Jim Greenfield

Anti-gun leftists have argued for decades that the words in the second amendment mean the opposite of what they say, i.e. that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed,” really means that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms can be infringed.” But alas, in the aftermath of the Las Vegas massacre, the anti-gunners have abandoned their Orwellian effort to torture the meaning of the Constitutional language into its opposite. They have replaced the absurd incongruity of misinterpreting the plain meaning of the words, with a direct frontal assault on the second amendment itself; a call for repeal. (See Bret Stephens, “Repeal the Second Amendment,” New York Times, Oct. 5, 2017). The anti-gun faction’s call for repeal is a tacit admission that their previous arguments were specious and the second amendment actually means what it says.

In response to this attack on our most important Constitutional right, I say, in the immortal words of Clint Eastwood, “Go ahead. Make my day!” (

Repealing the second amendment would require a two thirds “yes” vote in both Houses of Congress. This is unlikely unless Democrats not only attain an unprecedented 2/3 majority in both Houses, but have the cohesion and balls to enact the repeal. Even if Congress, for the first time in history, voted to repeal part of the Bill of Rights, it would still need to get over an even higher hurdle and be ratified by 38 out of 50 state legislatures. Thirty-nine percent of American households report owning guns. ( Since many gun-owners prefer to keep their ownership of firearms private, the actual percentage is probably much higher. Given these numbers, how likely are anti-second amendment activists to succeed in getting repeal through Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures? If they get the legislatures in liberal states like California, Massachusetts, and Hawaii, they’ll still have another 35 states to go. Good luck.

But repealing the second amendment is not the anti-gun faction’s real goal. It’s not enough to get rid of the words in the Constitution; they want to get rid of the actual guns. So once repeal is accomplished (in maybe about 50 years) they’ll go to phase two. This will require a totalitarian government to send out armed federal marshals to search every home in the nation and collect guns from people who may still cling to the obsolete notion that they have a right to bear arms. What could go wrong? It’s ironic that pacifist-minded liberals who abhor guns will have to rely on armed agents to implement their ideals. If a civil war erupts between gun-loathing liberals, and gun-toting conservatives, guess who wins.

Which is why I encourage gun haters to march ahead. While you’re wasting your resources on this Quixotic and inevitably futile quest to abolish a fundamental Constitutional right, those of us who love liberty can work on restoring other Constitutional rights that governmentalists and the ever-expanding mega state have already taken from us. Wouldn’t it be great if we could get back our 4th amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures, and our fifth amendment right to not be deprived of property without due process of law ? Then the police and federal agents would no longer be allowed to exercise “civil forfeiture” and seize the assets of people who haven’t been convicted of a crime, and the IRS would no longer be able to seize our cash, bank accounts, cars, home, and other property without bothering to holding a court hearing to prove we actually owe taxes. Or maybe we could get back our 6th and 7th amendment rights to a jury trial, even in so-called “administrative proceedings,” traffic cases, and tax court. These are proceedings in which the government now tells us not to believe what the Constitution says – we only have a Constitutional right to a jury trial if the government says we do.

Or is it possible we could even get back (dare I say it?) our tenth amendment right to not have the federal government usurp unlimited power without Constitutional authority? The tenth amendment, which places strict limits on federal power, was never repealed. Rather, as Judge Robert Bork put it, it’s a “dead letter,” i.e Congress, the Executive Branch, and the Courts simply pretend the tenth amendment doesn’t exist.

The left’s assault on the Constitution began years ago when they figured out that it limits government power and protects individual liberty, standing in the way of their dream of the infinite expansion of government bureaucracy. We knew the attack against Constitutional liberty was in full swing when leftist ideologues began harping on the fact that the founding fathers were all white men (itself a heinous offense to the lunatic fringe), and that some of them owned slaves. Younger generations of Americans are now taught to despise the men who founded this country, men who my generation was taught to venerate. The propaganda campaign against the founding fathers is a prelude to overthrowing what’s left of the liberties enshrined in the founding documents they created. The fact that despisers of liberty now feel so emboldened that they are explicitly calling for the repeal of part of the Bill of Rights does not bode well for the future of liberty, especially as millions of young people now emerge from college indoctrinated with the anti-Constitutional, anti-liberty, statist agenda of the far left.

I understand why going after the second amendment is central to the drive by lefty activists to overthrow the vestiges of our Constitutional system. It’s because the second amendment is the foundation for the protection of all our other rights. The founding fathers, white guys that they were, understood that the tendency of all governments is to amass ever greater power unto themselves, and the ultimate protection against tyranny is for the people to be armed. If these ideologues succeed in taking the second amendment down, the first amendment won’t be far behind. The edifice of liberty, already severely corroded, will collapse. And in the words of Sir Thomas Moore (also a white guy), “Do you think you will be able to stand in the wind that will blow then?”

