“Age is a state of mind.” –Hermann Hesse

“Age isn’t how old you are but how old you feel.”  – Gabriel Garcia Marquez

One of my favorite subjects in high school was geometry. I especially enjoyed doing geometric proofs where, using a set of rules, or theorems, we would start with a set of agreed-upon facts about a problem (“given that angle A-B-C is a right angle”) and apply proven theorems to show how the facts lead to a specified conclusion (“prove that line segment BC bisects line segment DF”). One aspect of these exercises that appealed to my logical (and slightly OCD) brain was how the theorems themselves were built up from other theorems. Once we proved a hypothesis, it became a theorem that we could use to prove additional problems. But we had to start from somewhere. We started with “axioms” which were statements that were taken to be true and did not require proof (“two parallel lines never intersect” for example). One way we tested hypotheses in geometry was to see if they led to a contradiction of another previously-proven theorem or axiom. If a contradiction could be shown, then the hypothesis was proven false. In other words, starting from common principles, we could logically apply a set of rules to establish the accuracy or truth of a statement about a given problem. One would think that such an approach ought to work in society as a whole.

The science of genetics tells us that a person born with XY chromosomes is a male and one born with XX chromosomes is a female. This is an objective fact. According to dictionary.com, a man is “an adult male person, as distinguished from a boy or a woman.” However, liberals would have us believe that an objectively-defined man could – in fact, must – be considered a woman if he so chooses. So liberals claim that a person’s beliefs about his or her own existence override objective reality. Let’s consider this a hypothesis that we can test using our logical method from high school geometry and see how well it holds up.

There is no logical reason why this ability for a person to change an objective fact about himself or herself based simply on believing it to be so should be limited to sex. If I can make myself a woman simply by believing myself to be one, I should also be able to make myself a different age. Therefore, from now on I am declaring myself to be 68 years old which, according to the Left, now makes me eligible to collect Social Security (current eligible age: 67), Medicare (65) and to withdraw penalty-free from my 401(k) account (59½). I will be notifying the ACLU of this fact and expect them to represent me pro bono as I attempt to collect my money.


Back in 1950 Akira Kurosawa made Rashomon, IMDB as describes the plot,

A heinous crime and its aftermath are recalled from differing points of view.

Thus, the Rashomon effect,

The Rashomon effect occurs when the same event is given contradictory interpretations by different individuals involved. The effect is named after Akira Kurosawa‘s 1950 film Rashomon, in which a murder is described in four mutually contradictory ways by its four witnesses.[1] More broadly, the term addresses the motivations, mechanism, and occurrences of the reporting on the circumstance, and so addresses contested interpretations of events, the existence of disagreements regarding the evidence of events, and the subjects of subjectivity versus objectivity in human perception, memory, and reporting.

We live in Rashomon times.

On the one hand, there’s the Wolff book, where the author admits he’s lying (emphasis added):

Wolff’s sourcing note in an excerpt explains many of the myriad inaccuracies, saying, “Many of the accounts of what has happened in the Trump White House are in conflict with one another; many, in Trumpian fashion, are baldly untrue. These conflicts, and that looseness with the truth, if not with reality itself, are an elemental thread of the book.”

Anti-trumpers aiming to throw Pres. Trump out of office through a “25th Amendment solution” by declaring him mentally incompetent are relying in this book’s anecdotes.

On the other hand, there’s yesterday’s meeting, aired live for the full 55 minutes. Some things you need to see for yourself, so I encourage you to watch,

Try, if you may, to focus on not on what was said, but on how he managed the meeting:

He invited nearly everyone at the table to have their say. He urged bipartisan cooperation, promising to sign whatever bill Congress brings him.
. . .
He joked, listened, accepted flattery, told anecdotes and presided over a positive tone on an issue that has eluded a legislative solution for a decade or more.

Call it political theater, if you may, but, as I tweeted yesterday,


Check out the reactions to that tweet.

Wolff could ask, ‘Whom do you believe, your eyes or my words?’ “ By now even CNN is skeptical.

Kurosawa would have had material for a great movie.

Michael Knowles highlights what Pres. Trump was doing during the meeting. Pay attention,

Fausta Rodríguez Wertz writes on U. S. and Latin America at Fausta’s blog

Particularly after we see stuff like this via project Veritas:

Remember every single direct message you have sent on Twitter is in these guys hands, does anyone think for one moment that they wouldn’t use your direct messages for political purposes?

I’d like to say it’s amazing but I”m not amazed at all.

In 1999 I had to take a diversity course during my final semester of college out east while completing my first master degree. It was here that I learned of the new view that immigration into the US should resemble a stew instead of a melting pot. This concept greatly disturbed me even then, and we are now constantly exposed to the dangers of a lack of assimilation. Although cultural disharmony threatens our nation’s security, the unintended consequences now pose an even greater threat to the millions of illegal immigrants within our borders who insist on being separate.

On Monday the Trump administration announced the end of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to 200,000 illegal immigrants from El Salvador. This follows the expiration of TPS for tens of thousands of Haitians and Nicaraguans. These populations, though here illegally, were granted annual extensions from multiple prior administrations, essentially making their illegal entry a temporary legal act.

Trump was elected largely because of his promised immigration policies. Over 70% of the nation support his immigration policies. This includes 59% of Hispanic voters.

Getting approximately ¾ of our citizens to agree on anything these days is near miraculous. I argue illegal immigrants have brought this “miracle” upon themselves.

With academia and our government stressing the insignificance of assimilation for decades, large percentages of immigrant populations (especially those from South and Central America and from nearly every majority Islamic Nation) have become increasingly abrasive, while demanding access to entitlements such as in-state tuition, driver licenses, and access to health care and public schools.

Large numbers settle in ethnic enclaves and show no desire to interact with outsiders. In a growing number of Muslim communities, for instance, they are increasingly refuting the power of the state to enforce the rule of law and even demand the power to practice Shariah law. Multiple generations of illegal immigrants from both Hispanic and Muslim areas either do not learn English at all, or speak it only out of necessity.

Their contempt for their host nation is displayed in sports, and large numbers openly demonstrate hatred for America. How many moments like this have we seen on the internet or the evening news?

Is there really any shock that, after decades of public ingratitude and endless demands, that a supermajority of Americans turned against them?

America is incredibly tolerant. There would not be ¾ of us who support stricter immigration policies, including their forcible repatriation, had they behaved like guests and demonstrated a desire to embrace American culture as their own. If the majority of illegal immigrants instead followed the outdated melting pot concept, there is no doubt in my mind that this would not be the leading issue of our time.

To support my theory, I ask a question.  Is there a large public outcry to repatriate Africans or Asians who overstay their work visas or are otherwise here illegally?  No.  Why? For whatever reasons, these populations seem more willing to assimilate and show an appreciation for the opportunities this nation offers.  They do not publicly demand that we become the nations they left behind.

Also on Monday, the Pope delivered his annual address to the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy See. Somewhat surprising, considering his more recent comments, Pope Francis stated that immigrant populations, “must necessarily conform to the rules of the country offering them hospitality, with respect for its identity and values.”


This should be a warning to all immigrant populations, present and future. If you behave badly as a population, you should expect Americans will eventually demand that you leave.