I posted a story on the last article about how FBI and DOJ leadership colluded to interfere in Mr. Trump’s administration and the 2020 elections. I asked what We the People are going to do about it.

We keep seeing proof of the corruption that has seeped into our institutions. From schools to the halls of Congress and the Bureaucracy. We keep whining about it but it isn’t changing. How can it change if we keep sending the SAME PEOPLE back there to fix it. While parent’s getting more involved with School Districts and Libraries will have some impact, the needed changes are far wider and deeper.

Do We the People have the resolve and stamina to deal with all this? I don’t know. But I do know that the first step is to start ignoring all the sceptics and cynics so we can focus on real problems. Don’t get caught up in “life’s a bitch and then you die” or the other variant, “the US sucks and is destined to die.” I don’t think so!

Spring has sprung!

It is Spring Time again, somewhere:

Because here in the Rockies it is Spring again:

The moral of the story is of course, that the same thing is not always the same everywhere you go.

“AI’s Impact on US Politics: Will Automation and Misinformation Make America Great Again?”

Don’t bother me, I’m thinking!

Special thanks to Mathius for posting this article. The subject matter is certainly timely and fits nicely with some of our broader discussions about Socialism vs. Capitalism. The short story is that we are probably at a major inflection point in human history and when your in the middle of change it is hard to know where it ends up. Now for the article:

By ChatGPT 3.5 (which, for some reason, identified itself as Sara Lee)

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is rapidly becoming one of the most transformative technologies in the world today. Its impact on US politics, both in the short and long term, is undeniable. While AI has the potential to bring about significant economic and social benefits, it also presents a number of challenges, particularly in relation to job losses, wealth concentration, and the proliferation of false or misleading content. In this blog post, we will explore how the two major political parties in the United States may respond to these challenges.

Job Losses

One of the primary challenges posed by AI is the potential for significant job losses across various industries. With advances in automation, many jobs that were once performed by humans may now be carried out by machines. This could lead to significant unemployment and underemployment, particularly for low-skilled workers.

From a political perspective, the response to this challenge is likely to differ between the two major political parties. The Democratic Party is traditionally seen as the party that is more supportive of workers’ rights and protections. In response to job losses caused by AI, the Democratic Party may advocate for policies such as increased investment in education and training programs to help workers transition into new jobs. They may also push for increased protections for workers, such as the right to unionize, and for policies that encourage companies to retain workers instead of replacing them with machines.

On the other hand, the Republican Party is generally seen as more supportive of businesses and free markets. In response to job losses caused by AI, they may advocate for policies that encourage innovation and entrepreneurship, such as tax breaks for companies that invest in new technologies. They may also push for deregulation and reduced government intervention, arguing that these policies will create a more business-friendly environment that will ultimately lead to job creation.

Wealth Concentration

Another potential impact of AI is the concentration of wealth among a small number of individuals and companies. As AI becomes more prevalent, those who are able to develop and deploy the technology may become extremely wealthy, while others are left behind. This could exacerbate existing inequalities and lead to social unrest.

In response to this challenge, the Democratic Party may push for policies that seek to redistribute wealth and reduce inequality. This could include increasing taxes on the wealthy, implementing a more progressive tax system, and increasing spending on social programs such as healthcare, education, and affordable housing. They may also advocate for policies that promote worker ownership of companies and the sharing of profits.

The Republican Party, on the other hand, may argue that the concentration of wealth is a natural result of a free market system and that attempts to redistribute wealth will stifle innovation and entrepreneurship. They may advocate for policies that encourage economic growth and job creation, such as tax cuts for businesses and reductions in government spending. They may also argue that the best way to reduce inequality is to create more opportunities for individuals to succeed through education and training programs.

Proliferation of Generated (and often false/misleading) Content

AI also has the potential to generate large amounts of content, including news articles, social media posts, and advertisements. While this content has the potential to be highly personalized and targeted, it also raises concerns about the spread of false or misleading information. This is particularly concerning in the context of political campaigns, where false information can have a significant impact on election outcomes.

In response to this challenge, the Democratic Party may advocate for increased regulation of online content, including social media platforms and search engines. They may push for policies that require these platforms to disclose information about the algorithms they use to generate content and to remove content that is false or misleading. They may also advocate for increased investment in journalism and fact-checking organizations to help combat the spread of false information.

The Republican Party, on the other hand, may argue that increased regulation of online content is a threat to free speech and may push back against such policies. Instead, they may advocate for increased individual responsibility and critical thinking when it comes to consuming online content. They may also argue for the importance of protecting free speech and the right to express opinions, even if they are not factually accurate.

In conclusion, the impacts of AI on US politics are complex and multifaceted. While the technology has the potential to bring about significant economic and social benefits, it also presents a number of challenges, particularly in relation to job losses, wealth concentration, and the proliferation of false or misleading content. The response of the two major political parties in the United States to these challenges is likely to differ, with the Democratic Party advocating for increased regulation and protections for workers and the Republican Party advocating for free market solutions and individual responsibility. As AI continues to develop and its impact on politics becomes more pronounced, it will be important for policymakers and political leaders to find ways to address these challenges and ensure that the benefits of the technology are shared fairly and equitably.

CONNECTIONS: Fully consider what it is you are asking for!

Our recent economic discussions around immigration, employment, wages, etc. revealed once again that we often times react to an issue, that we create, without fully thinking about all the consequences of our proposed solutions. I used “connections” in the title because of the TV show I used to watch by the same name. It showed how events today connect to future events totally unanticipated when the original event occurred. Some of these “downstream” events are good, and others are bad. But all are connected to that singular event. The short version of this is of course, “The Law of Unintended Consequences”.

Having a desire for our fellow humans to lead a better life is a noble thing, in my view. But having these desires is one thing. What you do about it is entirely a different thing. I think so much of the things going wrong today can be linked to actions taken to solve these human problems in the past. People are poor, give them a Govt Check. Problem solved. Ooops, now we have new social problems, increased crime, dysfunctional families. Things directly tied to the human cost of Social Welfare programs. Things that were warned about, like industriousness, but were ignored for the more noble cause of reducing poverty.

