Enhanced Community Quarantine

In a few short days, our province will go under Enhanced Community Quarantine (ECQ) in order to get a handle on the COVID19 virus currently terrorizing the planet.

Each household will be issued one pass in order for one member of the household to leave the home under certain circumstances.

Those being for medical emergencies, trips to pharmacies, banks and grocery stores, and a few others.

The first image shows the ins and outs of the ECQ. The second image is of actual passes. My understanding is that the ECQ will last 14 days, unless the Provincial Governor feels it should be extended.

We'll see how this plays out.

A Tale of Two Barangay

In Philippines, cities and municipalities are subdivided into areas called barangays. For example, our house is located in the town of Sibulan - in Brgy. Magatas.

According to Wikipedia, there are 42,045 barangays in the country. As far as I know, each Barangay has a barangay Hall.

I would have thought that the barangay hall would actually be located within the particular barangay it represents. I know of at least one case where that isn't so.

As can be seen in these photos, the barangay halls for Brgy. Taclobo and Brgy.Poblacion 7 in Dumaguete are next door to one another. According to Google Maps, both are located within Brgy.Poblacion 7.

Trump's Military Parade

Everything has become so predictable. This is especially true regarding any and all reactions to President Trump.One group will support the President, regardless of what he says or does. Likewise, another group will attack Trump as a matter of course.

The Trumpanistas probably would support the POTUS if he committed a murder on Times Square and the Leftist anti-Trumpists would attack him even if he favored something which they had supported themselves.

Folks like myself, who try to remain objective, will not receive slack from either side should we say something even slightly for or against the President.

It came as no surprise to me when I received an email from change.org alerting me to a petition against Trump's plan to have a military parade and anyone who reads Mark Shea already knows how he'd react to the parade.

Just as we all know that the folks at the hill.com would love the idea of a military parade, we all know the Huffington Post would declare the parade to be a waste of money.

I'm not even surprised that the Atlantic would publish 2 opinion pieces - one 'fer it and one agin it.

Me?

Maybe, as an American living outside the USA, some might say I shouldn't have a say in all this. Perhaps they're right. But, really, this parade kerfuffle seems a bit much about nothing. Not even as a nothing burger.....more like a nothing tuna sandwich.

I've No "Core Canadian Values".

According to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Bieber Justin Trudeau, being pro-life, I am not in-line with the Canadian government nor who Canadians are as a society.

Just what I need.....another reason not to visit Canada.

Hopefully, No More Moore.

For reasons that I do not understand, I have been receiving emails from Roy Moore's campaign for close to two years. I am not now, nor have I ever been registered to vote in Alabama. I have disliked Moore for years - ever since his attempts to post Ten Commandment monuments on government property.

His emails have been going straight into my spam box since the very beginning.

I would never vote for Moore; the claims that he had tried to have sex with a 14 year old girl when he was in his thirties certainly didn't change my mind.

In spite of the fact that Roy Moore says the 'Battle Is Not Over' in Alabama Senate Race, I'm no longer getting spam emails from his campaign. Thank goodness.

I'm hoping I'll hear no more from Moore.

Neil Gorsuch Isn't Pro-Life

In the following Youtube video, we see Trump's SCOTUS nominee, Neil Gorsuch state that the fetus is not a person.

Gorsuch also maintains that Roe vs Wade is settled law.

I do not support Gorsuch's nomination. If this is the best Trump has to offer the pro life community, then we are in bad shape.

Melania's "Lord's Prayer" Evokes Typical Responses.

Melania Trump opens a Melbourne, Florida Trump rally by reciting the Lord's prayer and the reactions are just as we'd expect.

The anti-Trumpers are condemning her for committing the worse offense imaginable from a Leftist's prospective, while not surprisingly, Fox News came to her defense.

Some of the nicer criticisms came in the cries about....you guessed it....."separation of church and state". But as haaretz.com sanely points out, the First Lady did what several U.S. Presidents (from Obama to George Bush) have done - demonstrate their Christian faith publicly and openly. Besides, not being an elected official, Melania Trump is not the government.

