The Declaration of Independence. A few things I didn’t know.

Virtually all Americans date the beginning of our Nation to the delivery of the Declaration of Independence to King George III – actually the date of its approval by the Second Continental Congress on July 4, 1776. King George was not happy about it. Thus began our Revolutionary War.

It was quite a remarkable event. Thirteen tiny colonies huddled along the eastern coast of an unexplored continent decided to take on one of the most powerful empires that had ever existed. The British Empire controlled one-fourth of the entire known world, had the most powerful navy ever to sail the seas, and had a remarkably disciplined army. We had… well, a bunch of farmers.

Most Americans know that Thomas Jefferson “authored” our Declaration of Independence. However, the Second Continental Congress actually appointed a Committee of Five to draw up the declaration. The Committee included Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Roger Sherman, Robert Livingston and Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson was given the task of drafting the document. From June 11 to June 28, 1776, he worked on multiple rough drafts. Many revisions were made by Jefferson, the committee, and finally by Congress. Jefferson has retained his preeminent role in writing the defining document of the American Revolution. He presented the final draft of the Committee to Congress on July 1.

The delegates edited Jefferson’s draft from July 2 to July 4. On July 4, they met in the Pennsylvania State House (now Independence Hall), in Philadelphia, and approved the Declaration.

I was particularly unaware that Jefferson was critical of changes to the document. He was especially critical of the removal of a long paragraph that attributed responsibility of the slave trade to British King George III. For those “patriots” that want to tear down Jefferson statues, perhaps they should read the paragraph (and thanks to Dick Toomey and his Fodder blog site for bringing this to my attention).

“He (King George III) has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation hither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he had deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.”

It would be unfair to say that this is a complete denunciation of slavery. The final sentence certainly makes that notion ambiguous. While decrying slave trading it also decries efforts of the slaves “to rise in arms among us.”

Be that as it may, this important paragraph was completely unknown to me and if it also was unknown to you it is time for us all to be aware of its existence. I should add at this point that it was the British who largely can be credited for ending the slave trade – indeed, ending slavery in most of the world. This is another tidbit of which most Americans are unaware.

Roy Filly

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Solution to income inequality.

If the democrats are serious about ending income inequality there is only one way to do it. You must stop people who have jobs from getting married and having children. I mean the nerve of such people! Getting married! Having children! Don’t they care about INCOME INEQUALITY!!!!! And if we really want to stop income inequality we can’t let those married couples with jobs and children get educated.

Leftists talk about income inequality as though it exists because of government inaction on taxation. There are 74,608 pages in the federal tax code. If that is “inaction,” God help us if they “take action.”

[Source: Married Couples With Children and Jobs Cause Income Inequality, by Terry Jeffrey]

Nancy Pelosi describes President Trump’s tax proposal as “a billionaires-first, trickle-down tax scheme that hands out massive tax cuts to the wealthiest, paid for by American families.” The US has 326,474,013 people living within its borders. Only 565 are billionaires (2 ten thousandths of one percent of the population). If the government took every penny of wealth (not just “income”) of every American billionaire they could not fund the government for even a single year, let alone move 45 million poor Americans into the “middle class.”

Usually Democrats use the phrase “millionaires and billionaires” to be a bit more “inclusive.” But here again the comparison is ridiculous. A billionaire is 1000 times richer than a millionaire. It is the same as comparing an American who earns $100,000 per year with an American who earns $100 dollars per year. It is also the same as comparing an American who can buy a $33 million house to an American who can buy a new car. Should we treat two such individuals “the same,” Nancy?

[From the Jeffrey article] Nancy needs to examine why it is that “income inequality” exists – and it has very little to do with “billionaires.” But what really causes income disparity in the United States? Who makes more than whom?

The Census Bureau’s annual report on American incomes… is accompanied by Table HINC-01: “Selected Characteristics of Households, by Total Money Income in 2016.”

It lists three types of “family households” and four of “non-family households” (Footnote).

Of the seven types of households listed in Table HINC-01, the wealthiest were married-couple families, which had a median income of $87,057. It was a steep drop from there to second place: Family households with a male householder — but no spouse present — had a median income of $58,051…

The next wealthiest households were non-family households with male householders, which had a median income of $41,749Then followed families with female householders but no spouse present ($41,027); male householders living alone ($35,265); non-family households with female householders ($30,572); and female householders living alone ($26,877).

