Tag: politics

THE CAMEL’S NOSE

As always, the contents of this blog constitute a compendium of multiple media reports supplemented by my personal opinion, where indicated.

Either the mainstream Dems and their allies in the mainstream media are really stupid, or they think the voters are. Their latest spin that welcoming the neo-communists into their party is beneficial because it is creating a “Big Tent” in which all ideas are welcome is inane on its face. The neo-communists have no long-term desire or intention of collaborating with them. On the contrary they have reiterated time and again that they hate America and want to tear it down and remake it in their own image. In addition, they have made their irrational, unconditional hatred of Jews and America’s support of Israel very clear.  In my opinion it is obvious that they intend to use the establishment Dems as a tool to attain power.  Slowly and inexorably, they plan to take control. First, they will continue to primary Dems that are not sufficiently to the “left.” Ultimately, they will challenge Republican office holders for control of the country.

They are disguising their true program of creating a country controlled by the state à la Soviet Russia, Cuba and Venezuela by claiming to be socialists rather than communists. Socialism is more benign and more palatable to voters. They are hoping voters will be fooled. However, their desire to redistribute wealth from the rich to the “needy” and to have the government control all key facets of life are dead giveaways.

One of their central policies is the promise of “free stuff.” The allure of “free stuff” is very powerful.  Many people love it not realizing that, in actuality, there is no such thing. Somehow, somewhere, someone has to pay for it. Their plan is that the billionaires and other rich people will pay for it. This classic plan of income redistribution is one of the major tenants of communism. Of course, there are not enough rich people to pay for all of their programs. Sooner or later, they will run out of other people’s money, and then the system will self-destruct.

Moreover, most rich people have the ability to transfer their wealth to other jurisdictions that do not penalize the wealthy or, in extreme cases, to just emigrate to another country.  This has been occurring in many socialist and communist countries. Communism has NEVER been successful anywhere. Eventually the countries that tried it have all self-destructed. The most recent example is Venezuela, which in a short period of time has deteriorated from one of the wealthiest countries to one of the poorest.

And now for the central point of the blog, I will paraphrase for you the parable of the camel’s nose. A man sets out riding a camel on a trip through the desert. The first night he stops to make camp. He pitches a tent for himself to sleep in and beds the camel down outside in the cold. After a few hours the camel asks if he could put just his nose in the tent because it is so cold. The man acquiesces since he wants to keep the camel happy as he is relying on it to continue to transport him on his journey.

The next night the camel requests to stick his entire head into the tent. It’s a tight fit. The tent is barely big enough, but again the man agrees. This goes on for a few days. Soon, the camel is entirely in the tent, and the man is sleeping outside in the cold.

Folks, in this parable the tent represents the Dem Party; the man represents traditional Dems; and the camel represents the neo-commies. The moral is quite clear. The Dems’ mantra of a big tent in which a wide variety of views can co-exist is a fallacy. The tent is simply not big enough for the traditional Dems to co-exist with the neo-commies. Eventually, the neo-commies will take control of the party. They will keep pushing and pushing until they have either converted every Dem to their radical views or purged them from the party entirely.

It may take a few election cycles, but I fear it will come to pass eventually, unless the moderates nip the movement in the bud. The 2026 midterm elections would be a good time to start. Remember the lessons of communist Russia in 1917 and the Nazi movement in Germany in the 1930s, which I have described in previous blogs. Don’t delude yourself into thinking it can’t happen here, because it could.

by Tags: , , , , Leave a comment

HERE COME THE COMMIES

As always, the contents of this blog are a compendium of multiple media reports supplemented by my own opinion, where indicated.

The commies are not just coming; they are already here in the US. What was thought to be impossible just a few short years ago is becoming a reality. In the most recent primaries several commies secured the Dem nomination for various offices. In “blue” jurisdictions, such as NY, nomination is tantamount to election, so next year they will likely be serving in Congress as well as various state and local offices.

Essentially, they are “wolves in sheep’s clothing.” They portray themselves as “progressives,” or “socialists,” but their beliefs are more aligned with communism. I call them “neo-communists.” More on this later.

Wikipedia defines communism as a “political and economic system where all property and resources are collectively owned by the public or the state, rather than by individuals. The core goal is to create a classless society where wealth is distributed based on individual need, eliminating the concept of private ownership.” Without delving too far into the weeds what that means is everything you own, your house, your business, your retirement funds, everything, belongs, not to you, but to the state. You didn’t earn it; you didn’t build it (the source of the title of my blogs); you don’t deserve it. The state has the right and authority to seize it for itself or redistribute it to the less fortunate.

If that doesn’t resonate with you think of the old Soviet Union, Cuba, or Venezuela. In those instances, the state controlled all economic activities, the means of production, education, communication, military, and property. The notion of equality was phony. In every case a small class of elites arose to control everything. Inevitably, the system failed as it always has. The old Soviet Union collapsed, Cuba is a failing state, and in just a few short years oil-rich Venezuela has gone from one of the richest countries in the world to one of the poorest. Socialism/communism has never lasted. In the words of former British PM Margaret Thatcher, “eventually, you run out of other people’s money.”

The distinction between communism and socialism can be blurred. In fact, Wikipedia’s definition of “extreme socialism” pretty much matches its definition of “communism.” In my opinion, there is no brightline distinction between the two. I view it as more of a continuum from socialism at one end to communism at the other with different gradations of socialism in between. I associate socialism with the form of government practiced in countries like Sweden. Even in the US we practice some elements of socialism, such as social security and Medicaid. That is not the same as communism, which is far more extreme and adheres to the philosophy of Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Castro.

