Did any of the media actually read the “Paris Accord?”

I’ll start with the disclaimer that I also did not read the Paris Accord on Climate Change (or Global Warming – not sure what’s the”name-of-the-day”). But it appears that few who support it read it.

John Stossel makes his living “exposing” falsehoods. In a recent article he interviews Oren Cass, a Manhattan Institute senior fellow. Mr. Cass is the rare person who actually read and analyzed the Paris Accord.

[Source: Climate Exit, John Stossel]

Let’s assume that you firmly believe that global warming is “man-caused.” You want something “done about it.” You will be saddened to learn the Paris Accord won’t do much or anything at all about CO2 emissions by man. It only transfers wealth from wealthier nations to poorer nations. Mr. Cass points out that the signatories  “don’t even have to mention greenhouse gases in their commitment if they don’t want to. They can send in any piece of paper they want.”

If you have followed this you’ll be aware of the two biggest producers of “man-caused CO2 emissions” other than the United States (no longer a signatory). These nations are China and India (both are signatories). The media applauded “major commitments” by these nations.

[From the Stossel article] In truth, says Cass, “They either pledged to do exactly what they were already going to do anyway, or pledged even less. China, for instance said, ‘we pledge to reach peak emission by about 2030.’ Well, the United States government had already done a study to guess when Chinese emissions would peak, and their guess was about 2030.”

In other words, China simply promised to do what was going to happen anyway.

“China was actually one of the better pledges,” says Cass. “India made no pledge to limit emissions at all. They pledged only to become more efficient. But they proposed to become more efficient less quickly than they were already becoming more efficient. So their pledge was to slow down.”

By contrast, US energy-related CO2 emissions have been falling without signing the Paris Accord.

I will end on a lighter note. This was Pakistan’s proposal: Pakistan’s pledge was to “Reach a peak at some point after which to begin reducing emissions.”

Wow! Ya’ gotta’ love the left wing. They know how to get people to “sign up!” I pledge to reduce my carbon footprint no later than one month after I die. I’m certain that will be sufficient to allow my to sign the Accord!

Roy Filly


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Putin in power (graphical representation).

Russia had an “election.” Guess who won? Americans are concerned that Putin interfered with our election. The Russians should be far more concerned.

It appears we now have a president-for-life in both China and Russia.

What is it about human nature that appears to prefer kings, emperors, and presidents-for life?

And this despite a healthy understanding that the elections are anything but “fair.”

Roy Filly

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The “Popular vote.” Majority rule – It’s “democratic!”

I could probably end this discussion by stating that rap “music” is more “popular” than Beethoven.

The Democrats point to the fact that the Electoral College undermines the one-person, one-vote principle of democracy. They prefer “majority rule.” The latter, they state is “more democratic.” And, I would have to agree that it is.

[Source: Constitutional Ignorance — Perhaps Contempt by Walter E. Williams]

Employing our most and least populous states, the Democrats point to the fact that a citizen of Wyoming, with a population of about 600,000, has one member in the U.S. House of Representatives and two members in the U.S. Senate. Thus, Wyoming is awarded three electoral votes by the Constitution. That calculates to one electoral vote per approximately 200,000 citizens. By contrast, California, has more than 39 million people and 55 electoral votes, or approximately one vote per 715,000 citizens. Comparatively, individuals in Wyoming have nearly four times the power in the Electoral College as Californians.

But here is the problem for the Democrat point of view. Presidents are not elected “democratically.” Indeed, our Founding Fathers “went to great lengths to ensure that we were a republic and not a democracy. In fact, the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution or any other of our founding documents.

In some respects one would necessarily conclude that the Founding Fathers had contempt for “democracy.” Dr. Williams solidifies his argument with some rather telling quotes from the Founders [directly from the Williams article]:

  • In Federalist Paper No. 10, James Madison wanted to prevent rule by majority faction, saying, “Measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority.”
  • John Adams warned in a letter, “Remember Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a Democracy Yet, that did not commit suicide.”
  • Edmund Randolph said, “That in tracing these evils to their origin, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.”
  • Then-Chief Justice John Marshall observed, “Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.”

The “majority” is as tyrannical as any commissar ever was. The Constitutional impediments to majority rule are more than obvious [directly from the Williams article]:

  • Two houses of Congress pose one obstacle to majority rule. That is, 51 senators can block the wishes of 435 representatives and 49 senators.
  • The president can veto the wishes of 535 members of Congress. It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress to override a presidential veto.
  • To change the Constitution requires not a majority but a two-thirds vote of both houses, and if an amendment is approved, it requires ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures.

