Sunday, August 6, 2017

The Ten Commandments In Courthouses

Over the past several decades there have been a number of court cases involving efforts to remove the Ten Commandments from courthouses throughout the nation.

These cases are always a bit perplexing to me because the Ten Commandments are the bedrock of our entire legal system.  That being the case, why object to displaying them in the Courthouse?

Today, I received the answer from a friend (himself being a retired lawyer)

“Why can’t we display the Ten Commandments in our Courthouses?

Three of the commandments—

“THOU SHALL NOT STEAL"
“THOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY”
“THOU SHALL NOT LIE”
Create a hostile working environment for the
LAWYERS,
JUDGES,
and
POLICIANS that work there.”

Now, it all makes perfect sense.

Comments are invited!
Send feedback to:  WatchDog

Friday, July 21, 2017

Facts: The Paris Climate Accord

On June 1, 2017 President Donald J. Trump withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord.
Immediately we heard from the media that we were all going to die because of ‘Global Warming’!
If you are interested in reading the “Paris Climate Accord” clickhere.  After you work your way through the ‘16 pages of legalese’, you will find that:
1.      Each nation decides its own goals and methods of achievement (if any).

2.      Only “developed” nations are expected to set and meet their goals.

3.      ‘Developed” nations (largely the U.S.) are expected to pay the cost for developing nation to meet their goals.

4.      The biggest global producer of ‘Greenhouse Gases’, China, has many years to start compliance with whatever goals that it decides it wants to meet.  
In reality, the vast majority of nations only agreed to sign on the condition that they receive large grants of money.  India for example expects to receive 100’s of millions of dollars.
The U.S was committed to contributing $3 billion to start and would have required to pay billions more.    
The scientists predict little or no impact on global temperatures.
In short, “The Paris Climate Accord” was intended to be nothing more than another Obama transfer of American wealth. 

 Comments are invited:
Send feedback to:    WatchDog


Sunday, July 16, 2017

Does Anyone Believe That Trump Was Putin's Choice For POTUS?

When you take a fair and open minded look at the facts, it is very hard to find a single reason that Putin would support Donald J. Trump over Hillary R. Clinton for the Presidency of the United States.

In 2013, After Assad, the President of Syria, used chemical weapons on his own citizens, Obama said there was redline that would be crossed if Assad use chemical weapons.  We soon learned that the line was drawn with disappearing ink. Russia supports the Assad regime and was very happy with the faded line.  Hillary promised to keep Obama’s Middle East policies.


When Russia invaded the Ukraine, Obama responded with a very strong “That was not very nice of you!”!  Hilary promised to carry on with the same policies.
When Russia shot down a commercial airliner flying over the Ukraine, Obama responded with a very strong “That was wrong! We certainly hope that you don’t do it again.”!  Hilary promised to carry on with the same policies.
 Obama sold out Israel and probably the entire Middle East, if not the world, with the phony nuclear agreement with Russian ally, Iran. Hillary promised to continue this very bad agreement.
Hillary promised on several occasions that she would continue to appoint Supreme Court judges, as well as other Federal judges that would undermine, and thereby destroy the U.S. Constitution.  Putin had to be happy with that.
We could go on with a long list of similar items, but let us close the major item.

While Hillary was Secretary of State; Russia wanted access to U.S. uranium reserves.  We don’t give this privilege to our closest allies!
Putin contributed $150 million to the Clinton Piggy Bank a.k.a. “The Clinton Foundation”.  They also paid $600,000/speech for Bill Clinton to make several speeches in Russia.  
For these bribes, Russia received control of 20% of the entire U.S.  Uranium Reserves and Putin had an American Politian that he knew he could buy!  Given these facts, how can anyone believe that Putin would want someone other than Hillary R. Clinton as POTUS?

Comments are invited:
Send feedback to:   WatchDog


Tuesday, July 11, 2017

The District Of Chicago?

As many of you know, the Liberals have done to the state of Illinois what they have been trying to do to the United States.

