IG calls Jimmy the shape shifter Comey a lying, leaking, POS ; Comey claims victory

Jimmy the shape shifter Comey was absolutely leveled by the IG report.  Still being ever the supreme d-bag that he is, the shifter is demanding an apology.  Okay, Jimmy sorry you are such a sanctimonious, lying, leaking, anti-American 6’9” stack of walking, talking human sh*t.  That should about cover the waterfront.

Still after the IG laid out 70+ pages of demonstrating what a complete POS the shifter is, how he broke the rules and was only saved from the charge of releasing “classified” information because, get this, Pete Strozk, Lisa Page and a couple of other deep state azzbags were in charge of the classification process – the shifter escaped indictment.

That makes what, nearly 1 indictment behind the silent coup.  Hannity ran the same show last night for, what, the 3,000 time – tic toc, indictments are coming, tic toc.  Katherine Heritage hit the nail on the head when she reported that some have labeled the Department of Justice as the Department of Just for US.

I’m willing to wait for now.  We’ll see after IG FISA abuse investigation and the Durham report are released.  If the whole gang isn’t rounded up and jailed after that, we’ll know for certain there is a two-tiered justice system in America.  One for well-healed Demo-Dopes and one for the rest of us bitter clingers.

I think the DOJ refusal to indict Comey would give PDJT top cover to pardon Manafort, Flynn, Simon, Page, Popadopolis et. al. Yes even Cohen.  The deep state screwed him as well. 

Comey destroyed the reputation of the FBI and visited 2 1/2 years of hoax on the American people. Comey should have his azz beaten to pulp, tarred and feathered and then be dumped in the Potomac. If he floats he's a witch.            

Today’s JG rant

Re: Leigh Morris’s letter “’Middle Way’ avoids gutter” of Aug 29, 2019

      

Since Morris seems to be able to channel Ike, next time she gets in touch with him ask him the following:

General, where would you find a “middle way” with a party that would send its thug army of racist fascists into the streets of Washington, D.C. to riot and burn the town on your Inauguration Day?

Where’s the “middle way” with party that accused you of collusion with America’s enemies and being a traitor to your country?

What “middle ground” could you find with a party that daily calls you and your supporters racists, white supremacists, white nationalists and compares you all to Hitler?

Would you be able to find a “middle way” with a party that routinely stages your mock assassination and attacks your family relentlessly including your adolescent son?

Ike, where exactly is the “middle way” with a party whose position on abortion has shifted from the big lie of “safe, legal and rare” to its dream of anytime anywhere up to 1,2,3 days after a live birth – i.e. MURDER – where’s the “middle way” with that Mengele like position?

Where is the “middle way” with a party that advocates for open borders to allow the free flow of drug smugglers, human trafficers, terrorists, floods of unskilled, uneducated and often criminal aliens into the country and then asks American taxpayers to foot the bill for their healthcare, education, housing etc.? 

Where’s the “middle way” with a party that calls anyone demanding an orderly process of legal immigration racists and xenophobes?

General, could you find a “middle way” with a party whose face is a collection of racist, anti-Semitic, pro-Communists, and is beholding to a clown army faux race baiting Revs?

Get answers to those questions and then come back and tell us what the “middle way” is with a bunch of left-wing loons intent on destroying the country.  Fact is that left is and has been for some time in the gutter.  I’m old enough to remember when the left compared George W. Bush to Hitler.

Thursday, August 29, 2019 1:00 am

'Middle Way' avoids gutter

Eisenhower's philosophy relevant today

Leigh Morris

Leigh Morris is the former mayor of La Porte and former chairman of the La Porte County Republican Party.

The other day, I was driving down a road that had been recently repaved but had not yet had striping to designate traffic lanes. It occurred to me that the signs cautioning “No center line” could well apply to voters as well. 

As a political centrist, I'm beginning to think of myself as a part of an endangered species. It seems to me that the political center – the middle of the political road – has been shrinking rapidly, allowing the far left and the far right to increasingly dominate the political scene.

Nowhere is that more evident than in Congress, where there's been such deterioration in the capacity to carry out its important role in dealing with scores of major issues.

No Labels, a group that advocates rising above partisanship, has evaluated our current political climate this way:

“The far right and far left are holding America hostage – becoming ever more strident, uncompromising and making governance impossible. They are small in number but drive the national agenda because they are organized, because they vote, contribute to and volunteer for campaigns. In short, they show up while the vast political center has remained on the sidelines.”