My intent is not to focus on “welfare” but on the basic idea of trying to control or interfere in broader forces (economic, social, psychological, cultural) to achieve a goal dealing with a more narrow focus. People want to come here to work, so we should just let them all in. We ASSUME they will find work and affordable housing. No thought of how the volume of that migration will strain existing infrastructure and services of a quasi welfare State, like the USA. The effects on economic forces are ignored or downplayed for convenience. We just assume things away, or change definitions of things to align with our desires.

There are some basic laws of economics, which is human behavior, that should not be ignored. The laws of supply and demand are real. When either moves up or down it affects the price or cost of things.

When you give people handouts you interfere with basic human needs to produce in order to live. You create not just dependency, but laziness and apathy.

Say’s law is a real thing. goods pursue goods. Demand for a product/service don’t exist before that product/service is created. And the jobs to pay for that new good/service come FIRST from all those connected to its production.

Contrary to the theories of Marx and other dubious characters throughout history, the price of goods and services depends on the value of those goods/services to the person who wants them. And not all people have the same values. Obviously, pricing strategies try to find some large number willing to pay the same price. The key point here is that just because you artificially raise the cost of production, via minimum wage or other laws, doesn’t mean the price will increase to pay those costs. So the business closes or moves on to another product/service.

Money is just another commodity. Its value will behave according to the Laws of Supply and Demand. Govt intervention will only delay bad outcomes and/or make them worse. I give you 10% Inflation as evidence of this. If the cost of money is cheap you will encourage borrowing. If it is high, you incentivize savings.

Inflation destroys not just the value of money today, but our future wealth as well Example: Assume 5% inflation of goods and wages. But wages increase annually while inflation increases every month. Over just 20 years of work, the adjustment factor for your wages will be 2.65. That is your wages will be 2.65 times greater than today’s wage. The cost of goods, on the other hand, will have an adjustment factor of 2.71. You lost ground over that 20 years even though inflation was the same for wages and costs. The only difference was the compounding period of time, 12 months/yr vs. 1yr. Expand this for a work life of 40 years and you get factors of 7.03 (wages) and 7.36 (goods). Of course this ignores the reality that once you “retire” your wages not only shrink but won’t keep up with inflation while the cost of goods continues on up and up and up.

I have one more, that is of my own construct. The price of something is not necessarily related to the quality of something. It might or it might not. I give you public education as an example. Some of the best outcomes are in areas with lower per unit costs. Obviously there are upper and lower limits on all such correlations. Just like supply and demand curves, they are curves, not straight lines.

Those who do not live within their means, will eventually come for yours.

There are of course many other rules and realities that I could post. But this should be enough to give everyone something to consider. So when you propose something like opening up the borders and legalizing the millions who arrive so they can work, you might want to think about all the “connections” to that idea.

Before I forget there is one very critical lesson that needs to be shared. Maybe not with those at SUFA but with their kids or the kids of friends. That is this: Assets – Liabilities = Equity. And it is Equity that equals Wealth. While this obviously applies to money you can use the same equation for your life in general. Your friends or acquaintances for example. There are assets and liabilities. And if your assets do not outnumber your liabilities you will be poorer for it.

INTERSECTIONS: Is it time to take a different road?

The past few days I have had a chance to think about where we find ourselves in the world today, whether we need to change directions and how we can do so if desired. This article will be the first in a series, I hope, looking at where we are and where we might want to go as a Country.

There are obviously many topics or issues within this broader subject. But today I want to start with some thoughts, and questions, on our foreign policy. This seems timely as it appears we are blindly stumbling into war in Ukraine. Many people have commented on the “reason” for Russia’s actions as well as those of others. It seems to me that many of these “reasons” are really just excuses used by Russia propaganda to justify their actions. While there are some grains of truth in these “reasons” the fact is Mr. Putin knows how to exploit them to achieve other objectives. You see some of the same rhetoric/action links with China as well.

So here we are on this road to where we don’t know. But if it is a road to a very bad place how do we change directions? How will we know when it is time, or how to make it happen? Let’s take a look at an example of a change and how it happened. And how that change helped lead us to our current location.

Prior to Sept. 11, 2001 there was an uneasy, and yes sometimes violent, “stability” in the world. This “road” had existed for decades. We wound up on that path following a deliberate change in our approach to international affairs following WWII. It took a long time for the bureaucrats and diplomats to achieve that status. While the fall of Soviet Russia resulted in some changes in power structures, it did not really change general US foreign policy. “Stability” and “Balance of Power” remained the primary buzzwords of diplomats and politicians of all major Nations.

In response to 9/11 Mr. Bush and other leaders effectively changed the path we were on to the one we find ourselves now. Unfortunately, I think this was done without considering the long range consequences. Or if they were considered, they certainly did not share their assumptions or conclusion with the rest of us. Other than the notion that “Stability” was now somehow linked with “Spreading Democracy” to places where the concept is completely foreign. One of the unforeseen affects of that action was that Mr. Putin, and other tyrants, changed their behavior, after we invaded Iraq. In essence, we gave all tyrants and despots the excuse they needed to invade whomever they wanted. We, the USA, changed direction after 9/11. This new road has had all kinds of intended and unintended consequences. So changing course may or may not work out in the long run. But if the new path is not desirable how to we pick the next path?

Since the Bush II years we have had three Presidents tell us they wanted to put us on a “new” road. To change directions. The first two failed and the third seems to have decided increasing speed is better than taking a different road. So if the American People elected three Presidents who promised a course correction then why do we seem to be on the same path? Remember, this is not the road we were on twenty some years ago. So why can’t we change? Claiming it is all the fault of the Military Industrial Complex is simplistic thinking as far as I am concerned. There have to be many other factors at play or we would be able to easily draw a line between the MIC and the current path. Remember, the MIC existed on the old path and many blamed it for that one as well. It is easy to claim money is the problem because money is always part of anything. But just because money is spent to achieve goals does not mean the goal is chosen only because of the money. Correlation does not mean causation.