But, of course, not all married-couple families are equal. The Census Bureau’s Table FINC-03 shows the impact children can have.

Married couples with no children had a median income of $81,529 in 2016. Married couples with one child between 6 and 17 years of age had median incomes of $95,965. Married couples that had two or more children between 6 and 17 had median incomes of $102,657…

Education, too, causes income inequality.

According to the Census Bureau’s Table FINC-01, families with a householder 25 or older, who graduated from high school but not college, had a median income of $54,601Median income then increases in direct correlation to the educational attainment of the householder. Families with householders who attended some college but earned no degree had median incomes of $66,859. That is surpassed by families whose householders had associate’s degrees ($76,012), bachelor’s degrees ($105,271), master’s degrees ($124,302) and doctorates ($155,089)Families where the householder has a professional degree had the highest median income: $166,662.

Working also causes income inequality.

As with the educational attainment of the householder, household income directly correlates to the number of “earners” in a household.

“Earnings” — the things that “earners” get — include “wages or salary and net income”… 

“Income,” by contrast, includes not only earnings and such things as interest, dividends and rental income, but also government benefits ranging from Social Security to “any cash public assistance or welfare payments from the state or local welfare office.”

Of the 126,224,000 households in the United States in 2016, according to Table HINC-01, 29,750,000 — or 23.6 percent — had “no earners” at all. These households had a median income of $22,272.

They were surpassed by households with one earner ($48,550), two earners ($94,679), three earners ($115,357), and four earners or more ($143,000).

American households where two people worked ($94,679) had more than four times the median income of households where no one worked ($22,272).

There are other aspects of life that cause income inequality, as well. Chief among these is getting older. I don’t even think Democrats would want to change that. If they did their leaders couldn’t serve in Congress for decades upon decades. (Of the 15 longest serving members of Congress 14 were Democrats – John Dingell served for 59 years and 21 days).

Advice to Democrats: Get off the “redistribution train” and on to what used to be called “The America Way.” (Before Superman became a Democrat he used to fight for “Truth, Justice, and THE AMERICAN WAY!”)

Roy Filly


A family household “includes a householder and one or more people living in the same household who are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption.”

A non-family household “consists of a householder living alone (a one-person household) or where the householder shares the home only with people to whom he/she is not related (e.g., a roommate).”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The “collusion” thing.

The leftist news media are enamoured with the notion that President Trump or his campaign staff or his maid “colluded” with the Russians. Hillary is convinced that this is “why she lost the election.”

Let us first dispense with the “collusion thing.” There have been any number of legal scholars who have opined that “collusion” is not “illegal.” I mention just 7 of them in the footnote.

[Sources: What is collusion? Is it even a crime? By Politico magazine; Allegations of Foreign Election Tampering Have Always Rung Hollow, by Victor Davis Hanson; How many federal laws are there again? By Matt Vespa]

It is abundantly clear that collusion is not a federal crime (except in the unique case of antitrust law). Using the term as though it is a criminal act is simply wrong.

What is also abundantly clear is that if Special Counsel Mueller wishes to find an act of criminality among the federal statutes with which he might charge individuals associated with the President he will have an unbelievably broad menu from which to choose. There are so many federal laws and statutes (as well as regulations that carry criminal penalties) that it is ridiculous. There are at least 5,000 federal criminal laws, with as many as 300,000 regulations that can be enforced criminally. Forget the Tax Code. Congress should work on simplifying the Criminal Code. (And, by the by, having no knowledge of obscure federal regulations will not keep you out of jail! Just ask Abner Schoenwetter!)

As Tacitus taught, “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.” Lets check out just a handful:

  • US election laws prohibit foreign nationals from contributing any “thing of value” to an electoral campaign. Is dirt on Hillary “something of value?”
  • As has been said too often to count, “It’s the cover up.” Something as minor as lying on a registration form or a security application is a false statement (i.e., a potential “cover up”).
  • The aim of a foreign intelligence service is often to convince individuals to help them achieve intelligence objectives. That is so vague there are ever so many ways for it to be interpreted.

The bottom line appears to be that legally it’s not enough for an associate of the president to work together with a Russian – the President’s man (or woman) would need to work with a Russian to commit a crime, to aid a Russian in committing a crime or to conceal a crime committed by a Russian. 

There is nothing new about allegations of “collusion” during presidential campaigns. However, despite many accusations of collusion in the past, none have brought forth criminal charges (and, of course, the allegations are always lodged BY THE LOSER):

  • [From the Davis Hanson article] In 2012, then-President Barack Obama inadvertently left his mic on during a meeting with outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Obama seemed to be reassuring the Russians that if they would just behave (i.e., give Obama “space”) during his re-election campaign, Obama would have “more flexibility” on Russian demands for the U.S. to drop its plans for an Eastern European missile defense system… Obama did renege on earlier American promises of missile defense in Eastern Europe. And Obama did win re-election. (So, “collusion?” – RF)
  • George W. Bush was accused of striking a deal with the Saudis to pump enough oil to lower gas prices thereby “helping American motorists” in advance of his re-election bid.
  • In 1980 President Carter accused Ronald Reagan of disrupting negotiations with the Iranians for the release of the American hostages.
  • Allegations were levied against Obama in 2008 that he secretly lobbied Iraqi officials not to cut a deal with the outgoing Bush administration concerning U.S. peacekeepers in Iraq.

There are more, but I think you get the point. Presidents virtually always attempt to create “events” that favor their reelection or the election of their successor. They may synchronize legislative agendas, peace initiatives, summits, national addresses or surprise disclosures of scandals to enhance their campaign messages.

Eventually we will learn where this current allegation goes.

Roy Filly


  1. Paul Rosenzweig is former deputy assistant secretary for policy at the Department of Homeland Security and founder of Red Branch Consulting.
  2. Asha Rangappa is an associate dean at Yale Law School and a former special agent in the Counterintelligence Division of the FBI.
  3. John W. Dean was Richard Nixon’s White House counsel. He served a four-month sentence for his role in Watergate.
  4. Renato Mariotti is a former federal prosecutor who handled many obstruction cases. He is now a partner at Thompson Coburn LLP.
  5. Laurie L. Levenson is professor of law and David W. Burcham chair of ethical advocacy at Loyola Law School. She was formerly an assistant U.S. attorney in Los Angeles.
  6. William Jeffress is a white-collar defense attorney at Baker Botts. He represented I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby in the Valerie Plame affair.
  7. Saikrishna Prakash is James Monroe distinguished professor of law at the University of Virginia.
Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Discrimination v Welfare: Black Americans’ status today.

Leftist policies are demonstrably bad for Black Americans.

[Source: The Welfare State’s Legacy, by Walter E. Williams]

Answer the following questions.

  1. Was there less discrimination against African Americans before or after the Cicil Rights Act (1964)?
  2. Was there less discrimination against African Americans before or after the Voting Rights Act (1965)?
  3. Were African Americans better off after the War on Poverty began to “right the wrongs” of discrimination (1964)?

The left believes that the “legacy of slavery” and the racial discrimination that followed slavery’s end are axiomatically the cause of the measured social achievement (or lack thereof) in our current Black communities.

According to the leftists, everything should have started to change for the better in the mid 1960s (see above).

We certainly have more Black American legislators. Have they “brought home real improvements for their constituents?”

Let’s take a look at that and the results of leftist programs:

    • In 1960, just 22 percent of black children were raised in single-parent families. Now, more than 70 percent of black children are raised in single-parent families (Footnote 1).
    • According to the 1938 Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences, that year 11 percent of black children were born to unwed mothers. Today about 75 percent of black children are born to unwed mothers.
    • Today roughly 30 percent of blacks are poor. However, two-parent black families are rarely poor. Only 8 percent of black married-couple families live in poverty. (The official poverty rate is 13.5 percent, based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2015 estimates.) Among black families in which both the husband and wife work full-time, the poverty rate is under 5 percent.
    • Poverty in black families headed by single women is 37 percent.
    • From 1890 to 1954, blacks were either just as active as or more so than whites in the labor market. Black teen unemployment was roughly equal to or less than white teen unemployment.
    • In July 2017, the unemployment rates for both young men were 10.1 percent for men and 9.1 percent women. The rates for young White males was 8.0 percent but was 16.2 percent for young Black males.

Would any rational individual posit that discrimination and the “legacy of slavery” were less during the era that followed the Civil War or the era of Jim Crow? Of course not. The negative changes noted above can, in my humble opinion, be directly traced to the Welfare State and the War on Poverty. (And, by the by, the War on Poverty has cost American Taxpayers over $22 trillionRemind me, what is our current national debt? And currently total federal and state spending on means-tested programs (Footnote 2) comes to over $1 trillion.)

Roy Filly

Footnote 1: Children from fatherless homes are likelier to drop out of high school, die by suicide, have behavioral disorders, join gangs, commit crimes and end up in prison. They are also likelier to live in poverty-stricken households.

Footnote 2: There are 45 million Americans living in “poverty.” The poverty threshold for a family of four people with two related children is $24, 036. It is more difficult than you might think to find out how many “households” fall below the poverty line. But let us simply divide 45 million by 4. That comes to 11.25 million “households” (and yes, I know that isn’t “accurate”). Then let us divide $1 trillion in annual means-tested program spending by the number of “households.” It comes to a whopping $88,900. We could just give each of these families the $88,900. That would put each of these “impoverished” households in the 69th percentile of US income levels. Or, alternatively, we could just give each man, woman and child living in “poverty” $22, 222. (The poverty threshold for a single person under the age of 65 years is $12,331. Is this nuts, or what???)

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment


These graphs will provide you some additional information as tensions with North Korea mount. The more populous South has significantly more men available to be mobilized. These men for the most part have previously served in the military. However, the North’s reserves are much better prepared to be called into active duty status. The South, with its vast industrial power and its US alliance, has the technologic edge.

Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) is the final key element of the defensive shield and it is responsible for protecting North America. Designed to intercept incoming warheads in space during the midcourse phase of ballistic trajectory, the system has had multiple failures. However, technology marches on and the U.S. Missile Defense Agency conducted a successful test of the ground-based midcourse defense system. The test presents a seminal point in the development of the system because for the first time ever, it managed to shoot down an intercontinental-range ballistic missile target—a feat many had thought impossible. Intercepting such a target at thousands of miles an hour is true rocket science and an impressive achievement of American technological ingenuity. This seems a good place to spend our resources.

The THAAD system, deployed in South Korea, intercepts short and intermediate range missiles and has been highly successful. Our ally, the Israelis, have develop the Iron Dome system. The system is designed to intercept and destroy short-range rockets and artillery shells fired from distances of 2.5 to 43 miles away. The system knocked down 90% of the missiles launched from Gaza.

Roy Filly

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Trump promised.

The lame stream media loves to nitpick around the edges of “Trump’s ‘broken’ promises.” Will “The Wall” be built? Will Mexico “pay for it?”

How about their broken promises. They “promised” that women’s rights will evaporate because Trump is a misogynist! Please tell me one thing that a woman could do or a right she possessed on January 19, 2017 that she no longer has today? Did her pay go down because she was a woman? Was her right to choose abridged? Did she loose her right to vote? Did she loose her right to call President Trump a “misogynistic scumbag?” Please let me know if a single woman’s “right” has been abridged in the slightest way since Trump was inaugurated.

The same is true of Black American, Muslim American, or Hispanic American rights. The lame stream media “promised” that minority and Muslim religious rights would be trampled because Trump is a racist, xenophobic, and Islamophobic tyrant! I’m asking about the rights of minority US citizens, not illegal entrants or non-citizens that believe they have a Constitutional right to visit or enter our nation at will. Who can tell me one “right” of citizenship that has been denied or even minimally abridged for any minority American.

It strikes me that the pervasive pledge of Donald Trump’s candidacy was his vow to help the middle class. Let’s take a look at that one.

[Source: The middle class rocks – again, by Robert J. Samuelson] (And, by the by, Robert J. Samuelson is definitely NOT a Trump sycophant – RF.)

The US Middle Class:

