Now Playing

 

Iryna Zarutska

 

Truth

 

Charlie Kirk

 

The Trump Doctrine

 

I was driving home from work last week via a stop at CVS when I heard the news reporting Marco Rubio’s statement before Congress during his Secretary of State confirmation hearings. Now, I haven’t been following the news lately (a conscious decision for 2025), but I did listen and catch snippets of his speech and stayed for the commentary. Needless to say, I liked what I heard. Immensely.

 

The Trump Doctrine.

 

I purposefully remain blissfully ignorant, as I have more important matters to concern myself about, matters under my direct control as opposed to matters 1,500 miles away in Washington DC. So take this as a “man on the street”-style interview. A reporter comes up to me, plays me Rubio’s opening statement, and asks what I think.

 

I agreed with his position regarding the current position of the United States. He posits that since the fall of the Soviet Union / Berlin Wall in 1989/1991, America has bought completely into the globalist view of government. That is, we are all citizens of the world first, and citizens of nations second. We are the world, we are the children, etc. From this follows increasingly open borders to allow for mass movements of populations over into and out of traditional national boundaries. Also trade should freely flow over broders, a position advocated by Republicans over the years.

 

The Trump Doctrine is a shift in government priority to America and Americans first. As in citizens of the United States of America. Immigration is fine as long as the need is there and we are importing the best, brightest, and most productive for our country (and even this should be sharply curtailed). But immigration has to be legal and follow a process. Illegal immigration should not be tolerant. Not every illegal immigrant is a violent criminal, but many are, to the detriment of the innocent who encounter them. Presumably legal immigration will screen out active criminals.

And, no, the crisis at our southern border is not of the same type and kind of Jews fleeing Nazi Germany. This was a position advocated to me by a liberal family member.

 

We should stop the overfunding of Ukraine. The way this man on the street sees it, we are sending billions and billions of dollars to the second most corrupt country to fight off its invasion by the most corrupt country. Where is the accounting for this money? Where is it going to? Is it being used for what it is earmarked for?  As of September 2024 the US government has allocated $183 billion to Ukraine. The population of the US is around 340 million. 154 million tax returns were filed. My simple Windows Calculator tells me that each taxpayer has paid $1,188 to Ukraine. That’s about three trips to the grocery store in Biden’s economy.

 

I think it’s a good idea to re-evaluate all our financial promises and obligations to other countries. Israel. NATO. The European union. Japan and Korea. To my man-on-the-street mind, cynical and street-wise, I see these billions of dollars lining corrupt politicians pockets, on their side and ours. Stop and re-evaluate.

 

As far as the open trade position goes, I have no opinion. I am not an economist. That dismal science has always eluded me. So I have to trust to others to make those decisions. To be honest, I didn’t see much of a difference in the parties, until Bidenomics hit (and I remember my family suffering under Carter policies when I was a boy). I use common sense, and Democrat-advocated policies don’t make sense. They don’t add up. But who knows with this economic alchemy. I just want limited government and want them to get their hands off my wallet. End the Fed! (Just kidding … somewhat.)

 

So I am all for America and Americans First. The doctrine of the second Trump administration. The cynical man on the street in me doubts if this will fully be done, thinks that a lot of this is lip service, but he also thinks there’s a better chance of this happening than under a … shudder … Harris administration.

 

And there ya have it, Hopper’s two cents on the guiding principle of the next four years. (And it’s actually worth less than that.)

Hyperbole

 

It seems to me, that labeling Trump as a fascist, as a Hitler, ad infinitum and ad nauseum, is akin to branding Lawrence Welk as a satanic death metal enthusiast because someone once spotted him at a venue where “Sympathy for the Devil” by the Rolling Stones was playing overhead.

 

Hey, it ain’t a perfect metaphor, but it came to me out of the blue this morning and I kinda like it.

 

(Apologies to Lawrence Welk, whose reputation precedes any personal experience I have of the famous accordion-playing conductor of yesteryear.)

