Don't Celebrate What You Ignore

 I am old enough to remember the 200th anniversary of our country's birth. In 1976, the focus was on America and her achievements and not blurred with celebrating the birthday of a clown. This year, it is difficult to get in the "mood". 

We have a Supreme Court that has proven itself a political tool of a hack. They have no direction and no standing. The Constitution is interpreted both as original (the intent of the framers at the time it was written) and living  (adapts to changing societal values, morals, and historical contexts over time), based solely on political intent. To keep this succinct, I will give you one of each.

Original: How the Supreme Court decided a federal law stripping firearm rights from regular marijuana users violated the Second Amendment. They looked at the founding era (1791) that showed there were no laws categorically disarming people for using substances like marijuana in their off hours.

Living: How the Court interpreted the Fourth Amendment (unreasonable search and seizures) when it came to geofence warrants in Chatrie v. United States. Geofence warrants are when police don't have a specific suspect, so they ask a company like Google to give them location data of EVERY SINGLE smartphone that was near a crime scene during a specific timeframe. They considered the smartphone as a modern-day extension of our "papers and effects", thus an adaptation based on changes over time.

The Supreme Court's job is to resolve conflicts (the final arbiter when lower courts disagree on how to interpret the law - making sure it is interpreted the same way across the country), settle large-scale disputes (acting as neutral ground for legal battles between states or involving foreign diplomats), and to keep the government in check (ensuring that neither the Congress nor the President exceeds the  boundaries of power set by the Constitution).

Where they fail in interpreting the Constitution correctly: I'm no lawyer, and I don't play one on television, but this is not that difficult. For example, when Justice Neil Gorsuch in Trump v. United States argued that the Executive Branch should have a similar protection to that which the Legislative Branch has in the Constitution's Speech or Debate Clause (Article I, Section 6, Clause 1), granting him "immunity" for all "official acts" (What exactly ARE those official acts? Given up to interpretation, of course). He was INFERRING something that was not there. And if it was SUPPOSED to be there, the founders would have SPECIFICALLY put it there.

And why did he not interpret the Constitution correctly? Because apparently he NEVER READ the "preamble" to the Constitution, commonly referred to as "The Declaration of Independence". You want to know WHY they didn't grant the Executive Branch said immunity? Because they specifically stated that they did not want a "king" - a unitary that had absolute power to do whatever he wanted, not needing the approval or oversight for his actions.

So, on this 250th anniversary, when you are cheering the UFC fighters on the White House lawn, and skipping rocks on the green reflecting pool, and admiring the gold appliques super-glued to the walls of the Oval Office, don't forget that this is not just the anniversary of our country's birth, but a reminder that we shook off the shackles of a tyrant once.

Don't forget history, or we are doomed to repeat it.

-jp

©Emittravel 2026

WWDD? (What Would Donald Do?)

There was a lot of hoopla over a recent, and obvious, breach of national security, when a journalist was invited to a chat group of high-level government officials discussing a bombing raid. By hoopla, I mean some were saying the discussion was classified and being made in a chat group, others were saying that the chat itself had no classified information, and others that the journalist was a conspiracy nut who is working for a publication that is doing so bad it should be out of business.

I had a security clearance in the Navy. Part of being a Radioman. And from what I've read of that chat, it was clearly a security violation by individuals who were proving that the "meritocracy" hiring model that our President says he adheres to was obviously being ignored. Right to the Vice President putting emojis in the chat like he was on Facebook.

First off, I want to know WHY this chat was taking place? Somebody want to contact the other President (the one who bought his position and is clearly pulling the strings) and ask him why these particular government officials are not IN THE OFFICE where they can have this discussion in a secured location? I thought all government employees need to be in the office. Therefore,  there is NO REASON they should be in a chat. Maybe he needs to send them an email asking them for five things they did today to justify their jobs.

And second, I like to look at anything that takes place in the Trump administration and think about what Donald Trump would say if the same thing took place under Joe Biden's watch. For instance:

"Sleepy-Joe is proving once again that he is incapable of running the country and keeping Americans safe. There is no way under my administration - an administration that would be the best administration ever, and I've been told this by many very intelligent people who know - that this type of security violation would ever take place. Every person in that chat would be FIRED. That's right: FIRED. Because Sleepy-Joe won't admit that he is unable to do his job, these people will continue to put the American people at risk."