I know that there are some who are declaring that this is the end of world as we know it, as Trump's Fascist Dictatorship takes over. Others are proclaiming that America has returned to its Christian roots and Greatness.

Most everyone is over reacting.

To the Trump lovers, I'd point out that not everyone prays the Protestant version of the Lord's Prayer. I would have rather she not done it, but I'm not having a conniption over this. To the Trump haters, I'd just say, "Relax and breathe. Take a chill-pill and give it a rest".

Californians Want to Cut off Their Noses to Spite Their Faces

Just as Democrats in eleven States attempted to secede from the United States and form the Confederate States of America after the election of the first Republican POTUS, some Democrat leaning individuals in California want their State to leave the Union after the election of the current Republican POTUS. I suspect that their endeavor will be as unsuccessful as the attempt made by the Confederate Democrats in the 1860s.

Even if the Union decides to look the other way and allow the secession (a big IF), it is doubtful that the country of California could survive as a Progressive Utopia without U.S. Federal assistance. While 12% of the total U.S. population live in California, 34% of welfare recipients in the U.S. live in California. With secession, this Federal welfare ends.

According to the California Legislature's Nonpartisan Fiscal and Policy Advisor, total annual federal expenditures in California are around $368 billion. With an estimated population of 38.9 million in early 2015, this corresponds to federal payments of about $9,500 per person in the state of California. Could the country of California make up for this loss of Federal spending? Some of this Federal spending is in the form of Social Security retirement benefits which the U.S. would be required to pay to individuals residing in a foreign country, but even taking that into consideration, the financial burden to the country of California would be tremendous.

No more military. No defense spending.

Should California secede, I predict it would only be a few years before portions of the country will attempt to reunite with the United States of America. California could be readmitted into the Union, but probably as two or more States. California would have fewer electoral votes and less political clout. This could prove a plus to the U.S.A., but a bad move for the State of California.

Wyoming Seeks Ban on Wind and Solar Energy

The fact that discussion on climate change is oriented more toward politics and less toward science disturbs me a great deal. While I agree with Pope Francis that destroying the planet is a sin, the political climate today makes an understanding of the planet's climate difficult, if not impossible. On one side of the argument, we have people who proclaim that every weather event - extreme heat, extreme cold, heavy rain, drought conditions - is proof that man is destroying the Earth, while on the other side, we have folks who are willing to deny any problem what so ever.

It doesn't help us understand the true situation, when we hear stories of one state legislature attempting to ban the use of solar or wind energy to produce electricity in their state. According to more than one source, lawmakers in Wyoming have introduced a bill that would forbid utilities from providing any electricity to the state that comes from large-scale wind or solar energy projects by 2019.

Of course, with the prevalence of 'fake news' today, I had to track down the story to see if there was any truth behind it. I've read SENATE FILE NO. SF0071 and the reports I've read appear to be true.

I understand the need for law makers to be skeptical; look honestly into the science behind the issue, and make the most educated accessment. However, I cannot for the life of me understand why any law maker would want to ban wind or solar energy projects. What sort of head up your butt logic is behind this?

Even if the claims of certain enviornmentalists are exaggerated - or even outright lies - why would anyone consider banning alternate energy sources. If you want to provide evidence to the climate change folks that you're in the pocket of Big Oil (or Big Coal) you've certainly done that.

The Dumbing Down of the American Electorate.

As someone with a strong desire to improve my writing, I will, on occasion, visit a website which utilizes a tool for measuring the readability of written text. The website, Readability Score.com, uses several readability algorithms to provide an average score, which should tell what level of education someone will need to be able to read a particular piece of text easily. The website provides scores based on the Flesch-Kincaid, Gunning-Fog, Coleman-Liau Index, and SMOG Index readability tests.

