Category Archives: Uncategorized

Governor Justice’s War on Seniors

The Justice budget proposal looks like an all out assault on the one group the democrats in this state and many others, would like to have just go away. In one way this makes sense. (Stay with me now. No jumping to conclusions.) Of course the title lets you in on part of where I am headed with this. The senior citizen. Just for kicks (and because it fits the parameters) lets include all of the poorest among us. The reason I said it makes sense for the progressive to want us gone, or at the very least, silent, is because they point out the ultimate failure of the progressive tax and spend philosophy. It obviously doesn’t work because these two groups are growing at an exponential rate all over our nation.
The old among us is growing because our life spans are growing. Or were until the government took over the health care industry. What used to be the best health care in the world is now rated barely above a third world country. But that is another blog.
The poor group is, arguably, growing as a direct result of progressive policies. The loss of jobs can be traced to government regulation in many, many instances.
OK, I am not here to discuss the federal government but the state government so lets get to it.
How is Jim Justice declaring war on these people?
You just have to look at his budget bill. He demands that we raise taxes in the very areas that the seniors and the poor cannot afford to have any increase. To wit: Double the gasoline tax; increase (double again) DMV fees; Tax food; increase the sales tax. There are others but I don’t need to make this too long a read so I will just discuss the impact of these four. What I call the Egregious Four.
The West Virginia tax on Gasoline puts us in the top 20 in the nation. Jim Justice would put us in the top five. Our DMV rates are reasonable at this point. Jim Justice would have them join states like California and make them just plain unafordable for many of the poor among us. These are the people that don’t use their autos for vacation travel. They can’t afford vacations. They use their cars to get to the hospital – to buy food for their families and themselves – to get to Dr. appointments then to the pharmacy to pick up prescriptions.
Tax food. TAX FOOD? Many among us fought a long hard battle to get rid of that discriminatory tax for years. Now justice wants it back. This one is really bad for everybody, not just the poor and aged among us.
Ah yes. The sales tax. Justice states in his budget proposal that this wil eventually eliminate the state income tax. Put on your thinking caps and use your internet research skills and find me an example where the government said they were going tro repeal a tax at a later date or that a tax was going to be temporary and kept their word. I could not find one. I have to agree that a one percent increase here wouldn’t bother those that have incomes above the poverty level all that much. They won’t like it, but they can pay it with ease. Let’s look at those on fixed incomes. The first glaring point here is that there are actually many of the older among us that pay no income tax. Their income is insufficient to break into that category. Another indication of just how poor they are. This tax would affect their budgets most severely. Many cannot afford to live on their incomes as it is. They have to depend on the local food bank, where it is available, and other charities just to eat. Others cannot afford proper shoes and clothing or other necessities because of the cost and now Justice wants to increase that cost. Yes, I know many of these personally.
There is a plan that has been worked out by Delegate McGeehan and others that would keep our taxes static and even allow for some savings. Why the legislature and the governor is ignoring this is beyond my power to reason.


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.

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.

The Best Defense

It is very apparent that the Judeo-Christian ethic is under egregious attack by the liberals in our once stalwart country. I suggest we counter attack. It has been wisely said that the best defence is a good offence. That said just how do we counter attack?

First please note that I used the term Judeo-Christian in my opening line. Make no mistake I count myself as a Christian; however, I respect other beliefs and religions. And yes I see Judaism as a vibrant and viable religion.

The thing is the anti Christian and indeed the the anti religion bigots in this country are winning the battles in this. Why? Because the Christians and the Jews, and the Buddhists and the Shintoists and every other religion in this country are not launching a counter offensive.

We counter attack by an old and tried tactic of civil disobedience and refusal to bow to misguided and sometimes wrong thinking. Civil disobedience comes in many forms. The county and city governments where I live has an ongoing tradition of displaying a manger scene every Christmas on the lawn of the County Court House! Supreme court be damned. Our children say the Pledge of Allegiance with the words ‘Under God’ included. In other words our local government practices a form of Civil disobedience. Oh, by the way, this town is considered a bastion of the democratic party.

