Aug 18, 2015

Trump is not going away

Years ago I thought if someone wanted to run for President of the United States and win all he (or she) had to do was latch on to the intense outrage on the issue of illegal immigration that I detected at the grass roots level all over the country and take a firm stand against it. But it never happened at the Presidential level of either political party and it certainly didn’t get any real support amongst the Republican establishment  and congressional leadership even after the tea party led the way in 2010 and 2014, winning unprecedented landslide victories nationwide.

But these wonderful victories which indicated that the country overwhelmingly rejected President Obama's attempt to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants and take over national health care without a single Republican vote, failed to translate into a change in direction in Washington because the Republican Establishment which now leads the party and their peers in the consultant, donor, and so called conservative media at places like Fox News feared the left too much to follow the will of the vast majority of the American people.

When I heard elite conservatives at Fox News like George Will, Bret Hume, or Charles Krauthammer  explain how the American people would never tolerate mass deportations or prevent illegal immigrants from  getting driving licenses or attending our schools or how they supported policies that declared some cities to be a safe sanctuary for illegal immigrants including many who were vicious criminals that returned to America even after being deported over and over again, I thought this is not conservatism. Ronald Reagan’s conservative model included national security as one of three legs of the stool, the others being fiscal and social. If ever there was a national security issue, the massive invasion of illegal,  illiterate and criminal immigrants including terrorists across our borders with no desire to assimilate into American culture, certainly is it.

These articulate Fox News icons along with Congressional GOP leaders who have turned a deaf ear to the younger voices of dissent are clearly speaking out of sheer fear of the left and the Democrat party, refusing to be labelled a bigot or a racist for criticizing the policies of America’s first black President. And still other than a few voices in the US Congress like Ted Cruz, Mike Lee ,who were quickly lablelled kooks by the establishment leaders who failed to win the Presidency like John McCain and Mitt Romney, no one gained any traction running for President on this issue until Donald Trump came along. Ted Cruz is trying and has loyal supporters but is fighting to gain traction, despite saying the same basic image as Trump.

But Trump is a street fighter and is using the language of the common man, not the smooth, flawless rhetoric of a Harvard Law School grad like Cruz, and its resonating with the masses who speak the same language and call people stupid to their face when they deserve it, just like Trump does.


In fact, only one man out of 16 GOP Presidential candidates is throwing caution to the wind and speaking the language of the common man on the issue of illegal immigration and now has the establishment shaking in their boots because of his surging poll numbers. Despite trying everything under the sun to portray  him as a woman hater and an uncivil buffoon, who engages in theatrics rather than real substance in his campaign appearances, he continues to pull away from the pack.

The establishment continues to poo poo him and portray him as devoid of any gravitas and not worthy to be on the stage with professional politicians, which they believe will become clear shortly.

But what I heard on August 17, 2015, on Meet the Press, while pundits who call themselves conservatives tore him apart on Fox News Sunday, was a substantive and yes conservative message, filled with details and a point by  point analysis while looking serious and presidential at the same time.

“Real immigration reform”, Trump began,  “puts the needs of working people first---not wealthy globe trotting donors. We are the only country in the world whose immigration system puts the needs of other nations ahead of our own. That must change. Here are the three core principles of real immigration reform: 1. A nation without borders is not a nation. There must be a wall across the southern border” and he went on to sell this idea enthusiastically and persuasively to NBC host Chuck Todd.

Secondly he stated in a dignified and presidential manner, “A nation without laws is not a nation. Laws passed in accordance with our Constitutional system of government must be enforced, or they’re worthless.

3. “A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans.

As we get into the details of his plan and there are plenty of details, we have learned that he favors deportations of illegal immigrants as well as children of illegal immigrants born in this country, which Democrats and establishment republicans have wasted no time in characterizing as “radical”, but the average American, as far as I can tell doesn’t consider these ideas radical at all. In fact, if the truth be told,  what the average Joe would really like to see are guard towers along the wall with signs saying: THIS LAND BELONGS TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. TRESPASSERS WILL BE SHOT ON SIGHT...or something to that effect.

I have no doubt that any candidate who dared to utter such words would be carried off in a straight jacket, but because of the intense anger and frustration seething in the hearts of the vast majority of common everyday Americans who could care less about political correctness, that might only endure the candidate to them even more.

And until the GOP understands the depth of disgust and anger that exists in the hearts of the grassroots electorate, they will continue to underestimate the power that Donald Trump now has over them, as well as his ability to actually win the Presidency.



