Rude Self Defense Tweets Upset Liberal Journalists

When people on TV can call you Hitler with no foundation of at least 100 deaths or 25 calls for genocide, you have a right to self defense. In previous times, it was assumed that Republicans would be polite when responding to childish attacks. I think it's safe to assume that Republicans are tired of being nice. Personally, I accused a liberal of having the intelligence of a 6 year old for saying Jared Kuchner had committed treason based on alleged meetings with Russians, with no admissible evidence that the meetings occurred and of what was discussed. He called me impolite. I told him that when you accuse somebody of treason without evidence, saying "where there's smoke, there's fire," THAT was impolite, so the time for niceties was over.

I think liberals expect a double standard which used to be routine, to continue. However, since they are going to call a man with an Orthodox Jewish son-in-law, a Jewish (converted) daughter, and two Jewish grandchildren, Hitler, polite has left the building. The Marquis of Queensburys Rules no longer apply. Trump is justified, in my opinion, in throwing whatever filth he wants in self defense, using twitter or whatever else he feels like using. We know his methods of retaliation are unacceptable to the polled public. We'll see if it makes any difference in a real, unrigged election in 2018. In my opinion, the blows must be landing because the media talking heads are complaining the tweets are unfair. Well, so was their initial criticism. Surprise! Surprise! Politics ain't bean bag, it's a contact sport.

Recently, the left called Trump's twitter attacks on journalists, unpresidential.  Calls for civility from the left usually indicate blows from the right are causing pain. To reverse Clauswitz, politics is war by other means. The "liberal" goal is to overthrow a duly elected president of the United States by unconstitutional means. I think stopping that effort doesn't require restrained fair play or good manners. It involves fighting mud with mud, no holds barred. I don't care that liberals think my argument has no validity. I think the left's objective is closer to treason than business meetings with random Russians. I took an oath to defend the Constitution when I joined the US Air Force in 1972. Regardless of whether anyone loves or hates Trump, he was elected in 2016. Crude efforts to nullify the election deserve equally crude answers. "Liberals" no longer get to fix the rules so they win no matter what. They should get used to losing, unless they have the votes to win elections.

I believe the Pravda Press thinks themselves above the fray, even though they are the press outlet of the left. They think that they can make any allegations with no basis in fact and suffer no consequences. Under libel laws, they're correct. But as news commentators, they too are public figures. Trump can tweet any outlandish baseless allegations about them with no fear of legal consequences also. Trump's ungentlemanly idea is tit for tat retaliation. It doesn't have to be proportional response. The left wants to remove Trump from office by whatever means necessary. That means the return verbal fire will be equally unrestrained. Why is that hard to understand?  The left never plays fair, so why should their opponents play fair?

Liberals should remember that everything they do creates a precedent for conservatives. If liberals remove a duly elected president for being rude, any flimsy excuse can be used to remove a duly elected liberal president in the future. You can only break the Constitution once. Once it's broken, all the Smartest Horses and all the Smartest (your choice of 23 pronouns here) ain't going to be able to use crazy glue to put it back together.

Five Groups of Clinton Voters

It's fashionable in liberal circles to categorize Trump voters into several insulting and demeaning catagorios. I'm a computer guy, so I need more precise groups to insult and demean. 

My assumption with Clinton voters is that they come in five somtimes overlapping categories: 1. Some are voting their identities, so Hillary's poor performance in office doesn't matter. 2. Some are technologically ignorant, so they don't understand how easy it is to hack an email server like Hillary's with no certificate to encrypt internet traffic, no specialized anti-virus software beyond the basics from Microsoft, and no encryption of the files or emails. 3.People on government payrolls or with government contracts who depend on ever increasing domestic spending for their livelyhood. 4. Clinton foundation donors. 5. People dumb enough to believe the government really will try to help the needy rather than help themselves to taxpayer dollars. None of these people seem to notice that progressives waste money paying themselves salaries for good works that unfortunately are not shovel ready right now, but will be soon at a slight cost overrun.

Huge Damage from Electromagnetic Pulse

Since a solar flares can do the same damage as North Korean or Iranian nukes by creating their own electromagnetic pulse, I think it's time to harden the electrical net in the US..  This is the Holy Grail of federal spending.  It's shovel ready, because it doesn't require new right of way and environmental studies.  It strengthens national defense.  It's an infrastructure project with lots of money spent all over the country, in every congressional district.  It could save the planet from a natural disaster of cosmic proportions.  It should be completely bipartisan.

The fact that Democrats don't want to harden the grid exposes progressives to charges of both treason and not believing in science under progressive rules of evidence required for making allegations.  I really enjoy using liberal rules of allegations.  They are completely unrestricted warfare on the opposition.  So make charges like a liberal.  Throw lots of manure, just to see what sticks.  Remember it takes offense to win the game.

A Scoudrel and Direct Election of Senators

 Prior to 1913, US Senators were elected by state legislators, not state voters.  This procedure gave state governments a lot of direct input into federal government decisions.  Many political theorists believe restoring the power to elect US Senators to state legislatures is a necessary step to restoring the balance of power between the states and the federal government.  So why did it change?

We probaby owe the direct election of Senators to the efforts of one man, William A. Clark.  Mr. Clark was a Montana Copper Baron who wanted to be a Senator.  In 1899, Mr. Clark bought the entire Montana State legislature.  For him, it was relatively cheap.  The scandal caused the US Senate not to seat him until another election was held a year later.  The Montana State Legislature stayed bought.  Senator William A. Clark served one term, 1901 to 1909.  The scandal was a big reason for the 17th Amendment, which changed the election of Senators to be a direct election from the voters of a state in 1913.  Sometimes, one scoundrel can change history.