There is no shortage of people claiming we need to just stop intervening on conflicts elsewhere. What happens if we pull back to our shores and stop intervening in conflicts between other States, or Tyrants. Are the lessons of WWII to be ignored? Or do they still apply? We see how easy it was to stumble onto a new road following 9/11, and how the consequences were probably not considered. Wouldn’t the reactionary “America First” strategy not suffer the same flaws?

The point of my article today is to primarily raise questions and point out how unforeseen pitfalls can occur, even when you think you are absolutely right. I don’t think anyone can have 100% accurate foresight. But I do think we can avoid many disasters if we pay attention to history and the reality in the world today.

I also do not see how we can decide on a new path today when we don’t seem to even agree on the general principles which should guide policies. If this were not bad enough, we are living with a partisan driven hypocrisy in our political leadership. Who cannot see that those who supported the Iraq and Afghanistan operations now oppose helping Ukraine. And those who viciously attacked Mr. Bush II over these wars are now in full support of fighting with Russia IN Ukraine. It is one thing to have divergent principles within the country, it is another when people change principles depending on who is in the White House or control of Congress.

As our discussions move forward I want everyone to keep in mind that foreign policy is but one issue. When considering this one issue we need to keep in mind all the others. Because they are all integrally linked. And they should all be consistent with a core set of principles and values shared by most, if not all, Americans.

Hypocrisy Knows No Bounds!

I will be brief on this topic. Since it is so glaringly obvious that hypocrisy is the nectar of politicians. Therefore, how can we criticize one over another.

Well, let me just say we can criticize their actions because they are always on the holiest of stumps when attacking their opponents. So what goes around comes around. Karma is an awful mistress, and all those other sayings that apply.

The best part of the Biden document scandal is how it has exposed the biased behavior of certain Federal agencies and the media ………… ONCE AGAIN! How long before we realize just how corrupted these institutions have become and begin the serious job of remaking them?

Deja vu’, all over again?

It is a new year, just like every year before it:

Will it be different, or just more of the same?

There are many things we could include in this question but for now I will focus on the condition of the condition in which we find our Republic. After reading a self proclaimed socialist’s comments last night I was struck by the Catch 22 nature of the argument. We are told that Capitalism is the problem, that Corporations own the Govt so we don’t matter, and we are told that the only group among the electorate standing against this should be eliminated. All because they supported a guy named Trump. So how does the problem get fixed? Well of course the argument is constructed to assure you cannot fix the problem. Hence the Deja vu’ nature of the argument itself.

But what about the Republic itself? Sometimes irony or destiny or just good ol’ fate steps in when I am pondering things. After thinking on this last night I found a new piece on American Thinker this morning that fits nicely. In this article the reality of history is stated plainly. Nation States, Empires, Monarchies, what have you, have all failed. Meaning they will probably all fail in the future. What is striking is how little time the American Republic seems to have lasted. That is if it is really in decline, and if so, can it be turned around. Or are we just going to be trapped in the old cycle, Deja vu’-all over again?

For the sake of brevity this morning I want to include a couple clips from the article I read, and then I will give you the link to read the full piece. I might quibble a bit on some of the specific claims but I think the theme and most points are sound. The author is Mr. Vince Coyner.

“In March 1962, JFK observed that “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” Sixty years later, his words resonate.

We are seeing the foundations laid for a revolution. Whether that revolution is peaceful or violent remains to be seen. In virtually every society, over time, a few elites accumulate most of the power. Those elites, in turn, run the nation as their personal fiefdom, where they utilize the machinery of the state to enrich themselves, accumulate more power, and use trifles to appease the exponentially larger population of serfs whom they rule.

This reality applies to monarchies, Communist tyrannies, “democracies,” theocracies, and even, as we’re coming to discover, republics. It doesn’t have anything to do with economics either, as it occurs in capitalist states, socialist states, Communist states, and mercantile states. The only difference is how long it takes for the structure to collapse. It took the Roman Republic 500 years to collapse, the French monarchy 1,000 years, the Soviet Union 70 years, and the EU is shaky after just 30 years.

Closer to home, the American Republic finds itself on a precipice of collapse after less than 250 years. We’re seeing it unfold right in front of us.”


There is a lot to consider in this article. Things we can address and discuss. I am interested in what everyone else thinks about either the particulars or the general theme. I am pretty sure I can predict one of the responses. It will be Deja vu’, all over again.


Let’s take some time to remember why Christmas is a thing. The birth of Jesus Christ.

Let’s take even more time to think about what it means and how it should affect our lives. Living in harmony with the world around us, with peace in our hearts and extending good will towards others.

There is much that can be written about the ills in the world today. Or the vitriol that chokes the airways and newspapers, let alone the conversations with family and friends. We can become mired in our own trials and tribulations. Our fear of Liberty lost for future generations. We can do all of that but nobody can survive on a constant diet of negativity. It leads to despair and depression.

So, I think this weekend should be a time for reflection on the good. The good which exists within each of us and the world in general. The beauty and wonder of God’s creation which surrounds us. Let’s ponder the possibilities of an even more prosperous future. Let us take the time to thank God for all we have. No matter how big or small there is always something for which to be thankful.

In God We Trust that Liberty Lives

As Requested; A new page for comments.

V.H. per chance?

I do not have the time today to write an article so ya’ll will have to settle for a clean page upon which to pontificate!

The Election That Will Not Stop!

The counting of votes in many States continues this week. The Republican choice in Alaska, who was leading, is now behind the incumbent Murkowski. The incumbent will probably win as she will get more of the Democrat’s votes when they are reallocated. Thanks to the bizarre system in Alaska. Still not sure what will happen with the House race there.

But one thing is for sure. The system is now messed up in so many ways and in so many places. Efforts to improve voter confidence have wound up damaging it even further. Toner settings were not tested the night before? Really?

Then I heard this week of a county in Montana that actually turned in phone ballot counts the day of the election and had to rerun the counting. It seems they turned in a count based on the phony ballots they used to TEST the machines the night before the election.

I am thinking we should go back to putting stones in baskets or marbles in buckets and then just weighing them. Although I am sure it wouldn’t take long for someone to try and tweak the weights in hope of gaining an advantage.

