Why does the U.S. government and the Veteran’s Administration (VA) feel they need their own hospitals to serve our veterans?

Our country currently supports 1,243 VA health care centers!

Do they feel they can offer better service to our veterans?  If this is the case, based on some of the horror stories we’ve heard about patient wait times alone, they are obviously mistaken.

Do they feel they can supply our veterans care at a more economical price?  When is it ever cheaper getting anything through the government as opposed to a private entity?

So our veterans are generally getting below average care at premium prices. Why is this acceptable?

Is it acceptable because the VA system provides our government with another huge bureaucracy that the politicians get to control?

It’s obviously not acceptable because we want to do what’s best for our veterans.

Do you think the best doctors are dreaming of working at a VA hospital someday? (I’ll give you a clue:  the answer begins with an “n” and ends with an “o.”)

The VA’s annual budget is $186 billion. Of course the VA handles more than health care, but health care eats up most of that budget.  They also administer veteran’s benefits as well as oversee the national cemeteries.

Just to put this in perspective, it is estimated that we spend around $135 billion annually on services for illegal immigrants. (That means we probably spend twice that.) Ouch.

Wouldn’t it seem wiser, easier and more cost efficient to just pay for veterans’ care at private hospitals and other private health care centers?

This option would improve our veterans’ health care, decrease government spending and bureaucracy (draining “the swamp” a little), and inject billions of dollars into the private economy.

It makes too much sense! That’s why the odds are this will never happen.

Oh, and by the way…, when Senator (and veteran) John McCain went back home to Arizona be treated for his brain tumor, why didn’t he go to the VA hospital there?

The Trump administration announced it will add a question to the 2020 census (actually putting a question back on the census that had been there for 130 years), asking respondents whether or not they are U.S. citizens.

Why is this important to know? Mainly because the number of representatives in The House of Representatives, for any given state, is determined by the number of people living there, and arguably, those counted in this regard should be legal citizens.

Some argue that everybody should be counted, citizens or not.  The only problem with this is that you could theoretically have an entire area from a sanctuary city, with a representative in Congress, that has no actual legal citizens.

In addition, The Congress has tied federal funding to states based on these numbers as well. (You knew money had to be involved here somewhere, not to mention power!)

Attorney Generals from at least 12 states (Can you guess which ones? I bet you can!) have threatened legal action, regarding returning this question to the census.

I’m sure we’ll be hearing a lot more about this, and many people will be telling us what The Constitution says. Well, here is exactly what the U.S. Constitution actually says:

“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative…”

It seems pretty clear, with the exception of “the three fifths of all other persons” part. When the authors of The Constitution were drawing this part up, there were disagreements as to what to do regarding the counting of slaves. A compromise was proposed that, “Three-fifths of the number of slaves in any particular state would be added to the total number of free white persons, including bond servants, but not Indians (Does this mean Elizabeth ‘Pocahontas’ Warren doesn’t get counted?), to the estimated number of congressmen each state would send to the House of Representatives.”

I would argue that counting “the whole Number of free Persons” should exclude counting illegal immigrants, as they are not technically free, but operating and existing here outside of the law.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has said, “A fair and accurate count of all people in America is one of the federal government’s most solemn constitutional obligations.” (Oh, how dramatic, but agreed!) “The Trump Administration’s reckless decision to suddenly abandon nearly 70 years of practice by demanding to know the citizenship status of each resident counted cuts to the heart of this sacred obligation – and will create an environment of fear and distrust in immigrant communities that would make impossible both an accurate Census and the fair distribution of federal tax dollars.” (Disagreed. And again, why do Democrats always seem more concerned about illegal immigrants than the American citizens who they should actually represent?)

Former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder (one of President Obama’s first, and favorite, puppets) also said his organization, the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, will sue regarding this matter.

I predict, before it’s all said and done, if the Democrats are not successful in having the question removed, you’ll see a big campaign advising our illegal immigrant friends to just check the “U.S. Citizen” box regardless of their legal status. What’s to stop them? They’re already here illegally. Do you think that checking a box when they shouldn’t is going to bother them?

The real question is, why would we expect illegal immigrants to answer the question honestly in the first place?

The naivete’ displayed by many politicians, the biased mainstream media, and many of these supposed experts is remarkable.

They accuse President Trump of “sending mixed messages,” “confusing signals,” and of being “inconsistent,” and even “incoherent.”

They obviously have not played poker before, or negotiated a deal before, and if they have they haven’t been very successful at it.

