Saturday, October 3, 2026
Friday, October 2, 2026
The Renee Good Case Isn't What the Headlines Say
The officer that Renee Good hit with her car had to be treated at the hospital for internal bleeding. You don't hit the gas pedal when there is an officer standing in front of your car.
My Facebook Posts from ten Years ago
Here are some things I posted ten years ago on Facebook. Interestingly, I got some backlash from the anti-Trump people.
#1
I said that I was going to stop worrying about politics, but that is going to have to wait until tomorrow, because I feel a serious need to rant. 😀
When John McCain was running for office, the mostly liberal press did everything they could to vilify him. They said that he was a womanizer who abandoned his disabled wife. I don't know what the truth is, but here is a man who served his country for decades, and people on the left relentlessly attacked his character.
Mitt Romney got the same treatment. He was portrayed as a billionaire who took over companies and fired people. Never mind the fact that he was brilliant at saving companies from bankruptcy. Mitt Romney is probably one of the nicest people to run for President, but the left successfully portrayed him to be a bad person.
Character assassination is a convenient way to not debate the issues. Why have any serious debate when you can just dismiss your opponent over his character? I am only concerned because there are going to be a number of people who make up their minds solely based upon what they hear in sound bites.
Now the left and the press have pulled out all the stops on Donald Trump. Much of this started following Trump's announcement of his candidacy on June 16, 2015, where he said the following ...
"The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems.
Thank you. It’s true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people.
It’s coming from more than Mexico. It’s coming from all over South and Latin America, and it’s coming probably, probably, from the Middle East. But we don’t know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don’t know what’s happening. And it’s got to stop and it’s got to stop fast."
I think that Trump's comments were meant to be primarily about illegal aliens. But the press reported that Donald Trump attacks all immigrants. The Mexican press reported that Trump said all Mexicans are criminals and rapists. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have seen interviews where people in Mexico still believe this.
The attacks on Trump have been so persistent and so vicious that it makes it impossible to have any kind of rational debate on immigration and border security.
In regard to illegal aliens, I have reason to believe that much of what Trump said is true. Crime statistics for illegal aliens are quite high. Thirty seven percent of the people in federal prisons are non-citizens. It is higher in California. Illegal aliens commit 11.7% of all the crime in the United States.
So Donald Trump has been attacked for mostly telling the truth. You can nitpick over details, but immigration is a serious issue.
I will be the first to admit that Donald Trump is a narcissist. I personally think that Hillary Clinton is a sociopath. We have two of the most flawed candidates we have ever seen and we are stuck with them. Despite this, either one is competent to be president. The press has tried to make this election about personality, but I think that what is important is the type of government these two candidates represent. The issues have taken a back seat to character assassinations.
Just when I thought that things could not get any worse, somebody has been putting up naked statues of Donald Trump all over the country. These effigies are not flattering. This is not only obscene, but it is the meanest form of political discourse. It is cruel. It has made my blood boil. Rational debate has gone out the window.
What kind of outrage would there be if people put up naked statues of Hillary Clinton? People would scream bloody murder.
#2
Borders define a country. Borders exist to protect citizens from hostile forces coming into the country. The open border position seems to me to be Utopian in that it wants to extend our freedoms to people outside the country. I would understand this if everyone in the world respected freedom, laws, private property and if some weren't looking for a handout. But if some people got their way and adopted open borders, then I think that they would not like the result, which would be disastrous. As I have said before, people will come here until we become so crowded and our resources become so limited (and expensive) that here will no longer be as desirable a place to live. More importantly, there are aggressive people who gladly would come here to hurt us. The issue of national security alone is more than sufficient as to why we need to control our borders.
I am for legal immigration. I think that it needs to have limits. What those limits should be is debatable. If you have limits, then you need to enforce those limits, or else they become meaningless.
Best wishes,
John Coffey
#3
#1
I said that I was going to stop worrying about politics, but that is going to have to wait until tomorrow, because I feel a serious need to rant. 😀
When John McCain was running for office, the mostly liberal press did everything they could to vilify him. They said that he was a womanizer who abandoned his disabled wife. I don't know what the truth is, but here is a man who served his country for decades, and people on the left relentlessly attacked his character.
Mitt Romney got the same treatment. He was portrayed as a billionaire who took over companies and fired people. Never mind the fact that he was brilliant at saving companies from bankruptcy. Mitt Romney is probably one of the nicest people to run for President, but the left successfully portrayed him to be a bad person.