 

The Founding Fathers

 

So my oldest daughter, Little One, bought me a couple books this Christmas, books on “a historical era that I know you haven’t read before.” And what she said was true. She gifted me one of the Very Short Introduction books, The Founding Fathers and a non-VSI but still very short book, The Jacksonian Era. Roughly the first 50 years of the existence of the United States. She was correct. Over the past dozen years I’ve read hundreds of pages on the Civil War, World War II, and the Napoleonic Wars, but this section of history I haven’t plumbed since taking Brother Lawrence’s US History class sophomore year of high school in the early 80s.

 

Well, I just finished the VSI The Founding Fathers, and I am fascinated. Now, not fascinated enough to devote additional time and effort to the subject – unless I was either a) a lawyer, b) a politician, c) a pundit, or d) financially independent. Other more pressing issues are, er, pressing upon me. But it was an extremely interesting diversion over a couple of hours over a couple of days.

 

The book was not too in depth – it couldn’t be, being a Very Short Introduction book, but the subject itself is difficult to summarize. That’s what struck me so hard reading this. The magnitude of all that falls under the umbrella term, the founding fathers. I almost wish I read this book thirty or forty years ago. Indeed, any young person looking to pursue a career in either a, b, or c, above, should spend many months delving this subject. One image I had was the book covering the first three or four inches of Mount Everest.

 

What do I mean?

 

Immediately my mind went to making lists.

 

If one wanted to truly study the Founding Fathers, one would have to pursue many branches. So a second image presented itself to me: a massive tree with a big fat trunk in which someone looking like Huck Finn or Tom Sawyer etched “The Founding Fathers” with a pocketknife. And what follows? This –

 

Thick, twisting roots burrowing deep in the ground. Some labeled “The Roman Republic” and “Greek Democracy”, others “Classical Literature” and “Greek” and “Roman” languages. A larger, stronger segment would be called “The Enlightenment,” with offshoots titled “Locke” and “Hume.” The confluence of all these roots grew to push the beliefs and philosophies of the Founding Fathers up through the ground into the sunlight.

 

There would be numerous branches reaching upward, spreading out thickly in smaller and smaller subdivisions. The main branch, erupting immediately from the trunk, would be, of course, “The Constitution.” Then, in no particular order but grouped according to genus, many other limbs would sprout, limbs with names such as:

 

   - The Fathers themselves: Writings, Autobiographies, Biographies

 

   - The History of the Founding of America: The Colonies, the Deteriorating Relation with England, the Continental Congress(es), the Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary War, the Articles of Confederation

 

   - The first presidencies

 

   - Federalism versus Republicanism

 

   - Originalist Interpretation versus the “Living Document”

 

   - The Bill of Rights, further Amendments and the Amendment Process

 

   - The growth and development of the federal government: The Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch, and the Judicial Branch

 

   - The inner workings of government, the life cycle of bills and laws, etc., sausage-factory analogy notwithstanding

 

   - Legal challenges faced by the early American government, especially the three-fifths compromise, Marbury v. Madison and the Dred Scott decision

 

   - The faults or shortfalls, perceived or not, of the Constitution at its creation and over its history

 

One could spend four solid years, I believe, prepping himself in this vast, fruitful vineyard, and indeed many do, I suppose, those of whom aspire to be political science majors. Were I to have read this book in high school, and was more of an ENTP than an INTP, I’d definitely immerse myself in a full three-months of summertime excavation before taking up studies in the American political process, as first envisioned and shaped by the Founding Fathers.

Still the Funniest Show on TV

 

Now This is Something to Celebrate!

 

As someone somewhere else has noted, hundreds and thousands of babies will survive because of the Supreme Court Dobbs ruling today. And that’s wonderful news.

 

As a reminder, I am pro-choice:

 

Four choices, actually.

 

 

1) Abstinence

 

2) Contraception

 

3) Adoption

 

and

 

4) Motherhood.

 

 

That’s it. Those are the only acceptable choices I’m willing to concede.

 

Great job SCOTUS. 

What Biden Should Have Said

 

If he wanted to be truly effective, the “Great Uniter” he promised to be, if he wanted to actually do something productive last night:

 

The first paragraph was perfect. He was sympathetic and empathetic, and adequately expressed his sorrow at the tragedy of the Texas school shooting. He mentioned prayer in a non-sarcastic, Democrat way, and did not explicitly mention his deceased son as he is wont to do, though he implied that he knew the pain of loss of one’s child, which is perfectly acceptable. The worst critique I could give of the introductory part of his speech was that it was very mumbly and difficult to understand at times, but that’s Biden being Biden.