  • The Census Bureau’s latest report showed that median household income (the one exactly in the middle) rose to a record $59,039 (“Socialist” France’s median household income = $29, 759, Swedens’s median household income (Bernie’s favorite) = $28,859, and the OECD average is $29, 016)
  • The two-year increase was a strong 8.5 percent.
  • 2.5 million fewer Americans currently live below the government’s poverty line.
  • Gallup regularly asks people to report their social class. They are given five choices: upper class; upper middle; middle; working; and lower class: In 2006, before the recession, 60 percent of Americans identified themselves as either middle or upper middle class, while 38 percent chose working class and lower class. In its latest poll Gallup found that 62 percent put themselves in the middle class, while only 36 percent classified themselves as working class or lower class. [During the “Great” Recession these numbers tumbled and as late as 2015, only 51% placed themselves in the middle class while 48% placed themselves those in the working and lower classes.]
  • Jobs are more plentiful. Gallup found that 59 percent of respondents thought it was a “good time to find a quality job.” (Emphasis on “quality job.”) In 2010, this rating hovered around a meager 10 percent.
  • More people feel they’re getting ahead. In July, 42 percent of respondents to a Fox News poll reported personal gains, up from only 23 percent in 2008 and beating the previous peak of 41 percent.
  • Most workers do not believe their jobs will be outsourced abroad, contrary to much lame stream media commentary. Gallup reported that nine of 10 workers feel unthreatened by outsourcing.
  • Wage increases are finally happening (and, importantly, the federal numbers, while good – weekly earnings grew almost 2 percent annually – are depressed by the retirement of well-paid baby boomers and their replacement by lower-paid, younger workers). When economists at the San Francisco Federal Reserve eliminated these effects, median wages grew nearly 4 percent.

My friends, this is a promise kept (and I have not even mentioned Trump’s insistence that the bulk of the tax reform favor the middle class). And, you can believe me, that these are the results that matter behind the balloting curtain. The “Resistance,” “Antifa,” the “Lame Stream Media,” “Hollywood,” and ESPN will have zero influence in 2018 and 2020. The middle class will note well that Trump is keeping his promise to them!

Roy Filly

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Politics in cartoon form.

Where to run? Hillary has now blamed everything and everyone except global warming for her defeat.

If Trump’s plan was to ban Muslims he needs better advisors in the State Department and Homeland Security.

This Kim Jung Un fellow could be the worst problem America has faced since WWII ended.

Disasters mean “Free Shopping Day!” (Apparently, so does the acquittal of white policemen.)

The lamestream media forgot to get riled up when Emperor Obama started the DACA mess.

Roy Filly

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Leftists are not liberals.

When I try to remember back to when I was a Democrat I get confused. For the life of me I cannot remember the Democrat Party having the perspective it has today. I realize that the so-called “Blue Dog” Democrats (fiscal and defense conservatives, but otherwise liberal) are long gone from the party, but the “liberals” don’t seem very “liberal” anymore.

For example, when I was a Democrat I was a free speech absolutist. It was a hallmark of the party. As a Republican I remain a free speech absolutist today, but no longer see the Democrat Party as “free speech absolutists.” They appear to be quite the opposite.

Then I read the article which is the source for today’s post. It all became much clearer.

[Source: Leftism Is Not Liberalism, by Dennis Prager]

The Democrat Party is now populated with leftists. Haven’t they always been “populated with leftists,” ask you? I thought so, answer I, but it appears that “leftists” and “liberals” are quite different. What is the difference between a leftist and a liberal, ask you? Well, here is Mr. Prager’s take on the issue.

[From the Prager article] Answering this question is vital to understanding the crisis facing America and the West today. Yet few seem able to do it. I offer the following as a guide.

Here’s the first thing to know: The two have almost nothing in common.

On the contrary, liberalism has far more in common with conservatism than it does with leftism. The left has appropriated the word “liberal” so effectively that almost everyone — liberals, leftists and conservatives — thinks they are synonymous.

But they aren’t. Let’s look at some important examples.

Race: This is perhaps the most obvious of the many moral differences between liberalism and leftism. The essence of the liberal position on race was that the color of one’s skin is insignificant. To liberals of a generation ago (that would be me), only racists believed that race is intrinsically significant. However, to the left, the notion that race is insignificant is itself racist. Thus, the University of California officially regards the statement “There is only one race, the human race” as racist. For that reason, liberals were passionately committed to racial integration. Liberals should be sickened by the existence of black dormitories and separate black graduations on university campuses.

Capitalism: Liberals have always been pro capitalism, recognizing it for what it is: the only economic means of lifting great numbers out of poverty. Liberals did often view government as able to play a bigger role in lifting people out of poverty than conservatives, but they were never opposed to capitalism, and they were never for socialism. Opposition to capitalism and advocacy of socialism are leftist values.