POLITICAL WINDS; Here we go again!

In case you have been in a coma or living in the Arctic, or Antarctic, you should know there is another election coming up very soon. The pundits have been making their hay all summer with predictions of Red Waves and then Blue Waves. Then back again.

We all sit on the edge of our seats hoping, some even praying, that THIS TIME there will be changes that matter. The reality is that there will in fact be changes and they will matter, despite what the Anarchists tell you. The problem is those changes never seem to last. Because the Winds of Change keep changing themselves.

First we get Winds from the Right

Then Winds from the Left

It seems the only constant is that the winds are always blowing. We never get any calm anymore. That period of rest that comes before the next storm. Instead we are just subjected to one storm after another after another…..asking ourselves, will that fat lady ever sing?

Why does this seem to happen in almost predictable cycles? First, Americans have traditionally been kind of passive players. Only getting in the game when the game seems to have finally impacted them. Second, Americans have been more pragmatic in their political voting, not ideological or hard partisans. Most Americans historically didn’t give a hoot about politics. Because they either did not see a connection to their lives or felt they couldn’t make a difference anyway. But as the affect of Government on our daily lives has increased, our participation, voting, has increased. But that “pragmatism” still comes into play. Which is why we see such a large number of Americans claiming “Independent” status rather than choosing a political party.

Now to be fair, part of this is due to the behavior of the Political Parties. As parties become controlled by more ideologically pure types, the more Americans will be driven to the “Independent” group. The more people are driven to be Independents, then the more diverse and unpredictable this group becomes. The more who are in that group the more the forces of change for the sake of change will take over when things are not going well. This works against the ideologically pure. They can never gain control for very long because bad things always happen and when they do those in the middle will call for change once again.

The irony is that these forces or “winds of change” have the effect of moderating the “ideological forces”. As the parties need to moderate to keep the middle ground in order to get and retain power. Thus both parties start to look the same. The more this happens the more we all start complaining about the “Uniparty”. Next thing you know we are packing up and moving back to the “Partisan House”. And the cycle begins all over again.

There are many political science types who believe this is a good thing for the country. It is very hard for any single party to gain permanent control, especially the more ideological it becomes. On the other hand, this tendency of ours never allows us to settle on a political ideology long enough to solve real problems. Instead we keep running from fire to fire with out “pragmatic hose”, dowsing this fire then the next. Never getting them out completely, just subduing them long enough to move on for awhile.

These are my rambling thoughts this morning on the nature of our political elections. There may be some good in them or not. But one thing is for certain. Until we settle on a singular set of principles, values and political beliefs, the Winds of Change will continue to blow.

There is of course one other constant in this. No matter what happens next Tuesday there will be much celebrating, whining, moaning, complaining, prognostication about what happened, why and what it means, predictions about changes to be made, and then the games will begin again. With no rest for the weary American people.

Is this Justice? Part Three.

Man arrested for a crime that he did not yet commit.

This is a good news story as it is very likely that many lives were saved. A man was arrested in Florida for preparing to engage police in a shootout. Apparently because his drivers license was suspended. Of course The Hill uses the “wanted to start a war” lead in but you will find in their own story his war was with the police. Following is the link to their story:

Florida man arrested after planning to ‘start a war,’ deputies say

Of course the underlying question is whether arresting someone for a crime based on their supposed intent to commit such a crime is really legitimate. That is in the sense of actual justice. Per the story he was arrested while approaching police with guns and body armor. Yet he was arrested without incident, then charged with “aggravated assault.” Key point here is he DID NOT assault anyone.

Does this fall under the “Clear and Present Danger” category of justified use of force? Or are we on the slippery slope to the dystopian world depicted in the movie Minority Report?

Other Stories Related the the Justice Question:

New York has issued a report claiming that a mass shooting was caused by radicalization of someone on the internet. The report calls for clamping down and regulating the internet to prevent such crimes in the future. This requires monitoring the conversations of individuals, pretty much constantly. I don’t think it will be long before monitoring individuals conversations will lead to pre-emptive action against them. As in arresting or detaining them for a “potential” crime which has not yet been committed. Is that really all that far fetched?

Over the past couple of weeks the Federal Governments DOJ and FBI have arrested people for demonstrating against abortion clinics. For supposedly interfering in others access, by standing on a sidewalk and shouting things. These people were arrested almost a year or more after the States involved determined no crimes were committed. One involved a father pushing a counter demonstrator who had gotten in his son’s face while shouting nonsense. Again, the State determined no crime was committed. Yet the Feds have arrested him, and a preacher. That is the world we live in today. So just how far will this use of force go? How long before people are arrested for spreading disinformation about Global Warming?

Is this Justice? Yes or No, AGAIN!

Now we have the DOJ prosecuting a pro-life man for pushing someone down near an abortion clinic. The FBI is used in an early morning raid with guns drawn to intimidate him, his wife and children. All for a crime which the State of Pennsylvania found to NOT EXIST. Yet the Fed’s are trying to send this guy to prison because he pushed someone trying to get into a clinic.

But, the charges are tied to a law which makes it a crime to prevent access DUE to the person’s desire to gain access. The reason the case was dropped, according to some reports, is that the man was pushed for calling the man’s son names and getting into his personal space. The guy who got pushed was the aggressor.

When it comes to the Federal Govt these days that doesn’t seem to matter. The following article from American Thinker summarizes the situation so no need to expound here.


We also have a report of an FBI whistle blower pointing out the ABUSES of the DOJ and FBI in going after people who were in the Capitol on January 6th, 2021. As reported by Red State here:


One really has to wonder whether “Justice” will ever be regained when the nations law enforcement agencies seem to have gone off the rails. So far in fact their actions are taking on the air of outright political partisanship.

JUSTICE …. Yes or No?