Another way to counter attack is education. I don’t mean just in our schools, but in our everyday lives. Are you aware that there is no place in the Constitution of our country that states that there shall be a separation of church and state? The sole comment and proviso having anything to do with religion comes in the first amendment to that document and it simply says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” The underline is mine. Look at that. Posting the ten commandments in front of your courthouse has nothing to do with establishing a religion and certainly nothing to do with congress passing any law! Spread the word. COUNTER ATTACK.

The second part of that is “or prohibiting the free exercise the free exercise thereof…” It is, or should be, my right to run my business in any manner that does not threaten the life or property of another. If I should want to bar any but bible carrying Christians or Wearers of the Star of David or any other religious symbol that is MY business. It may not make good business sense, but it is my right. The Declaration of Independence has it as a God given right. The government has absolutely no power to deny me that right, even though they seem to think they do. Not even public opinion can deny me that right. It may cost me business, but that is all. There does seem to be one exception to that comment about bad for business. Many businesses are finding it very profitable to, say nothing about safer, for businesses to ban Muslims.

Another way to further the education process is to respond to any published action that is against the American God given freedoms. Have you seen a rant by homosexuals about how they have the ‘right’ to marry or adopt or attempt to bring public pressure on businesses that refuse to offer their services to them such as wedding cakes? Step up and rationally defend their right to run their business in any way their conscience dictates, in a post of your own. One caution here. Don’t post or respond with a rant. When you start with the name calling and bad language most people just turn you off as being too juvenile to be in the discussion. If you can’t respond with a modicum of reason, I suggest you take your frustration and anger elsewhere.

I was in another town a few days ago and as I was driving down the main drag my eyes came to rest on a sign in a restaurant window. I had to stop and read it as my driving interfered with comprehension. The sign read: “We are Christian Americans and your legal guns are welcome here.” I just had to go in even though I wasn’t ‘packing’. The place was comfortably full and I sauntered to the counter for a coffee and an English muffin. I looked around the room and must have seen 20 hip weapons scattered about the room. Never felt safer in my life. I had to ask to speak to the owner. I was introduced to a pleasant middle aged woman and in answer to my question she stated that her business had actually increased since she and her husband put up the sign. She said they had put up the sign in response to a robbery. Now her customers were an invincible security force that paid them for their service. I still think that was a great solution to a problem. They counter attacked.

All I am saying here is that we need to take the battle for our ideals to the enemy. Not sit around on our plush posteriors waiting for ‘somebody’ to do something. Remember – if you look in the mirror ‘somebody’ is looking back at you.

Reply to a naysayer

I received an email from a gentleman that was against an Article V Convention that demonstrated to me just how confused and wrong some people can be about a major issue in this country.  This is my response.

At the end of this post I will give you a link that will allow you to help with this cause if you so desire.

1. The Constitution is not the problem.
I submit that the constitution is the problem for one major reason, it was written by very brilliant men that were trapped by their own culture. The culture of the time could never envision a person making a career out of being a politician. In their culture, a person would stand for election similar to serving in the military. They would do their patriotic duty, serve a term or two and go back to their farms or businesses with a sigh of relief that their duty was done. That mind set could never envision politicians becoming very wealthy while feeding at the public tough and gaining enormous power while they were at it. BUT! Culture evolves, and massive changes occur. Changes the founders had no way of anticipating. Solution? Limit the amount of time that aby politician can serve and then put someone else in their place.. An informed electorate? While it is true we do need that, it probably can never happen in THIS culture. Why? Partly because of the enormous number of factions trying to do the educating and the wide variety of proposed methods to be used. What we end up with is either a confused electorate with a few wild eyed radicals insisting they know the answer. Plus how do you educate a populous that has chronic attention deficit?

