One Reason Liberty is Dying in America

There was a time in this country when personal liberty was the key to the entire philosophy of the United States of America. That philosophy no longer pertains. I think I have found the major reason for that and I would like you to begin consider the ramifications as well as the cause.

It is reasonable to state that it really began to take hold in this country with Teddy Roosevelt, who told the nation during a July Fourth speech that we should ignore the preamble to the Declaration of Independence the very thing the Fourth of July, Independence Day as it used to be called, was celebrating. He was followed in the presidency by one Woodrow Wilson. Now he went a little further by declaring that the president had a “mandate” by virtue of the fact that he won the election, to be the “Leader and sole representative of the people.” In other words, he believed the President should be acknowledged as the Sovereign of the government. This has reached its ultimate goal in Barack H. Obama, our Sovereign.

OK, that is how it all started. How did we let it happen? Ahh, to paraphrase Shakespeare, there’s the rub.

This country was founded upon the principle of freedom that comes from the acceptance of responsibility. This thought is found in many forms in the founders explanation of the constitution, the Patriot Papers. Just what is this “acceptance of responsibility” that I find so important and why is it important?

The founders truly believed that freedom, while granted by God, would never be easy to maintain. There would be a cost and that cost would be the responsibility to work to keep it. How, you might well ask? It is very simple to put into words and, for some, so difficult to do. You must accept the responsibility for yourself. And and all of your actions. You must never allow others to absolve you of that responsibility. If you want material wealth, go out and earn it. If you want political freedom, fight to protect it even when your neighbor tells you that the government will do all of that for you. They won’t and never can.

The premier promulgator of “progressive philosophy” was a man named John Dewey, 1859-1952. Dr. Dewey published many things from books to scholarly papers espousing his philosophy. He believed that no person was ‘born free’. He had to be made that way and protected in that condition by government. The government must begin this process in a person’s very earliest stages of life with an education system that taught him how to think of government and his/her own position in the scheme of things. The must be taught that it is the government’s responsibility to assure that your “freedoms and equality” are protected. Does your neighbor have more land than you? The government is required to take some of that land and give it to you, his less fortunate (Read lazier) neighbor. The government must create equality since it does not exist in any natural state as the Declaration of Independence so beautifully states. It was his teachings that led to Teddy Roosevelt to tell the American people in an Independence Day, now simply the fourth of July, speech that we should just ignore the preamble to that seminal document of our nation.

Please don’t get the idea that progressive philosophy began with Dr. Dewey. That has been around for a long, long time. It has failed every time it has been tried, from late Rome to England prior to the Magna Carta in 1215. His educational philosophy was formulated while studying for his PhD at Johns Hopkins University, the original progressive University in this country.
So now we have intelligent, but under educated children and University Chancellors both decrying the first amendment and denying its practice on their campuses. We have a federal government attempting to criminalize dissent as in the scientific thought on the bogus climate change agenda of the current administration.

The reason Liberty is dying in America? Because the liberals and the progressives say that it must. For our own protection. I say to them … Please don’t protect me from myself! Please don’t protect me from my natural equality and require me to have your version of equality.

The Serious Ongoing Issues From This Campaign

That this has been a tempestuous campaign season is the one thing all agree upon. On the democratic side we have an avowed socialist with some pretty outlandish ideas about how this country should move forward. Just give everybody what they want and worry about paying for it at some later time. And then there is the now presumptive democrat nominee. The recently released report from Gowdy’s committee investigating the Benghazi Terrorist attack virtually accuses both Hillary Clinton and B. Obama of being complicit in the murder of four men in that town in Libya including the United States Ambassador. She has been shown to be a consistent, no make that constant, liar. Not even her lies are consistent. The democratic presumptive nominee has stated many things that show her contempt for the constitution. She s a self proclaimed “progressive” and denies being a liberal. The progressives believe that only professional politicians should have a voice in how we run our government. The people should vote and then shut up and let them handle everything. The vote is viewed as being a mandate to do so.

On the other side of the fence we have a rich business man that says what ever comes to mind at the moment then, likely as not reverses himself the next day that has become the Republican presumptive nominee. This man has never puled more than roughly 35% of the vote in his primaries. If all of the primaries had been awarding delegates on a proportional basis instead of the all or nothing rule of so many, he would not even be that. And now we have many that have decided to attempt to nullify even the primaries decision.

Carroll Boston “Beau” Correll, a district-level delegate to the 2016 Republican National Convention, filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all the 49 Republican district delegates as well as the 110 Democrat delegates of Virginia. Correll firmly believes that Donald Trump is “unfit to serve” as President of the United States, and cannot bring himself to vote for Trump on the first ballot, or any subsequent ballots.  Correll filed the lawsuit in order to gain protection from any criminal charges since by not voting for Trump he will be in violation of Virginia state law, Section 545(D). Should this suit prevale, it would effectively nullify the Virginia primary results and give us 49 unbound delegates. That would also allow any other state’s delegates to file the same suit and prevail due to precedent law. Now there is a can of worms I am not sure we want to open.

Next we look at the divisiveness of the campaigns themselves. We had many factions at work this time. There were the populists supporting Trump- the constitutional conservatives supporting Cruz- the republican establishment supporting first Bush then Rubio- libertarians supporting Paul- a fraction of the conservatives behind Kasich- Social democrats following Sanders- the mainstream democrats pushing the Clinton campaign.

It has been a divisive and dirty campaign from day one. It has gotten even more so now that we have these “presumptive” winners. There was only one person that did not engage in the mud slinging- Senator Cruz. Even he got a little harsh when they attacked his wife. I, personally, can’t blame him for that.

Hillary has said so much that is simply and provably erroneous that she has lost much support due to that duplicity. Trump keeps changing his position on almost everything he has said The latest seems to be his backtracking on the exclusion of Muslim immigration. It now appears that he really didn’t mean ALL Muslims, just those that cannot be properly “vetted”. Who makes the call on what that word means he has not indicated. He has insulted Women, native Americans, blacks, Chinese, English and of course Muslims. OH. And anybody that disagrees with him. Going so far as to ask followers to “punch” one protester, offering to pay all legal fees for anyone that did.

OK you get the point. This campaign season has actually created a very large chasm in the body politic of our nation. It has gone a long way toward dividing our house against itself. Is there a solution that would work and is feasible? Many have been offered, but if you take a close look at them they each push a personal agenda also except for the “Can’t we all just get along?” crowd. Remember that word feasible? We have the “lets just follow the constitution” people. Probably the best one, yet it will never resonate with the “progressives”. They simply will not do that.

I do not have the answer. The only one that will work, I guess, is the Convention of States idea that terrifies the left so badly. The left calls it a “con-con. A Constitutional Convention to rewrite the constitution. It is not and never could be. Who actually believes that any state legislature would send commissioners to such a convention that would violate many laws passed by those same legislatures stating plainly that proposing amendments contrary to the topic of the convention would be a criminal or civil act and could land them in jail at worst, simply recalled and fired with prejudice at best. The main reason so many on the left fear this one is it proposes term limits which would fire all of the professionals in Government. Of Course there is also those amendments that would limit federal spending and limit the power of the federal government.

If you have a better solution to closing this chasm, please comment.

What Is a Conservative?

The first task we face when discussing Conservatism is the definition of terms. What defines a conservative? It seems this definition is rapidly changing with time. Way back when Reagan was a democrat, conservatism was defined as the strict adherence to the words and ideals of the constitution. The liberal was one who believed in the constitution, but felt that it should be interpreted to fit the modern cultural values.
The democrats (liberals from here on) have taken the stance that the constitution is just an old document with a lot of meaningless words. The tenth amendment, for one instance, should never be a blockade to giving the people all the free stuff they want. The second amendment does really say that citizens have a right to their guns. Well, maybe a musket or two. They hold these truths to be self evident, that bigger government is better government. That the government’s purpose is to perpetuate their power and to serve the interests of big business.
So what does being “conservative” mean? That word has a lot of definitions these days. If you are a Libertarian, it means very small government as it does to most traditional conservatives, but it also means isolationism. They believe we should not be involved anywhere in the world except here at home.
To the mainstream Republican it appears to mean if you are a registered Republican you are, by definition, conservative regardless of what government you have or vote for. Government sponsored health care is OK even though it is in violation of both the commerce clause in the constitution and the tenth Amendment. It has come to mean that government sponsored abortion is OK in some few special cases. As I write this, the Republican presumptive nominee for president believes that a person’s self determination of gender is paramount, regardless of what God has given them and the rest of us must conform to that minuscule minority’s beliefs. The liberals seem to feel that the founders oft stated belief in God and the freedom of religion actually means the freedom From religion and the rest of us should just keep our religious beliefs to ourselves. God help the idiot that actually speaks in public about freedom >b>of religion.
Our founding fathers wrote some immortal words in the Declaration of Independence:“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.” They went on to codify that in the constitution they wrote in 1779.On one particular Fourth of July, the day we celebrate the signing of this Declaration of Independence, Theodore Roosevelt made a speech from the White house saying that in order to understand that declaration, we should eliminate those words. Just ignore them. This is the liberal stance.
I will discuss only one of those “self evident truths,” Liberty. Liberty is defined by Merriam-Webster as “1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice.”I offer a quote from Hillsdale College professor, Ronald J. Pestritto “In the early 20th century, a new political theory—known as Progressivism—rose to prominence in America. This theory held that the principles of the American Founding, expressed most eloquently and concisely in the Declaration of Independence, were irrelevant to modern life. Progressives taught that stringent restrictions on government power were no longer necessary to protect liberty, since human nature and science had advanced greatly during the 19th century. Progressives did not believe that individuals are endowed with inalienable rights by the Creator; rather, they believed that rights are determined by social expediency and bestowed by the government. In conjunction with this new theory of rights, Progressivism holds that government must be able to adapt to ever-changing historical circumstances.”
To tea party members, for the most part, the term conservative means adherence to the Constitution as well the Declaration and keeping the federal government out of our lives and businesses. That means, among many other things, the tenth amendment, the second amendment both mean exactly what they say.
The above paragraph uses the comma phrase ‘for the most part’ when discussing the tea party philosophy. There was a time when that caveat would not have been necessary. Today, however, the Tea Party is an idea that has spawned many tea party offshoots with little or no bond to that original intent. Notice I use Caps to discuss the original Tea Party. That will be my method of delineating those groups actually affiliated and adherents to the original Tea Party national organization. That concept has become multiply fractured
Conservative is defined in so many ways today it is impossible to define except in terms of a person’s own ideology. My definition holds for me. That definition is simple. The constitution is the supreme law of the land and any who seek to destroy it are, by definition, criminals.
Next Week I will discuss the foundation of and evolution of Liberalism.

Just What is a Convention of States​?

There has been a lot of talk these last few years regarding a Convention of States. Many people have no idea what it is nor how it came to be about., so let’s talk about it. Let’s see if we can dispel the mists of ignorance surrounding this issue and discover the What, the Why and the How.
What is a Convention of States (COS) and how did it come into being?
The “Father of the Bill of Rights, one George Mason, a member of the Constitutional Convention, was the man that insisted that the mechanism for this right to amend the constitution be incorporated into the Constitution. He wrote Article V of that document and after much debate and some minor alteration, it was included in the final draft. Article V provides for the amending of the Constitution in two ways: 1. Congress can call for a convention to amend the constitution and this has been done several times including during the very first session of the American Congress: 2. the people, through their state legislatures, have the same right. The states may call for a convention to amend the constitution because Mason believed that the federal government would never act to curb its own power. It turns out he was both a fortuneteller and he was right.
Mason was also the instigator of the bill of rights movement. He had insisted that the brand new Constitution needed amending to include a Bill of Rights to protect the citizens.
James Madison obliged by writing those ten amendments we call our Bil of Rights. The senate called the convention during its very first session, as Article V specifies, and 75 % or more of the states ratified those ten to give us our codified rights. But, as is said, I digress.
Please note that there is no provision anywhere in the Constitution to call a CONSTITUTIONAL convention and none has been called since the one in 1787. That includes the one currently under discussion. It is called as a convention to amend not re-write.
How then, do the states go about calling for a COS? Here we get just a tad complicated. A convention of states requires that 2/3rds of the states make the call. In other words, of our 50 states 34 of them must agree to call a convention or it will not happen. Period. If they do agree to call a convention into being, the U.S. senate MUST set a time and place for the convention to be held. Note. The senate has no choice in the matter and they may not intervene nor interfere with the convention and they must set that time and place in a timely manner. The president nor any governor has any say what so ever. Not veto power here. There is only one small catch in this process. Every state must present the petition for a convention in exactly the same way with exactly the same wording. IF and when such a convention is called and any amendments are formulated and passed by that group there is one more major hurdle to be overcome before the amendments are actually added to the law of this land. The legislatures of ¾ or thirty eight of the states must ratify each one. The Founders of our nation endeavored to insure that any such a major undertaking be the actual will of the vast majority of the people. The current call for a convention of states could become the only one ever to take advantage of George Mason’s brain child so just what is its stated purpose? The convention the originators of this convention call intend that it be tightly focused on three compelling issues before our nation. Those three are:
1. To limit the power and authority of the federal government
2. To place fiscal restraints on the federal government
3. To limit the terms of government officials.
What do those actually imean? Could the convention call for an amendment that would require women to register for the draft? No. That would expand government power, not limit it. Keep in mind that any amendment proposed that does not follow the three intentions are not allowed and the states that have already passed this resolution have also enacted laws that would make even the attempt to do so a criminal act as well as the recall of the delegate (more properly called a Commissioner) and his/her replacement. OK how about limiting the authority of the regulatory agencies such as the IRS, the Department of Education and the Environment Protection agency, among so many more. The constitution clearly states in the very first line that Congress shall make all laws, yet that self same body has abrogated that responsibility to people that never have to answer to the people. These agencies have become the makers of their own laws , the enforcers of those laws and the executioners of those unconstitutional laws.
Number two is essentially intended to limit the ability to spend us into the poor house as so many liberal thinkers seem to demand and is actually happening this very minute. This could be done in a few ways such as enforcing a balanced budget and/or limiting increased spending. Perhaps putting a absolute cap on the amount of debt allowed by tying it to well defined percentage of the GNP. Better minds than mine will figure all of the details.
The third goal is a bold statement to return the federal government to the people by eliminating the career politician. Those people that spend more of their time getting re-elected than they do on fulfilling the promises they made and making sure any laws they pass are in strict accordance with the constitution. This is intended to place term limits on those nine unelected people in black robes so we can have some sanity in the judiciary. The constitutional limitation “upon good behavior” is not working because those professional politicians will not and do not use that to remove judges that go against the very wording in the constitution. In today’s world they even change the wording of any law they choose to make it fit what they, those nine unelected judges, desire. Note the ruling on the Affordable Care Act, commonly called Obamacare.
What are the arguments against? No one seems to disagree with the aims set forth, but they do have concerns and objections. Among them is the fear that the convention will become a constitutional convention, a so called con con. This one is fallacious on the face of it if you actually know the rules set up and the manner that the prevention of that very thing has been addressed. There are rules in place and more being studied that would make this impossible. Think about it. Just the fact that 38 states have to ratify each amendment makes this one so unlikely as to be ludicrous. Then there are the criminal penalties any commissioner would face just for advancing the idea. You might even want to consider the thought processes of people attending such an event. These people are , by definition, patriots. Then there are the “It would be a runaway convention! There would be amendments proposed that would be outside the stated scope ”. These same facts are there to prevent that one.
Yes, I believe that this country is in trouble and that the ONLY way we can fix it is to call this convention. I even go so far as to state that those who oppose it are one of two types: they are either liberals who want to see much more government control of our lives or they are ignorant of the fail safes both inherent and incorporated.

What is a Conservative?

What Is a Conservative?

The first task we face when discussing Conservatism is the definition of terms. What defines a conservative? It seems this definition is rapidly changing with time. Way back when Reagan was a democrat, conservatism was defined as the strict adherence to the words and ideals of the constitution. The liberal was one who believed in the constitution, but felt that it should be interpreted to fit the modern cultural values.

The democrats (liberals from here on) have taken the stance that the constitution is just an old document with a lot of meaningless words. The tenth amendment, for one instance, should never be a blockade to giving the people all the free stuff they want. The second amendment does really say that citizens have a right to their guns. Well, maybe a musket or two. They hold these truths to be self evident, that bigger government is better government. That the government’s purpose is to perpetuate their power and to serve the interests of big business.

So what does being “conservative” mean? That word has a lot of definitions these days. If you are a Libertarian, it means very small government as it does to most traditional conservatives, but it also means isolationism. They believe we should not be involved anywhere in the world except here at home.

To the mainstream Republican it appears to mean if you are a registered Republican you are, by definition, conservative regardless of what government you have or vote for. Government sponsored health care is OK even though it is in violation of both the commerce clause in the constitution and the tenth Amendment. It has come to mean that government sponsored abortion is OK in some few special cases. As I write this, the Republican presumptive nominee for president believes that a person’s self determination of gender is paramount, regardless of what God has given them and the rest of us must conform to that minuscule minority’s beliefs.The liberals seem to feel that the founders oft stated belief in God and the freedom of religion actually means the freedom From religion and the rest of us should just keep our religious beliefs to ourselves. God help the idiot that actually speaks in public about freedom >b>of religion.

Our founding fathers wrote some immortal words in the Declaration of Independence: “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.” I will discuss only one of those “self evident truths,” Liberty. Liberty is defined by Merriam-Webster as “1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice.” They went on to codify that in the constitution they wrote in 1779.

To tea party members, for the most part, it means adherence to the constitution and keeping the federal government out of our lives and businesses. That means, among many other things, the tenth amendment, the second amendment both mean exactly what they say.

The above paragraph uses the comma phrase ‘for the most part’ when discussing the tea party philosophy. There was a time when that caveat would not have been necessary. Today, however, the Tea Party is an idea that has spawned many tea party offshoots with little or no bond to that original intent. Notice I use Caps to discuss the original Tea Party. That will be my method of delineating those groups actually affiliated and adherents to the original Tea Party national organization. That concept has become multiple fractured

Conservative is defined in so many ways today it is impossible to define except in terms of a person’s own ideology. My definition holds for me. That definition is simple. The constitution is the supreme law of the land and any who seek to destroy it are, by definition, criminals.

Why?

Why?

I had an interesting question asked of me by a friend last night. Why am I so adamantly and passionately supporting Cruz and equally adamantly and passionately opposed to Trump and his political sister, Hillary?
A great part of the answer revolves around the country I grew up in. You see I grew up in a country that respected the rights of others. Where the phrase “my rights end at the start of your nose,” actually meant something. A country that respected the right of a person to run his or her own business and if he/she put in place a policy that I didn’t agree with, it as my right not to patronize him and urge others to do the same.
The country I grew up in had no tolerance for a supreme court that ignored the constitution and wrote their own laws. The constitution was the SUPREME law of the land, not groups of unelected bureaucrats and Judges that made it up as they went along. My country thought that the Declaration of Independence was almost sacred. When it said – “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR …” it meant something. I meant that this was a country founded on the rights of the individual as granted by God, not men.
I have lost my country. A country whose uniform I proudly wore and to whom I swore the oath to defend the constitution and my country against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Nobody, including me, has ever said “that’s OK, Rick, you don’t have to hold to that oath anymore. Just forget it.”
Now I find that there is an election that has many people running that honestly believe that Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States are just old pieces of paper that need to be forgotten and ignored. That the reasons this country was founded on individual liberty and a trust in God is no longer pertinent to our lives and certainly not something our government should have any concern for. Mr. Trump has said the following and though I may paraphrase the concepts are identical:
1> I don’t think I have ever asked God for forgiveness. I trust in my own judgment about right and wrong.
2> If a man thinks he is a woman he should be allowed to be in the bathroom our wives and daughter’s use.
3> I don’t need to follow the rules. The rules aren’t always things I agree with.
4> Wrote an entire book about how to con people and then uses those tactics while campaigning to be MY president.
5> Promotes violence within his own organization and among his followers.
Promises that if he is not the nominee there will be riots in the streets across our land.
6> Cannot tolerate any form of disagreement.
7> Is afraid to meet his opponent in a head to head debate even when openly challenged to do so.
8> Believes the rules should be changed to fit his own personal definition of “fair” even though some of those rules have been in place long before he decided to run and all have been in place before this campaign began.
9> When asked about the Convention of States project he reportedly replied “What’s that?”

There is one person in this race that has a lifelong history of standing for the constitution and the people of this land. He has openly opposed those who would and do denigrate the supreme law of this country. He even had that constitution memorized before he graduated form high school. He has stood on the floor of he senate and correctly identified the leader of the senate of lying and took heat for it! He has proposed bill after bill that would curb the power of the very body he was elected to in the face of those who forgot their promises the second they were sworn into office.
He has repeatedly stated that he wants to give me my country back to me.
I ask you – How can I not support him?

Donald Trump:The Man – His Politics

The Man:

Donald John Trump is a son of Fred Trump, a New York City real estate developer. He worked for his father’s firm, Elizabeth Trump & Son, while attending the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, and officially joined the company in 1968. In 1971, he was given control of the company, renaming it The Trump Organization. Wharton is the oldest and, some say, the most prestigious business school in the US. He started life as a multi-millionaire and used that base in real-estate and real-estate development to become a billionaire.
When he took over the company in 1971 it was just before the start of the Reagan Revolution and during that time real-estate was a booming business. It was almost impossible to lose money on a deal. If you bought real-estate you made money. If you developed real-estate you made even more. Donald Trump became really rich off his father’s business and tutelage. Then came the bust. He had to declare several of his business ventures bankrupt. He was and is a canny businessman. He made unflinching use of the laws to take property from people who had no means to defend his eminent domain take overs and foist his debts on to other people via the bankruptcy courts. He has married several times and always because he had another great looking lady waiting in the wings. His exes all vouch for this.
He is a past master at self promotion, a good thing for a businessman or a politician. As his personal finances passed the billion mark, he began to concentrate on self aggrandizement. He bought his way onto the television screen and began with a show that allowed him to fire people publicly. If they failed his assignment, he would look them straight in the eye and say “You’re Fired.” I was fired once. It did not boost my self esteem. Thankfully, I wasn’t fired in front of millions of people. He has made a name for himself simply by being tactless. This doesn’t appear to be a rebellion against political correctness, it seems to be more of a personality trait. Disagree with him in any manner and you are going to feel his rapier tongue right in your gut.

His Politics:

Politically he both appears and in fact actually is naive. He is a very blunt spoken man. I am not saying he doesn’t mean what he says. No one, at this point and outside his very inner circle, can say whether he does or does not, but I am perfectly willing to take him at his word for the nonce. The only thing we do know in this vein is that he seems to sail before the political prevailing wind. Today as a republican, yesterday both a democrat and an independent that supported the Clinton’s and congratulated Obama on his winning the election both times! His largest contributions have always been to the left side of the aisle with only token hedge betting contributions to the Republicans. Makes one wonder if the reason he chose the republican side this time was to not confront Hillary directly in the preliminary campaign.
There are few who call him conservative and this reporter certainly cannot.
His political naiveté will cost him when it comes to dealing with congress, should he win the nod at the convention. He has no experience what-so-ever in day to day political in-fighting and thus no understanding of the vicissitudes of that quagmire.
In the interviews that have been done with his close supporters and friends all seem to place them firmly in the “yes sir” category so I don’t see much hope for his gaining from the experience of others. He has regularly shown a propensity for excoriating verbiage for those that disagree with him. All in all his political acumen seems to be lacking.

His Followers:

This will be the topic of Chapter two of this particular blog. I should have it ready for posting shortly after Christmas.
Comments are welcome regardless of nature with one or two exceptions. If you advocate violence in any form or make use of foul language in those comments your comment will never see the light of day and you will be blocked from all future postings. With those exceptions I ask for your comments on my blog page. That lets me know you didn’t just read the headline and formulate your response from that snippet.

Should Islam be Considered a Religion in America?

This is a question being pondered by many in our country today. The subject logically begins with the definition of the word religion. Then, if it should not be called a religion, why and how come into immediate play?
How does one define the word religion? Merriam Webster says this: “: the belief in a god or in a group of gods : an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods.“ That might be a little simplistic for our purposes. That definition allows any group, large or small, to declare that they are following a religion for for any sensical or nonsensical reason. Even the constitution or at least the patriot papers and the founding fathers put limits on religion and its practices. Using religion to justify human sacrifice and you still face the death penalty. Using religion to start riots used to be considered against the law though you have to wonder these days.
Let us then, look at a definition that the founding fathers might have had in mind when they wrote the first amendment granting that “Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, …” (pardon the aside here, but notice that it is very specific in saying that Congress, shall pass no law establishing a religion. Doesn’t say a word about praying at a football game or before a government body conducts business.) That definition might well be considered in today’s world, as well as yesterdays, as one which accepts the precepts of the Judeo-Christian ethic. In other words the respecting of life. Human life most of all. The phrase ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ comes to mind. Though it is not in the Christian or Jewish holy scripture nor any religion’s defining document it is perceived as the fundamental law of ethical life.
Ethical. An interesting word. Also the word ethos fits here. Ethical is defined as ‘involving or expressing moral approval or disapproval conforming to accepted standards of conduct ‘ and ethos as ‘the distinguishing character, sentiment, moral nature, or guiding beliefs of a person, group, or institution.’ Somehow the philosophy of the so called Islamic faith just doesn’t seem to fit well.
I have trouble believing that they would find a “religion” that allows the killing of a woman for being raped or a person refusing to accept another religion, or made fun of your gods image as acceptable religious behavior.
Most, if not all, religions, with the exception of Islam, believe that life is sacred. Particularly human life. There are religions that take that reverence much further than we Christians do. The Hindus believe that even cows are sacred. The Shintu religion go so far as to actually have marriage ceremonies for rocks. They tie them together with ropes to signify that bond. Many religions ban the eating of meat. The point here is that all religions accept the fact that HUMAN life is sacred. It is not to be taken from anyone lightly. The first problem we face in this discussion therefore is the one of definition in the legal sense. I propose that a valid starting point would be: “Religion shall be defined by the United States of America as that purported religious believe(s) that holds life, particularly Human life, is a sacred thing and will not be taken without due process under American law. No other law of any nation or entity shall be entertained.” That should be easily understood by even those nine unelected people in black robes in D.C.
The next point is the how.
That one is easier said than done. Congress could and, indeed should, pass a law to this effect, but those nine unelected robed figures might strike it down. There is another sure way to do it. You need either congress to call a convention of the states and have 38 of them vote in favor of the amendment OR have 34 of the state legislatures call one with the 38 yea votes following. It then would become the undisputed law of this land. Enough said.
Comments of all kinds welcome and encouraged.

An Objective Look at the Candidates

Fox debate

An Objective Look at the Candidates

If we look at the candidates with some objectivity and from a strictly conservative view point we can eliminate several immediately. Obviously any democrat fails the conservative litmus test so this will be the last mention of any of those. So let’s look at the republican side of the ledger.

To be honest, only two or three of even these deserve serious consideration. There are more than 30 currently declared (including the perennials) and most of them are proven RINO in their politics. Some even mouthing Obama’s talking points on many of the issues. Here is a very truncated list of 13 for you with a short comment for each (I won’t even attempt to cover most of the also ran list):

  1. Jeb Bush, Florida Governor with stated left leaning ideals on Obamacare, immigration and a host of other issues. Will probably pull more democrat voters than republican.

  2. Dr. Ben Carson, No political experience and is constantly making rash statements he has to explain and fails.

  3. Chris Cristie, Tells it like it is and doesn’t care about the fallout. Also doesn’t care about important conservative issues such as gun control and the tenth amendment.

  4. Ted Cruz, Staunch conservative with a broad based grassroots support gaining most of his funding from that source. Not tied to any big money so owes nothing except to his constituents.

  5. Jack Fellure, Has been running for president every four years since 1988. That is the only reason I mention him and this is the last time.

  6. Carly Florina, a well known female candidate in the republican camp. Conservative, but with a background of failure and some other issues, probably will be a no show after the convention.

  7. Lindsey Graham, former Air Force Colonel with the JAG corps has gained a reputation for compromise brokering which sometimes leaves his constituency out of the equation.

  8. Mike Huckabee, Madea lot of enemies during his tenure on Fox news. Conservative Christian viewed by many to be a moderate conservative.

  9. Bobby Jindal, Louisiana Governor and outspoken critic of the federal Government. Good Man, but short on support and experience in government. American Indian if that makes any difference to anyone.

  10. Rand Paul, Libertarian tea party leader with a dwindling vocal following. He has redefined himself politically 3 times attempting to strike the right chord.

  11. Marco Rubio, With his Cuban heritage giving him a broad Latino support and his conservative record a current front runner. Seems to have a lot of big money interests supporting.

  12. Donald Trump, Made waves from his first announcement and has since continued with his controversial rhetoric, but has mentioned only two issues – Illegal Immigration (against) and universal health care (for). That last one may kill his chances.

  13. Scott Walker, Governor and conservative he isa contender, but his stand on religious liberty may be hazardous to his political health. He is the only governor to withstand a recall election and has proven that he is not afraid to take a stand.

Now that that is out of the way, let’s look at some conclusions.

As we can see there are really not all that many CONSERVATIVE candidates. In fact I find only three worth mentioning. They are: Dr, Carson; TedCruz; Bobby Jindal; and Scott Walker. OK I can hear the Paulists out there screaming about my not calling Rand Paul a conservative, After all he is a libertarian! Well, yeah, he does lay claim to that distinction, but he waffles way too much to be considered by conservatives as a viable candidate. Sorry about that.

Since I expect that you are wondering where this is going I will tell you. I made the statement on the West Virginia Conservative Voice that I would not be making any “endorsements” until after the new year and the primaries were over and have been criticized for that. They were right. After the primaries, selecting a candidate would be a moot point. Now is the time others are gathering the information they need to become informed voters for those self same primaries and I may have a different take for them to consider. So here goes.

Dr. Ben Carson is an honest man and a conservative to all appearances, but I also think he just good and and too kind a man to get really down and dirty in the political fighting that he job requires. Of course I may be wrong; however, I am unwilling to take chances with the man we put in the white house. I would really like to see him seasoned before he takes that office. Perhaps a cabinet post. Secretary of HHS? That would give him the training necessary with a strong back up n the form of a seasoned veteran in the white house.

We will come back to Senator Cruz and move on to Bobby Jindal.

Governor Jindal has had some ‘seasoning’ as governor of LA and is a good viable candidate; however I personally believe he would be more valuable as the education Secretary. The good Lord of us all knows we need a knowledgeable person in that seat. He has good experience being both a college grad with a few degrees and a former university system president.  And, yes, I admit to being swayed by his stand against Common Core.

Scott Walker is a true conservative and another viable candidate. Unfortunately his primary base is too small and weak to be of much help in the election when it will be so important. He would be an excellent cabinet member in several spots most notedly, Secretary of Labor.

And finally Senator Ted Cruz comes under scrutiny. Have more or less followed the Senator since before his announcement for the Presidency. On March 23 2015, my ears figuratively perked up. I didn’t think he would be a viable candidate at that time; however, I do follow anyone that announces a run for the presidency. It soon became clear that he was ideally suited for the job he was seeking. His support base is very wide and does not show much in the way of “moneyed interests”, but rather a ground swell of popular support that has garnered him the greater past of $12,000,000.00 in support at roughly $37.00 per donor. His constant and consistent stand on constitutional issues are of particular interest.  I would love to see him select Carly Fiornia as his running mate.  With that behind her to establish her bona fides, she might well make a great successor.

Ted Cruz will have my support and that of the West Virginia Conservative Voice’s co-conspirators. (That means those of us that write for that page, just in case you were wondering.):)

I will respond to all civil and specific queries.

Respectfully submitted;

Richard Allen

United States Citizen.

Coming Backlash

I believe there is a backlash building, in this country, a double backlash. The LGBT crowd has won the right to marry over the objection of the Christian majority in our nation. The ‘right’ was handed to them by a supreme court (no caps for them today.) that has left behind the constitutional function of that branch of government. The LGBTs are marching, the White House light up with he rainbow pride thingy, and the liberal press are all smiles.

So where are the conservatives in all of this? Fuming. There are a growing number of social media posts by churches, lawyers, politicians on both sides of the aisle, even foreign governments bashing both gays and supremes. Even Senator Cruz, a litigator before the supreme court and former clerk along with Chief Justice Roberts for Chief Justis Renquist, has stated that they violated the constitution with that ruling. I think that the LGBT crowd may have stirred up a hornets nest. I hope so. Most people in this country were tolerant of them. Most took the attitude – If they stay in their bedroom, I’ll stay in mine’. Now they have crossed a very serious line. They have gone against the clear dictates of the Christian Bible and thus gotten, not only the man and woman in the street against them, but most of the churches. It is just possible that they will end up being more of society’s pariahs than ever. I even have the hope that if either Cruz or someone that actually knows and cares about the constitution , is elected the decision will be revisited.

Now let’s look at the supremes. It was the intent of the founding fathers that the Supreme Court be the weakest branch of government. Both Hamilton and Madison were afraid of giving them too much power. According to surviving notes from delegates and the Federalist, the court was to be the final appellate court for civil disputes. Imagine that! (Those old fogies that wrote our constitution proven right again!) They were never intended to decide constitutional issues. The founders knew that that power would let them dictate to the other two branches. That was supposed to be left to the people. There certainly was never, by word or intent, the power to actually change the actual words of what came out of congress to suit their whims! There was even a discussion about having term limits for the supremes, but Madison assured the delegates that the justices wouldn’t live long enough to be a problem. You must remember the that a person over sixty was living on borrowed time back then. That has changed with the improvement in medical care. The youngest is Elena Kagan at a mere 55 years with John Roberts coming next with a gentle 60 years under his belt. The oldest on the bench is Ruth Bader Ginsburg at 82. The average age being 69+ with six of them over the age of 65 and four over 70.

The recent attention these acts of lawlessness have gotten and the response that is growing among the people has sparked some hope in my poor despondent heart. We need to fan the flames of our discontent.

One of the results of that “Week from Hell”, as one talking head put it, is the increased discussion of an amendment to the constitution to limit, in one way or another, the terms of the supremes. Even senators and representative on both the state and federal level are talking their brand of limitation via the Article V route. This is the route I suggest has become mandatory on the people of this country. As senator Cruz has also pointed out, this will have to come from the people via the Article V convention. It will never come from the congress no matter who we put in the white house. If such an amendment is carefully worded we will not only limit the time we have to put up with each, but define what they are actually allowed to do! I hope that their overreach has begun to topple both them and their overweening power.

I for one sincerely hope the ground swell of indignation over the lawlessness of both the administration and SCOTUS continues to build, but we need to keep pushing. The general public has shown an amazing propensity for attention deficit.