Monday, January 30, 2017

While most people lean on the Declaration of Independence to support the concept of life and liberty (as well as the "pursuit" of happiness), few realize that the Constitution has something to say about life and liberty, too.

The Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution declare that governments cannot deprive any person of "life, liberty or property" without due process of law.

As a U.S. citizen, you are constitutionally guaranteed the right to life. Without due process of law, your right to life cannot be deprived by the government. The same is true of your right to liberty. Likewise, property. (There is no right to the pursuit of happiness in the Constitution itself).

Amendment 5: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 14: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The federal government (not to be confused with any other governmental entities) must exercise due process of law in order to take from a citizen his right to live, his right to liberty and his right to own and keep property.

In order to understand those rights, you have to know what each means. IN my next post, I will provide for you the meanings imparted by those words at the time they were written and how they apply today.

Thursday, January 26, 2017

Who Are Real Feminists and Who Are Spoiled Idiots?

Note: While this video violates the language requirements of this blog, I show it to make a point: American "feminists" are fake, foolish, and feckless. They are spoiled brats who are born in and steeped in ignorance, lack of class and anger-for-anger's sake. Not one of them can think her way out of a wet paper sack. They are below the level of meaningless drivel.

The use of this video does not alter the rules of this blog in any way. Get over it.

Sunday, January 22, 2017

I Know...It's a POLITICAL Blog...BUT

The problem with our country today is NOT guns, knives and bludgeons. It is NOT poverty. It is NOT right wing or left wing politics.

The problem with our country is that we have a broken moral compass. The part of our compass that DOES work is warped by almost 54 years of rank relativism resulting in a compass that cannot point us in the right direction.

It reminds me of the old pun that tells of a man who had a compass. The compass was of a special kind called a Tates. It had the North pole marked on the East side of the compass, the South pole on the North side, the West at the South and the East on the West. The moral of the story is that in the middle of a forest, he who has a Tates is lost.

Facts are funny things. They are what they are. Facts are facts. The problem comes not from facts, but from the proper, logical straight-line thinking when understanding those facts.

One of the MAJOR factors that has resulted in the warping of America's moral compass was a Supreme Court ruling in 1963 which said, effectively, that for a public school to have and engage in a specific time of prayer was unconstitutional. The argument for it centered around what was supposed to be some "...wall of separation between church and state," something that is not even obliquely addressed in our constitution.

The phrase comes from a letter penned by Thomas Jefferson to a church in Danbury, Connecticut. Its intent, according to Jefferson, himself, was to ensure the members of the church that the government would not be engaged in violating their freedom to worship as they please.

The whole idea was twisted by "progressive" minds to mean the EXACT opposite of what Jefferson meant by it, and that twist continues to this day.

People who imagine the greatness of their own minds and thought processes will vehemently disagree, but the facts are the facts. While the letter meant to keep government out of the church, the twist made it seem like the church should be kept out of government. (Kinda weird, since Jefferson actually held worship times in the capitol and wrote his very own version - if greatly subverted - of the Bible).

Today we have organizations whose sole purpose for being is to keep religious thought and practice out of the "public" arena. That, in spite of those who practice convoluted thought patterns that result in false conclusions, is a perversion of what this country was SUPPOSED to be about, according to those who formed it.

Let's take a brief moment to look at the actual phrasing of the Constitution of the United States of America. It won't take too long, and it's pretty easy.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Four items are mentioned: religious establishments, speech, the press and peaceful assembly for the purpose of addressing grievances against the government. 

Notice that it does not say that I cannot make a law, that you cannot make a law, that local and/state governments cannot make a law. It says CONGRESS shall make no law. Since the Constitution is a federal document, it is obviously referring to the federal government, not other entities.

It says that Congress can make NO law. NONE. NADA. The Congress of the United States of America, whether the House of Representatives or the Senate, cannot make a law that has to do with (respecting) an establishment (not the establishment) of religion or its free exercise, abridges (affects) the freedom of speech, or of the press or the right of people to gather together to express disagreement with what the government is or is not doing.

That's it! Done! Constitutionally, Congress just can't get involved. Period.

"Well we all know that you can't yell 'Fire" in a crowded theater."

Actually, you can. At least you cannot be prevented from doing so by the federal government. Not according to the Constitution.

Having said that, it is a very bad idea, unless there really is a fire, but Congress can't keep you from doing it. The local gendarmerie, can. Just not the feds.

