On Gun Violence
On the Separation of Church and State
The One Real, Workable Solution to the North Korea Problem
On our "freedom of religion" and its Constitutional basis and intent ...
On the Electoral College
On fascism and the so-called anti-fascist thugs ...
The NFL ...
Cuba si? Oh, no, no!
There is a tremendous amount of misinformation about the reasons for gun violence in contemporary America.
Initially, the very sound premise that if the law (unconstitutionally) bans guns, then those who do not submit to the law will continue to have guns. This is a restatement of the old phrase, "If you outlaw guns only the outlaws will have guns." This is a very accurate statement and is clearly proven by looking at Chicago, Illinois, where guns are virtually outlawed, but the outlaws are killing at record rates with firearms.
To avoid beating this to death, I will just get to the point; look at popular entertainment, movies, TV shows, and very much computer games. They are replete with incredibly realistic, bloody, violence. There is gore, sadism, and the whole panoply of violence, and this is what our youth are growing up with. Look at a movie from another age, take "Casablanca" as an example. There is some violence, some killing, but no gore. It is not necessary to be so realistically savage. The point is made without reveling in the blood. Not so today. Today thanks to remarkable special effects, you get to see how a .45 slug will make a small hole going in but a hole big enough to drive a truck through on the way out thanks to the special effect of electrically controlled "squibs."
Clearly, to the young mind all this violence is clearly allowed, as there it is on the TV, on the cinema screed or on the computer gaming device. Link that to an approved lack of moral guidance from those religions that helped establish our nation, and the outcome is violent. It is also of interest to note that the fastest growing religion in the United States is Islam, which promotes violence against non-believers, against homosexuals, against anyone disagreeing with the precepts. If you disagree with this, then read Sura 9 of the Koran (the "Sura of the Sword"). There is far too much bullshit about Islam being a religion of peace, the very name of it means "submission," and the graphic videos of them beheading those who do not submit proves the point. Islam is the perfectly placed religion for the culture of violence that we are becoming.
The solution to gun violence is not to ban guns, the solution is to tighten the interpretation of Amendment I and disallow such gratuitous violence as is now allowed in "entertainment" mediums. The other, and greater, aspect of the solution is to expand Amendment II and have as many armed civilians, who have been trained in the military or by other responsible and authorized training, carrying concealed or not concealed weapons to pose a deterrent to the miscreants.
As you stop a runaway forest fire by a back-fire, so you stop runaway gun violence by arming those who will act quickly to terminate an individual committing gun violence.
(A further thought strikes me from my youth, quite a while ago. We used to watch very fine dramas on television before that medium became the "vast wasteland." Much of these dramatic presentations were by repertory companies, and at the end of the show, much like on Broadway, the actors would take their bows before the audience. I have often wondered if they did this on some of the bloody contemporary presentations, would the young audience not see that this is just make-believe and not something to be emulated? Not sure, just a thought. Wouldn't apply to computer gaming anyway, which is a very large part of the problem.)Back to top.
One of the most unique aspects of our nation and our Constitution is that we are the first nation ever to be founded that was based on the doctrine of separation of church and state. This is monumental. Prior to our nation, monarchs ruled by the grace of God, or there were theocracies; but our nation separated church and state. This is not to say that we turned away from God, hardly that! We did, however, accept that church and state were separate, and were to be afforded separate attention.
Where did this come from? I have yet to meet the student of political science who knows, or perhaps has the courage to acknowledge, that the orginator of this doctrine is Jesus Christ. (Perhaps then, it should be, "Originator?")
In Matthew 22:21 a Pharisee is trying to trip up Jesus by asking him whether taxes should be paid to Rome or not. Jesus asks him to produce a coin, then He says, Whose image is on this coin?
"They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."
This wonderful little nugget of Biblical wealth is the first instance of the doctrine of the separation of church and state, and it comes from the words of the Savior of the world, Jesus Christ.
You cannot beat that! Not with a stick.
More on this subject will follow.
I do not know why none of the great minds in our government or in the "think tanks" we hear so much from have not resolved the North Korea problem. I have.
The solution to the problem with bobble-head Kim Jong-Un is to meet with Russia and China, both of whose nations border North Korea, and just invite them to partition North Korea into two provinces, one in China, the other in Russia. It is highly unlikely North Korea would put up much resistance to such a takeover, but if they do, that's fine. Let the three of them beat the crap out of each other. We still win.
