Category Archives: Rule of Law

An Open Letter to Donald Trump

lady-justice

 

A Question of Justice

Mr. President Elect;
I thank you for being so open with the inner workings of your transition efforts. This is something we have not seen since Ronald Reagan was in your position and it is very refreshing. I sincerely hope your entire administration; will show this kind of openness and transparency.

I do have one rather serious bone to pick with your recent actions. Your statement so soon after the election that you “… do not want to hurt the Clintons” was very magnanimous and even, in some respects, ‘presidential’; however it sent me a startling message. You have said, loud and clear, that there are some people that are simply above any law in this and probably other countries. Regardless of the egregious nature of the crimes committed against the security of this nation and the extreme violation of trust evinced by the FBI investigation already conducted and implied by those ongoing nor the reasonable assumption that she put our national security at risk to say nothing of the violation of her oath, even the serious implication that she, Hillary R. Clinton, might be complicit in several murders, you will not “hurt” the Clintons.

My question to you is: just how high in the government hierarchy do you have to be to be safe from any and all prosecution? Since we have seen the public trials of Senators, Congressmen and even 4 star generals prosecuted, it must be cabinet level and above.

To be honest, Mr. President Elect, I hoped for better from you.

trump-1

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?

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.

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.

Musings on Immigration

Article 2, Section 3 of the United States Constitution makes one of the duties of the president clear. It states the the president “… shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Naturally this assumes there is a law which he is supposed to “faithfully execute.” The current case of immigration is a problem that the president has decided to “fix” and since there is no law he has decided to make one on his own. This arrogation of congressional power to himself is plainly against the constitution he swore to uphold. If this power grab is allowed to stand we will have moved even further from a republic to tyranny.
Let’s face it, lawlessness breads lawlessness. Once you condone a lawless act you open the door for more such acts. Just to be clear, there are laws on the books, passed by congress as mandated by the supreme law of this land that state clearly how people can enter this country. The president maintains that prosecutorial discretion allows the DOJ to ignore this law if it so chooses. That just isn’t so. Prosecutorial discretion is clearly intended to be used on a case by case basis not on a blanket move to ignore a law. Now if the DOJ decides to investigate each illegal immigration to see if the laws are being broken and then decide, because of extenuation or some such reason, that is one thing. They have neither the funding nor the manpower to do so for millions of illegals.
The people of this country have stated that there is one way to gain entrance to our land. They have taken the proper action by codifying this in law. This law helps us weed out the lawless and the applicant that envisions brining down the government through acts of terror and just plain thievery or drug running. This president has decided to allow al to enter regardless of background or intent. Now he is proposing that they be given social security and a tax rebate on taxes they don’t pay. And yes, even grant them government support supposedly reserved for real citizens.
There is a quote from Heather Mac Donald, fellow of the Manhattan Institute that bears repeating.
On Feb 16, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen halted President Obama’s illegal amnesty with a temporary injunction. The proposed amnesty program, Judge Hanen found, went far beyond mere prosecutorial discretion not to enforce the law against individuals . Instead, the Department of Homeland Security proposed to confer on illegal aliens a new legal status known as “legal presence.” But Congress has not granted DHS the power to create and bestow legal status. The amnesty program represented a “complete abdication” of DHS’s responsibility to enforce the law, Judge Hanen declared. Indeed DHS was actively thwarting the express will of Congress.
Notice that this a rather narrow ruling. The Judge does not address the constitutional questions raised, but rather ruled against the administration. His ruling is based on laws governing the DHS’s rule making.
As bad as Obama’s amnesty is (did I say bad? Make that egregious) there is another baddy lurking underneath that. You see, the very second this clandestine border invader steps on American soil he/she is a criminal in the eyes of our law. It should be no surprise that many go ahead and break more laws and some of them get arrested for that and put in jail. The arresting agency then follows standard operating procedure and notifies ICE that they have an illegal in jail supposedly so they can pick him up and deport him. This is a very common practice called a ‘Detainer’. It is used all of the time. You get busted in one place and are wanted for another crime in another jurisdiction they ‘detain you at the end of your sentence so the other place can come and get you. You might say a common sense approach. (I am not typing the he/she thing anymore. Not sexist, just lazy.) Should be a no brainer, right? This is known as Secure Communities a program that has been targeted by liberals since its beginning. They make the rather amazing claim that it is just not fair to remove an illegal alien just because he has broken more laws. Many of them insist that he shouldn’t have been jailed in the first place. They really do! So last year the Obama administration decided that Secure Communities needed to be dismantled almost completely. After all, who needs our communities to be secure from lawlessness? Police authorities in high immigration areas are under tremendous pressure, political pressure, to completely ignore everything they have been taught about lawlessness and public safety in order to protect illegal immigrants.
The stated goal of this campaign against Secure Communities is to de-legitimize deportation as a legitimate response to illegal immigration. That effectively means that we have no immigration laws. So come on in, ISIS. We will not only welcome you we will give you a social security and help pay you to attack us. The same goes for the drug traffickers, human sex traffickers, etc.
Here you have a little insight into the administration’s amnesty packaging. Still like it?