5th Circuit Stops Big Tech Censorship in Texas

There has been a major decision made by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals regarding Corporate censorship of speech. The corporations being outfits like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter. In a nutshell the court ruled that these companies amount to “Common Carriers”, much like all public utilities, and therefore can be regulated as such. Including Texas passing a law prohibiting censorship due to political preferences. The following article at American Thinker describes the basis of the law and the court’s ruling:


This issue has caused a lot of angst here at SUFA in the past. The dilemma of what happens when private companies start censoring people as opposed to when the Govt. censors folks. The latter has always been taboo, to most here, but the former created a conflict of sorts. How can you defend private property or the rights of individuals then ask Govt. to regulate companies ability to control their platforms.

I agree with the author of the AT article in that given existing laws it is probably the correct answer. Because it is in fact consistent with other laws and Govt. actions over the conduct of private lives. Demanding businesses provide service to anyone and everyone, for example. No matter whether the business owner agrees with the customers values or outward appearance.

Then there is the issue that the Tech. Companies created in their own arguments. Making the case they are the location of “public discourse” to gain monopoly market share then doing an about face with respect to free speech. What was missing from this case was the interwoven nature of Govt. working with these Companies these past two years. Maybe even more but we don’t know for sure.

We should recognize here that media companies that have national audiences, we call them MSM, have a long history of working as the Govt’s propaganda arm. At least until things go south. Then they act all righteous while putting the screws to the same Govt., whose boots they were licking only months before.

I am sure many of us will celebrate this decision. But let me ask a question. How long before the other side figures out how to use this ruling against the very thing we want protected? When will the lawsuit or LAW come regulating a Company’s ability to contribute to political campaigns because it is a “common carrier”, and as such supporting one view is defacto censoring the other view. When will laws be passed or judges rule that companies MUST provide equal time to all sides of an issue?

Maybe this will turn out to just be a reasonable decision, with no unforeseen negative impacts. In the current state of political affairs, not likely.

So for now I think I will place this decision in the category of “be careful what you ask for.”

Is the Kryptonite Meteor called OBSTRUCTION going to hit or will it miss?

Will “Obstruction of Justice” be his final downfall?

It appears that more and more pundits are suggesting that Mr. Trump is going to be jailed or is at least in serious jeopardy due to “obstruction of justice”. This creates the same question we all had before about how do you obstruct justice if not actual crime is committed. Well that is a glitch in our system, in my humble opinion. The Govt. Attorneys can order you to do things absent an obvious crime, like subpoena documents. Then if you do not produce the documents requested you can be prosecuted for obstruction.

Which leads us to Mr. Trump. I finally saw a copy of the subpoena for the Mara Lago documents this spring. A copy of the document can be found here:


Note this is a “grand jury” subpoena. On its face this would indicate a potential “criminal investigation”. However, the U.S. Attorney can issue this subpoena without actually having any grand jury aware of it. But it still indicates a criminal investigation is underway, or is being considered (According to Findlaw and some other sites I read). Also note that this subpoena is ONLY about “Classified” documents. It lists just about if not every type of classification you can imagine.

We now know that all of the documents requested by this subpoena were NOT produced. Because the FBI found more in the August raid. So on the surface this looks like a slam dunk. Especially if you are among those who don’t like the man, and that is putting it mildly. Nobody has asked why the DOJ was issuing a “grand jury subpoena” in the first place. Meaning they suspected a crime. The documents in question are covered under the Presidential Records act. As many pundits, the honest ones, have pointed out, there is no enforcement provision in the records act. The Archives can scream for the documents but have no legal means of getting them back. Historically, this has required give and take between the ex-POTUS and the Archivist. There are reports that the Archivist contacted the DOJ after either not getting the materials they wanted, or after they retrieved some boxes and found “classified documents” among the contents. I suppose it would seem reasonable to have concerns about security, if the Archivist felt the documents at Mara Lago were not secure. But this really doesn’t explain why the Archivist went to DOJ and it especially doesn’t explain why DOJ decided to go with a “grand jury subpoena”, which again indicates suspicion of a crime, instead of just working with Mr. Trump, or the designated “Custodian”.

It is obvious from the released, and partly redacted, affidavit supporting the search warrant that the DOJ is using the Espionage Act, and others, to indicate a potential “crime”. The inclusion of documents related to obstruction would seem related to the failure to provide the documents originally requested in the subpoena. But the affidavit and the search warrant went far beyond the purpose indicated in the original subpoena. This makes it look like another case of the U.S. Govt. piling on via the DOJ. Something we have long complained about here at SUFA. Or even worse, they used the classified documents issue to gain access to all of Mr. Trump’s records so they can go fishing for things that might be used to harm him politically or feed into the Jan 6th Committee hearings. If the DOJ and FBI had no taint on them from past actions we could dismiss such a theory as absurd. But thanks to their own behavior we can’t. At least not at this time.

It is not clear to me that Mr. Trump could be prosecuted criminally for removing or possessing “classified” documents. Given the Courts ruling on Plenary powers of POTUS over classification. But if he did not follow standard procedure to document his decision it will open him up to even more political persecution and make it more difficult to make a legal defense. It could also make his staff vulnerable to being charged for handling said documents. And once staff members or his lawyers get charged we all know what pressure the DOJ will put on them to spill the beans on anything and everything about Mr. Trump.

I have reached a personal opinion on one part of all this. Given how long it has taken all the TV and Internet “Legal Experts” to start coming together on certain issues, and given how there is NOT uniform agreement on how the criminal laws (espionage) relate to the Presidential Records Act, I think the Judge who issued the search warrant made a big mistake. It looks like the Judge simply took the DOJ’s word for it with respect to their suspicions of “crimes” to justify the warrant.

I also believe that all the classified and other non classified documents, pertaining to Govt. business, in Mr. Trump’s possessions , are the property of the U.S. Government. Per the law they fall under the custody of the National Archives. Mr. Trump, and/or his people, should have been working openly with the Archivist to address concerns about securing the documents. Remember, we still do not know what if any designations the Archivist made about Mara Lago. The Archivist should have been doing the same. This “pissing match” over the documents should not have happened. If Mr. Trump was not cooperating then the Archivist was within her authority to ask someone to retrieve the materials. The Archivist should have gone to a Judge, with the DOJ if needed, and simply secured a Subpoena for ALL Presidential Records. She could have also simply gone to the site with some of her employees and worked with the “Custodian” to secure all the POTUS Documents in a secured room. While they continued their little back and forth dance.