Some other changes that are necessary are things like the Welfare Clause. The loopholes in that alone allowed the SCOTUS to allow obamacare among other injustices. Just a few simple words would make a massive change. The SCOTUS has never yet struck down any part of the constitution if they couldn’t find a loophole to sneak through. I could go on, but it is time to move on.

2. All Article V conventions would have the inherent power to be runaway
This time worn argument has been so thoroughly debunked I am surprised to see it here; however allow me to address it one more time.

Number one an Article V convention is NOT a Constitutional Convention and can never become one!

Thirty four state legislatures must pass a resolution that contains exactly the same wording. Oh the preamble may differ widely but the resolution itself must be the same. If any submitting state attempts to put in any wording which might allow a runaway it will not become part of the convention. Add to this the wording in this resolution which place very strict limits on what can be considered. Her is the pertinent wording: “… kimited to proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress.” Add to this the fact that most states have either proposed or enacted legal penalties for any delegate (properly called Commissioners) that include fines and jail time along with immediate removal form the convention and a runaway becomes virtually impossible. Delegate Overington has submitted such a bill to the WV legislature and many states have already passed such a bill prior to submitting the Convention resolution which allows the legislature to KNOW the convention will stick to the business it is convened to conduct. If this is not enough to allay any fears in this area please let me know as there are many other factors addressing this very issue.

3. An Article V convention would enable powerful special interests to
revise the Constitution in their favor.
This comment is well thought out and so very wrong. Let me quote one section: ”The power elites mentioned above have learned how to elect and influence large numbers of federal and state legislators a very long time ago.” What happened to that philosophy in the 2014 election? 2012?

Just prior to this you state and I quote: “Proponents of an Article V convention assure us that delegates appointed by state legislatures can propose amendments, the amendments can be ratified by
the states, and the resulting amendments will miraculously rein in our “out-of-control” federal government. This starry-eyed scenario is a major fairy tale. (Emphasis mine)
I guess that at this point I should ask you to point out just how influential these people are that can’t even put a stop to a proposal that could eliminate that so called power of that so called “power elite”.

You also state: “A good example of this influence is how hard it has been for grassroots activists to get state legislatures to reconsider their commitment to the special interests’ Common Core education standards.” Hard? I guess that depends upon your definition of the word. Many state legislatures, including WV have before the legislature bills to eradicate CC in their states. Chance of success? According to those polls you are so find of, better than 89%. Some things take time. People have to see the damage before they can act to correct it. Let’s get back on topic.

You stated that the Constitution is not the problem. I answered that rather conclusively.

You stated the Convention would be a runaway. I have shown you how that is a practical impossibility.

You stated that an Article V convention would enable powerful special interests to
revise the Constitution in their favor. I pretty well answered that when addressing the second point , but felt it necessary to expand on it with some specifics.

Any questions?

If your would like to join with this group I urge you to follow the link and at the very least take a few minutes to sign the petition.  Please remember to include your address as this is the only way they can determine which legislator you are petitioning.  Every time a constituent contacts an elected official at the state level it makes a difference.

Liberals and Same Sex Marriage

I am told by some of my audience that it is time to speak up about same sex marriage. I think maybe they are right, but first let me speak to my take on homosexuality. The bible says it is a sin. My mother said it is a sin. My father says it is a sin. I say it is a sin. I actually have no objection to how people express their love OR desire in the privacy of their own homes, but this isn’t essentially about homosexuality. It is about a series of laws which state that people must accept and recognize two people of the same gender being legally married. No we don’t. I don’t and cannot see any time in the future when I will. There are several reasons for that and not all of them have to do with its being a recognized sin. But, yes it does have to do with God and the founding fathers. You see I don’t think the people that enacted this law were doing it so much for the so called equal rights of that minority. I believe that it has to do with another political agenda entirely. The American Way Of Life as it has been.

