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.

The Tenth Amendment unequivocally states that the federal government can't take any powers that are not specifically named within the Constitution. For them to do so is a violation of your rights as an American. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government any authority or power to do anything about anybody's healthcare; for example. Nothing. Zero. Nada. Zip. If the supreme law of the land were to be understood and followed, it would quickly be realized that it is none of the federal government's authority, responsibility, or business, to decide how you should be taken care of or how you should take care of yourself. This very rarely spoken of concept is called, "freedom." I would suggest that the American People take some time to get reacquainted with it.

There are so many things the federal government is doing, that they have no authority for, it just boggles my mind. It's like the Constitution's limits on federal power don't even exist anymore.

This is the basis of my objections to Donald Trump as president. It also happens to be the basis of my objections to Hillary Clinton.

You could have the greatest and wisest king of them all, with power absolute, and everything would be perfect...for a while. Sooner or later someone else will be the king with power absolute.

This is why I'm a big fan of George Washington. Three times he was in a position of being able to gain absolute control of this country. Three times he turned it down, in addition to taking steps he thought would prevent anybody else from getting that kind of power.

1) It takes a giant man to hold a lot of power and wield it with wisdom. 2) It takes a bigger one to walk away from that kind of power without the slightest temptation of using it for corrupt purposes. 3) It takes a person of great foresight and understanding of human nature to make certain any power that can be abused is dispersed so that nobody else can use it.

Many people have made arguments that Donald Trump might be number one. I won't argue that point here. He's been quite a success and there is no denying that. However, I can find no evidence of number two or three within him. Quite the contrary, I find a lot of proof that he might be the opposite.

As mentioned above, it is the job of the president , generally speaking, to "protect and defend the Constitution." The more detailed explanation of his job is outlined in Article Two of that founding document. A quick index of how someone would do in that capacity might be, rather crudely, decided simply by the number of times he or she mentions it. If a guy talks about the Constitution a lot it obviously means something to him and based on that he might also be expressing his understanding and desire to see it upheld. 

From Trump's website there are five mentions of the Constitution in his "Positions." Two under Second Amendment Rights. Three under Immigration Reform. Total; five.

From Cruz's website under "Issues" there is an entire section dedicated to "Restore the Constitution," inside of which are nine mentions of the Constitution. One mention in the section regarding the 2nd Amendment. Two under "Religious Liberty." Two under "Life Marriage and Family." Total; fourteen.

But this is just a simple survey of the number of times for the occurrence of the word. It does not suppose that all mentions of the word would be in a context that would comply with the Constitution. It also does not take into consideration that any other things mentioned on the pages have anything to do with the Constitution. If this simple means of deciding were not detailed enough you would have to look further and find out the relevance of the candidates positions to the Constitution.

The funny thing is that the people are sick of politics as usual. This is what is behind the rise of Donald Trump and with this position I am totally sympathetic. He seems, and is, different than the politicians we are used to. Yet if you go through his policies he's proposing the same things as we've gotten from the Democrats and Republicans. In every measurable way, from the political standpoint, he is the same kind of milk-toast unconstitutional moderate that the "politics as usual" crowd of establishment types keeps spawning. That he delivers it with an unusual and effective punch is all he really has going for him from that point of view.

His healthcare position is what Sanders would give us. His boarder policy is what Cruz would give us. The rest falls, with rather unstatesmanlike behavior, in the middle somewhere.

His stance on the 2nd Amendment is utterly ridiculous. For example, he supports the idea that all concealed carry permits should be recognized in all states. Fine. On the surface this seems to make some kind of sense. But why in the hell do I have to have permission from the government to exercise a constitutionally protected right to begin with?! See? It's a false premise based on the consideration that the federal government or president should have anything to say on the matter at all. You could say that it is a conservative position but it is based totally on a liberal perspective.

It just goes on and on like this. If you accept the position that the Constitution does not matter or does not specifically limit the power of a president, all of what he says sounds great from a lot of different perspectives. I might even be persuaded to the idea that some of it makes sense from our current position. But really, if the highest law in the land doesn't matter that much, is the consideration, the people are trying to elect a monarch because they are expecting the king to do what they want him to.

The problem with the federal government is that they have too much power that they are not supposed to have and are using it against us. Now we have Trump, who if elected is going to use the power that he's not supposed to have to our supposed benefit. That he will use it to our benefit is nothing objective; it's faith.