We Once Were …

We Once Were …

Our once great nation began life as an independent nation. We were a group of rugged individualist that depended upon our families and neighbors for our lives, sustenance and happiness. We knew our security rested within ourselves. If I may paraphrase a scholar of those time, Benjamin Franklin, who once said ‘If you wish to give up freedom for security you will have neither.’ Yeah, I know that isn’t an exact quote, but it is close.
Today we have a large group of people that believe they should receive all things from the government. They are owed something just for being born. The only thing they are owed is a mother and father that teach them and protect them until they are old enough to do those things for themselves.
You see the founding fathers knew this and set up a system of government that allow for individual growth and liberty. They did a pretty good job, in my humble opinion. Oh, sure there were some things that they simply couldn’t foresee, but they tried to allow for even that by making sure we, the individuals of that new nation, could modify the founding document to accommodate for growth and changing paradigms.
The basic assumption was that each individual would have the freedom to become that which they both wanted and were capable of achieving. They made it plain in the founding documents that we were all created equal. Does that mean that we can all achieve the same level of prosperity and greatness in our lives? Nope. It means that the law of the land will treat us all with equal respect and deference. The rest is up to you. Nobody owes you more than that. Once you are both mentally and physically capable of taking cae of yourself it is time for you to begin the process of growth and paying back what you were given for the first part of your life.
What? Payback? What payback? You began this life as a dependent. You were dependent upon others for everything. You could do nothing for yourself except attempt to get somebody’s attention to the needs of your body. And for the most part that was given to you without the expectation of payback. Just because none expected payback does not mean that it isn’t owed by the honorable.
Hmmm Honorable. Interesting word that. According to Merriam-Webster it has the following short definition: “: deserving honor and respect : having or showing honesty and good moral character : fair and proper : not deserving blame or criticism.” That was so important at one time in this country that is deserves special mention. Men pledged their “Sacred” honor only to really important goals. Their honor was so important that some gave their lives to protect it. There are few among us willing to do that in this day of infamy we now find ourselves living. Soldiers do it on a daily basis and are to be thanked for that. They deserve to be ‘honored’ for that. How about you? Are you deserving of anybodies honor? Really?
Through out our countries history we have set in law a variety of procedures that both define us and aid in protecting us from those that would destroy our honor and independence. Let’s look at one small example of that. How about new people that want in on this land of liberty? We felt you should observe the niceties and ask permission. Sort of like knocking on the door of a stranger you want to become familiar with. First you knock on the door and ask permission to enter. Should you decide not to do this simple act and enter without permission, you are subject to a plethora of possible penalties. It was intended that you should follow the proper procedure in gaining access to all this country has to offer. First you ask permission to enter then you indicate your desire to stay a while then you ask to become a member of the family and become a citizen.
Before you ‘marry’ into the family that is American we require that you know something about us and we know something about you. You have to learn our constitution and we give you a test to make sure that you have. Then you take the vows or the oath promising to defend that constitution and there are all those penalties for failure of that oath. Shucks, we even require people that want to work for us to take an oath before they may do so. I took an oath when I joined the service and did so willingly. That oath is for life. No one ever has came by and said that I didn’t need to obey it anymore. I willingly, loyally and even happily follow that oath to this day.
It seems to this writer that today honor and law has become a matter of personal convenience. If a law is inconvenient simply ignore we it. This is happening from the so clled pillars of our nation to the man in the street. Our judges, our media pundits, even our ministers. Our judges seem to believe that the first line of the constitution is a matter of convenience. Sharia law was never even considered by our our congress yet some judges feel it is OK to use it as a basis for some decisions. Our media feels that the Constitution is just an old, out dated writing with some suggestions on how we should behave. Some ministers feel that the bible wasn’t really serious when it condemned homosexuality, etc. The president calls us an Islamic nation. It doesn’t matter that most of our founding documents and the reason for the existence of this nation was religious, Christian freedom. Not a freedom from religion. Not so we could revere a philosophy that preaches the hate and destruction of any people that do not accept their narrow and hate filled so called religion.
We once were a nation that had honor. We once were a nation that held to the principle of self determination and respect for others. We once were a nation that stood proud and strong. We once were a nation of proud people. We once were.