According to another website, the average American adult reads at the 9th-grade level and experts recommend writing documents, intended for the general public, at that level.

On January 10, 2017, maintaining a tradition followed (off and on) by departing Presidents since George Washington, President Barack Obama delivered his Farewell Address to the American people. George Washington's Farewell Address from 1796 is considered by most, to be the Gold Standard for Presidential Farewell Addresses and naturally, writers have compared Obama's address to Washington's.

To compare the two Presidential Farewell Addresses, I copied both and pasted each one onto the Readability Score.com testing algorithm to find out the grade level of each. After testing each, I took a screen shot of the results, which I've posted below. Following today's standard, Obama's text was written at a 9th Grade reading level - par for the average American today. The reading level of Washington's Farewell Address is at a grade level of 18. To understand Washington's address, the reader should have, not only 4 years of college, but an additional 2 years of post graduate study.

As an aside - the reading level of this blog post is 14.7. Maybe that's why I have so few readers.

Trump's 'Flag Burning Tweet'

In response to recent protests involving the burning of the American flag, Donald Trump tweeted:

"Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!"

Of course, we all know none of that is going to happen. The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that flag burning is symbolic speech and can't be outlawed. On top of that, in a 1967 case, the Supreme Court ruled that citizens of the United States may not be deprived of their citizenship involuntarily. The government can't take away a person's citizenship for burning a flag.

So, why did Trump make this comment?

Rush Limbaugh has his own take on it. Rush believes that, by tweeting this, Trump is simply taunting the media and the assorted Leftists who might be inclined to burn the flag. Rush believes that Trumps wants these protesters to burn more U.S. flags. According to Rush, the more Trump's detractors display their Trump Derangement Syndrome by burning flags, the better it makes Trump look to normal, everyday patriotic Americans.

There may be something to Rush's theory. Rush maintains that Trump's detractors take him "literally, but not seriously". Contrariwise, Rush says that Trump's supporters know to take him "seriously, but not literally". That might be the best way to approach Trump.

Calexit? Chillax.

With the election of Donald Trump as POTUS, some have pushed the idea of Calexit – the idea that California should become an independent state – to the front burner.
Liberals have long been threatening to leave the United States should Trump be elected. Now, they want to take part of the country with them when they go.

There seems to be a bit of confusion on what it is they want to do regarding secession from the Union. Some are advocating that the States of Washington, Oregon and California seceede and join up with Canada. It's unlikely that Canada would go along with that scheme. Others, however are advocating that California go it on its own.

Many of these folks seem to have forgotten - or perhaps, never learned - that the United States government doesn't look kindly on States that vote to leave the nation. Last time I checked, California doesn't have a military force of its own that would be capable of defeating the United States military.

Of course, those wishing to see California secede have their own website - Yes California.org. Just what are the group's arguments for leaving the U.S. - other than throwing a tempter tantrum now that Trump will soon enter the White House?

From the website:

THE CASE FOR INDEPENDENCE IN 9 SIMPLE POINTS

1. PEACE AND SECURITY
The U.S. Government spends more on its military than the next several countries combined. Not only is California forced to subsidize this massive military budget with our taxes, but Californians are sent off to fight in wars that often do more to perpetuate terrorism than to abate it. The only reason terrorists might want to attack us is because we are part of the United States and are guilty by association. Not being a part of that country will make California a less likely target of retaliation by its enemies.
Is California going to be able to match the "massive military budget" should the Federal Govt. decide not to accept Calexit? Being part of the U.S. is not the only reason terrorists might want to attack you. Islamists see American society as decadent, and News Flash: California society isn't less decadent than the rest of the U.S.. They'll still hate you.

So, why should we keep subjecting ourselves to presidents we play no role in electing, to 382 representatives and 98 senators we can’t vote for, and all the government officials and federal judges appointed by those very same people we don’t elect.
No State has complete autonomy. Every State in the Union subjects itself to representatives and Senators they can't vote for. Suck it up.