The job of the president is not supposed to be to use existing federal power to anybody's benefit or detriment. The president is specifically supposed to keep the federal government operating within Constitutional limits, so that there is no power there to be used for anybody's benefit or detriment in the first place.

Donald Trump, exactly like the current federal government, is showing no sign that he understands the limits that the federal government is supposed to have, nor does he show any sign that he will bring the federal government back within the powers it is supposed to be limited to under the Constitution. Thus he, as well as the rest of them, are operating on a false premise.

Operating on this false premise the best case scenario is that he might be able to use the current levels of government power to make things better. That's fine. He will be gone in four to eight years, barring impeachment, assassination or natural death. That's not fine and leaves us right back where we are now. The government will still be oppressively giant, too powerful and corrupt.

The president of the United States is supposed to make absolutely certain that the federal government operates within the parameters of the Constitution. Almost all problems the country is having at the federal level, stem only from them not following the highest law of the land, and taking and using power they shouldn't have in the first place. The focus of any candidate, in my mind, should be to bring the federal government back within its limits.

If we define government corruption as "using the power of the government, that it's not supposed to have or use, to the end result of getting what we want, in compensation for money, votes or political power," then what is the long term benefit of voting for somebody who comes up with great plans for using the power he's not supposed to have in the first place? Several years down the road we'll just be right back in the soup again. That's the problem with monarchy. No matter who the great and compassionate king is now, his successors will sooner or later really suck. And when the monarch is elected and called, "Mr. President," the results can be pretty much expected to be the same.

44 comments:

  1. You may want to add that Ted Cruz is a perfect Saint, who never took any money from Wall Street while his wife worked for Goldman Sachs.
    Then...if you change every time you used the word "Trump" to "Cruz", you will have the same UNREASONABLE LOGIC based on innuendo's, assumptions, and just plain old "Pandering", all because Ted Cruz used the word "Constitution" FOURTEEN WHOLE TIMES!!
    I see "No Logical, Or Physical EVIDENCE" that one single word you've said about Donald Trump is "TRUE" - except, of course, that you've said it.
    You may want to "Provide Sources" as to why you feel that "IT'S ALL DONALD TRUMP'S FAULT" that the Government has gotten "Too Big For It's Britches"......instead of saying "HE CAN'T FIX IT"??
    That would "IMPLY" that somehow, your "SAINT", Ted Cruz is FIRST - "Above That Sort Of Reproach", and SECOND, that Ted Cruz has some "MAGICAL POWERS" to do what YOU WANT DONE IN GOVERNMENT, that Donald Trump somehow "LACKS THAT SAME ABILITY", for some "UNBIASED REASONS", which ONLY YOU ARE AWARE OF.

    Other than that - it's strictly a "ONE SIDED CONVERSATION", which gives "ALL PROPS TO TED CRUZ" (without ANY proof that he's even CAPABLE of doing ANYTHING "Presidential" with HONOR - he lost that trust when he sabotaged Ben Carson in Iowa, and when he sent out those "PHONY MAILERS").

    Here's a clue on "writing an UNBIASED PIECE".....Show that YOUR GUY "ISN'T PERFECT" either....otherwise, it's NOTHING BUT "HOT AIR"!!
    ( I mean that literally )

    ReplyDelete
  2. Where exactly did I say that Ted Cruz was perfect? Where have I ever said that I was not biased? Or are these just assumptions you made? In fact I can't see where most of your comments have anything at all to do with what I was writing about.

    My point is that the government isn't following the Constitution because the People aren't even expecting it anymore. I only brought Cruz into it for a comparative analysis; and even then only because he was the only close competition that Trump had at the time I wrote it. I'm sorry that point seems to have eluded you. Maybe you just couldn't hear it because you were too busy SCREAMING AT ME IN A FIT OF RAGE!!!!

    Regarding your own "logic," here's an important tip; just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I endorse whatever extreme opposite your imagination can conceive. Understanding someone's viewpoint and being able to converse intelligently with them is contingent on this point. Plus it shows that you are sane rather than simply having knee-jerk reactions.

    With that said I would fight and die to protect your right to vote for whoever you want because I took an oath to defend the Constitution. I can see from your comments that you do care about the country. That is common ground for us even though we may disagree on who is best for it in the end.

    If you are willing to have a conversation in a civil and intelligent tone about restoring our country to its Constitutional principles I am always willing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. HERE'S YOUR "ARGUMENT"......"Constitution"

      "A quick index of how someone would do in that capacity might be, rather crudely, decided simply by the number of times he or she mentions it."