Jul 23, 2015

Something to think about

SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT: Jesus Christ didn’t just become the Son of God at his birth in Bethlehem but he was God the Son long before that from eternity past. It was God the Son, Jesus Christ, who spoke the earth into creation and God the Son who made several appearances as a man in the Old Testament including Melchizedek, the King of Salem (where we get Jerusalem from); the man who wrestled (in prayer) with Jacob all night; the man who visited Abraham and did not need to be born in a human body to appear on earth. His birth in Bethelem, however, was as Israel’s Messiah, and King of the entire earth, though the nation of Israel rejected Him as their king, atleast temporarily, despite  three years performing  miracles and preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom to the Nation of Israel. His role as  Savior for all following his death on the Cross (mostly the Gentiles) was kept secret, along with other mysteries of the Church age,  until the gospel of Grace was revealed to the Apostle Paul by the risen Lord , not on the road to Damascus, but probably during the time  he spent in Arabia, as implied in his letter to the Galations. (Gal 1:17)  Peter, James, and John heard the voice of God the father confirming that Jesus was indeed God the Son: “And after six days, Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, And was transfigured before them; and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him. Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here; if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them;  and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him. (Matthew 17: 1-5)

May 8, 2015

Is Brady's Snub of Obama the Real Reason the Media is Fit to be Tied?

Tom Brady attending President Bush's  State of the Union address in 2004

In the aftermath of the release of the Ted Wells report, commissioned by the NFL on “ Deflate Gate”, the hatred and vitriol expressed by the national news and sports media has raised eyebrows, particularly in New England, as well as many questions.

Some of the questions that Rush Limbaugh pondered out loud during his nationally broadcast radio program the day following the report’s release, were profound, to say the least.

Was it a conspiratorial plot launched within the offices of the NFL in conjunction with the Patriots opponent in the NFL championship game? Was it a belated reaction to the Spy Gate scandal that many in the media as well as throughout the NFL felt had never been dealt with properly, believing Bill Belechick should have been suspended? Or was it insane theories that such compulsions to cheat were so ingrained in the Patriots organization that even the latest Superbowl victory involved intercepting radio signals that led to the game winning interception at the goal line.

Even though such speculations sound as absurd as believing the Bush administration was behind the attacks on 9/11, Rush explained they are actual ideas that can be heard from fans of other teams, players and coaches in the NFL, and members of the sports media.

One of the questions that Rush pointed out that has received little attention in the media thus far is political in nature.

The unequivocal chorus of accusations of “cheating” and irrational hostility following a report that didn’t use the word cheating a single time caused Limbaugh to speculate that “something else must be going on, including retribution for having the wrong political views, due in large part to Brady’s absence from the recent field trip to the Obama White House, where the President himself shocked the team by reciting “deflate gate jokes”, probably written by White House press secretary, Josh Earnest.

Earnest had already nailed Brady with a vicious and tasteless joke at a recent press briefing. It was that joke which may have been the real reason Brady didn’t accept the invite, and not his reported commitment to a family event. The fact is he was spotted at Gillette Stadium the day the team was in Washington, so nice try Tom.

On page 228 the report concludes: “In sum, the data did not provide a basis for us to determine with absolute certainty whether there was or was not tampering, as the analysis of such data ultimately is dependent upon assumptions and information”

Limbaugh further expounded by saying: “That’s like an asterisk saying: “We don’t know whether anything we’ve said here is true, because the data doesn’t provide a basis for us to determine with absolute certainty.”

So how does that lead to the conclusion that Brady cheated? Answer: It doesn’t. So as Rush logically states and I agree: “There must be something else going on here.

Rush also believes they could be irked by Brady’s get together with renowned Obama hater, Steve Whyn in Las Vegas, following his much publicized chartered flight to the Kentucky Derby with a group of his buds.

It certainly seems plausible to this proud Rush Limbaugh ditto head and New England Patriot’s fan as he sips his coffee from one of his prize possessions, a bright red coffee mug with the New England Patriots logo on it.

Go Pats. Go Rush. Go Tom Brady.

Please don’t roll over and let these Patriot haters in the NFL office and throughout the league destroy you. Fight back.

If the league comes down harshly. Appeal and appeal and appeal. Insist that the 66 interviews that were not included in the report be made public and examined further. Use the scientific data on atmospherics obtained in the report commissioned by the Patriots when the NFL first revealed the results of their abominable sting operation that allowed the NFL championship game to be played when they were fully aware, not only that the Patriots game balls were underinflated but that three of the Indianapolis Colts balls were underinflated as well, an important piece of information that was relegated to a footnote in the report.