All of that being said, for the Supreme Court to have ruled anything about prayer at all violates both the word and the spirit of the Constitution.

Since that time, a wild series of crazy "progressive" restrictions, rules and regulations about a myriad of issues has brought us to a time of so-called, political correctness, that has resulted in societal intrusion into freedoms and fear among the nation's inhabitants.

Each intrusion resulted in moving the moral compass's directional indicators to a place they don't belong (like the Tates, above).

Thus we are lost.

So I say again: The problem with our country today is NOT guns, knives and bludgeons. It is NOT poverty. It is NOT right wing or left wing politics. People with a good moral compass don't ever even consider using a weapon of any kind to inflict harm on another without just cause. It just does not happen.

The problem with our country is the total lack of any national moral compass at all.

I don't know how far is too far from which to return. We might already be there. If we are (and both Clinton and Trump give some evidence that we might be), then we are doomed to dissolve into the annals of history, replaced by some unrecognizable entity that lacks both liberty and freedom.

Neither you nor the federal government can keep me from praying, so I pray that we soon discover that our moral compass is found in, and only in, a right relationship to God through His son.

Yep. That's my prayer. It's even my prayer for you.

Thursday, January 19, 2017

This Has Never Happened Before?

Look, there have been four presidents before President Elect Donald Trump who lost the popular vote and won the Electoral College vote. They were:

John Q. Adams

Rutherford B. Hayes

Benjamin Harrison

George W. Bush (Florida notwithstanding).

They all turned out to be "legitimate" presidents and served the country in that office.
o now we have:

Donald Trump

Donald Trump, by ANY measure, is the legitimate next president of the United States of America. Anybody who says otherwise is a stupid box of hot air, and probably a Democrat hack.

So tomorrow he will be today he yesterday he was inaugurated.


Tuesday, January 17, 2017

Speaking of John Lewis

"It will be the first one that I have missed."

John Lewis is a liar.

He missed George W. Bush's inauguration.

In typical Democrat fashion, Lewis believes something is true because he said it, whether it is really true or not.

Why do you suppose Jake didn't call him on this? Maybe he hadn't done real journalism and didn't know it. Maybe he just was so bent on Lewis being believed that he didn't want to expose him.

Guess which.

Watch the whole video HERE.

Monday, January 16, 2017

Dr. Martin Luther King and John Lewis

It was 1964, in St. Augustine, Florida when Dr. Martin Luther King came to town. I was there.

Dr. King had always been one of my heroes, so when I heard he was coming, I decided to join him in his cause.

It was not a safe thing to do, as racist feelings ran deep in St. Augustine. I was accosted by some local vermin as I sat at the lunch counter during a "sit-down" rally, to show my support for them.

Later, I was approached by three toughs who threatened to "...take me out back and cover me with black shoe polish." Fortunately a sheriff's deputy drove up at just the right moment to encourage them to leave me alone.

Later that day, I joined Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s march through St. Augustine. I was way back in the back of the group, but I didn't care. I was part of what I thought was a just cause.

I never met Dr. King, nor did I always agree with him, but I always respected him and held him in high esteem.

Enter Congressman John Lewis.

Back in the march on Selma, Alabama, John Lewis was attacked and beaten by police. He was a staunch ally of Dr. King and seemed to be a real spokesperson for the ideals Dr. King held to.

In ensuing years, Lewis has usually approached civil rights calmly and with at least a semblance of reason and determination. Although we are on different sides of the political fence, I have always thought him to be one who represented the ideals of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

I have changed my mind about Congressman Lewis, something about which I doubt that he cares in the least.

His recent decision to call President-Elect Donald trumps looming presidency "illegitimate" is just absolute sophistry.  It is born, not of reason, but of reverse racism and self-pity because his side lost the election.

President-Elect Donald trump will be a legitimate president. He was elected in accordance with the Constitution of the United States of America. You might not agree with him. You might not like him. You might wish he would go away. That's how I felt about President BO (the amateur president). But in the end, Donald Trump will be the president.

I remember liberals wailing about how we conservatives needed to get over it. President BO (the amateur president) was our president and we should accept it. That's what they said...some of them right here on this blog.

So I say to you liberals, "Donald Trump will be our president. Accept it and let's move on to what we need to do to heal our land."

But what I say won't matter a whit. Liberals are who they are, and they are spoiled, temper-laden, hate-filled brats.

