Issues, News & Views


Sworn In
April 10, 2017

A Tremendous Day for
sound jurisprudence and
our Constitution!

Watch the swearing-in and
savor the prospect of a
Supreme Court Justice
who will defend our

Below is our rating of
Supreme Court justices
based upon judgement of
their fidelity to the

As the chart illustrates,
there are too many rogue
justices on the Supreme
Court. These appointed,
life-term judges take it
upon themselves to
arbitrarily unilaterally and
autocratically over-rule the
will of the people. They are
the equivalent of tyrants.

It is crucial to our
Democracy to fill all open
seats on all Courts, as
they arise, with true-to-
the-law judges. With
originalist, textualist
judges who apply the law
as passed by the
representatives of the

It is NOT the role of judges
to over-rule laws they just
happen to dislike. As
Gorsuch said at the

"A judge who likes every
outcome he reaches is
very likely a bad judge..."

April 07, 2017

A Supreme Court seat
opened with the passing of
Antonin Scalia just months
before the 2016 election.

President Obama
nominated Merrick Garland
as a replacement, but
Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
blocked the nomination,
claiming that the voters
should decide.

Elections have
consequences. Democrats
were certain they would
hold the White House and
regain the Senate in 2016,
thereby giving them full
control of the nomination

But the GOP held the
Senate, and won the
White House, against
all predictions.
Republicans campaigned
on the Supreme Court
issue, and won.

And that's why Democrats
lost the Supreme Court
nomination: because they
didn't win the election. The
people spoke. As it should

January 31, 2017

President Trump has
nominated Neil Gorsuch to
the United States Supreme
Court. View the
proceedings at the White

As the President so
appropriately remarked at
the nomination ceremony:

"I have always felt that
after the defense of our
nation, the most important
decision a president of the
United States can make is
the appointment of a
Supreme Court justice.
Depending on their age, a
justice can be active for 50
years and his or her
decisions can last a
century or more and can
often be permanent."

We anticipate that Neil
Gorsuch will be an
outstanding Supreme
Court Justice, just like
Antonin Scalia, the great
man he will replace.

Neil Gorsuch: a judge who
understands both what a
judge's role is; and what a
judge's role is not.


2018/04/27 - Seeing is believing right? Or is it? Have you been watching the thawing relations between South Korea and North Korea? A warming that today has reached a culmination – so far – with a summit meeting at the DMZ between the South's President Moon Jai-in and the North's President Kim Jong-un?

And does this mean we can pack up and leave? The United States has 30,000 troops stationed in South Korea, not to mention an array of weapons, equipment, supplies and a host of support and logistical assets to sustain our presence. Interminably. If our objective all along was to be friends with the Kim regime and not to wipe it out, then can we just please leave already?

The United States has maintained a military presence on the Korean peninsula since the demise of the Japanese Occupation at the end of World War II in 1945. The peninsula was partitioned along the 38th parallel between the Soviet Union and the United States for post-war administration. The North, with aid from Russia and China, invaded the South in 1950, with several ebbs and flows a truce – not a treaty – was struck in 1953 to cease hostilities and the United States has been pinned down there ever since – for 65 years.

Why? How did we end up there in the first place; and, why are we still there?

During the 1700's the ideas began to take root in North America that would eventually develop into the founding of a nation that became what is now called the United States of America. Over the course of the 1800's the nation developed into a country - realizing its principles even to the point of fighting a Civil War; eliminating the presence of Old World powers in the New World; acquiring territories and establishing borders; and populating, administering and defending its newly acquired expanses. And they coined a term for this national cause - Manifest Destiny,

By the 1900's, with the country well-established, our gaze began to turn outward. The notion arose to spread this new nation's ideals to other beleaguered peoples of the world. This idea was summed up by the phrase "making the world safe for democracy" as President Woodrow Wilson put it in 1917.

Making the world safe for democracy has guided American foreign policy for the past hundred years – to enter Word War I, World War II, Korea, Vietnam, the Mideast, to liberate the Warsaw Pact and Eastern Bloc nations, Kuwait, Yugoslavia, Iran, Libya, Syria, and so on. All Presidents, from both parties, with varying degrees of success.

