First they came for Alex Jones and his Info Wars and so many stayed silent, including too many on the political right.  When the same social media organizations come to silence their next right wing website will so may remain silent, or will it be too late?  Once censorship like this begins, there is usually no way to stop it.  The same forces that are silencing Alex Jones have been gunning for Drudge and Breitbart for years.  I fear that it will not be long before those two, and many others receive the same treatment.  The best and only time to resist censorship is immediately, when it begins, and to resist it as forcefully as possible.  Everyone should condemn this shameful treatment of Alex Jones and his Info Wars, no matter if you agree with what he has to say or not.

I firmly believe censorship, of any nature, is always wrong.  I firmly believe everyone has a right to say whatever they want to say, and everyone has a right to listen to whatever they want to listen to.  The most common justification for silencing someone is to label what they have to say as hate speech.  What exactly is hate speech. you might be wondering?  That question is impossible to answer because the concept is way too subjective.  Far too often, any ideas espoused by those on the political right are labeled hate speech by those on the political left, and then those ideas are banned.

This Breitbart Article describes why the silencing of Info Wars happened.

Big tech’s coordinated purge of InfoWars — which was hit by bans from Apple, Facebook, Spotify and YouTube in rapid succession — did not occur in a vacuum. On this issue, Silicon Valley bowed to CNN journalists and Democrat politicians who ceaselessly lobbied for the site to be censored.

It’s a sign of how the concentration of power in America has shifted from big government to big tech that politicians are now lobbying tech companies rather than the other way round, but that’s exactly what happened over the course of the past few months, as Democrats applied relentless pressure on Facebook and other Silicon Valley giants to censor InfoWars.

It is unsociable that members of the Democratic Party would lobby for censoring InfoWars, or anyone else.  This attack of Alex Jones’ freedom of speech was politically motivated.

As you can see in this article by the AP, cries of hate speech were the justification for this purge.

Major tech companies have begun to ban right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones from their services, reflecting a more aggressive enforcement of policies against hate speech following protests on social media.

Facebook has taken down four pages belonging to Jones, including two featuring his “InfoWars” show, for violating its hate speech and bullying policies. Over the past several days, Apple, YouTube and Spotify have also removed material published by Jones. Twitter, which hasn’t banned Jones, has also faced similar calls.

Does Alex Jones or InfoWars engage in anything that can reasonably be called hate speech?  On this I am no expert.  Before this story broke I had never been to InfoWars, or viewed any of his videos.  This is only because I already have a dozen or so websites I visit daily for my news and political information.  I did not have time for another.  Based on what I’ve seen in the past two days, I have not seen any evidence, on just InfoWars, of what could be called hate speech.  Even if the site was nothing but “hate speech” I would still decry the silencing of his sites as forcefully as possible.

Brent Bozell of News Busters has similar opinions on this.  Here is what he had to say in this article:

I don’t support Alex Jones and what InfoWars produces. He’s not a conservative. However, banning him and his outlet is wrong. It’s not just a slippery slope, it’s a dangerous cliff that these social media companies are jumping off to satisfy CNN and other liberal outlets….Social media sites are supposedly neutral platforms, but they are increasingly becoming opportunities for the left and major media to censor any content that they don’t like.

Conservatives are increasingly concerned that InfoWars is not the end point for those who want to ban speech. It’s just the beginning. We are rapidly approaching a point where censorship of opposing voices is the norm. That’s dangerous.

Ben Shapiro, who is no fan of Alex Jones, is quoted in this Daily Wire Article as saying:

Trust in social media is declining nearly as fast as trust in media overall. There’s a reason for that. And it’s not because social media tolerates voices like Jones. It’s because they don’t tolerate voices like Jones while tolerating voices who are just as bad on the political Left – and they show no signs of limiting their censorship to Alex Jones.

Some Democrats are reported to be working on a plan that would very heavily regulate the internet.  The main objective of that would be to completely strangle all forms of communication from the political right.  Here are the details.  Censorship of conservatives by social media is a major problem but government intervention is not the solution.  Government intervention will only make this problem far worse, just like government intervention always does.  Government intervention is not called for in this case.  These companies are private companies.  They have every right to run their companies any way they want to, including censoring others.  I have every tight to speak out against this censorship, and all censorship, as loudly as I wish to, and I’m imploring others to do so as well.

Everyone knew that whoever let the sadness overtake him would sink into the swamp.