But here is the rub. If this was really about failure to secure the Presidential Records then, why did the subpoena only mention classified documents?

Now with that all said, Mr. Trump’s own bull headedness is the reason he is now in such a pickle. Maybe he will escape this and we find out it really is another attempt to do him in by the Deep State. But more likely, he is going to have egg on his face, and if he escapes criminal charges that egg will cost him a lot of votes in 2024. Of course that once again depends on who the Democrats select to run against him.

Mara Lago and Government vs. Presidential Documents.

There is so much that could be written right now about the search and seizure operation at Mara Lago. Of course much has already been said by the usual players in the efforts to “get Trump”. This has been from both sides. But the reality of the situation is really not known because all the players seem to be dishonest in their efforts. Especially the Government. I will write an article later on the topic but wanted to share one thought now. As often happens with my thinking, I go to the root causes of these “problems” and look for simpler solutions.


It appears that Mr. Biden may have created a “trap” for Mr. Trump because he removed the Presidential Privilege protections for having government documents after the fact. All Presidents remove documents and retain them in their “Presidential Library”. Which is another tax payer funded boondoggle. We pay for these “libraries” that contain tens if not hundreds of thousands of “government documents”. And yes, we know that some of them were “classified” when removed and that some of those were never returned to the National Archives or other agencies.

So here is my thought. Simply make the removal of any Government Documents illegal. Eliminate the whole “Presidential Library” scheme. If they are truly Government Documents then they should ALL reside in the National Archives.

This would eliminate this issue in the future. Or at least make violations more obvious and easy to prosecute. It would also help reduce the Emperor like status given to EX presidents. The day they leave they leave as nothing more than a Citizen and they take with them nothing more than they came with. They ride off into the sunset and we never hear from them or about them again.

The only remaining question is, what should constitute Government Document status? Should every note or discussion or text be included? If “working papers” are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act then why should they be included in the documents that must be protected. As currently written it looks like the law governing document protection prevents destroying these records. Again, the easy solution is keep them all.

But we should ask ourselves if this working papers concept is even all that important. Is it really true that revealing deliberations and advice to a decision maker would handcuff the decision maker? In todays political environment that may be true. On the other hand, early exposure of what aids and advisors are thinking might create enough debate to prevent some government official from making a big mistake.

Personal note: I worked in an agency where insiders leaked “working papers” to an outside group in hopes of undermining a decision. The employee didn’t like where it was going and figured creating a controversy could derail the whole project. In the end it did not work, but it did cost a lot of money and time to deal with the issue before we could move on. It also made us a target for certain outside groups from that point on. Thus having lasting affects on our ability to do the work Congress had given us.

So maybe the solution is that “working papers” do not need to be released during an Administrations tenure, or an agency’s process but need to be retained in the long term records. I would be interested in what others think on this “working paper” issue itself. As well as the primary issue of document retention.


USW created this blog to openly explore his misgivings and thoughts about American politics with complete strangers. It did not take long for him to gather together a rather large group of people willing to do the same. Unforeseen by him, or any of us, was that this group would become one big eclectic family.

Those of us who comment each day have changed over time. But the discussions that USW encouraged and participated in will have everlasting impact on the lives of not only those who participated, but those who watched from the gallery. That is because ideas, once released are very hard to hide or ignore. They will affect anyone exposed to them. We will not all react in the same way, but they persist in having an “impact” on us. In short, the family he created with SUFA and thus the lives he touched, numbers in the tens of thousands.

USW first found me at the Huffington Post, doing my absolute best to maintain my good manners in the face of overwhelming head winds. At that time I was exploring the web for much the same reason he started SUFA. He sought me out, as he did with others, because he thought I had something to offer and would appreciate a “less toxic culture”, as he put it. It was in essence an offer to come join his family because he thought I would fit in. As it turned out this little family of his was so diverse that virtually anyone could fit in. Unless, of course, they were obnoxiously rude to others in the group. Civility was the rule, even if it was sometimes very hard to enforce.

Most of SUFA only saw a portion of the discussions USW and I had with a certain Pirate about how his effectiveness would be enhanced with more civility and a less acidic tone. These talks would have some effect, for a time. But as we all know, Pirates will be Pirates. No matter what the color of the flag they fly.

He offered us all a place where diversity of thought, experiences and opinions were welcome. A place where civil discussion, and disagreement, was the rule. This in turn allowed us all to gain greater knowledge and understanding. A place where we could expand our minds and improve our thinking and argumentation skills. I think it was his underlying purpose for SUFA. I do not think he realized the extent to which achieved this goal nor how much he was appreciated by most of us. I think Mathius captured that with his tribute:

“What a tragic loss. He was a man who wanted to do good and who valued kindness. He was open and evenhanded and intellectually honest. This is, as many of you will know, perhaps the highest praise I can offer of a man.

I often disagreed with him – but never once did my respect for him falter in the slightest. I wish his family well in this time of grief.”

His desire to keep this a place for civil discussion of dissenting opinions was noble, timely, greatly appreciated, and needed now more than ever. As you all know, USW left me with the keys to his kingdom when he decided he needed to attend to other priorities. SUFA had grown so big and demanding of his time it was becoming overwhelming. He dropped in from time to time, and I know was often watching from the gallery. In his absence we did pretty well, for awhile. But it has, to say the least, been a challenge for us all, me included, to maintain the culture he built. Frankly, sometimes we have not lived up to his expectations. We identify many reasons for this, but the real point is that no garden may flourish without constant attention and care.

USW’s passing has caused me to reflect on what he hoped to create with SUFA and to commit to trying harder to maintain his legacy. But, no matter how hard I, or anyone else, tries to live up to his expectations for SUFA, none of us will ever be able to reach the standards set by one Mr. John Elie, our very own US Weapon.

In closing I have copied one of the first articles by USWEAPON on the status of the various Political Parties. Oh the irony it being his critique of the Republican Party in 2009. This was soon followed by a series on the Libertarian Party, and was about the time he brought me to the family. The reason I coped it, however, was to remind us of the tenor of his articles and the essence of the man who built SUFA.