On top of that, the United States is dragging California into the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement which conflicts with our values.
Trump doesn't like the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement either.

As a U.S. state, our immigration system was largely designed by the 49 other states thirty years ago. This immigration system has since neglected the needs of the California economy and has hurt too many California families. Independence means California will be able to decide what immigration policies make sense for our diverse and unique population, culture, and economy, and that we’ll be able to build an immigration system that is consistent with our values.
A country with even more porous borders? Good luck with that.

NATURAL RESOURCES/THE ENVIRONMENT
An independent California will have an EPA on steroids.

The Affordable Care Act was enacted by the U.S. Government to lower the cost of health care and expand health insurance coverage to the uninsured, yet millions of Californians still lack access to quality health care because they can’t afford it.
So, you wanted Clinton to expand the Affordable Care Act. Maybe that's because......

California has some of the best universities but in various ways, our schools are among the worst in the country. Not only does this deprive our children of the education they deserve, but it also costs taxpayers billions in social services and law enforcement expenses linked to lacking opportunities resulting from poor education.

And you want to continue on your Liberal, Progressive free-fall?

Anti Obama folks wanted to secede after he was elected. Just like that group, you'll see staying in the Union is your best option.

Deadly Air Conditioners?

Evidently, at some point in the past, I must have signed a petition at the website, change.org. I have a vague memory of having done so, although the subject matter of that particular petition is lost to me. I do, however recall that my signing the petition was done in jest.

I bring this up because, as a result of my having signed a petition in the past, I will, from time to time receive an email from change.org letting me know of a trending petition which they feel I might wish to sign. They're usually wrong.

When I received the latest email from the website, I knew immediately that the petition must concern, in some way or other, global warming AKA Climate Change as there was the mandatory polar bear jpg which, by law, must accompany anything dealing with anthropogenic climate change.

This petition comes from Kay Tea of Seattle Washington and concerns air conditioning.

Kay Tea isn't against air conditioning, per se, but merely against air conditioning units. She admits that cooler room temperatures save the lives of "children, the elderly,[and] pets" and therefore, AC isn't completely evil, but the AC units currently in use world wide are inefficient, and "spew 100 million tons of carbon dioxide into the air each year". Some, she maintains, "contain (and leak) refrigerants called hydrofluorocarbons, a very potent and long-lasting greenhouse gas".

If the petition put forth nothing more radical than that, I might agree. But of course, Kay Tea couldn't leave it there. She had to put forward a GOVERNMENT SOLUTION. You know, cuz Big Government is the solution to every problem we face.

Kay Tea believes that the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Budget and the U.S. Senate Committee on the Budget must use the power of the purse to make air conditioning innovation a top priority. It never occurred to her that there is nothing less efficient than government. It doesn't appear to have crossed her mind that letting the free market take care of this would be the best way to approach this (or any) problem. She need look no further than the failure of federal subsidies for alternative energy sources, like wind and solar, to see examples as to why her idea isn't the best solution.

Living in Philippines, where the four seasons are Hot,Hot,Hot and Hot, I am a....uh.....fan of air conditioning. I am not a fan of increased global temperatures or higher electrical bills. If Kay Tea can find a way to change the laws of thermodynamics and make air conditioning cheap and environmentally friendly, I'd be behind her 100%. I don't think, however, that the answer lies with the United States Government.

Banning Islam in America?

I don't normally use this blog to comment on Facebook memes, but I came across a jpg. on the website this morning so egregious - so anti-American that I couldn't let it slide.

The photo shows a kneeling, medieval warrior with the words "Anti-Islam. To Be Opposed To Evil is To Be Opposed To Islam! Let The Crusade Begin! Ban Islam In America!" emblazoned across it.

Has the person who created this image and the Americans sharing it actually read the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

For those who have either not read the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights or maybe have forgotten what's written there, allow me to post it here.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Does this need an explanation?

If one doesn't understand this, perhaps this from the Cornell University Law School will help.