And let us not forget other specific notions in our Republic that thwart “majority rule.” Do the Democrats also wish to:

  • Get rid of the U.S. Senate because it “unfairly” allows states, regardless of population, to each have two senators.
  • Eliminate the guarantee that each state gets at least one representative?
  • Make all congressional acts be majority rule?
  • To no longer require unanimity in criminal jury decisions?

The Democrats only want “majority rule” when it benefits them.

Roy Filly

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Inevitably it’s “goodbye entitlements!”

Did you ever see someone receiving an “entitlement” from the government say, “No thanks?” Did you ever see a Democrat who thinks Trump’s tax cuts are “Armageddon” return their refund to the government with a note that says, “As a good Democrat I cannot accept this?” Be sure to tell me if you have, because I surely never have. Why do you think the government calls them ENTITLEMENTS! Those receiving them completely buy into the name – I am ENTITLED to this money.

What are America’s favorite entitlement programs? Why Social Security and Medicare, of course. And one constantly hears the claim that it’s not an “entitlement” because “we paid for it.” American seniors state that these are not payments, but ‘repayments’ of money that they have been forced to hand over to the government. This is not true (see graph below). I realize there is an argument that if the same amount of money had been privately invested over the same period of time the results would be different and we would be better off. You’re speaking to the choir. I strongly support privatization of Social Security. But here we are talking about REALITY!

Why then, ask you, would I ever posit that they are going away? Simple, answer I, either they go away or our government goes bankrupt. As Daniel J. Mitchell puts it, it is the “Most Predictable Economic Crisis In History.” I encourage you to read his entire article from which I heavily draw in this post.

Mr. Mitchell has shown “that the ever-increasing burden of federal spending is almost entirely the result of domestic spending increasing much faster than what would be needed to keep pace with inflation.” He further shows us “that outlays for entitlements (programs such as Social SecurityMedicareMedicaid, and Obamacare) were the real problem.”

He quotes John Cogan writing in the Wall Street Journal.

“Since the end of World War II, federal tax revenue has grown 15% faster than national income—while federal spending has grown 50% faster. …all—yes, all—of the increase in federal spending relative to GDP over the past seven decades is attributable to entitlement spending… If you’re seeking the reason for the federal government’s chronic budget deficits and crushing national debt, look no further than entitlement programs. …entitlement spending accounts for nearly two-thirds of federal spending.

How much are we talking about to pay the promised benefits, ask you? It’s a mere $82 trillion, answer I. Social Security and Medicare account for 72 percent of all inflation-adjusted federal-spending growth.

The end is near. It may be 15 years or 20 years, but eventually these programs can no longer be supported.

Roy Filly


Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Big Government: Left versus Right.

The reason I began posting (nearly 2500 posts ago) is my belief that big government is bad government. It’s axiomatic (footnote).

Dennis Prager gives you seven reasons why both he and I believe this. He explains this by employing fundamental differences in the philosophies of the Left and the Right. Definitely worth watching.

Roy Filly

Axiomatic: self-evident or unquestionable.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Politics in cartoon form.

Woe is me! I have to live there!

Obama actually had the nerve to say this! Well, why should we be surprised at anything Obama is willing to do to create a legacy where NONE EXISTS!

Speaks for itself!

I wonder if these high school students can do this advanced level math?

Yikes. Another “President for Life.”

Sounds about right.

This one isn’t fair. The Democreeps also want to re-raise taxes, confiscate guns, and have Universal Basic Income. God help us.

Hillary has a very bad case of foot-in-mouth disease.

Another one that speaks for itself. Of course, it is highly improbable that someone who built an international real estate empire has no suspect business adventures. Probably where Mueller is heading.

I wonder if the left wing media realizes how transparent they are.

Why would anyone fire this guy?!?!

Roy Filly

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Trump/Judges/Democreep obstruction.

One of the lasting legacies of any president is his (her) judicial appointments. Whether you believe President Trump to be successful or not, even staunch Democrats are admitting that his judicial appointments are record breaking (footnote). As the Klain reference in the footnote explains, President Trump had three times Obama’s total and more than double the totals of Reagan, Bush 41 and Clinton combined in the first six months of his presidency.

Therefore, one would think that President Trump is filing all available bench vacancies. Unfortunately, because of Democreep obstruction, nothing could be further from the truth.