  1. The neo-communists, such as Zohran Mamdani, Janeese Lewis, Darializa Avila Chevalier, Claire Valdez, Melat Kiros, and Graham Platner, may have subtle differences in their beliefs, but they are united in (1) their desire to tear down and remake America, (2) terminate America’s support for Israel, and (3) their unabashed antisemitism, which they espouse freely, openly and loudly.
  2. Most of them were born outside the US. Their parents emigrated here to secure a better life for them. Rather than be grateful to live here they seek to destroy it.
  3. Most of them have no practical life experiences. They have never built anything. Some of them have never had a real job, are perpetual students, and/or live at home with their parents and are supported by them.
  4. Some of their positions are downright irrational, such as open borders, abolishing ICE, emptying prisons, and ceasing to deport illegal aliens for any reason even if they have committed serious crimes. Those who advocate those policies have truly lost their minds. Any sane person could ascertain those policies would result in utter lawlessness and chaos.
  5. Comrade Zoh is the mayor of NYC, the largest and most diverse city in the US. He was born in Uganda. When he was seven years old his family moved to NYC. He has a bachelor’s degree in Africana studies. He worked as a housing counselor and a rapper. He was elected to the NYS Assembly in 2020. After serving three terms he was elected mayor in 2024. He is portrayed as a “democratic socialist,” but based on his policies, such as tax increases on corporations and those earning above $1,000,000 a year, free buses, universal childcare, freezing rents, and establishing city-owned grocery stores, among others, I consider him to be a neo-communist. What are his background and credentials for the job? Not much. No background in business, economics, politics, law or other practical areas. But he is a glib, articulate, persuasive speaker, which is a major source of his appeal to voters.
  6. Darializa Chevalier is a community organizer, UAW member, and the daughter of Dominican immigrants who has spent years advocating for her community in upper Manhattan. She graduated from Columbia University with a Bachelor of Arts in Middle Eastern Studies.  She has been associated with various radical, anti-American and anti-Israel groups. She has denounced Israel as an “apartheid state [that is] committing genocide” against Palestinians. She described her political views as having been influenced by her experiences while living in Palestine and the writings of black radicals such as Angela Davis. Even the NY Times has characterized her as “far left.” Based on her activities I would call her a neo-communist. She disrespected the American flag by once tweeting that she “wiped her hands with [it].” Is this the type of person you want representing you in Congress?
  7. Platner, a military veteran, sports a chest tattoo identified as a Totenkopf, a skull-and-crossbones emblem historically used by Nazi SS guards. He is an oyster farmer whose sole customer is his mother. He claims he got the tattoo in 2007 while on leave with the Marines in Croatia and was completely unaware of its historical Nazi associations. He merely chose the design from a tattoo parlor wall during a night of drinking. Yeah, right! The Dem establishment is supporting him because they think he can win the election, which is more important to them than the fact he is a Nazi. They have no scruples; they crave power. Does anyone else see the irony? For years the Dems have been calling Trump a Nazi, which he most assuredly is not. Now they have nominated a real Nazi for the Senate. [Today, I heard that some Dems are looking to force him to withdraw due to repeated allegations of sexual assault. The deadline to replace him is July 13. I predict he will withdraw.]
  8. These people are not limited to a small geographic area. There are many others with similar opinions and attitudes scattered around the country such as in Colorado, DC and LA.
  9. This group of anti-American, Nazi-loving bigots is ill-equipped to run a lemonade stand, much less the government.

Conclusion

So, what has given rise to this group of extreme radicals, which essentially has hijacked the Dem Party? I believe there are many factors, however, I maintain that the cowardly character of Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority leader Hakeem Jeffries is the major cause. They have no integrity. Neither has condemned the group’s radical, anti-American, anti-Israel, antisemitic comments and policies. In my view they afraid to do so. In fact, they are bending over backwards to curry favor. Even Kamala Harris is “kissing the ring.” They are the leaders of the Party, or at least they are supposed to be. They’re afraid they will get primaried or lose their leadership positions. Well, I’ve got news for them. They will never be “left” enough to satisfy the wolves. It’s analogous to a man who keeps feeding a wild animal in hopes it will not eat him. In reality, eventually he will run out of food, and the wild animal will eat him anyway.

Jeffries and others are claiming that the far lefties are welcome, that the Dem Party has a “Big Tent” philosophy, that a wide variety of ideas and policies are welcome. That is pure BS. That is akin to letting the fox into the henhouse. They should familiarize themselves with the fable about “letting the camel’s nose into the tent.”

Schumer is the worst. I have no respect for the man. He is a coward. He is Jewish; he represents a heavily Jewish state; and yet he has said and done nothing about these lunatic radicals. In fact, no Dem has taken a stand except for PA Senator John Federman. Schumer and Jeffries will lose their leadership positions anyway, and they will get primaried, and good riddance.

The big question is what impact these radicals and their supporters will have on the 2026 midterm elections. Will they help Dems attract young voters and disaffected nonvoters excited by the left-wing candidates? Or, conversely, will it prompt moderates to stay home or even vote Republican? The answer is critical to the future of the country. At this point I don’t know, but it will bear watching.

Currently, the neo-communists comprise a very small portion of the electorate. However, they are aggressive, vociferous, well-organized, and well-funded. I agree with President Trump that we must deal with them now rather than wait until they grow more powerful. History tells us we should have dealt with the Nazis in the early 1930s. We didn’t, and you know what happened. Also, I would remind you that in 1917 there were only 24,000 Bolsheviks in Russia out of a total population of 160 million, yet look what happened.