The Direction of the Republican Party



By request I have bumped this post back up towards the top of the page. The discussions have been good thus far and I want them to continue. I originally posted this on February 3, but will try to keep it closer to the top as long as people like. As those who have been along for the last four months know, this journey started with my realization that the Republican Party no longer represented to me what the Party used to. I was feeling a bit neglected by my party and embarrassed by their actions. So I left them and began seeking a better way forward because I felt that a better way forward was not what they were interested in. We have explored the Libertarian Platform, which seems pretty solid to me. But I can’t get the Republican disappointments out of my head. The selection of Michael Steele as the new Chairman of the RNC got me thinking…. 

So here is where I am sitting these days. The Republican party for me used to represent the good guys. It was the christian party. Family values and cutting taxes. National Defense and smaller government. Sure the party had its share of bad guys, but the party always seemed to hold just a bit higher moral ground than Ted Kennedy and the Democrats. I was talking to one of the few people I trust to discuss politics intimately with tonight and she reminded me of what I used to like about the party. They weren’t perfect, but they were certainly better than the democrats. 


That is certainly not the case any more. The party has slipped into the abyss and now find themselves on equal moral ground with the Democrats. Republicans have just as many crooked politicians as their opponents. They seem to find ways to justify expanding government’s role just like the Democrats, only from the opposite end of the spectrum. They vote for the same pork laden bills and take the same kickbacks. Realistically the only thing that makes them better than the Democrats is that they don’t have to admit to having that crazy bitch Nancy Pelosi in their party.


The last couple of weeks have found me discussing with my many politically minded friends what the direction of the Republican Party needs to be in order to get better again. Should the Christian Right be given far less say in the party agenda? Should they remove the abortion debate (which they will never win out on) go away and stop polarizing moderates with it? What about gay marriage? There are so many platform issues that are out there for the Republicans. So I am asking all of you for your input and opinion. What should the Republican party change in order to “fix itself” and get back on track with its many disenfranchised voters?

So no issue is off limits here. I want to hear from everyone. If you are reading this you surely have an opinion on at least one thing the party should do differently. What are the issues that you don’t like in the party? Not sharing it would be a neglecting of your purpose for reading this blog in the first place. Most of America is somewhere in between the two party platforms, so let’s here where you think the party should go if they want your vote.

Your service to our country was and remains immeasurable. I look forward to the day we can sit at the table in Valhalla, sharing Tankards of Ale and our thoughts on the musings of the universe. Until then, God Bless You my friend and thank you for all you did. May nothing but peace and loving memories be with your family. JAC

Congressional Blackmail Works Again.

The supposed “Bipartisan” passage of a bill to expand health care to veterans is just one more example of how the blackmail orchestrated by members of Congress works to our disadvantage.

Some Republican members refused to vote for the legislation because…… it contained funding for totally unrelated things. The Democrat Leadership immediately launched a campaign of slander against them. Very much like that old ad accusing them of pushing granny off the cliff. In the end the pressure tactic worked. And the SPINELESS Republicans voted to pass the bill.

The media continues to overplay Mr. Trump’s power over the Republican Party!

I find it very interesting how the media is fixated on those candidates “endorsed” by Mr. Trump. If they lose then Mr. Trump is toast and lacking in influence. Then when the next one wins, Mr. Trump has control over the party and his influence is a sign of an ignorant electorate. The following headline from The Hill is an example:

Primary results reinforce Trump’s power over GOP


Note the use of the word “power” instead of influence or some other descriptor. How can he have no power one day and then great power the next? Does he really have any “power” over a party consisting of hundreds of thousands of members? Could it be that people at the State and Local level simply vote per State and Local issues. And that they are simply continuing to seek out “new blood” instead of siding with the established “leaders”?? I mean, things haven’t been all that great under traditional leadership.

I think there is a serious misunderstanding among our friends on the left side of the teeter totter about those on the other side. The assumption that everyone is just marching to Mr. Trump’s drum is not healthy for the country. When one side can come to discount the other simply due to assumed ignorance, or because they “watch Fox News”, it becomes to easy to dehumanize them. Of course the same can be said of those on the right side who use the same rhetorical device. In either case the outcome can be devastating. Just ask the hundreds of millions killed under various Socialist Regimes who dehumanized them to maintain political power.


Let us ALL; Stand Up for America.

That precious land of freedom, liberty and justice for all.

So many today want to focus on divisions, disputes, frustrations and general ill will of our citizenry. I am increasingly convinced that while there is plenty of stress to go around, most of us do not really carry all this animosity around with us every day. We don’t go around howling at the moon, unless someone comes along and provokes us. The vast majority I meet LOVE this country of ours. Yes, they often have different views of what they want it to look like. And of course, some are entirely wrong in their thinking. Heh, heh, heh (joke alert)!

But July 4th should be a time to celebrate our commonality, our shared principles and values, not our petty differences. So lets pray to the Almighty to give we Americans the wisdom to see through the fog of distractions and divisions being purposely sown. May those who seek to divide us find their seed fallen on sterile ground.

Let freedom be our battle cry and may the brotherhood of Liberty warm our hearts.

God Bless America.


There are “THINGS” happening in the world around us. Some are big and some are small. But all require our attention to some degree or another. So today I thought we should consider at least one of the BIG THINGS. Something that seems so innocuous yet smells like a skunk.


A shout out to V.H. for reminding us of this thing the other day.

So let’s dive in by checking out an article posted at Mises.org, on the topic. The claim is that The Great Reset is actually an effort to destroy traditional western Liberalism. Despite the claims of those pushing the ideas contained within there “agendas” it certainly looks like it all leads to One World Govt. But that is just me. So take a moment and check out this article:


Now for some other “Things”. On this memorial day lets give thanks to for all those who have come before us. Those that paid the ultimate price in defense of this great Nation, and those who sacrificed so that we might have a better life than they had.

INFLATION! That little uncomfortable increase in prices caused by ????????