So is Congressman John Lewis.

Today, my hero, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is rolling over in his grave because of the likes of John Lewis and his cohorts.

I'm sorry, Dr. King. They just never were smart enough to really understand what you were all about.

Friday, January 13, 2017

Wait! Can't I Make You Answer My Question?

You can see the whole video HERE.

CNN and other members of the Main Stream Media just can't understand why whoever is at the podium should not absolutely have to recognize them and answer whatever "pointed" question they may have.

For years the MSM has forsaken journalism for ideology and called it "news" and/or "journalism." But what they have done is neither.

Here's the way it has been working:

When a liberal is interviewed by MSM, he/she is usually given softball questions. When the question is something of controversy, the question is phrased in such a way as to invite the one being interviewed to answer in a way that is either a side-step or an answer to a question not asked. Then, whatever the answer, the interviewee goes unchallenged or is asked in a benign way to "clarify." The "clarification" is never questioned.

On the other hand, when a conservative is interviewed by MSM, he'she is given questions that ask for a liberal answer. If one is not forthcoming, the interviewer challenges the interviewee over and over, asking the question several different ways and not being satisfied with any answer the conservative gives.

That all happens because of a hard-core bias of the individual members of the MSM.

It is a bit meaningless to attack MSM as though it exists as a sort of organism. MSM is made up of individuals. Each of its members have been taught to "report" a certain way or have "learned" over time to write from a certain perspective. However, since through the hiring process, those with ideologies that do not fit the editor/owners' points of view are culled out of the recruitment process, the result is a sort of collective that behaves like a single organism.

It is the bent of individual members of MSM to present a leftist perspective, even if it means being inconsistent. That is either how they have been taught or else it is what their editors or owners require.

I once applied for a job with a newspaper known for liberal leanings. As a part of the application, I was given a topic on which to write an article. The article I wrote had a subtle, but discernible, hint of conservatism. When I went for the live interview I was told that my "approach" to the subject was not in keeping with the "approach" that this publication preferred. When I pressed a bit, the interviewer told me that my article was "...a little outside of the views of our newspaper."

At any rate, the result of years of developing leftist perspectives has left self-proclaimed journalists with a bias that is decidedly left leaning and with a sense of power that exceeds the limits of what true journalism is or should be.

With the election of Donald Trump, reporters are going to find themselves in a quandary. Those who have been used to being able to bend the "news" to fit their narrative might well find themselves left out of the press-corps loop.

For many years we have been in a "we have the right to insist that you answer questions they way we want them answered" mode.

With the advent of Donald Trump, hopefully, those days are gone forever. Or at least for a while.

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

Monday, January 9, 2017

Friday, January 6, 2017

Unsocial Media and the Main Stream Media

It was an atrocity proudly posted on Face Book. The key word here is "proudly." The people involved wanted everybody to see what they had done.

Don't know what I'm talking about? I'm not surprised. It has hardly gotten any Main Stream Media coverage at all. It was mostly either ignored or moved to one of those "by-the-way" sections of the news cast or news paper.

In Chicago, four black teens kidnapped a handicapped person, beat him, cut him, kicked him, forced him to drink out of a toilet bowl and subjected him to all sorts of other inhumane behaviors. While they were doing these things to him, they were shouting obscene things about Donald Trump, the obvious target of these despicable acts. They also railed against white people.

They were so proud of what they had done that they posted a 30 minute video of it on Face Book. It was graphic, ugly, nasty and scary. But they were proud of it.

Chicago's police chief made a statement about the event, as one might expect. But to say that his statement was soft would be the understatement of the century. He called the episode "...stupid kids doing stupid things..."

Are you kidding me? Imagine what the reaction would have been if this had been perpetrated by four white guys yelling obscenities about Hillary Clinton or President BO (the amateur president) while doing these things to a black handicapped kid. The outrage would have been palpable, and rightly so.

But why do we not see the same outrage from the left over this incident? Where is the condemnation by Black Lives Matters, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the other "leaders" of the left?

Back when Trayvon Martin was in the news, President BO (the amateur president) jumped right in, pointing out that Trayvon could have been his own child. Where is he on this event? Of course this poor handicapped kid was white, and could not have been President BO (the amateur president)'s child.

What a difference a hue makes.

I want to pontificate about how these types of events have snowballed in our society because we have raised a generation with no spiritual foundation. I want to preach about how we have abandoned our religious heritage. I want to point out the moment in history when Americans began to forsake God, leading to the hardening of hearts and calling evil good and good evil.

I want to, but I will resist the urge.

You figure it out.

ADDENDUM: Since the initial writing of this post, a couple of MSM outlets have discovered this video, assuring us that this was not a hate crime or racially motivated. Oops! The perps have been arrested on charges of racially motivated hate crimes. So much for MSM's credibility.

Wednesday, January 4, 2017

Touchy Feely

You see, here's the thing: Liberals are all about, and only about, emotion.

With liberals it's never "I think...", it's always, "I feel..."

It's never about process, it's all about intent.

Whatever the end result desired, the way there doesn't matter.

Think back to when President BO (the amateur president) was elected the first time. Did you see unending videos of Republicans crying, bawling, stomping their feet, rioting, looting, burning and destroying others' property?

What about the second time he was elected? Then?

No. You saw self-evaluation and determination to find out how to do better next time.

After the first election of President BO (tap), conservatives did not learn their lesson. He got re-elected.

But conservatives kept evaluating and reassessing.

And look what happened.

Monday, January 2, 2017

Meet the Face of the Nation's Press

On January 1, 2017 I watched two "Sunday News" programs, Meet the Press and Face the Nation. They were very different in some ways, yet the same in others.

Meet the Press tried to be optimistic, Face the Nation decidedly pessimistic because of Donald Trump.

According to Face the Nation, Trump is the reason the press had such a hard time during the election. His candor, shooting from the hip and attacks on the press were the reason they "lost credibility" in the eyes of the nation. The press tried so hard to be "objective" by pointing out Trump's shortcomings, Trump's hostility toward them and Trump's understanding of the nature and frustration of the American people. They went so far as to point out their failure to demonstrate Trump's bent toward corruption.

Not a word, though, from Face the Nation about their failure to see the American People's perception of the rampant corruption in the Hillary Clinton camp. Not a word about her scandals, past and/or present. She had "difficulties" because of what others did to her, but she, herself, was, in the eyes of Face the Nation, above reproach.

To Face the Nation, everything that has led to Donald Trump's victory favors Democrats for the next election. ???

Meet the Press, though, tried to show an optimistic face. They resolved to keep a close eye on President Donald Trump, in order to make certain that he did everything right. They missed so many signals about Trump's real position in the race for the presidency. They pledged not to miss that many in the future.

Not a word, though, from Meet the Press about their constant praise for Hillary Clinton, her life, her history and/or her "high qualifications" to be the next president. Not a word about her scandals, past and/or present.

According to both Meet the Press and Face the Nation, listeners, in general, were unfair to the media, who were only "trying to do their job'" (ostensibly journalism).

MSM's failure to cover certain aspects of Hillary Clinton's life and/or campaign so frustrated viewers, listeners and readers so much that it gave rise to so-called Fake News.

Fake News is called fake news because it was not propagated by Main Stream Media, therefore must not be real...false logic if there ever was any.

Now, the so-called Fake News, did (and does) extend itself into many nefarious areas. There were plenty of "conspiracy" theories, exaggerations, made up stuff and just plain lies rampant in Fake News. But there was also a LOT of factual material that was just totally ignored by MSM. They didn't want to hear it and they refused to report it.

The American press still doesn't get who Americans are. They think they are the celebrities, the rich and powerful, and most significantly, the press itself. Most Americans are not any of those things, and do not strive to be.

Both Meet the Press and Face the Nation made fools of themselves, Sunday. They don't know it, and they are bound to repeat it.

Sunday, January 1, 2017

Radical Something for the New Year

A radical Christian group has claimed responsibility for an assailant, believed to have been dressed in a Santa Claus costume, who opened fire at a crowded nightclub in Istanbul during New Year's celebrations, killing at least 39 people and wounding close to 70 others in what the province's governor described as a terror attack.

The attacker was armed with a long-barreled weapon. He killed a policeman and a civilian outside the club at around 1:45 a.m. Sunday before entering and firing on people partying inside. 

He rained bullets in a very cruel and merciless way on innocent people who were there to celebrate New Year's and have fun.

Wait! There's something wrong with that story! I can't quite put my finger on it and I sure don't want to rush to judgement. We don't really "know" who carried out this attack (Wink! Wink!)
Notice how the guy on the right tries to "force his views" on the other guy, while the guy on the left is all peaceful and everything.