Notwithstanding the Kumbaya mindset of the idealistic left, history has shown that people who are unarmed and defenseless, tend to wind up enslaved or slaughtered by armed oppressors. The bows and arrows of American Indians were no match for the rifles of the White invaders. Despots like Hitler and Stalin always begin their tyrannies by disarming the people. Slave-owners in the old South didn’t allow slaves to own guns. To do so would have been suicide.

I call on anti-gun advocates, whose liberal sensibilities may be offended by this argument, to conduct a thought experiment. Imagine that American slaves in the early 1800’s were trained and fully armed with guns and rifles. How long do you think slavery would have lasted? My guess; about five minutes.

But don’t take my word for the role that guns play in protecting liberty. I once heard an interview on NPR with Rosa Parks, the hero of the Civil Rights movement, and idol of the same people who now want to take our guns. Parks recounted an incident from her childhood when the Ku Klux Clan came to her house. Her grandfather stood on the front porch with a loaded shotgun. The KKK rode off, and didn’t come back.

Many of us gun owners feel that when they come to take your guns is the time to use them. The question you gun grabbers will then need to ask yourselves is this: “Do you feel lucky today? Well do ya, punk?”

Jim Greenfield’s podcast is at

This is Jim Greenfield serving all humanity, but mainly serving myself.



Since the New York Times exposed to the public what everyone in Hollywood already knew, that movie mogul Harvey Weinstein is a serial sexual abuser, high-ranking Democrats who accepted donations from Weinstein are scrambling to prove their purity, and avoid the appearance of hypocrisy, by giving some of the money to charity. Included in the list of powerful politicians disgorging Weinstein money are Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and Senators Patrick Leahy, Richard Blumenthal, Martin Heinrich, and Elizabeth Warren. Politicians can always be relied upon to look silly in a crisis. If it were me I wouldn’t give back a cent. I don’t see how taking money from Weinstein in the past and donating to charity now have anything to do with each other. Even if I received money from Las Vegas mass murderer Stephen Paddock, or the devil himself (as Trump is alleged to have done), I wouldn’t give it back. I don’t give money back.

As to the charges against Weinstein it’s important to make a distinction between garden variety “sexual harassment” and sexual abuse. So called sexual harassment includes flirting, making inappropriate comments, or telling off-color jokes. As I’ve argued before this is relatively harmless, and may be protected by the first amendment. Or it could be dealt with in other ways, short of making a federal case out of it. Alternative remedies could include telling your boss’s wife, telling his boss, telling the news media, telling your boyfriend, husband, or brother, or slapping the jerk across the face as women used to do in movies back in the 1950’s.

However making a girl watch you take a shower, or tying her promotion or success in Hollywood to sexual favors, both of which Weinstein reportedly did, rises to a higher level of assholeness. Pressuring a girl to watch you take a shower is stupid and perverted. Stupid because few women are likely to be turned on by watching a middle-aged guy take a shower. Perverted because a normal guy would require the girl to let him watch her take the shower. If the sexual abuse is done through force or the threat of violence, it’s a serious crime, and the remedy is to tell the police. And don’t be scared because it’s some Hollywood big shot, ladies. The police love busting big shots.

If there’s no force involved, only a quid pro quod, it’s a different crime. It’s called “soliciting prostitution.” However, for some reason no one other than me recognizes that that’s what this is. If a man in a position of power, an employer, prospective employer, or movie producer, offers a woman something of financial value in return for sex, i.e. a job, a promotion, or a part in a movie, and she complies with the offer, that’s prostitution on her part, and soliciting prostitution on his. Legally I don’t see any difference between giving a woman a remunerative job or movie role and giving her cash in exchange for sex.

Or if you don’t think prostitution should be a crime, you may see the trade of career advancement for sexual favors as, in the words of Michael Corleone, “just business.” In that case you might characterize the settlement money that these women subsequently demanded from Weinstein as “just business” also. Personally, I wouldn’t mind seeing prostitution decriminalized, but as long as it’s illegal, I don’t see why both parties to such transactions aren’t prosecuted. Alternatively Hollywood moguls and pretty young actresses could sign “sex for a job” contracts in Nevada where prostitution is legal.

BTW, tip to prostitutes and their Johns: if you want to make trading sex for money legal, videotape it. Filming the sex act effectively converts prostitution into pornography, which the Supreme Court says is protected by the first amendment. Go figure.

Serving all humanity, but mainly serving myself, this is Jim Greenfield.