They have bankrupted Illinois to the extent that they have little to no hope of recovering on their own.
Someone suggested that they dissolve Illinois as a state and let each of the neighboring states annex whatever portion they want.
Clearly, no one would want to take Chicago.
So, would Chicago have to become the ‘District of Chicago’?
Just a thought.

Comments are invited!
Send feedback to:  WatchDog
]

Friday, July 7, 2017

The Truth About The Claim Of Russian Hacking

This writer does not know if Russia hacked the DNC computers, but neither does anyone else!

Even the best qualified analysts cannot make a determination if any machine was hacked or who hacked it without first examining that machine.  Even with access to the machine, the determination of who hacked a machine comes down to an educated guess.  Really good hackers will often leave evidence to make it look like someone else was there. 
The DNC has refused to make any of the machines that are alleged to have been hacked available to any security agency. 
Why they refuse is subject to speculation.   The most obvious reason would be that the machines contain information that is more important to keep secret.

Contrary to media reports, it is four and not seventeen of the U.S. security agencies that claim that the Russians ‘hacked into our election process'.
The most ridiculous claim is that only Mr. Putin could have order such a sophisticated attack. 

The machines that were hacked, were not protected by sophisticated software.   Go to any high school and you find kids who can do this kind of hacking in their sleep and you can probably find at least one that can hack many of the most secure government or big business computers.

Every month or two we see a major story of a federal agency being hacked, usually just for the ‘fun’ of it.

Another factor are the statements from WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange.  No matter what your personal opinion of Assange (for the record, I think that he is an asshole who most likely caused the death of people by exposing their names and has even endangered international relations and security) he has never released data that has been proven to be false nor has he been proven to have lied where WikiLeaks is concerned.   Mr. Assange has repeatedly stated that data did not come from the Russians.  He has in fact, eluded that the files were supplied by a member of the DNC

Comments are invited!
Send feedback to:  WatchDog

Thursday, June 15, 2017

Conundrums



THIS WILL MAKE YOU THINK

Conundrum...............
   
"A gun is like a parachute.  If you need one, and don't have one.You'll probably never need one again." The definition of the word Conundrum is: something that is puzzling or confusing.
  
Here are six Conundrums of Socialism in the United States of America : 
  
1.  America is capitalist and greedy - yet half of the population is subsidized.   
2. Half of the population is subsidized - yet they think they are victims.   
3. They think they are victims - yet their representatives run the government.   
4. Their representatives run the government - yet the poor keep getting poorer. 
5. The poor keep getting poorer - yet they have things that people in other Countries only dream about. 
6. They have things that people in other countries only dream about -    Yet they want America to be more like those other countries. 
  
Think about it!  And that, my friends, pretty much sums up the USA in the 21st Century
Makes you wonder who is doing the math.  By the way.................... 

1. We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, But we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics. 
  Funny how that works.  And here's another one worth considering... 
 2. Seems we constantly hear about how Social Security is going to run out of money.  But we never hear about welfare or food stamps running out of money?  What's interesting is the first group "worked for" their money, but the second didn't. 
  Think about it.....and Last but not least: 
3. Why are we cutting benefits for our veterans, no pay raises for our military and cutting our army back, but we are not stopping the payments or benefits to illegal aliens
   Am I the only one missing something?

Comments are invited!
Send feedback to:  WatchDog

Wednesday, April 12, 2017

The EPA's $600,000,000 Lie

Several years ago the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a report that claimed that air pollutants from burning coal were killing at least 6000 people per year.  The EPA also claimed that 10’s of thousands more people were suffering severe health problems as the result of coal fire pollutants.

