Democrats are nothing if not full of damnation of George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq.  Listening to them you know they all would have handled Iraq perfectly.  Unfortunately, some made the mistake of committing their thoughts at the time to writing.

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

Letter to President Clinton –  “[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” — From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.” — Madeline Albright, 1998

“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

Similar statements were made by Tom Harkin, Sandy Berger, Barbara Boxer, Robert “KKK” Byrd, Dick Gephardt, Bob Graham, Algore, Ted Kennedy, Carl Levin, Patty Murray, Nancy Pelosi and Henry Waxman.

These people must be really stupid if a clueless dufus like “W” could fool them so effectively.  Or, perhaps they suffer from what we call in young children “selective memory.”


It is amazing just how “in the tank” the mainstream (lamestream) media is for the left.  For many years the consensus on torture was that it works.  In fact, I am given to understand that in the U.S. military their training concerning the subject of capture had long been recognition that “everyone breaks.”  The training advised strategies to accept that fact, to hold out as long as possible and then talk without giving up any more information than necessary.  Most certainly the British, Germans, Soviets and the French believed it works.  Today we seem to have a new consensus.  It is now that torture does not work.  Rather odd in light of the fact that the three individuals subjected to water boarding after 911 all gave up vital information.  On the other hand, Bush’s lawyers decreed that water boarding was not torture.  So if the left insists that it is, they are killing their own argument.  And when did this change of consensus occur?  It occurred shortly after the left discovered that George W. Bush had approved the use of water boarding.

Surprisingly, or perhaps not, one of the most vocal opponents of water boarding has been former Viet Nam POW and current U.S. Senator John McCain – a Republican.  I disagree with the Senator on the subject of water boarding and, in fact, have sent him a number of very critical missives on various statements and policies of his.  But make no mistake on one point.  John McCain is a hero.  Not just for his actions as a POW, but also his actions during a horrendous fire on board the carrier USS Forrestal (that, BTW, Democrats shamefully tried to blame on him in 2008).  That does not, however, constitute a free pass to make stupid statements.

The Senator’s position and that of the left has been if we use torture, our enemies may be emboldened to use it on American personnel.  All of this presupposes that those enemies who might be tempted to use torture on our troops need the excuse of us doing it first.  I find this thinking very odd since American soldiers were tortured by the Japanese and Germans in WW2, the North Koreans and the Chinese in Korea, and the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese in Viet Nam.  All of this was before George Bush became President.

As I write this they still do not have a final count on the number of persons killed in the terrorist attacks in Belgium.  The last count I heard was 30 dead and hundreds injured – some horrifically.  So the question you need to ask yourself is simple.  If all 30 of those people could have been saved by water boarding one of the terrorists captured in Belgium a few days prior, should they have done it?  Yes or no?


Today’s threatened first day of Spring snowstorm did not materialize in my “neck of the woods.”  We had to settle for a day of light rain.  It did remind me of an event almost exactly a year ago.  A little more than a week into last Spring, Palm Sunday dawned with the temperature low enough to leave the surface of the ground rock hard and leave a layer of ice on the water puddles left from several rain showers of the preceding week.  On the way to church I noticed a number of robins “a bob bob bobbin’ along” in various yards looking for food.  They had actually started showing up about two weeks previously.  I have been told that there are plenty of robins around during the winter, but they spend most of their time in the wetlands that border the Chesapeake Bay.

Trying to be humorous I remarked to my sister that the robins must be looking for “Gorton’s Frozen Worms.”  She offered a pity chuckle.  I knew that “Gorton’s” was not the best choice, but I could not quickly think of the name of the more common frozen food companies.  I guess “Gorton’s” came to mind since we had their frozen fish fillets a few days earlier.  I mentioned that it might have been more humorous with the name of a different frozen food company.  She suggested “Birdseye.”  That was much better, I thought.  Robin.  Birdseye.  Yeah, that would be much better.  I wondered aloud how the company came by that name.  To my surprise my sister knew.  Turns out the company was started by a gentleman named Birdseye.  He got the idea from seeing Eskimos (oops, Native Alaskans) leave newly caught fish outside during freezing weather to keep them fresher.  All right, “Birdseye Frozen Worms.”  That’s better.  A little late, but better.

After church, while my sister was saying hello to each and every flower at the florist shop I had a chance to think about the earlier conversation.  It provided more food (unfrozen) for thought.  When I was working my way through school I dated a girl who found unending amusement in the fact that her dad had a friend whose name was Lipshitz.  I wonder what might have happened if Mr. Lipshitz had spent some time in Alaska and founded his own food  company.  “Lipshitz Frozen Foods.”  How does that sound?  Would you buy “Lipshitz Frozen Peas?”

I can imagine a young Bob Newhart doing one of his comedy routines in which we hear only his side of the phone conversation.  He’s a marketing consultant talking with Mr. Lipshitz about choosing a new name for his company rather than “Lipshitz Frozen Foods.”  Bob starts off.

“But, don’t you see Mr. Lipshitz, you want people to find the name of your company attractive.”  Pause.

“No, I think the words ‘frozen’ and ‘foods’ are just fine.”  Pause.

“Yes, sir, I’m afraid so.  It’s your name that’s the problem.”  Pause.

“Sure, I understand that you feel you must have a personal connection with the customer.  That’s always a good idea.  Perhaps we could consider your first name; that’s very personal.”  Pause.

“Ah, well, tell me, Hyman, what’s your middle name?”  Pause.

“Okay, well, let’s consider ‘Aethelberht Frozen Foods’ a working title for now.  We’ll keep thinking about it.  Moving on to other considerations…”

Maybe that’s a clue to the origin of the “Jolly Green Giant.”


The Democrats, with media support, are falling all over themselves clamoring to pressure the Republican controlled Senate to hold confirmation hearings for Obama’s nominee to replace Justice Scalia.  In this case, however, I’m afraid I must bow to the previous collective wisdom of uber liberal Democrats Chuck E. Shumer and Joe Biden.

During a speech at a convention of the American Constitution Society in July 2007, Schumer said if any new Supreme Court vacancies opened up, Democrats should not allow Bush the chance to fill it except in extraordinary circumstances.  “We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer said, according to Politico.  Notably, when he made his remarks in 2007, Bush had about seven more months remaining in his presidential term than Obama has remaining in his.

As reported in the Washington Post, Joe Biden who, while serving in 1992 as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, delivered a 90-minute floor address that included a call for halting action on Supreme Court nominees in an election year.

Biden delivered his remarks in late June.  Were there a vacancy, Biden argued, Bush should “not name a nominee until after the November election is completed,” and if he did, “the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over.  Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself,” he continued. “Where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties.”

Embedded in the roughly 20,000 words he delivered on the Senate floor that day were rebuttals to virtually every point Democrats have brought forth in the past week to argue for the consideration of Obama’s nominee.

Biden anticipated, for instance, that he would be accused of blockading an embattled Republican president’s nominees out of political expediency. “That would not be our intention,” he said. “Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. That is what is fair to the nominee and is central to the process.”

There is, of course, an alternative path the Republicans could take.  In this case they could take a page from the Democrats’ playbook.  They could give Obama’s nominee a fair hearing and then “BORK” him.


Toxic environment.  Have you noticed how every media outlet and talk show has latched onto that phrase?  They can’t do a report on Trump’s campaign now without multiple uses of that phrase.  In my last post I compared today’s attacks on Donald Trump for fostering a “toxic” environment leading to violence with the 1968 Democratic convention.  For the umpteenth + 1 time I am not a Trump supporter – don’t care for him.  But, given a choice between him, Hillary or Bernie I will vote for Donald.

The facts are simple.  Trump has been targeted by left-wing activists looking to make trouble.  And they have succeeded.  This has given the liberals, left-wingers, Democrats AND the media an open season on Trump.  It seems to me this concentration on Trump is an indicator that they fear Trump most.  To their everlasting shame Trump’s primary opponents have joined in on this.  They should be siding with Trump and calling out the Democrats and the media.