We see, on a daily basis, mass media accounts of liberals attempts to break down the moral fiber of a nation. Your nation. My nation. Our nation. You see if they can do that one thing they can have their agenda in toto. They can elect whomever they please. They can gain more power and more money. It appears more and more that their sole concern is with their positions and less and less about the people of this country. They know that if they can give away enough so the lazy and indolent among us are loudly clamoring for more it will bring this country to its knees. How? Financial collapse. Moral degradation. Political disruption. Then they can establish the oligarchy they want. The constitution can be thrown out and their own set of rules put in its place. Yeah, it can happen here, too.
Back to same sex marriage, altho the above is a very large part of why the libs in government are so supportive. This country was founded by Christians. It was settled by those landing at Plymouth Rock and others because they were looking for RELIGIOUS freedom. Yeah, they thought in terms of Christian religious freedom but that simply had to evolve into an ecumenical religious freedom. They even included God in ALL of there government founding documents. The very first of those that addressed a foreign nation was the Declaration of Independence and God is mentioned in the very first sentence. Every single one of the original buildings of government in Washington D.C. has its own reference to God. The Supreme Court building has the ten commandments. The capital rotunda has several pictures all of which are religious in nature. Thomas Jefferson even held church services there every Sunday of his presidency. A practice that was followed for more than fifty years. I think we can safely assume that he knew all about the Constitution.
All of this goes back to this country being founded on the precepts of Christianity. And Christianity does not recognize same sex marriages. It actually calls that a sin against God and Nature.
Today we have children being told that they can’t refer to Jesus in the class room. I read an article where a child was prevented from attending class because he was carrying a bible intended for a church class he was taking after school.
Same sex marriage. God tells us it is not right. I think I’ll have to go with that.

Why I Believe in the Convention of States and Limited Government

People often ask me why I am so passionate about returning this country to a strict construction way of running the government. Well, I’ll tell you. We are breeding a race of takers. We are raising children that believe the government’s purpose is to take care of them, regardless of the cost. Shucks, they don’t even consider the cost. A very large part of that cost is our freedom. Freedom from tyranny. Freedom to think and act as we each deem best. Freedom to be positive that our vote is counted in every election and that there are no illegitimate votes cast. The freedom to express an opinion or condem the government on our cell phones without fear of reprisals. That only United States citizens elect the people in our government. Live ones. This takes a limited government. President Ronald Reagan said it best, “I hope we have once again reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited.”

Our government picks and chooses the laws they want to enforce. A great case in point might be Eric Holder, the erstwhile Attorney General, while speaking to a NAACP forum stated that “… requiring voter IDs would disenfranchise American minorities.” I’ve never understood that argument. The only people I know of that can’t get an identification showing they are citizens are people that are not citizens. I have assisted many infirm and minority people obtain an ID that shows they are citizens. It’s not difficult. Takes about an hour here. Even the laws of our states require people to have picture IDs and be able to produce them for officers of the law, upon request. So what minorities are affected? The Illegals and those with work or student visas? Perhaps,but then who cares except corrupt politicians.

We have professional politicians. It is a career path. It is a path to wealth. I know of one politician that began as a community organizer then went into politics and recently purchased a multi-million dollar home. Harry Reid is so intent to continue his career that I, personally, am of the opinion he violates the laws of the land every election. He has entered the final day of each of his elections to the senate several points behind in the polls and comes out the winner by a substantial margin. I have often wished I had the power to examine the voter roles and the number of registered votes that have been deceased for years or moved out of state long before the polls opened. But that is just my opinion. Well, mine a few others. Quite a few, actually. Requiring voter IDs seems more and more a great idea.

Now understand that this is not currently a Constitutional issue, but Eric Holder believes that it is a holy cause whereas the Constitution is just a piece of ancient writing. The Second Amendment doesn’t need to be enforced by his office. As a matter of public record it is something he believes should be ignored by the government and all manner of infringements should be imposed by the liberal government he serves. So voter IDs are wrong and the states have no power to enact their requirement, even though the tenth amendment, among others, clearly gives them the right to enact those laws in their own state. BUT, the Constitution is should not be enforced. Yeah, I want to limit his power and every other politician that thinks they way he does. I honestly believe that our once great nation can only strive to be the shining example of personal liberty and individual responsibility by plugging the holes in our constitution that our current culture see fit to exploit.