Of course, as of this writing, nobody has been fired.

So, whenever you see something questionable under this administration, just ask, "What Would Donald Do?"

-jp

© Emittravel 2025

Christians Love A Whiner - er - Winner

Several days ago I posted the following on Facebook and Twitter: "President Trump is the winningest President ever! He is the ONLY President to be impeached ... TWICE! Now THAT'S winning! Let the door hit you in the a** on the way out!"

I admit, my Facebook and Twitter feeds aren't my blog; however, the "My Humble But Accurate Opinion" theme does tend to carry over to other parts of my online life. 

I really don't get that much social interaction from my posts on Twitter. On Facebook I get loads. Especially when they have even a hint of a derogatory emphasis on President Trump. And mostly from my friends of Christian faith. Which got me to thinking: why are so many Christians so enamored with President Trump?

Before I go any further, I want to state that I am a Christian. If you have read some of my older blog posts, you will also realize that I am not a "religious" Christian. I do recommend you check out some of those posts if you need more of an explanation. Go ahead. I can wait.

Finished? Okay, I'll continue.

From what I can tell, Christians (I'm going to use them as a group - even though I know many Christians do not consider President Trump to be all that awesome. If you are a Christian and don't think Trump to be the Second Coming, don't worry - I'm not referring to you.) think that Trump is the most Christian President we have ever had as a nation. He stands for family. He's pro-life. And he stands against evil (the mainstream media, Democrats, China, etc.) Any comment that would detract from that message is considered anathema. 

Well, if you ARE a Christian who believes Trump walks on water, you may want to stop reading.

(As you might have noticed, I dropped the "President" and refer to him just as "Trump". No disrespect is meant by this. It is simply to tighten my verbose writing.)

I believe that if you ARE a Christian, Trump should be the LAST person you should adore. And here's why:

Let's start with the "stands for family" bit. Trump has the honor of being the President with the MOST divorces - more than any other President in history. To quote the Elite Daily, "In 1990, Trump's first wife Ivana divorced him after his affair with model Marla Maples was revealed. Trump later married Maples in 1993, three months after she gave birth to their daughter Tiffany Trump. The couple was married for four years until they separated in 1997. That brings us to first lady Melania Trump, previously Melania Knauss, who met Trump at a party in 1998. The couple dated for six years before tying the knot in 2005. Melania gave birth to their son, Barron, nearly a year later." Tiffany was conceived and born out of wedlock. A very Christian ideal indeed.

Okay, let's look at his being "pro-life". This may come as a shock, but Trump was pro-choice (for Christians "PRO-ABORTION") up until he decided to run for President in 2015. Why the big change? Did he suddenly decide that every sperm is sacred? Doubtful. More likely he decided that he had a better chance of winning as a Republican than as a Democrat, and running as a pro-choice Republican would not even get him out of the Primaries.

How about that he stands against evil? Surely, that's a good reason to faun over him. Actually, no. The very Democrats that he calls evil were his brothers and sisters up until he decided to run for President in 2015. Again, see the above paragraph.

The only thing Trump values is Trump. His name is the sweetest sound in the world. That's why he puts it on his steaks and the top of towers. As President, he even refused to use the official @POTUS Twitter account, preferring his @realDonaldTrump account BECAUSE it had his name in it.

I also find it difficult to "worship" the guy who said it was okay to "grab them by the p*ssy", and use chemical agents against protesters to make a path for him to go to a church he never attended for a photo op of him holding up a Bible UPSIDE DOWN.

I think it's not too far from golden toilets to being a "golden calf". (I know, he didn't actually have a gold toilet, but it makes this funny!)

Was he an idiot? No. Actually, he was quite smart. One of the main ways to unite people is to give them a common enemy. Trump provided them in truck loads, and his "followers" gobbled them up. One of my Facebook friends made it a point to tell me that they were at the pre-Capitol riot speech and that he did NOT incite the crowd to insurrection. I'm sure the members of Jeremiah Wright's church didn't hear any "god damn America" language either. I got through about half of the transcript of Trump's speech. I gotta say, there was a quite a lot of "enemy" language spouted. Of course, about a quarter of the way through I kept getting mental images of Jim Carrey's Ace Ventura:

The Bible says that a person is "…not to think of himself more highly than he ought…" (Romans 12:3). Yet, Trump thought so highly of himself that BEFORE the 2020 election even happened he was stating that he won the election, and the only way he could lose was by voter fraud. Maybe he was a prophet too.