Have your representatives insist to Commissioner Goodall that all those in the league office, who had knowledge before hand of the accusations being made against the Patriots  be investigated, and have them take as much time as it took to determine that Tom Brady’s general awareness of an effort to keep the balls down to the legal limit of 12.5 PSI when refs were routinely pumping them up to 16 PSI was only “probable”, not conclusive.

And if after he does that, the Commissioner still wants to suspend one of the greatest quarterbacks and surefire Hall of Fame candidate in NFL history so be it. But if he does I would like to be a fly on the wall when Roger Goodall  explains to the President of NBC why the starting quarterback for the Superbowl champions on opening day in FoxBorough this year will be a kid named Jimmy Garoppolo, and not Tom Brady.

Apr 1, 2015

MARA President Speaks Out on LT Gov's Reversal on Same Sex Marriage

Mary Lou Daxland, President of the Massachusetts Republican Assembly (MARA)
According to the Boston Globe, a leading conservative voice in Massachusetts politics, Mary Lou Daxland of the Massachusetts Republican Assembly, expressed her displeasure with the decision by Lieutenant Governor Karyn Polito, who once led the fight against gay marriage in Massachusetts,  to officiate at a gay wedding for Senate President Stanley Rosenberg, who is marrying his long time domestic partner in NorthHampton, MA  later this month. 

Daxland, who leads an organization of dedicated conservative activists,  stated: “It is mind boggling to me…This is an issue that you can’t flip flop easily on”

“It is a principle, early in life, and  you don’t waffle on it”.

Well apparently she did after GLBT groups publicly voiced their concerns about Polito’s sincerity to support issues that have historically been opposed by those on the right who support traditional moral values, as Politio once did, but rejected when pressured by Governor Baker, who has gone out of his way to support the radical liberal agenda of the Democrat party during the short time he has been in office.

“It is one thing to say I am for gay marriage”, it’s quite another to go and officiate at one”, Daxland said. “I don’t know what is in her head”.

According to the same article: “Another assembly board member accused Polito of switching her positions for political gain by catering to socially liberal groups that could advance her public career”

“It is the politically expedient thing for Karen Polito to do” said Ron Beaty, a former GOP State Senate candidate from West Barnstable.

The news has occurred during the holiest week of the year for Christians when emotions over traditional marriage and fear that they are losing the Culture War, has been at a fever pitch among social conservatives nation wide following the signing of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act by Indiana Governor Mike Pense.

Those on the left believe the RFRA is nothing more than a veiled license to discriminate against proponents of same sex marriage, while most conservatives see it as simply a needed protection for the constitutionally mandated right to the free exercise of their religious rights, which they believe come from God and are under constant and severe attack these days by intolerant and bigoted, anti-christian  homosexual activists on the left and the mainstream media.

The Jazz Patriot believes it is even worse than that with the news that the top two officials in the State of Massachusetts have now chimed in with the growing chorus of support for same sex marriage and sexual practices referred to in the Bible as “an abomination” to God and the results of God turning man over to a reprobate mind, but it is actually an effort to strike a final blow to what little influence Christianity now has over a culture that has been dominated by Christian values since our forefathers landed at Plymouth Rock and the founding fathers signed the Declaration of Independence and put the protection of religious rights first and foremost in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. 
Karen Polito to Preside Over Gay Marriage

Destroying Christianity is the Real Agenda Behind the cries of discrimination 


Mar 31, 2015

Destroying Christianity is the Real Agenda behind the cries of discrimination

The liberal Media is going nuts over the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) that was signed into Law Thursday by Indiana Governor Mike Pense because they say the law is a license to discriminate against gay people. It doesn’t seem to matter to them that the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise in the Hobby Lobby Case and that Indiana is the 20th state to have such a law. Nor does it matter to celebrities like Miley Cyrus, or Ashton Kushner, who have weighed in and said this is wrong.

Wait a minute. Did I say Miley Cyrus said this is wrong? Well…that changes everything, doesn’t it?


In my opinion the GLBT community has an agenda to end the influence Christianity has had on the country since it’s founding and that is the real story behind their supposed concerns for discrimination against gays. And that is why the liberal media sees this as an opportunity to further advance their anti-Christian agenda.

If destroying Christianity wasn’t their real agenda there would be no need for states to have religious liberty laws, when our religious liberties are already protected in the U.S. Constitution.

If destroying Christianity wasn’t their real agenda there would be no need to charge traditional Christians with accusations of discrimination and bigotry, when the gay community is winning everywhere and America is no longer the Christian nation it was intended to be by both the forefathers who landed at Plymouth Rock and the founding fathers at Philadelphia who pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor when signing the Declaration of Independence “with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence from their creator, who they believed endowed them with certain unalienable rights including “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”

And if lunging the final spear into the last vestiges of a Christian culture in America  wasn’t the real agenda behind the cries of discrimination then: A gay couple, for example, who wants a wedding cake would not really have to go to a bakery that they know is run by devout Christians to purchase their cake. There are bakeries all  over this land run by people who are indifferent towards this issue who would be glad to have their business. But that is not good enough for these intolerant, bigoted homosexual activists.