"Free Exercise Clause refers to the section of the First Amendment italicized here:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

The Free Exercise Clause reserves the right of American citizens to accept any religious belief and engage in religious rituals. The wording in the free-exercise clauses of state constitutions that religious '[o]pinion, expression of opinion, and practise were all expressly protected' by the Free Exercise Clause.The clause protects not just religious beliefs but actions made on behalf of those beliefs. More importantly, the wording of state constitutions suggest that 'free exercise envisions religiously compelled exemptions from at least some generally applicable laws.' The Free Exercise Clause not only protects religious belief and expression; it also seems to allow for violation of laws, as long as that violation is made for religious reasons. In the terms of economic theory, the Free Exercise Clause promotes a free religious market by precluding taxation of religious activities by minority sects".

Shall I put this in simple English for Trump supporters?

You cannot ban any religion in the United States of America!

Look, I am not a supporter of Islam. I believe Muslims will spend Eternity in Hell. For that matter, I believe most Baptists, Methodists and other Protestants will do likewise, but I wouldn't consider a ban on those heresies either. There's only one way to salvation and that's through Jesus Christ via His one and only Church - The Catholic Church. If that hurts your feelings, I'm sure you'll want to ban my Right to Free Speech as well.

Hillary Supporter Gives Good Reason to Vote Trump.

First, a disclaimer.

I've found that with nearly every Internet discussion of the 2016 POTUS election, I must immediately let it be known that I do not support either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton for the office. I will not, under any circumstances, cast a vote for Clinton or Trump.

Now that I've gotten that out of the way, I can get on with the subject of this post. More and more, I'm finding Liberal, Progressive or otherwise Left-leaning Christians telling me that, in spite of the fact that Hillary Clinton is not their first choice for POTUS - some even positively dislike her - they prefer her over Trump because a vote for Trump will end life as we know it on this planet and they will do anything to stop this devil incarnate.

One such Progressive Christian is Benjamin L. Corey who posted on his "Official blog of Benjamin L. Corey" a piece, entitled No, A Hillary Presidency Won’t Be The End of America. I'm not sure why Mr.Corey feels the need for an "official" blog. Are there a slew of "unofficial" Benjamin L. Corey blogs taking over the Internet?

I digress.

In the above linked to post, Mr. Corey argues that one reason to support Hillary is her unrelentingly ambition, which will further her drive for accomplishment and rare place in American history. Actually, that doesn't do it for me. As someone who disagrees with many of Clinton's policies, the last thing I want to see is her unrelentingly ambition to further her agenda.

Mr. Corey goes on to say that "Trump himself has no desire to govern, and that his VP would be the most powerful VP in all of history". As one who finds Trump otherwise repulsive, the idea that he may sit back and let a Vice President Mike Pence run the show, while he preens, is an attractive thought.

Mr. Corey might have hit on the only reason any thinking person could cast a vote for the Donald.

John Hinckley Jr. to be freed after 35 years

John Hinckley Jr., who attempted to President Ronald Reagan in March, 1981, is scheduled to be released from a Federally operated psychiatric hospital and needless to say, quite a few people are upset with U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman decision to release the 61 year old Hinckley.

Comments left on the Washington Post website include:

"A terrible decision.
When someone shoots a President, no matter how privileged one's background, there should not be a return to society.
Reagan's would-be assassin, Hinkley, being released - a person who paralyzed James Brady (a brave man who fought an admirable fight against gun madness, but nevertheless lost his crusade to the sickness that is the NRA), a person who also shot the Secret Service agent who sacrificed his body to prevent Reagan from taking another hit?
This is wrong.
Thank goodness that New York State has been keeping John Lennon's horrible murderer from returning to society".

and:

"If there's any bloodthirsty, marginally-insane terrorist out there, representing any half-assed crackpot group, and you need a little practice targeting a totally expendable American piece of crap, why not pay John Hinckley a visit? If the guy has to do volunteer work anyway, running down the street with a bull's eye on his back would seem to be right down his alley".

