. . . and to the Republic for which it stands . . .

Standard

After decades of muddled thinking, we finally have a president who understands that the United States is Republic: 50 co-equal states which have the responsibility for the day-to-day business of American life and the welfare of their citizens. No! President Trump isn’t perfect by a long shot, but he’s the best chance we’ve had for decades to rid the Federal Government of a whole lot of freedom-choking redundancy and useless bureaucracy.

Although it’s hardly a consensus opinion, I firmly believe that the Federal Government’s most important job is to keep the United States and all American citizens safe from foreign interference and intervention. There are other important functions, of course, enumerated in the Constitution, but, like the nearly forgotten 10th Amendment says: “all prerogatives not explicitly given to the Federal Government, nor prohibited of the states, are reserved to the states or to the people (i.e. Individual Americans).

Utilize the Free Market

Take health care! Right now the Federal government is spending millions of hours and dollars working out a health care plan for the entire country. While that is going on, enterprising doctors and hospitals around the country are creating free market healthcare systems that are actually working and serving citizens. Wouldn’t it be great if we could get these two powerful forces, the free market and the Federal bureaucracy to work together.

As I see it, that is exactly what President Trump intends to do but to do it, he has to fight the forces of anal-retentive Conservatives; Liberals who refuse to see the error of their ways and the damage those ‘ways’ have done to the United States (especially over the last 8 years); and entrenched bureaucrats who are more worried about being re-elected next time around than they are about the condition of America or Americans.

It’s one hell of a tough ‘row to hoe’ but he seems to be getting it done.

We all need to help in any way we can!

Suggested Reading: 

The Constitutional Role of the Federal Government, an essay by Zbigniew Mazurak at: http://conservatives4palin.com/2011/05/the-constitutional-role-of-the-federal-government.html

Flag: photo credit: kennethkonica <a href=”http://www.flickr.com/photos/38912465@N00/26970270791″>IMG_0331</a&gt; via <a href=”http://photopin.com”>photopin</a&gt; <a href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/”>(license)</a&gt;

Trump’s Inner Child

Standard

In this photo taken Dec. 2, 2015, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during an interview with the Associated Press at the Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Va. In television news, a telephone interview is usually frowned upon. Yet Donald Trump's fondness for them is changing habits and causing consternation in newsrooms, while altering traditions of political access. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)

We (meaning non-Left-Wingers and Non-Socialists) have a presidential front runner who is forceful, not politically correct, successful, strong and personable — who behaves like a spoiled 12-year old. Frustrating!

On top of that frustration, he is allowing the news outlets to portray him as a right-to-lifer, which he is not. The pretext of the abortion questions that he was asked this past weekend was: if abortion was illegal”. Why he fell for that ploy and then unthinkingly implied, when asked who should be punished for the illegal procedure,  that the woman should be punished, I don’t know. He’s not stupid, but sometimes he appears to be very ‘slow.’

This childishness in Trump’s responses and in his demeanor will eventually sink his presidential bid. His advisors are apparently either not giving him good advice or, most likely, he is just ignoring the advice of everyone except that inner 12 year old child.

Jumping back on the Cruz bandwagon will not be too terribly hard but equally as frustrating because one of my most important political positions is secularism and Cruz is the opposite of a secularist. In spite of that, it is a no-brainer; we, as a nation, cannot afford another 4 or 8 years of a left-wing, or Marksist or a socialist administration. I will, I must vote for the Republican nominee be he an adult who sometimes behaves like a juvenile or a person who seems to prefer his religious beliefs to the  equality promised by the Constitution.

Gun Control Or Public Safety?

Standard

To start, let me say that I am, for the most part at least, a strong Conservative. That is to say, I believe in small, limited government, a strong military, secure borders, and free enterprise with only the most necessary restrictions on business. I also believe in legal gun ownership.

Some people believe it should be everyone’s unrestricted RIGHT to own and even openly carry a handgun on their hip. Here in Texas, as in many other states, we have that right, but there are some commonsense restrictions such as having a clean criminal record and not having a diagnosed mental disorder that would make us a danger to others. There are very few responsible American citizens who object to those restrictions.