Character assassination is a convenient way to not debate the issues. Why have any serious debate when you can just dismiss your opponent over his character? I am only concerned because there are going to be a number of people who make up their minds solely based upon what they hear in sound bites.
Now the left and the press have pulled out all the stops on Donald Trump. Much of this started following Trump's announcement of his candidacy on June 16, 2015, where he said the following ...
"The U.S. has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems.
Thank you. It’s true, and these are the best and the finest. When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.
But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we’re getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They’re sending us not the right people.
It’s coming from more than Mexico. It’s coming from all over South and Latin America, and it’s coming probably, probably, from the Middle East. But we don’t know. Because we have no protection and we have no competence, we don’t know what’s happening. And it’s got to stop and it’s got to stop fast."
I think that Trump's comments were meant to be primarily about illegal aliens. But the press reported that Donald Trump attacks all immigrants. The Mexican press reported that Trump said all Mexicans are criminals and rapists. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have seen interviews where people in Mexico still believe this.
The attacks on Trump have been so persistent and so vicious that it makes it impossible to have any kind of rational debate on immigration and border security.
In regard to illegal aliens, I have reason to believe that much of what Trump said is true. Crime statistics for illegal aliens are quite high. Thirty seven percent of the people in federal prisons are non-citizens. It is higher in California. Illegal aliens commit 11.7% of all the crime in the United States.
So Donald Trump has been attacked for mostly telling the truth. You can nitpick over details, but immigration is a serious issue.
I will be the first to admit that Donald Trump is a narcissist. I personally think that Hillary Clinton is a sociopath. We have two of the most flawed candidates we have ever seen and we are stuck with them. Despite this, either one is competent to be president. The press has tried to make this election about personality, but I think that what is important is the type of government these two candidates represent. The issues have taken a back seat to character assassinations.
Just when I thought that things could not get any worse, somebody has been putting up naked statues of Donald Trump all over the country. These effigies are not flattering. This is not only obscene, but it is the meanest form of political discourse. It is cruel. It has made my blood boil. Rational debate has gone out the window.
What kind of outrage would there be if people put up naked statues of Hillary Clinton? People would scream bloody murder.
#2
Borders define a country. Borders exist to protect citizens from hostile forces coming into the country. The open border position seems to me to be Utopian in that it wants to extend our freedoms to people outside the country. I would understand this if everyone in the world respected freedom, laws, private property and if some weren't looking for a handout. But if some people got their way and adopted open borders, then I think that they would not like the result, which would be disastrous. As I have said before, people will come here until we become so crowded and our resources become so limited (and expensive) that here will no longer be as desirable a place to live. More importantly, there are aggressive people who gladly would come here to hurt us. The issue of national security alone is more than sufficient as to why we need to control our borders.
I am for legal immigration. I think that it needs to have limits. What those limits should be is debatable. If you have limits, then you need to enforce those limits, or else they become meaningless.
Best wishes,
John Coffey
#3
Thursday, October 1, 2026
Thoughts on the Election
People who are happy have no real need for politics. However, no such creature exists. People are always unhappy about something, and they want the government to either fix it or stop fixing whatever it is that they don't want the government fixing.
If you ask people what they are for, they are more likely to tell you what they are against. People are much less united about what they want, but they will unite in lockstep against something they oppose. However, there is a danger that, in their opposition, people will vote for something just as bad or worse.
This is why politics is so negative. There are distortions where politicians describe the other side as evil, far beyond any actual reality, because that is how they unite voters behind them. It might not matter that their side is also flawed, just as long as the other side appears worse.
So politics is primarily reactionary.
I repeatedly think to myself that nobody will believe the rhetoric that is being thrown around, but apparently they do. The roughly 10 to 20% of voters in the middle can be persuaded to one side or the other, mostly by things that they don't like about the current government. This middle group has the power to decide elections because everyone else is already committed to their side.
Of course, turnout is vital to an election. Often, a flawed candidate will simply not motivate their voters to show up at the polls.
I think that the political left is more united in its goals. If you ask 20 people on the right what they are for, you might get 10 different answers. However, even though the left doesn't always admit it, they seem more united in their goal of establishing some kind of socialism. They have kept their eye on the prize, and everything they say they want is just another incremental step in that direction.
Individual voters have no power to decide elections. Whether or not you show up to the polls will have zero effect on the election. For this reason, I feel that politics has become a spectator sport, where both sides hope their team wins and the other team loses.