We have chased this issue around many times. But each day I see stories about inflation which continue to mislead the American public. Deliberately, I believe. The falsehoods come from all sides. Let us address a couple of key facts:

  1. Inflation KILLS the middle and lower classes. The rich have time and means to react more swiftly. The rest, who largely depend on savings and mutual funds, if anything at all, get hammered. If all you have is cash in the bank then it is rotting each day like lettuce sitting in a hot sun.

2. Leadership in both parties and the blue blood academic institutions are complicit in the problem. This includes those “conservative Republicans” such as GW Bush and Mr. Trump. Neither had a problem pumping more money into the economy when their polling numbers looked weak. Mr. Biden is not to blame, by himself. Sorry, but your confirmation bias is not going to get stroked here on this issue.

3. The real cause of inflation is ………………… HINT, HINT, one graph to rule them all, HINT, HINT. It truth it is not just the physical supply. By Austrian definition it is too much money chasing after too few goods.

This is where Mathius would ask me to remind everyone that he told you to buy bitcoins and gold, like two years ago. These are hedges available to everyone. So let us here from SUFA about other ideas which can help protect against the inflationary rot.

Ukraine: What, Where and Why

Why is Ukraine important? We keep asking that question with respect to both the US and Russian viewpoint. It appears many of these questions are really about finding reasons to stay out of some conflict in a far off place. Not on the implementation of some sound principle that was established with long hard thought. “They speak Russian” is one such refrain. Yet surveys of language have shown only a couple provinces in Ukraine where the majority people (more than 50%) identify Russian as their primary language. One of these was Crimea and the other borders Russia on the eastern extreme. The rest of “Eastern Ukraine” varies with percentages ranging from a maximum of 15% to 50%.

So, if language is a determination of ethnicity or some supposed reason to align with one side or the other, we have to ask ourselves: What about the other 50% of the population who don’t view themselves as Russians or even as just primarily Russian speakers. This of course doesn’t address the fact that the presence of Russian as a primary or just major language is largely created by Russia’s invasion and control over this region.

Why would Russia want Ukraine? Another question asked here frequently. Well as you can see from the map, Eastern Ukraine provides broad access to the Black Sea and the already confiscated territory of Crimea. As many have noted, Russia gains an ice free deep sea port by controlling Crimea. The primary transportation system through the region (with a hub at Kharkiv) is linked directly to Russia.

Eastern Ukraine is also a major “bread basket” and would provide Russia with additional food, if needed, as well as expand its export markets. That is giving them something besides oil and weapons. One other thing to consider. Note that if Russia controls Eastern Ukraine it almost completely landlocks the rest of Ukraine.

The next map shows some of the regions of Ukraine, by the time period when they were added to the Country. When people talk about “eastern Ukraine” in context of the Russian goals it is primarily the area in pink. Of course the green area borders Balarus, another Russian friendly Nation.

So why should the US care or get in the mix? Well that comes down to whether we still believe in the principles we adopted as a Nation following WW II. That conflict forced a recognition in the US, and the World, that sitting back and watching while tyrants move to expand their empires has lasting impacts. And that the cost of doing so will be greater in the long run instead of dealing with it at the start. Have we as Citizens changed our views on this problem? Should we change them? Where are the lines between what is acceptable or tolerable and what is not? China invades Tibet, we do nothing substantial.

Do we oppose all such expansions as a matter of hard policy or are there truly nuances to consider. Such rationalizations have been presented in both the Tibetan and Ukrainian cases. Claiming it is none of our business. But what about Taiwan? Is that also none of our business just because those freedom loving people happen to be of Chinese ancestry?

These questions and many more exist when we do not have solid foundations from which to develop policies. That is policies which are consistent with those foundational principles. To claim it is none of our business implies an underlying principle that we only use force when attacked directly. I am not sure that such a principle is widely understood nor accepted by We the People, let alone our elected and bureaucratic officials.

If this is in essence our foundation then what about economic impacts to our country? Is that an attack? If China strangles the shipping in Asia is that an attack on the US? Or is it only a physical invasion that matters? How about the efforts of China, Russia, Iran and others to hack and take down our internet systems? Where is the line in the sand that should come with clear and consistent articulation and enforcement?

I am not offering an opinion on this, for now. I am pointing out that all of this is far more complicated than much of the discussions I see among pundits and opinion leaders. As I almost always do, I am also trying to show that much of this difference or confusion, to some degree, can almost always be tied to lack of clearly articulated, understood and defensible principles.

Let me offer one thought on why we struggle with these questions. Our desire to do what is right greatly exceeds our willingness to do what is required. We gave up half of Germany and all of eastern Europe because we Americans had grown so “tired of War.” We left the North Korean, Vietnamese and Afghan people to tyrants because we were “tired of War.” Here lies a conundrum of huge import. As a Nation of essentially free people a division of political viewpoints naturally develops. These divisions unfortunately become partisan weapons used to “politicize” foreign policies. Especially when if may be necessary to use force. Both major political parties love to use any failure or the fear of “another Vietnam” to tear down the other party if they are in power. In essence, the nature of our politics prevents us from having the very foundational principles we need to form coherent policies. Policies which will be supported by the people, even when the going gets very, very tough.

There is of course much more to discuss and consider on the general topic. That being when, where and why should we, the USA, be willing to draw a line and say “NO”! And of course, then back that up with the full might of the US military if needed.

Coming Soon: The Day Working Americans Wake Up to the Reality of Our Federal Govt.

Credit to unknown creator published at American Thinker

Time for Reflection and Thanks

I think it is time to take a couple of days to reflect. First on the friends, family and acquaintances who make our lives fuller each day. Second on the blessing of having been born into a country that has put such a premium on Liberty. May we keep that blessing alive in the years to come.

Let us all lift a glass and toast to that which has been, that which is and that which is yet to come. May all our friends who have gone before us enjoy the music and dance in Valhalla. Skoal!

So, What’s Next?

Are You Ready?

It appears that a nasty planned bad economic future is in sight. Are we one day closer to a meltdown?

What Happened?

Too Many Lies

Epic Failure

Dog Days of Summer