Tuesday, December 27, 2016

Nice Men with Guns

I have a friend on Facebook who said this to me this morning; "I would like to support a constitutional government but at some point you are going to have to deal with mean people that do crappy things to other people through threat of violence and intimidation."

While that statement is true it got me thinking. Look at this; the threat of violence and intimidation is the only thing the government has to use to accomplish anything. No matter what it is that the Big Government wants to do, no matter what benefit they say it would be to everybody involved, the threat of violence and intimidation is the only tool they have to get it done. And how often is it that the mean people who are doing the crappy things to other people, are in the Big Government? That's what despotism is. You want to limit mean people that do crappy things to other people using such tactics? Then the first thing you have to do is limit the power of the government. Tyranny IS the threat of violence and intimidation.

Now I am not saying that there should be NO government. Brett's rule of debate #1 is; just because I don't agree with something does not mean I endorse what you conceive to be its opposite. Just because I don't support absolute government does not mean I support no government. No anarchy for me please. As a the grandson of a nice man with a gun I have to say right here and now that I have the greatest unqualified respect for the police and the government within their proper function. There is a time and place for police as well as other government functions.  It's just that we are becoming far too accustomed with the idea that the government is supposed to provide us with everything, without understanding the nature of the consequences. If they provide everything, they control everything, even when they don't make sense.

Sunday, December 18, 2016

Rights and Responsibilities

I would like to stake a claim towards being a dedicated supporter of human rights but I'm a little (okay, a LOT!!!) apprehensive about it. Being misunderstood bothers me sometimes and I want to be very careful about being taken in the same light as the Generation Snowflakes that are currently falling throughout the country.

Where the current crop of Snowflakes have it wrong is they have no understanding of what rights really are and their relationship to our responsibilities. From my own point of view I can’t see how it would ever be possible to have rights as a human being here in our world without the corresponding responsibilities. There seems to be a lot of muddled thinking on these lines, some of which comes from both sides of the isle and all points in between.

By analogy you could say that it is yellow snow which I refuse to eat.

Saturday, December 10, 2016

Don't Fight the Power, Question It

I had a curious—and very short—conversation on Twitter last week. You know, sometimes it's just the little things that bother me, and sometimes those little things that bother me stick to me for a really long time, particularly when the little thing is connected to a gigantic principle.

The question I asked was; "Under what clause in the #Constitution is the authority for the president to do anything about jobs?"

The reply was; "There is none Brett. However, the Constitution does not restrict the president from doing things to help either. Are you anti-Trump?"

You see what I mean here? Every president and smarmy politician in my fifty-four years of life has been talking about jobs, jobs, jobs. Every. Single. Effing. One. Of. Them. They have failed so dismally that it is a wonder more people don't tell them to mind their own job instead of all of ours...but I digress.

Okay, I get it. Donald Trump won. He's in the limelight, and honestly, I'm very relieved that Clinton lost. I know the guy who responded to my tweet doesn't know me personally, but for all the noise about the federal government trying to create jobs, I still find it alarming to have someone jump immediately to the possibility of my being "anti-Trump," especially when I didn't even mention him.

The simple Twitter answer for me was; "I'm pro Constitution. If Trump follows it, cool. Although the 10th amendment means POTUS doesn't have that authority."

But I think a more in-depth answer to that question of possibly being anti-Trump is called for, so I will just go ahead and write one.

Saturday, December 3, 2016

The Worst President Ever

It is said in some circles of philosophy that any person really only begins to decline when he abandons his principles.

It is also said that there are certain underlying principles which have to be maintained or freedom can't exist. You have the right to associate, which means for it to be a right, you also have to have the right to disassociate. What freedom could you possibly have if once you decided to join up with somebody for any noble purpose, when that purpose is abandoned, you can't sever the ties to them?

The fundamental principles of slavery are that you can't leave when you wish and the fruits of your labors are taken from you, against your will, for the benefit of someone else.

The United States was founded on the principle that the people's of the States could join or not, of their own free will. The Constitution did not have to be ratified because there were the guns and bayonets of General George Washington's army pointed at the people. The Framers of the Constitution debated exhaustively and formed a government which was voluntarily consented to and contributed to, by the People. It is the only time in human history that I'm currently aware of where this has happened.

In the 1860's several States decided to declare their own independence. Whether we agree with this decision or not is moot. They have the same right to leave or not leave the Union, based on their own integrity, as any wife has to leave any man whose marriage is no longer suitable to her. They have the same rights as any person who has ever left the partnership of a company. They have the same rights to leave as any individual or anybody who has ever left any friendship or employment. They have the same rights as anybody has ever had to leave any political movement with which they no longer agree.

Without that basic right, to sever the ties that bind you to any other person or group of people, freedom cannot exist. From the moment military force becomes involved you are chained by force to whatever they decide, no matter how disadvantageous it may be to your own existence.

Thursday, November 24, 2016

The United States, Ver 3.0: One Nation—Under Force

Do you realize that the United States, as it exists today, is the third country to be called the United States of America?

In the beginning we were British. It is one of those little inconvenient truths of American history that we have to live with and sometimes forget. It was just one really big unhappy empire. Their government was ours. Their people were ours. It, because of our remote nature, was never a really happy arrangement. This does not obviate the fact that we were the same people of the same country.

Then, for reasons I won't explain here, came the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War against the British, followed shortly by the first United States constitution—The Articles of Confederation.

That country, as it existed in the beginning, was the United States, Version 1.0. It's constitution was only enough to keep the several States together and participating in the war effort.

Incidentally, when the Colonies were finally granted their freedom by the British, they did it by granting independence to them, individually, naming all thirteen colonies as independent countries. More than that, under the Articles of Confederation, the States were regarded as different and separate countries. They even had different money from State to State. The only drawback was that the system under the Articles of Confederation wasn't working very well and they were in imminent danger of falling apart and being conquered on all sides.

Sunday, November 13, 2016

Trump's First Hundred Day Plans: IWFTCP Constitutional Score, 51.5%

In my last article, How to Destroy the Two Party System: IWFTCP Principles, I mentioned a method of highlighting the text of a political speech or article to point out the parts that do or don't follow the Constitution. This is an example of the method I have been working on for a while; although I haven't published any of them except this one yet. There may be a lot more of these in the future because it seems like it might be a good way to make my point.

If you are sympathetic to the IWFTCP and its goals, and you want to score a couple of speeches or statements of politicians to see how they rate, go ahead! If you do one that seems particularly enlightening and of high public interest, contact me, and if it seems consistent I'll publish your work here with full credit to you.

The idea here is that the red text is where the use of government powers are mentioned or assumed that objectively follow the Constitution according to my current understanding. It is important to understand that, per the Tenth Amendment, in order for a mentioned power to be colored red, that power has to be specifically mentioned within the Constitution. Blue texts are mentions of the use of federal power that have nothing to do with anything named within the constitution.

The Tenth Amendment [10A] comes up a lot. Sometimes red, sometimes blue. Where it is red it indicates a power being given up that has nothing to do any power the feds are supposed to have. Where it is blue is a mention of federal power that should be left to the States and/or the People being taken by the federal government in spite of the Tenth Amendment.

Saturday, November 5, 2016

How to Destroy the Two Party System: IWFTCP Principles

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution. — John Adams

Are you tired of the two party political system? I sure as hell am!

It's interesting that the idea behind forming the political parties was so people who have common sets of political values and interests could group together, work together, and influence the government to pass law in accordance with those values. Republicans are supposed to be conservative, such and such, while Democrats are supposed to be liberal, so and so, and Libertarians, well, they are supposed to be as little government as possible.

While I tend to be closer in my political philosophy to the Libertarians, or the Republicans when they are doing what they promise to do—which never seems to last very long—I have recently discovered something about them all that shook my world. They don't exist to help you influence the government to pass laws according to your values. They exist to get you to compromise your values until whatever is left is in accordance with their goals for themselves.

It is not about you. Ever. It is about them and their power and how they can twist what you want, so that you support what they want, with little or nothing left of what you wanted for yourself.

Look at the primary process of both of the major parties.

Saturday, October 22, 2016

Four Debates: Very Little Constitution and America Missed the Point...Again

(I wrote this, obviously, just after the debates between Trump and Clinton, and their VP choices. However I still think a lot of the underlying principles apply now as well as into the future. As such, I will continue to post it. Thank you for your interest!—Brett)

As a presidential candidate and founding member of the I Will Follow the Constitution Party (IWFTCP) I tend to look at presidential debates through a slightly different lens than most Americans. Of this I am certain. I don't think in terms of what a president can do for me or give me, unless it would have something to do with my constitutional liberty. In the hopes of furthering my cause I offer my own estimation of the three presidential debates and one vice presidential debate.

It should be mentioned here that the main purpose of a president, under Article Two, Section One of the Constitution, is contained within the presidential oath. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

As we know each of these debates was an hour and a half long, totaling six hours, give or take a couple of minutes. In that time there were only sixteen mentions of the Constitution.

For the sake of definition I divided these mentions into two classes. The first being direct mentions, where the candidate said the word "Constitution." The second being indirect mentions, where the candidate said something like "unconstitutional" or "constitutional."

Sunday, October 16, 2016

Keeping the Constitution Working

When I announced my run for the presidency in 2016 I also announced the formation of a new political party to support myself and other candidates who may be like me; dedicated to the following of the United States Constitution. The name of this party is hereby officially the, I Will Follow The Constitution Party, or abbreviated the IWFTCP. I also think it necessary to produce a set of rules for those who wish to join my political party. That is the purpose of this post.

Here at the I Will Follow The Constitution Party there is really only one hard and fast rule. You must, in all things related to the federal government of the United States, without apology or excuse, follow, and insist that all members of the federal government, as well as those running for federal office, follow the Constitution of the United States, in context, and as it is written. Okay, that's a rather complicated sentence so the short version is that you must follow the Constitution. Always.

That's it. There are no other rules, restrictions, qualifications, or any of that other tripe that other political parties engage in to try to force you to comply with the values of their life. There is no "moderate" or "conservative" or "liberal" or any other thing like that here. It's completely binary; Constitution one hundred percent with no alternative. We here at the IWFTCP, while being supportive, or not, of whatever other values you do or don't have, don't give a rat's ass for whatever else you believe, or not. Or maybe we do, but it's none of our freaking business anyway, because we only have one business—the following of the United States Constitution.

Saturday, October 15, 2016

Brett as President: The Other Two Branches

One of the most important aspects of the job of being president is how the other two branches of the government would be dealt with. I think it's time I wrote an article about how I would work with the other two branches to "get things done," since everybody seems to believe that's what we want. It is a three part government at the top, so all three of these parts need to understand one another if they are to operate effectively.

First I've got a chain of logic that I want anybody who would ever consider me as a presidential candidate to understand. I would follow the Constitution under all circumstances; that's the main point, but it is necessary to cover the basics of what is expected of a president, so I ask the forgiveness of those who already understand the line of logic I'm about to cover. It becomes necessary to cover the basic ground rules because if the basics of anything aren't correct there's no chance of accomplishing anything beyond that.

The Constitution is written to give the federal government only specific and limited powers. There are two basic parts of it that deal with what powers they are supposed to have. The first of these is Article One, Section Eight, which lists the specific things the federal government—specifically Congress—is allowed to deal with. In short there are only the following nineteen powers: taxes, borrow, regulate commerce, naturalization, bankruptcies, money and weights and measures, punishment of counterfeiting, post offices and roads, copyright laws, establishing tribunals, punishment of piracies, declaration and regulation of wars, raise armies, provide a Navy, make rules for the military, call forth the Militia, regulate the Militia, maintain federal property, and make laws with regards to the foregoing powers.

Saturday, October 8, 2016

Brett for President: Part One

"That's all I can stands. I can't stands no more." — Popeye the Sailor

One of my all time favorite quotes; and very likely the most unique opening quote to formally announce any candidate for the presidency in this great nation's entire history. But that just about sums up the reasons why I've decided to run for the presidency of these United States. I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore—speaking of great quotes.

I would ask, politely and respectfully, that you turn off the, "third party candidates have no chance and a vote for this candidate is a vote for Hillary!" machine and think about this for a minute. Ignore your gut feeling, which I know is there because I share it too, and actually think things through.

The purpose of the Constitution is to protect the freedoms of the People of the United States from an out of control federal government. This is the thing the Founding Fathers uniformly feared. This is why they made the president's oath of office what they did; to solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Saturday, October 1, 2016

America: You've Missed the Point

(I wrote this, obviously, just after the first debate between Trump and Clinton. However I still think a lot of the underlying principles apply now as well as into the future. As such, I will continue to post it. Thank you for your interest!—Brett)

I, like so many of my brother and sister countrymen, watched the debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Monday night. After giving it a couple of days to settle in my thoughts I've decided I would toss my political opinion into the blogosphere, you know, because that's just the way I roll.

As a veteran of the Navy I took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same," and I meant it. What this means to me is that I will never, under any circumstances, vote for or support any politician who will not do his (or her) sworn duty to, "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

No "ifs, ands or buts" about it. That's what I'm going to do.

So, the number of times that the Constitution was directly mentioned in the first debate was...wait for it...wait for it...ZERO! That's it. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Sunday, September 11, 2016

Theft, Taxation and Charity

A number of weeks ago I began to circulate a simple black and white meme. The idea behind it is obvious to someone who understands the underlying principles of freedom and tyranny; and with a high degree of certainty knows the difference between the two. I posted this meme on Facebook, after which one of my friends shared it, daring his liberal friends to debunk it. In turn, a firestorm of posts lit up his link from his liberal friends claiming that I obviously don't understand socialism. What followed was a highly successful debate for me, which is fine, but more important it helped me to understand that there are some simple words that are commonly misunderstood in our socialist "friends" minds.

Libertarians, such as I usually tend to be, have been circulating a sort of bumper-sticker slogan which seems to be gaining a lot of popularity lately. It is very encouraging to me to see this happening, and the more the idea catches on the more freedom will be returned to our society. The slogan I'm speaking of is, "taxation is theft." While I understand the reasoning behind their argument, as taxation is commonly being used today, and agree to that degree, I have to also say that they are mostly correct, but also partly wrong. Wrong enough that should they get their way the country could be, at some theoretical point in the future, in some serious trouble.

It is said in some small circles that sanity is the ability to distinguish differences and similarities. Just a brief description of this concept, by example, would be a person who couldn't tell the difference between a car and a tomato. You would say that he's insane because he's trying to eat his car and drive a tomato to work. See? So a person who could tell the difference between a car and tomato, using the car to drive to work and the tomato to make a BLT would be sane, at least on the subject of cars and tomatoes. By comparison a go kart is a similar thing to a car but it would still be pretty insane to take it on the freeway for your morning drive to work.

Saturday, August 13, 2016

Goals, Strategy, Tactics: Why the Right Keeps Losing

This election cycle has to be the most disgusting election that I have witnessed in my lifetime. I’m pretty certain I’m not alone in that feeling. Be that as it may it has given me a chance to learn something from the observation of it.

If we were to just set ourselves apart from the fray for awhile and survey the reasons why people vote for other people we would find that there are a lot of combinations of smaller reasons to choose a candidate or oppose one. A lot of them are ridiculous. For example; he’s black, he has funny hair, he is a woman, he put his dog on his car, he fixed an ice skating rink, he said something stupid or rude, etc. There is an endless supply of those. Some are kind of nice in people, in general, and some aren’t, but none show any kind of qualification or disqualification to be president. Even if the candidate is a very successful businessman it isn’t a qualification for high office in my way of thinking. Congressman, possibly, but president? No.

So for now I’m going to brush aside these kinds of arguments without any thought other than to classify them as “Trivial Issues,” just so I have a place to put them in my mind. Most of them fall into the line of thinking that causes a society to enter into a kind of cult of personality; never a very good thing for choosing a leader.

After we’ve thrown out the above Trivial Issues and thus separated the wheat from the chaff, to some degree, we would notice a lot of issues come to the surface. What do we do about: The boarders? Social Security? National security? The budget? Healthcare? Gay marriage? Welfare? The military? Economic policy? Taxes? Energy? Education? Gun rights? Global warming? Terrorism? Immigration? Abortion? Trade policy? International relations? There are more I’m certain but I think you get the idea of what I’m talking about so there is no need to list them all here.

Friday, July 1, 2016

The 28th Amendment

A number of months ago in an uncharacteristic fit of being angry about the political situation in Washington DC I generated this meme suggesting an amendment to the Constitution. Given the popularity of this meme and the fact that I was recently asked to give some background to it, and since I've wanted to write a more full explanation of it, I thought this was as good of a time to comply as any. It should also be noted that the latter part of Section Two concerning the hangings was somewhat humorous in intent.

There are a lot of people talking about an Article V Convention of the States to modify, amend or even rewrite the Constitution in its entirety. While I think an Article V is generally a pretty good idea most of the suggested amendment schemes are far too complex to come out as anything less than a total disaster at worst or total do nothing bust at the very best. I will explain that further as this post progresses.

The birth of the United States was pretty rough. In its early days, under the Articles of Confederation it almost collapsed. I don't want to dig too much further into this at this point and there are plenty of other resources to study as to what was happening in America at that time, prior to the adoption of the Constitution. For now it is sufficient to say that it wasn't very pretty.

After a couple of years of freedom from British rule the Founding Fathers got together and wrote the basic Constitution. By basic Constitution I mean the document itself without any amendments. They did this from the viewpoint that having a large, centralized and powerful federal government would be antithetical to the freedoms enjoyed by the States and the People. As a result they made it a very minimal document consisting of only five pages which outlined the total powers of the federal government.

You got that? FIVE pages. That's the total power of the federal government.

Saturday, June 25, 2016

The Domestic Enemy and The Oath

I know that there are a lot of people out there who have taken a military oath, whether officer or enlisted.

I was thinking about that oath I took when I enlisted into the United States Navy. It is just not in the nature of myself to swear to do something that I don't understand, so I made it a point to know it before I took it. Yet after all of these years there is something that suddenly jumped out at me which I've never spotted before. And it really is something quite striking when you think about it.

Let's take a look at it.

"I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

This oath is to the Constitution. It says so right there in very plain unambiguous English. When taking this oath you are not swearing to support and defend the president, the officers, any politician or political party. This was pointed out to me many years ago and I've long since grown accustomed to the idea.

Sunday, June 12, 2016

Politics, Football and Insanity

It has been often said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I don't wish to quibble too much with the venerable Albert Einstein but I think that is more of a symptom of insanity rather than a precise and workable definition. Be that as it may, it works well enough to help illustrate why our country is in danger of losing its constitutional freedoms.

If you keep voting for the lesser of two evils you will never get different results. You are continuing to do the same thing over and over. Under Einstein's definition above it would seem that those Conservatives who would support the Constitution have lost their minds. Yes, the left has always said our side of the aisle is insane; and under that definition they are somewhat correct, although not in the way that they are thinking.

Look at it this way; in football you win the game by moving the ball forward down the field towards the opposite end zone. You do not ever, under any circumstances, compromise with that goal if you expect to win. The other team does the same when they control the ball.

If you run plays that continuously give up several yards because you are so afraid the opposition is going to take more, and do it on every play, it is inevitable that you will lose the game. It would be irrational to think that the game could ever be won on such a basis. Just imagine how long the head coach would last if he said to the owners of the team that, "The offensive line of the other team is so strong and vicious and wants to get to that end zone so badly that I'm going to give them a three to five yard head start on every play in order to keep them from getting a first down." He'd be fired in the first season if he ever got the job to begin with.

Sunday, May 15, 2016

The Constitution Matters

I am going to open this blog post with some words from the United States Constitution. This is the bulk of Article Six of that document.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

What I am going to say in this post is not at all unique but it is certainly far too rare for my liking. I think the scarcity of people talking about what a president is really supposed to be has reached nearly tragic proportions and I think the country is in serious danger because of it.

These days I hear a lot of arguments centered on the point that, "Trump is better than Clinton." "If you don't vote for Trump it is a vote for Clinton." "The country will be destroyed if you don't vote for Trump." I fully get it that a lot of people think that Trump is great and he will save the country. I also fully get it that Clinton would be a horrible president. But there is something missing from them both which makes me unable to support either.

Sunday, March 27, 2016

From the Writings of John Adams

This post is not my work. It is from the Diary of John Adams. My purpose in posting it in this fashion lies purely in my selfish desire to further communicate of a small nugget of a most eloquent and profound wisdom. I've modernized the spelling and removed John Adams' cross outs to make the reading easier but other than that it is as represented in his own handwriting which you can find at this link.

I will not comment further other than to say that Adams, in this writing, has most certainly cut through the situation in politics today; as well as across the vast expanse of time. We would be wise to check our premises according to the standards below before casting our support to anybody whom we would give our power to.

"1772. FEB. 9. SUNDAY.

"'If I would but go to Hell for an eternal Moment or so, I might be knighted.' — Shakespeare.

"Shakespeare, that great Master of every Affection of the Heart and every Sentiment of the Mind as well as of all the Powers of Expression, is sometimes fond of a certain pointed Oddity of Language, a certain Quaintness of Style, that is an Imperfection, in his Character. The Motto prefixed to this Paper, may be considered as an Example to illustrate this Observation.

"Abstracted from the Point and Conceit in the Style, there is Sentiment enough in these few Words to fill a Volume. It is a striking Representation of that Struggle which I believe always happens, between Virtue and Ambition, when a Man first commences a Courtier. By a Courtier I mean one who applies himself to the Passions and Prejudices, the Follies and Vices of great Men in order to obtain their Smiles, Esteem and Patronage and consequently their favors and Preferments. Human Nature, depraved as it is, has interwoven in its very Frame, a Love of Truth, Sincerity, and Integrity, which must be overcome by Art, Education, and habit, before the Man can become entirely ductile to the Will of a dishonest Master. When such a Master requires of all who seek his favor, an implicit Resignation to his Will and Humor, and these require that he be soothed, flattered and assisted in his Vices, and Follies, perhaps the blackest Crimes, that Men can commit, the first Thought of this will produce in a Mind not yet entirely debauched, a Soliloquy, something like my Motto — as if he should say — The Minister of State or the Governor would promote my Interest, would advance me to Places of Honor and Profit, would raise me to Titles and Dignities that will be perpetuated in my family, in a Word would make the Fortune of me and my Posterity forever, if I would but comply with his Desires and become his Instrument to promote his Measures. — But still I dread the Consequences. He requires of me, such Compliances, such horrid Crimes, such a Sacrifice of my Honor, my Conscience, my Friends, my Country, my God, as the Scriptures inform us must be punished with nothing less than Hell Fire, eternal Torment. And this is so unequal a Price to pay for the Honors and Emoluments in the Power of a Minister or Governor, that I cannot prevail upon myself to think of it. The Duration of future Punishment terrifies me. If I could but deceive myself so far as to think Eternity a Moment only, I could comply, and be promoted.

"Such as these are probably the Sentiments of a Mind as yet pure, and undefiled in its Morals. And many and severe are the Pangs, and Agonies it must undergo, before it will be brought to yield entirely to Temptation. Notwithstanding this, We see every Day, that our Imaginations are so strong and our Reason so weak, the Charms of Wealth and Power are so enchanting, and the Belief of future Punishments so faint, that Men find Ways to persuade themselves, to believe any Absurdity, to submit to any Prostitution, rather than forego their Wishes and Desires. Their Reason becomes at last an eloquent Advocate on the Side of their Passions, and they bring themselves to believe that black is white, that Vice is Virtue, that Folly is Wisdom and Eternity a Moment."

Saturday, March 26, 2016

Government Power and Donald Trump

Yes. Yes. Yes. I know there are going to be some people who object to this post. What I'm asking here is that you please consider what I'm saying and decide accordingly. If you support Donald Trump, I have to emphatically say that this is not personal, I'm not here to bash your guy or take him down. It's about the Constitution and it is very important.

There are some things of importance in this election cycle that I think the American People have lost track of. I consider it my duty as a sworn defender of the Constitution to point some of them out.

The Constitution defines the maximum limits of the federal government's power. That is what it is. The elected representatives, president, and Supreme Court, are supposed to keep the government operating within that power. It is in their very job description. In order to qualify for that job they have to show reasonable experience, and talent for, and concern for, doing so. By constitutional limits the current federal government should be maybe one hundredth of the size and power that it currently is. The federal government has almost no constitutional power to interfere in the lives of any individual.

Sunday, March 20, 2016

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part 9, Compromise and Insanity

It frequently comes up in the discussion of politics that one party accuses the other of being stubborn and unwilling to compromise. I'm quite sick of it. I think if I ever come face to face with a politician, particularly a Republican, who says to me, "Brett, I can reach across the aisle and work with them to get things done," I would likely lose control and punch the son-of-a-bitch right in the face. Yes, in the next three seconds I would find myself face down on the ground in handcuffs. Yes, it would be expensive and I would very likely spend several years in jail. But it would give me the opening at the trial of saying to the accusing politician that he is obviously incapable of working out a compromise with someone who wants to punch him in his face; and thus, I would be taking, so to speak, one for the team.

Saturday, February 27, 2016

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part 8

There is a line in one of the Harry Potter books where Professor McGonagall tells Harry to, “Do use your common sense!” Little did J. K. Rowling know when she wrote that line she would be inspiring advice to conservatives on how to defeat liberalism.

The term, “common sense,” as defined by Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary is, “sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.” [Emphasis mine] This is an immediate and direct observation of something, rather than a transfer of perception to you from some other indirect authority. The word, “common,” in this phrase implies that it uses the senses that most everybody has; smell, touch, sight, sound, etc. If, for example, I tell you I want you to tell me what the sky looks like you have two options. You can go out and look at the sky for yourself and develop your own opinion on what the sky actually looks like to you or you could go to the Weather Channel and get someone else’s opinion, having never seen the sky for yourself. I cannot emphasize enough that the latter of these two options is not common sense! This is because the senses commonly available to most human beings were not directly used to perceive what the sky looks like. It is the simple difference between an opinion and a fact.

Continuing on this line of logic let us suppose that you return from your adventurous expedition to the wonderful world of the outside and report to me the simple and direct observation that the sky is blue. Let us also suppose that I choose to disbelieve your report based on the fact that I went to the Weather Channel which claimed that there would be nothing but solid and constant rain today. Thus we have a difference of opinion. One is based on the senses most common to almost all of us. The other is based purely on an opinion derived from a disreputable authority. And have no doubt ever that this is how a weatherman’s reputation is earned.

Saturday, January 30, 2016

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part 7

I have often observed that political liberalism, as practiced by the rank and file liberal, is a philosophy of emotion rather than thought. This is observable easily enough when you look at the propaganda they pass along.

Picture of a starving child; we should use the government to take money from the taxpayers and feed the child. Picture of a drowning polar bear; we should use the government to take money from the taxpayer and save the polar bears. Picture of a homeless person; we should use the government to take money from the taxpayers and buy homes for everybody. Picture of a child who can’t read; we should use the government to take money from the taxpayers and fund public libraries and teacher’s unions. The list goes on and on. They use any big crisis followed by a plea to use government to take money to fix the problem. The pattern is obvious and simple. Never let a crisis go to waste.

It’s also quite obvious and simple to someone who has the slightest inkling of human history and human nature that such emotional pleas are started by the true driving force behind all liberalism. The hardcore radical liberal is an angry person who seeks to take over and destroy anything they can get their hands on. This is evidenced by the many great historical examples of unfettered liberalism where genocides always seem to happen. Notice that every example I gave above includes an increase in government power with a corresponding decrease in the freedom of the taxpayer to control his own money as he pleases.

Saturday, January 16, 2016

Star Wars: The Farce Awakens


Being a blog writer as I am trying so hard to be, I try to stick to political issues or philosophic issues dealing with politics. Every once in a while things are just too screwed up to deal with and it becomes appropriate to take a break and deal with things that are a little bit less serious. It’s not necessarily in my bent of nature to do a movie review because I most generally hold a bit of disdain for the pop culture that comes with the territory. I tend to hold more to bigger social issues in my writings than Hollywood is capable of generating on even their best day. So I guess that what I’m saying is as a fan and author of science fiction, Star Wars is big enough for me to consider a social issue. So, what the hell, I guess it’s time for my first written movie review. Don’t worry, it won’t happen often.

Some time ago I saw this meme in circulation that if JJ Abrams screwed up Star Wars he would be forever known as Jar Jar Abrams. Henceforth, in all of my writings concerning him, he shall be thusly named. Jar Jar Abrams it is.

I’m going to take this in three parts: plot, actors, and special effects. The plot problems are endless so I’ll spend a lot on them, but there is no way to cover them all. I can knock out the actors in a paragraph or two.

First, the plot, the most important part of any well told story, is weak to the point of making less sense than Obamacare. In The Lord of the Rings Frodo needed to destroy the one ring so as to defeat evil in Middle Earth. It’s a big plot. In Star Wars: Episode IV the plot was to rescue the beautiful princess, defeat Darth Vader, blow up the Death Star and deliver a major blow to the evil empire. Huge plot.

On one side we have all of that. In the case of the Farce Awakens, from Jar Jar Abrams, we have … drum roll … wait for it … where did Luke go? Yes. That’s it. Sure, you’ve got some new characters, descendents of the old ones, but for actual plot, where did Luke go? Everything else in the movie is ridiculously tied into that. Where’s Luke Skywalker? The First Order, an obvious spinoff of the Empire, even to the degree that they fly the same kinds of ships and wear the same uniforms, wants to know where Luke is. The good guys want to know where Luke is. Both are trying to keep the other from finding him. There is no more plot to it than that. There isn’t even anything mentioned as to why all of a sudden it is so important to find him. He doesn’t even need to be rescued! He’s just living peacefully on a mountain top somewhere in the galaxy, stacking stones to make steps and buildings, contemplating the existence of his navel and the asininity of liberal political philosophy or something. It doesn’t even tell you why he’s hiding. He just is. He’s not even in the movie until the last thirty seconds.

But somehow, for some reason, he left a map. The map ended up in the hands of an X-wing pilot who put it in a droid. When is the last time a critical plot element ended up in some innocent droid while the person carrying it was in danger of capture? Hmmm... Let me think. Has that ever been used before? How original and how clever! Why nobody would ever think of that! Apparently Gungans, like Jar Jar Abrams, can regurgitate plots!

Saturday, January 9, 2016

The Koran

Damn. It’s with a big heavy sigh that I have to write about Islam, again.

It’s not that it’s an uninteresting subject which shouldn’t be written about. It’s not that it’s unimportant. It’s not that I’m tired of studying what’s going on relative to it. What bothers me is that I’m going to say something I know a certain segment of the people who read my material is going to disagree with. Now I don’t expect everybody to agree with me, and that’s okay. I don’t desire the agreement of everybody. It’s just that the subject of Islam is so overly emotionally charged in this country, particularly on the part of people of other faiths, that it’s difficult to hold an intelligent conversation with people on the subject.

I’m not that kind of guy who relies on internet memes circulated on Facebook and Twitter as the ultimate truth in my life. When something bothers me, I research it for myself using direct original sources wherever possible, discover a level of truth that I’m comfortable with, and write about it. If I see a meme that says something, whether I agree with it or not, I do my homework and verify it. I hate to be fooled and I hate to pass along false information that makes me look like a fool.

Let’s take, for the sake of unambiguous explanation, the example of everybody’s favorite tyrant; Adolf Hitler. “This year will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!” The principle implied is completely true. However the quote is completely bogus. He never said it as far as anybody has ever been able to prove. He might have believed it. In fact, he probably believed it, at least as far as the Jews were concerned, thus accounting for the popularity of the supposed quote. It is most certainly factual that he acted as if he believed in gun control imposed on his opposition. But as far as I can tell, he never said it.

Things like this create a dilemma for those who wish to seek and spread the truth.

You wouldn’t think so, and in a world where people are thinking analytically it wouldn’t be a problem at all, but the unfortunate fact is it creates a bit of trouble.