Folks on Facebook were equally upset.

"This man tried to kill the President of theUnited States and he gets out of jail. We are becoming a nation of complete assholes".

" 'Insane' that is a good word to describe this. Shot Prez Reagan, paralyzed Bradey, tried to shoot others! He should rot in jail till death!"

"He should have gotten the death penalty!"

However..........

Ronald Reagan was far and away my favorite POTUS. There'll never be another like him. But, I happen to agree with the President Reagan's son Michael Reagan, who believes the time has come to release Hinckley. Michael Reagan said the former president didn't believe in holding onto feelings of anger, "My father not only could say the Lord's Prayer, but lived the Lord's Prayer because of his forgiveness of John Hinckley".

The younger Reagan also said, "As my father taught me, if you want to live with anger all of your life, you're gonna be very unhappy. You've gotta learn to forgive and get on with your life and go forward, instead of looking back and being angry all the time."

According to Michael Reagan, President Reagan wanted to visit Hinckley and tell him in person that he forgave him, but doctors would not allow it.

Two Pleasant Surprises

Leaving the apartment this morning with my son for our daily walk to the market, I received two very pleasant surprises. As mentioned in yesterday's post, the crew doing the repair work on the bridge near our apartment began pouring concrete into the wooden frames. When I saw the amount of work done this morning, I could hardly believe my eyes. The men had accomplished much more than I had expected them to do.

I have no idea how long the crew worked yesterday, but we can be sure that it could not have been past 5:30. They certainly would not have been out there working after the sun went down. For all I know, they could have completed their work much earlier than that.

The two photos show a before and after of the bridge. The angle of the two shots is not exactly identical, but one can see the progress made after one day of bucket brigade cement pouring.

The 2nd surprise of the morning came as we left the market area in Poblacion headed home; there I saw a crew of three men and one woman, wearing bright yellow vests, and carrying yellow trash bags, removing the political signs that had practically blanketed the town since before Monday's election. It was really nice to see the local government taking the initiative. I'm assuming - although I could be mistaken - that the crew was being paid by the Poblacion barangay. When we entered Cangmating, there were still quite a few political signs. Granted, most the the sari sari stores in Cangmating had removed the signs in front of their businesses, but there were a lot of signs stapled to random trees and isolated walls. If the crew was being paid by the Poblacion barangay, it would be understandable that they would not be removing signs in another barangay.

There is still much to be done in Philippines in order to clean up the litter and general untidiness, but the removal of these political signs so soon after the election is a step in the right direction.

Leave Prayer Out of U.S. Public Schools

According to a 2015 study, conducted by Pew Research Center in association with the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, "......clear majorities of Twitter (63%) and Facebook users (63%) now say each platform serves as a source for news about events and issues outside the realm of friends and family."

I,for one, find that study more than a little disturbing.

One particular problem with "news" gathered on Facebook is that anyone can post virtually anything onto Facebook. The reliability of Facebook stories is highly questionable, yet one of my Facebook "friends" falls for every news story posted onto the social media network - no questions asked.

In some cases, the story may be factual - up to a point - but the story is basically "old news". In the one, two or three years since the original story was posted, there may have been several updates which contradict the, so called, news item.

We've all seen Facebook postings of a celebrity's "recent" death, years after it happened.

It was a Facebook item that I came across today, that became the genesis of this rant. As shown in the photo below, the "news" is that Mississippi now has prayer back in it's public schools.

The photo is actually from 2013 when Mississippi Governor, Phil Bryant signed into law policies that will allow students at public schools a limited public forum to express their religious views.

Quite a few people believe the law allowed prayer in the classroom. Well, not exactly.

The law required "…public schools to develop policies that will allow students to pray over school intercoms, at assemblies and at sporting events. While not allowing school-sanctioned prayer, the law permits students to offer public prayers with a disclaimer by the school administration".