The Neverending Story

It’s now been a year since President Trump’s election and I, for one, think that’s plenty of time for all the tantrums to have played themselves out. I can understand the disappointment of the losing side in the immediate aftermath of the election, and I can even understand how they could imagine that all their worst-case scenarios might actually come to pass, even if some of them were pretty ridiculous. But come on, after a full year of actual results, isn’t it time for the Left to stop pretending that the country is doomed?

I can understand having policy differences with the administration. Heck, I spent eight years disagreeing with the Obama administration on just about everything, so I know what that’s like. But the economy is growing at more than double the rate it was under Obama, the stock market is at record levels, ISIS is actually “on the run” now that the rules of engagement have been changed to let our military do its job, and consumer confidence is higher than it’s been in over 15 years. So, what’s the problem?

The problem is that, rather than actually being afraid that President Trump is going to ruin the country, the left is, and always has been, afraid that Trump really will Make America Great Again. So they will seize on any issue, no matter how small, as long as they can use it to claim that they’ve been right all along. What do the Russian collusion “investigation” – with no evidence having been found to that effect after more than a year of investigating – and the fake news story of President Trump supposedly over-feeding fish in a koi pond in Japan have in common? They can both be used to claim that the president is unfit for office. And then the left claims these as proof that President Trump can’t govern.

Think of how our allies, and especially our enemies see this. No matter what the president tries to do, foreign leaders will see a divided country behind him, and a relentlessly negative press and this considerably weakens our position. Imagine if President Trump could engage a foreign leader with the same kind of press coverage that Obama received. This leader, whether friend or foe, would reasonably conclude that President Trump would likely be in power for the next 7 years and could enact whatever policies he might use to entice/threaten/coerce that leader to do what we want. The options of either ignoring the U.S. or actively antagonizing us would be off the table because they would know – or at least perceive – that President Trump means business and that the country is behind him.

Regardless of how much they try to spin it, it is obvious that Obama left the country in a hole. They tried to convince us that it was “the new normal” and that things just were the way they were and had nothing to do with Obama’s incompetence or socialist tendencies. Even with the relentless negativity, President Trump has, in less than a year of governing, been able to reverse a lot of that “old normal,” and that scares the pants off the left. So, unfortunately, I predict that the whining, crying and fake news will continue for the foreseeable future. But at least we can see it for what it is: a desperate and disingenuous strategy to weaken the president and the country until democrats can get back in power. SAD!

Ever since the nomination of President Trump the media began to recycle those tired old clichés.  I’m sure you know the ones I’m talking about.  The most often recited claims are that all those on the political right are Fascists and those same people are all bigots.   Neither of those claims is remotely true but that does not stop the media from spreading them.

A thorough analysis of the first claim will prove it to be factually and historically flawed.  At the historical root of this claim is a tiny bit of truth.  Dating back to before the French Revolution, members of the Fascist party did sit on the right side of parliaments in Europe while the Socialists sat on the left side.  This artificial model, based on seating arrangements alone, is the historical basis for this claim. There is no commonality between the political philosophies of the European Fascists and the political philosophies of the right-wing political movements that exist in the United States.  The framers of the Constitution created their own model to describe the political spectrum, one that is based entirely on fundamental truths about the nature of government.  Using this model, which has been called the founders model, you can accurately place any form of government or political philosophy on the political spectrum based on its actual characteristics.  W. Cleon Skousen discussed the founders’ model in great detail in his masterpiece “The 5000 Year Leap.”

The founders’ model measures the size and scope of government for any given philosophy.  On the absolute right of this model is no government.  What results with no government is anarchy because people are not perfect; some injure others and interfere with the fights of others.  A certain level of government is needed to prevent this from happening.  On the left is an all powerful totalitarian government where no freedom exists.

The first constitution of the United States, the Articles of Confederation, created a government that was too far to the right.  This government was too limited and anarchy resulted.  The framers of the Constitution sought to correct this by creating a government a bit more to the left.  The government created by the US Constitution was powerful enough to prevent anarchy but limited enough to prevent it from interfering with the rights of individual citizens.  The fundamental characteristics of this government were: all government power rested with the people, a small and limited government of enumerated powers, a clearly spelled out written constitution, government power distributed between many levels, a free market economy, maximum freedom, and a focus placed entirely on individual rights.    The philosophy fully embraced by the framers of the Constitution when they wrote the Constitution is Classic Liberalism, which is the opposite of Modern Liberalism.  Classic Liberalism and the Constitution are to the right of center on the founders’ modem.