      I rest my case.

      Delete
  3. Yeah, you're right. I suppose "your formula for choosing a President" is as good as any other person's.
    Especially with such "attention to detail", and a "side-by-side" comparison that you provided.
    Based on that - you've decided "Who, As Well As How, To Best Be The President" - it's really quite amusing that you've given it that much "THOUGHT".........but, let's just look at it more closely, shall we?
    ------------------------------------------------------------------

    "From Trump's website there are five mentions of the Constitution in his "Positions." Two under Second Amendment Rights. Three under Immigration Reform. Total; five.

    From Cruz's website under "Issues" there is an entire section dedicated to "Restore the Constitution," inside of which are nine mentions of the Constitution. One mention in the section regarding the 2nd Amendment. Two under "Religious Liberty." Two under "Life Marriage and Family." Total; fourteen."
    ---------------------------------------------------

    That's "YOUR RATIONALE" on choosing a President??

    Oh yes, your "view point", and, may I also say "expertise" in capturing "The Root Differences" in candidates makes me want to run out and "VOTE RIGHT NOW FOR WHOMEVER SAYS THE WORD CONSTITUTION THE MOST".

    I'm sorry you missed the gist of my comment, but, even now, I'm feeling kind of REDUNDANT.

    I hope you're keeping your day job, because being a 'Pundit" isn't exactly your forte.

    It's even sad that you had no responses to the "Misappropriations" (Lying to the Public) that your candidate that said "Constitution" so many times, exercised in the Primaries either.

    If you want to talk about "FLAWS", especially in Donald Trump, the last person you should be using as a "ROLE MODEL" is Lyin Ted Cruz.
    To be factual....Donald Trump is more "innocent", when it comes to "Politics", than Ted Cruz. So much so, that Ted Cruz was able to EXPLOIT the fact that Donald Trump "WON STATE PRIMARIES", while Te Cruz 'STOLE THE DELEGATES THAT DONALD TRUMP WON".

    Is that what you call "FAIR PLAY", constitutionally speaking??????

    I get it.....you're a CRUZ BOT......but, don't "Mince Words" about it!!!.......then you're just being deceitful yourself!!

    You remind me of those people that TRY to say nice things to your face, but, BEHIND THEIR BACK everyone knows you really Hate that person.

    I'd have more respect for you if you just said what you really felt, instead of CAMOUFLAGING IT WITH THE "CONSTITUTION"......and a few "One Liners".

    If you HATE DONALD TRUMP....just say so!
    Is that really hard for you to do??

    Instead (being redundant)....all we get is a lot of "HOT AIR" - literally!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ummm...you know, I don't really care if you have respect for me or not. I don't need your approval, I'm certain, because I've managed to survive for more than five decades without it. And also, I'm not a pundit, nor am I trying to be one. I would kindly suggest you look up what the word "opinion" means in a good dictionary because that's all I have written on my blog. Ever. And that's all I've ever claimed.

    Again, the point wasn't Cruz vs. Trump. I don't care if you like Trump. I don't care if you hate Cruz. I've never said either was an angel or demon. I've not said yet just who I would have supported as my first choice but you seem to have made up my mind for me. The point is that even if a candidate is completely correct on how to use big government to solve all of the problems, I still would not vote for him unless he convinced me that he was going to follow the Constitution. (Incidentally, that would be a paradox but...) After all, that IS the job that they are all applying for; who can best support the Constitution. It is up to Americans to fix the country and make it great again, not the president.

    With that said, there is no way possible that Donald Trump is going to follow the Constitution. He's a big government guy. He'll increase the power of the federal government and likely fix a lot of things. Okay, good. But when he's gone and another Democrat gets into office all of the unconstitutional power Trump collected will be used against us to even greater disastrous effect than Obama.

    Incidentally, I'm a libertarian. Ted Cruz was not my choice either. My choice was Austin Peterson or maybe Rand Paul. But they had both dropped out before I wrote the article.

    Calling names and making diminutive statements about someone doesn't address any kind of point. It's a loser's argument.

    And finally; I'm very sorry to hear that some of Trump's supporters (at least you) don't seem to care much about the Constitution, or at best carry a passive interest in it. I've been mocked and blocked by several Trump supporters just for pointing out specific policies of his that would certainly be unconstitutional. It is due largely to the inspiration provided by people such as yourself that convinces me I'm on the right track regarding the philosophic principles of how to make America great again. So thanks for your input and help.