Democrats’ Wacko Plan to Overthrow Election

Let’s break this down.  When Donald Trump foolishly intimated that he might not abide by the election results, Hillary said she was appalled.  She explained that our democracy is based on the peaceful transfer of power following elections, and that democracy only works because the loser accepts the results.  She was right.  But that was then.
Now Hillary and the Democrats refuse to accept the results of the election.  Their frivolous call for vote recounts in three states, using Jill Stein to front the effort, has fallen apart.  So a new desperate ploy emerges.  Try to get the electoral college to overthrow the election results, based on allegations that Russia rigged the election.  
One problem with this strategy is that Russia did not rig the election.  Russia may (or may not) have hacked into Democratic Party emails and selectively released information that damaged Hillary with the electorate.  But that is not the same as rigging the election.  Rigging the election would mean hacking into voting machines and falsifying the results.  No one is claiming that this happened.
The worst that can be claimed is that someone, possibly the Russians, hacked into Democratic emails and released true information.  After hearing that true information, it is possible that some voters changed their minds about whom to vote for.  But that is not the same as rigging an election.  Rigging an election means ballot fraud.  To conflate the two is disingenuous and manipulative.
Even if the Russians hacked the Democrats for the express purpose of throwing the election to Trump, that does not constitute legal grounds for overturning the election results, any more than, say, a politician lying to  voters constitutes grounds to overturn election results.  Once the voters have cast their votes, the election is over.  Why they chose one candidate over the other is irrelevant.
To those of you who want to use some maneuver in the electoral college or otherwise to overturn the election results, I suggest you think it through.  Suppose that by some miracle you were to succeed.  What would happen next?  Do you think Trump and his supporters will say okay, and go quietly into the night?  You know they won’t.  There will be court fights.  There will be street fights.  This would be the worst Constitutional crisis since the Civil War.  There could literally be a civil war (and I mean “literally” in the correct sense of the word’s meaning, i.e. something that actually happens.)  It would be impossible for a new government to take power.  The U.S. would soon resemble a third world country with chaos and fighting that could go on for years.
So instead of pursuing this spurious and dangerous strategy, I suggest Democrats might start focusing on trying to win the 2018 mid-term elections.  Promulgating chaos with this wild scheme  is not likely to help with that goal

Donald Trump’s “Fascist” Memo Leaked

Trump Campaign “Fascist” Memo Leaked

UDI  New York City.  3/26/16.

A memo was released by an anonymous source within Donald Trump’s campaign today that reveals the candidate’s strategy to bring the press into compliance after he is elected.  According to some legal experts, the memo implies a danger to first amendment liberties such as freedom of the press and freedom of speech, if Donald Trump becomes president,

The memo says that Mr. Trump has been “frustrated” by reporters and critics who fail to understand his message.  “How many times have I told them how great I am?,” Mr. Trump lamented.   “And how often have I told them how over-rated and horrible everybody else is?  But they still don’t get it, and many in the media are unfair to me.  And those horrible reporters who are mean to me will have to pay a price.  Believe me.”

Mr. Trump has a solution to the problem of “unfair” reporters, i.e. those who don’t sing his praises.  As president, according to the memo, he plans to change the law.  He has previously said that when he becomes president, he’ll change the libel laws so that he can sue people who say bad things about him and get money from them.  But this memo reveals an even more extreme form of retribution against people in the media who dare to criticize Donald Trump.  The memo is entitled, “How the Media Will Be Patriotic and Help Me Make America Great Again,” although some Trump opponents have dubbed it “The Fascist Memo.”

The memo discloses that after taking office as president, Mr. Trump intends to issue an executive order, or decree, mandating that all members of the media say only positive, supportive, patriotic words about President Trump and his policies.  The Trump decree will apply to all media, including  t.v., radio, print, and the internet.  Mr. Trump says in the memo that “the American people are tired of anti-Americanism, negativity, and partisan bickering in the media, and I’m going to put a stop to it.  This will be how we make America Great Again.”

Specifically the memo says that President Trump will modify the federal criminal code to provide for the prosecution of unpatriotic and seditious content in the media.  Such content, critical of the President, or anyone in his administration who is performing his  duties, will be subject to the new law.  Those in the media who create “negative” content, criticizing President Trump and others in his administration, or their policies, “will be guilty of the crime of treason, punishable by up to ten years in prison.”  Those convicted may also be sent to the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.  To assure a fair trial, defendants will not be entitled to a jury, and the trials will be held in special “patriotic courts,” tried by judges appointed by President Trump for this purpose.  The memo also says that family members of the traitors who are prosecuted under the new law, will be targeted.  In some cases family members of the accused will be tortured in front of their families, a technique developed and perfected by the former dictator of Iraq, Saddam Hussein. The denial of a jury trial appears to fly in the face of the 6th amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees a right to a jury in all criminal cases.