Right leaning Libertarians are the closest modern equivalent to classic liberals.  Conservativism is more to the left on the founders’ model because that philosophy wants the federal government to intrude more when it comes to social issues.  This move to the left results in a government large enough to move the needle just to the right of center.  Conservatives believe in individual rights, a constitutionally limited government, and free markets.  They however try to use the federal government to ban those practices that they find morally unacceptable.

Here is how Merriam Webster’s online dictionary defines Fascism.  As you can see Fascism is primarily characterized by a strong totalitarian central government, collective rather than individual rights, and a market that is not free at all.  Fascism in near the absolute left of the founders’ model.  Unlike Fascists, Conservatives believe in free speech so they do not silence those they disagree with.  Also conservatives do not focus on race.  Conservative favorites include Thomas Sowell, Clarence Thomas, Allen West, and so many other African Americans,

Socialism and Communism are both farther towards the absolute left of the founders’ model.  They feature more totalitarian government, more collectivism, and less freedom.  Modern Liberalism and Progressivism have a lot in common with Fascism, Socialism, and Communism.  Liberalism and Progressivism both feature much larger and oppressive government, less freedom, collective rights rather than individual rights, and a much less free market economy.  Also these philosophies focus extensively on race with identity politics.

Intolerance and bigotry are not the exclusive domain of the political right unfortunately the media continuously makes that claim.  Intolerance and bigotry are tragic human failings that encompass the entire political spectrum.  Because the political left believes in much larger governments intolerant and bigoted people on left can do more harm.  Hitler was a fascist therefore he was a left winger.  The Nazi Party was the National Socialist German Workers Party, sounds very left wing to me.

All hate groups such as the Klu Klux Klan and neo Nazis are labeled right wing but are they?  Democrats formed the Klan during reconstruction.  Most Klan members are Democrats.  The Southern, slave holding States were controlled by Democrats along with the Southern states during Segregation.  As I stated earlier Nazis were on the political left.  The Neo-Nazis advocate for the same National Socialism therefore they are also on the left. This article shares my assessment.

The Tea Party, which is the most right wing of all political movements based on its political philosophy, was vilified right from the start as a mob of racists and bigots.  There was never any proof of these accusations.  There were racist signs seen at Tea Party rallies but these racist signs made up roughly 3 percent of all Tea party signs, that is according to the a New York Times survey.

We must correct these incorrect statements whenever possible.

Secretary of State Tillerson continues to beat up NATO nations for not paying their fair share.  Normally we hear these complaints by people leaving, so it’s refreshing to hear them early, which means we might actually get some reform.

Liberals seem loathe to support Trump on this point, and I’m not sure why.  NATO’s own data shows the gap is real.

But this is percentages, which mean nothing.  With Microsoft Excel as my friend, I calculated what this actually means in terms of billions of dollars, using the data from NATO’s website.

That’s 121 billion dollars, with a ‘B.’  But still again, this is just a number, impersonal and meaningless.  It means more when you dig into budgets and find out what nations are spending the money on instead:

Secretary Mattis was right to tell NATO nations to pay more.  NATO nations are taking care of their own while allowing America to bear the cost of fighting terrorism and keeping the world safe for trade.  The 121 billion would make a dent in student debt, to the tune of giving every student almost 6,000 dollars.  It could pay for better health care coverage or help us improve our own infrastructure.  In short, you’ve been paying for child care and a host of other services for non-Americans.

But wait, there’s more.  Not only do these nations pay less, but when we go into combat, they do less.  In Afghanistan, lot’s of people “contributed,” but placed restrictions on their troops.  German soldiers couldn’t operate at night (no night light perhaps?), wouldn’t transport Afghans, and only operated in the quietest regions of the country.  Out of 26 nations, 20 placed restrictions on troop usage.  A common saying was that NATO would fight for Afghanistan until the last dead American.

I still believe in NATO (I used to work with them).  I still think NATO has a place in this world.  I don’t think freedom is going to defend itself, and NATO provides a good way to keep democratic governments free.  But Denmark shouldn’t pay for it’s health care on the backs of American Sailors, and Canada shouldn’t provide child care while American Soldiers struggle to keep their own child care open.  NATO paying their fair share is something all people, liberal and conservative, can get behind.