At the time I wrote a blog disputing that claim based on my own empirical evidence.
Five and one-half years of my youth (grades 7 through 12) were spent in southern West Virginia where coal was king.  There was no natural gas available; some of the bigger businesses used heating oil, and a few homes burnt wood; everything else was powered or heated by coal.
All electricity was generated by coal and the Norfolk & Western railroad operated massive (2-6-6-4) articulated steam locomotives that burnt coal by the tons.
Our home was located at the beginning of a very long grade where the coal trains required two locomotives at the front and a third locomotive at the rear of the train.  They would haul 100 or more 90 ton coal cars per train.
Under those conditions, the locomotives were belching thick clouds of heavy black smoke as they ascended the mountain.
The result was that it was a rare day, usually mid-summer, when you did not smell the unmistakable aroma produced when bituminous coal is burnt.
From late Fall through early Spring, in the early mornings you to could see a heavy smoke cloud hanging over every valley.  From October to February that cloud could be several hundred feet thick.  On sunny days, a few hours after Sunrise, the cloud seemed to dissipate somewhat, but the smell of burning coal was just as strong.
We don’t have any scientific measurements telling us the exact amount of exposure to coal-fire-particulates the population was exposed to, but it was at a bare minimum, 1000 times greater than the levels that the EPA reports claimed was fatal!
If the EPA report had even a semblance of truth, 25% to 50% of the entire county’s population would have died from exposure every year.   The rest of the people would have been hospitalized.  
However, in reality, there were not any masses of people dying from lung disease there were few people, perhaps three in my entire high-school, suffering from asthma.

We now know that the EPA spent $600 million in taxpayer money to generate false studies about the effects of coal particulates.  The reason for these studies were not for improved health but because the EPA wanted to end coal mining. 
In fact it was the long term goal of the EPA to end all mining in the United States.  
An investigation must be made to find who authorized and carried out this shameful abuse of power and illegal use of funds.  Those parties should be criminally charged.     
Let us hope that the Trump administration replaces the agenda driven pseudo-scientists at the EPA with real scientists that rely on facts.

Comments are invited!
Send feedback to:  WatchDog

Saturday, February 18, 2017

Whatever Happened To Randoph Scott?

In 1974 the Statler Brothers asked in song, “Whatever happened to Randolph Scott?”

That was their way of addressing the decline in the in morality and quality of the movie industry.

The first five verses and the final verses of the song are as follows:

 “Everybody knows when you go to the show
You can't take the kids along

You've gotta read the paper and know the code
Of G, PG and R and X

You gotta know what the movie's about
Before you even go

Tex Ritter's gone and Disney's dead
The screen is filled with sex.

Whatever happened to Randolph Scott
Ridin' the range alone?“
'
.
.

“Whatever happened to all of these                                                                                                   
Has happened to the industry”


For over a year and a half the old WatchDog was confined to a hospital bed.  During that period, I passed a lot of time watching movies that were filmed from the early 1930’s through 2016.

My observation is that in the ‘30’s, ‘40’s, ‘50’s movie makers depended on quality writing, good directing, and very talented actors and actresses to produce entertaining films.  It is amazing how many of those early performers and it wasn’t limited to the stars, could dance, sing, and actually act.

At some point, probably in the early ‘60’s, the industry began to morph into the anti-American, anti-Military, anti-Capitalism, anti-Religion, Ultraliberal, Pornographic industry that it is today.

 Hollywood will tell you that they are not pornographic, but what else can you call full nudity and simulated(?) sex.  They place this crap in PG13 and R rated movies.  Can anyone explain the difference between Hollywood porn and XXX porn?

The truth is that Hollywood currently, has very little talent at any level and without Special Effects , nudity, and raw sex, Hollywood would be out of business.

The television industry isn’t much better.

Sports are generally very good.

But there are few prime time shows that are both entertaining and decent family fair.

Even the news is bad on the major television networks.  They tend to filter the news so badly that distort facts and events until it nothing but propaganda.

FOX News reports are far more accurate than the others, but they spend far too much time on commentary/discussion and too little time reporting.

For those of you that are fortunate enough to get ‘One America News (OANN)’; you have access to excellent unfiltered news with only two commentary programs per day.  And they make it clear just what is and is not commentary.

The MA14 rating in TV is just as bad as the PG13 rating in movies.

When TV writers run out of ideas or ratings begin to slip, shows often resort to adding sex and some programs, like “Two and a half men” are all sex from beginning to end.

A prime example of a show running out of good writing was the “The Good Wife”.  For two or three season’s it was a good entertaining program.  Then they hit a wall and added an abundance of sex at which point a more accurate title would have been “Just Another Slut”.