    It's been a pleasure. :)

    ReplyDelete
  5. So, from everything "YOU'VE SAID".....
    I can easily CONCLUDE that even if "Hillary Clinton" said the WORD > "CONSTITUTION" **15 Times Instead Of 14 Times Like Ted Cruz**, then that means that "SHE WOULD BE YOUR CHOICE FOR PRESIDENT".......all because ( IN YOUR OWN WORDS ) she said the WORD "CONSTITUTION" the MOST.

    It's really sad that you can't even SEE the LUNACY in your argument.
    It's PATHETIC that you don't even understand that "ANY POLITICIAN WOULD SAY ANYTHING TO GET ELECTED"......even the Word > "CONSTITUTION"!!

    What's so IMMATURE ABOUT YOU is that "You Think I Don't Care" About The "CONSTITUTION"......why?
    Perhaps because you had "NO CLUE THAT I SWORE AN OATH TO DEFEND IT AGAINST ALL FOREIGN & DOMESTIC ENEMIES", when I "ENLISTED" (Not Drafted), during the VIET NAM WAR.

    No one takes "Our Constitution" more SERIOUSLY than the "SOLDIERS OUT THERE FIGHTING FOR IT"....."NO ONE"!!
    That's where you see "WHO'S WILLING TO GIVE THEIR LIFE TO DEFEND & PROTECT IT"!!

    Unlike "POLITICIANS", who sit in those "COMFY LEATHER SEATS", and never saw a day in COMBAT......that probably INCLUDES YOU AS WELL.

    When YOU'VE DONE THAT - then you can talk to me about "Defending The Constitution"......which I put my LIFE ON THE LINE TO PROTECT IT.

    That's why "I LAUGH BECAUSE YOU THINK THE BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB" IS WHOMEVER SAYS THE WORD THE "MOST".

    Wrong.......it's WHOMEVER IS WILLING TO DIE FOR IT!!!!

    Yes, it's SAD & PATHETIC that "THAT IS YOUR RATIONALE"....which, with ALL YOUR WORDS, you have still NOT BEEN ABLE TO "ARTICULATE" as a 'Sound Reason" for choosing ANY PRESIDENT......I wouldn't even vote for Donald Trump if it was because "HE SAID CONSTITUTION THE MOST"!!
    ( That's Your Asinine Formula - Not Mine )

    I know that "IF IT WALKS, AND TALKS LIKE A DUCK - IT'S A DAMN DUCK", REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY TIMES IT QUACKS "CONSTITUTION".

    To "Politicians" the Constitution is "JUST A WORD" which THEY USE TO RECRUIT PEOPLE LIKE YOU!!

    I'm of the mindset to "JUDGE A TREE BY IT'S FRUIT"....not by what come out of their MOUTHS!!

    If there's "NO GOOD FRUIT" - THEN IT'S A "BAD TREE"......simple eh??

    You're right about "OPINIONS".....like assholes, everyone has one - but, it doesn't mean that "ALL THE ASSHOLE ARE RIGHT", does it??

    Hillary Clinton = BAD FRUIT

    Ted Cruz = BAD FRUIT

    Donald Trump = "WE'VE ALL SEEN HIS GOOD FRUITS", which is why "HE'S CREATED MORE JOBS THAN THE ENTIRE CONGRESS", OR ANY PRESIDENT, OR SENATORS......"THEY DON'T CREATE JOBS - THEY LEGISLATE", AND THEY FIND WAYS "AROUND THE CONSTITUTION" TO DO THE BIDDING OF "WHOMEVER PAID THEM THE MOST MONEY, OR DONATIONS"!!

    Donald Trump IS THE ONLY PERSON WHO CAN SAY "HE'S NEVER TAKEN ANY MONEY"......yet, he still "PRODUCED JOBS"!!
    Donald Trump IS THE ONLY PERSON WHO CAN SAY "HE DOESN'T HAVE ANY LOBBYIST'S AGENDAS".....because "HE CAN'T BE BOUGHT"!!

    All this equals "GOOD FRUIT" compared to anyone else you can produce!!

    So.....you stick with the one who says "CONSTITUTION" the most....and, I will stick with the one that "PRODUCES THE BEST FRUIT", and let's see "WHO FAIRS BETTER", shall we????