This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other federal agency.  Then again, Secretary Mattis did tell NATO to pay up, so maybe my views reflect some of his own.

Check out my blog, and hit up Da Tip Jar when you can!

I had just moved to the Norfolk area in 2008, and managed to get my TV antenna working on inauguration day.  I sat down with my wife and we watched President Obama mess up the oath, but otherwise get sworn in as President of the United States.  I hadn’t voted for him, but it didn’t matter: he was now my President, and I figured the least I could do is watch history be made.

While he was President, I didn’t personally approve of many of the foreign policy and military decisions he made.  I carried them out just the same, and I certainly tried my hardest to make them work.  I had my chance to express displeasure at the voting box.  Dissent ended there.

Flash forward to 2017, and we had boycotting and violent protests at the inauguration.

To which I say, grow the hell up.

Don’t tell me your  boycott is a private choice, because if you simply didn’t want to watch, you wouldn’t broadcast it on social media.  I certainly don’t remember people openly boycotting Obama’s inauguration, and had they done so, I’m sure they would have been labeled as racists.

Saying President Trump is “not your President” just makes you look like a whiny little kid.  In fact, it turns off those who were on the fence in the first place and it confirms every bad thought they had about liberals.  Want to impress people?  Get off your soap box and prove your ideas work.  I and others are more convinced by missionary stories than when a 20-something whines to me about poverty.

Get up, stop rioting, and get out in your local community and make it better.  Do enough of that, and you might have enough influence to change elections in the future.


This post represents the views of the author and does not represent views of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other federal agency.

Please check out my blog and drop some money in Da Tip Jar!

illinois signBy John Ruberry

You can once and for all drop any lingering belief you may possess that Barack Obama is a bi-partisan unifier. A Chicago Democrat in the Illinois House who believed in compromising is now a lame duck because of our leftist president.

Illinois has been locked in a budget battle for nine months. The primary combatants are Republican political newcomer Bruce Rauner, the first Land of Lincoln governor to win a majority of voters since 2002, and House Speaker Michael Madigan, who has led the lower chamber in Springfield for 30 of the last 32 years. He’s also chairman of the Illinois Democratic Party. His daughter, Lisa, has been the state’s attorney general since 2003.

If there is a poster child for the problems of America’s fifth-largest state–a declining population, deficit spending, woefully underfunded public pensions–it’s Michael Madigan, who has been a member of the Illinois House since 1971.

Last month President Barack Obama, whose first public office was as an Illinois state senator, spoke to the General Assembly where he hailed the graces of compromise and working across the aisle with the opposition.

“Where I’ve got an opportunity to find some common ground, that doesn’t make me a sellout to my own party,” Obama said that day, after which Rep. Ken Dunkin (D-Chicago) stood and cheered.

“We’ll talk later, Dunkin,” Obama quickly replied and then continued his speech.

And so Obama talked.

Dunkin is the type of politician Obama who was able to “find some common ground” with Governor Rauner. Madigan’s gerrymandering talents created super-majorities in both chambers of the General Assembly–with not a vote to spare. But Dunkin defied Boss Madigan several times by preventing several overrides of several Rauner vetoes.

Madigan responded predictably by directing funding to the campaign of his primary opponent, Juliana Stratton. She also received Obama’s endorsement and the president–and here’s  the”We’ll talk later” part–appeared in a Stratton radio spot and narrated a TV ad for her.

Shouldn’t Obama be focused on defeating ISIS, tackling the federal deficit, and creating jobs? No, he has better things to do, it seems, such as sticking his nose in a state legislature race that means nothing to a family of four in, let’s say Ohio, that is struggling to get by.

Television advertisements in the expensive Chicago TV market are unheard of in state representative races.

John "Lee" Ruberry
John “Lee” Ruberry

Republican interests contributed heavily to Dunkin’s campaign.

Last Tuesday was primary day in Illinois–and Stratton easily bested Dunkin. The Democratic Machine defeated the compromiser.

Obama is a fraud. He should be ashamed of himself but of course he isn’t.

John Ruberry regularly blogs and Marathon Pundit. He’s a life long resident of ILL-inois.

IndianaBy John Ruberry

When Indiana governor Mike Pence signed into law a Religious Freedom Restoration Act on Thursday, the Hoosier State became the 20th state to enact such a law.