You don’t “show your cards,” then attempt to play your hand…, it’s foolish, although this is how our leadership had been conducting business for quite some time.  When politics and words matter more than actions and results, you tend to operate like that.  When you really want to do what’s right for our country, that mode of operation is unacceptable.

“You got to know when to hold ‘em,

Know when to fold ‘em,

Know when to walk away and know when to run,

You never count your money when you’re sittin’ at the table,

There’ll be time enough for countin’ when the dealing’s done.

Every gambler knows that the secret to survivin’

Is knowin’ what to throw away and knowing what to keep,

Cause every hand’s a winner and every hand’s a loser…”

From Kenny Rogers’ “The Gambler”

From what I can see, President Trump has turned most of the hands he has been dealt into winners, even though he has been left with some pretty shabby hands to play.

Ever since the years following World War II, our government (being the good hearted people we are), has tended to tilt the playing field, or looked the other way when our “friends” did the tilting, in regards to trade, to the advantage of our global neighbors.

In the last 30 years, I would argue that out trade policies have shifted from being nice, to being stupid, to being politically self-serving and anti-American.

Well, the last 70 years has taken its toll on our economy.

It is way past the time when we should expect our global neighbors to stand on their own two feet and operate fairly. We really can’t afford to keep giving everyone an advantageous position and expect to be able to compete.

“Fair” and “free” trade cannot be measured by tariffs and taxes alone either. In many cases we see “free” trade monetarily, but anything but “fair” trade when it comes to prohibitive regulations and policies imposed by many countries.

A good example of this is Japan and its car market. General Motors sold only 1,000 cars in Japan last year, while Toyota sold 457 cars a day here in the U.S. (that’s 167,000 for the year), even though Japan does not impose any import tax on U.S. cars coming into Japan. Hmmm?

There are many, many, many other examples of countries that employ unfair, and in some cases even illegal (China), trade and economic practices.

Don’t let the so called “experts” fool you when they yell at President Trump about “killing free trade.” It just depends on what your definition of “free” trade and “fair” trade are.

In my world, “free” and “fair” are two-way streets. If I decide to treat you the way you’re treating me, and you don’t like it…, well there you go.

Touched by An Angel

By Maya Angelou

We, unaccustomed to courage

exiles from delight

live coiled in shells of loneliness

until love leaves its high holy temple

and comes into our sight

to liberate us into life.

Love arrives

and in its train come ecstasies

old memories of pleasure

ancient histories of pain.

Yet if we are bold,

love strikes away the chains of fear

from our souls.

We are weaned from our timidity

In the flush of love’s light

we dare be brave

And suddenly we see

that love costs all we are

and will ever be.

Yet it is only love

which sets us free.

“I think we all need a little more poetry in our lives.” – Mr. Erickson

I’ll be on vacation next week, but I’ll be back the following Monday, 3/26/18.  Stay thirsty my friends!

Hey Fake News, hey liberals, hey Congress, we don’t need to take any polls about building a wall on the border with Mexico.

We already took one.

It was called the 2016 Presidential election.

President Trump campaigned all around the country, and everywhere he went we heard him talk about building a wall, and everywhere he went we heard the calls to “build the wall, build the wall!”

Well, Donald Trump won that election. In fact he did more than just win.  He won it convincingly, and by a large margin.

There’s your poll.

Now where’s our wall?!

And if we can’t build a physical wall, then build a human “wall!”

The border with Mexico is approximately 1,200 miles long.

If we put one border patrol agent every 1/8 of a mile, that means that agent would have to cover basically one football field to their left and one football field to their right. This would allow them to react and deter anyone attempting to cross the border illegally. They would also have “back-up” agents relatively nearby.

To do this we would need about 10,000 agents.

To cover the border around the clock, that would equate to 30,000 agents.

The Border Patrol already has 20,000 agents. (This number surprised me.  I didn’t think we had anywhere near that many agents.)

So that means we’re back to needing 10,000 additional agents.

10,000 agents X $70,000 (salary + benefits) = $700 million a year.

This would actually be much less than the cost of the wall, which has been estimated anywhere between $28 billion and $128 billion, and probably more effective, while providing all of those jobs.

Build the Wall! Build the wall!  Build the wall!

One way or the other!

She has to.

She is beholden to too many people and they have invested ungodly amounts of money in her. They want their investment to payoff, even if it takes an extra four years.

She owes them.

She is also the only one “the swamp” truly trusts.

