Let me attempt to confuse things even more. There is a battle going on within the Republican Party.  It extends from national to state to local partisanship.  I speak to the intra-party squabble in Utah.

It appears there is a contest of wills being exerted between the Utah Republican Party Chairman, Rob Anderson, and a sizable portion of the State Central Committee.  To simplify the subject there is an underlying issue referred to as Count My Vote.

On one side, long time party activists seek to maintain what is known as Caucus/Convention system for nominating candidates to run under the official banner of the Republican Party.  Contrary to that system is the initiative known as “Count My Vote”(CMV).  Under CMV any candidate could declare themselves a member and representative of a political party.  They would then have an opportunity to sidestep the   obligations of Caucus/Convention system and by acquiring sufficient petition signatures to have their name placed on the ballot…as an officially sanctioned representative of the party.

Under threat of an initiative process the CMV advocates persuaded the State Legislature to adopt a state law creating a blend of the two concepts.  The Utah Republican Party, in conjunction with other third parties in the state, sought to de-legitimatize the new law as inconsistent with the state constitution, via a lawsuit.

That is about as succinct as I can make the scenario.

The Utah Republican Party elected a chairman who campaigned for the position as a protector of the traditional Caucus/Convention system.  Since that time his actions have been called into question by several member of the State Central Committee of the Republican Party.  The reason for being called into question is the apparent shift in the chairman’s position on the entire question of opposition to the CMV effort.  They claim he has become an advocate of a system which will destroy the Republican Party of Utah.

The latest round of debates (overlooking recent intra-party knock-down drag-out fights) centers around the rights of the chairman to nullify the calling of State Central Committee meeting.

Here are the facts:

  1.  Despite claims by any party official the state central committee, under its (Republican Party) own Constitution and Bylaws, is chaired by the Party Chairman.
  2. In the absence of the Chair the Party Vice chairperson then conducts the meeting.  That is Very Clear, and to an extent substantiates the Chairman’s Claim of certain rights of operations.
    1. The Constitution and Bylaws of the Party DO NOT address directly the process to be followed if the Chair and the Vice Chair are absent.
  3. However, the Republican Party Constitution, Article XIII state “The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order shall govern all meetings of the Party…”
    1. The question then becomes what is the meaning of the word (No, I am not pulling a Bill Clinton here) “current?”  Does it mean current , as in the time of adoption, or “present” as in right now?  Although that question could bear relevance fortunately for this matter it does not.
    2. According to multiple dictionaries the confusion between current and present is made clear.  Current means at the time of, whereas present means right now.  Perhaps the adoption of the Repubican Party Constitution did not take the nuance of those words into account.  I am.
    3. The current, date of the latest version of the Republican Party Constitution was May 20, 2017.  That suggests that the present version of the Constitution prevails, since 5/20/2017.
  4. What makes that particularly relevant is that the current and present edition of Robert’s Rules of Order state the same thing.
    1. In the absence of a chair and a vice chair the Secretary shall conduct the opening of the meeting.
    2. The legitimate participants then select a Chair Pro Tem to conduct all subsequent matters of the meeting.  Upon the presence of the permanent chairman or vice chairman the Pro Tem position is immediately vacated.

Nothing in the existing Republican Party Constitution or Bylaws, which are also subject to state statute, suggest that the absence of the chair or vice chair of any group, having adopted the current/present Robert’s Rules of Order imply that an officially called meeting of the State Central Committee would be illegal or inappropriate.

With respect to the Chairman’s right to cancel a State Central Committee nothing in the Party Constitution, Bylaws, statute, or Robert’s Rules of Order defend that presumption.  He may disagree with the meeting and reject, personally, all aspects of it’s proceeding.  Yet, his only legitimate course of action is to argue against it such proceeding.  He cannot even legitimately refuse to take action dirceted by the State Central Committee, without resignation.

Absent his resignation as chairman by a 60% vote of the State Central Committee, under the Constitution and Bylaws as presently written, that body may remove him from his role.

That Is The Way I See It.


We Need Moore Accountability

Did you like my play on words in the title of this article?  I thought it was clever.

What is not clever is the unruliness of the United States Central Government.  I seriously hope people will take the following suggestions seriously.

Dozens upon dozens of men have been recently crucified on the cross of intolerance and supposition of sexual misconduct.  Some of them members of the United States Congress or running for public office.  [Please read my previous post regarding this phenomena].

I do not opine on the veracity of any of the accusations nor their subsequent denials.  What I do opine on is the general acceptance which we give to salacious gossip being promoted by ne’er-do-well media talking heads and members of Congress.

The onslaught of accusations will only accelerate now that success has been garnered via the Judge Roy Moore defeat in Alabama.  We SHALL see every Tom, Dick, and Harry being accused for the exaggerated effort to destroy them politically.  It Can Be Stopped, at least in the political realm.  Here is how.

Confront it.  Confront it, not for the sake of proving the accusations are false or true.  Confront it to seek greater understanding beyond presumption of guilt for pandering purposes.

A) For every accusation leveled against an incumbent or  candidate for Congress the respective body of Congress, meaning the House and the senate should exercise their Article I-5 rights as a central government body; “Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; “

Character destruction and election manipulation are among the worse behaviors of a people free to select their own governors.  Surprisingly (little known to the masses), the founders designed the Constitution with it abundant and in some cases redundant phraseology to prevent, best as they could, the mass of people from being momentarily persuaded to evil be designing men of a corrupt nature.  Yes, I know that some ultra conservatives who have read the US Constitution once will argue with me, but they would be simply incorrect.

B) Under Article 1-5 every accusation leveled toward an incumbent, Republican or Democrat, should be subject to true evaluation by the House or Senate.  Anyone refusing to provide testimony for any, and I mean ANY, reason to participate in such investigation should immediately be discounted and rejected as salacious.

C) Until such time as the respective house of Congress has made a determination of veracity, under A1-5, no elected official should be seated.

D) Further, though not articulated in the US Constitution, any member of Congress expressing views regarding the election of members outside of their respective states should be directly and publicly censured.  Further, they ought to be stripped of any role which they have in the respective governing body.  Why?

Because of the very nature of Article 1-5!  While they have the constitutional right to determine fitness for office of any member or candidate they ought not to be making prejudicial comments regarding such individuals.  Those that obstruct that intended unbiased approach should be directly and publicly censured to the extent of removal from office for non-corrective behavior.

Yes, I am fully aware of the restriction on rights which this places on incumbents.  But incumbency places a much heavier burden of propriety upon elected officials than upon others, or at least it should.  Their judgments ought to be without bias and public influencing.

E) Yes, there are a multitude of “what ifs” which would be used by psychologically weak members of Congress.  However, the premise of this proposal is to stimulate rational behavior rather than the gut reactions which govern our entire nation at this time.

F) Finally, just as with impeachment of the president, this provision of the Constitution was included because the founders recognized that the designs of evil men would exist in the hearts of members of Congress as readily as in the heart of the President.  Those founder recognized that wickedness was not reserved only to those in the executive branch but would also prevail, if unchecked, among their very own members.  Impeachment was such a viable option to the founders it was not even discussed at length.  They KNEW that impeach was an essential element of good government.

Consequently, like impeachment, such hearing and investigations would not be deemed judicial rulings, just fitness for office.  They would be assessments of legislative aptitude.  Any case which warranted judicial action would then follow judicial proceedings.

Today there is a multitude of assertions of inappropriate behaviors by members of Congress.  Each should be dealt with as described above, regardless of rumors or partisan affiliation.  Just as the current Majority Leader of the Senate has abused his power and authority in the Judge Roy Moore election other members, including himself, have used their position to inappropriately hold Al Franken accountable for unproven allegations.  Neither Moore nor Franken were given the respect warranted, but rather were crucified upon a cross of intolerance by lesser men who would be their colleagues.

Please note, I have views and opinions regarding both Franken and Moore which are substantially different from what I have expressed herein.  However, fairness and reason must prevail and must be insisted upon by the population…else we are destined for the oblivion of a failed governing system, as predicted by the English so long ago.

That Is The Way I See It.

Getting Back to Basics

The election of Jones over Moore in Alabama, along with commentaries by some friends on Facebook, has me thinking about where we are as a society.  Let me try to be succinct.

First and foremost the question needs to be raised, “Do you still agree with the US Constitution?”  Be honest, do you?

Here is the thing.  In order to agree with the US Constitution you MUST first understand it.  I contend that most of our society (population of the USA) do not even understand it.  Yes, there are many that bark at the shadows of the Constitution, but few that actually internalize its full meaning.  Unfortunately, for this writing, that is not my main subject.

The US Constitution displays a new political philosophy for the time of its writing.  In short it asserted that the rights of self-government came from those that were to be governed and not from the “divine right of kings.”

What is self-government?  It is the condition under which each and every man may freely choose to conduct himself in a manner of his desires, without undue social restraint or gift.  Note, restraint and gifts, under the US Constitution, come in equal portions.  It comes down to that eternal premise that everyone is entitled to be agents unto themselves and none other.  They choose the course they will follow and correspondingly reap the benefits or losses.

The American society, long before the Constitution was written, embraced that concept of self governance.  The Pilgrims first instituted a limited sense of self governance.  But, with the arrival of Roger Williams it began to take full root…culminating in the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution.  The Articles of Confederation were the first articulation of self-governing liberty.  They were quickly followed by the US Constitution.

So, we come back to the question (because I don’t want it forgotten) do we still agree with the premise of the US Constitution?  The answer makes significant differences in the lives of people and The People.

I use the phrase “bootstrap democracy” to articulate agreement with the original Constitution.  Every man from whatever entitlement or lack thereof he comes from has the right and ability to grab his own bootstraps and pull himself up in society.  His level of rise, and to stay risen, depends entirely on himself.  That is what is written in the Constitution.

Contrary to that is the premise that every man is somehow entitled to gifts from the masses of society.  Those gifts may be society, through government, restricting the ability of some to rise or plundering some to give others a lift-up.  It is really that simple.

In every election from the most local to the largest national prominence the first and foremost question we ought to be asking ourselves is whether the basis for a man seeking a public role will advance bootstrap democracy or inequity of resources.

So, one more time the question is which do you favor?  Do you embrace a society which government dictates the gifts delivered, OR, do you embrace a society wherein each man rises or falls on his own merits?

We may not like being “called out” for our stance because of some embarrassment but the question always remains the same and each of us determines how we shall answer it.  Yet, honesty is the best response, at least to ourselves.

If you reject the premise of the US Constitution for whatever reason, that very Constitution as originally written entitles you to do so.  Equally if you are willing to embrace the full concept of that Constitution you also have that entitlement.

Now, for the kicker.  If you reject the basis of the US Constitution you, in a good moral sense should loudly and boldly assert that it is an antique concept.  Don’t hide behind transient issues like taxes, budgets, moral conundrums, and foreign wars.  Just stand up boldly and declare that you reject our Constitution.

Yet, on the opposite hand, if you honestly still embrace the concepts embedded in the US Constitution you certainly ought to come to their defense…even when doing so may temporarily injure yourself.  Why?  Because the concepts of the Constitution guarantee nothing in the short-term.  Yet, in the long-term they are far more beneficial than all the government mandated gifts of society.

“Chose ye this day whom you will serve.”  The choice is between the Philistines and the Freemen.

That is the Way I See It.


My recent observations at the US Postal Service

I stopped at the post office on Friday, grumpy and complaining because I wasn’t feeling well.  That’s important for two reasons.  First, I was sick so you should give me sympathy.  Second, when we are sick we tend to notice irritants more.

Let me describe what transpired.

Entering the parking lot there were multiple signs ordering me which way to drive.  To put an emphasis on that control over me the government had built a barrier to actually prevent me from going where they said not to drive.  Two more signs gave instructions on speed and parking.

The handicapped space was marked handicapped with a threatening message that violators would be towed and fine (of course some federal statute was cited as authority).

Entering the building there were certain doors labeled as entrance and exits.  The exit doors had no handles on them, presumably to prevent ingrates from misusing the doors.  But, to emphasize once again that the feds meant business the building was designed so that the doors could not be opened inward.  By heck they were not going to risk some moral reprobate going IN the OUT door.

Now, that was not the end of the door situation.  Four feet ahead of these controlled entrances were another set of doors with the same exact commandments.  The only difference is that there was now a railing which prevented postal patrons from “crossing over” to gate-crash through the out-door.

Inside various cameras were stationed to ward off any misbehavior on my part.  Signs lined the walls advising me of the multitude of federal statutes that existed to incarcerate me for eternity if I dared exhale in the wrong location.

Of particular interest to me was the fanfare of waste receptacles.  Some for unwanted mail, some for the garbage advertisements that routinely were delivered at a discount far below the price I pay for a stamp but received unsolicited.  More signs advising about the anti-social behavior of littering and/or using the wrong can for the wrong reason. And, naturally there were the ever present recycling bins to assist in tainting our collective moral compass.

 “And, naturally there were the ever present recycling bins to assist in tainting our collective moral compass.”

Yet, what was remarkably absent was there were no signs indicating where certain box numbers were located.  And, that is such a friendly gesture to a truly service oriented service.

Once I had made a hasty retreat from the hallowed halls of the public mailroom and escaped from USPS cell-block and returned to my car, which I suspected would have been confiscated by the Gestapo for some minor infraction of central government mis-marching on my part, I beat feet for the nearest exit of the sacred shrine of federal land control.

As luck would have it I then needed to go to the UPS store.  UPS  does NOT equal USPS.  I parked where I was asked in a sign to park “for the convenience of their less mobile patrons.”  I walked inside and was welcomed.  Everyone treated me like someone there to do business; in other words professionally and not like a criminal.  I left happy, safe, and satisfied.

Here is the point…if you haven’t figured it out on your own (I respect your intellect and good will).

Government was exercising in it most egregious manner its second primary directive;  Regulate Everything. “Regulate Everything” carries with it the presumption of control over others.  That is poor and unnecessary government intrusion!

The alternative is private enterprise where businesses trust themselves to provide a valuable service needed by the public.  Therefore they attempt to earn repeat customers.

We need far more privatization of government functions…so that government actually FUNCTIONS.

That is the Way I See It.

Sexual Tension in a Day of Righteous Indignation

The wrong things are being emphasized about the sexual harassment issues facing just about every celebrity in America.

Society is shocked by the vastness of the accusations.  Of course, defenders crawl out of the woodwork depending on which celebrity is being accused.  Likewise, the squad of judges and juries line up to sound off about the accused. Frequently, those judges and juries have some grinded axe ready to flay the dastardly dumbcoft who got himself (occasionally herself) caught in a compromised accusation.

That is all wrong thinking, narrow-minded and short-sighted.  We ought not to be at all surprised by such licentious behavior.  It has been promoted and advocated for decades.

Now, I can only speak to that period of time when I was alive to witness the licentiousness of society.  I can surmise it was occurring previously, but nothing more than supposition.  Yet, again, in my lifetime it has been ever present.  AND, today’s apparent depravity is the logical outcome.

During the 60s when I was coming of age as a teenager opposition to all the old norms ran rampant.  Social norms of my parents were challenged on every front.  “Drugs, sex, and rock-n-roll” were the emerging normative social construct.  I will bypass drugs and rock-n-roll and simply comment on the public sexually promiscuous attitudes that entered that braveless new world.

We ought not be at all surprised that a full generation of men and women raised with the “free love” mentality would believe and act out on the premise that personal invasion for sexual gratification is anything but normal.  For instance, Senator Al Franken was raised under the guise that any form of personal aggression was not only acceptable, but also encouraged as a right.  Further, much of his failed comedic career was based exclusively on licentious aggression toward others.

Should we really be surprised that he conducts himself in a manner that is disrespectful of women…or anyone…having been raised in a society dedicated to making sexual whim superior to the of the person?  I believe not!

I do not know what any of the other subjects of ridicule and or accusation have done or did not do.  I have not been asked or required to make societal ruling on the matters.  But, I do know one thing about the entire group of them…every one of them.

They grew up in a time and culture where licentiousness was prevalent.  Any man or woman had to be raised by extraordinary parents to ward off those decrepit influences assaulting them on a daily basis.  One such man raised that way appears to be Vice President Mike Pence.  I hope I am correct.

Now, lest anyone get the idea that I am excusing the licentious behavior be absolutely and undeniably clear about one thing.  The behavior is not excused.

Yet, the behavior of which I speak is twofold.  First, the aggressive physical intrusion onto another is and always has been unacceptable to good society.  The actual quality of society is another matter.  It may be good society, or it may promote salaciousness as the norm.  But, in good society aggression ought not to happen nor to be encouraged.

Second, and this is where I will lose some that are easily offended for a word.  Those people that ever permitted such aggressive behavior toward themselves to any degree encouraged the continuation of such behavior.  They are not at fault for their aggressor’s behavior, but they are certainly at fault for allowing it to go unchallenged.  Thousands of excuses which translate into fear exist to defend “doing nothing.”  But none of them endure the test character.  I will say no more on that matter.

I will conclude with an analogy.  Society is broken by embracing the permissive licentiousness which surfaced with a vengeance fifty years ago.  For half a century we have danced with the devil in the pale moon light.  Now, we have reaped the whirlwind of that very real evil.

The whirlwind which we have reaped is not as you may suspect from my commentary; that sexual perversion, which it is, is the outcome of snubbed ancient norms which beacon us when we deceive ourselves into thinking we are wiser than ancestors simply because we have rejected their ways and teachings.  The whirlwind is that our society has embraced a point where they seek pleasure in the domination of other…in whatever form it may take.

Another way of phrasing that little gem of wisdom is to say “They cannot take happiness in sin.”  Thus society goes about feigning anger, outrage and offense for being treated in a manner as they have placidly invited into the lives.  Then the abusers flaunt penny apologies pretending outrage at themselves, not for misconduct, but their own failure to hide such misconduct adequately.

That is The Way I See It.

Has Congress Lost Its Relevance

Today my wife and I stopped at a restaurant for lunch.  The TV was on one of the news  channels.  A congressional hearings with Jeff Sessions was being broadcast.

I listened as one member droned on and on with a long-winded speech leading up to a question.  Of course he had fashioned the question along the lines of “Are you still beating your wife?”  The upshot of it all was that a member of Congress was using his position for illegitimate reasons.

This is no longer unusual, but customary.  Member of Congress, state legislators, even some local officials use these opportunities of public hearings to promote an agenda rather than seeking after facts.  The Way I See It that is irresponsible and boorish.  But it is worse.

Another example was just a few days ago.  Senator John McCain was sourly chastised by the media and a few of his self-serving comrades in the senate for his questioning of former FBI Director Comey.  I like to go back to the source on these matters knowing that the media and members of Congress can be less than honest.

Additionally, I am no longer the fan of John McCain that I once was.  In fact I believe he is seriously detrimental to the governing process in America.  Nothing convinces me that he was ever a “hero” in Viet Nam.  My preference would be for him to be removed from the US Senate forthwith haste.

Yet, for all of my displeasure with Senator McCain I also consider myself to be at least moderately fair.  I listened to the exchange between the senator and Mr. Comey.  Senator McCain pontificated like the other 99 lost sheep in the upper chamber.  Yet, once his rambling was set behind him he ask cogent question sand it appeared to me that Mr. Comey was severely disingenuous in his responses.  the Arizona Senator called him out on being a phony (not in so many words…because that would unbefitting of a sitting US Senator…on national TV).  I agreed with McCain.  Something was rotten, not in Denmark or even Russia, but right here in the good old US government’s former FBI Director.

But here is the main point senators and House member alike misuse their power and their role for self applause and pontificating rhetoric.  They talk much and say nothing.  I believe there is something sort of like that in the Bible where the phrase I remember is “They think they shall be heard for their much speaking.”

Now, I will go to a point just a bit further.  Not only should these self-congratulators get to the point with their questions, such as “Secretary Sessions, were you aware of any complicity within the current administration?  Don’t waste my time, YES or NO?”

However, that is simply a procedural solution.  It still misses the real target.

” One heads east an one heads west, Though ever the same wind blows;

For it’s not the gale, but the set of the sail That determines the way she goes.”

The real target, contrary to some folks, is that Congress should not even be holding these hearings, which are a waste of time and money.  Determining criminality of one branch of the federal government is the venue of the Supreme Court, alone.  No, it is not as sexy as your congressman bragging about how he pontificated for hours but it is the correct way of doing things.

“But, the Supreme Court is too busy.  Congress must do this sort of preliminary investigation” some may bellow (especially the self-servers of media caviar in Congress).

Here is a thought.  Have the Supreme Court do its constitutionally described job and stop diddling around with abortion, school lunches and bathrooms, healthcare and a slew of other nonsensical issues it entertains itself with because it fears actually doing its real job.

So there you have it kids.

That is The Way I See It.

Arianna Grande, in her naiveté claimed to hate America.  I suspect she had no clue what she was saying.  She just repeated what her crazy publicist told her to say.

Are we to conclude that some terrorist hates her music, which led them to kill almost twenty of her fans and injured half a century of her devotees. OR, maybe the mad men just hated America also.  They simply got confused by their master manipulators about who to attack.  Oh, wait.  How does that saying go?  “The enemy of my enemy is my enemy”… or some simpleton statement like that.  Maybe it is as simple as hatred breeds hatred.

Manchester is generally a peaceful place.  No better nor worse than any other European city of its size.  But not today!  Today it is a city in devastating turmoil.  A city of over half a million people wondering if or when the next shoe (or bomb) will drop.

To the south of Manchester is the Cheshire Plain.  Maybe no cats are grinning there, but pussies in the region are casting their empty smiles of approval in a Wonderland where all others wonder “why?”

The answer to that question why is quite simple.  The evil that men do lives beyond them…in the hearts and minds of self-absorbed haters.  Unfortunately, the grinning copy cats are not the only culprits.

The media simply can’t wait to broadcast their “I got the story first” rendition of applause for yet another new and egregious headline.

But even the haters and the promoters of “man bites dog” advocates is not the sole of soulless beings.

The other group is the ner-do-well political class that lacks manhood, womanhood, and humanity.  It is the cowardly potentates of pretentiousness that sit and do nothing while ringing their hands in helplessness.  Or as the story goes:

Leaders asked the Cheshire Cat, who was sitting in a tree, “What road do I take?”

The cat asked, “Where do you want to go?”

“I don’t know,” Congress answered.

“Then,” said the cat, “it really doesn’t matter, does it?”

The destination is clear.  They all want to eliminate terrorism.  However, they are more terrified of losing an election than potentially losing a vote or two from assassinated constituents.  Oh, how conveniently they weigh the true consequences against another day on the public teat.

The path to the destination is clear we must momentarily walk among the crazy people, as crazy people (“I’m not crazy, my reality is just different than yours.”  “But I don’t want to go among mad people,” Alice remarked. “Oh you can’t help that,” said the Cat: “we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad.”).

By walking among the crazy people we must stop being naive. We have learned from sad experience it is the nature of just about all men to join in misbehavior…when such misbehavior is tolerated.  We have learned that mankind is addicted to repeating evil, while shunning the light of goodness.

I have nothing against Islam and the Muslim followers.  However, without question the greatest threat to world peace and the strongest advocacy of terrorism lives among that culture.  Innocent people who have committed no violence against them are too frequently becoming victims of the terrorist mayhem.

YES, the United States of America should be the policeman of the world.  Simply because no other culture has the will to stand against evil.

As a nation the USA has an obligation to defend every citizen anywhere in the world. Whether that citizen is supportive or hateful of the USA, this nation holds an obligation to persuade the world that violence against any of our citizens is violence against the most powerful human force in the history of mankind.  We ought not to abide by acquiescences to the theme that we can do nothing.

This nation should tell the world plainly and without reservation they have an obligation to avoid violence toward any non-combatant citizen of the USA.  They must be made to understand that entire nations will pay a dear cost for the uncontrolled behavior of a few of their reprobates.  Every nation should feel the wrath of the USA when any of our citizens or allies are threatened or harmed.

Every nation should understand the unequivocal outcome of permitting terrorism to export from them will result in a clear and absolute import to them of the wrath of an angry and intolerant nation with the power to exercise its will with finality.

The president should invite both Democrats and Republicans in Congress to join with him in a united effort to root out terrorism by any means.  He should humbly concede to congress that he will receive and genuinely consider their views and input.  YET, if they falter, as they are well known to do, he should make it equally clear that if they do not act united against this threat than he will act independently on behalf of the nation.

The President is the commander in chief.  He should consult with congress, but act in a forward manner with or without their first interest being the security of our citizens.

That Is The Way I See It.


Media Rights

“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 peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

“In practical reality when a greater set of carte blanch rights is acknowledged and/or bestowed upon any segment of society the trust and consequent of such an act is to diminish faith in our rational and legal processes.”

Appealing to the precise US Constitution language frequently assists us in clarifying the misunderstanding which decades of non-appeal have created.  Thus it is with “freedom of the press.”  The mask of popularity of various forms of media (it matters not which) has grown to engender a major fallacy.

Freedom does not and cannot effectively mean that one segment of society has greater “carte blanch” than any other segment of society.  For extreme example a wealthy assassin has no additional “right” to a greater presumption of innocence than those with lesser wealth.  The simple ability to purchase stronger legal representation does not provide greater right, but simply stronger external advocacy.

In practical reality when a greater set of carte blanch rights is acknowledged and/or bestowed upon any segment of society the trust and consequent of such an act is to diminish faith in our rational and legal processes.

In the case of the media it (they) ought not to have any greater extended rightful access to information than any other member of society.  The benefit to the media rest in their indistinguishable protected right to opine on a matter.  (I shall not address the obvious caution involved in fallacious reporting).

Recently, the latest media hue and cry has been that the president has in rare instances, and purports to be considering even more extensive instances, may not make access of the media to his conducting of presidential business. Just yesterday Secretary of State Tillerson held a news conference in a foreign country.  The US media was not invited to participate.

The bellowing of bellicose brats express the claim that the media has a “right” to access.  That is their failing of constitutional understanding.  They have presumed a right which extends above and beyond random citizens.  Once again, their rights do not!  Not under the US Constitution.

The media generally presumes, due to decades of misunderstanding and mis-intents, that they hold a greater right of character assassination than their less equipped equal citizens.  If they did not have this presumption they would be demanding the president open all access to all citizens.  But they isolate themselves to privileging themselves with the right to assassinate with impunity.

…nothing within the scope of the Bill of Rights suggests they have a right to act as though every action of the president is a press briefing.”

It is rightfully time that the media be brought to understand that their only constitutional privilege over other citizens is the right to freely publish.  Prudence would suggest that they be balanced in publishing the views of those that peacefully assemble to express their grievances.

Aside from that last nuance nothing within the scope of the Bill of Rights articulates, presumes, implies or even suggests they have a right to act as though every action of the president is a press briefing.

That Is The Way I See It.

An Old Story

Years ago a very rich man was traveling down the street.  At one point he saw a man in rags sitting leaning against a building.  He gave the man a couple of dollars and crossed the street to see what would happen.  How would the man use the money?

As he watched the man continue to beg, several of his friends passed by.  Each in turn either crossed the street or shuffled as far away as possible.  When his friends noticed the rich man they went a spoke to him.  Many commented on the “derelict” begging on the public street in that section of town.

A couple of weeks later the rich man invited all those friend to his home for a banquet.  After almost everyone had arrived a dirty beggar came through the door.  He bolted directly to food tabled snatching handfuls of everything he could reach.

All of the guest were shocked.  They scoffed and scorned.  Some derided the beggar for being too lazy.  Saddened and embarrassed the beggar ran from the mansion, knowing he had been made a joke of.

The topic of conversation centered around the “deadbeat” for a long time.

The rich man entered the hall to hear the excitement from his guests.  He was warmly greeted in his tuxedo, top hat, and expensive white gloves and cuff links.  He asked with a chuckle what happened to the beggar.

Everyone clamored around him explaining that they had “gotten rid of the interloper.”

Upon approaching the banquet table he took a fine china plate to serve himself.  Suddenly, he threw the plate to the floor where it shattered.  Then with no dignity at all be began to cram food into his pockets, both on the inside and outside of his tuxedo jacket.  He smeared greasy and sweet delicacies all over his expensive gloves.

His guests were astonished as he began yelling “Eat coat!  Eat Shirt.  Gouge yourself cummerbund. Here pockets feast for the night.”

When he was done he turned to his guests and whispered just loud enough to be heard in their stunned silence.

“My friends, I was here before as the beggar.  It was myself.  All that has changed is my clothing.  It MUST be that this banquet is for the cloth and not for the wearer.  You have honored my costume and neglect both mine and your own character.”

Then he waited a moment and added “please go home, but leave your topcoat and fashions here.  I wish to be among my truest friends.”

We are eager to condemn Donald J. Trump for his rough language, while ignoring the value of the man inside.  Perhaps it is time to set at bay those that would get caught up in the thick of thin things.  Maybe it is time for superficial appearance to take a backseat to substance.

That is The Way I See it.

Why Not Hillary.

The role of the President under the Constitution of the United States of America is almost exclusively to be the senior ambassador and commander-in-chief of the military.

The president’s role in domestic matters under the Constitution is very limited.

With those facts in mind our interest in electing a president should revolve around the extent to which the next president is capable and willing to be the senior ambassador for the United States. [Of course if your perspective is to reject the original intent of the Constitution there is no need to read further because we will be in a non-productive disagreement].

  1. A fact is that Hillary Clinton was a failure as Secretary of State worldwide.  In particular she became so disrespected in the Middle East that she served no useful purpose at the end of her tenure as SoS.  In the Middle East a woman in authority has a dynamically difficult challenge to “prove” herself among the male dominated power culture.  She became completely disregarded because of her inability meet that challenge!
  2. Another fact is that Hillary Clinton did not possess the skill set to generate respect from European and Asian regions.  She simply could not deliver a rational proposal.  Now, to be fair, her particular failing in this realm was due in part to an incompetent president (Barack Obama).  His inexperience, naivete, and administrative insecurity contributed to her dilemma.
  3. Her health issues which everyone has heard more than they wish to hear about reflect her future role as president.  Hillary for the past three years has demonstrated a secluded attitude and aptitude for public interaction.  This has been extraordinarily present during this campaign year.
    1. The speculation is that her health is much more severe than acknowledged.  Candidly, only she and her doctor know for sure.
    2. However, a top principle in hiring is “past performance is a predictor of future performance” there is just reason for all citizens to be concerned regarding restrains on her ability to perform the duties of President of the United States of America as outlined in the Constitution.

In all likelihood Hillary Clinton lacks the aptitude and physical presence to do the primary duty of the president.  She will not be able to represent the United States on the world stage.  In that failure our nation will fall even further behind other national powers as an influence in the global arena.  The timing is terrible for her to be president.

That is The Way I See It.

Whose Terrorism is It?

It seems natural to think that the cause of growing terrorism around the country and world is the result of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.  The continual parade of endless slaughter worldwide is the enormous effect of a weak president and weaker-still former Secretary of State.

We wonder “why” all of the carnage comes at us like thunder and ends in enormous flashes of blinding destruction.  As a people we understand frustration.  Yet, our experience repeatedly tells us the viciousness is uncalled for.  And, intuitively we understand that failed leadership is at least partially at the root of such animosity.

Before this past week we wondered if President Obama’s administration really lacked direction and purpose.  But Dallas, and now Nice France, are seared into our consciousness.  Right now we no longer doubt either the incompetence, or, disregard which the current presidency has for human life; white, black, brown, or red.  First we presumed there was a bias in favor of the black population.  As rational people we immediately acknowledged that of course things such as race cannot be 100% overshadowed by political reasoning.  After this week a very large portion of the population perceives that somehow, for some purpose, intention is involved.

Among the apparent isolated incidents of the past few years our better selves slid into the comfort of assuming coincidences.  We, you and I, are beyond that, to where we now have no other conclusion to reach but that the national leadership is out-of-bounds either with incompetence  or deceit.

What started with this Obama administration as a grass fire of subtle manipulation has exploded into a raging inferno of mean-spirited hatred.  This administration lit and then fanned the embers of discontent.  Lack of a plan for building leaves only the perceived acomplishment of tearing down.  As the flames grew from their added fuel and rhetoric massive numbers of people felt endeared themselves to the idea that destruction was the rational course.

Stopping this cycle of anger, mistrust, hatred, blaming, and contempt can only come from you, and me.  National leaders no longer have the mental, emotional, or moral resources to stop the landslide of mutual contempt they have caused.  We must break that chain of random acts of anger, link, by link, by link.  We must act now before it is the only example humanity has remaining for future generations.

The yelling over each other must be dialed back

to conversing with each other.

Rather than finding faults, as do the politicians, you and I must return

to the foundations of our goodness.

It is within you to be civil.  It is within me to be civilized.  Our religions are founded in civilizing principles of societies. They have always been reflections of values of empowering one another, while politics have been reflections of power over one another.

The days of consuming each other must be put behind us!  Let us empower each other through comprehending each other and our great capacities.

That Is The Way I See It.

Hillary and Justice

Upon the seal of the US Attorney-General is the phrase

Qui Pro Domina Justitia Sequitur

who prosecutes on behalf of justice (or the Lady Justice).”

In its origin, in English Law, the phrase was translated to mean “who prosecutes for our Lord, the King (or, Lady the Queen.)”  Queen Elizabeth when first presented with Sir Edward Coke (perhaps the greatest jurist in English history) corrected the Lord Treasurer.

“It should be, Attorney-General who prosecutes for our Lady the Truth.”  Subsequently, it came to mean Lady Justice, the representation of final truth.

Lady Justice, the symbol of justice on many courthouses worldwide, is depicted in many fashions.  Adulterated over the centuries to meet particular special interest I appeal to one of the first from her origin, the Roman.

Lady Justice atop the Palace of Justice in Rome.

We generally think of three aspects of Lady Justice; Her scales of Justice, Her sword of Justice and her blindness to the perversion of justice.  Hence, the scales, sword and blindfold in many depictions. HK_Central_Statue_Square_Legislative_Council_Building_n_Themis_s

There is much more to her than these three items.  As recent as a century ago every aspect of art provided a grandly elegant statement in and of itself.  That is why art must be studied in nuance.  Lady Justice is no exemption.

  1. The scales accurately depict the sense that all evidence is weighed in the same scale, with the final balance bowing low to innocence or guilt.
  2. The blindfold suggest that Justice does not see the  injurious influence of fear or favor to class or privilege.  When the blind is removed all that remains is the tilt of the scale.
  3. The sword is doubled-sided it metes out with every swing punishment and protection with equal sharpness.

However, are there more subtleties to the image of Lady Justice?

  1. Notice her clothing, in most depictions.  Contrary to many statues of ancient Greece and Rome, which displayed the naked form, Lady Justice is most frequently fully robed.  True Justice is not corrupted subject to the depravities of a thousand forms of lust.  Justice is modest and appealed to for wisdom, not a form of worldly salaciousness.
  2. Seated to her right is daughter Dike also known as Justice and Peace.  To her left is Eunomia (Lawful Government) Lady Justice holds the law, to be defended, in her left hand behind Eunomia.  Remarkably, to our potential surprise, is the depiction of Justice at the Tehran Courthouse in Tehran, Iran. Justice_Statue_Iran  I will not go into the subtleties of that depiction, but leave that to you with an encouragement to look closely at the garb of all the characters.
  3. One last thing which I will point out in the Palace of Justice statue.  Lady Justice peers intently straight ahead.  Her gaze is steady, direct, and undistracted.  Neither power, prestige, prominence nor pecuniary benefit divert her from her from her sacred duty.

Now, who would I be if not ready with my own quips about justice.  Indeed, the very title of this article is Hillary and Justice.

There is a phrase that youth is wasted on the young.  I would coin another phrase that history is wasted on the old.  Our society has rejected history for the wisdom of tested and untested hypotheses of the young.

As one professor once told me, “We are foolish.  We think we are committing new sins.  Every sin has been committed before and probably better.”

There is nothing new or original in the conduct of Hillary Clinton, AG Lynch, Barack Obama, or even FBI Director Comey.  They are as children not quite weaned from the delicacies of deceit.  They have and are making a mockery of Justice.  They are shattering statutes of meaning into the rubble of meanness.

They dress in the immodesty of idle pandering.  Beside them sit the twins of greed and dominance.  Where once sat the dexter side of Justice is now an empty seat, while they play musical chairs on the sinister side.

The sword of Justice no longer swing in defense nor punishment…but rather is used to drive truth from the steps of justice.

They do not set their eyes firmly on justice.  Yet, instead those potentates of power see only the glitter of false gold before them wrapped in the mantle unworthiness.

Anyone who still ascended to the throne of Justice with an idea that it may be found in the likes of Hillary Clinton and the “powers that be” will ultimately be frustrated.



Fishing America With Grandpa

Fishing America With Grandpa is an elementary level story which discusses the Bill of Rights, as found in the US Constitution.  Chapter Two:Independence introduces the main characters to the US Declaration of Independence.  Chapter two of my book, Fishing America With Grandpa, follows in anticipation of Independence Day 2016.

Chapter Two:  Independence.

The boat glided gracefully along the smooth surface of the lake.  Jimmy was at the wheel, while Tommy stood letting the wind race across his face as he held to the top of the windshield.  The waters were so calm that there was neither pitch nor roll as grandpa proudly watched his two young master seamen.

Having come to a full stop, with anchor drop, even though there would have been minimal drifting, the anglers cast their lines among the grassy mat just peeking above the surface along the west shoreline.

The conversation started the same as it usually did with Grandpa asking the protégés what new things they had learned in school.

Tommy piped up first.  “Grandpa, our teacher was telling us about The Declaration of Independence.  It sounded pretty cool, but I didn’t think she really knew much about it.”Declaration-of-Independence

“Yeah, that’s right, Grandpa” chimed in Jimmy.   “She wouldn’t answer any of my questions.”

“Well, now boys you two DO have a lot of questions.  Maybe she didn’t have enough time.”

Tommy got a little more serious in his tone.  “It sounded really important Grandpa.  Will you explain it to us?”

“That is just what I was hoping you would ask”, the old gentleman grinned.  The bass lines were left dangling as the eager young men hung on every world of their wise grandfather. “Let’s start by talking about our fishing trip this morning.  We had to drive from our town and our county half way around the lake to get here.  Now we have fishing licenses that we bought earlier this summer, at the little store by the dock.  The government approves the sale of those licenses.  The money supposedly goes for causes like making sure the fish supply is here for everyone to enjoy.  We can fish and take home our limited number of bass which is the same as all the other fishermen.  That is intended to be fair.”

“How would you feel if we got back to the dock and the sheriff was there asking us how many fish we caught.  Jimmy, you would proudly show him your catch and I would explain we had caught only our limit.  Then, Tommy, what if he asked where you lived.”

“I would tell him, Grandpa.  It’s the right thing to do.”

“Yes, my boy it probably is the right thing to do”, smiled the family patriarch. “When he found out that we live around the lake in a different town from the county supervisor should that make much difference?”

Both boys quickly answered a somewhat confused “no”.

“Well, when the sheriff learned where we lived I know I would not be very happy if he then told me that I had to give him one of the fish I caught, so he could give it to his county boss. How about you,” he pressed on without taking an answer? “Then we would go to the county leader and explain that the lake served all of our little towns and we should not have to give up fish simply because we didn’t vote in his city?”

He continued, “then he might say that neither we, nor anyone we ask to represent us, would get to even talk to him about what’s right.  Does that sound like the right way for you to be treated?”

This time there was a more understanding and an emphatic “no” in unison from both boys.

“I agree with you two wise young men.  It is pretty evident that you understand what is fair and right.”

“But, grandpa”, Jimmy protested, “what has this got to do The Declaration of Independence?”Grandpa and boys fishing

Be just patient for just a little longer the old man pleaded.  Then he went on with his story.

“If everybody, except the people in his town, were treated like us would that be fairer.”

“Grandpa”, exclaimed Tommy!  “Just because more people are also treated wrong doesn’t make the wrong treatment right.”  Grandpa Don beamed with pride at his grandson.  He saw some wisdom beginning to surface.

“Let me go just a little further with the story, boys.  Let’s say that there were more people in the supervisor’s town than in all the other towns together.  Just imagine if those people said we want this supervisor to be in power for as long as he wants, so they made him the ”supreme”  supervisor for all time.  I don’t think we would ever get the same amount of fish we caught as the amount of fish that people in his town caught.  Tommy, what do think?  Am I probably right? “

Tommy was thinking about it hard for a minute, when Jimmy inserted his opinion.  “I don’t think he would be likely to change, Grandpa.”

“Yeah”, Tommy quickly agreed.  “We have a teacher that sometime won’t let us go outside for recess, even if our work is all done.  She says it’s because she is the teacher and gets to make the rules different everyday if she wants.  That doesn’t ever feel like she is fair.”

“That’s just like the county supervisor”, added Jimmy.

“You boys are a smart pair.  Yes, indeed you are.”

“One last thing about our fishing story.  After a while all the smaller towns would decide together that they wanted to be a new county, with their own supervisor.  Does that sound like a good idea?  Silence ensued as both youngsters slipped into deep thought.

“Grandpa”, Jimmy finally said, “That would be a good idea if two things happened.”

Tommy jumped in “the first county supervisor would have to have a chance to act fair, right?”

“The second thing”, added Jimmy “is all the people would need to be told why we were making such a big change and promised that in the new county they would be treated better.”

“Wow!” Exclaim Grandpa Don.  “You two boys are as wise as everyone thinks you are.  But, let me tell you about the Declaration of Independence, but only if you promise to read it seven times and give me a report on what you learned.”

“During the almost three hundred years after Columbus discovered the American Continent on October 12, 1492 Britain ruled where we live.  There were thirteen states or colonies as they were called in those days.  King George, the third, was the king of England and Scotland.  He also was the ruler of the colonies.  King George and his supporters began acting like the county supervisor in our fishing story.

He treated the people of the colonies unfairly.  He did things like taking extra fish and other goods from the colonies as taxes.  He didn’t let the colonies have adequate representation (that means he didn’t let them talk to the government of Britain, just like the pretend supervisor of the county in our story).

After a long time of being treated unfairly the people of the colonies decided they didn’t want him for a king any more, but they wanted their own type of government.  They did just what you two boys suggested.  Because what was right then, is also right now, and you understand that.  The colonies declared to the world what their intentions were and why.

When the thirteen colonies voted to no longer be under a government which mistreated them they all agree together.  The Declaration of Independence says “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America.”  Unanimous means that all the states (or colonies) agreed, through their representatives.  The representatives of the states were known as a Continental Congress.  Congress simply meant to walk together.  The states walked together in opposition to being under King George’s rule.”

‘Jimmy do you remember what you said about making a new county and what the people should do.  I think your words were “all the people would need to be told why we were making such a big change”.  That is what the thirteen colonies did.  Listen to this explanation from the Declaration of Independence:

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

‘Now, Tommy, I have not forgotten what you said either.  The King, just like the county supervisor deserves a complete opportunity to change their treatment of others.  I think your words were “the county supervisor would have to have a chance to act fair and right.”  Here is what the Colonies said in The Declaration of Independence.

“The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.”

And also

“when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government…”

The King had been given a chance to change his behavior toward the colonists, but he didn’t.  In fact the colonies had gone to war, known and the war of independence, to assert their claim of being treated fairly.  The king chose, with support from other leaders in England, to not change.”

‘Jimmy I think it was you that also said “the people would need to be… promised that in the new county they would be treated better”.  You were very right.  But the states Declaration of Independence had more to do with how we are treated in all things, rather than just fishing.  Listen to these important words.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.”’

“Tommy and Jimmy”, remarked the now tired older man, “the understanding in those few words are what has made and still makes the United States of America a nation worth shedding tears of joy for, and if necessary the shedding of blood to maintain.”

“The Declaration of Independence, boys, is the single-most assertion among all the literature of the world that men are free to think and feel as they will, and to act however they may choose, so long as they do not violate the same liberty given by God to all men.”

“Tommy, you may be interested to know, if your teacher did not tell you, that the man given credit for writing the Declaration of Independence was also named Thomas Jefferson.  Jimmy, one of the men close to him was name James Madison, whom also believed strongly in the Declaration of Independence.  img_5878

Both eventually became Presidents of the United States of America, serving out their entire lives in the protection of the rights of all men.  That is why we don’t need to fear too deeply our right to fish and keep that which we have rightfully caught.

Mr. Jefferson made this statement:

img_5881“May the Declaration of Independence be to the world, what I believe it will be…the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which … ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves… That form, which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.”’

Boys, you live with a curiosity to know and understand so very very much.  While other lesser men may want you to be silent I again encourage you to Fish America, and catch all that you can about what sets her apart from all other nations.

“Let’s go home”, said the precocious Tommy as he reeled in his empty line, “today was a good catch.”

Suicidal Republicans

It is literally pathetic how some Republicans act.  I am not a Republican, so I may be jaded, but here are some questions.

To: George Will, Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, Jeb Bush, Lindsey Graham…and the list goes on.

Who do you seriously think will be president if not Donald J. Trump?

The only realistic alternative, because of our corrupted self-serving electoral system, is Hillary Clinton.  Of the 1800 plus candidates vying for the presidency it really does come down to only Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton.  That is not even debatable!

So, is Hillary who you seriously want as president?

If she is who you want just admit it and stop blowing smoke up everyone’s skirts.

If Hillary is elected this year, history shows that there is an 83.7% chance she will be re-elected in 2020.  NO, a different Republican candidate in the next election cycle is extraordinarily unlikely to unseat her.  As proof, just look at Mitt Romney’s dismal failure in an election where Barack Obama was hated.

After eight inevitable years of Hillary Clinton do you actually seriously believe that the nation will be better off than if Donald Trump were president?  If you believe so you are stupider than you sound most of the time with your slander about Donald Trump.

Do you seriously believe that under Hillary Clinton the nation will get a “better” Supreme Court?  If you do than you are deluding yourselves into a fantasy world.  Change your names to Alice because you have jumped down a rabbit hole of abnormal reasoning.

The senate, which will be Democrat controlled by early 2017 will ratify any Judicial appointment Hillary sets forward.  Yes, it is that simple and the results WILL BE catastrophic.  You are probably whistling you way through a scary deep dark forest of wishful thinking that the Republicans can hold-off any judicial appointments for three-quarters of a decade.

Simply to go along with your delusion of obstructive legislative action, let accept the completely irrational case that the Republican maintain control of the Senate.  In just the past couple of weeks the nation has witnessed the Supreme Court fail to make any definitive decision of relevant issue.  They have been tied 4-4.

Hence, lower court rulings have remained intact.  That has provided “conservatives” with moments to dance in the streets cheering like a ticker-tape parade.  It will not last!

The political elite whose main agenda is to exercise “power over” the populace rather than “empowerment of” the people will learn quickly.  They will begin pressuring lower courts to make unconstitutional rulings. [It will happen.]

When that occurs the liberal imposer in the SCOTUS will simply “tie the vote” on any reviews of lower court decisions.  A tie vote will result in victory over the rights of the people and the sanctity of the US Constitution.

It is time for the failed Republican self-appointed judges, such as Romney, Bush, and Graham to buy some new hat racks…because their heads should be used for something better.

I began by saying I was not a Republican.  All the mental health counselors say that when a person threatens suicide…take action to get them assistance, whether they sound believable or not.  The Republican Party has some suicidal contributors threatening to lead the lemmings over the cliff.  I am here to assist by offering sound advice.

That Is The Way I See It.

A little About # 3

We hear a lot of chatter about the First, Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution.  More commonly known as the Bill of Rights.

Maybe I am simply out of the loop, but I don’t hear much about the Third Amendment.  Do you?

Amendment III (3): Housing of soldiers
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

The rest of the ten amendments, enacted less than a decade after the Constitution was ratified, have been the focal point at some time in our recent past.  Number 3 is just not respected like the others.  In fact, one has to asked why it is even in the list.

Think about this little fact:  The states did not ratify the second of James Madison’s twelve proposed amendments.  That amendment would have restricted congressional pay raises.    So,…the states felt the eventual Third Amendment was even more important than controlling the ability of Congress to give itself a raise.

Following on the heels of ratifying that citizens had the right to keep and bear arms  was the categorical restriction on the central government’s right to intrude on private property.

During, and prior to, the American War for Independence the British war machine, at their leisure, could commandeer homes, farms, saloons, etc for the housing of their  troops and command centers.  No compensation was required.  Abuses of property owners was rampant.

Several states upon ratifying the Constitution did so with the caveat that the principle in the Third Amendment would be expeditiously added to the US Constitution.

The idea was that the central government would have very limited power to intrude into the lives, liberties, and property of the people.  In essence the founders (legislatures of the colonies) were declaring in the Second Amendment “we have the right to arm ourselves against invasion.”  Then they reiterated that the central government was included as being restricted from invasion or intrusion into the homes of the people.

When members of Congress stage sit-ins, and battle for the privilege of violating the Second Amendment they likewise are seeking to override the inherent right of the people to say “stay out of my home.”

Of such things we the people should be most leery.

We need not look to Nazi Germany and the other nations in the Axis of Evil to see what gun-control laws result in.  We have our very own history for examples.  It is a history that tells the tale of a people determined to be free of government intrusion.  It is a history that should be preserved, not wasted by power-hungry elected officials.

That Is The Way I See It.