More from the Weekly Standard:

The first RFRA was a 1993 federal law that was signed into law by Democratic president Bill Clinton. It unanimously passed the House of Representatives, where it was sponsored by then-congressman Chuck Schumer, and sailed through the Senate on a 97-3 vote.

The law reestablished a balancing test for courts to apply in religious liberty cases (a standard had been used by the Supreme Court for decades). RFRA allows a person’s free exercise of religion to be “substantially burdened” by a law only if the law furthers a “compelling governmental interest” in the “least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

So the law doesn’t say that a person making a religious claim will always win. In the years since RFRA has been on the books, sometimes the courts have ruled in favor of religious exemptions, but many other times they haven’t.

This law protects a bakery owned by devout Christians from, let’s say, not baking a wedding cake for a gay union because it violates their religious belief that marriage should be reserved only for one man and one woman, but this law does not permit to exclude gays as customers in all cases. What that business receives is protection from a discrimination lawsuit.

White River, Indianapolis
White River, Indianapolis

As for that gay couple, they can always find another bakery–that won’t be very hard to do–and the newlyweds can write a nasty Yelp review about the first one while on their honeymoon. Interestingly Yelp is one of those businesses considering a boycott of Indiana because of the its new Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  But just three weeks ago with great fanfare, Yelp opened an office in Chicago. Illinois, yep, you guessed right, has an RFRA law on the books.

In a statement released on Friday, Yelp’s CEO Jeremy Stoppleman said:

[It] is unconscionable to imagine that Yelp would create, maintain, or expand a significant business presence in any state that encouraged discrimination by businesses against our employees, or consumers at large.

I guess Stoppelman needs to write a snarky review about himself.

As for Gov. Pence, he’s not helping his case. This morning on ABC’s This Week, Pence was asked six times if the new law will allow businesses to completely refuse services to gays. He couldn’t answer.

No matter: This Hoosier hysteria is misplaced.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

My latest for Watchdog.org notes one thing in the Ferguson report that is actually worth complaining about:

 

The City’s emphasis on revenue generation has a profound effect on FPD’s approach to law enforcement.  Patrol assignment an schedules are geared toward aggressive enforcement of Ferguson’s municipal code, with insufficient thought given to whether enforcement strategies promote public safety or unnecessarily undermine community trust and cooperation.

This practice sets up a perverse reward system if you are a cop, the report explained:

Officer evaluations and promotions depend to an inordinate degree on “productivity” meaning the number of citations issued.

Of course the left’s outrage here would be more believable if not for …

Alas, while this unity in protecting citizens from abuse sounds hopeful in theory, the reality is the outrage over this practice, at least for some, is selective.

What is selective about it?  You’ll have to go to Watchdog.org to find out

The bottom lin

Albert: Do you remember my briefing, Shona?
Shona: Yeah. Well, no. I remember some of it.
Albert: Some of it?
Bellows: How much?
Shona: Till he put his hand on my knee. And then I was just grossing.
Albert: It was intended as a comfort.
Bellows: For whom?

Doctor Who Last Christmas 2014

Today is Ash Wednesday the beginning of Lent.  A time of reflection and repentance when we examine ourselves and our faults to prepare for the coming of Christ at Easter.

In Catholic parishes you will find extra devotions, regular stations of the cross, extra masses and many chances to receive the sacrament of confession for our sins.

Of course as I explained a few days ago if you have the right political views or are in the right political party you not only don’t need confession you can’t even “sin”

And that brings us to Joe Biden:

The victim this time is Stephanie Carter, wife of incoming defense secretary Ashton Carter, seen here holding forth on ISIS while his better half suffers the ritual indignity of the vice presidential droit de seigneur at swearings-in. Silver lining: Unlike most of the females whom Biden creeped on at last month’s oath-taking for the new Congress, Mrs. Carter is of age.

Byron York tweets we should have a national conversation on this subject and writes :

Biden’s behavior at the Carter ceremony follows his hands-on performance at the swearing-in of new senators in January. The vice president’s performance on that day brought comment from around the world, ranging from “Biden being Biden” to “handsy Joe” to “creepy.”

And asks the obvious question

Do the incidents add up to anything? Assume that all of Biden’s gestures were entirely innocent, just Joe being Joe. Still, in today’s society, sexual harassment complaints have been lodged for less. Biden’s behavior gives critics plenty of ammunition and puts supporters in a difficult position. Why is that kind of stuff OK when the vice president does it and cringe-making when it’s the overly-friendly guy in the office?