    It's been MY PLEASURE "Schooling You" :)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jerry, I have honestly been looking forward to your rather disjointed rant all day. I guess I should never underestimate your ability to create responses to things that I have never said and have little to do with the issue. I'd recommend that you switch to decaf so you don't come off as if you are still in combat. And again, just as a reminder; just because we don't agree doesn't mean I automatically endorse whatever extreme your mind can concoct to be its opposite.

    It's really simple. Only one issue before us. I have made the statement that Donald Trump will not follow the Constitution. You have not provided any evidence to the contrary. Should you ever get around to providing any HARD proof that convinces me, I will change my mind and state it as so right here. Additionally, I promise to you that should you prove me wrong on that one point, I will support Trump with all that I can. Until then there are some things you should consider.

    I, like you, have taken the oath to fight, and die if need be, to defend our Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I have not been in combat but I have seen people die while in the service of our country. A president who would not defend the Constitution, as his highest purpose in office, is not only lying when he takes the oath but is treating your sacrifice in combat, in the service of our country, as little more than the dirt beneath his heel. A president who would not follow the Constitution as his highest purpose is the very literal definition of a domestic enemy, no matter where he stands on any other issue. To support someone for president who is not above all dedicated fully to the Constitution as his highest law is to degrade your own sacrifice and put other less important issues above the value of your own service. I'm sorry to have to tell you this but it is a fact. You took an oath to give your life, if need be, in this country's defense. It is in honor to your sacrifice that I swear to you that I will NEVER, even if threatened with death, support a candidate for high office or Congress who I believe would violate the Constitution. To do so would dishonor us both and be akin to spitting in the faces of those who have served and died in defense of our country.

    That's the hard simple fact of it. Support the Constitution by voting for only people who will follow it, or your service to the country is meaningless. You need to be consistent on this if your oath means half as much to you as you've expressed here. Make your oath to the defense of our Constitution mean something in principle and action as your words have expressed.

    Thank you most of all for your service. I will not dishonor it by committing the heinous act of voting for someone who would degrade it, by not following the Constitution you've so bravely fought for.

    ReplyDelete
  7. And incidentally, Jerry, if you were willing to take the oath to defend it you must already know that the Constitution would fix the problems of federal big government corruption, were it to be followed as written. That's what it's for.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You know what Brett?
      It doesn't really matter at this point whether we have a "Constitution" or NOT.

      Say good-bye to the "CONSTITUTION, AND THE RULE OF LAW"!!
      All that remains is; "Is There Anyone Willing, At This Point, To Rise Up To Vanquish, Destroy, And Eradicate The Progressive Ideological Left Wing Conspiracy To Eliminate The Constitution, Along With The Bill Of Rights", Which Were In Effect For Nearly 240 Years??

      Indeed.....that is the question!!

      The ONLY ANSWER would have to be a "CIVIL WAR", not just to eliminate SLAVERY OF BLACKS, but, to ELIMINATE SLAVERY OF ALL U.S. CITIZENS HELD CAPTIVE BY A TYRANNICAL LEFT WING GOVERNMENT - otherwise known as "SOCIALISM".

      Your entire "VIEW POINT / OPINION IS MOOT", along with all your "REPLIES".

      Obama has made sure that the "Constitution" is a THING OF THE PAST, REPLACED WITH A "PROGRESSIVE IDEOLOGY", WHICH IS NOW CALLED "THE RULE OF LAW DICTATED FROM THE BENCH OF LOWER COURTS" = "Obama's Legacy".

      Read the BAD NEWS & Weep, because THERE'S NOTHING ANYONE CAN DO ABOUT THIS!!.......regardless of HOW CONSERVATIVE the "Next President Will Be", there is no way that that "Conservative, Constitution Loving President" Can Change 329 "LIFETIME APPOINTMENTS MADE BY OBAMA".

      Here's a FOX NEWS Article dated TODAY explaining "WHY"......( which NEGATES any OPINIONS, or ACTIONS that can be taken to ENFORCE THE CONSTITUTION in our LIFETIMES )

      Good Luck Trying To UNDO Everything That Obama Has Done To Destroy The America We Once Knew & Loved, Brett.
      As for myself, I intend to "Ride Out This Tribulation", and I will continue to be a "Soldier For God, and a Soldier For Christ", because, quite frankly, it doesn't matter who the President is when the "Wrath Of God" comes upon the ENTIRE EARTH, and, I will "Lay Down My Life For Something Greater Than My Country, My Family, And, Our Very Short Future" - I Lay It Down For My God, For In Him "I Will Always Trust".
      At least that's the ONE THING WE GOT RIGHT "AS A NATION" - that too has now VANISHED FROM THE LAND, BUT REMAINS IN MY HEART.