Former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman believes one of the reasons extremists are dominating so much of the political process is that the major political parties have become more ideological and fewer and fewer people are voting.

She observed that political parties “used to be like umbrellas, where you had a central handle which was the shared core beliefs, and then you had all the spokes that held up the canopy, and those were different ways of interpreting those beliefs. But you could still have that central core.”

I'm a student of history, and I've been looking increasingly at the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower. Ike was a centrist. He called his political philosophy “The Middle Way.”

He appealed to the majority of Americans by being neither a reactionary nor a socialist; neither an appeaser nor a warmonger.

Ike disliked extremists and demagogues, believing the far left and right were wrong on all political and moral issues.

He referred to the political spectrum as a bowling alley with the extremes as the “gutters” and said he was on the right track when getting attacked by “both sides.”

In his book, “The White House Years,” author Jim Newton noted that Ike “was a gentleman, not a bomb thrower. He did not publicly insult opponents by name. He also avoided criticizing the intelligence and motives of other politicians, believing this was impolite and unforgivable.”

Times have clearly changed since the 1950s when Ike's Middle Way enabled the political parties and three branches of our federal government to function productively.

However, I think Ike's basic principles are still valid. Revisiting them could lead us away from the gridlock that comes from the prevalent “my way or the highway” approach to governing.

I hope and pray we can find a way to regain some of the many advantages of Ike's Middle Way.

No Post post

Sorry, not today.

Just some stuff

The drumbeat continues in the conservative news feeds:  Heads will soon roll as a result of the Deep State’s attempted coup.  Hannity has had essentially the same show on every night for two years telling us the same thing. Number of heads to roll to date: 0;  Number of heads to roll in the future: ? between 0 and 100. I’ll believe it when I see it.  Remember they had Shrillda the Hutt dead to rights, but the b*tch walks free today. 

The stock market goes up and down naturally.  When the market fluctuates more than a couple of points, analysts search to attribute the change to some outside force.  “Stacks are down 25 today on the news that the All-American Buggy Whip Company is finally closing its doors after 156 years.”  I don’t do stock deals bt all seems like so much BS to me.  It drops 800 points on a computer triggered sell off, and then takes back 300 points over several days when the humans actually look at stock value.  It’s crazy. To even out the up and downs feds ought to consider turning off algorithms that buy and sell stocks in a split second when certain conditions occur.

China is another thing I know squat about except to say that they are Commie bastards up to no good.  Once PDJT gets the upper hand, which he appears to gaining, he ought to stomp the ChiCom bastards into dust.

Brexit?  Why does the EU get a say in the Brit getting out of the EU?  When you go to a party, do you have to get the host’s permission to go home?  When you join the Knights of Columbus do they tell you that you have to continue to pay dues until they tire of your presence?  The only organizations that you cannot leave on your own terms are the mob and a timeshare.  B. Johnson ought to tell the EU make a deal we like, or we’ll hitch our wagon the Trump train and bury you.  

That’s it for today kids. Not my best effort, but I have infusion #14 today so life is already beginning to suck and posting may be even lighter for the next few days.

The incredibly awesome RGB and Andrew Luck

Whatever else you think about the incredible Ruth Bader Ginsburg, she’s tougher than an iron railroad spike.  She’s a 10 year survivor of pancreatic cancer.  She recently underwent surgery for lung cancer and most recently, at the age of 86, took radiation treatments for a relapse of her pancreatic cancer.  She has remained on the bench of the Supreme Court through it all.  For cancer people, she’s an inspiration.

Now take the case of Andrew Luck, the Indianapolis Colts quarterback who is hanging it up at age 29. Luck’s case can be best summed up by the Griffin’s observation that the Colts bought an elite quarterback for 100 million dollars then they spent 50 bucks on an offensive line to protect their investment. 

So how do we explain RBG hanging in there with all of her life threatening problems at age 86 and Luck hanging it up at age 29 due nagging injuries, constant pain and mental anguish?  Well first off, RGB doesn’t have to worry about other justices and interns blind siding her and driving her face into the carpeted hall of the Supreme Court 40-50 times a year.  Sadly that’s was the prospect facing Luck for another season.

Luck’s future was another season of running for his life while trying to carry the Colt offense on his back.  My old high school football coach would sum up Luck’s career like this, “He’s hell when he’s well, but he’s always sick.”  Had he continued, Luck would become the league’s next Tony Romo an elite quarterback prone to injury.