Presto! No more North Korea problem, no more North Korea! China has a buffer against South Korea in its new province, same-same Russia. No threats, no sanctions, no invasions, no bullshit. Just remove the little fat bastard and his mushroom-hatted minions and be done with it. The stability on the Korean Peninsula will be astounding.Back to top.
The Constitution of the United States makes two specific references to religion and its free practice. The first is in Article VI, the last words of which are, "... no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." (Arguably this Article negates the need for the "Establishment Clause.")
The other reference is in Amendment I, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..." Very simply and clearly stated, or so it would seem. There is one area that may lead to uncertainty in the understanding of the Framers intent. This is the simple question: What did the Framers mean, and intend to be understood by future generations of Americans, by the word, 'religion?'
What the Framers meant, in a nearly completely Christian nation, by the word "religion" is not what we would understand that same word to mean today.
In fact, Jefferson, the founder of what would become the Democratic Party, wrote in his initial drafts of the Declaration of Independence a clause that excoriated slavery, and which was subsequently removed at the behest of the southern states. In this clause, he refers to slavery as, "... the Opprobrium of Infidel powers." Now, in 1776, as well as in 1787 and later, the term, "infidel" had a specific application and understanding; it did not just mean non-Christian, nor would the Jews have been referred to as such, and they were not. It meant, specifically and precisely, members of the Islamic system. (And, in fact, they truly were as Jefferson had said, the basis for the slave trade, then as well as now.)
Therefore, it becomes critically important in our present time for our government to define and clarify what is the actual meaning in our Constitution by the reference to religion, and the free exercise thereof. Does it include those worship systems that include competing legal codes, as Islam and Hassidic Judaism do (sharia, for Islam and Halacha, for the Hassidim)? Would the Framers have looked upon a qualifying religion as one that rewards practitioners who slaughter non-believers and innocents, or practice cruel and unusual punishments for religious infractions and non-observance, as worthy of protection under Article VI and Amendment I? Would they have protected a belief system that has at its core the motivation to destroy our nation as it stands?
I think not. It is of critical importance that we not allow the protections afforded to legitimate religious expression to be hijacked by systems of fanaticism that incorporate within themselves the ideology and will to destroy that system that protects them.
I believe we need to amend the Constitution to define what a religion is under our law before we continue to protect competing and dangerous theocracies and theocratic systems under our laws.Back to top.
The Founders established the Electoral College, as discussed in Federalist Number 68, to protect us from what they called, "the tyranny of the majority" (which of course is "democracy"), and so it does faithfully to this very day.*
In today's electronic environment, hackers apparently can easily get into the electronic voting processes used by the states, and possibly alter those results; however, they cannot change the Electoral College vote since the Electors vote by paper ballots. So the popular vote is now, as it was 230 years ago, susceptible to illegal manipulation by would be tyrants, which is why we have an electoral system, not a popular vote.
So, even in this high speed electronic and internet age, it seems the Founders are once again affirmed by continuing to preserve us from the tyranny of the majority through the integrity of the Electoral College in specific, and the Constitution in general. Our Constitution will continue to protect us and our God given rights as long as we allow it to do so.
Could it be Benghazi Hillary wants to dissolve the Electoral College because maybe her popular vote was not really what it seemed? Maybe it was hacked? not necessarily by Russians, more likely by the same people who will not disclose the voter rolls, the same people who allow illegal alien's and dead people's votes to be counted in the popular vote, as long as they vote for the party that championed slavery and the Klan.
Back when I was getting my master's degree in public policy, fascism was defined, with a sense of delicacy that was almost politically correct, as "corporatism," and the newer iterations, or versions, as "neo-corporatism." Now this terminology is fairly accurate, as the definition of fascism is a political system in which the individual serves a state that is above the law and as such is a "person" in its own right, or a corporeal entity; hence, corporatism. (The symbol--and the name--comes from the ancient Roman emblem of the Senate, the bundle of rods surrounding an axe, or the "fasces." Whether the rods represent the people serving the axe of government is debatable.)
So much for technicalities. Fascism is a system not unlike Hobbes's "Leviathan" in which the individual serves the state in exchange for its protection, and the individual's life is "nasty, brutish and short." (Just for a chuckle, I would tell my students that this is not unlike my first wife, "nasty, brutish and ..." well, she was not short, maybe 5'6". But it did keep them from cutting too much, the hope of a clever, humorous tidbit, that is.)