 

Then, instead of casting aside the mumbles and veering directly into a political attack on his opponents and half the country who support them, he should have said

 

“I am immediately convening a non-partisan panel of twelve individuals, elected and non-elected officials, lawmakers and scientific experts on this terrible subject, to study this plague of school shootings. In six months it will deliver its report and its recommendations to me, which I will then present in a live broadcast and submit to Congress to act upon.”

And the money quote:

 

“Yes, it will investigate the impact of firearms in school shootings. But as we’ve seen in Waukesha, other weapons can be used in mass terrorist attacks. If the evil person who perpetrated today’s crime drove his truck onto a playground, we would not be declaring war on Ford and GM.”

 

And even better, if the old man had any spine to rise above attempted scoring cheap points:

 

“This panel will address the elephant in the room when it comes to school shootings: Mental health. All these perpetrators are mentally ill to some degree. Indeed, parents and grandparents of many have come to law enforcement begging them to do something to prevent their troubled son or grandson from doing something evil. How to identify and prevent these shooters before they commit their terrible atrocities will be the core mission of the panel.”

 

And best:

 

“We have just sent $40 billion in aid to Ukraine. Over the past two years we have sent countless billions to schools across the country to aid in the fight against Covid. Based on the panel’s recommendations I would call for a multi-billion dollar bill to increase security at every one of our schools, from preschool to college, to protect our most innocent.”

Had he said that, his popularity would spike through the roof. But, alas, he couldn’t, and didn’t. Nothing will change.

 

I am a parent of a recent high school grad and a middle school grad. My daughters have been practicing active shooter drills for the past decade. I can remember a few false alarms over the years. I have an active dog in this fight, as do millions of voting parents.

 

So … can someone please whisper this into the President’s ear?

 

Rush Limbaugh

 

I was never a ditto head.

But, like many out there, it was listening to Rush that converted me to a lifelong philosophy of conservatism.

Well, that’s not exactly correct, at least according to an early memory I’m quite fond of that took place when I was about 12 or so. I was laying on the living room floor (no doubt paging through my Beloved Physics Book) while my parents watched the Reagan Carter debate. Whenever Reagan spoke, I simply felt good; whenever Carter said something, I felt the exact opposite. Now, it could be Reagan’s stage presence, his smooth voice and warm persona. But I felt safe and comforted listening to the man. Though the ideas discussed soared over my head, I knew Reagan and his ideas were … just right.

A few years passed, me blissfully unaware of politics, political theory and political theater (much more preoccupied with the shifting familial landscape of divorced parents), and before I knew it, I was at college. Where I was bombarded 24/7 with anti-Reagan propaganda and full-flung liberal ideology. Man! And this was the 80s! I truly feel sorry for what conservative students today must face.

Soon after, young idiot I was, I cast my first legal vote in a presidential election for Michael Dukakis. And then, like many indoctrinated liberal students, did not vote in any state or local elections for another four years. Then, I decided, after careful research and rumination, to cast my vote for this new up and coming politician: Bill Clinton. “Hey man,” I recall saying to a friend at the time, “Bush is just for big business, and Clinton isn’t!”

A couple more years passed with me preoccupied with friends, a semi-serious girlfriend, a full-time garage band seeking greater success, and business school at night followed by physics classes at a local university. Then, in the spring of 1993, I listened to one Rush Limbaugh broadcast in my car during my lunchbreak.

I’d heard of him before. My bassist, way back in 1989 or 90 or so, recommended me to him, but I brushed it aside. Conservatives were squares, man. Now pass me a beer, and don’t forget to book the rehearsal studio – gotta work on the new songs for the gig next week.

After my tentative first listen that brisk sunny March day, I felt a little weird. A small chink in the cornerstone of my belief system might have been quietly and softly knocked a little out of place. To reassure my liberal persona I made fun of Limbaugh to another friend, and we both had ourselves a good chuckle. This Rush guy certainly was no Howard Stern!

A little while passed – can’t say how long – but I listened again. And again, and again. I was listening in the car at lunch, and this soon followed with listening to him with headphones on the radio at my desk. My reversion to conservatism was soon barreling ahead and out of control.