Nationalism: Liberals deeply believed in the nation-state, whether their nation was the United States, Great Britain or France. The left has always opposed nationalism because leftism is rooted in class solidarity, not national solidarity. The left has contempt for nationalism, seeing in it intellectual and moral primitivism at best, and the road to fascism at worst (Hello Antifa! – RF). Liberals always wanted to protect American sovereignty and borders. The notion of open borders would have struck a liberal as just as objectionable as it does a conservative. It is emblematic of our time that the left-wing writers of Superman comics had Superman announce a few years ago, “I intend to speak before the United Nations tomorrow and inform them that I am renouncing my American citizenship.” When the writers of Superman were liberal, Superman was not only an American but one who fought for “Truth, justice, and the American way…” 

View of America: Liberals venerated America. Watch American films from the 1930s through the 1950s and you will be watching overtly patriotic, America-celebrating films — virtually all produced, directed and acted in by liberals

To the left, America is essentially a racist, sexist, violent, homophobic, xenophobic and Islamophobic country. The left around the world loathe America… The left’s view of America was encapsulated in then-presidential candidate Barack Obama’s statement in 2008. “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” he said…

Free speech: The difference between the left and liberals regarding free speech is as dramatic as the difference regarding race. No one was more committed than American liberals to the famous statement “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Liberals still are. But the left is leading the first nationwide suppression of free speech in American history — from the universities to Google to almost every other institution and place of work. It claims to only oppose hate speech. But protecting the right of person A to say what person B deems objectionable is the entire point of free speech.

Western civilization: Liberals have a deep love of Western civilization. They taught it at virtually every university and celebrated its unique moral, ethical, philosophical, artistic, musical and literary achievements. No liberal would have joined the leftist Rev. Jesse Jackson in chanting at Stanford University: “Hey, hey. Ho, ho. Western civ has got to go.” The most revered liberal in American history is probably former President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who frequently cited the need to protect not just Western civilization but Christian civilization… 

Leftists argue not only that Western civilization is not superior to any other civilization but also that it is no more than a euphemism for white supremacy.

Judaism and Christianity: Liberals knew and appreciated the Judeo-Christian roots of American civilization. They themselves went to church or synagogue, or at the very least appreciated that most of their fellow Americans did. The contempt that the left has — and has always had — for religion (except for Islam today) is not something with which a liberal would ever have identified.

If the left is not defeated, American and Western civilization will not survive. But the left will not be defeated until good liberals understand this and join the fight. Dear liberals: Conservatives are not your enemy. The left is.

My friends, as the saying goes, “There you have it!”

Roy Filly


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

The “Koreas,” China, and the USA. Think about this.

I am not trying to pawn myself off as a military strategist or as a diplomat. I am neither. Trying to guess what our posture should be in this intolerable circumstance is daunting. Here are some hopefully helpful notions. They helped me to get a bit of a firmer grasp on the situation.

[Sources: Are we still at war with North Korea. Um, sort of, in a way, by Juliet Lapidos; What if South Korea acted like North Korea, Victor Davis Hanson]

First, although only technically, we are still at war with North Korea. The 1953 Korean War Armistice Agreement, signed by the United Nations Command (mostly the US and South Korea), North Korea, and China, for all intents and purposes ended the Korean War (see statistics in the footnote). Prisoners were exchanged. A demilitarized zone was established. All hostilities were suspended.

The Armistice had provisions that governments concerned on both sides withdraw foreign forces (we’re still there). A conference was to be convened within three months of signing to organize free and fair elections to settle the “Korea question” – more or less to determine who would rule over a reunited Korea – obviously, as with “foreign troop withdrawals,” that never came to fruition. However, there has never been a peace treaty, ergo the Korean War has never ended. If we wish to get ultra-technical, the United States was never “at war” with North Korea, per se. It was a “police action” according to then president Truman.

The difference between an armistice and a formal treaty is partly semantic. An armistice is more or less a permanent truce. It’s a cessation of hostilities between militaries, as opposed to a cessation of the disagreement between governments; as such, it marks the end of armed conflict but not the conclusion of a war.

Since the “termination of hostilities” North Korea has made every effort to be a royal pain the *ss. In this regard they have been quite successful. They have managed to do this largely because of support from China – their ally during the hostilities. You are quite familiar with their recent shenanigans. Every pundit from both the left and the right agrees. The only non-military solution must originate in China. Without China there is no North Korea.