At a hastily called news conference on the campaign trail today, Mr. Trump appeared along with Michael Mcshyster, an attorney for the Trump campaign, to defend and explain the memo.   Asked what it meant to “target” family members of those prosecuted under the new law, Mr. Trump replied to the reporter, with visible irritation:  “That’s a stupid question.  You’re over-rated.  Everyone knows what targeting means.  It means they’ll get what’s coming to them.  It’ll be great.”

Mr. Trump has previously called for “targeting” the family members of terrorists.  In clarifying what he meant by “targeting,” in an interview with Fox News Host Bill O’Reilly in February, Mr. Trump defended the policy of murdering the wives and children of terrorists. This despite the fact that it has never been the policy of the United States to murder women and children, even those who are family members of our enemies, even in war time.  In fact, murdering non-combatants  is a violation of international law, and of American treaty obligations.  Members of the armed forces are forbidden from following orders to murder innocents in war time, even if ordered to do so by the President.  When questioned during a Republican debate about the duty of the military to disobey illegal orders, Mr. Trump said, “If I issue the orders, they’ll obey.”

Mr. Trump turned over to his attorney questions challenging the constitutionality of his proposed executive order to silence his critics in the press.  Mr. Mcshyster, a graduate of the Frederick Law School, and partner in the New York firm of Mcshyster, Dewey, Cheetham, & Howe, was asked by a reporter whether the proposed executive order wouldn’t be a flagrant violation of the first amendment.  The Trump campaign attorney replied, “Actually, it’s not a violation of the first amendment at all because the law will only apply to traitors and subversives who seek to undermine Mr. Trump’s efforts to restore America to greatness.   Any member of the press who doesn’t want America to be great is clearly a traitor and therefore not entitled to first amendment protections.  There is a legal precedent for this.  During the Administration of President John Adams, as I’m sure you’re all aware, we had similar laws against Sedition, and they worked quite effectively, in helping to launch this great democracy.”

One critic of Donald Trump, however, was not persuaded.  Sam Samson, a spokesman for “Donald Trump Is A Douchebag,” a conservative political action committee with headquarters in Washington D.C., issued the following statement:

“I call on my fellow Republicans to wake up and reject totalitarianism.  We’ve all seen this movie before.  We know how it ends.  We’ve seen it in Cuba.  We’ve seen it in North Korea.  We’ve seen it in Iraq, and in Syria.  Our parents’ generation saw it in the 1930’s in Italy, in Germany, and in the Soviet Union under Stalin.  It ends when the charismatic Great Leader, loved by millions of followers who are blind, deaf, and dumb, leads the great national parade, the troops marching, the band playing, the masses cheering.  And they all follow the Great Leader – over the cliff.  It ends with millions loaded into freight train cattle cars.  It ends with those who speak out for freedom thrown in dungeons, in gulags, or in concentration camps.  It ends with social degradation, mass oppression,  bombs exploding, cities burning, and millions of lives destroyed.  It ends in wretchedness, weeping, and the gnashing of teeth.”

In reply to Mr. Samson’s comment, Donald Trump tweeted, “This guy’s a loser.  He has blood coming out of his wherever.  He’ll be the first one we go after when I become President.”

Nancy Reagan’s Last Words: Anyone But Trump


UDI – Los Angeles, CA March 6, 2016

Nancy Reagan’s last words before her death were “Anyone but Trump.” This according to top aids of the former First Lady, as she lay on her death bed in Bel-Air, California today. According to Joanne Drake, a spokeswoman with the Reagan Library, Mrs. Reagan was following politics on t.v. up until the end and was upset by the prospect that Donald Trump might become the Republican nominee for President. In the moments before her death, according to Ms. Drake, Mrs. Reagan struggled to speak, but it was apparent she had something important to say. Mrs. Reagan had previously told close friends and family, according to reports, that it would be a betrayal of Ronald Reagan’s legacy for a man of Donald Trump’s character to represent the Republican Party in the November election. Reagan Administrative Aid, Frank Lee, also present at Mrs. Reagan’s death, confirmed that her final words were, “Anyone but Trump!”

On hearing the report, Donald Trump tweeted the following response:

“Nancy Reagan is a very old woman. You can tell by how horrible she looks. She looks like death. She should butt out. She never did anything. She better watch out. She’ll pay the price for this. Believe me.”

Conservative commentator William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, responded to the Trump tweet with disgust, releasing the following statement: “Donald Trump is a douchebag. He has no respect for the dead, or for anyone else for that matter. He apparently believes he can retaliate against his critics even after they’re dead. How stupid is that?” Kristol worked in the Reagan administration in the 1980’s.