Yesterday, President Obama announced 10 steps he will take, through executive actions, to enforce those commonsense restrictions and help prevent guns from falling into the hands of people who ‘should not own guns.’

Immediately Republicans in general and Conservatives in particular began sounding alarms and the right-wing media began throwing around the term “gun control’ in the headlines. They are calling the president’s proposals illegal and un-Constitutional; Marco Rubio is quoted as saying  the President is “waging war” on the Constitution and Ted Cruz is promising that if he wins the presidency, these and other Obama executive actions will all be repealed.

All that is for the courts to decide and while the kinds of actions Obama proposed may fall under the very broadest definition of “gun control” they are, more importantly, clearly needed Public Safety measures.

The dirty little secret that the people who are screaming “gun control” are not being very vocal about is the fact that IF THEY had stopped playing politics long enough to create some clean, commonsense legislation that had eliminated some of the public safety threats caused by guns being in the wrong hands; what is about to happen via executive actions would not have been necessary.

A prime example is closing the gun show ‘loopholes’. What, I ask, is worse: causing some minor inconvenience for people who want guns for personal protection or sport, or selling a gun to someone who will have no second thoughts about using it to commit a crime or to someone who is incapable of distinguishing legal behavior from illegal behavior?

Conservative lawmakers are screaming about the 2nd Amendment being violated. Here’s what the 2nd Amendment says: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” In other words, it does not address the problems that are caused by ‘guns in the wrong hands’ so regulations about gun sales, which were proposed yesterday, can hardly be considered a violation of the amendment.

It’s true that nothing being proposed for executive actions would have likely stopped the vast majority of mass shootings we hear about so often but you can be sure that they will make it harder for people who should not have guns to legally own guns, and that will certainly save some lives.

On Monday night the President Tweeted the accusation that the “gun lobby” may be holding Congress hostage, not a comforting thought, but perhaps a very realistic one, considering that Washington is chock full of politicians who care more about funding their next campaign than they do about their constituents’ safety. 

All this is not to say that President Obama is not incompetent or that he does not have a deep dislike for what is traditionally American or that he has not proposed many dangerous, reckless and frankly stupid things in the past. He has always impressed me as someone with an Anti-American agenda, but on this one issue I personally can’t fault his actions.

I want everyone to own and even, if they want, carry a gun — everyone except, that is, the people who are a danger to me and you and our families.

A President in Denial

Standard

As of this Monday morning, the governors of four states: Alabama, Arkansas, Michigan and Texas stated that they refused to accept Syrian refugees into their states because of the very real dangers of hidden terrorists in their ranks. They are putting the safety of their citizens above all else. By evening that count of rebellious governors had risen from 4 to 25. Clearly, it’s a Constitutional question, whether the states can opt out of a federal immigration mandate, but the power of the majority of the states may not, in the end,  win out over an extreme Leftist administration.

President Obama, in remarks following the G20 Summit in Turkey made it clear that he also understands the possible dangers from an influx of Moslem/Syrian refugees:

“. . . one of the challenges we have in this situation is that if you have a handful of people who don’t mind dying, they can kill a lot of people, that’s one of the challenges of terrorism. It’s not their sophistication or the particular weaponry that they possess, but it is the ideology they carry with them and their willingness to die.”

That understanding, however, is apparently not a sufficient reason for him to change his mind about accepting thousands of Syrian refugees in the United States.

He said the United States would continue to accept more refugees from Syria and elsewhere, though “only after subjecting them to rigorous screening and security checks.” Our compassionate president did not, however, acknowledge the fact that we can only screen and check out these people using current databases developed by our security professionals and those of our allies; and he certainly doesn’t want to admit to the American citizens he was sworn to protect that we will know nothing about the vast majority of the refugees he intends to accept.

Those databases that we must use to “subject refugees to rigorous screening and security checks.” will not, and Obama must also know this, will not uncover those terrorists who are in “sleeper cells,” just waiting to be activated . . . exactly the ones that will be seeking entry to the United States to wreak the havoc that ISIL, ISIS, Muslum mullahs and Iatolahs and, in fact, the Quran itself promises to inflict on “infidels.”