Democracy, capitalism and free enterprise is engrained in our DNA, not communism. In the words of Winston Churchill: “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.” I say, wake up and act now before it’s too late. This applies doubly to Jews and those who support Israel.

by Tags: , , , , , , Leave a comment

COMMUNISTS TAKING CONTROL OF THE DEM PARTY

As always, the contents of this blog constitute a compendium of multiple media reports supplemented by my personal opinion, where indicated.

I don’t know whether to be shocked, ashamed, horrified, angry or scared sh**less by the results of the 2026 Dem primaries, especially in NY. Upon reflection, I am all of the above and so should you be. As recently as a few years ago, this result would have been unthinkable. In my opinion the results were not a big surprise; as I have opined in previous blogs the foreshadowing signs have been obvious for some time if one cared to look. What do these results portend for NYC, NYS, the Dem Party, and the country as a whole? Read on for my opinion.

Below please find the most significant takeaways from these elections:

  1. Comrade Zoh was the big winner. He backed a slate of far-far-left candidates. By the way, these people are NOT, progressives, nor liberals, nor even run of the mill socialists as they like to portray themselves. Many of the policies they espouse such as state-owned grocery stores, universal childcare, fare-free public transit, wealth redistribution, and increased taxes on wealthy earners and corporations to fund city services, among others, foster government control over people’s lives and are right out of the old USSR playbook. They are COMMUNISTS who hate America. Wikipedia defines communism as “an economic theory that says society should take from citizens according to each one’s ability and distribute to each according to need.” Comports with Zoh’s policies quite nicely. These people not only want to change America; they want to tear it down and resurrect it as a communist country a la Cuba, Venezuela, and various others. More on this later.
  2. Another big winner was Bernie Sanders. For years he was the lone advocate of socialist policies. Mainstream Dems relegated him to the fringes. He was characterized as the crazy uncle whom you hid in the basement when company came over. He has mentored and supported many of these extremists. Now, with their success he has been vindicated.
  3. Zoh endorsed eight candidates for nomination for local and statewide offices. Seven won, many decisively. Remember in deep-blue NYS winning the Dem Party nomination is tantamount to winning the election. Most of you are not familiar with them, but trust me, you will be, and you won’t like it. They and others like them will exert a strong influence on local, statewide and eventually even national politics.
  4. Three of them, Claire Valdez, Avila Chevalier and Brad Lauer, defeated more mainstream Dem incumbents who were endorsed by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and much of the Democrat establishment. Valdez and Chevalier are affiliated with the ultraleft, ultraradical, anti-American Democratic Socialists of America. Be advised, as I said, the moniker “Socialist” is a misnomer. In addition, each of them has accused Israel of genocide and has advocated terminating American support for it. These elections make it clear that Zoh controls the Dem Party in NY.
  5. Even Governor Kathy Hochul, who is running for re-election this fall, is afraid of Zoh and his allies. Even though she has acquiesced to many of his policies she is still vulnerable. In their eyes, regardless of how far “left” she leans it is not far enough. The one demand she has resisted so far is to raise taxes, but don’t be surprised if she does that after the election.
  6. They and others like them have openly and repeatedly espoused two primary goals: (1) to “end America,” and (2) to annihilate Israel and Jews in general. Even if you are not Jewish and not a supporter of Israel this should appall you. History tells us that if they were to succeed, they would not stop there. In accordance with the history of extreme radicals, next they would target Christians and all other “non-believers.”
  7. Chevalier, a convert to Islam has boasted of having “wiped my hand on the American flag.” Furthermore, she has advocated for the abolishment of police, prisons, and borders. She has argued that illegal aliens shouldn’t be deported under any circumstances even if they have committed violent crimes. Can you imagine? If those policies were ever adopted, we would no longer have a country. She attended Columbia University where she spent much of her time organizing against the political establishment. She helped found a group called Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), which later caused a firestorm when it posted “Death to America” in Farsi on X. The university, which leans strongly left, nevertheless has since disavowed the organization.
  8. In 2024, the group faced widespread condemnation when it declared that it was “fighting for the total eradication of Western civilization.” Is this the voice of a socialist? Is this the voice of someone you would want to represent you in Congress? Or is it the voice of someone who is wildly unhinged and should not be allowed anywhere the levers of power?
  9. Lander, a Jew, has groveled before Zoh and his allies and toed the party line by criticizing Israel. He is a prime example of a politician who will say and do most anything to get elected.
  10. Valdez is an assemblywoman who “has fought to tax the rich, protect tenants, empower working people,” and “free Palestine.” Furthermore, she has characterized Israel’s military action in Gaza as “genocide.”
  11. Currently, the movement is concentrated primarily in the NY area. However, there are candidates scattered around the country, such as Graham Plattner, the antisemitic candidate for Senate in Maine who sports a hidden Nazi tattoo that he loves to show off. Does anyone else see the irony? The Dems have been calling Trump a Nazi for years, which he most assuredly is not, and here they go nominating a real live Nazi for the Senate.
  12. For now, and in the immediate future I can’t see this movement taking hold in “red” states, but “blue” cities and states, particularly those with longtime one-party rule, are vulnerable.
  13. In my opinion, the genesis of this movement can be traced back to the presidency of Barack Obama. Obama was an obscure but charismatic community organizer who was elected twice. He promised “hope and change.” With both black and white ancestry, he was uniquely positioned to do so. He delivered neither. Instead, of being a “great unifier” he was a great divider. His policies and attitudes fostered division among the people, primarily white vs. black. In addition, I believe he was a “closet antisemite.” Many of his policies favored Muslims over Israel and the Jews. In eight years, his only significant achievements were killing Osama bin Laden and passing the Affordable Care Act, which has proven to be a “mixed bag” of success. His tenure was followed by eight years of Joe Biden, which were a complete disaster on many levels.
  14. In recent years, the Dem Party has been characterized by the weak, ineffective leadership of Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries, and the disappearance of the moderate Dems who are either gone, have gone radical, or are cowering in fear of being primaried. They should have used their status within the Dem Party to nip this movement in the bud years ago. Now, it may be too late. Even though the radicals constitute a small minority they are vocal, aggressive, savvy and well-funded. They have moved the Dem Party so far to the left that it is out of the political mainstream. I predict that they will either take control of the party or rip it apart.
  15. There is empirical evidence of the ramifications of the far, far-left loons attaining power and influence. One only has to study the fate Great Britain. Over the last few decades these radicals have infiltrated British politics, economics and culture and in certain locales have seized control, all to the detriment of the country.