In the fall of 93 I voted against New Jersey’s longtime senator, Frank Lautenberg. My candidate lost, but it was a major milestone for me. I voted Republican. And every election since, I either voted Republican or third-party.

Why?

Well, without digressing into a personal political treatise, what Rush said simply made sense. I felt he was for the little guy, the small businessman, the man trying to make a living for himself and his family, in ways more authentic than any Democrat talking point. I believed HE believed his message, and his message made SENSE to me. It echoed back to debate Reagan. It just felt right in my gut. And more importantly, I understood the logic of his arguments.

(Course, it didn’t hurt that I had a religious conversion around the same time. As long as abortion is a non-negotiable in the Democrat party platform, I will NEVER vote for them.)

Like I said earlier, I was not a ditto-head. There were only two periods in my life where I listened to him with any regularity. First was probably 94 to 96 or so. At this time I also bought and read his two books, and yes, they did shock me at the time. Primarily because they said things – Rush said things – that no one else in the media was saying. The second period was when I was out of work for most of 2010, when I was having my lung surgeries. During those two phases I listened to him a couple times a week, for most of the three-hour show. But the years in between I would only listen, perhaps, a couple times a year.

I admire his success. I admire his courage. And though he was lacking somewhat in the personal morality department, he was a firm Pro-Life advocate and did much and raised much money for charity. I enjoyed every hour spent listening to him, and thank him for letting me know it was okay to be a conservative.

Rest in peace, Rush.

“Devout”

 

OK, we’re going to hear this word a lot from our illustrious press corps over the next four years.

The secular media does not understand this word.

They believe that someone can be a devout Catholic if he goes to daily mass.

That helps, yes, but it is not the main determinant of devout-ness.

Devout means you believe wholeheartedly in that which you are devout towards.

And belief manifests itself outwardly in words and actions.

Thus, a devout Catholic is not pro-abortion. Nor does his legislative actions put men and women out of honest work for a debatable secular gain. Nor does he, say, for instance, officiate at a gay wedding.

These are not actions of a devout Catholic because devout Catholics do not do these things, because they do not accept such things are sanctioned by their beliefs.

Simply going to mass every day or carrying a Rosary in one’s pocket does not make one a devout Catholic.

It must be confessed that a good segment of the bishops and cardinals in the Catholic Church cannot be described as devout.

The point is, “devout”, “devout-ness”, is a high bar. It’s a rough, tough standard to meet. Few do, and those few are generally called Saints.

So the center square in the Presidential Bingo Card for the next four years will be: DEVOUT.

Or if you’re playing the Presidential Drinking Game, take a sip every time the press describes the man as a “devout Catholic.”

Anything larger could result in a nasty case of alcohol poisoning.

 

I am NOT Pro-Life

 

I have reconsidered some of my long-held beliefs recently.

Well, not really reconsidered. More like, clarified.

I am no longer Pro-Life.

Yes, you read that correctly.

What I am, is Anti-abortion.

And as a corollary, I am also Pro-Capital Punishment.

Anti-abortion.

Pro-Execution.

Protect the innocent.

Punish the guilty.*

I am decidedly not Pro-Life.

 

(Hat tip to Timothy Gordon and William M. Briggs)

 

* I will state for the record, though it should not be necessary but I wish for certitude here, that the guilty party must have been legitimately convicted of a heinous crime in a legitimate court of law and must have had said conviction reviewed by a legitimate authority over such matters.

A Sane Take

I despise the state of politics since 2016. Actually, since 2008. I can think of few things worse to dwell on and be obsessed with than politics. The dumb jerk at my office is going to be in hysterics over the events of yesterday. I have no interest in it. But, as the saying goes, “you may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you.”

Here’s the sane take:

You have 5 percent of the left that are the crazy true believers. You have 5 percent of the right that are the crazy true believers. They see violence as a legitimate means of gaining power. Their cause is the true cause, and those diametrically opposed to them are pure evil.

These two groups are inflamed by politicians and certain groups to nudge the culture in the direction that will obtain power for said politicians and certain groups.

One side has academia, tech, the media, and, now, sports. The other has talk radio, the military, and a great swath of America between the coasts. One sides holds an idealized image of an America better than it actually is, the other holds a slandered image of an America worse than it is.

Ninety percent of us just want to live our lives in peace. We want to be free to work where we want doing what we want. We obey just laws. We attend religious services. We save for vacations and for retirement, for our children’s education and to have a better life in general. We care for our fellow man. We respect those who hold these similar beliefs. We are not racists, homophobes, or fascists. Nor are we communists or socialists. The Ninety Percent are the red blood cells of America, the engine of America, the heart and brains and marrow of America.

Like some invading pathogen, the extreme left and the extreme right need to be walled off and ultimately starved out. Never happen, but thanks to the omnipresent amplifier of anonymity that the Internet is, the voices of these extreme fringes, and those in power and/or political office or those seeking power and/or political office, seem louder than they actually are.

And that is what has led to all this talk of a second civil war.

Instead of Make America Great Again or Build Back Better, how about a

RETURN TO NORMALCY.

 

Church and Corona

If Donald Trump had issued an executive order back on March 20 labeling Mass as “non-essential” and forbidding attendance at masses during the pandemic, would the Church be clamoring over itself right now screaming for the right to “open up our masses”?

I’m not sure I know how to answer that question.

In an Alternate Timeline...

FIRST NEWSCASTER: There you have it, first words on the Wuhan virus from President Hillary Clinton.

SECOND NEWSCASTER: To recap, President Clinton advised us all to go out without fear, not to change plans, to get out into the stores and the malls, to carry on with business, to keep the economy improving in its sluggish recovery since Election Day 2016.

THIRD NEWSCASTER: For those who haven’t heard, the Wuhan virus is a slightly different version of the flu that has originated in China. The first cases sprung up there three months ago, and the Chinese authorities seem to have a handle on it.

FIRST: And to reiterate what Vice President Kane said, there is no cause for alarm.

SECOND: Of course, as the President said – rather, the Director of the CDC, who was on the podium with President Clinton – of course, if you are feeling ill –

THIRD: Or over age 65, a high risk group –

FIRST: Yes, over 65, of course, and you’re feeling ill, then you are advised to stay home –

SECOND: Exactly if you had the flu.

THIRD: Yes. The Wuhan virus is no more deadly than a bad case of the flu.

FIRST: As President Clinton said in her speech. The other warning …

SECOND: If you have an underlying condition …

THIRD: Yes, if you have an underlying condition, also, it’s good to stay home. Keep a low profile.

FIRST: Both President Clinton and Vice President Kane have said that they’ve had the flu, and have had no serious complications.

SECOND: I’ve had the flu, most of my family had this winter, and we’ve had no issues. We’ll be out shopping all this week.

THIRD: So, if you are healthy, in the words of our President, “carry on with business,” and “keep the economy improving.” I plan to do my part [laughter] and so does my wife! [more laughter]

FIRST: And to highlight this “business-as-normal” approach to this flu, Bill Clinton, the First Gentleman, will be out playing nine holes in the Senior Celebrity Golf Open over in Hawaii tomorrow afternoon.

SECOND: Proceeds of the benefit to go to Planned Parenthood …

THIRD: We’ll be there covering it live!

The Earned Voting Act of 2028

My youngest, Patch, who’s in middle school, excitedly told me about learning amendments to the Constitution. She rattled off a few she had memorized. Among them was the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote a hundred years ago.

Now, at the risk of sounding controversial, this is how I responded: “I don’t believe everyone should have the right to vote.”

This shocked her.

“No, it’s not that I’m against the 19th Amendment,” I clarified. “But not everyone should be able to vote, to have a say in who gets to be elected to office.”

Currently, if you are under the age of 18, you cannot vote. Nor if you are a convicted felon. I am okay with both exclusions. However, after giving it some thought, I would like to add others. In fact, if I may be allowed the luxury of entertaining this pipe dream (while it’s still allowed without mandatory attendance at a re-education camp), I can envision a whole new voting process.

Let’s start with youth. We lowered the minimum voting age from 21 to 18 with the 26th Amendment in 1971. This was done because of the draft, which applied to men as young as 18. If you could die for your country, the line of reasoning went, you should be able to vote for those who would lead you. I had thought this was an effect of the Vietnam War, but, no, actually support for lowering the minimum age to 18 began during World War II when FDR lowered the draft age.

Allow me to now propose the Earned Voting Act. EVA, for short.

EVA would begin with resetting the minimum age for voting back to 21.

When you turn 21, you get a vote of 1.

But what about the draft, you ask?

Well, there hasn’t been a draft in 47 years. But EVA has a solution for that.

If you served in the military, you get another vote. If you are still active, you get 2. Over 21 and in the armed forces? Your weighted vote is now 3, but if you are out of the service it drops to 2.

What other additional “votes” does EVA propose?

After spending some time in deep thought while showering, Hopper arrived at the following:

Married – 1 additional vote. (Note: marriage = 1 man + 1 woman.) (Also note: divorced = you lose that extra additional vote.)

Have children – 1 additional vote for one child, 2 for two, and 3 additional votes if you have three or more.

Age – in your 30s, 1 additional vote. 40s, 2. 50s, 3. It ends at 3.

Own a small business (not sure of the definition, but let’s start at, say, ten employees and $500,000 in gross receipts) – 1 additional vote.

Own a large business (100 employees and $10 million gross receipts) – 2 additional votes.

Are a registered doctor or nurse – 1 additional vote.

Are a college professor? – minus a vote. (Just kidding! Teaching adds no extra weight.)

Are a member of the clergy? – 1 additional vote.

College degree – hmmm. Surely education should be valued, encouraged, and reward, but I am not confident in today’s higher education system. Don’t know on this one.

The goal is to maintain a sense of steadiness, certainty, heritage, throughout the culture. Those politicking for office would be encouraged to play to the middle, the “center” as opposed to the fringes. The economy would function better – a benefit for all – with this certitude. Those with the most at stake, those with families and who are productive member or society, or provide a means for those members, would have the more important voices to be heard. Doctors would have a greater input for health issues. Clergy for issues of morality.

Hopper’s vote, for example, would be weighted at 7. That’s seven times the impact of the twentysomething hippie grad student who pays no taxes, produces nothing of value (yet, anyway) and has no family which he couldn’t support without a job.

But some over-achieving Lieutenant Colonel in the Air Force who moonlights as a brain surgeon while putting his four children through West Point and MIT would be weighted at 11.

Again, to ensure continuity of culture, to keep the country aligned to its founding mission statement (i.e., “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” not “fundamental change”), I think the idea has merits. I admit it needs work; I did spend all of ten or fifteen minutes on it today.

But shouldn’t those with the greatest stake, who have given the most in terms of time, treasure, and progeny (remember, offspring = future taxpayers), have the greatest say?

Our Elderly Plutocrats

Well, I read today that, according to Forbes, Donald Trump, 73 years old, our reigning elderly plutocrat, has a net worth of somewhere around $3.1 billion.

How do his competitors add up?

The Bona Fide Elderly Plutocrats:

Joe Biden, 76, $9 million

Elizabeth Warren, 70, $8.75 million

Bernie Sanders, 77, $2.5 million

The Soon-to-be / Wanna-be Elderly Plutocrats:

Kamala Harris, 54, $4 million

Pete Buttigieg, 37, $250,000

Andrew Yang, 44, $600,000

Cory Booker, 50, $2 million

And just for fun:

Hillary Clinton, 71, $45 million

Just a little public service FYI.

Source: Forbes, for the President and the bona fides, Celebrity Net Worth for the Soon-to-be / Wanna bes and Hill. Google ‘em.

Racist

So, after reading a whole bunch of news articles during lunch today, I realized that the definition of the word racist must not mean what I’ve always thought it meant. You know, a racist being someone who believes that races other than his are inherently inferior. But that doesn’t seem to be the way most of the media apply it.

Unfortunately, I believe the following has to be clearly stated, based on and contrary to contemporary popular usage:

Racist =/= Conservative

Racist =/= Someone critical of Progressive policies

An example? Okay.

I’d much rather the Supreme Court consisted of nine black conservative women as opposed to nine white liberal males.

Does that make Hopper a racist?

N.B. “=/=” means “does not equal”

This Made Me Laugh