      Hillary Was Right >> "What Difference, At This Point, Does It Make" If She Wins, Or Not?
      No President can UNDO 329 "LIFETIME APPOINTMENTS" made by Obama.....so, it might as well be HILLARY, for all the good a "CONSERVATIVE PRESIDENT CAN DO".

      Delete
    2. Jerry, You've said more than I'd guess you know here; "It doesn't really matter at this point whether we have a "Constitution" or NOT. Say good-bye to the "CONSTITUTION, AND THE RULE OF LAW"!! All that remains is; "Is There Anyone Willing, At This Point, To Rise Up To Vanquish, Destroy, And Eradicate The Progressive Ideological Left Wing Conspiracy To Eliminate The Constitution, Along With The Bill Of Rights", Which Were In Effect For Nearly 240 Years??"

      That, in fact, IS the question. The left wing conspiracy IS to destroy the Constitution. The only way to stop them is to elect ONLY people who will follow the Constitution. I get it that it seems like it doesn't matter sometimes. And it certainly is a big task. But if we are willing to swear to put our lives on the line, how could it be any worse by voting only for people who will follow the Constitution? The worst case scenario is that our lives would be on the line. Well hell man! We've already sworn to do that! Let's not get all half-baked about it now.

      For me it is as simple as this. The president's job is to, "to the best of my [his] ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." That's directly from the oath of office. If he doesn't do that, then he is an oath breaker at best, a domestic enemy at worst. If I support or vote for someone I don't believe will follow the Constitution, I then, am an oath breaker at best or a domestic enemy at worst, because I also sword to protect and defend the Constitution.

      Now, with regards to not only Donald Trump but ANY and EVERY candidate for any office subject to the Constitution, I MUST have some pretty convincing evidence that they would before I support or vote for them. And I am always very certain to let everybody know that's what I'm doing and why. It's not only the number of times they mention it. They also have to show an accurate understanding of it that isn't based on liberal SCOTUS rulings and professor's opinions.

      That is the only way to stop the liberals. Learn what is in the Constitution and why. Teach other people what is and is not in it, restore it to its original purpose, and insist that the government follow it. Let every politician you can, know that you know it and won't be BS'd or dissuaded from following it.

      Until it becomes necessary for bullets to start flying, that's all that I can do.

      It might be interesting to you personally to note that if the Constitution would have been being followed at the time, it is highly unlikely that you would have ever been in combat in Viet Nam. There are great benefits to everybody to follow it, if they only knew.

      Delete
    3. The ironic thing about having "A Few Good Men" is how they keep getting "Fewer", and further in between.
      Donald Trump has been right about one thing his entire campaign, and that is that "Everything Is Rigged Against The American Citizen".
      My years on this earth, and, in this country, have taught me at least one thing about being an American.
      I saw it on September 11th, 2001 - when virtually the entire country "Came Together" in patriotism.
      I saw it because "I was there at Ground Zero" as a first responder with the NYPD, and I felt it when my heart broke for the innocent victims, upon whose bodies I was walking over in a heap of rubble.
      What I saw was the "Love" that we Americans truly have "For Each Other", even as total strangers were bringing me water, sandwiches, hot meals, and even new dry clothes to wear when my uniform was torn to shreds while I was covered in ashes.
      I saw it when they brang us beds to rest on when we were totally exhausted, and when Doctors gave me sedatives to help me sleep in the beds that were set up in the corner Burger King across from the WTC, and he stood with me until I fell asleep, because I was suffering a nervous breakdown from all the devastation I was witnessing, and all the tears being shed by even the strongest of men.
      It reminded me of Viet Nam, where your best friend was the person standing, or lying next to you, and you didn't even know his name.
      It reminded me of all the horrors I've seen throughout my lifetime, and all the times I was helpless to do anything.
      But, most of all, it reminded me that "Americans Will Always Stick Together" - no matter what.
      So - what conclusion can I come to, except for this?......
      Americans will NEVER take up arms against Americans - at least, not in a "War" against one another!
      We have too much "Love" to do such a thing, regardless of how angry we will get, or how "Racial Tensions Increase".
      I know that I could NEVER "Kill Other Americans".....and, I know "They Could Never Kill Me" - Not in an "All Out War"!
      We're NOT barbarians ( even though our politicians are ) - "We Actually Believe In God", well at least 75% do.
      That's why I know that "NO ONE WILL RISE UP" - not against "Fellow Americans".
      However, I can't speak for the "MILITARY", with all their Tanks, and Heavy Artillery, Planes, Drones & Bombs they don't even need an "ARMY"......this can be done by a "Handful Of Men In An Underground Facility", where they don't have to see "THE FACES OF WHO THEY'RE KILLING".
      These are the "Two Main Reasons" why I already KNOW that "If We Did Rise Up" - which we won't, but, "If We Did", there would be a SWIFT RESPONSE TO CRUSH ANY SUCH UPRISING.....simply because "We're Already Limited On WHAT KIND OF ARMS WE CAN BUY", and we certainly WILL NEVER HAVE MILITARY GRADE ARMS!!