Trump has been accused of creating a toxic environment.  The media has a clip of a 78-year-old man striking a 32-year-old troublemaker with his forearm that they show over and over and over.  Let us consider other current events.

Last year saw the turbulent events around the deaths of Freddie Gray and Michael Brown.  Never mind that the “hands up don’t shoot” crap is a total lie.  It has become the hate filled anthem of Black Lives Matter, Al Sharpton, liberal Democrats and the media.  We have seen calls for everything from the murder of cops to the classification of whole Police Departments as racist.  The media has made an art of second guessing every police action.  Every one of you has witnessed these threats, accusations and characterizations.

Have you seen the President, the Attorney General, any Democrat politician, any black leader or anyone in the media warn of the “toxic” environment being created against the police?  I have heard not a peep from any of those I just listed.  Even now they are all decrying Trump’s toxic environment, but have little interest in attacks on police.

There have been several reports of police being “ambushed” in this country since last summer.  These unprovoked attacks do not include instances wherein a police confrontation with an individual, which may have previously been resolved without violence, has been influenced by increased hatred of the police and resulted in a shoot out.  But the media is not interested in this “toxic” environment nearly as much as a 78-year-old forearm lashing out.


First of all I feel the need to point out for the umpteenth time that I am not a Trump supporter.  I don’t care for the man and I will not vote for him in the Maryland Primary.  But, if he gets the Republican nomination I will hold my nose and vote for him before either Sanders or Hillary.  That said I’m really ticked because right now he is getting a bump rap from the Democrats, the media and, to their shame, his Republican opponents.  Charges have been made trying to link him to Hitler’s tactics in the 1930s and now to violent demonstrations at some of his campaign events and the roughing up of a reporterette.  The first two charges are scurrilous lies.  The third is not yet clear.

Every year thousands of government employees, police officers, firemen, new citizens and military recruits raise their right hand and take an oath.  Are they Nazis?  Obviously not.  Yet, when people at a Trump rally are asked to do the same thing the Democrats, with the help of the mainstream (or lamestream) media throw around charges of Nazi intentions.  So far none of his Republican opponents have stooped to join the lying Democrats and I hope they will restrain themselves.

Now, more recently, we have the charges of inciting violence.  On this, I’m sorry to observe, the Republicans have been complicit with the lying Democrats and their media cohorts.  At a Trump rally earlier this week a 32 year old protester who was being escorted from the rally after attempting to interrupt it was struck by a 78 year old man.  Yeah, that’s right, 78.  Setting aside the question of how much damage a 78 year old can do to a 32 year old with a forearm the media has decided to make this into an anti-Trump issue.  They showed the clip of this event over and over and over ad nauseum while claiming that Trump’s comments about feeling the urge to assault protesters was driving his weak-willed supporters to violence.  Interestingly, of the thousands of supporters at that rally only one choose to do so.  Compare and contrast, as the professors used to instruct in college, what I have just discussed with an incident in 2004.  At a Howard Dean (“aaarrrrrrrggggggghhhhhhh”) rally a supporter of Lyndon LaRouche attempted to interrupt by shouting during Dean’s speech.  The cowardly bully Al Franken grabbed the senior citizen from behind and body slammed him to the floor.  When asked about it later Franken proudly proclaimed he did it (are you ready for this) to preserve the right to free speech.  You’re familiar with the story I’m sure.  No?  You don’t remember seeing it shown repeatedly by the alphabet networks.  That’s because they buried that story as quickly as possible.

Now to the most recent flap.  Trump had a rally scheduled in Chicago and based on threats from left wing thugs up to and including Bill Ayres, Trump cancelled the meeting to avoid violence.  Chicago police officials claimed there was no danger as they had scheduled an extra 100 officers for the event.  Chicago.  I have previously pointed out that Baltimore has been controlled by the Democratic Party for 100 years.  I’m not familiar with Chicago, but I know it has been under Democratic control for many years.  I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if it was more than 100 years.  And the thuggishly brutal culture we see there today has evolved over many years.  Not many alive today were around during the heyday of Al Capone, but you may have read about him or seen the movie “The Untouchables.”  In those days the thugs and the Chicago government worked hand in hand.  Capone died long ago and most of the Mob’s influenced has waned.  But not the thuggish Chicago Democratic political machine.