Luck did the Colts a favor by retiring. He gets to keep his money – well deserved in my opinion - but he clears cap money and a spot on the roster by retiring. I cannot believe sunshine Colt fans booed the man.  Nary could a one of them, I’ll wager, last a set of downs in the league. Nor could they tolerate for 10 seconds the constant pain Luck has endured for years.  So to booing Colts fans, go to hell you ungrateful bastards.

My hope is that Luck rehabs over the next year or so and returns to the Colts to throw 50 TD passes, and he stops mid-field to give the fans at Lucas Oil field the finger after every one of them. He’s way too classy to do that, but it’d be gold if he did.            

God bless RGB and Andrew Luck.

Today’s JG rant

One annoying thing about liberals, among many, is that, while they are often the loudest critics on subjects like guns, they know so little about them.  Take Shirley Glade’s letter “Guns rarely stop guns” of Aug 27, 2019.  Glade asks, “why are there minimal reports of anyone in an open-carry gun state managing to take down a mass shooter in action?”

A 2014 FBI study found that 3% of mass shooting since 2000 were stopped by armed citizens.  Other studies put the figure closer to 10%.  Given the corrupt nature of the leftist leadership at FBI, we can be certain be that the 3% figure is artificially low.

So why the low 3-10% figure?  Well first off consider that to qualify as a “mass shootings” 4 or more people need to be killed.  The term does not take into account cases where a potential shooter is deterred or stopped by the presence of an armed citizen before the requisite 4 people are killed to qualify as a mass shooting.

Next, consider where the shootings take place.  Most mass shootings target areas where woke virtue signaling fools publicly announce as “gun free zones.”  Instead of placing a placard in the window of their workplace that declares, “This establishment is protected by armed security,” these boneheads tell every lunatic in the neighborhood that no one in their restaurant, bar, workplace, theater, school etc, is allowed to protect themselves from armed assault.  It makes them an easy target.

Next, carrying weapon concealed or open remains a choice.  In all of my days in Ft. Wayne, I’ve seen an open carry exactly one time. 

One thing is assuredly true, more guns equals less crime.  Statistics Professor John Lott wrote a book on the subject.  FBI crime reports show a steady decline in violent crime since 2007 as the sales of guns – including the dreaded “assault rifle” that no leftist can or wants to define – increases.

Last the AK and AR type rifles have been around for more than 40 years.  According to the FBI, mass shooting began to spike in 2000.  That’s the real question.  What has happened since the year 2000 that has led to the spike in mass shootings?  Hint, it’s not the guns.

Guns rarely stop guns

If, as Eric J. Hinkle (Letters, Aug. 17) argues, “It's OK to let guns stop guns,” why are there minimal reports of anyone in an open-carry gun state managing to take down a mass shooter in action?

Shirley Glade

North Manchester

Abbas promises the slaughter of millions of Palestinian "fighters"

This is awesome news.  Idiot fool and Palestinian President Abbas has promised to bring millions of fighters to invade Jerusalem.  He has obviously not studied the Marine Corps “Small Wars Manual."  Two of the big advantages of an insurgency is picking the time and place of conflict.  Mao said “the insurgent moves among people as a fish moves in the sea.”  Well at least I think it was Mao and I think that’s what he said, but all the readers know what I mean.

So Abbas has given up two big advantages of the insurgency: 1) announcing the “where” 2) promising to put millions of fighters into the announced kill zone.  Israeli generals have to be licking their chops at the prospect of killing millions of azzbag terrorists in one spot, but Abbas is a Palestinian leader so the likelihood of him telling the truth is on a par with a door to door vacuum salesman’s promise that his no-name vacuum comes with a 10 year warranty.

It’ll be like the Tet Offensive in Vietnam when the Viet Cong came out of hiding only to be slaughtered en mass never again to be an effective fighting force.  The really good news is that there is no Walter Cronkite to mischaracterize the victory as a military set back.  The further good news is that American people trust the MSM about as much as the average American trusts the door to door vacuum salesman.  

So this could be awesome news.

Today’s JG rants

Re: JG editorial by Ahmed Abdmageed “Preconceptions set by hyphen limit diversity discussion” of Aug 26, 2019

Not to put too fine a point on it – Ahmed Abdelmageed is either a race baiting fool looking for something to be offended by or an uninformed whiner still looking for something to be offended by.

The English language is very precise.  You means you. As in when a police officer pulls a driver over and asks, “Why did you run the stop light?”  The officer is refereeing to the driver as the operator of a motor vehicle who failed to observe a traffic control device at an intersection - not everyone in whatever group the driver identifies with. If the officer wanted to indict an entire group he could have said, “Why do [you people] [your kind] [you Arabs] ignore stop lights.” 