Speaking of the 2020 election, I'm not at all surprised that it has become the clusterf*ck that it is. Trump repeatedly told his followers that they should vote in person and not by mail. Since the coronavirus was of no concern to Republicans, all the Democrats would be too scared to go out and vote. And since Democrats would then vote by mail, all of their votes should be considered invalid. 

No surprise then, when after the polls closed many states then started counting the mail-in ballots and most went for Biden. Which is why Trump's "lead" started to disappear. That's not fraud. That's the system working as designed.

By the way, in the typical "do as I say, not as I do" Trump mentality, he voted BY MAIL.

When it comes to election fraud, I'm going to quote NPR: "The largest case of election fraud in recent U.S. history took place during the 2018 midterm elections and involved third-party ballot collection. A GOP operative illegally collected and potentially tampered with ballots in a U.S. House race in North Carolina, eventually leading state authorities to overturn the election results." As you can probably guess, Trump voted by third-party ballot collection for the 2020 election.

Of course, this also means Trump got all his election fraud tips from a reliable source: the GOP! (Or, did the GOP get the tips from Trump? Chicken? Egg?)

As far as the voter fraud allegations are concerned, Trump and his legal team have failed to provide ANY credible proof of fraud. Oh, they had a lot of theories, but no proof. During that pre-Capitol riot speech he mentioned the list of inmates who voted. To quote Monty Python in "Life of Brian" when Brian said to the crowd, "A man had two sons," and a member of the crowd yelled out, "What were their names?", I ask concerning those inmates, what were their names?

The list of individuals Trump has fired (or have "requested" letters of resignation from - same thing, by the way) since losing the 2020 election is quite extensive. If you weren't completely loyal to him, you were on the short list. 

As an example of Trump's inability to accept defeat, Chris Krebs, formerly the most senior cybersecurity official, was fired by Trump (via Twitter, no less) when he declared the election secure. Why? Because Trump wanted him to find proof of election tampering and he didn't. Because it's all about Trump, and Trump cannot stand to lose.

But firing people should come as no surprise. I think Trump may still believe he is in his reality show. 

Dominion Voting Systems has been so disparaged by Trump and his team, that they are suing. And unlike Trump's legal team, this isn't a frivolous lawsuit. We're talking defamation and slander.

Trump says that there is no way "Sleepy Joe" got more votes than him. And I have to agree. There is nothing about Biden that makes one think, "Now THERE'S a leader!" But that's the thing: people didn't vote FOR Biden; they voted AGAINST Trump. In 2016 we had to choose between two terrible candidates. Not so in 2020. 

(Full discloser: I didn't vote for Biden and I didn't vote for Trump. I believe that voting Democrat or Republican only reinforces bad behavior.)

Think about it. In order for the Democrats to overthrow the election in the way Trump says they did, it had to be a coordinated effort that knew WHICH counties would need to be impacted to turn the election, WHICH courts the legal team would file charges against so they could be thrown out, and how to get even the Trump-loving FOX News to admit that Biden won. Seriously, if the Democrats are THAT coordinated, maybe they SHOULD be in charge! 

Back during the 2016 election, Pastor Max Lucado posted the following to his blog:

"I don’t know Mr. Trump. But I’ve been chagrined at his antics. He ridiculed a war hero. He made a mockery of a reporter’s menstrual cycle. He made fun of a disabled reporter. He referred to the former first lady, Barbara Bush as “mommy,” and belittled Jeb Bush for bringing her on the campaign trail. He routinely calls people “stupid,” and “dummy.” One writer catalogued sixty-four occasions that he called someone “loser.” These were not off-line, backstage, overheard, not-to-be-repeated comments. They were publicly and intentionally tweeted, recorded, and presented.

Such insensitivities wouldn’t be acceptable even for a middle school student body election. But for the Oval Office? And to do so while brandishing a Bible and boasting of his Christian faith?" Read the rest here.

I find Max Lucado a much better example of Christianity than Donald Trump. Go ahead and prove me wrong.