Modern day Christians are so ignorant of the Bible, thanks to the ongoing secularization of our culture,  that I bet only 1 in 100, no make that a thousand,  could even recite from memory any verse that states God’s opinion on the subject as they probably could during the years leading up to the American Revolution.    But here is one from the Apostle Paul who under inspiration of the Holy Spirit in I Corinthians 6:9 says:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

And BTW this is not an obscure passage written for Old Testament Jews living under the law of Moses. It was written for “believers” today by Paul, and is still applicable today for the “Body of Christ” which Paul refers to as the Church.

Some of us really believe that which is not to say that we do not care for homosexuals any more than we wish harm for any who are enslaved by any of the sinful habits listed by Paul. If that were not true God the creator of the universe would not have come to the earth in the person of Jesus Christ and died for our sins whether we be straight or gay, drunk or sober, saint or sinner. God loves us all which is the real message we should be focusing on this Easter season.  

Not whether we should allow a relatively small but intolerant group of people strip away the last signs that true Christianity still exists in this once blessed country.

But we should be courageous and honest in sharing our faith and attempting to live a life that is pleasing to God, no matter what the consequences, and we should be protected by our courts when we choose to do so, as the founders intended.

Would a Muslim baker be accused of discrimination if he refused to place two men on top of a wedding cake? Well either should the Christian. Or the Christian photographer who refuses to take a photo at a modern art exhibit showing Christ in a jar of urine? Or the Christian musician who refuses to perform ganster rap where every other word is the F word.

I hope you're starting to get the point.

Mar 28, 2015

The Right to Vote Includes the Right Not to Vote

Staying home on election day has always been a time honored tradition and cherished right when one feels disappointed or alienated from the process in which we select those who represent us at all levels of government, whether it be local, state, or federal.

As a conservative republican living on the Massachusetts’ South Coast I am forced to exercise that right frequently.

But President Obama made it clear in March at a town hall meeting in Cleveland, during what appeared to be a spontaneous totalitarian rant off teleprompter, that he does not consider this a right and believes very strongly that Soviet style voting laws forcing Americans to vote under threat of legal penalty would help transform America, and I certainly don’t disagree with that.

He already is forcing everyone to purchase healthcare even when they don’t want it. Now he wants to force them to vote, even when the names on the ballot are repugnant to them, as the names, Martha Coakley and Charlie Baker were to me in 2014, because of their support of amnesty for illegal immigrants, same sex marriage, and the continuation of legalized bloodbath called abortion, which so far has resulted in the senseless murder of 55 million developing babies. And Baker was even a member of my own Republican party, at least that is what is implied when a candidate has an R beside his name. 

In full disclosure, I will admit I voted for the candidate of my party in the general election, not the primary,  but I held my nose while entering the voting booth. Many others stayed home or voted for a candidate who had no chance at all of winning. That was their choice and right. Now our President would like to take that right away.

What is interesting is that the President and most Democrats in Washington, as well as in Massachusetts, have opposed laws that would require voters to produce some sort of identification at the polls, in an effort to prevent fraud on the grounds it would infringe on their rights and liberties. Now he wants to force everyone to vote, whether they want to or not, which is just one step away from mandating how they should vote.

And that could happen with one stroke of his mighty presidential pen, which has been busy as of late.

But the president knows he only has to offer free cellphones or other “goodies“ like say tax refunds for those who don’t pay taxes, or blanket amnesty to illegal immigrants leading to US citizenship to get large constituencies voting for Democrat politicians forever and a day.

 “It would be transformative if everybody voted” the President said only 5 months from the day the Democrat party endured another landslide defeat in an off year election.

“That would counteract money more than anything”, referring to campaign money and the Citizens United decision, in which the US Supreme Court allowed corperation’s to contribute to political campaigns, as a way to exercise their free speech. The President apparently still hasn’t recovered from that decision, and Justice Samuel Alito is probably still shaking his head, as he did during the State of the Union speech when the President publicly chastised the justices for having an opinion that differs from his.

And finally: “If everybody voted, then it would completely change the political map in the country”.

Yes, it would Mr President and it would also deny us our constitutional right to express our opinion through the voting process, which by-the-way also includes not voting for candidates when there is no one on the ballot who shares our world view or that we trust.