National Defense; protecting America and its citizens “from enemies both foreign and domestic” is the president’s most important job — but to avoid doing that job Obama is using the excuse: “That’s not American (to turn away refugees). That’s not who we are.” He then mentions this great compassion America has for the rest of the world’s citizens.

My admittedly jaundiced view of this and many past actions of Barak Obama is that he is intentionally tearing down and corrupting American values, culture, security, national defense capabilities and our countries very soverignty. I repeat, intentionally!

It has been apparent since he first started seeking the presidency in 2001 that Obama has a deep seated contempt for our country and its constitution. Specifically, he made it clear back then that he wanted a road to redistribution of wealth; he stated that the Constitution did not go far enough. His thirst for wealth redistribution clearly marked him as a Socialist, an enemy of our Democratic process. A majority of American’s foolishly elected him anyway.

Knowing what you now know about Barak Obama, listen to this 2001 radio interview on Chicago Public Radio and make up your own mind about his intentions at the time, should he win the presidency.

Yes the United States is normally a compassionate country and will do whatever is needed to help people who are genuinely seeking refuge from dictatorial/inhumane regimes around the world, but this Syrian refugee situation presents a new dimension to the situation, a dimension that forces thoughtful people to seriously consider the possibly dire consequences of compassionate behavior.

Huckabee and the Law

Standard

Huffington Post Headline: “Mike Huckabee On Kim Davis: Obey The Law Only ‘If It’s Right'”
(The GOP presidential hopeful wants citizens to disobey the Supreme Court ruling.)

Mike (God is my Vice President) Huckabee, already out of the running for president, except in the eyes of the most other-worldly Evangelicals), has now effectively trashed his credibility as a presidential candidate.

“Only if it’s right,” Huck? In whose eyes?

There are many thousands of American’s who still think that, in spite of existing laws, openly selling highly-addictive drugs to all who want them is ‘right.’ Should they just go ahead and do their thing? Go ahead and break the law because they don’t think it’s ‘RIGHT?’

Of course not; and I know Huck would agree with me on that because that could not, even in a Disney movie, be depicted as a victimless crime. But neither is the crime that Huck is so readily encouraging his minions to commit, a victimless crime; the crime of taking away the legal rights of tens-of-thousands of gay Americans because HE and his church disagree with their lifestyle.

For everyone, except those with their eyes firmly closed, it’s obvious that the “Free Exercise Clause” of the First Amendment was being misinterpreted as permission to mess with the lives and Constitutional rights of those who fall outside of “accepted religious belief and ritual.”

When Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion was written into law, the Supreme Court was recognizing and responding to the fact that the clear majority of states (37 out of 50) had already legalized gay marriage; but it’s pure folly to hope that the religious far Right will ever agree with the clear (and growing) majority on the subject of religion.

Speaking of the Religious Far Right: Justice Scalia, in the meantime, is bouncing off the walls. Scalia’s dissenting opinion is a scathing attack; surprisingly not attacking the majority opinion itself, but attacking the right of the Supreme Court to write that or any opinion into law.

Following is an excerpt from “The Big Think” titled: “Scalia’s Dissent in the Gay Marriage Ruling is a Dangerous Attack on American Democracy Itself:”

“(Scalia) is rejecting the very right of the Supreme Court on which he sits to adjudicate disputes where the answer requires interpretation of the Constitution, (which is of course precisely what the court did when it interpreted the Second Amendment to enshrine the personal right to own guns, an opinion Scalia wrote), a role that has proven to be a corner stone of American democracy. Because he is upset by this ruling (legalizing gay marriage), Justice Scalia directly rejects the authority of the court itself.”

This is the equivalent of a judicial nervous breakdown, as is illustrated by this excerpt directly from Scalia’s minority opinion:

“… the Federal Judiciary, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers, is hardly a cross-section of America. Take, for example, this court, which consist of only nine men and women, successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale law school. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner. (California does not count.) Not a single Evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans) or even a Protestant of any denomination. … To allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.”