Come forward to 1968.  The Chicago “Machine” was hosting the Democratic Party’s nominating convention.  Unanticipated was the fact that a group of left-wing radicals even more to the left and even more thuggish than the Democratic “Machine” decided to interrupt the convention to make clear their unhappiness with the Democratic candidates who they felt were not far enough to the left.  During the convention demonstrations were met by 23,000 police and National Guardsmen in violent clashes with the radicals.  In what might be called prescient events a reporter at the convention, one Dan Rather, was roughed up by event security.  Over his open microphone Rather was heard to say to the security staff, “Don’t push me” and “Take your hands off me unless you plan to arrest me.”  In addition, Senator Abe Ribicoff, in his nominating speech of George McGovern, referred to the “Gestapo tactics” of the Chicago police.  And you know what?  Donald Trump wasn’t even there.  In fact, neither was George W. Bush.  But Bill Ayres was.  Ayres is perhaps the ultimate Chicago thug – check him out at “”  In fact, Ayres’ mentor, Saul Alinsky, learned his thuggish craft quite literally from Capone associate Frank Nitti.  That was before Alinsky became Hillary’s mentor and before Obama became an acolyte of both Alinsky and Ayres.

Thus the thuggish culture of Chicago has continued to dominate and prosper.  If you have any doubt, just research the murder rate and the list of indictments for corruption in the “Windy City.”


This global climate warming change thingy is really getting to me.  On this morning’s news there was a short segment featuring returning astronaut Scott Kelly.  He talked about looking at the earth’s thin atmosphere and feeling a sense of how “fragile” it “looked.”  I would say it left me speechless except that I seldom am on this topic.  I was in my doctor’s waiting room recently perusing an issue of Discover magazine.  It was a rather ancient (as waiting room magazines are wont to be) March, 2014 copy.  I was sad about that because there was a review of a book titled The Sixth Extinction by “Journalist” Elizabeth Kolbert.

The thrust of her argument is that global climate warming change is driving thousands of species to extinction.  As I have neither read the book nor plan to read it, I assume (and you know what happens when you do that) she is a supporter of all kinds of expensive steps to stop, slow or eliminate CO2.  I have already addressed CO2 in previous posts so I won’t go there now.  I would have liked the opportunity to send a letter to senior editor and reviewer Becky Lang requesting that she contact Ms. Kolbert to ask how many thousands of species went extinct during the last interglacial period when the temperature topped out at almost 3 degrees Centigrade HIGHER than it is today and when the sea level was nearly 20 feet HIGHER than today.  I’ll point out again that those “fragile” endangered Polar Bears currently threatened with extinction by a rise of 2 to 4 feet in sea level a hundred years in the future managed to survive the last interglacial.

Another horror story highlighted in the review is the Great Barrier Reef.  Global climate warming change is conspiring to kill this beautiful natural wonder.  Yes, I completely agree that the Reef is a beautiful natural wonder.  But it wasn’t there 20,000 years ago during the last glacial maximum when the sea level was 400 feel lower than today or during the already mentioned previous interglacial.  And if sea level rises enough to kill the Reef it will be replaced by a higher reef.  As I have pointed out previously reefs exist within a certain range of depth beneath the current sea level – whatever that happens to be at any given time in history.

I know, of course, that I’m just being silly.  Had I written to Discover on this subject the day the issue hit the stands, it would still have been ignored.  Global climate warming change is the new sacrament of the left and denial is the heresy that must not be spoken.  Or reported for that matter.  But sometimes you just need to get things off your chest.  The alternative is to retire to Bedlam.  But you know what; I think I’ll send a copy of this to Discover just to let them know that we’re still out here.  Watching them.  Hee, hee, hee…