Last year, courts found that "There was clear evidence that these Christian assemblies were endorsed and organized by the school. To continue to deny a constitutional violation had taken place was untenable." Thereby disallowing any school sponsored prayer. And Mississippi's third largest school system had been hit with a $7,500 fine after a judge found the school violated a previous order by allowing a pastor to pray at an honors assembly.

A parent has a Right and a responsibility to bring up their children in the faith of their choosing. A parent also has the Right to raise their children as atheists, if that's their wish. No one has the Right to force their religious beliefs onto the children of other people.

My wife and I are Catholic and as Catholics, we are required to bring up our child as a Catholic. We have a Catholic home life. We attend Mass regularly. We pray together as a family. In addition to that, we have always sent our son to Catholic school - first while living in the U.S. and continuing his Catholic education in Philippines. Because we believe prayer and religious education is vitally important, we send him to schools that share our values.

If we were living in the U.S. and found we could not send our son to a Catholic school, I would hope that the public school would not allow school sponsored prayers of any kind.

Why? As this blogger points out,

"If an employee could lead a Christian prayer, there would also have to be concessions made for a teacher to be able to lead a Muslim prayer, Buddhist prayer, Jewish prayer or any other prayer of their choosing. Most people do not like the idea of an adult being able to lead their child in prayer. You could not allow only one kind of prayer and not make concessions for other religions. It’s an all or none type of situation. Not to mention, many people feel that it is not an educator’s place to push their religious convictions upon their students. That responsibility rests with the parents at home."

I cannot understand why this argument is not obvious to those folks calling for prayer in school. The last thing we should want is have a government employee pushing his or her religious views on to students.

If you want prayer in your child's school, send your child to a private school run by the religious group of your choice.

My 2016 Election Predictions

I'm going out on a limb. Despite my horrible record on predicting U.S. Presidential elections, (in 2007 I predicted Mitt Romney would be elected POTUS in 2008) I'm going to give my predictions now for the 2016 election.

Hillary Clinton will become the Democrat nominee, Trump the Republican.

Secretary Clinton has incredibly high "negatives" but will win the election simply because more Americans hate Trump than hate her. 2016 will be the ultimate "hold your nose while you vote" election.

As I write this, I have no idea who Clinton will chose as her VP running mate. I hope he/she is a good one.......the FBI report on her activities will force Congress to impeach Clinton. Not only will Hillary be the first female POTUS, but she will be the first POTUS to have matching impeachments with her former POTUS husband.

Because Hillary was elected on an anti-Trump referendum, there will be little sympathy for her - leastwise not enough to prevent an indictment and impeachment.

My prediction - Hillary will be elected POTUS in 2016, but will not finish her first and only term.

Cruz and Fiorina

Trump, reacting to news that Sen.Ted Cruz has already chosen Carly Fiorina as his vice presidential running mate, should he win the nomination, called Cruz's move "desperate".

Obviously, Cruz is hoping to stop Trump's momentum. The Senator has no chance, mathematically, of reaching the magical 1237 delegates needed to clinch the Republican nomination on a first ballot. His only hope is to prevent Trump from reaching that number himself and perhaps his VP pick will help Cruz pick up delegates in Indiana.

Earlier this year, I wrote that my choice, at the time, would be a Rubio/Fiorina ticket. Obviously, that won't happen, so I suppose a Cruz/Fiorina ticket is the best I can hope for. Personally, I believe Cruz made the right choice. Of course, not everyone agrees with me. I'm probably in a distinct minority.

I enjoy reading Michelle Malkin, but unfortunately, I haven't been following her lately. I suppose that's why it comes as a surprise to me that Malkin doesn't agree with the Fiorina pick. Malikin writes that Fiorina raises 11 red flags.

It was not at all surprising that a Cruz/Fiorina campaign would upset the crazies at Planned Parenthood but to Tweet that Cruz and Fiorina are ".....comin' for your uterus" is a bit over the top.