I know of quite a few Christians who have left churches over less anti-Christian behavior, yet still suck from the "Trump teat" on a regular basis. (You know who you are...)

I’m not a perfect example of Christianity. I like the philosophy of "not perfect, but forgiven". The Bible says we are to be "…living epistles, read of all men" (J.P. paraphrase of 2 Cor. 3:2). I don't have a fish symbol on the back of my car because I know how I drive. And I don't have a Trump bumper sticker either!

Why do Christians insist that Trump is the best thing since unleavened bread? Maybe it's because they are tired and angry and want a change from the usual. The rhetoric, no matter how divisive, is captivating to them.

I don't know. But I can say for certain that the only thing Trump and Jesus have in common is the number of letters in their name.

©Emittravel 2021

C'Mon, It's Only (Our) Money!

As I write this, the U.S. Government is currently in the longest shutdown in history. “Since 1976 . . . the United States Federal Government has had funding gaps on 20 occasions.”

If you have been keeping score, 20 times (I counted 22 times - where a deadline for funding was missed and a “new” shutdown started) since 1976, the folks we keep sending to Washington outspend their agreed upon budgets. Before 1976, the last time the government shut down over funding was in 1933, and before that 1790. So, before Jimmy Carter, the Federal Government shut down twice. SINCE Jimmy Carter, the Federal Government shut down 22 times. You can whine all you want about President Trump and his wall, but the problem you SHOULD be complaining about is that the Federal Government, regardless of the party holding the reins, has driven this wagon right over the financial cliff multiple times. And it seems like their aim for that cliff just keeps on improving. The Federal Government has never met a dollar they didn’t like . . . TO SPEND!! Will somebody please explain to me how “Democratic Socialists” like Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Bernie Sanders can hoodwink a large number of American citizens to think their “Dire Straits” programs (“Money for nuthin’ and your chicks for free”) can ever work?!? With both the Democrats and Republicans bankrupting the country trying to provide “a car in every pot and two chickens in every garage” (or something like that), how are we supposed to “Make America Great Again”?!? Maybe we should force these bozos to do what the rest of us have to do: live within our means. Because sooner or later, the piper needs to be paid. © Emittravel 2019

Whatever Happened to Aleppo?

“Follow the money.”

It’s a short phrase with a lot of impact. If you keep it in the back of your mind, it will help answer a lot of questions.

Why does healthcare cost so much? Follow the money.

Who benefits from this particular legislation? Follow the money.

Why all the vitriol over this person or issue? Follow the money.

I’m hearing a lot of conversation over free speech, hate speech, social media, fake news, and election impact. How many times is Mark Zuckerberg going to stand before a government to explain what he is doing in these areas? And, to be honest, why should he?

Follow the money.

This goes back many, many years, but for the sake of this post, let’s keep it to the more recent past.

In 2016, Donald Trump beat the “favorite”, Hillary Clinton, in the race for President. According to the talking heads of the “major” media outlets, this should NOT have happened. And since it did, there MUST have been some kind of interference in the election process. We’ve blamed the Russians for meddling. We’ve blamed “fake news” for meddling. And we’ve blamed social media for allowing all of this meddling to take place.

And it’s bullsh*t. Follow the money.

The Clinton campaign spent about $72 million on television ads and about $16 million on digital ads. The Trump campaign spent about $39 million on television ads and about $29 million on digital ads. Oh, and according to talking heads, the Russians spent about $100,000 (that’s thousand - not million) on Facebook ads.

Now, let’s look at the impact. Apparently, $100,000 of Russian ads had MORE impact on the election than the Clinton $16 million and the Trump $29 million. Does that make sense to you? And since Facebook “allowed” those ads, it must be Zuckerberg’s fault. Thus his CSPAN performances.

So, if the impact of Russia was, in reality, NOT the impact the Democrats (and some Republicans) are saying, what’s all the crying about?

Follow the money.

Who traditionally benefits the most from political advertising dollars? The “mainstream” media: newspapers, television, and direct mail. Who has the potential to LOSE the most IF social media proves to have the most impact over elections? The same “mainstream” media. So, who do you think are holding the Democrat and Republican parties feet to the flames? You guessed it: the “mainstream” media.

There is a reciprocal relationship here. The Democrats and Republicans spend MILLIONS on advertising and the same outlets provide untold HOURS of FREE advertising by talking incessantly about them on their "news" shows. (Which is another reason third-party candidates are shut out. More on that later.)

Here’s a question: Why the concern over “fake news” being spread on social media, when traditional campaign advertising is FULL of lies, slander, and false statements (which, conveniently, is considered “protected speech” for politicians)?

The answer is simple. If more impact can be had via social media without the spend (only $45 million for digital vs. $111 million for televised), why would anybody spend so much over the “mainstream” media outlets? Thus the “war” on free speech, and the rise of what is considered “hate speech”.

The Bird loves political ads as much as we do!

There will come a time when the traditional media outlets will find themselves with a voice and no ears listening to it. It’s already happening. Back during the campaign, there was a third-party candidate that was taking a major chunk of the voting block by the ear. That was Libertarian Party member Gary Johnson. Now, as we know, there can only be two parties that you can vote between: Democrat and Republican. They not only get your tax dollars to run their campaigns, but they also control who can be in the televised debates, who shows up in polls (and what is reported by the “mainstream” media about those poll results), and who ultimately can show up on the ballot.

During a “mainstream” media interview, Gary Johnson was asked about what he thought about Aleppo. He famously responded, “What’s Aleppo?”

He quickly became a laughing stock - with that response being played over and over and over again. Now, when the interviewer clarified that it was a city in Syria, Johnson replied with a well-thought out and intelligent response. Didn’t matter. They got him.

What that little slice of baloney showed was Johnson had a good grasp on the goings on in the Middle East, but did NOT look to the “mainstream” media for his briefings. Shame on him! You know what? Until that interview, I had never heard of Aleppo either. Thus the reason the game is called “TriviaL Pursuit”.

Whatever happened to Aleppo? I don’t remember really hearing much about it after that. Syria, yes. The Middle East, yes. But Aleppo? Nada.

You have to understand, the Democrats, Republicans, and the “Fourth Estate” believe that YOU, the general populous, are nothing more than slow-minded children that need to be told what to think, how to think, and what is important. You need to be protected from yourself. You can’t make decisions on your own. The great trio will guide you to Nirvana (the transcendent state, not the rock band). They can’t have you making decisions, or worse yet, having intelligent conversations, over the major issues (in other words, “candidates”) on your own.

So, follow the money. As Tony Montana said, “In this country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power. Then when you get the power, then you get the women.” (“Scarface”)

Or the votes.

© Emittravel 2018

Get Out the Get Out the Vote

“Get Out the Vote.” Remember that? It came about a few election cycles ago. The idea was to get as many people to the polls as possible. Now, at first glance that seems a great idea. But when you give it a little more thought, like me, you discover it is not such a good idea. Especially when it comes to this current election.

I've joked that my Twitter feed seems to be all liberal and my Facebook feed seems to be all conservative. My social networking is a bit bipolar. And since I'm the same guy in both networks, the algorithms seem to be a bit . . . off.

Now, in both the emphasis is the same: you have to vote for one candidate to make sure the other candidate doesn't win. And if you are thinking of voting for a third-party candidate, you are guaranteeing the other candidate will win. In all cases, I see very little convincing for you to vote FOR a candidate, only AGAINST the other one. This tells me that people really don't like the candidate they are voting for, but the other candidate is so much worse and needs to be stopped.

As I've written previously, this is a job interview, and we are the potential employers. We are trying to find the best person for the job. When you hire someone, you not only look at their background and opinions, but you look to see what their job qualifications are. You don't have to go much further than the last three Presidential debates, to know that the emphasis of this particular job interview has very little to do with qualifications.

So, if your intention is to vote for someone only in order to vote against someone: DON'T VOTE!

If your intention is to blindly vote along party lines: DON'T VOTE!

“J.P., are you seriously telling us not to vote?” Yup. Absolutely. What's more dangerous than a wasted vote? A vote made in ignorance.

I don't care how many women Trump may have groped. I don't care how many emails Clinton may have deleted. I don't care if Johnson can't find Aleppo on a map. If you can't honestly say you are voting FOR someone because you AGREE with MOST (not necessarily ALL) of what they have stated their POLICIES are, DON'T VOTE!

Now, you'll notice I did not say to stay home. Go! Vote! There are usually local issues and candidates on the ballot, and those you need to vote for. Oh, and as in the above, if you can't honestly say you agree with most of what the candidate's policies are, you don't for them either.

Here is what I do: I read the ballot carefully. If I do not know enough to make an informed decision on an issue, I skip it. A non-vote is not counted as For OR Against. If I cannot say I agree with a candidate based on their policies, I skip them too. I do NOT vote along party lines (to be honest, I'm a registered Independent, so I don't HAVE a party line to vote for). And that includes those situations when there is only one candidate running for a position.

I hear that voting is one of the most important things an individual can do, outside of running for office. I say that is wrong. INFORMED voting is one of the most important things an individual can do. UNINFORMED voting is one of the most DANGEROUS things an individual can do.

So, get out and vote, or get out the get out the vote. This is too important for an emotional decision.

Our democracy depends on it.

©Emittravel 2016

What Are You Afraid Of?

God, I hate being right all the time. Well, to be perfectly honest, as a married man, I'm just happy to be right once in a while. And in this instance, I can say I nailed it!

What am I talking about? The Democrats and Republicans got their way: The first Presidential debate will not include anyone else outside of the Democrat and Republican candidates. If you read my last blog, “Repeat After Me", you'd know I predicted this.

(If you haven't read my last blog, please take a moment and do just that. This one is kind of a continuation of that one.)

The Presidential Debate Commission (run by the RNC and DNC) concluded that since no other candidates running for President reached 15% in an average of five polls, only Trump and Clinton would be on the debate stage.

Those five polls were “ABC-Washington Post", “CBS-New York Times", “CNN-Opinion Research Corporation", “Fox News", and “NBC-Wall Street Journal".

Instead of repeating myself concerning “polligana", I thought I'd give you a brief education on how polls are conducted. By the way, isn't it funny that the five polls were conducted by the very news organizations that have been trumpeting "bacon" over and over?

Have you ever heard, in reference to a poll, things like “likely female voters aged 22 – 34”? When you do, pay attention. What that means is that the poll information is skewed towards a certain outcome.

When doing a poll, you first come up with a list of numbers to call. You then take that list and “scrub" it to show only those individuals most likely to respond in a certain way. For instance, “people in voting blocks that previously were heavily Democrat or Republican; voter registrations that are either Democrat or Republican – NOT Independent; within a certain age group – like college students or senior citizens; and subscribe to either cable or satellite television".

And yes, that type of information on you is tracked!

The questions asked during a poll are designed to draw a certain response. “Are you a registered voter?” “How likely are you to vote in this election?” “Do you watch CNN, Fox, or MSNBC news?” “Are you more likely to vote for Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, or a third-party (unnamed) candidate?”

(I'm almost sure that the five polls listed above by the Presidential Debate Commission mentioned Johnson and Stein by name, but again, when the choice is bacon or some other breakfast meat . . . I say "almost sure" because I never seem to be one of those called!)

After the polls, the results are also scrubbed to present the results desired.

By the way, this happens all the time. Do you know why there are scientists that either agree or disagree with man-made climate change? Because they look either at the same data differently, or they look at data that is ignored by the other scientists.

So, because no other candidate was “bacon", and didn't get to 15% averaged in five specific polls, only the Republican and Democrat candidates' views on issues will be heard at the debate. Does that make sense?

Here's a better criteria: A candidate needs to be on the ballot in ALL 50 states. That means a candidate must meet the specific criteria each state determines in order to be on that state's ballot. That means dedicated staff and VOLUNTEERS that can get that done. But that wouldn't work, because the RNC and DNC can't control the outcome. And it's all about control.

I'm a registered Independent voter. I'm not a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green Party, or any other designation. And I'm not alone. Over 50% of registered voters are Independent. Think about that. If Independents were ONLY 50% of registered voters, that would mean that LESS THAN 50% are either Republicans or Democrats – COMBINED! Does it make sense to you that the MINORITY parties should be in control of the conversation (the debates)?

To quote Gary Johnson: “We're on the ballot in all 50 states. We're polling higher than Perot did in '92. We're breaking 3rd party fundraising records.”

I say that candidates like Johnson DESERVE to have their opinions heard.

To you Republicans and Democrats I ask, concerning the Presidential debates, "What are you afraid of?"

©Emittravel 2016