      Delete
    4. (2)


      So, in conclusion, the entire conversation becomes MOOT, and certainly "HIGHLY IMPROBABLE".
      John Wayne is DEAD, and everything our Nation once stood for......and so is "HONOR, AND DIGNITY".
      All that remains is "HUMANITY", which is slipping away every single day - NOT BY AMERICANS - by our Government, and the power it yields over every single one of us. Only NOW, it's done in "COURT ROOMS" - not "Battle Fields".
      And, the Court Rooms are "CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC", so we don't even know what they've done UNTIL IT'S ALREADY DONE.
      I Love America & Americans - We're the most unique people on earth!
      But, wherever there are "People", there will always be a "RULER".
      This is why I have NO FAITH in any kind of Government On Earth, not as long as they "GET THEIR POWER FROM THE PEOPLE", because most times, people are just plain IGNORANT, and STUPID....it's THEM THAT I BLAME "FOR NOT CARING ABOUT THE REST OF US", they only "Care About Themselves".....that's a formula for DESTRUCTION every single time.
      Without "Love For Each Other" - we have NOTHING.....and everything becomes MOOT, no matter how hard YOU TRY, or "I TRY", there's always someone else "CANCELLING OUT ALL YOUR EFFORTS", because they're not even thinking about YOU OR ME.

      That's the meaning of sadness in my dictionary.

      Those were the days.....

      Delete
    5. Jerry, your writings above are both very touching and very true. I can see that we have the same motivations regarding the love of our country and the responses of Americans under pressure. I wrote a post on this blog about what you saw on 9/11. (http://onlyaviewpoint.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-days-after-911.html) I wasn't at ground zero to see it for myself, I was out here seeing the news reports and USA flags on almost every car. I was one of the guys who was sending people like you the supplies you needed.

      I too have no faith in the government. They certainly haven't earned it. The thing is that over the last twenty years or so I have made it one of my life's missions to fully understand what's in the Constitution and why so that I know what the federal government is and is not supposed to do. There is a very wide gap there. One of the most important things I've discovered is that there is supposed to be almost no authority of the federal government over any individual citizen's life. The purpose of the federal government is to act as an intermediary between the States and other countries of the world; not rule over the People's lives and decide what is right and wrong for them. Almost every single social program is unconstitutional and is only used as leverage against the People to keep us under their control. Medicare, Medicare, The Affordable Care Act, the Department of Education, welfare and all of its variants, and tons of other federal programs should all be illegal under the Constitution. It comes down to Article One, Section Eight (the powers of Congress) and the Tenth Amendment. Basically, if it is not mentioned in Article One, Section Eight, the federal government has no authority to do it. Even with that there are about half of the Amendments that are in violation of other parts of it or passed illegally. Furthermore the Supreme Court has no authority to make the decision if something is Constitutional or not.

      Thomas Jefferson said of our system that it wouldn't work if the People were not literate and educated in the use of the system. He was most certainly correct. Most Americans don't know that the full purpose of the Constitution was to keep the things you mentioned above from happening. After devoting thousands of hours to my studies, that's the only place where I can find where the system went wrong. THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS THERE TO PROTECT THEM FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GOING OUT OF CONTROL AND HOW TO BRING THE GOVERNMENT BACK UNDER CONTROL.