Trump responded to Kristol’s critique with the following: “Who the hell is Bill Kristol? I’m much richer than he is. He looks like a dork. He’s the stupid one, not me.” Mr. Kristol graduated magna cum laude from Harvard in 1973.

President Donald Trump will destroy first amendment

The Editor, Wall St. Journal:

In your editorial “Trump Agonistes” (Feb. 27), you implicitly recognize the greatest danger of a Trump presidency.  “Mr. Trump,” you wrote, “took his attacks on the press corps to a new level by promising to change the libel laws”  to make it easier for him to sue his critics.  You also said Trump threatened to retaliate against the Ricketts family for donating to a Super Pac that criticized him.

Donald Trump is a charismatic leader with a mass following whose devotion to him is blind, deaf, and dumb.  Trump’s impulse is to attack and destroy anyone who criticizes him.  This creates a dangerous mix if this “Great Leader” becomes president.  No one in Congress will stand up to Trump, who will roll over his opponents.  As Donald Trump, “clothed,” with what Abraham Lincoln referred to as “the awesome power of the presidency,” uses the organs of government to go after his critics in the press, the first casualty will be the first amendment.  Watch out, Rich Lowry, Glenn Beck, and the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board.   We know from history how it turns out when a nation is ruled by a strongman based on a cult of personality.

The good news is that since the last debate, Trump’s opponents have finally figured out that they need to attack him hard and ad hominem.  His followers don’t care about issues so personal attacks are the only way to take him down.  Hopefully it isn’t too little too late.

Jim Greenfield


Wall St. Journal Editor, Trump is Dangerous

The Editor:

Your editorial “Leap of Trump” (Jan. 28) asks: ”How would Mr. Trump govern as President? ” In your darkest possible scenario, President Trump starts a trade war.

I think you understate the risks of a Trump presidency. Trade wars are bad, but the worst case scenario is far worse. Mr. Trump has a powerful personality. And how does he use it? He attacks and destroys anyone who criticizes him or refuses to kiss his ring. As a private citizen, he attacks his foes only with vicious words, financial sanctions, or lawsuits. But as president he’ll have the full power of the federal government at his disposal to destroy his enemies. Imagine Richard Nixon on steroids, with charm and charisma. No one in Congress will stand up to Trump. He’ll roll over his opponents, unconstrained by inconveniences such as Supreme Court decisions that attempt to restrain his power.

Will critical journalists like Megyn Kelly, Charles Krauthammer, George Will, and Rich Lowry, or for that matter, the Wall St. Journal Editorial Board, be able to stand in the wind that will blow when President Trump goes after his critics? Trump is a strongman whose campaign is based on a personality cult. If you want to see how that turns out, take a look at previous strongmen – Mussolini, Saddam Hussein, Castro, and Kim Jong Il, to name a few.

Jim Greenfield
Tigard, OR

Donald Trump’s Secret Plan to Rule America

Donald Trump’s Secret Plan to “Make America Great Again”

UDI 2/23/16  New York City

A former aid to presidential candidate Donald Trump released to the press today a confidential memo written by the billionaire that she described as “secret” and “highly explosive.” Ophelia Payne, formerly the Trump campaign’s Director of Messaging, said the 12 page memo titled “How To Make America Great Again,” lays out Trump’s secret plan to rule America, and eventually, the world.

When asked about the report, Trump denied it until shown a copy of the memo. Then he blamed Ms. Payne for the leak and said he would sue her fat ass. “She’s a disgruntled former employee,” Trump said. “I just fired her last week, so she did this to me. She’s a disgusting, ugly, woman who has blood coming out of her eyes, and somewhere else.”

Ms. Payne said she was fired because Trump found out that she had said the only reason he was able to get into the Wharton School was that he had a rich father. But Trump denied that he had a rich father and said she was fired because she was over-rated and has low energy.

“My father wasn’t rich,” Trump said. “His net worth was only $250 million. I’m much richer than he ever was. I pulled myself up from nothing. And I’m really smart.”

The first bombshell in the report reveals a secret media deal Trump did that could affect the election outcome. For weeks rumors have circulated among Washington and Wall Street insiders that Donald Trump secretly purchased Fox News from fellow billionaire and media mogul Rupert Murdoch.

Conservative pundits have speculated as to why the Fox News Channel, and its sister station, The Fox Business Channel, the most politically conservative t.v. news outlets, have appeared to go so easy on populist/liberal Donald Trump, while being so critical of conservative Senator Ted Cruz. Cruz is thought to be far more “authentic” in his conservatism, than the erratic billionaire, who in the past has financially supported liberal Democrats, and taken more liberal than conservative positions on most issues.

Rich Lowry, Editor of “The National Review,” one of the nation’s most conservative political organs, has gone so far as to ask, “Why are supposedly conservative Fox News personalities like Sean Hannity, Greta Van Sustern, Lou Dobbs, Neil Cavuto, and the typically confrontational Bill O’Reilly, so obsequious when dealing with Donald Trump? Trump has them all eating out of his hand, and until now, I couldn’t understand why. I thought they were afraid of Trump, fearful he might call them a mean name. But now we know the true reason these Fox journalists have sold out. They work for Donald Trump! This is a clear conflict of interest, and highly unprofessional.”

Asked about the rumors of the Fox News purchase at a campaign stop today, Trump boastfully admitted it. “Okay, big deal,” he said. “So I bought Fox News. I’m tired of having the media treat me unfairly, so at least now I have one network that will be fair. And, by the way, I didn’t pay for it myself. I made Mexico pay for it. And as soon as the election is over, I’m going to rename it ‘Trump News.’ It was a great deal for me. I killed Murdoch. This is going to be huge.”

Other rumors have circulated recently that Trump also bought Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh, who many consider to be the father of the modern conservative movement, has been consistently preaching his brand of conservatism on his syndicated radio program since 1988. But not any more. Some conservative commentators, including Limbaugh’s fellow talk host, Glenn Beck, have wondered aloud what’s happened to Limbaugh. “When it comes to Donald Trump, the ferocious lion Rush Limbaugh, has turned into a pussy cat,” Beck said yesterday on his Blaze radio show. “Rush knows that Trump is no conservative. He’s just an opportunistic, self-serving demagogue. But Rush is afraid to stand up for true conservative principles and criticize Trump. So, wake up, Rush!”

The secret memo went well beyond plans to take over media outlets. After winning the election, Trump intends to take over everything. The branches of Congress will be re-named “The House of Trump” and “The Trump Senate.” The U.S. Supreme Court will be renamed “The Trump Supreme Court.” The other two branches of government will be subordinated to the executive branch and subject to the direct control of President Trump in a new “United States of Trump.”

Immediately upon taking office, Trump will issue an order to the Treasury Department that every unit of currency printed, from the one dollar bill to the one hundred dollar bill, will bear a picture of Donald Trump. At this disclosure, a stunned Washington AP correspondent, Cliff Hanger, asked: “Just to clarify, Sir. Am I to understand that on all the currency, you’re going to replace pictures of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Alexander Hamilton, and Ben Franklin, with pictures of yourself?”

“Why not?” Trump shot back. “Those founding father guys are all over-rated. And with my picture on all the bills, the United States currency will be respected again. The dollar will be stronger. So the Chinese can’t manipulate their currency and kick us around anymore. Believe me. This is going to be huge. I built a great company, and the Trump brand is the heart of that success.”

Trump also plans, according to the memo, to take over every major industry in the country. Apple Computer will become “Trump Computer.” Exxon Mobile will be renamed “Trump Oil.” The Dow Jones Industrial Average will become the “Trump Industrial Average,” etc. Donald Trump will own and control every major business in America. “That way,” Trump said, “I can really get this economy moving again. I’ve built a great company, and I’m simply going to merge every other company into Trump Enterprises. Because these companies are being run by a bunch of losers and stupid, ugly people. When I run everything, you’ll see jobs coming back to America. Believe me. When I run these companies we won’t hire anybody in foreign countries. They can all starve for all I care. Everyone will work in America. And finally when the rest of the world is starving and down on their knees begging me for help, I’ll take over the rest of the world as well. It’s going to be great.”

Another reporter asked Mr. Trump how this will work. “Suppose people in Congress oppose your plans?”

“Simple,” Trump responded, “If anybody doesn’t get with the plan, I’ll just look in their fat, ugly, face, and say, ‘You’re fired.’”

“But what if the Supreme Court says your plan is unconstitutional,” the reporter persisted.

“The Supreme Court? Are you serious? The Supreme Court is a joke. When have they ever gotten anything right? They’re just nine old people who are a bunch of losers who couldn’t make it in business so they sit there in black robes, thinking they’re very important, spouting nonsense.”

“Okay,” the reporter responded, “but what if they say your plan is unconstitutional?”

“Look!” Trump said, becoming visibly irritated, “I’m going to be President of the United States. I’ll have the FBI working for me, the Justice Department, the IRS, the National Guard, and the entire United States military. How many troops will the Supreme Court have? I’ll make them an offer. They won’t refuse.” Trump then instructed one of his security detail to take down the reporter’s name.

CNBC correspondent Rich Mann said that Trump’s plan sounded like socialism, i.e. that the government would control private companies.

“No,” Trump replied. “ It isn’t socialism. In socialism the government controls the private sector. When I’m president, I will control both the government and the private sector. This isn’t socialism; it isn’t capitalism. It’s something completely new; It’s called ‘Trumpism.’”

“Kind of like what King Louie the Fourteenth said?” The CNBC reporter asserted. “I am France.”

“Who is Louie the Fourteenth?” Trump responded.

In other news, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest denied reports from an undisclosed source in the U.S. Marshals Office that President Obama had ordered the body of U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia to be thrown off the airplane into the ocean on the flight back to Washington from Texas, where Scalia died on Sunday. “These allegations are scurrilous and scandalous, and completely fabricated,” Earnest said.
In 2011 President Obama did order the body of Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden thrown from the airplane into the ocean, after Bin laden was killed by Navy Seals in a raid in Pakistan. “This is a completely different situation,” Earnest insisted. “Just because he did it once doesn’t mean that having corpses thrown into the ocean to avoid potentially embarrassing autopsies has become standard operating procedure for the President of the United States.” The unidentified source with the U.S. Marshals Service said that the marshals had simply refused to comply with the President’s order.

UDI –United Depressed International 2/23/16

Senator Elizabeth Warren Hasn’t Got A Clue

Senator Elizabeth Warren Hasn’t Got A Clue

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D. Massachusetts) is frequently mentioned as a possible Democratic candidate for President.  But it’s astonishing that Warren, formerly a tenured law professor at Penn and Harvard, is apparently unaware that the United States has a “government of laws not of men.”  On NPR this morning interviewer Steve Inskeep asked Warren about an audio tape that emerged about bank regulators who decided not to criminally prosecute giant investment bank, Goldman Sachs.  Inskeep repeatedly pointed out to Warren that the regulators had found that the bank’s actions, although “shady” (whatever that means) were not illegal.  Warren repeatedly brushed aside this distinction, as if it were insignificant.  She said that “the fact that Goldman could mount a legal defense here is not really the point….”  Really, Senator?  Not really the point?  In other words, Warren believes that criminal prosecutors should go after people who have broken no law, if the prosecutor has some personal moral or ethical objection to the defendant’s conduct.  Sorry, Senator Warren, that’s not the way the American  criminal justice system  works.  Prosecutors aren’t supposed to go on vendettas, based on their personal beliefs, against people who haven’t broken the law.   It’s shocking that ivy league law schools like Penn (my alma mater)  and Harvard would have hired a professor who fails to grasp such a fundamental principle of the American justice system.

Pothead Nation USA

From the Nothing Can Stop A Bad Idea Whose Time Has Come Dept.



by Jim Greenfield © August 25, 2014

Isn’t it ironic that the movement to legalize marijuana across the nation appears to have gained irresistible momentum just as new studies come out showing that marijuana causes chronic brain damage and long term reduction in iq among young people whose brains are still developing?  A recent Duke University study  shows a long term eight percent drop in i.q. among teenagers who use pot regularly.  Apparently this reduction in intelligence is not reversed even when young users stop abusing the drug.  A Northwestern University School of Medicine study published in the “Journal Of Neuroscience” found that marijuana use causes structural brain damage, corroborating an earlier study at Harvard Medical School.

Colorado and Washington states have already legalized marijuana and it is defacto legal in many other states where law enforcement against possession is virtually non-existent.  There is growing pressure to decriminalize pot at the federal level as well from advocates who apparently don’t believe the scientific evidence and claim  pot is harmless.  As a fallback position  they sometimes argue unconvincingly that  at least it’s not as bad as alcohol, a claim not supported by any evidence.  Evidence of the linkage between marijuana use and mental health problems such as depression, low self-esteem, loss of motivation, poor memory, and schizophrenia are ignored by the pro-pot crowd.  The rising popularity of legalization among the uninformed public has cowed politicians into either silence, or open support of legalization.

Proponents of pot legalization compare the so called “war on drugs” with prohibition in the 1920’s.  To which I say, “What war on drugs?”  Pot legalization heads claim prohibition doesn’t work.  Actually, prohibition does work.  When there were stiff prison terms for possession of all classes of drugs, such as in the 1950’s, drug abuse was almost non-existent, except limited use in a few big city slums .  It is illogical and naïve to believe that legalizing a dangerous substance will not result in a substantial increase in its use.

The clearest example of the effect of legalizing a behavior that was previously illegal is pornography.  Back in the days when pornography was illegal it was extremely rare and hard to come by – found only in secret sleazy back alley stores in sleazy back alley neighborhoods.  After the Supreme Court struck down anti-pornography laws in the 1970’s in the name of free speech, pornography proliferated at an exponential rate.  Today pornography is found everywhere, in stores that advertise openly throughout the country in otherwise respectable neighborhoods, on the internet, and on cable tv.  Could anyone argue that this proliferation would have occurred if pornography hadn’t been legalized?