But does that policy still make sense? Especially in Korea? The fact is the United States owes South Korea precisely nothing. The US fought and won a war that liberated Korea from a brutal Japanese occupation, and fought a war to prevent Chinese and Russian backed Communists from re-enslaving them. The United States has protected the South for nearly seventy years and even allowed the South Korea to abuse us in international trade in order to help them develop freedom and prosperity in their country.

South Korea and North Korea are roughly equal in size, with the North slightly larger, about the size of Pennsylvania and the south about the size of Mississippi. Both roughly equal in size to average US states. But the South has a population of 50,000,000, roughly double that of the North; and in terms of economics, there really is no comparison – according to the United Nations, South Korea has the world's 11th largest economy, while North Korea ranks 113th.

South Korea is fully capable of defending itself, so it begs the question, why are we there? If Moon and the South Korean people want to bury the hatchet with the north, and turn their backs to the misery of their own brothers and sisters in the north, why shouldn't we? If they don't care, why should we? What are we doing there?

There are probably three policy options for US forces currently positioned in South Korea: 1. The reunification of Korea through near-term forcible elimination of the dreadful Kim regime; 2. Status quo, to keep the peace indefinitely, interminably; or 3. To pack up and leave.

Reunification best fits the United States foreign policy modus operandi of the past hundred years and this is Chalprem's preferred option. Let's suck it up, and get the job done. Then leave. But if the South has no will to fight, no vision for their country, no guts, and, worst, no empathy for the suffering of their own kin, their own flesh and blood, then why should we? Why are we there?

It's time to go, that's Chalprem's position. If the South want to reunify, and is willing to fight an all-out war to make it happen, great, we should throw everything we've got at the North and help the South win, and win quickly and completely. And then leave. But leave we must. Either with or without reunification, that's the South's choice. Times up in South Korea.

But what about that 700 pound gorilla in the room, China - might not they have a thing or two to say or do about our presence and activities in Korea?

There are a lot of things China wants, and a lot of things we want. The time has come to redraw the lines in Asia. It's probably time to set aside the idea of "Making the World Safe for Democracy", to recognize China's place in Asia, and redraw the geopolitical influence map. It's time to give China what it wantws, and obtain concessions for it.

China, of course, would not be happy with us conducting an all-out war on the peninsula, nor would they be pleased with a reunified Korea, but they would be delighted if we pulled out of Korea altogether – could we trade the two? Would China agree to non-intervention in a reunification war if the United States promised a full and complete withdrawal after the cessation of hostilities?

Since China does not appreciate American presence in Asia, what would China offer in exchange, if we offered to pull out of Okinawa? Okinawa is Japanese territory where the United States has significant forces stationed. Of course that would certainly trigger the remilitarization of Japan, absolute kryptonite for China – shouldn't they be paying us to stay?

We are not playing our cards well with Japan, we think we are protecting Japan from China, but to the Chinese, we are protecting China from Japan – and we are footing the bill to do it. China should be offering concessions for us to stay.

And then there's Taiwan. What does the United States owe Taiwan? The answer, like Korea, is nothing. They have been decent enough allies, but, at the same time, they at least pay lip-service to the One China policy. Maybe it's time to support the reunification of ROC island into the PRC mainland, into some sort of Hong Kong style entity.

And of course, the United States wants trade liberalization - reciprocity - with China. Free trade that is actually "free", fair trade that actually is "fair".

And China wants their fake islands in the South China Sea, we want guaranteed free and safe passage of all recognized international shipping. And there's the Spratly's… and… so on.

We really have no choice but to start displaying some trust for China. It really doesn't suit their best interests in the 21st Century to be a territorially expansionist bully. They would lose a lot more than they would gain from that. There are a lot of objectives both big-bore and small-bore that create opportunities for China and America to enter into a more trusting relationship that reflects 21st Century realities.

And one of the driving forces is that the United States simply cannot afford to be the world's policeman. Even if there was consensus that it was a great idea, and that we truly wanted to do it, the fact is we simply cannot afford it.

The recently enacted spending bill may have been one of the worst pieces of legislation ever passed, perhaps taking the silver medal after Obamacare.

Between military spending, interest on our debt, entitlement spending, and discretionary spending, the United States has lost all control of its budget. The last $1.3 trillion spending package proved that. The American people have no will, and no math skills, to face the coming entitlement crisis. And to gain increases in military spending to support our out-of-control self-imposed global military mission, Republicans stupidly gave away the farm to Democrats on discretionary free stuff for everyone.

With Republican zeal for military spending, Democrat addiction to free-crap giveaways, and the American peoples' brain-freeze opposition to entitlement reform, our debt will continue to spiral and all three spending interests will be punked by the cost of servicing our debt.

We simply cannot afford the military mission we took on and continue to execute. We are very good at projecting and executing military might, but the well is dry. The fact that we are willing to go to the well and toss in our bucket doesn't change the fact that there is no water at the bottom. We need to reduce spending and scale back the mission, and turn it into a win-win by gaining concessions from Russia, China and the EU for doing so.

Ya, NATO, ist kaput. We simply cannot afford it. Time to pull our circus out of Germany and other locations and tell the EU that their geopolitical issues are their problem. Time to give up on stopping Russian territorial expansion, since we never stop them anyhow. Crimea, seized by Russia in 2014, is lost to the Ukraines; the two provinces of Georgia seized by Russia in 2008 are gone for good; the German/Polish region of Königsberg (now known as Kaliningrad) seized in 1945, the Finnish territory seized during the Winter War of 1939-40, two name but a few acquisitions, are all gone for good, are all part of Russia. Too bad. Europe has no will to oppose Russian territorial ambition, and until they grow a spine, there is no point in us being there and trying to be a spine for them.

The story in Europe is very much the story in Asia: there are a host of middle power countries that could work together to confront the neighborhood bully, but they do not. Instead, the 1. Expect us to supply their national defense for them; 2. They expect this provision of defensive services to be free of charge; 3. They continually scold us for being militaristic; 4. And finally, they abuse us in international trade as a just recompense for our excessively militaristic posture.

Even if you are not fed up with this New World Order, the fact is we cannot afford it, and never could.

We need to scale back our military mission, but give our allies time to step up and take responsibility for their own security. Let's suggest a few pull-out dates that gives our allies time to reset:
• Korea: Now. It's not clear why we stayed there in the first place if we intended to allow the crimes-against-humanity Kim regime to acquire nuclear weapons, and then reward them with a prize for doing so, with a peace and security deal? Congratulations President Kim for achieving the ability to destroy the world! You win all the prizes in both showcases... Unbelievable. Is this really happening? Was this the oucome we were striving for all along? Are we really this stupid?
• Europe/EU/NATO: September 1, 2039 - the 100th anniversary of the start of WWII
• Japan/Okinawa: December 7, 2041 - the 100th anniversary of the bombing of Pearl Harbor
• Taiwan/China: December 8, 2049 - the 100th anniversary of the Kuomintang's establishment in Taiwan

Yes, the 100th anniversary of World War Two is on the horizon. It's time to reset and rethink our foreign policy. The day has come to return to the Monroe Doctrine. The Wilson Empire is done. Long live the Monroe Republic.


April 27, 2018 - So this is it? This is how it ends? Or are we - South Korea and the United States - falling for a scam?

South Korea's recently elected Chamberlainesque appeasement President Moon Jae-in and North Korea's brutal Hitleresque Presdent-for-Life Kim Jong Un met for a summit at the DMZ today.

After extended conversations they both emerged speaking hopefully about peace, and reconciliation, and trust, and all that. Just like Chamberlain when he came back to London after the Munich summit of September 29, 1938.

And they all lived happily ever after. Well, for about eleven months, anyhow, until Hitler invaded Poland and started World War II on September 1, 1939.

Here's a prediction: the Korean Peninsula does not live happily ever - Moon is a gullible naďve dufus (trying to be nice here), Kim is an insidious nefarious manipulator, and Kim will play Moon like the fool he is.

Our prediction is that the NoKo's play China and the SoKo's against us and use the opportunity to assure America that we can pull our troops out of the peninsula and eliminate those inconvenient sanctions that are hindering Kim's military development.

The NoKo's use the opportunity to vastly strengthen their conventional military, and then launch a surprise invasion of the South the next time America foolishly elects a Democrat to the White House.