Conclusion

Those who maintain that “it can’t happen here” are sadly mistaken. Even though communism/socialism has failed wherever it has been tried, the lure of “free stuff” is very powerful. Advocates don’t realize that there is no such thing. Somewhere, somehow, someone has to pay for it. In the words of Margaret Thatcher, “eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

The disaffected, lazy and incompetent view the wealth that successful people possess and convince themselves that they didn’t earn it, didn’t build it, and don’t deserve it. In their view, they acquired it by greed, favoritism, or nefarious activities. They advocate that the government redistribute it to the masses.

History tells us it only takes a small, well-organized, aggressive minority to take over a country. Consider, at the advent of the Russian Revolution in January 1917 there were only 24,000 members of the Bolshevik Party. 24,000 out of a population estimated at 160 million! Also, they were competing with other factions for control of the country, but eventually they grew stronger and seized power.

Another example closer to home would be Cuba. In 1959, the established communist population in Cuba was estimated to be between 10,000 and 20,000. The total population was around seven million.

In both countries the people were disaffected, the conditions were ripe for a change, and strong, charismatic leaders emerged to take advantage. So, don’t tell me it can’t happen here. It won’t be next year and maybe not even in the next few years, but the seeds are there. Middle aged and young people who believe in America will have to deal with it. Be vigilant.

by Tags: , , , Leave a comment

GERRYMANDERING

As always, the contents of this blog represent a compendium of multiple media reports supplemented by my personal opinion where indicated.

Gerrymandering is the act of manipulating the redistribution of electoral districts in order to favor a particular candidate or political party. It has been prominent in the news recently, as both political parties have been engaging in the practice to gain an edge in Congressional representation as well as in their own state legislatures. This practice is especially significant now in advance of the 2026 midterm elections. Currently, the Republicans have very slim margins in both the Senate and the House, and maintaining control will be difficult but crucial. I believe if the Dems seize control of one or both houses, they will seek to stifle Trump’s agenda and possibly impeach him again on some “trumped up” charges. More on this later.

The law requires redistribution in at least every decade. Traditionally, these redistributions have been effectuated in response to periodic census results. The law requires such redistributions to be equitable. One of its major requirements is not to disadvantage any race. As you will see below, all too often, that has not been the case.

According to Wikipedia the practice of gerrymandering originated in 1812 when Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry signed a bill that resulted in the manipulation of electoral districts in a partisan manner with the intention of benefiting his Democratic-Republican Party. It concentrated Federalist voters into a few districts (packing) while spreading Democratic-Republican voters across many districts to maximize their influence. Of course, this was controversial, and the Boston Gazette conceived the term to lampoon the distorted, politically skewed maps. In particular, it denigrated one district it said was “shaped like a salamander.”

As I said, currently the practice has become quite common. For example, in just the last five years Alabama, Maryland, Texas, North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee, Illinois, and Utah, among others, have or are planning to gerrymander. Both political parties have engaged in or are planning to engage in this practice and always to the advantage of the party in power in that particular state. The goal is packing (concentrating the opposition party’s voters into a few “safe” districts where they will win by large margins, or cracking (widely dispersing the opposition’s voters so they rarely or never have a large enough majority to win a particular district). Some of these redistributions have been so egregiously inequitable that they have attracted the attention of the Judiciary.

Over the years there have been various cases involving redistricting. However, a few days ago the Supreme Court issued a ruling that promises to have a seismic effect regarding this issue. By a 6-3 margin it ruled that Louisiana’s redistricting plan, (which had been mandated by a federal judge in 2014) in which the state had packed black voters into a newly-created second black majority district constituted a violation of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which guarantees all citizens equal protection under the law. The court ruled that this practice unduly reduced the statewide effect of the black vote,

The ruling was very controversial and has precipitated vitriolic objections from many black leaders, Dem politicians and their supporters. For example, NAACP President Derrick Johnson characterized it as a “license for corrupt politicians who want to rig the system by silencing entire communities.” In fact, the opposite is true. The Court’s main objection was Louisiana’s packing blacks into just the two black heavily majority districts, which they would win anyway, and which had resulted in more congressional seats for whites at the expense of blacks.

Conclusion

This ruling will likely impact many states. They will have to redistribute their voting districts before the 2026 elections. Most of these redistributions will favor one party or the other. The key question is which party will benefit on a net basis. Early indications are that the G.O.P will benefit more as the current districting is viewed as more favorable to Dems, but we will have to wait and see. Politics aside I believe this was the right decision to foster voter equality.

by Tags: , , , Leave a comment

TRUMP’S STRANGLE STRATEGY

As always, the contents of this blog are a compendium of multiple media reports supplemented by my personal opinion where indicated.

I like President Trump’s current strategy to blockade Iranian shipping attempting to navigate the Strait of Hormuz. At this stage of the war, it is the best strategy. I prefer it over the alternatives such as additional massive bombing of Iran’s oil wells or agreeing to a peace settlement that falls short of the primary objectives of the war, which for those who may have forgotten is to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weaponry.

The obvious objective of the blockade is to strangle Iran’s economy by depriving it of its sole source of revenue – oil. Normally, some 80% of Iran’s oil and 20% of the world’s oil and liquid natural gas passes through the Strait. It is the best and most expeditious route for these products to transit between the Gulf of Oman and the Arabian Sea. As I write this, the blockade has generally been very effective even though a few ships have managed to sneak through.

Iran has no alternative sources of revenue. It has no other natural resources, no manufacturing to speak of, and certainly no tourism. All it has is huge deposits of oil, which heretofore have sustained its economy and funded its desire to foment terrorism throughout the ME and the rest of the world through various proxies.

According to Secretary of War Pete Hegseth all ships (some 34 in total) traveling to or from Iranian ports have been “turned around without incident.”  Moreover, the blockade has been expanding. As I write this, the US now has three carrier groups in the region. Hegseth added “just this week, we seized two Iranian ‘dark fleet’ ships in the Indo-Pacific region that had left Iranian ports before the blockade went into effect.” Furthermore, in posts on his Truth Social platform Trump claimed: “Iran is collapsing financially! [It] want[s] the Strait of Hormuz opened immediately. [It is] starving for cash! [It is] [l]osing about $500 million a day.” Recently, it was reported that Iran has about 127 million barrels of crude oil reserves that are stored in parked tankers. That sounds like a lot, but in truth it will not last long. But that doesn’t mean that the blockade wouldn’t hurt Iran,” he said.

For various reasons a goodly portion of congresspersons and other critics has opposed the war from its inception. As I explained in previous blogs they fall into four categories: (1) those with a political agenda whether or not it is beneficial to America, (2) “never Trumpers,” who blindly and automatically oppose any action or policy Trump undertakes, (3) antisemites and anti-Israel critics, and (4) those who are misinformed by the “fake news” media and/or ignorant of or choose to ignore the lessons of history. These categories of vociferous naysayers include many Dem politicians such as Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries, Gavin Newsome, Kamala Harris and AOC, who should know better. Perhaps, some or all of them should brush up on their knowledge of history.

On May 1 the Trump Administration may face a Congressional challenge with respect to the continued deployment of the military in Iran. Some Congresspersons have opined that the duration of the US’s military campaign against Iran is limited by the War Powers Act of 1973, which mandates that a President commence military withdrawal after 60 days unless Congress either declares war, authorizes the specific action, or extends the deadline. Congress has not taken either action and is unlikely to do so.

The Administration has “pushed back” claiming there is “no firm deadline for ending the conflict as it has not formally characterized the campaign as a “war.” Consequently, congressional approval is not required. The 60th day is May 1. We’ll have to see how this matter is resolved. It may require a ruling by SCOTUS.

Conclusion

The blockade has been opposed by the usual suspects as detailed above. Due to their ten-year record of lies, exaggerations and obfuscations that have invariably been ultimately debunked their opinion no longer has any credence if it ever did.

In my opinion, however, it has proven to be a very successful strategy. It has strangled Iran’s economy by depriving it of some $500 million of oil revenue per day. As a result, in addition to not having any nuclear weapons or an effective military Iran’s economy and finances are being severely degraded. It has nothing. NOTHING.

At this point, we don’t have to fight. We don’t have to risk American lives. We can just sit back and watch Iran strangle to death unless it accepts our terms.

by Tags: , , , , Leave a comment

KATHY HOCHUL HAS LOST HER MIND

As always, the content of this blog is a compendium of multiple media reports supplemented by my personal opinion, where indicated.

In my opinion, current empirical evidence indicates that NYS Governor Kathy Hochul has lost her mind. Recently she gave a speech in which she urged wealthy individuals who previously had relocated from NYS to other locales to return. In what universe does she think there is even a remote chance that will happen? If she honestly believes that, she is delusional. Did she forget that just a few years ago she gave a speech in which she basically told wealthy people and others who objected to her left-leaning policies and her cozying up to NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani that if they didn’t like it, they should “get out.” (Like the words from that old-time song, “Get on the bus, Gus.”)

That is just what many of them have done. Recently, NY State Senator Steve Rhoades disclosed the brutal statistic that “one [NY resident] leaves [the state] every 2 minutes and 23 seconds.” Think about that. Repub gubernatorial candidate Bruce Blakeman sarcastically declared that “Hochul has finally discovered what New Yorkers already know. When you raise taxes, drive up the cost of living make it harder to do business, and try to destroy families’ savings people leave.” Moreover, he characterized Hochul’s pleas to the rich to return “the most honest moment of her administration.” In my view, if it’s not number one, it’s certainly in the top three.

Rich people are very astute. That’s how they became rich in the first place. They left primarily because of her governance. They were tired of the deteriorating quality of life, particularly in NYC. They were tired of the outrageously high cost of living, including rent, taxes, food and other necessities. They know that Hochul’s reputation is that she says one thing and then does the opposite, case in point, her congestion policy. Now they can see the handwriting on the wall. Despite her assertions to the contrary at some point, probably after the 2026 election she will give in to the lefties and raise taxes, and not just on the “wealthy.”

The lefties are becoming increasingly creative in ways to confiscate your money. For example, there has been talk of levying a “death tax” on a decedent’s wealth. By the way, in NYC how much annual income defines one as “wealthy?” Is it $100,000, $200,000, more? That sounds like a lot, but any NYC resident will tell you money doesn’t go very far when one factors in the high cost of living and punitive tax base. Now, having experienced the low or no-state taxes of Florida, Texas, Tennessee and other “red states” the rich have no intention of returning.

Furthermore, Hochul and Mamdani have formed a political partnership despite their ideological differences. As you may recall Hochul, in an attempt to unite the moderate and left-wing portions of the Dem Party in NYS, endorsed the socialist/communist/antisemitic Mamdani in his successful 2025 mayoral campaign. She was hopeful that he would support her in her re-election bid. He did, but he can always withdraw it or threaten to do so, and she knows it.

Hochul’s call for the rich former residents to return comes as she attempts to expand the state’s tax base in order to satisfy one of Mamdani’s primary demands that she raise tax rates. Blakeman derisively stated “Kathy Hochul finally discovered what New Yorkers already know. When you raise taxes, drive up the cost of living, make it harder to do business, and try to destroy families’ savings, people leave.” Barstool Sports Founder Dave Portnoy was not constrained by political niceties. He called it “unbelievable arrogance and hypocrisy” to ask wealthy New Yorkers to return home.

Mamdani has already become the dominant partner in the aforementioned alignment. It’s very unusual, if not unique, for a mayor to hold sway over a governor, but that’s how I see it. The left wing is very aggressive. Hochul is desperate to secure its support in her re-election campaign. She won a tight race in 2022, and she needs a united party behind her to win in 2026. As I indicated above already, she has been facing immense political pressure from the socialist wing to raise income and corporate taxes in order to pay for its planned extravagant spending programs, such as subsidizing bus rides and universal free childcare and healthcare. So far, she has resisted, but I expect her to cave eventually.

Conclusion

For New Yorkers the hits just keep on coming. It’s hard for me to feel sorry for them since they elected him. What did they expect would happen? They asked for it (socialism/communism), and they’re getting it.

Mamdani and his crew don’t have the foggiest notion of how to govern. I wouldn’t select them to run a lemonade stand much a large, complex city like NYC. Unless the adults manage to retake control, I fear that NYC, which has always been the crown jewel of the US, will inevitably deteriorate into a communist/socialist hellhole, i.e. an extremely unpleasant, filthy, squalid, miserable, chaotic, nightmarish place in which to live, work or even visit. If you think that is an extreme statement, just wait.

by Tags: , , , , , Leave a comment

VOTER ID

As always, the contents of this blog are a compendium of various media reports supplemented by my personal opinion, where noted.

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act is a proposed US federal law that aims to restrict voting in federal elections to citizens. Voters would be required to present proof of citizenship, such as a passport or birth certificate in order to register to vote. Furthermore, it would necessitate anyone voting in person to produce a photo ID, such as a driver’s license, strengthen procedures for on-line voting, and mandate stricter voter roll maintenance by the states to prevent unauthorized persons from voting. President Trump has characterized the Bill as his “number one [legislative] priority.”

The SAVE Act was narrowly approved by the House earlier this year, however, it faces strong opposition in the Senate. The Repubs hold a 53-47 margin in the Senate, but the cloture rules require 60 “yea” votes to pass the bill. The Senate voted 51-48 to commence debate on the bill, but the Repubs acknowledge that at the present time they “don’t have the votes” to pass the bill. Already Repub Senators Lisa Murkowski and Thom Tillis have expressed “concerns” indicating they may not support it. The debate is expected to be lengthy and contentious. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has signaled that he will endeavor to keep it on the floor at least into next week to provide opportunity for a “full and robust debate.”

As I said above the bill is very controversial among the individual congresspersons. I discussed the pros and cons at length in a previous blog, and I don’t see a need to repeat them now. Briefly, the Republicans claim it will (1) eliminate voting irregularities including outright fraud of which there have been many examples in our history, and (2) provide for free and fair elections, which is the cornerstone of our Republic.

In my opinion these are logical and necessary goals. Who would oppose them? Why? Of course, the Congressional Dems. They claim it would disenfranchise minority voters disproportionally. As I explained in my previous in my view this is a load of malarkey. Not only is it fictitious, but also every poll shows that even minorities don’t agree. In fact, many of them take umbrage and deride that argument as racist.

We all know the real reason. Dems want as many noncitizens as possible to be able to vote, because they feel most of them will vote Dem. That is a major reason why they opened our borders for four years. Moreover, loose voter rolls and voting requirements favor them as well. The bottom line is that in the current political climate the only way the Dems can win a national election is by cheating.

Probably, the bill will fail to pass, but at least the Dems will have been forced to disclose their opinions regarding this issue on the record. Some Dems, particularly those who represent districts that Trump won in 2024 or those who are running for re-election in 2026 will have to choose between the lesser of two evils. On one hand, party leadership is pressuring them to vote “no,” but on the other hand doing so will likely hurt their prospects for re-election.

What’s really interesting and informative are some of the comments Dems have made in the past on this issue. In the age of the internet, one can no longer dismiss past comments as “exaggerated” or “taken out of context.” For example, take (Up)Chuck Schumer, aka “dead man walking (politically).” I saw a video of a speech he gave in 1996 in which he advocated voter ID. He made the same arguments that Repubs do today. Once again, it illustrates he is an opportunist, a political chameleon, and not to be trusted.

Conclusion

The polls regarding this issue are as one-sided as any I have ever seen. They are all consistent – Pew, Gallup, Heritage, Rasmussen, Fox, even fake-news CNN. Some 71% of respondents are in favor of the bill, including 69% of independents and even half of Dems. 81% favor requiring voter ID, including 79% of independents and 70% of Democrats. 80% want states to purge non-citizens from voter rolls. 61% support sharing unredacted voter rolls with the Department of Homeland Security. 58% recognize at least some voter fraud exists in elections. The bill is widely viewed as a “common sense” way to combat fraud and protect the integrity of our elections.”

Once again, the Dem congresspersons find themselves on the wrong side of an 80-20 issue. Once again, they will be exposed as not caring about the well-being of their constituents but only about gaining and retaining power.

I urge you to remember this on Election Day.

by Tags: , , , Leave a comment

STATE OF THE UNION

The contents of this blog are a compendium of multiple media reports supplemented by my personal opinion where indicated.

In accordance with Article II, Section 3, Clause 1 of the US Constitution the President “shall from time to time give to Congress information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” The Constitution does not offer any specifics, such as the date and manner of delivery.

President George Washington delivered the initial SOTU in person to a joint session of Congress on January 1, 1801. Thereafter, most presidents chose to deliver a written report. In 1913 President Woodrow Wilson broke with tradition and commenced the practice of delivering the SOTU in person. Later, with the advent of radio, then TV and later the internet, the SOTU began to be communicated live to a nationwide and worldwide audience. Traditionally, presidents have delivered the SOTU between January 1 and March 1.

Typically, presidents utilize the SOTU to present a positive account of their past accomplishments and prospective plans. Political sycophants in the audience frequently interrupt the speech to stand and applaud while political opponents often just sit stone-faced. Most viewers are aware that the SOTU is short on facts and long on politics, hyperbole and theatre. Fact checkers would have a field day. As the expression goes, “it is what it is.” It should be noted that the opposition party gets to offer a rebuttal.

Last night President Trump delivered the SOTU for 2026. Everyone will have his or her own opinion. Below please find my comments and takeaways:

  1. Trump’s speech was typical “Trump.” That is, he sprinkled the serious content with moments of humor and sarcasm. For example, on several occasions he chastised Dems in the audience for not standing up to acknowledge his special guests, and then when many of them (not Nancy Pelosi) did stand up to show support for the “Stop Insider Trading Act,” which aims to prohibit congressmen from profiting from trading on inside information, he feigned surprise. Undoubtedly, some of his detractors will criticize him for his style, but I loved it.
  2. Many Dems exhibited a considerable lack of class and professionalism. Approximately 70 of them boycotted the speech entirely; some texted; some interrupted by shouting slogans; one or two nodded off; once again Al Green had to be ceremoniously escorted out of the chamber; and most who did attend mostly sat on their hands even for poignant and patriotic moments.
  3. He admonished the Dems for their stance on various “80-20” issues, such as gender transition of minors without their parents’ consent or even knowledge, sanctuary policies, and opposing voter ID for elections. As I have blogged previously we all know that the only reason to oppose voter ID is to foster cheating.
  4. On several occasions he denoted that the Dems’ policies inexplicably favored illegal aliens over citizens, whereas the Repubs’ policies appropriately favor American citizens over illegals.
  5. He called out NYC mayor Mamdani for his hypocritical stance of requiring volunteer snow shovelers to present multiple forms of ID in stark contrast to his advocating no IDs to vote.
  6. He criticized Dems for causing multiple government shutdowns in order to defund ICE and to gain Medicare and other rights for illegals.
  7. He vowed to continue the fight to reduce healthcare costs.
  8. On the international front he mentioned the many peace deals he had brokered to settle longstanding conflicts and the ongoing negotiations between Russia and Ukraine and Israel and Hamas. He reiterated that Iran will “never” be allowed to possess nuclear capability. I believe Trump knows Iran is stalling (its version of a “rope a dope”), and he will attack sooner rather than later.
  9. My one criticism was he couldn’t resist admonishing the Supreme Court for its recent opinion, which struck down his “reciprocal tariff” policy. He characterized it as “a very unfortunate ruling.” He didn’t have to do that, particularly since his Administration is already pursuing alternate pathways to achieve his goal, and most of the other countries have indicated that they will honor their tariff agreements anyway. Moreover, he will need the court’s support on other crucial matters prospectively.
  10. He emphasized several of his major accomplishments, such as reducing inflation, improving the economy, passing the Big Beautiful Bill, closing the border, and drastically reducing the flow of fentanyl and other deadly drugs. Inflation, unemployment, food prices and gas at the pump are down. Oil production and the financial markets are up. (Remember, the financial markets are a leading indicator, so this bodes well for the economy prospectively.) The BBB will provide the most substantial income tax reduction for the middle and working classes in my lifetime, such as no tax on tips or overtime, reduced taxes on social security for most seniors and the advent of the “Trump Accounts” for children of American citizens.
  11. On several occasions he repeated the theme of patriotism. For example, he lauded the Olympic gold medal performance of the men’s hockey team. They had been his guests at the White House, and he introduced them to wild and sustained applause (even from some, but not all Dems in attendance). In addition, he presented the star goalie with the Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor. The women’s gold medal team was also invited. They could not attend due to a scheduling conflict, but it is expected that they will prospectively. He introduced a 100-yer-old veteran of the Korean War and a WWII veteran who will be celebrating his 100th birthday on July 4 and presented them both with the Congressional Medal of Honor.
  12. He touted America’s upcoming 250th Birthday Celebration on July 4 and its hosting of the 2026 World Cup this summer and the 2028 Republican Convention in 2028.

Conclusion

A sampling of post-speech polls was generally favorable. For instance, 54% believed that Trump was focusing on the right issues; a majority opined that his immigration and economic policies are “in line with the nation’s best interest;” 45% expressed full faith in his leadership; 43% support his using US military power “responsibly;” and a plurality of 38% felt that he would be able to deal with Iran “appropriately.” Respondents were evenly divided on his tariff policy. However, 45% felt he was paying insufficient attention to the cost of living, and 40% expressed “no confidence” that he could make things more affordable. These polls are merely a snapshot. They are informative but no means dispositive.