In a recent speech in India (why she is in India giving a speech I have no idea), here’s what Hillary had to say about the 2016 election:

“There’s all that red in the middle, where Trump won. Now, I win the coasts, I win Illinois, Minnesota, places like that.  But what the map doesn’t show you is that I won the places that represent two-thirds of America’s gross domestic product.  So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward, and his whole campaign, ‘Make America Great Again,’ was looking backwards.  You don’t like black people getting rights, you don’t like women getting jobs, you don’t want to see Indian-Americans succeeding more than you are, whatever your problem is, I’m going to solve it.”

Soooo, is Hillary saying that if you have more money your vote should carry extra weight? Is she saying that votes on the coasts, or in blue states in general, should be worth more?  It sure sounds that way.

Also, I believe she is confused about who represents the people who are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, and moving forward. Especially those who are considered “optimistic!”  I mean, when I think about democrats, I think about people who are upset, mad, crying, and whining.  Nothing that could be confused with being optimistic.

And what is she talking about when she says, “You (Trump and his supporters) don’t like black people getting rights, you don’t like women getting jobs…?”

Who is against black people having rights?

Who is against women getting jobs?

What and who the hell is she talking about?!

Basically she’s saying that if you’re in a “red” state, you’re poor (and white, poor black people and poor Hispanics are ok), a racist, and against women’s rights.

During this speech, Hillary also talked about how democrats have a hard time getting support from white men and white married women. She claims that the only reason these women don’t vote democrat is because of pressure that is put on them by their husbands and family. We all know that white men are basically on the same plane as the devil in their eyes, and we’re used to this prejudice by now.  But this is a new level of insult towards these women, basically questioning their intelligence and their ability to be independent thinkers.

She has definitely drawn a line in the sand here, and we can plainly see where she stands and who she stands for.

In case you haven’t figured it out, Hillary stands for Hillary and “the swamp”, and nobody else.

I guess “every vote matters,” right Hillary? Unless it’s a vote for someone other than you.

During the 2016 Presidential election, the District of Columbia (Washington D.C.) cast 311,268 votes.

Hillary Clinton, the “swampy” Democrat candidate, received 282,830 of those votes, or a whopping 91%!

Donald Trump received only 12,723 votes from “swampy” D.C., or 4.1%.

I think we can account for most of President Trump’s votes from the DC Police Department (a workforce of 4,500), The D.C. Fire and Rescue Service (a workforce of 2,200), and several conservative colleges in the D.C. area. That would get us up into the 12,000-13,000 range of votes.

So what we’re left with in D.C. is “the swamp” of a federal work force that that doesn’t like our President, and a workforce that won’t go out of its way to make sure that he, or our country, is particularly successful. We’ve already seen in many cases where some of these people will actually go out of their way to undermine The President.

Oooooh that “swamp” is dirty, nasty…, and it stinks!

The nation’s capital has awarded its three electoral votes to the Democratic candidate in every presidential election since it gained the right to vote for president in 1961.  Hmmm, that’s odd. Not!

Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!

The Democrat base consists of illegal immigrants (I put them first because it seems these are the people that the Democrats are concerned about the most), people who don’t know what bathroom to go into, people who have come to this country to get away from problems in their country but now want to change the USA into the country they came from for some reason, Hollywood and other entertainment celebrities, confused and misguided college students (along with their professors, etc.), public employee unions, federal employees who are members of the “deep state,” people who think the answer to every problem is “racism,” radical environmental groups, women who feel that being able to have an abortion is the most important issue out there, climate wackos, people who choose to live off of the government (who haven’t contributed anything to begin with), socialists, closet socialists, communists, wealthy elites who want communism but who masquerade as progressive liberals (The Clintons, Soros, Obama, Schumer, Pelosi, etc.), wealthy elites who think they’re part of the before mentioned group but really aren’t (only their money is), people who prefer to blame anybody but themselves for whatever their deal is, low income people that don’t understand that the Democrats like them that way and strive to have more people dependent on them, and the generally uninformed.

If you’re a Democrat and you don’t fit into any of my groups here, I apologize, and I wish you a speedy recovery.

If you are a Democrat and you are in one of these groups, you have my sympathy. You should take a look around you and recognize who your bedfellows are. You should also ask yourself why you are supporting and defending the Democrats. If it isn’t for a purely selfish reason, I would challenge you to articulate your reason. Please give me your feedback on this website.

This is a pretty impressive group to try and maintain some sort of cohesiveness with, however.

The Democrats have chosen the hatred of President Trump as the glue to hold their motley crew together.

A motley crew that I’d love to see jumping from a sinking ship.