The more it looks like peace for our time, the more likely war is. It's beginning to look a lot like "War For Our Time", not "Peace For Our Time".

April 16, 2018 - Starbucks is loathsome, but sometimes that slimy far-left freak show that trades rather poorly under the ticker SBUX is downright despicable.

If you go to Starbucks you have to buy something to use the restroom. Irrespective of whether that is poor public relations and ultimately counter-productive, many restaurants and coffee shops do have that policy and that is most certainly within their rights.

Some years ago I went to the Starbucks at 85th and Lexington in Manhattan. I was denied access to the restrooms because I had not yet made a purchase. I have a hygiene issue with taking food to the toilet (duh!) so my intent was to make my purchase after taking care of business.

Nonetheless I was denied access by the African-American male associate. I did not attribute this to racism, rather, rigid enforcement of a standard company policy. Out of principle, I departed - not worth creating a stink...

Manhattan Starbucks on Lexington and 85th where associates routinely deny bathroom access to non-customers as per company policy. And this includes African-Americans denying access to Caucasians, again, in adherence with company policy, and not because of any racism either real or imagined. It just is who Starbucks is. Don't take it personally.

So this past weekend in Philadelphia, two African-American males were denied access to the bathroom because they had not made a purchase. They became unruly, the police were called, and they were arrested.

Now Starbucks and the leftist mainstream media has turned this into a racism thing. Even the (African-American) police chief has confirmed that the officers acted according to policy, but Starbucks CEO Kevin Johnson has thrown his staff and the officers under the bus, calling the incident "reprehensible" and saying "that's not who we are."

Johnson is a slimy liar. First, what happened is exactly what Starbucks is. It was pre-determined by their policy, and this particular outcome was inevitable. Been there, but didn't do that.

What is "reprehensible", to condemn the CEO with his own words, is Johnson's stunning dishonesy and lack of principle, and willingness to sacrifice others in order to score cheap social justice points.

This was a rather vomit-worthy episode brought to you by the ever-loathsome Starbucks and its groveling self-loathing CEO Johnson.

April 11, 2018 - We are concerned to see the price of US crude oil drifting north of $66.00 per barrel this morning.

Fears are that the heinous Syrian chemical attack over the weekend will broaden US involvement in the Mideast and escalate tensions between the USA/Israel/KSA alliance and the Syria/Russian/Iran thug gang.

Oil below $50 per barrel - which we encountered between 2015 and 2017 - is stimulative to the economy as a whole but does not provide adequate returns to justify ongoing capital investment and deployment in the energy sector, setting up the potential for future supply shortages.

Oil above $70 per barrel - which we seem to be heading toward - acts like a tax on consumers and a brake on the economy, and could potentially nudge us toward recession.

Paradoxically, rising energy prices tend to push the stock market up, at least in the near term: the direct immediate winners, the energy stocks, are easy to identify, so their stocks surge which in turn creates a positive market sentiment, a rising tide which lifts all boats.

Oil in the $50-$70 range is optimal. While no windfall for consumers, it is not burdensome either. And that price range provides producers with adequate returns to justify future expansion, continued supply, and job creation.

April 04, 2018 - America reflects upon the assassination of Dr. Mark Luther King 50 years ago today.

I watched a documentary on one of the cable channels about housing discrimination in Chicago. Fifty years ago blacks were trying to move into other ethnic neighborhoods, and facing resistance. Their effort to break through was called "desegregation" and it was good.

And then there's New York State Assemblywoman Diana Richardson who marked King's legacy by delivering an anti-Semitic speech complaining about Jews invading and gentrifying her African-American neighborhood.

So let's get this straight - when blacks want to move into another ethnic neighborhood that's desegregation, and that's good; but when other ethnic groups want to move into black neighborhoods that gentrification, and that's... bad...? ...really?

So what is it? Equality for everyone; or, discrimination based on ethnicity? It goes without saying that Dr. King would reject Richardson's racist views, and advocate for the former.

Let's see if the African American community that Assemblywoman Richardson represents has veered so far from the true spirit of Dr. King that they re-elect her in November.


© Copyright 2018 Challenge The Premise. All rights reserved.