My high school English teacher warned us on day one about being careful with the use of the word “you.”  If I were to address a letter to the Board of Directors of Corp X and ever used the word “you” as a substitute for the board, as in “you know what I mean”, it was likely to come back with a red through it.  “You all know what I mean” would barely be acceptable.  “The Board members know what I mean”, would be perfectly clear and avoid her red pen.

So when someone writes a rebuttal letter to Abdelmageed and asks, “Why are you such race baiting fool?”  The “someone” is referring specifically to Ahmed Abdelmageed as a race baiting fool not Muslims-, Palestinians-, Arab-, Immigrant-American or whatever other divisive word Abdemageed wishes place in front of the hyphen racists use to divide Americans.

Monday, August 26, 2019 1:00 am

Preconceptions set by hyphen limit diversity discussion

Ahmed Abdelmageed

Ahmed Abdelmageed, assistant dean of alumni and community engagement at Manchester University's College of Pharmacy, is a board member with the Indiana Center for Middle East Peace.

“Why do you [insert question]?”

I've been asked many a variation of the above question. From the seemingly innocuous “Why do you do that?” to the outright belligerent “why do you hate us?”

The “you” in that question is usually in reference to one of the layers of my identity; the ones that precede the hyphen... Muslim-, Palestinian-, Arab-, Immigrant-American.

The question, usually accompanied by an accusatory undertone and a “this is weird” air about it, presupposes that I speak on behalf of that entire hyphenated population. As if my choices in life or the way I express certain things, which are influenced mainly by how, not where, I was brought up, are representative of “them.” The “them” I purportedly represent is seen by the questioner as a monolithic group that does not mesh with, or is antagonistic to, the American way of life.

It is asked, as you may have figured, by someone who does not belong to the group inquired about. Someone who is typically of the majority.

And, unfortunately, it happens way too often.

In my experiences, the above-mentioned questions surrounding my hyphen are frequently employed by those who consider the “other” less than or unworthy. I have witnessed it used, often systemically, to place minorities – such as African-American, Hispanic-American, Asian-American or Arab-Americans – at an arm's length from being just American.

Don't get me wrong, I fully embrace the multiple components of my identity and appreciate their complex intersectionality, but I wholeheartedly reject the use of the hyphen to denote a “less than” status of American. Unfortunately there are more than we would like to admit of those who will always view me, and others like me, as less than, but they are not where I choose to expend my energy. Trying to convince them otherwise is an exercise in futility as their questions are not asked to seek understanding but rather to express their opinion about me.

Now, I understand and fully appreciate the fact that we as human beings are naturally curious. The unfamiliar intrigues us and we seek to understand it. Therefore, I would rather engage those who have questions but are unsure how to ask them. Those who doubt the inflammatory rhetoric they see on traditional and social media. The ones who reject the pressure to fit into an “us” box despite it being tempting and relatively easy for it can be validated and reinforced by their echo chambers.

I'd rather expend my energy on those who refuse what is being peddled and seek truth through understanding.

But we as a society seem to have lost the art of simple, civil conversation. We avoid asking the questions that may expand our understanding in fear of coming across as offensive. We choose not to engage in heated discussions for fear of coming across as defensive. We dance around meaningful conversations to spare ourselves the inconvenience of hurt feelings.

It seems we have bolted down the doors to our silos and replaced intrigue, curiosity and interest with suspicion, anxiousness and fear. And no, you can't hang this on “political correctness” or the “oversensitivity” of people. This is nothing but the product of replacing genuine curiosity and intrigue with crippling, mostly unfounded, fear of the unknown. And that falls squarely on the shoulders of those who choose to stick only with one side of the hyphen over the other.

To better the relationships among our various communities, to enhance the beauty of the mosaic that is the American society, we need to overcome disinformation, hype and unfounded fear. That cannot be accomplished without deep and honest conversations.

Such conversations cannot take place without trust, and trust cannot be established without developing friendships, and friendships do not form when each of us is behind closed doors.

Go out there, assume well of each other, reach across and embrace the beauty of our diversity.

Re: The JG’s absurd, poorly reasoned and colossally stupid editorial “Maximum disclosure” of Aug 23, 2019.  

When the first line of the subject editorial is a bold faced lie, it’s hard to believe anything that follows.  The JG’s alert editors stupidly open the editorial with this whopper, “State Rep. Jeff Ellington doesn't want you to know who's supporting Indiana politicians.”  Then, in the very next line, they get to the truth, “The Bloomington Republican told the Herald-Times he is considering legislation that would remove street addresses from the campaign finance reports.”