Would you believe that there is no such thing as a “separation of church and state” in the constitution? None. The only statement made is in the first amendment, part of the “Bill of Rights” no less, is this one: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…” The emphasis I mine obviously. Saying a prayer at a high school football game is not “establishing a religion” Having the ten commandments on a public building in not enacting a law.

The very first article of the that great document, The Constitution of the United States of America, specifically grant the Houses of Congress the sole power to enact laws, yet the government has seen fit to give that power to its ‘regulatory agencies’. The EPA has usurped the power of the states by denying the coal industry new permits and setup regulations that will close hundreds of power generating stations in our country. They haven’t given any plan for replacing that power. It is very possible with todays technology, to limit and even eliminate the so called green house emissions if that is their goal. That alone would save thousands of jobs.

The IRS was formed to collect taxes. Suddenly that ‘regulatory agency’ has the power to target groups in any manner they choose and to create laws that have the power to imprison people for a diverse set of circumstances. The law to enact the collections of taxes and form the IRS is a few pages in length. The regulations that agency has created in response is many THOUSANDS of pages. One pundit said that stacked one on the other those individual pieces of paper making up those unenacted laws stands higher than he does. Not even the agents of the IRS have any idea what is in them. I once asked one of their agents for an opinion on my taxes and was given very specific instructions on how to handle my problem so I would not be in violation. I called every day for four days and asked the same question worded the same way (I wrote out a script) and received four different opinions, each citing specific regulations. I got audited.
I am a believer in limited government.

We can all cite examples of the federal government using the power of the purse to intimidate state governments to enact laws the legislators would rather not have on the books and the people of those states really don’t agree. But, when the federal government says it will deny money for roads or other infrastructure projects, what are the poor states to do. The knuckle under and it has become so common that I don’t they even consider the situation twice. This is a sneaky way to ‘get around’ the tenth amendment.

I’ve said it before. I am in favour of LIMITED government and power to the people.

Originalism, Strict Constructionism, Free Interpretationism

The title of this piece gives the names of three ways of viewing the Constitution of the United States. The first two are closely related while the third is a new and very liberal manner of viewing and interpreting that fundamental document. There is a certain portion of the populace that really doesn’t care as long as the freebies keep flowing. We will take these up later. For now let’s concentrate on the three topics enumerated in the title.
Just what is ‘Originalism’? This is the view of the constitution that believes the constitution means exactly what it says and should be viewed and enforced with that in mind. After all it was enacted by a super-majority of the voters at the time it was enacted as was each of the amendments. That is a very cogent and strong case for this view.
Strict Constructionism is closely aligned with that view with the exception of a few caveats. Those caveats are supposedly based on common sense. A couple of examples would be that the first amendment gives each of us freedom of speech, but that doesn’t mean that we have the right to shout fire in a crowded building. The second amendment gives us the right to bear arms and that right “… shall not be infringed”. Most believe that some of the exceptions here would be people convicted of crimes of violence and/or the criminally insane. The list goes on.
Free Interpretationism is the view that the Constitution was written so many years ago that it no longer applies to our society in many cases and therefore needs to be interpreted in light of modern society. This gives rise to the Department of Homeland Security believing they have the power, in deed, the duty to suspend the fourth amendment against illegal search and seizure at their whim. They have declared a one hundred mile zone around every border as being a fourth amendment free zone when it comes to cell phones and computers. Sometimes even luggage and persons. This is a view supported by the liberal element of our country and the so-called ‘low information voters’.
So which are you? It is time to decide folks. This next election is a very important one for our country. Do you want more of the Free Interpretationism in government? Are you longing for the days when the constitution was enforced without any interpretation or do you believe in the so-called ‘common sense’ rule of law. What is our country to become? Are we a country that guarantees of freedom of religion? One that “… is endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights …”? Does the second amendment statement that the “… legislature shall make no law establishing a religion …” mean that no government entity or government funded activity may mention or portray religious symbolism much less mention any Christian belief or figure such as God or Jesus?
As for me, I am a strict constructionist and very proud to be one. Our Constitution is sacred to me as it is to many of the America people. I just hope enough of them show up at the poles in November and help me turn this country from a heading toward federal government tyranny back to the freedom loving country I was born to.