Now in fairness to Joe he comes from a time that was much more touchy and depending on his intent it doesn’t even rise to the level of sin.

But consider the kind of nonsense the left is calling sin & the standards by which is it measured when we have been seeing things like this:

I recently assisted a young man who was subjected by administrators at his small liberal arts university in Oregon to a month-long investigation into all his campus relationships, seeking information about his possible sexual misconduct in them (an immense invasion of his and his friends’ privacy), and who was ordered to stay away from a fellow student (cutting him off from his housing, his campus job, and educational opportunity) — all because he reminded her of the man who had raped her months before and thousands of miles away. He was found to be completely innocent of any sexual misconduct and was informed of the basis of the complaint against him only by accident and off-hand. But the stay-away order remained in place, and was so broadly drawn up that he was at constant risk of violating it and coming under discipline for that.

via hotair and you have to ask:  “If  the standards are holding the Vice president to are lower than the standards we hold college undergraduates to perhaps there is something wrong with these standards?”

I think Lent might be a great time for everybody to think about this very carefully.

By John Ruberry

This summer a wonderful story emerged from the South Side of Chicago, a part of the city which has gained international infamy for violence. The story was almost perfect. The Little League team from Jackie Robinson West Park, consisting entirely of African-Americans, became the Little League champions of the United States. They were runner-ups in the Little League World Series, falling to a South Korean team.

Baseball’s popularity among young blacks has been slipping since the 1970s. After a peak of 19 percent in 1986, the percentage of African-Americans playing Major League Baseball has dropped to 8 percent. The decline of organized inner-city youth baseball is certainly a factor in this athletic demographic shift.

Oh, one of the players for JRW, 12 year-old Jaheim Benton, was homeless. But after the Little League World Series, a donor gave his family a rent-free home for a year. The city held a victory parade for the team followed by a rally where Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Governor Pat Quinn lauded their triumph. Jackie Robinson West met with President Obama at the White House. Chicago Magazine named JRW its Chicagoans of the Year.

On the their way to the Series, Jackie Robinson West crushed the local opposition, including a 43-2 stomping of the team from Evergreen Park, a predominantly white suburb near the territory of JRW.

But last week DNAinfo Chicago, in a detailed article, reported on the allegations from, Chris Janes, an official of the Evergreen Park team, that some of the JRW players didn’t live within the designated boundaries of its Little League territory. Bill Haley, the president of Jackie Robinson West, denies the allegations.

The evidence that Janes right is quite strong. US Rep. Robin Kelly Tweeted that three members of JRW lived in the suburban part of her Chicago area district. In its “Faces in the Crowd” feature, Sports Illustrated reported on another player who resided in the suburb of Homewood. Two other suburbs boasted of their own athlete on Jackie Robinson West, while other players lived outside of the JRW territory–but in the city, according to DNAinfo Chicago.

Little League International dismissed Janes’ charges that JRW was effectively a regional all-star team. Their response is that Jackie Robinson West provided the necessary documentation to prove residency for its players. However, for reasons that no one can explain, LLI doesn’t disclose the boundaries for each individual league. And some JRW parents counter their boys are from split families, with one parent residing within the league’s zone. But claiming residency in an area for the sole reason of being able to join a team is against LLI’s rules.

Local media has dutifully reported on Janes’ allegations, and JRW’s denial, but they haven’t delved into the the details of DNA Info Chicago’s story.

Perhaps they don’t want to dismantle that almost perfect story of black kids from a bad neighborhood becoming champions. Or maybe Chicago reporters are afraid of being labelled racist.

Ruberry brothers, author center, in their Little League days

But if Jackie Robinson West did cheat, team officials should be held accountable and the JRW national championship should be revoked.

Little League is a big business, LLI has a $60 million TV contract with ESPN that runs through 2022.

Call me old-fashioned, but youth sports are supposed to build character and more. My oldest brother was a Little League coach in New England. While his team was being clobbered during a game, opposing players taunted his youngsters with derogatory chants. My brother objected to the other team’s coach, telling him, “Hey, isn’t this game supposed to be educational?” Well if it was that day, some boys were clearly learning the wrong lesson.

Putting ringers on a team is the wrong lesson too.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.