NEWS FLASH TO THE EDITORS:  Who is NOT the same thing as where.

I know that the notions of truth and accuracy at the JG have been subordinated to the concept of “support the racist liberal lie no matter what”, but for goodness sake is there not one person at the JG smart enough, honest enough and with enough moral fortitude to say, “This makes no sense.  It’s too stupid for anyone, even us, to print”?  Clearly the answer is a resounding, no.

The reasons listed to require an address on campaign contributions don’t hold water.  In the “Eric Smith” example, requiring Smith’s the address would only serve to confirm or refute the contribution to people who already knew where a particular “Eric Smith” lived.  Including the address would serve no purpose for the general population unless the usual crowd of racist leftists wanted to harass Smith irrespective of where he lived.

As far as determining if the donor lived in the district, a box indicating “Yes” or “No” would accomplish the same purpose without giving unhinged racist leftists the donor’s address for unwanted calls or other harassment.

The last example – guilt by location – is the dumbest of the dumb.  One of my favorite restaurants in Ft. Wayne is located in the same strip mall as one of my least favorite.  What conclusions can I draw from that happenstance?  Geez JG, guilt by association much?     

Friday, August 23, 2019 1:00 am

EDITORIAL

Maximum disclosure

Donor addresses provide essential information

State Rep. Jeff Ellington doesn't want you to know who's supporting Indiana politicians. The Bloomington Republican told the Herald-Times he is considering legislation that would remove street addresses from the campaign finance reports.

There's no reason for federal and state governments to collect the information except to make it easier to harass and target donors, he told the Bloomington newspaper. Names, donation amounts, occupations and city or county of residence would continue to be required. 

Ellington is wrong. There are many good reasons to collect street addresses of donors. 

• A complete address is needed to fully identify who is backing a candidate. A contributor's occupation is required only if the contribution exceeds $1,000, according to the Indiana Election Division.  Ellington's own donors include Bloomington resident Eric Smith, for example. But a quick internet search for Eric Smith in Bloomington finds a postdoctoral researcher, a urologist and the controller at Oliver Winery. A street address is needed to determine which one gave to Ellington's campaign.

• A street address can determine whether a candidate's donors live within his or her district. In Ellington's case, a donor identified as a Bloomington resident might live in Rep. Matt Pierce's district. Voters should know where a candidate's campaign support comes from. Do his own neighbors support him?

• A street address can reveal information not otherwise available. A website search for Education Innovation Research LLC, for example, gives no clue to where that Ellington donor is located. But the street address shows the corporation, which gave $36,000 to Republican legislative candidates last year, was an Indianapolis office park neighbor to the offices of Indiana Virtual School and Indiana Virtual Pathways Academy. Those are the online charter schools that allegedly charged Indiana taxpayers $40 million for students who were not enrolled or earned no credits. 

Indiana is one of just 11 states that impose no contribution limit on individual donors. It's not unreasonable to demand that candidates give more information about their contributors in exchange for that allowance. Hoosiers should know who is donating to political campaigns, as contributions can represent both a sign of support and an effort to influence candidates.

The impetus for Ellington's bad idea is obvious. U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro, a Texas Democrat, recently posted the names and employers of San Antonio donors who contributed the maximum amount allowed under federal law to President Donald Trump's campaign. 

“It's highly disturbing that a congressman and brother of a presidential candidate would harass citizens and donors using a federal database, especially in the aftermath of two mass shootings, both by men on the extreme fringes,” Ellington told the Herald-Times.

But the congressman violated no law. The information is required under federal election law. If a donor doesn't want to be known as a candidate's supporter, he or she can simply not contribute to a campaign.

Julia Vaughn, policy director of Common Cause Indiana, said Ellington's proposal was a “horrible idea based on a knee jerk reaction to a national news story.”

“Campaign contributors under siege because of disclosure is not an issue here,” Vaughn wrote in an email. “Hoosiers need more information about who's contributing to campaigns, not less. Takes us in the wrong direction for no reason. Bad idea, bad public policy.” 

Vertically challenged word montage for the early hours of the 6th day of the week - or short post for Friday morning

Don’t really have anything this morning.  Happy to that PDJT has gotten the Dopes to admit that half-wits Omar and her baboon’s azz ugly buddy Tlaib are in fact the new racist anti-Semitic face of the Demo-Dope Party.  I do not know how the Dopes can be this dumb.  Well I do know.  The Dopes are trying to appeal to pure stupidity.  That’s their base.  So the dumber the better. Do they really want raging racists anti-Semites as the face of the Dope Party?  Sure they're good with that.  Stupid people will dig it. 