This being understood, it is evident to anyone with a shred of intelligence that the bands of violent, anti-free speech, thugs financed by the George Soros clique (which includes Benghazi-Hill, Jeff Bozo, Osama-Obama and the like) and calling themselves "anti fascist," are clearly and most definitively fascists. They are brown shirts and black shirts reincarnated as black hooded, masked, ignoramus thugs who are afraid to show their faces in public. So ignorant are they, in fact, that they do not even understand or know the definition of the word, "fascism." (Well, you can't know very much and work for the Nazicrats, that's mutually exclusive and well understood, and easily seen.)
That they are seen by the political party of slavery, segregation and the KKK, that's the democrats by the way, as being helpful to their obstructionist cause is as clear as is the lack of condemnation by that party's leadership. So when someone calls themself anti-fascist in today's double-speak, confused, political arena, you might as well render the Nazi salute; that's what Soros did when he sold his fellow Hungarian Jews to the Nazis.Back to top.
Cannot believe that I am hearing erstwhile seemingly intelligent, news commentators say that they do not know what the word, "dotard" means. (That's what Bobble-Head-Un called President Trump.)
Is it that long since some lovesick boy or girl "doted" on someone? How long has it been since I have entered into "my dotage?"
Gimme a break! This is what happens when people watch Youtube instead of reading books that are written in grammatical English. (Sorry, Benghazi-Hill, that does not include your ghost-written crap.)Back to top.
So, what's the "N" stand for? Negro? What about that "F?" Felon? I think in the long run, the "L" is Loser, but I could be wrong.
Forget about "National," for the NFL sure as hell is not representative of this Nation; nor is it representative of any connotation of sport, not in the time honored tradition of fair play, teamwork, honesty, and setting an example of wholesome competition.
There was a time when baseball, football, basketball, and the rest were games played by persons who were of relatively average size, not pumped up, not on steroids, not so unlike ourselves. They were games that relied on strategy and teamwork more than on brute force, size and a cult of misbegotten individuals having more brawn than brain. Really! How much intelligence must one have to know that it is not a good idea to piss in your own water hole? These knuckle draggers are millionaires due to their popularity with fans that they are now alienating, but there does not seem to be enough communal intelligence in the entire roll of the NFL to see this.
These people are not sportsmen nor are they athletes. They are purely and simply weak minded, immature, over paid and over indulged oafs who cannot understand how fortunate they are to make millions of dollars for playing a game ... only a game, that's all, just a game. That parents allow their children to create hero or roll models of them is a tragedy; that Americans do not totally and absolutely boycott the NFL, as to attendance at games, as to paying to watch them at sports bars, or in their homes, shows how far the American character has eroded.
But, there is nothing new here. League sports were invented by Augustus (Emperor of Rome, long, long time ago, NFL types) as a means to occupy the passions of the populus of Rome and to keep them interested in something other than the politics of the time. Thus Rome slid noiselessly into the imperial period over the death of the Roman Republic. Augustus so knew his stuff, that his idea is still working to this very day, except in Augustus's day any athlete who took an interest in politics, or whatever might have been equivalent to this "taking a knee" stupidity of today, would certainly not have lived to see the sun set that day that they took that knee. Alas, the good old days.
So what may essentially be happening here is that the dolts of the NFL are turning the games political, and may well be forcing their audience to take an interest in politics (of which Augustus would never have approved), which will certainly work at cross purposes to the leftist, corporatist, motives of the puppet-masters of the "knee takers."
What we need to have is not these pumped up, game playing, narcissist millionaires, but to get back to some good, honest, sports. Regrettably there is as good a chance of that happening as there is of getting a good cup of coffee for less than a buck, again, huh?
This just in: News flash, literally, quoted from Fox News:
"The risks of football have never been more apparent. This summer, researchers at Boston University said they'd found evidence of a brain disease linked to repeated head blows in nearly all of the 202 former football players they studied. The athletes whose brains were donated to the study had played football in the National Football League, college and even high school."
So I have to amend what I wrote above; where I wrote: "They are purely and simply weak minded, immature, over paid and over indulged oafs ..." This should now read, "They are purely and simply weak minded, immature, over paid and over indulged, brain diseased, oafs ..." Yes, that's much better. Suppose we could get some of these NFL girly men to donate their brains for research in the near future? Most of them have no use for them anyway.Back to top.
Reading about U.S. and some Canadian diplomats in Cuba who have been targeted by some assault on their hearing and other functions, which our government has not been able to explain brings back a moment from the Cold War.
While an Aircraft Commander in SAC (the Strategic Air Command), and stationed up north, we would go on reflex alert to Goose Bay, Labrador where there was nothing to do but look at snow ten months of the year, and mosquitos and black flies the other two months of the year, while waiting for the "EWO" (Emergency War Order, the onset of nuclear war which we who were on alert would be the first to engage).
We did what we could to pass the time, went to the "Tape Club" and copied music reel to reel tapes, no doubt illegally, or we could read in the Top Secret facility. Study the war plans, or there was a very interesting magazine published by the CIA. Not sure I remember the name of it, maybe CIA Briefs, or something. Just recall that each issue looked like a commercial news magazine. What I am about to write is not classified and mostly forgotten.
Anyhow, we had, back at the height of the Cold War, mastered the art of bouncing microwaves off windows of the Kremlin (or other buildings) and getting to listen to what was going on inside. Funny part comes when the Soviets figured out what we were doing and tried to do the same to us. The first indicator that they were bombarding our windows with microwaves, apparently, was when the drapes in a conference room burst into flames. I'd have loved to been there for that one!
Funny! Leave it to the Russians to have the ultimate heavy-handed approach. They had not mastered the amount of radiation to use and were frying the inside of the building. Wonder if the Cubans, or maybe Bobble-Head-Un's goons are doing something similar in Cuba?Back to top.
Most people think they understand the Second Amendment to our
Constitution (Amendment II), but they don't. That is an arrogant thing to
say, and I am pretty arrogant, but I have come to this conclusion after
hearing people who are, or ought to be, intelligent mucking the whole thing
up. I spent around 27 years teaching this subject in high school and as an
adjunct professor, so I do claim to know what I am talking about.
First, the text of Amendment II.
The first thing you need to do is re-visit the 18th century, when our
nation and our Constitution came into being. It is important to know that
the United States was the first country, the only country, in that world to
not be ruled by a king, emperor, czar, chief or any other sovereign. We were
the first nation that managed to avoid the feudal system, and so we were a
nation of free and equal citizens.
In the 18th century, and later, a standing army (which is a mobilized, armed, equipped, regular military force) was primarily used to control and suppress the governed population, as in the years leading up to our Revolution. In fact, our Continental Congress was so opposed to a standing army that General Washington found it nearly impossible to raise and keep an armed and equipped Continental Army. He had to rely on state militias for the most part and a small core Continental Army. Aha! Militia; the fourth word of Amendment II. So what is a militia?
Webster defines the word thusly:
1 a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency. The militia was called to quell the riot.
b: a body of citizens organized for military service.
2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.
Now if that is not adequate for you, Congress has defined the word, "militia," in 10 U.S. Code 311, as follows:
Section 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
So, as you can see, the idea of a militia is not some quaint 18th century notion, but has been revised by Congress as recently as 06 January 2006, and most likely you, reader, are a member of the unorganized militia. (Hey, Canada is to the north, nazicrats. They actually have a memorial commemorating Vietnam War draft dodgers, so you'll be safe there.)
So that is the word, "militia," which, Amendment II requires to be "well regulated." The meaning and intent of "regulated" is to be subject to regulations, or rules. In the old days there were the "regulars," or trained, equipped, and regulated troops, and the "irregulars," or generally local militias who were not subject to military regulations. So Amendment II requires this militia to be well regulated, what's that mean? Could mean you need to be instructed in firearm use, could mean you need to be regulated by means of being licensed, so far nobody has addressed this because most of the leftists are afraid that Amendment II means you can actually be armed and carry arms in this country, and leftist fascists (like Benghazi Hill and Osama-Obama, Bloomberg, Nazi Soros and the rest of the billionaire fascists) do not like that because they like to keep control of the people which is hard to do if they are armed.
Back to Amendment II; this well regulated militia is said to be "necessary to the security of a free State." How is that? Goes back to standing armies and other threats, such as that experienced not that long ago in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. In a free state, we cannot rely solely on the government to provide security by armed police officers or other forces, for if we enable government to field such armed forces as to be able to secure all aspects of the free State, we have a great diminution of our liberty at the hand of over-arching security forces, see see Posse Comitatus Act. So the Founders (used to be the Founding Fathers, but the women get pist about that) considered our domestic security to necessitate this well regulated Militia. The last section, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is almost without need of an explanation; however, in all fairness, since 10 USC 311 defines the Militia as males 17 years of age to 45 years of age, what if an old fart (like me) wants to keep and bear arms? Interesting point. Needs to be addressed by the Supreme Court, I think because, since the Constitution trumps (Oh my! did I say "trump?") 10 USC 311, the age limit on the definition of the Militia may not be constitutional. My money says lots of militiamen turned out for the fight with the British were lots older than 45.
So these are some of the considerations about Amendment II, which is as valid a right as any other part of the Constitution. You cannot legislate against gun violence, only a generally accepted moral system can make people act in a manner that is moral and does not irrationally harm others. Once we were a nation, "under God," but as the left, the fascist left, has steadily and systematically eroded our belief in the Creator, and replaced it with a belief in ourselves (secular humanism), then we wind up being a population to whom anything is acceptable if I believe it is. Government cannot legislate morality; to the contrary, legislation--laws--are a reflection of a nation's morality. Think about what is legal today, and whether it reflects the morality* of those who created and sustained this nation.
Furthermore, consider that if you regulate legal gun sales out of existence, you will have unlimited, unregulated, illegal gun sales, which we see every day as regards drugs. If you have a legal market, you can regulate and tax it, but you can neither regulate nor tax out of existence (the power to tax is the power to destroy [McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall]) an illegal market place.
It is worth noting that Benghazi-Hillary Clinton has taken a stand against firearms on numerous occasions, perhaps the most telling instance being when she selected, as the security contractor for our Benghazi, Libya embassy, an unarmed Welsh (United Kingdom) protective service.
_______________________________________*No, I am not implying slavery as a moral thing for those who love to run up that worn-out flag. Slavery was a part of our nation's history, and we absolutely would have been a better place if we had never had that "peculiar institution," and all that came with it. Had we instead kept to the primary labor supply of indentured servants, we would likely be a better place today, although we are still the best place this world, and its Maker, has produced. Back to top.
Years ago I used to give a special lecture to my students at the start of the baseball season on how baseball is both our "national pastime" and metaphoric of our national system. (I would have said "political system," but the nazicrats have taken that word, "political," and painted it with their fascist partisan filth.) I no longer have the notes, but I do recall some of the main points.
Baseball originally was not exactly the game it is today. It was a team sport that was played on summer afternoons, often on open fields, with picnics, friends and family present. (I was very fortunate as a boy to have played the game in such a manner with my father and brother, all of us on the same team, in our summer community.) The game was a local thing, before the age of television or radio, towns fielded their local teams, and the townsfolk turned out to attend. It was a far more social and sociable event than the high pressure Little League or school league game of today or the professional game.
It was not a fast game, although there were plays that moved very fast, yet overall it was a game that moved at an enjoyable, summer pace. There was no need for a "designated hitter," as the requirement for pitchers to also take a turn at bat was a constant prompt for strategy to make the game more exciting, especially as close scores and closing innings called for critical choices by the managers.
Although a team game, each individual player had his own statistics and each was an individual who was valued for personal abilities and efforts, but still serving a greater whole, the team, for which he played his best. When they did not play the game at their honest, sporting best, there were scandals such as the famous Chicago Black Sox scandal of 1919.
Baseball is the only team sport played with a ball in which the ball does not score, the man does. If you hit it "out of the park," but do not round the bases, touching each one, you do not score. Hence, baseball raises the individual above the object of play, kind of embuing the player with the right or power to score, a very American thing. In other sports using a ball, of whatever shape, you can truly accidentally win a game (in polo there is actually a "pony goal," accomplished by the polo pony, himself), but not in baseball. In baseball it is all up to the individual, he has the chance for greatness, just as we all do in our nation.
Baseball has changed, with our nation, from a rural agrarian thing to a fast paced urban centered thing. Where once 80% of the population lived on family owned farms, now that 80% lives in cities; so baseball has also become the game of the urban center, no longer mostly played in grassy summer fields, but in stadiums that rival the Roman Colliseum's best days for splendor and utility. Yet, it is still our national game, so much more than anything else, and truly does reflect our national sense of ourselves. We can only pray that it does not get hijacked by those dark forces that have truly poisoned and ruined professional football.Back to top.