[Source: Democrat Obstruction Leads to More Court Vacancies Than When Trump Took Office, by Fred Lucas]

Trump has been successful in seating appeals court judges, but obstruction by Democrats has resulted in lower-level federal district court vacancies actually expanding. When the President was inaugurated in January 2017 there were 108 vacancies in the federal courts. Despite rapidly moving to fill the vacancies, there are now 178 current and known future vacancies (25 are appeals court judges and 153 are district or specialty court judges).

These lower courts make the vast majority of rulings and it is these courts that have blocked many of President Trump’s initiatives.

Why the slowdown? Of course, it is not hard to guess that it is a result of Senate Democrat obstruction. The Democreeps are requiring 30 hours of debate for every nominee. This is true even for nominees who received unanimous Judiciary Committee approval (yes, all Democreeps voted in favor). At this rate the President, even if he serves two terms, will still have vacancies when he leaves office.

Looking back on the history of judicial appointments, through nine presidents beginning in 1949, the Senate held a total of seven cloture votes in any president’s first year in office. In Trump’s first year, Democrats forced 19 such votes on judicial branch nominees and 46 on executive branch nominees.

Time for a “rules” change????

Roy Filly

Footnote: [Source: The one area where Trump has been wildly successful, by Ronald A. Klain]

Ron Klain is NO FAN of Donald Trump. He was Chief of Staff to both Al Gore and Joe Biden (Wow! Chief of the “loser” brigade”) when they were Vice Presidents and was Obama’s “Ebola Czar.” So, if he thinks Trump is making significant headway in ANYTHING, you can be certain it is true.

[From the Klain article] … a massive transformation is underway in how our fundamental rights are defined by the federal judiciary. For while President Trump is incompetent at countless aspects of his job (told you he was not a Trump fan), he is proving wildly successful in one respect: naming youthful conservative nominees to the federal bench in record-setting numbers.

Trump’s predecessors all slowly ramped up their judicial nominations during their first six months in office… Ronald Reagan… made five lower-court nominations in that period; George H.W. Bush made four lower-court nominations; (Clinton) named no lower-court judges; and George W. Bush named four lower-court judges… The most successful early actor, Barack Obama, named.. nine lower-court judges who were confirmed.

What about Trump? He… selected 27 lower-court judges as of mid-July. Twenty-seven! That’s three times Obama’s total and more than double the totals of Reagan, Bush 41 and Clinton — combined. For the Courts of Appeals — the final authority for 95 percent of federal cases — no president before Trump named more than three judges whose nominations were processed in his first six months; Trump has named nine. Trump is on pace to more than double the number of federal judges nominated by any president in his first year.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

You can learn a lot from graphs.

The Democrats just announced their new tax HIKE plan. Perhaps they should study this graph. The only Blue state was Minnesota, Democrat candidate Walter Mondale’s home state.

We all know it, but seeing it on a graph definitely drives home the message. By the by, remember the Obama phone?

Okay. Now this is hard to believe!

Russia and China at the top and USA at the bottom. I realize we spend much more than both of them combined, but that won’t last long at this rate.

In case you’re interested.

I don’t want a trade war, but you have to like our chances of winning.

There was a news item several days ago when the stock market had a nice rally. Jeff Bezos made $1.5 billion that DAY.

3.8 million Google searches, 29 million messages, 156 million emails. How long does all that take? Only 60 seconds.

Apps emerged from early PDAs, through the addictively simple game Snake on the Nokia 6110 phone, to the first 500 apps in the Apple App Store when it made its debut in July 2008. In one short decade – $86 billion in sales.

Roy Filly

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Mentally ill.

Who thinks we should let the mentally ill buy firearms? Yes, thank you, I know it’s a ridiculous question. Probably the longest standing member of the NRA would vote “Nyet” on that notion.

So what’s the problem? The problem is defining who is “mentally ill.” Virtually all of my Democrat readers (and my wife) believe that I am mentally ill. From that perspective it may actually be easier to ask, “Who isn’t mentally ill?” And, most importantly, who do we give the power to decide the answer?

If you ask the media, President Trump is “mentally ill.” He’s allowed to command the most powerful armed force in the history of the world, but the left wouldn’t want him to handle a firearm. And this is after the President chimed in, saying recently, “I don’t want mentally ill people to be having guns.”