One notable exception in television movies is the Hall Mark channel.   They have an abundance of quality actresses and actors, quality stories that don’t have to rely on sex or special effects to be entertaining.

In answer to the Statler Brothers question “Whatever happened to Randolph Scott?”

Talent  was replaced with nudity, sex, and special effects.

Note: For those too young to know-Randolph Scott was a very talented actor in drama, light comedy, and best known for Western’s.


Comments are invited!
Send feedback to:   WatchDog

Sunday, February 12, 2017

Popular Vote vs. Electoral College

There has been a great deal of discussion over the fact that in the final count Mrs. Clinton had a 2.9 million (2.1%) edge in the popular vote, yet she lost the election.  The Progressives claim that this proves that the Electoral College is obsolete.

Before we discuss the relevance of the Electoral College, let us do some analysis of the election results.
If we take look at the voting results of 49 states, not including California, we find that Donald Trump had an edge of 306 electoral votes to Hillary Clinton’s 177 electoral votes.   Mr. Trump won with 63% of the electoral votes and in addition he had a 1.4 million edge in the popular vote.
If we include California, we find that Donald Trump still has a commanding edge of 306 electoral votes to Hillary Clinton’s 232 electoral votes.   Mr. Trump wins with 57% of the electoral votes but he loses the popular vote by a margin of 2.9 million votes.
If the election was determined by popular vote, a few coastal cities in California would have overturned the decision made by 98% of the nation.
The truth is that if the popular vote was used, every election would be decided by a relatively few cities.  Most of them located on the east and west coasts.
In spite of how they are maligned by our schools, the Founding Fathers were a brilliant group of men.  When they were writing the Constitution, a strongly argued issue was States Rights.   The states with big populations wanted the number of legislators to be determined by population.  Small sates wanted an equal voice for all states.
The result was our two body congress in which each state would appoint two members to the Senate, and the House of Representatives which gives each state a number of members which is based on their population.  (NOTE:  After the Civil War, Senators were changed to elected rather than appointed)
At the time the Constitution was written, about 90% of the nation by area was rural while the majority the population lived in large towns and cities.   At that time the President and Vice President (they were elected separately) would have been elected by just three or four cities.  As the 'by county 2016 election map', shown below, indicates, the same is still today.
RED indicates counties carried by the GOP--BLUE indicates counties carried by the DEM
There is little doubt that if elections were determined by New York City, Chicago, and California, we would have uncontrolled borders, only criminals would own firearms, the Constitution would be in shreds and we would be living under communism.
If that is the United States that you want, than by all means do away with the Electoral College.
Comments are invited!
Send Feedback to:  WatchDog


Friday, January 13, 2017

The President / The Senate / Supreme Court Nominees


In May of 2016, President Barak Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to be a Justice of the Supreme Court.
Since that time, the Senate has refused to vote on or to hold hearings on Judge Garland’s nomination.
There have been claims:
“The President should be able to name anyone that he wants to the court.”
“Congress has failed to act and thereby lost any say in the matter.”
“Congress is not fulfilling their Constitutional duties.”

The Appointment Clause of the Constitution (Article II, Section 2, Clause 2) states that the president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint ... Judges of the Supreme Court."

In reference to the President, the US Constitution, Article II, Section 1, states that before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The Senators take an oath as follows: 
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God”.

If the President is going to live up to the preserve, protect, and defend part of the oath, then he/she is obligated to name judges that are strict constitutionalists and not those that view the Constitution as a living document that the courts can change at will.
None of Obama’s three nominees met this requirement.  Congress, knowing that Obama would never nominate a pro-constitution judge did, as a practical matter, approve the first two nominees, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
The Senate understood that the appointment of Judge Garland would have begun the dismantling of the U.S. Constitution and held out hope (a very slim hope at the time) that Mrs. Clinton would not become the President and finish the destruction of the constitutional United States!
Is the opinion of this writer that the Senate, by not acting on Garland’s nomination, fulfilled their constitutional duties thereby saving the United Sates as we know it!

Comments are invited!
Send feedback to:  WatchDog