How about that as an example of allowing personal opinion to trash the rights of others and even the right of the Supreme Court to exist.

That said, I can’t help but agree with his unstated accusations that 1) The concept of Supreme Court Justice For LIFE is one that needs a closer look and 2) The Supreme Court inserting itself into the question of marriage is ludicrous.

Kentucky’s Mini-Gods

Standard

Rowan County, Kentucky

County Clerk Kim Davis was a “born again sinner” and claims that, since that day, she has “pledged the rest of her life to the service of the Lord.” To Kim Davis that pledge apparently means that she has become the sole arbiter, interpreter and executor of God’s word.

Kim Davis has apparently forgotten another vow that she made when assuming the position of Rowan County Clerk:

County Clerk Oath:

Did you catch that last sentence? “. . . ” will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God!

Kim Davis is not only a Christian Bigot, she is a person who is willing to break an oath to God based on her own, amateurish interpretation of His word.

Does she hold a divinity degree? Does she have years of experience studying the works of biblical scholars? No, she’s just a reformed sinner who, like so many of her ilk, desperately wants to be a mini-God because she has no faith in her Creator’s ability to run His own show.

Hopefully God will reward her with just enough jail time to remind her of her place in the universe, enough of a fine to make her realize that “so help me God” means something and a period of unemployability that will remind her that she is the humble servant not anyone’s master.

The County Clerk’s oath (above) was borrowed from an article in the Daily Kos about another Kentucky County Clerk, Casey Davis (possibly a relative), who had the same hate-filled Mini-God complex that Ms. Davis has. Mr Davis, however, additionally, felt the need, as part of his position, to “remind” gay people that they would forever ‘burn in Hell.” His story and the above oath of office can be found HERE!

Speaking of Hell, where the Hell does Kentucky find these losers?

South Caroline Church Bloodshed Could Have Ended Sooner

Standard

From the June 19th, New York Times Political News NOW section: “Martin O’Malley, a Democratic candidate for president, called for a new national assault weapons ban and other gun control measures in an email sent to supporters after the shooting deaths at a South Carolina church this week.

An assault weapons ban, which has nothing to do with the massacre at the South Carolina Church, is an idea that has seen plenty of ‘daylight’ in the past but, thanks to the NRA, it has virtually disappeared from the news. Banning assault weapons is not an altogether bad idea; except that it probably violates the Constitution, But before Mr. O’Malley begins to open his mouth and spew forth the phrase “other gun control measures” he needs to take his head out of the sand and understand the FACT that if one or two members of the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal church had hand-guns on their persons and had the guts to use them, lives would have been saved.

Insanity seems to reign in the world of Liberals as it does in the world of Religion. When you consider the “forgiveness” that rained down on that wothless piece of crap who not only shot and killed 9 people but shot them repeatedly, reportedly having to reload several times, you have to wonder about the sanity of the survivors, I cannot forgive those who forgave Dylann Roof for their blatent disregard for the safety of their fellow parishioners. They apparently believe in heaven so much they are willing to allow a murderer to continue the bloodshed without raising a hand (or other weapon) against him. There were most likely worshipers on every side of Roof and apparently not one of them had the guts to “cold-cock’ him with a fist or hymnal or brass candlestick.

Mr O’Mally and others of his mindset refuse to understand the power for good of a gun in the hands of a good person. Killing someone is not a bad thing if it is done with the proper motive and saves the lives of future victims; even most “believers” will tell you that. But unfortunately, Liberals like O’Malley do not believe that the average citizen is intelligent enough to be trusted with that kind of decision.

Hate Crime?

Right now Obama’s lap-dog U.S. Attorney General is supposedly deciding whether or not to charge Roof with a hate crime. Just another publicity stunt! A man who is witnessed shooting 9 people to death must certainly qualify for the death penalty regardless of what is “in his heart” but under the Obama Administration “racial equality and justice” are far more important than common sense or even common law.

REFERENCES:

New York Times: “An Angry O’Malley Calls for an Assault Weapons Ban” 

New York Times:In Charleston, Raw Emotion at Hearing for Suspect in Church Shooting