In San Fran a felon is now to be relabeled “justice involved person.”  People with common sense are laughing out loud.  It’s like calling the “little woman” a “domestic engineer.” If everyone knows that the euphemism is double speak for housewife, what difference does it make?  If everyone knows that “justice involved person” is doublespeak for a F-ing felon – what difference does it make?  A rose by any other name... right?

This might actually work in favor of common sense.  When a guy comes into a bank looking for a job as teller and he informs the HR rep, “Why yes I’m a justice involved person” it tells the HR rep two things: 1) He’s a F-ing felon.  2) He’s an idiot d-bag felon for thinking that a woke approved euphemism for being a criminal felon was somehow going to somehow redound to his favor.  It’s not as if he’s using a foreign language like Klingon that no one understands.  What the heck is the HR rep going to say, “Well thank goodness you’re only a ‘justice involved person’ and not a F-ing felon, because if you were a F-ing felon you’d really be up sh*ts creek, but since you’re merely a ‘justice involved person’, well then, welcome aboard.  Here’s the combination to the safe”?  I don’t think so, Tim. 

When you introduce the wife as your “domestic engineer”, does anyone say, “Wow!  An engineer!  Where did you get your degree, Purdue, MIT, Vanderbilt?”  It’s nothing more than a stupid transparent euphemism.  The thing is that most people laugh at the euphemism “domestic engineer.” My guess is that anyone with a brain is getting a belly laugh at “justice involved person” as well. 

This move demonstrates just how F’ed up the Dopes are.  San Fran can’t/won’t do anything about bums crapping in the streets, drug needles littering public spaces, a housing crisis and the biggest wealth divide the world has seen since Looy XVI and Marie got their gourds lopped off in France, but they think they can police the language. 

It’s just plain bovine excrement for mentally challenged people.  Or, It just plain bullsh*t for stupid people. 

Universal background Checks a good mechanism to smoke out the Dopes

I saw this and was surprised.  I thought universal background checks (UBC) would be a perfect tool to smoke out Demo-Dopes.  Several posts under, I’m too busy/lazy to point out exactly where, Lex outlines conditions for a UBC system.  Among them, it must be at no cost to sellers/buyers for private transfers and delays mean automatic approval.  No cost means the government reimburses FFL gun shops for the cost of running a UBC for a private transfer, usually about $20.

No doubt Demo-Dopes will scream bloody assault weapons murder at the thought of free anything for gun owners.  The more likely position will be an onerous tax on the transfer to end what they see as the scourge of gun ownership. An onerous tax on gun ownership or ammunition would likely be seen as an infringement on the peoples’ rights under the 2^nd Amendment. 

So the party that wants to provide universal free healthcare to the entire world if they can manage to drag their unskilled, uneducated azzes across a US border somewhere, will be on record as not supporting and not defending the constitutional right of American citizens right keep and bear arms by providing a no cost UBC for private gun transfers.

It also would show that they are in no way serious about curbing gun violence.  We’ve heard for year after year from Dopes about the need for closing the “gun show loophole” and providing for a UBC system.  Then when given the opportunity to do it, Dopes refuse to fund the effort.

Apparently the Dopes will offer free everything to everyone but will not fund a UBC that they have been bitching about for years.  They will fund every harebrained scheme imaginable, but will not a UBC system that they have demanded to keep guns out of the hands of felons and lunatics and keep Americans safe.  

I don’t UBC will work worth a damn.  El Paso and Dayton shooters both passed background checks.  The Philly shooter couldn’t pass.  All of them got weapons.  Conclusion:  UBC don’t prevent crazy.  More importantly, it doesn’t pass the simple question test, which is, “Would this legislation have prevented the El Paso or Dayton shootings?”  The answer is, no.  So it does nothing to prevent what is supposedly the proximate cause for passing the legislation.  So we’re passing it, why?  “WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!”

All that aside, I think the UBC under those conditions offers a pretty awesome juxtaposition of gun grabbers Vs. constitutionalists.  It’ll smoke the Dopes out when they oppose it and make them look like the pandering ineffective buffoons that they are.  

Today’s JG rants 

The JG letters page gets funnier by the day.  Take David Maher’s letter “Paper vote backup essential for 2020 election” of Aug 22, 2019.  The idea of a paper ballot isn’t what I find funny.  I happen to agree with that idea.

