When an orphaned bear cub or an injured bear is encountered, we care for it. It is the kind and ethical thing to do.

When a healthy bear wanders onto your property, you shouldn’t feed it. Everybody knows why. If you feed the bears, they will hang around, make messes and become dependent upon the handouts. They will lose the desire and ability to fend for themselves and their health will suffer. This is very unkind.

Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle and San Antonio have excessive numbers of physically sound homeless people hanging around, creating messes and often dying on the streets. Can anyone guess why?

Are Liberals free thinking enough to understand what it is about their agenda against which a person with Trump’s bloviating, narcissistic, rude and infantile personality can not only compete, but win?

Here’s my answer: Apparently not.

The reason: That would require an open mind and thinking on one’s own rather than as a brainwashed mob.

iheart Radio just fired a large number of talented and loyal employees in the process of modernizing its business. From my perspective, local radio survives on talented personalities, not on cost cutting and infomercials. Time will tell if I’m wrong. I regularly listened to KFBK for many years. With two exceptions, the current lineup is pathetic. I tune away to find more intelligent radio.

Clearly iHeart is focusing on a younger demographic and abandoning loyal listeners. The result is increasingly ignorant aural fare and may end up backfiring. The powers that be in radio have a history of stupid decisions.

Malicious prosecution is a tort suable in court. To prevail in such a suit, four criteria must be met and proven. While this is often difficult to do, in blatant cases it can be done. Let’s take Trump’s impeachment as a theoretical example.

Number 1) Trump must prove he has been acquitted of the charges brought forth in the impeachment and that the case is at a close. Assuming he is acquitted, that would be a given.

Number 2) Those charged with malicious prosecution (perhaps Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, et al.) actively participated in the impeachment. Easily proven. They did so publically.

Number 3) Trump would need to prove there was no probable cause or reasonable grounds to support the original case. This is where the ground gets shaky. While its possible the two articles of impeachment ( Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress) could be debated, both charges have shown themselves subjective as to whether they were actual offenses according to party lines. Trump could argue the process of attempting to remove him from office preceded the formal impeachment and is, thus, part and parcel of it. In other words, an “illegal conspiracy” existed which voids the validity of the charges being brought in the first place.

Finally, Number 4) Trump would have to prove those who initiated the impeachment and continued to prosecute it did so with an improper purpose. Considering the uproar from the Democrats surrounding winning the 2016 election and the constant attempts to depose him, it could be argued the impeachment had far less to do with the two Articles of Impeachment, than with the partisan democrats’ agenda; thus diminishing the impeachment’s entire validity.

Malicious prosecution is a civil tort and, as such, it’s difficult to understand what type of punishment would or could be applied if Trump prevailed in such a suit. In a perfect world, the defendants would be censured for the remainder of Trump’s presidency. Perhaps personal monetary reimbursement could be required to offset public funds used for private political gain. I doubt that would be possible under the circumstances. However, a simple win for Trump would blacken the political eyes an injure the legacies of those whose partisan shenanigans focused away from their elected jobs at hand.

In any event, I would enjoy watching. It would make fun TV.

In the wake of the U.S.’s missile strike which killed Iranian General Soleimani, Democrats and some Republicans are angry Trump did not consult with Congress prior to the strike.

Let’s look at this logically and with a bit of history in mind. Both sides of the political aisle agree Soleimani was a bad and dangerous dude. He had orchestrated the killing of many Americans and apparently had plans to continue doing the same. Both sides agree the world is a safer place with Soleimani disappearing into history. So, what’s the problem…and why didn’t Trump brief Congress prior to the missiles being launched?

Secrecy. First, Congress leaks like a sieve. Second, Democrats hate Trump enough to throw a wrench into anything of value he might plan. Somehow, some folks have gotten the idea that top secret plans regarding national security must be debated in public. The idea is, of course, insane.

I am not a fan of Trump. I didn’t vote for him. I think my choice would have done a better job in the Oval Office. Many, if not most people consider Trump’s mouth to be public enemy #1. There’s good reason for that. Aside from having the tact of a hand grenade and the grasp of the English language as one would a greased pig; his ego is intolerable. But, the benefits of his decisions and actions are undeniable.

Okay, so, on top of everything else he’s done, Trump took out Soleimani. Now he has to face the wrath of partisan fools. Historically, that’s not a bad place in which to find oneself.

It will be interesting to see how his opponents attempt to save face and try to claim his ideas as their own as the years pass because their own egos won’t allow them to admit they were wrong.

L.B.J. fed thousands of U.S. soldiers through the meat grinder in the undeclared Viet Nam conflict with no clear strategy for winning; and when that proved stupid, he quit. Jimmy Carter tried the sweet and friendly approach to peace; which emboldened Iran to take 144 hostages. Those hostages were released when Reagan, with a “peace through power” policy came into office. Clinton refrained from Killing Osama Bin Laden when he had the chance because he was afraid of collateral casualties. 911 was the result. Bush #2 made his own mistake relying on faulty intelligence regarding W.M.D.s. in Iraq as reason for continued involvement in Iraq. The reason we got involved in the first was forgotten by democrats. It was Saddam Hussein’s unprovoked attack on Kuwait and the burning of the oil fields, and his genocidal actions in the northern part of Iraq.

Trump’s precision strike killed a top terrorist general and his buddies, with a history known by the democrats to have killed numerous Americans and with plans to do more of the same. The strike didn’t produce collateral civilian deaths or injuries, but it did cause Nancy Pelosi and her group of nincompoops to decide to introduce legislation limiting presidential war powers.

Raise your hands if you think that if Hillary had been elected president and had taken the same action as Trump, Nancy would be calling for a limit on war powers for the president. Or, would she be introducing legislation to have the United States renamed in Hillary’s honor?

Kindness has its place. It would be unkind to label Pelosi a traitor or a stupid woman. In fact, she’s a very intelligent woman who has no desire to be treasonous. She’s simply out of her mind with hatred for Trump. Those of sound mind who are enabling her may be traitors.

The letter “I” encompasses much of what goes on in Washington D.C..

On the right side of the aisle we see : “I”ndifference and “I”ndecision.

On the left side of the aisle we see: “I”gnorance and “I”nsanity.

From the perspective of the elected official, any policy or decision must have “I” (personal pronoun) as the direct beneficiary or it will not suffice.

“Aye” is one other word forming the “I” sound. It indicates an affirmation. It is used by those in Congress when voting on proposals they’ve either not read or don’t/can’t understand. The other word making the same sound as “I” is spelled “eye” and refers to the two things in the voter’s head which are closed to much of what is obvious. I mention these two examples for the voters who don’t know how to spell “I”.

The definition of the word “we”, when it comes to our combined group’s relevance and importance is always interpreted as the definition of the word “wee”. It should be noted that this is the same value voters place upon vetting candidates and making informed choices prior to entering the voting booth.

Taking into account the maturity level of the politicians in Washington D.C., I think the inauguration of the next president should see some minor changes from previous swearings-in.

The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court should administer the oath of office by saying, “Raise your right hand and put your left hand on your hip. Now, repeat after me, ‘I’m a little teapot short and stout…'”