It seems to me that maybe the incentives are all wrong. The federal government has become so powerful that I hardly care about or pay attention to local and state elections. For this reason, I like the idea I saw recently that we should go back to having senators appointed by the states. Although it is less "democratic," it would counterbalance having two branches of Congress elected by popular vote by having state interests also considered. It would also incentivize people to pay more attention to local and state elections.
The incentives are wrong because the system rewards people for voting for government spending. However, we are going bankrupt so fast that I see little hope for the future of this country. We are headed toward a situation where fiscal reality is going to hit us upside the head very soon, and we are going to have to contend with the fact that we have run out of money.
I consider it my birthright to live in a free country. I feel that I was promised a government that had constitutional limits to its power, as dictated by Section 1, Article 8 of the Constitution. However, constitutional limits disappeared before I was born, mostly bolstered by liberal Supreme Courts that ruled that the Interstate Commerce Clause gave the federal government nearly unlimited power. As a result, I have no right to freedom beyond what mob rule will allow.
If you ask people what they are for, they are more likely to tell you what they are against. People are much less united about what they want, but they will unite in lockstep against something they oppose. However, there is a danger that, in their opposition, people will vote for something just as bad or worse.
This is why politics is so negative. There are distortions where politicians describe the other side as evil, far beyond any actual reality, because that is how they unite voters behind them. It might not matter that their side is also flawed, just as long as the other side appears worse.
So politics is primarily reactionary.
I repeatedly think to myself that nobody will believe the rhetoric that is being thrown around, but apparently they do. The roughly 10 to 20% of voters in the middle can be persuaded to one side or the other, mostly by things that they don't like about the current government. This middle group has the power to decide elections because everyone else is already committed to their side.
Of course, turnout is vital to an election. Often, a flawed candidate will simply not motivate their voters to show up at the polls.
I think that the political left is more united in its goals. If you ask 20 people on the right what they are for, you might get 10 different answers. However, even though the left doesn't always admit it, they seem more united in their goal of establishing some kind of socialism. They have kept their eye on the prize, and everything they say they want is just another incremental step in that direction.
Individual voters have no power to decide elections. Whether or not you show up to the polls will have zero effect on the election. For this reason, I feel that politics has become a spectator sport, where both sides hope their team wins and the other team loses.
It seems to me that maybe the incentives are all wrong. The federal government has become so powerful that I hardly care about or pay attention to local and state elections. For this reason, I like the idea I saw recently that we should go back to having senators appointed by the states. Although it is less "democratic," it would counterbalance having two branches of Congress elected by popular vote by having state interests also considered. It would also incentivize people to pay more attention to local and state elections.
The incentives are wrong because the system rewards people for voting for government spending. However, we are going bankrupt so fast that I see little hope for the future of this country. We are headed toward a situation where fiscal reality is going to hit us upside the head very soon, and we are going to have to contend with the fact that we have run out of money.
I consider it my birthright to live in a free country. I feel that I was promised a government that had constitutional limits to its power, as dictated by Section 1, Article 8 of the Constitution. However, constitutional limits disappeared before I was born, mostly bolstered by liberal Supreme Courts that ruled that the Interstate Commerce Clause gave the federal government nearly unlimited power. As a result, I have no right to freedom beyond what mob rule will allow.
Wednesday, September 30, 2026
1,400 Years of War
AI Overview
Yes, the "dancing Israelis" narrative is an antisemitic conspiracy theory and a baseless myth that claims Israel or Jewish people had foreknowledge of or involvement in the September 11 terrorist attacks. [1, 2, 3]
Origin of the Myth
- The Arrests: On 9/11, police detained five young Israeli men in New Jersey after a witness reported seeing them acting jovial and taking photos while watching the World Trade Center burn. [1, 2, 3]
- The Investigation: The FBI detained and thoroughly investigated the men, conducting multiple background checks and polygraph tests. [1]
How it Became a Conspiracy Theory
Early Morning Darkness
It is 7:25 AM. The official sunrise is 7:35 AM. I noticed how dark it was, with the light just barely beginning to appear in the sky. This is why I don't want to go on Daylight Saving Time all year round. It would be bad in the winter where sunrise would be around 9:06 AM in early January. I think it would be better to stay on Standard Time.
I have suggested for decades that we should have "Compromise Time," where we set the clocks halfway between Standard Time and Daylight Saving Time and leave them there. I just hate having to change all my clocks twice a year.
I have suggested for decades that we should have "Compromise Time," where we set the clocks halfway between Standard Time and Daylight Saving Time and leave them there. I just hate having to change all my clocks twice a year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)