What’s funny as hell is the idea that we should take that technologically regressive step because “Russians had practiced extensive and pervasive interference in the 2016 election with the goal of supporting Donald Trump and discouraging support for his competitor.”

Here’s why that statement is downright hilarious.  1) Russians have been interfering in our elections since at least the early 50s.  2) The bloated duplicative ineffective keystone cop intelligence agencies that warn of Russian meddling in 2020, are the exact same agencies that allowed the Russian meddling to occur in the 2016 election.  3) They are the exact same agencies that assure Americans that not one single vote was changed as result Russian interference.  4) With regard Russian meddling, President Obama famously told his ol’ buddy “Vlad” to “knock it off.”  Then he allowed him to meddle.  How can we get tougher than that?  5) President Obama further assured us that it was impossible for a foreign entity to influence our presidential elections because they were too decentralized, but he’s been known to fib, “If you like your healthcare plan…”  6)  The Russian “bot farm” Bob Muller indicted, while clearing PDJT of colluding with the Russians, spent a measly $3,000 in their effort. By contrast, PDJT’s “competitor” blew through nearly a billion dollars in her failed campaign.   7) The indicted Russian “bot farm” has not been shown to have any tie to the Russian government.  8)  We do the exact same damn thing.  President Obama overtly used tax payer dollars in his failed effort to influence Israeli elections.  President Obama very publicly warned the Brits that they would “go to the end of the cue” on trade deals if they passed Brexit, a statement akin to, “Nice country you have here. Be a shame if anything happened to it.”       

Paper vote backup essential for 2020 election

The Journal Gazette (July 30) reports that Allen County will have a paper vote backup – truly a good thing when it was discovered, and agreed to by Republicans and Democrats alike, that the Russians had practiced extensive and pervasive interference in the 2016 election with the goal of supporting Donald Trump and discouraging support for his competitor.

Not implementing the paper vote backup technology until 2029 belies the fact that the Russians are going to interfere with our 2020 election (a contention supported by all of our intelligence agencies). It is believed the interference will probably be even more invasive, given the support for it by the White House, with perhaps even attempts to change actual votes at polling places.

I implore Beth Dlug, Allen County director of elections, to realize the delay in implementing paper vote backup is a clear message to the Russians it's OK to interfere in the 2020 elections as we will have no backup to confirm votes at the polling places.

I read that it will cost $1.2 million to implement this technology. In my mind, that is a small amount to secure our elections in the future.

We must act now to get paper vote backup technology for the 2020 presidential election. Act now to secure our democracy for ourselves and to the world that depends on us as a beacon of freedom.

David Maher

Fort Wayne

The JG’s letters page gets more and more curious.  Take the curious case of Chester Baran’s letter “’Draining the swamp’ requires leadership” of Aug 22, 2019.  Baran hops in his time machine to re-litigate the 2012 Indian senate race.  Huh?  What’s next, a letter detailing Homer Capehart’s moral sins and failings in his loss to Birch Bayh in ‘62?

Richard Mourdock was a flawed a candidate.  His major flaw was that he was not a career politician well practiced in the political art of speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

Richard Lugar was cast aside by Indiana voters because he didn’t even live in Indiana and as result lost touch with Hoosier values.  While those values may not be “exclusive to Indiana”, yes, make that, hell yes they are distinctly different from Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco values or Chuck Schumer’s New York values or the values of the anti-Semitic raging racists like the new face of the Democratic Party – AOC + 3.

So Hoosiers opted for the more polished politician in 2012 and sent Joe Donnelly to Caligula, D.C. where he dutifully toted Chuck Schumer’s bucket of slop wherever Schumer ordered him to tote it, and then he sat quietly and drank as much of the slop as Schumer ordered him to consume.  Hoosiers correctly dumped Schumer’s toadie in 2016.

Bipartisanship is overrated.  Where can “bipartisanship” be found with a party that reflexively labels political opponents racists, Nazis, white supremacist et al for nothing more than arguing in favor of an orderly immigration system?  What is the “bipartisan” position on abortion with a party that has slipped past its “safe, legal and rare” lie to a policy of “anywhere anytime” and openly advocates for the murder – yes murder – of a child who miraculously survives her attempted abortion?  Take as many words as necessary to try to explain where the middle ground lies on legalizing the murder of a child.     

'Draining the swamp' requires leadership

The passing of Richard Lugar evoked effusive praise from our two U.S. senators and our district congressman. They consider him to be the ultimate exemplar of a statesman and reserve a place for him in the pantheon of America's greatest lawmakers.