This is not to take a position about whether pornography should be legal.  Clearly that genie ain’t going back in the bottle.  The point is rather that demand for any product that is illegal and illicit is depressed.  Legalizing any previously illegal product not only de-stigmatizes its use, but makes it commonplace and easy to obtain.  It also results in widespread marketing and advertising, and a huge expansion of the market for that product.    Pot stores are coming soon to a neighborhood near you.  And if you think legalizing pot won’t make it easier for your kids to get it and get addicted, dream on.

So what will be the impact on our nation of multiplying the use of a drug that has now been scientifically proven to make people stupid?  Duh.  There will be more stupid people.  In my opinion we already have an ample supply of stupid people and don’t need more.

And for my libertarian friends, think about this.  The unfortunate thing about potheads is that, like other stupid people, some of them vote.   And who do you think they vote for?  Libertarians?  I don’t think so.  They vote for Democrats.  They vote for demagogue politicians who promise to give them free handouts to support their addictions, debilitated life style of dysfunction, degradation, inability to hold a job, and chronic dependence on the welfare state, common bi-products of chronic drub abuse.  So, libertarians, put that in your pipe and smoke it.

The libertarian argument for legalization goes something like this.  We believe in freedom.  (So do I).  Every adult should be free to engage in any conduct he chooses so long as it causes no harm to anyone else (the libertarian prime directive).  Ingesting marijuana, or any other drug, may harm you, but it causes no harm to anyone else.  Therefore, according to libertarian dogma, you should be free to use it.

The problem with the libertarian argument is that it’s simplistic, just as the libertarian formula which purports to provide the solution to all public policy questions is simplistic.  The problem, which is ignored by the libertarian creed, is figuring out where to draw the line between where self-destructive conduct harms only yourself and where it harms those around you.  Would anyone argue, for example, that the children of a drug addict aren’t harmed by their parent’s drug abuse?

The truth is that, like libertarians, I have no desire to interfere with people who want to harm themselves unless, and here’s the problem, their self-destructive behavior harms me as well, which in fact, it does.  If you want to go out in the Mohave dessert and shoot up on meth or heroin, go ahead.  Have at it.  But if you’re living next door to me, or working in my company, or your kids play with my kids, sorry pal, don’t tell me your drug abuse does me no harm.

And another thing.  Libertarians believe in freedom, right?  So do I.  But would you argue that widespread drug abuse increases freedom?  What a superficial conception of freedom!  Do you define freedom mechanistically to mean soley the physical ability to move your body around and do what you like with it, like for example the “right” to put brain destroying chemicals in your body?  How about a subtler and more profound notion of freedom?  In vedic philosophy the Sanskrit word “moksha” means liberation, not physical freedom to do what you choose with your body, or even political liberation, but liberation of the mind from ignorance and suffering, i.e. “enlightenment.”  As the Beatles said, “You better free your mind instead.”  Does allowing drug abusers the “freedom” to become enslaved to their addiction truly promote the cause of liberty in any meaningful sense?  Maybe there are some things we don’t need to be free to do because we know how it ends.

It makes perfect sense for Democrats to support marijuana legalization because most stupid people vote Democrat.  But for Republicans it is stupid to be pro-pot, and would make more sense to advocate re-criminalization rather than de-criminalization.  Let’s not throw in the towel, but get our young people off the drugs, and into the work place where they can start paying taxes, and hopefully figure out that the government is not their friend, so they wake up and start voting Republican or Libertarian.

The more philosophical point is this.  Freedom is rather a rare and delicate commodity.  Most men throughout history have lived under one form or another of despotism.  To remain free, a people must be capable of clear, intelligent thought.  If we permit our population to be further dumbed down and degraded, dysfunctional, dependent, and addicted to brain-addling substances, the demands to expand the welfare state even more will be irresistible.  If you want to understand the connection between a compliant, brain dead population and mass subservience to centralized authority, go back and re-read Aldous Huxley’s classic, “Brave New World.”   If  the trend of expanding drug abuse accelerates,  the citizens of this pothead nation, even those of us who don’t use drugs, will lose what’s left of our freedom.

Serving all humanity, but mainly serving myself, this is Jim Greenfield.


2012 study from Duke University. Researchers studied nearly every child born in a small town in New Zealand since the 1970s. They gave them I.Q. tests as teenagers then another later in life. They asked about their marijuana, alcohol and other drug use. The study concluded that those who regularly smoked marijuana did lose, on average, eight I.Q. points.