The Purpose of this Blog

I thought I would remind you all of this post. This is one way to improve your ‘presence’ and your platform. How about a post about the thought or experience or whatever it was that set you to thinking about the book, story, poem that you wrote or are writing or trying to write. or maybe you have some questions or advice from what you have learned on your journey to write that perfect piece. You know the one you keep searching for but not quite finding? Use this blog for these things, if you wish.

Writing Discussions for Fiction Writers

I have the hope that this will become am avenue for writers to discuss their work and the problems they are facing as well as helping each other over the hurdles we face. Hopefully both novice and and established authors will be the contributors. It is open for critiques, writing samples, advice, even editors, agents and publishers.

Should you want to contribute please leave a comment with your contribution. If that doesn’t give you enough room just send me an email at and use new blog post in the subject. Also PLEASE make sure you have used your spell checker and read your post prior to submitting to eliminate embarrassing typos.

My next post will be a sample of my own writing and some comments on what I was attempting to accomplish. I ask, nay, pray for comments and critiques.

View original post

How Media Bias Works

How Does Media Bias Work?

Do you think the media bias has any real effect on the voting public? Remember we are talking about a nation of citizens fifty percent of whom are politically ignorant and apathetic. They may see news blurbs on rare occasions, but they certainly don’t actually have any curiosity nor use any intelligence in what they read. They are headline readers. Now consider the headlines in the news on line, in the newspapers, and at the head of the hour on broadcasts. Consider these two headlines: “House harasses Hillary on the time she knew about the attacks. She asks ‘What difference does it make?’” And this one: Hillary screams ‘What difference does is make?’ when asked about Bengazi deaths. Which one is liberal and which is conservative news? Yeah. How about simple coverage? The point here is what makes them biased? The adjectives attached to a news story. They express an opinion and are not facts. Nor are they news. I watched the hearing that day. What I saw and heard was a Legislator questioning a probable hostile witness. He did not harass that witness; however he did ask pointed questions that were germane to the topic. Her answer was not screamed, it was stated in what may well have been dripping with sarcasm, in my opinion, 🙂 but her voice was only slightly increased in volume. Definitely not ‘screamed’. So both sides practiced their own form of ‘biased reporting’. Oh, for the good old days when reporters reported the news.

Another form of ‘bias’ is demonstrated by the simple act of censorship. If you don’t report a story, no one can form an opinion. By the same token, if you don’t report the full story, you lead people to form an erroneous picture of events. Example? OK. Let’s look at the alleged terrorist Ahmed Abu Khattala, self proclaimed ‘Mastermind’ of the Benghazi Attack. The bias on the left reported that the federal government “…finally found …” the man. Great work, right? Hmmm there is one point that should be made here. Both Fox news and CNN interviewed him weeks before the government ‘found’ him. OK. Right wing Fox and the slowly moderating CNN did report that fact. (How many of you caught the bias in that last statement?) It still, to my knowledge, has not been mentioned by any other media outlet. If you don’t report it, your demographic won’t know about it. Remember those first impressions I mentioned?

These examples could go on forever. I hope you are starting to get a feel for how you are manipulated on a daily basis. The only cure I know of is a liberal dose of each side and the ability to think. Of course that presupposes that you do want to know the facts. I keep remembering the standby line from that old TV show, Dragnet, “Just the facts, Mam.” I do not deny the right and even the value of editorializing. When and where appropriate, I just disagree that a NEWS outlet should be doing it. It belongs on a show like the “View” or “Hannity” or even “Rush”. Not in the NEWS!

Comments or questions?