No mention was made that he was unceremoniously dumped by Hoosier voters in the 2012 GOP primary; Hoosiers opted for Richard Mourdock, a tea party candidate with limited political experience, a disdain for compromise and a muddled mind. Ironically, though these lawmakers verbally regard Lugar with esteem, they share a much stronger political kinship with Mourdock. They decry gridlock but are averse to bipartisanship and they consistently cast their votes as directed by party leadership. Each of them professes a commitment to “Hoosier values” – a common code of decency the people of Indiana think they exclusively possess – yet they fail to remonstrate a president whose virtually every action spits in the face of those values. They are pro-life, willing to vest rights in the unborn while stripping the mother of the agency to make the decision on whether bringing another being into existence is in the best interests of her and the child. At the same time they promote an economy of abundance for the here and now while showing no concern or misrepresenting the climate catastrophes that will afflict the yet-to-be-born as a result of their neglect of climate change.

Draining the swamp and making America great again may be the goals of Indiana's voters, but let me tell you, they can't be accomplished by sending a swamp rat to the White House and supplying him with toadies to do his bidding.

Chester Baran

Fort Wayne

Can PDJT win if we slip into recession?

The short answer is yes – in a landslide.  The real question is, “Can any of the current Democrat candidates win, even if PDJT is filmed shooting someone on 5^th Avenue?” 

I’ve been riding the Trump tiger since late 2015 so I’m probably not the one to comment on this, but here’s my take: 

Democrats lead in the polls because none of them are the nominee.  Democrats lead in the polls because PDJT has not yet directed his political fire at single candidate. 

How can any of the frontrunners survive a months long political campaign against PDJT when they have all said such outrageous things, free healthcare for everyone - in the world, reparations, free college education, paying off ALL college loan debt, free everything for everyone and weirdly getting the Dopes to back a bunch of wildly anti-Semitic azzbags who PDJT has successfully painted as the new face of the Demo-Dope Party, etc. 

Then there are the candidates themselves.  To my shock and surprise Slow Joe Biden remains the frontrunner.  Democrats are clinging to this POS because of name recognition and the thought he’s the “most electable” candidate in the field.   Here’s the truth about Biden.  He dumb as a hoe handle.  He’s a delusional pathological liar. He’s lazy.  He’s a creepy groping idiot.  He’s a flimflam man who got his no talent cocaine snorting worthless creepy off spring Hunter billions in contracts in China and Ukraine.  So sure if Americans suddenly begin to value stupidity, lying, sloth, groping and graph over peace and prosperity, Biden is a shoe in. 

Then there’s crazy Bernie.  Sure he’s an avowed raging socialist with a Santa Claus platform of free everything for everyone, but here’s the death blow for ol’ Bernie, he actually thinks the Boston bomber ought to able to vote in elections.  That sound bite will only play about 9,000,0000,000 times between Bernie cinches the nomination and the election.  It could turn Massachusetts red. 

Fauxahontas Warren is surging in the polls.  She is trying to out Bernie, Bernie with giveaways.  She has produced 10,000 policy positions on every topic under the sun.  They all end the same way – the fat cats will be taxed into oblivion to pay for the government giveaway.  She will be leveled by PDJT if she gets the nomination.  Here’s the deal on Heap Big Chief Ugly Azz.  Chief SFB bemoans the cost of a college education yet this lying *itch and her worthless POS husband have amassed a fortune of millions upon millions of dollars largely gained by ripping off students at Harvard.  Chief Wrinkled Azz made big wampum - about $430,000 a year for reportedly teaching one class and for being the first “Native American” to grace Harvard’s law faculty except she wasn’t.  So this sneaky lying weasel who exploited her “white privilege” to rip off Harvard law is exactly the same person she warns Democrats about: a rich, old, whiter than white, thieving, racist bastard.  Democrats will soon point all of this out on the September debate stage and when that happens Chief BS Artist should sink like a protein laden turd in the toilet bowl. 

Kamala Harris’s campaign was sunk in a devastating 30 second sound bite from Tulsi Gabbard during the last debate where Gabbard pointed out Harris’s hypocrisy on drugs by noting that Harris locked up thousands for violating pot laws, then was caught laughing off her own pot use.  She’s done. 

Don’t have time to run through the other 25,000 Dope candidates.  The fact that they are polling at less than 1% says about all that needs to be said. 

I'm biased, but unless another Dope emerges as viable candidate, PDJT is on the path to re-election.