At the cessation of hostilities North Korea had a similar GDP per capita to its neighbor South Korea. As you are aware the North is communist while the South is capitalist. If you want to understand the difference between these two philosophies it can be accomplished simply by looking at a satellite image of the Korean peninsula at night. Wow. Alternatively, the GDP of North Korea is estimated at $12.38 billion. The South has a GDP of $1.41 trillion or a mere 114 times larger. Liberia, Somalia, and Burundi have a greater GDP than North Korea. How is it that a destitute nation like North Korea can threaten the United States – CHINA!

Victor Davis Hanson recently looked at the current situation from a perspective I have not seen offered by any other pundit. He simply reversed North and South Korea (i.e., South Korea was a dictatorship and a US client). Further, envision that the U.S. had delivered financial aid and military assistance to this outlaw regime, which led to Seoul possessing several nuclear weapons and a fleet of long-range missiles aimed at China.

The crazy dictator of our hypothetical South Korea threatened a prosperous North and its benefactor – China – with nuclear annihilation.

[From the Davis Hanson article] The Pentagon would privately collude with the South Korean dictatorship to keep the Chinese occupied and rattled, while the U.S. upped shipments of military weaponry to Seoul and overlooked its thermonuclear upgrades.

The American military would be delighted that China would be tied down by having an unhinged nuclear dictatorship on its borders, one that periodically threatened to kill millions of Chinese. South Korea would up the ante of its bluster by occasionally test-launching missiles in the direction of its neighbor.

What do you think China’s response would be?  Would China then warn the U.S. to pressure Seoul to disarm? Would Beijing cease all trade with America? Would China boycott, embargo or blockade South Korea? Would China be furious that after ensuring that its own client, North Korea, remained non-nuclear and played by the rules, America had deliberately done exactly the opposite: empowering its dictatorial client, South Korea, to become a nuclear power in order to threaten China?

I’m pretty sure that I do not need to inform you what the Chinese response would be.

Roy Filly


The US (as part of the United Nations Forces) sent approximately 90% of the troops.

Cost to US taxpayers: $67 billion.

Casualties: 54,246 confirmed dead. 7747 unaccounted for.

Other Casualties by Country (killed and missing):
Source: Encyclopedia Britannica
South Korea – (217,000 military, 1,000,000 civilian)
North Korea – (406,000 military, 600,000 civilian)
China – (Approximately 600,000 military) The Chinese lost 10 soldiers for every American soldier killed.


Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

The left on immigration – the Party of “change.”

The left believes they are “always on the side of the Angels.” Their “altruism” knows no bounds. Those “poor illegal immigrants” need their “help.” But anyone with an eye for history can easily see that they are the “Party of Pandering” – the “Angels,” “altruism,” and “those poor illegals” be damned.

[Source: How the Democrats lost their way on immigration, by Peter Beinart]

Here is a multiple choice question. Who said the following in 2006: “Immigration reduces the wages of domestic workers who compete with immigrants… the fiscal burden of low-wage immigrants is also pretty clear…. We’ll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants.”

a. Newt Gingrich

b. George W. Bush

c. Glenn Beck

d. Paul Krugman

Answer: Paul Krugman (ultra left-wing economist)

Here is another multiple choice question. Who said the following in 2006: “When I see Mexican flags waved at pro-immigration demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic resentment. When I’m forced to use a translator to communicate with the guy fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration.”

a. Sean Hannity

b. Michael Savage

c. Senator John Barrasso

d. Then Senator Barack Obama

Answer: Then Senator Barack Obama

Here is yet another multiple choice question. Who said the following in 2005: “Illegal immigration wreaks havoc economically, socially, and culturally; makes a mockery of the rule of law; and is disgraceful just on basic fairness grounds alone.”

a. Well known TV host Bill O’Reilly

b. Well known TV host Sean Hannity

c. Well known radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh

d. Well known liberal blogger Glenn Greenwald

Answer: Well known liberal blogger Glenn Greenwald

I have previously posted this YouTube video of William Jefferson Clinton’s position on illegal immigration (and be sure to note the moron sitting to the left nodding assent behind him):

The 2008 Democratic platform warned, “We cannot continue to allow people to enter the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked… those who enter our country’s borders illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of the law.”

What happened? How is such a complete turnaround possible, ask you? Simple, answer I. Democrats noted the demographic shift in our nation and put a moistened finger to the wind. Mirabili dictu! The wind blew in a different direction at the voting booth!

And thanks to JA for sending this to me.

Roy Filly





Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments