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.


Why I am out of Shape

I don’t mean to be insensitive, but this is how I address issues.  If apologies are needed consider them offered.

Like many of you I am obese.  That is according to various health care analyses.  I am, shame shame shame, about 45 pounds overweight.  I grace the bathroom scales at above 200 pounds, higher than the professional say I should.

Now believe it or not I am quite happy about that tidbit of fact.  You see a while back I was almost 75 pounds overweight.  According to my convoluted way of calculating things my overweight problem has improved by 46.7%.  That is dang good!

Here is my plan for greater success.

  1. I will stand at the door of several fast food restaurants with picket signs protesting their selling of greasy burgers and fries.
  2. I will also picket my favorite grocery stores demanding they cease and desist making candy, bread, processed foods…and beef jerky available.
  3. From there I will seek a court order demanding that the local gym bring their facilities right to my door, so that I don’t have to over-work in order to workout.  Now logic would dictate that they also provide someone to exercise for me.

This next one is a little more complex, but would yield the best results.  I will champion the cause of having all the manufacturers of bathroom scales redesign their products.  Everyone desiring to lose weight should be able to “re-calibrate” the scales they buy.  I, and many of you, should be able to reset our bathroom scales so that one pound is equal to 17, 18, 19, or even twenty ounces (depending on our particular demand).

Here is the idea behind it.  Let’s presume that my existing scale say I weigh 200 pound.  That is the equivalent of 3200 ounces, current standard.  However, if I re-calibrated my scales to one pound equaling 20 ounce look at the result.  Rather than weighing 200 pounds I would then only tip the fulcrum at 160 pounds.

Now not to over complicate the math but if I then converted the pounds to the metric measurement of kilograms my weight would only be approximately 72.5.  There you have it.  Without giving up one single french fry, candy bar, or ice cream sandwich I would immediately be well below my ideal weight.  In fact with numbers like that I am certain my physician would encourage me to indulge much much more.

I am suddenly free from the public scrutiny and self-control.  No more looks from squinty-eyes of the pharmacist or passive insults from my doctor that I am a slob.  And, best of all, because I now am substantially within my weight range I will automatically feel much better.

The above analysis leads me to a different subject.

It is essential that we ban all guns from society.  Thus, neither society nor individuals needs to be burden with self-control.

Although mass murder is a direct result of one person seeking control by imposing their private solution on others, banning all guns will immediately remove the burden of self-restrain.  Imagine the long-term benefits?

Eventually society will mellow-out and each member of the universal community will forget about aggression altogether.  History has proven that to us!  A few thousand years ago Cain, the gardener, whipped out his handy dandy hoe and whacked Abel until Abel was unable to be able-bodied any more.

A few family members wanted garden tools outlawed.  But not to be outdone  a few generations later people turned to rocks for a while.  Then they beat their plowshares into swords.

It got a little risky sneaking up behind folks and giving them the Lizzie Borden business of forty whacks to kill her mother.  Hence,  the protest continued as bows and arrows surfaced as the weapon for longer distance mayhem.

Well, to keep the story reasonably short bows and arrows gave way to catapults, which in turn gave way to cannons.  Now, here we are some few thousand years later with rocket launchers, bombs and armor-piercing bullets.  What next?

Mankind has not resolved his lust for mastery, but has found new a dramatic means of enforcing it.

What  is the natural conclusion to all of this?  Banning the bullet is as senseless as burning the bra. Neither stops the heart of man from lusting after what bullets and bras hide;  the lust to dominate others.

As long as people garnish dominion over others no degree of garnishing guns will alleviate destructive natures.

Hiding the weapons will have, and history has abundantly proven it, as much weight on correcting the problem as re-calibrating my bathroom scales.  It takes on the appearance of solution, yet, does not improve the situation for any length of time.

As with weight loss, mayhem and murder are not prevented by changing the scales.  It only comes through allowing others to live according to their accommodation with others.

Until the focus falls on the aggressor…there will always be hoes, stones, bows and arrows, bullets, bombs, and eventually laser, phaser, and evaporators for them to use.

As Princess Leah said in a movie long long ago, “The more you tighten your grip the more star systems will slip through your fingers.”  The more self-centered politicians try to tighten their grip on guns the more haters will slip through their fingers with bigger and badder arsenals.

The truest solution has to do with managing the mayhem of aggression, not pacifying protection through vacuous displays of outrage.

That Is The Way I See It.




Prospective liberty

Several years ago a line in a movies stuck in my mind.  I have the sentiment correct, if not the exact phrase:

“Killing the dog because the fox ate the chicken does not make sense.”

Lavoy Finicum was murdered .  We are well past whether he was resisting arrest.  We are well past whether he posed an immediate threat to law enforcement or the public.  He was neither resisting arrest nor posing any immediate threat!

In partial consequence of his murder some two dozen civilians now languish in prison, without trial.  Among those held, with rejected pleas for adequate legal counsel and basic Bill of Rights entitlements, some were not even present at the scene of the shooting of Lavoy.

In a most suspicious series of events those incarcerations are related to resistance to central government usurpation of rights and property long before the shooting incident.  It is curious to some people, not myself, why the arrest of these people occurred nearly a year later several hundred miles from the family’s support group.

At issue is a fundamental principle:

Does the US Constitution hold to original intent and the Bill of Rights or is it a fluid document subject to the whims of each succeeding generation?

Such a question should be viewed in the light of the original authors and adherents of the Constitution.  According to Pfander and Wardon, “the Framers of the Constitution and the members of Congress who applied its terms in the early years were strongly committed to norms of prospectivity, uniformity, and transparency. (emphasis added).”

The early years consist of the “Federalist” period following the ratification of the US Constitution.  Prospectivity was an inclination of considering the long-term effect of legislative action.  The framers, ratifiers, and first twenty to thirty years of Congress tended to legislate in a manner which would be consistent for an extended period of time.

Further the originalists rather than relying on the historical merit of private bills (legislation) sought to establish prospective uniformity.  Legislation was not written to protect certain citizens, but rather all citizens equally.  The purchase of legal rights was anti-thema.

One small step for mankind away from a transparent uniformly applicable statute for the future is private enactments.  Any and all laws written and enacted to provide private benefit are factually inconsistent with the originalist’s intentions.

Laws which bless, or curse, particular individuals or classes of individuals would be abhorrent to the founders.  For example, laws giving privilege or restriction to gender, race, religion, marital status, and particularly national origin would be repugnant.

But there is another class besides those well-known ones,  which should also cause dizziness for us all.  It is the class of citizen identified here as the political potentate.  A political potentate is an elected or bureaucratic figure given a little more protection under a law…intended for equal treatment, under the law.

Without detail, but with presumptions, included among those political potentates are Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Harry Reid…and just about everyone else under the protective influence of the proverbial Washington DC.

Enough pontificating for now and back to the commentary at hand.  A sizable group of citizens committed to “live in peace. To live, and let live, while we provide for our families, and participate in normal community activities.” *

Bundy, along with 45+ others are being held in jail for professing their constitutional right to petition the government for grievances.  Contrary to political and main stream media accounts at no time did the group of petitioners cause any real threat to the public.  If the entire situation were examined from beginning to end, without preconceived conclusions, it was only when bureaucrats stepped-in that the risk stepped-up.

If the entire situation were examined from beginning to end, without preconceived conclusions, it was only when bureaucrats stepped-in that the risk stepped-up.

We like to believe that government intentions are always appropriate. Retrospective of Chief Justice John Dillon’s Rule governments cannot be presumed to act in the public’s best interest, simply be virtue of being elected.  Too frequently the opposite is reflected.

Under the sixth amendment (Bill of Rights) to the US Constitution defendants are entitled to a speedy trial.**  The US Supreme Court has defined criteria to determine adherence to the sixth amendment.  Yet, as in almost all legal and legislative matters convened outside of the initial Federalist Period, bureaucrats, elected officials, attorneys, have sought to twist those very rules to their own special interests (private).

Such is the case with these constitutional loyalists.  Twisting is more than lyrics by Chubby Checker.

Virtually all of the principles which this nation originally held as sacrosanct are being violated by the cadre of political potentates. Inherent innocence, liberty, “being left alone,”are a few of those violations.

Historically King James, his son Charles, and devotees to their doctrine of “divine right of kings,” caused the popular relocation from the old world to the North American continent.  Archbishop William Laud was anything but laudatory in his slaughterous actions toward Puritans.  He exercised dominion over the both the bodies and souls of men.

The great men of our history sought to abolish such meanness.  For a period it worked.  However, today we have all but returned to the “divine right of politician and bureaucrats.”  All that is left for the circle to be completed is the killing and maiming of people because of what they believe. {Wait, have I forgotten the case of Lavoy Finicum; unprovoked assassination precisely because he dared to “petition the government for grievances.”}

Ryan Bundy, with his companions in liberty, sits confined contrary to all that the Bill of Rights, because they are dogs (no insulted intended).  Ryan Bundy familyThey are being condemned to seclusion from their families and justice because they are dogs in a bureaucratic cat-fight.

Central government elected officials and bureaucrats are foxes presuming the divine right of mastery over the citizenry.  On more and more frequent occasion and with broader and broader disparagement they prevail against the people.

Yes, it is foolish for the media and the public to any longer embrace “Killing the dog because the fox ate the chicken.”

As was true when the American continent was settled, and portrayed in the Moses movies it is time “to let my people go!”  Special interest politics has swayed rational living to absurdity, and needs to become once again a closed chapter in the history of mankind.

I finish with a quote from Ryan Bundy:

“I have a bright picture of hope for our future. The Lord led us to where we are now. I believe He will bring us back home as well. I surely do miss my little ones. I believe that we will enjoy freedom again. Personally and collectively as a country, but it is going to take some work and commitment on your part. We can’t just lean back and let God do it all alone. He can, but he holds us accountable and expects us to do good works of our own free will and choice. So go and do something good today.”

That Is The Way I See It.

*Ryan Bundy, letter to Governor Herbert and other public officials at the Utah State Republican Convention 2016.
** Sixth Amendment, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.”


Size DOESN’T Matter!

I listened to Rush Limbaugh braying on his radio show this morning.  As he pretended, for the sake of dollars, to be objective he was softly endorsing Ted Cruz’s hopeless attempt to become president in 2017.

One of the deceits that “El Rusbo” was promoting was his lame attempt to undermine the credibility of Coach Bobby Knight.  Limp Limbaugh was subtly making fun of Coach Knight says he didn’t know what a conservative was.  Of course, as is the case with most of the microphone mouths of public radio, Rush ridiculed without actually offering any insight.

So, what is a “conservative?”  I ask that sincerely, because my perspective of them is that they are a group of sour Archie Bunkers.  They bellow their bellicose hatred but seldom deliver on substance.  Senator Ted Cruz is an excellent example.  Since January he has said virtually nothing about what he would do.  He has offered no specific plan.  Either he has been echoing Donald Trump or trying to piss in Donald’s breakfast cereal.  But, he offers nothing.

So, let me give my perspective on the “conservative” rhetoric.

One of the hyped hooplas of this special breed of haters is “We need smaller government.”  What does that even mean beyond the rhetoric?

The size of the central government is only a reflection of how it seeks to impose the will of a special interest on the liberty of the general interest.  A reflection, nothing more.  Conservatives like Ted Cruz are no more devoid of turning to the central government to impose his will than Barack Obama or John Boehner.

Let’s take a look at one issue: Immigration.

The answer which Cruz and company shallowly promote is that every immigrant should be deported by force.  In his mindset the federal government has an obligation to round-up and deport all immigrants.

What this translates into is that the central government must become the police state, armed to the gills to identify and deport.  That should not be the role of the federal government.

The central government should establish naturalization policies that make sense rather than simply making a special interest group happy.  Those policy then become the obligation of the states to enforce.

[Please do not mistake that the last paragraph is suggesting the states are subservient to the national government in all things.  For me to suggest such a thing would be directly counter to what I am actually saying.]

The central government should not be running programs that provide benefits to non-citizen immigrants.  None!  Once states establish enforcement of national limited specific immigration policies then states, through the voice of the people, should decide on any supplemental actions/benefits.

The “size-matters” conservatives scream for national attention, regulation, enforcement.  They do not offer solid ideas to reduce the encroachment of the national government into US Constitutionally protected rights of the states.

That is the difference between conservative noise makers like Senator Ted Cruz and true Conservatives like Donald Trump.  “How so,” some may ask?  Isn’t Donald Trump the one swearing to build a wall?”

That is a valid question, although rather simplistic.

While the senator from Texas panders to emotionalism Donald Trump actually responds with suggestions to reduce the imposition of national bureaucracy.  Trump’s idea that a wall must be built is because the flood of illegal immigrants into the USA.  His consistent caveat is that the foreign government will pay the cost.

That is actually excellent reductionist theory.  Not a focus on size, but a focus on reduction of imposition…which is the real issue.

Size Does Not Matter, anywhere near as much as the scope of imposition.  Which is where the focus should be in all central government actions.

That Is The Way I See It.

Rocky: Revisited

Because I am really old I remember when the first Rocky movie came out back in 1976.  That’s 40 years ago.

One of the great scenes from that movie was the skating rink scene.  The rink was closed.  Rocky Balboa and Adrian Pennino show up to go skating.  The sign says “closed.”  Rocky asked the custodian “Does that mean its closed to everyone, or just the general public?”

Interesting question!  But it get them in to skate a few twirls.

Recent events with the Republican presidential race have reminded me of that scene.  Here is why.

Well educated people, including myself, have been consistent in stating that Ted Cruz is not eligible to be president because he is not a natural born citizen.  Of course his apologists will twist any reality to suggest that he is eligible.

The argument many of them use is that various courts have determined that the Naturalization Act of 1790 absolves Cruz from meeting that requirement.  No need to really discuss the Fact that the Naturalization Act of 1795 specifically nullifies the 1790 act.

Rebuttals of the obsolete 1790 legislation naturally (no pun intended) fall on deft ears and closed minds.

How does this relate to the scene from Rocky?

Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution sets forth the eligibility requirements for serving as president of the United States, under clause 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

In essence, Senator Ted Cruz asked the courts “Does that mean its applies to everyone, or just the general public?”  The implication is that he sees himself as a special type of citizen…beyond the bounds of the Constitution.

Unfortunately the lowers courts, but never the Supreme court, have nodded and winked their assent to the idea that elected bureaucrats are in fact a special breed of citizen…to whom the MANDATES of the Constitution do not apply.

Well, the skating rink scene makes for good movie making.  However, this type of dereliction of duty and promiscuity of principles leaves our nation once again on very thin ice.

That Is The Way I See It.


Utah “Conservatives” are Confusing

So called conservatives in Utah are confusing.

Constitution On the one hand many of them say they are very strong advocates of the US Constitution.  Yet, their behavior seems so different.  I personally don’t think many of them actually know much about the US Constitution beyond knowing it is the quaint and appropriate thing to support…as a Republican.

First and foremost the Utah Republican Party platform does not adhere to the US Constitution as adopted.  So, to claim to be Republican and an advocate of the Constitution is actually counter intuitive…if one understands both.  One is placed above the other, and I believe they habitually place the Party above the Constitution.

Of course the easiest argument for them to make is that they will reform the Republican Party and bring it back to Constitutional principles.  How is that working out for them?  With the notable exception of a few which can be counted on one hand the significant and dominate leadership of the Republican Party lean decidedly contrary to the Constitution.  That is a situation which is expanding not diminishing.  Again, how is that partisan repentance thing working out?

Now, the next situation I want to comment on is the actual content of the US Constitution.  Nine of the thirteen original colonies approved the Constitution with provisos that substantive changes needed to be changed.  f_betsy.gif Even with the well-oiled machine of the Federalist dominating the discourse during the ratification it was the Anti-Federalists that actually prevailed in raising a voice loud enough to cause those nine colonies to ratify with provisos.

The question that should really be asked is whether some of our more verbose conservatives are “federalists” or “anti-federalists.”  James Madison, Father of the Constitution, was very decidedly Federalist.  That means he wanted a much stronger national/central government.  My Utah conservative friends tout him as a small government guy.  Not So much!  But then those crazy anti common core kids also get hyped up on Thomas Jefferson.  Jefferson was one of the strongest advocates for nationalized education.img_5878

Now, lest anyone accuse me of defaming the early fathers of our nation please withhold judgement.  I am not critical of them.  I think that they were among the best and wisest men ever to live.  Yet, they had different viewpoint based in understanding.  I personally don’t see that in our generation.  I see uninformed hype for a 30 second soundbite.

Moving on.  These same conservatives hyped on hyperbole bray about how Ted Cruz is the savior of the Republican Party, if not the nation…or even the world.  He has stated unequivocally that Dr. Carson, Senator Rubio, and Governor Kasich should drop out of the presidential race BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PATH TO VICTORY ON THE FIRST BALLOT.  Now he finds himself in that position and his criteria suddenly does not apply.  One day he is ready to strap John Kasich to the mast of his Cruz ship, and the next day he is snuggling up to him like he’s the captain of the Queen Mary.

The point is that Senator Ted Cruz is inconsistent.  “Lyin Ted” may just be a little too soft of a depiction of his character.  Yet, those unstudied wordsmiths of conservatism still hang on his every word.  It is one thing to hang together to avoid hanging separately…if based on INFORMED views.  It is an entirely different stupidity to kick dirt in Judge Roy Bean’s scrambled eggs, just for fun.

If the Constitutional Conservatives can’t support Donald J. TrumpTrump2, which they should, than wisdom would dictate that “as true believers” they would embrace the Constitution Party Candidate for president.  Afterall, he is actually a Natural Born Citizen.

That Is The Way I See It.