[Source: Gun control from the mentally ill isn’t the easy answer some suggest. By the Las Vegas Review Journal Editorial Board]

[From the Editorial] In 2017, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated that 8.3 million adults are experiencing serious psychological distress. The National Alliance on Mental Illness estimates that in a given year, 20 percent of Americans experience a mental illness. That’s more than 43 million people. Next year, millions of new people will join that list as others get better and move off the list. More than 13 percent of boys receive an ADHD diagnosis.

Keeping everyone who has had a mental illness or disorder from owning a gun could end up eviscerating the constitutional rights of many people who are not a danger to anybody.

If one looks at the perspective of a leftist par excellence, Barack Hussein Obama, he proposed that anyone receiving Social Security disability payments who also had a mental disorder should fail a background check. To some extent many might think that reasonable until they learn that “an eating disorder” puts one on “the list.” (Twenty-three national disability groups opposed the Obama rule – it never went into effect.) And, by the by, how many of you are aware that it’s already illegal under federal law to sell a firearm to someone who “has been adjudicated as a mental defective.” (And again, my Democrat readers would put me on the “the list.”)

A federal law that has been on the books since 2008 makes it mandatory for mental health records to be submitted to a national database. That is the data base that is “checked” before a firearm is sold. Virtually everyone agrees that Nicholas Cruz is NUTS. So how did he get ANY GUN? (I like to put all of my pencils in a straight line. NO GUN FOR ME!)

If Congress attempts to do this in any meaningful way the Supreme Court will vote 9 to zero that it abridges our 4th Amendment rights.

And thanks to BC for sending this to me.

Roy Filly

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Some historic facts about availability of rifles.

There are only two possibilities. Either leftists have never investigated the history of rifle purchases in the United States or they have, but totally ignore the lesson of this history.

Importantly, I’m not talking about the history of guns in “the wild west.” I’m talking about the history of guns in the 1950s and 1960s. Let’s begin with a question. If you are old enough to have lived through the 1950s and 1960s, I ask you, are there more school shootings today or back then? Before then school mass shootings were virtually unheard of.

If you were around you will, of course, remember when Charles Whitman (Aug. 1, 1966) climbed a 27-story tower on the University of Texas campus and started shooting people. But since then there have been at least 100 Americans that have gone on shooting sprees.

[Source: Hidden Agenda or Ignorance? By Walter E. Williams]

[From the Williams article] It turns out that for most of our history, a person could walk into hardware and department stores… virtually anywhere in the United States, and purchase a rifle or pistol. The 1902 Sears mail-order catalog had 35 pages of firearm advertisements. Other catalogs and magazines from the 1940s, ’50s and ’60s were full of gun advertisements directed to both youngsters and parents. “What Every Parent Should Know When a Boy or Girl Wants a Gun” was published by the National Shooting Sports Foundation. Another magazine advertised “Get This Cowboy Carbine with Your Christmas Money.” Just a few states even had age restrictions for buying guns. Private transfers of guns to juveniles were unrestricted. Often a 12th or 14th birthday present, from a father to his son, was a shiny new .22 caliber rifle.

Despite greater availability of rifles and far more lax laws then one virtually never heard of such mass school shootings. Colt started selling the semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle (a true assault weapon) as the Colt AR-15 in 1964. The AR-15 is frequently the target of those advocating restricting access to guns in the United States.

But AR15 availability long predated the common occurrence of school mass shootings. So we now have looked at data showing what happened when guns were MORE AVAILABLE. Now let us turn our attention to when guns were LESS AVAILABLE. The leftists won their argument in 1994. The sale of new AR-15s was banned by the Federal Assault Weapons Ban from 1994 to 2004. Following the “sunsetting” of the ban the FBI carefully invested its impact on shooting deaths. THERE WAS NONE! The final FBI report concluded that gun crimes involving assault weapons declined. However, that decline was “offset throughout by the steady rise in the use of other guns.”

While the data above is easily researched and available, leftists can’t stop improvising data to support their notions. You have heard the media regurgitate many times that the Parkland High School shooting was the 18th school shooting this year. The number was made up. The total included such things as a suicide in the parking lot of a school that had been closed for months, stray bullets fired near a college campus, a police officer’s weapon going off accidentally, after-hours fights in school parking lots, etc.

I want something done. There are two alternatives. One – ban “assault-style” weapons. Two – harden the “target.” We know option one won’t work. We know option two DOES WORK.

And thanks to HP for sending some of this data to me.

Roy Filly


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment