Paul Ryan is NOT a RINO. I am.

You read that title correctly. Paul Ryan is NOT a RINO. Neither is McConnell. Nope, Sessions isn’t either. But it would appear that I am.
How can I say things like that with a straight face and be deadly serious? Just consider the facts.
Most of the republican members of congress were considered RINOs. The Republican party officially supports them. They have become the republican party. For some reason they decided to leave me behind, to completely ignore me and my kind.
We have become pariahs.
In today’s world, the right wing, patriotic, constitution loving American is being left out of the political process and without a voice. We have become the true Republicans In Name Only.
Since I do not enjoy not having a voice in the affairs of my country, I decided to do something about that. But what can a person do. I can not take on the sins of the Democrats and most other parties out there don’t seem to have much of a voice. Only thing to do is more research.
Let’s see. There is the Green party. Definitely not for me. Appears to be an off shoot of the democrats and their goals are really unreasonable. How about the Libertarians. Again, not to my liking. They are the next thing to anarchy. And, particularly here in West Virginia, they used subterfuge, and out right dishonesty to obtain their goals. Their ‘guiding light’, one Chris Anders, uses an auto dialer to spread his message (Hate those things with a passion) and frequently spreads misinformation, if not outright untruths. Case in point: He told anyone that would listen the the Jefferson County Commissioners voted themselves a pay raise. They didn’t, That came out of the state capital. There is one other point about Mr. Anders that disturbs me. He lives in Virginia! He does not live in WEST Virginia yet he is spearheading a move to take control of the Jefferson county republican party.
Then there is the fact that they are avowed isolationists wanting no involvement in world affairs. I have a friend that tells me that I am just too forthright. OK, the term he means is blunt. I guess I am at times, but I am not a politician. There are times when being blunt is necessary.
Oh well. Keep looking.
How about the Constitution party? Good name, but do they mean it. Have they got a chance of ever winning anything? Probably not this election cycle, but they are the third largest political party in this country. Do they mean it? I read their platform. They seem to be dedicated to returning this country to the constitutional republic the democrats have spent the last 50 years doing everything in their power to destroy. They make no bones about their belief that this country should be run by the president. Period. Separation of powers is to them a fallacy. And old idea that we should just ignore.
Not my cup of tea. I actually like the constitution.
Hmm bit of a rant there, but every word the truth. Back to the Constitution party.
They are on the ballot in 25 states this cycle, which is a huge improvement or the last one. They have achieved major party status in Wyoming . Their donations have more than doubled in the last few months and just keep growing. There is a large contingent of Cruz supporters that have joined and other disillusioned republicans are joining up every day. I can easily envision them being a major force in the next election cycle. Why? Because they listen. Because they are sincere in wanting to return us. Because this country is looking for some honesty in Politics! It is my belief that this party offers just that and wouldn’t that confuse the politicians of today! Because conservatives all over this country are fed up with a republican party that refuses to adhere to their conservative roots and instead just want the power and money that currently goes with an elected office in D.C.
Personally, I am fed up with being a RINO. I do believe that explains why I am now a registered member of the Constitution party of the United States.

In Response to a Question

I am frequently asked one question that needs a response. In an effort to head off having to write the same thing so many times I thought I would answer it here.
The question? How the **** can I help?
The first thing is to consider how to make use of the obvious anger you have. How? Restrain it. Don’t let it color your discussions with any liberal. Think about this for a minute and imagine this all too common scene: You are talking with a person that does not agree with your views. One thing is apparent. You want to convince that person you are right just as he/she wants to convince you of the sanctity of their position. So you begin to raise your voice in an attempt to get them to listen to you. You just want them to shut up and LISTEN. The trouble is he /she is thinking the same thing so now we have a shouting match where nobody is listening to anybody.
Try listening to their side. They just might reveal the central flaw in their position which you can use to counter their arguments in a sane manner. Get rid of all of the invectives. The name calling the swear words, the insults. These will quickly turn off their hearing and you will accomplish nothing other than make yourself feel less frustrated.
The constitution is not one they will not hear. That they believe is just and old outdated piece of paper that should be scrapped. Law of the land? Not a problem. They simply change it as they see fit.
Socialism can be shown to be a failure in every single case. The U.S.S.R.? Doesn’t exist anymore. Argentina? Where a hamburger cost $28.00 and no one has even $5.00? Were food riots are a daily occurrence? What about England, they say? I have been to England and yes they do have some socialism. Their medical profession for example. Anyone that can afford it leaves the country to be treated for anything worse than a broken bone or a cold. There aren’t enough doctors or nurses to handle the traffic because it has become a second rate profession. When I was over there several years ago, I suffered a bad cut and needed stitches. The wound was bleeding profusely. I waited nine hours to be seen. I was using a handkerchief to stop the flow of blood. It was soon soaked through, but I had nothing else and could not get any help. By the time I was seen the cut was infected, still seeping blood and hurt worse than it had when I came in. I was given a few stitches and some antibiotics. Total time in the room? About ten minutes. At least the anesthetic used to put in the stitches stopped the pain for a while. Yeah, socialism is great. Oh yeah. The taxes. They pay, on average, $85.00 out of every $100.00 they earn to support it and are still going broke. What does that mean in practical terms? It means you work 310.25 days each year to pay other peoples bills and just 54 and ¼ days for yourself.
OK I got off track there for a while, but if they do bring up social programs there are plenty of facts to use in rebuttal. The real point is – use your anger to your advantage and yelling, swearing or not voting against these disastrous liberal policies is not the way to “help”. Learn to bank the fires of your anger and learn to listen. Then unleash that anger in a way that will actually do some good. Not doing anything only makes them stronger. Not voting only makes them stronger.
We use the term RINO to highlight a person that is a republican in name only. Sorry that is not true anymore. The RINO is the republican of these days. The conservative has been left out in the cold.
Today I registered as a member of the Constitution Party. To paraphrase Reagan, I did not leave the republican party. They left me. I can still vote for those of any party that I think have a chance of helping to save this country while having the ability to work towards something better. A Constitutional Republic just like we used to have. That will take a while and I may not live to see it (I am an old guy), but I will go to my grave knowing that I fought the good fight and made a difference. A small one to be sure, but a difference and in a good way.

Conservative Dilemma

The Conservative Dilemma

Many years ago I was faced with a very real dilemma. This dilemma involved my personal and very closely held principles on the one hand and my moral obligations on the other. It was the first time I had ever faced such a situation. Normally these two were one and the same. Not this time.
You see I was at that age when young men face the call to go into the military. My personal principles said, and very strongly, that I should keep myself as safe as possible. I should not deliberately place myself in harms way. I was meant to live and live a happy healthy life with all of my faculties and limbs. Joining the military would put all of that at serious risk.
Countering that was the moral obligation to serve the nation that fostered that safety and the freedoms that country gave me just because I was lucky enough to be born in America. At that time I was only peripherally aware of the struggle that brought about that nation. I had been taught a very real history of this nation. I had learned of the founding fathers who had pledged their lives, fortunes and their “Sacred Honor” to bring it about. I knew that most had lost the first two while keeping their “Sacred Honor”. But all of that was learned from books so I could pass the tests they gave me to write. It wasn’t all that real to me. Oh, I was raised in a family that held all of it dear. They were, what is now viewed as the old fashioned republicans. The fought the liberalization of their country. The were vocal in their angst regarding the liberal movement away from the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. But again it was a nebulousity. Something of only philosophical importance to my young and know it all mind. Suddenly I was being forced to make all of it real. I did not realize it at the time, but I was making a decision about how I was going to live my life. Was I to be just another person that accepted what others were willing to give me or would I be a person that defended others and fought to keep the American dream alive. Not that I ever thought about it like that at the time.
Well I made that decision after some time. I swore the oath and wore the uniform. For the first time I put others ahead of myself. My moral obligation had won out over my personal principles and as a result, that obligation became my highest held personal principle. The two were now one. Now, here I am, almost half a century later faced with a similar choice, but one that is just as important.
I fought the good fight. I vehemently opposed the Trump nomination run. I desperately wanted a constitutional conservative to make that run and God willing, win the white house. Trump was a very poor choice for that. Now I am faced with the dilemma of either lending my vote to this man I don’t really trust of of ceding the presidency to a woman I KNOW hates all that the constitution stands for. She is both a liar and a criminal and quite possibly a traitor in the very legal sense of that word. There are other choices on the ballot. The Libertarians have a good man the Constitution Party has a man that holds many of my beliefs. I can happily live with either in the oval office. The simple fact is that neither stands even the slightest chance of winning. The libertarians have never gotten beyond the one per cent vote level and the Constitution Party in a complete unknown to the voters. The only thing they can do is take votes away from the Republican and give the election to the Constitution and freedom destroying Liberals.
It comes down to this: I don’t like Trump. He is not a conservative, but he does espouse SOME conservative principles and he does appear genuine in hi desire to keep America from becoming an Islamic state. He does appear to be a man that will do his best to enforce the laws of our country, for the most part. Hillary, on the other hand scares the living Hell out of me. For so many reasons.
Again, the dilemma. Principles or moral obligation​? Again, I am forced to choose my moral obligation to keep the traitor out of the White House. I will vote for Trump and put my principles aside for the good of the country.

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.