its better than Obamacare…..but not a whole helluva lot.

And taxes…..jeez louise. What you’ve done there makes what you’ve done on health care look like you’ve actually done something, which we all know you haven’t.

Anyway, fair warning has been given. So don’t be surprised when you face serious challenges just to try and get your district’s nomination to try and return to your cushy positions.

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.

Update: WaPo, Jared Kushner and the Russians

UPDATE: Once again the MSM has shown themselves to be political shills for the hard left. http://www.dailywire.com/news/16977/report-wapo-blows-it-again-kushner-did-not-request-john-nolte  

It may well be a classic case of "the boy who cried wolf". https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-ambassador-told-moscow-that-kushner-wanted-secret-communications-channel-with-kremlin/2017/05/26/520a14b4-422d-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html?utm_term=.510471cb7bf8

I don't know if this is a true story or not, but the radical left media has told me so many half truths and outright lies that I now question anything they say of a negative nature as it relates to Trump or republicans. If this is true as they are reporting, Jared Kushner ought to do jail time. If on the the other hand, it's another one of their bullshite hit pieces with only a passing acquaintance with the truth, the "reporter" who wrote it and the editor who approved it to run ought to both be fired, publicly shamed and be permanently banned from ever holding a position of public trust. (So I guess that would leave them to being ditch diggers, used car salesmen or politicians.)

But what are we, the American public, to do? When the major sources of information to the general public are biased and not honest brokers of information we are left to flounder. 

I personally have been turning to alternative sites such as "SOFREP", "Louder with Crowder", "The Daily Wire" and "The Drudge Report" to name a few, for my news and opinions. Especially so since the Murdock boys have decided they want to be invited to the "in crowd" events in Washington and New York and thus initiated the neutering of Fox News. But I realize my sources are probably as biased to the right as MSNBC, CNN, ABC, Washington Post, New York Times, etc., etc. are to the left. (But at least my sources don't piss me off and make me yell at the TV or the computer.)

I guess I don't really have any cogent points, I'm just frustrated that our media sources have so prostituted themselves to their chosen political positions that we the consumers are left woefully ill informed as we try to make decisions about our future. A cynical person might even think that this was being done by design so that the REAL powers could continue to operate in the shadows while we flailed about in our designed ignorance.

Or so it might seem to an old farm boy.

WaPo, Jared Kushner and the Russians

It may well be a classic case of "the boy who cried wolf". https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-ambassador-told-moscow-that-kushner-wanted-secret-communications-channel-with-kremlin/2017/05/26/520a14b4-422d-11e7-9869-bac8b446820a_story.html?utm_term=.510471cb7bf8

I don't know if this is a true story or not, but the radical left media has told me so many half truths and outright lies that I now question anything they say of a negative nature as it relates to Trump or republicans. If this is true as they are reporting, Jared Kushner ought to do jail time. If on the the other hand, it's another one of their bullshite hit pieces with only a passing acquaintance with the truth, the "reporter" who wrote it and the editor who approved it to run ought to both be fired, publicly shamed and be permanently banned from ever holding a position of public trust. (So I guess that would leave them to being ditch diggers, used car salesmen or politicians.)

But what are we, the American public, to do? When the major sources of information to the general public are biased and not honest brokers of information we are left to flounder. 

I personally have been turning to alternative sites such as "SOFREP", "Louder with Crowder", "The Daily Wire" and "The Drudge Report" to name a few, for my news and opinions. Especially so since the Murdock boys have decided they want to be invited to the "in crowd" events in Washington and New York and thus initiated the neutering of Fox News. But I realize my sources are probably as biased to the right as MSNBC, CNN, ABC, Washington Post, New York Times, etc., etc. are to the left. (But at least my sources don't piss me off and make me yell at the TV or the computer.)

I guess I don't really have any cogent points, I'm just frustrated that our media sources have so prostituted themselves to their chosen political positions that we the consumers are left woefully ill informed as we try to make decisions about our future. A cynical person might even think that this was being done by design so that the REAL powers could continue to operate in the shadows while we flailed about in our designed ignorance.

Or so it might seem to an old farm boy.

Classical American Rights vs Socialistic Grasping

What is a "RIGHT" in America? What are the characteristics of a "RIGHT"?

These seem like pretty straight forward questions until you start looking at some of the things people are claiming as rights today.

So let's start by considering things that are uncontroversial: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Assembly, Freedom from Illegal Search and Seizure, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, these are all well documented in America. 

What do these rights have in common?

Each of these rights are independent of anyone other than the individual. My freedom of speech, or religion or right to keep and bear arms or any other enumerated right places no requirement or demand upon anyone else's rights. So my freedom of speech does not require YOU to do or give up anything. Nor do any of the other rights as outlined in the constitution. So I suggest to you that RIGHTS are given to each of us in America in specific and the world in general (though in most of the world some if not all of these rights have been seized from the individuals by those who claim dominion over them) at birth and require nothing of anyone else other than respect.

Now let's take a look at the "rights" being claimed by leftists: the right to health care, the right to "affordable" housing, the right to a government funded abortion, a "living" wage (read as at least a $15 hr minimum wage).

What do these and the other "rights" claimed by the left have in common?

Each and every one of them puts a claim on someone else's time or treasure. Health care requires time and effort from the health care professionals. If you are claiming a right to free health care you are a claiming time and effort of the health professionals without your need to compensate them. That is tantamount to slavery, which I'm pretty sure we outlawed 150+ years ago. But now the "liberal" left wants to say it's ok if it's for health care.

Or how about a mandatory "living" wage? Isn't that placing the governments gun to the head of an employer and forcing them to pay more for someone's labor than the value of their effort/input might justify? 

Or government funded abortion? Isn't that having the government take money from your pocket at the point of a gun (don't believe me? try not giving it to them.) to then pay for someone depriving an unborn child of THEIR life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. (That winds up being a double dip into other people's rights.)

So I put it to you that these newly claimed "rights" the left are espousing are not rights at all, but rather they are merely a new tactic they are trying in an old struggle they've been waging. That is, it is another attempt to move the country away from its individualistic self-reliant heritage to their desired socialistic state. "From each according to his ability to each according to his need" I believe is how they put it.

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy. 

PS: I'd like to thank Neal Boortz for helping me clarify my thinking on this subject.

The Tyranny Of If

So, when was it that the word “if” became a statement of fact? Did I blink? Was there a memo that I deleted, thinking it was junk mail? Was there an announcement on television that I missed while watching AppleTV?

It seems that the word “if”, when included in any statement about a conservative by the mainstream media, liberals or left wingers of any stripe, constitutes a statement of fact and thus justification to run about wildly decrying the end of the nation. (As if they were really concerned about destroying the nation. They seem to only be concerned with the destruction of the nation if they aren’t the ones destroying it.)

I don’t seem to recall any democrat or leftist being concerned about “if” statements when they were aimed at Bill Clinton (“if” Paula Jones is telling the truth, for instance) or Barack Obama (“if” he was not a natural born citizen), or “if” the main stream media is colluding with the Democrat Party in an effort to defeat Republicans. 

It seems as though the word “if” when put into a statement about a liberal or leftist means “wholly unsubstantiated and of no credence” while being placed in a statement concerning a conservative means “wholly factual and beyond reproach”.

I guess this is yet another case of he who controls the conversation gets to define the reality. And once again, the left is in control. 

Somehow or another, the conservatives gave up even trying to control the narrative. They relinquished all control of the lines of communication years ago. Leaving only talk radio, as exemplified by Rush Limbaugh, and Fox News to try and portray a different perspective. (And now it appears Rupert Murdoch’s sons are more interested in being part of the “in crowd” of media than in offering an alternative perspective.)

This coupled with conservatives leaving academia to the 1960’s hippies has created an all to powerful alliance between the mainstream media, academia, the political left and Hollywood. They have been left unopposed to shape the “impressionable minds of mush”, as Rush has been known to opine, and leave them without critical thinking skills. This then has lead to many young folks who have become like cats chasing the laser pointer light with the leftist coalition controlling the pointer. 

We need to wait until there are proven facts before we run about claiming the sky is falling like our Chicken Little friends on the left. 

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.

Update on Muslims On Receiving End

Update

Uh Oh!

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-politics-religion-idUSKBN17X17Q

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/05/muslim-man-dies-in-india-after-attack-by-hindu-cow-protectors

OK, I know I shouldn't think this is funny, but come on. Yah gotta kinda laugh a little when a member of the religious group that kills people for not following their beliefs gets killed by a different religious group for not honoring their beliefs.

Now I seriously doubt this truck driver in India was the fanatical type who would behead you for not being a Muslim and didn't deserve to die for trucking a cow, probably to slaughter. I'm sure he was just a working stiff trying to get by like most of the world. But the irony of it is rich.

This, however, is deadly serious. There is a long history of violent conflict between Hindus and muslims in India. In the early 1900s conflict broke out between the 2 groups and lead to the eventual partitioning of India in 1947 and the creation of Pakistan. This same conflict lead to the creation of Bangladesh. Many lives have been lost in this sectarian violence between Hindus and muslims. If this conflict were to reignite in the era of world wide radical Muslim extremism, the Asian subcontinent could burst into flames. An all out Muslim Hindu conflict could prove to be devastating. 

Who would the world call for tech support?

Who would Hollywood support? Which side would they demand we accept unvented refugees from? Would they back the muslims in order to wipe out the competition from Bollywood? Then again, if the muslims were to win, who would there be left to watch their schlock in that area of the world?

Liberals throughout the country will be put in a real quandary trying to decide which minority will receive their blessings. (They will most likely just wait to see which side the conservatives support and chose the opposite. This would probably mean they would back the group that would likely kill them if given the chance.)

All joking aside, this could prove to be an all out blood bath. With India having over a billion residents and nuclear weapons and being surrounded by Muslim nations including nuclear armed Pakistan, that area could become a no go zone for a long time. Especially with the Muslim cult being so death and end times focused.

But don't worry. You would likely not hear about this conflict until tech support went down. The press isn't prone to reporting things that don't fit their "Trump is evil" narrative. 

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.