Since he entered politics Trump has been heavily criticized for many things, but one cannot deny his patriotism. His deep love for America is epitomized by his twin slogans “MAGA” and “America First.” When all is said and done, I, for one, will rest easily as long as he is the President.

by Tags: , , Leave a comment

VOTER ID LAWS

As always, the following is gleaned from a compendium of multiple media accounts supplemented by my personal opinion, where indicated.

Once again, the Dems are espousing the wrong side of an 80-20 issue. It should be surprising that they keep finding themselves in this position, but it seems to be their modus operandi. It seems that they can’t help themselves. Their TDS overrules all rationality. Anything President Trump is for they must be against regardless of the will of the people. The current issue is whether or not a person should be required to produce proper identification in order to vote.

Before 2006, no state required a person to present ID in order to vote. However, in 2006 Indiana became the first state to pass a law requiring voters to produce ID at the polls. Its legality was challenged, but eventually, the Supreme Court upheld this requirement as long as the laws were “neutral and did not significantly burden voters.” According to Wikipedia currently thirty-six states have implemented voter ID laws with varying degrees of stringency. The other 14 states plus Washington D.C. still allow voting without ID. Support for voter ID laws is often fueled by concerns over voter fraud. A 2013 poll disclosed that 43% of voters believed that voter fraud was “relatively common,” and a 2010 survey revealed that some 80% of respondents supported some form of ID requirement.  At the present time various polls have reported bilateral support. Some 80% of the public, including some 70% of Dems, support voter ID laws.

Critics of strict voter ID laws argue that they disproportionately affect minority, low-income, and elderly populations. Furthermore, they claim it is a “non-issue” as voter ID fraud is “exceedingly rare.” I don’t subscribe to these arguments. Our history is replete with instances of elections whose results were tainted by suspicions of voter irregularities, if not outright fraud. For example, for years there were suspicions that “machines” such as NYC’s Tammany Hall perpetrated such irregularities. In the 1960s it was suspected that Chicago Mayor Richard Daley padded Dem votes. The joke was that in Chicago even dead people voted. The 2000 presidential election results were tainted by irregularities such as the infamous “hanging chads” in Florida. Eventually the Supreme Court had to weigh in. To this day, many Gore supporters insist he was the real winner. Most recently many Trump supporters have questioned the validity of the 2020 presidential election.

The arguments against voter ID laws had some validity in the South during the “Jim Crow” period when voter suppression of Blacks was common. Nowadays, I don’t believe that is an issue. In fact, many minorities view the Dems’ opposition to voter ID as an insult and racist in and of itself. The implication is that Dem politicians such as Chuck Schumer, Kamala Harris and Jamie Raskin, to name a few, consider minorities and women to be incapable obtaining a valid ID via the DMV or the internet. Schumer has even characterized voter ID laws such as the Trump sponsored SAVE America Act as “Jim Crow 2.0.” Pollsters who have queried minorities regarding this matter have generally been met with puzzlement or indignation.

Let’s be honest. We all know the real reason for the Dems’ opposition. They want legions of non-citizens to be able to vote. They feel that most of them would vote Democrat in order to continue to get freebies from the government, and that would result in Dems having a better chance to win elections. I and many others firmly believe that that was one of the reasons why they pursued the open borders policy during the Biden Administration.

Conclusion

Voter ID requirements are necessary in order to engender confidence that elections are fair and equitable. Furthermore, one is required to produce ID for a myriad of routine activities in everyday life such as driving a car, flying on an airplane, gaining employment, applying for or receiving government benefits, getting a marriage license, and age-restricted purchases such as alcohol or cigarettes. Why not for voting, which in my view is the most important act for a citizen.

Fair and equitable elections are one of the cornerstones of our democracy. If the public does not have confidence in election results our entire system of government would dissipate.

by Tags: , , Leave a comment

CLUELESS CELEBRITIES

The content of this blog is a compendium of multiple media reports supplemented by my own opinion, where indicated.

I don’t know about you, but I, for one, am sick and tired of clueless celebrities spouting their opinions on serious issues, offering unsolicited, often inane advice on how we should live our lives. You see them on tv or read about them virtually every day. They continually feel the need to opine on every “hot” issue, no doubt to feed their massive egos. Their latest target is ICE’s roundup of illegal immigrants, but there have been many others too numerous to mention them all as they flit from issue to issue.

They speak out authoritatively without the foggiest idea of what they are talking about. They don’t comprehend that no one values their opinion anymore. Many of them are “has beens” anyway looking to become relevant again, to resurrect their careers. They may be great at acting, singing, athletics or whatever, but when it comes to real life issues, they are clueless.

They advise the rest of us on how to live our lives. I don’t need to take advice on serious life issues from the likes of Jane Fonda (aka “Hanoi Jane”), Molly Ringwald (who hasn’t had a “hit” movie in forever), George Clooney, LeBron James, Bruce Springsteen, Chuck Schumer, or Lady Gaga, among many others. When do you suppose was the last time one of them shopped for food or gassed up their car? They have no conception of the cost of feeding or sheltering their family. They are insulated from crime behind their walled communities and personal security teams. I doubt any of them have ever met an immigrant, legal or illegal, unless he/she was a caregiver or gardener. I have two words of advice for them: “SHUT UP!”

Conclusion

I just had to get that off my chest. Thanks for listening. Do any of you feel the same way? I’d like to know.

by Tags: , Leave a comment