      That's where the fix is. Educate the People on what the Constitution really says. It's a long hard path. It took hundreds of years for us to get where we are. It might take hundreds of years for us to get back to where we are supposed to be. Every vote for any elected official who won't follow the Constitution, for any reason or intent, is a step in the wrong direction. Every vote for any elected official who will follow it, no matter what, is a step in the right direction. I know the situation is bleak. I know it's a very hard fight and a very long way to go. But you've been through worse and impress me as a guy who is tough enough to engage the liberal mindset in defense of the country and it's Constitution.

      You, of course, must decide for yourself, according to your own integrity, what you are going to do. As for me this is where I make my stand. Out of love of Constitution and country, I will never support any candidate who promotes or supports anything that is not in the Constitution. If they want my vote they have to convince me that the restoration of the Constitution is their highest purpose. If there isn't one who can do that I will likely write my own name in.

      Delete
    6. (1)

      First Brett, I wish to thank you in your contributions to aid New York City in possibly the worst disaster brought by mankind on the terrible Tuesday morning of September 11th, 2001. It was much needed, and greatly appreciated by everyone that spent nearly 6 months trying to restore our lives to some kind of normalcy, not only financially, but emotionally, from a scar that remains in our hearts even as we speak. You know there aren't enough words to express what took place in my home town.

      Delete
    7. (2)

      I know your sincerity - I knew that when I first read this blog, which I felt compelled to respond to because I too feel strongly about everything we, as a Nation, have, and, are losing.

      I'm a spiritual man Brett. To me, the "closest" set of Laws we have, compared to the Laws Of God, is the Constitution.
      In fact "The Spirit Of The Constitution" is based on the premises of God's Laws. It's the closest thing to "Equality Among Men, And Loving Thy Neighbor" that we could have on a "Secular Basis", while including the words "God Given Rights" that we can have without "Forming A Church, Or Religion", while maintaining "Separation Of Church (religion), And State (government)" - even though those words are not even written in the Constitution, or, The Bill Of Rights - we respect them none the less.

      Delete
    8. (3)

      I think what drives the Left crazy, and I relate them to Atheists as well, especially concerning Abortion, is that the words "GOD GIVEN RIGHTS" exist in the Constitution.
      To them, that means that "We Are Under, And IN God's Care, And "In God We Trust" - How can anyone in their right mind think otherwise? It's written on OUR MONEY - which I'm sure drives them even more crazy.

      It's very hard for anyone that "Doesn't Believe In God" to suddenly "Believe In The Constitution", which is basically "The Laws Of God", but, on a "Secular Level" - but, that doesn't matter to THEM that "It's Separated" BY LAW (Which Doesn't Exist). What matters to them is that "IT'S AN ACCEPTED UNWRITTEN LAW", and one that they'd rather MAKE SURE DOESN'T APPLY IN GOVERNMENT.

      I understand "Their Point Of View", and would actually AGREE if I wasn't a Spiritual Man.

      Still, we've heard it time, and time again, ESPECIALLY IN COURT ROOMS, that when "Reading The Constitution & Applying It To Our Modern Society", that the JUDGES attempt to see "THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW", and not necessarily "THE ACTUAL WORDS OF THE LAWS", which is what gives them "THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW, BY THE SPIRIT IN WHICH IT WAS WRITTEN".......that's all 'double talk" for; "IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT AT ALL - HERE'S WHAT IT REALLY MEANS".

      However, our "Founding Fathers" included a "SEPARATE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT CALLED THE JUDICIAL BRANCH" for just such an occasion.
      Mostly because "THEY COULDN'T ANTICIPATE FUTURE LITIGATION'S", and had no alternative but to "ASSIGN A REFEREE" to settle such "DISPUTES THAT MAY ARISE".
      This was done to "PROTECT THE MORE WEAKER,AND SILENT MINORITIES WHO HAD NO VOICES".
      It wasn't done to "CHANGE THE LAWS".....it was done "TO PROTECT THE MINORITIES IN THE EVENT THAT THE MAJORITIES WERE GETTING MORE THAN THE MINORITIES" - It was done to maintain "FAIR PLAY", regardless of "WEALTH, CLASS, GENDER, AND RACE".

      What our "Founding Father's" DIDN'T ANTICIPATE WAS "GREED", AND "UNGODLINESS", AND THE VAST NUMBER OF CASES THAT WOULD BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURTS....they never anticipated "BEING OVERWHELMED WITH BASELESS, AND MERIT-LESS DISPUTES".
      Remember, in those days "A MAN'S WORD WAS HIS HONOR".......they never anticipated "PURGERS, LIARS, AND MANIPULATORS" that would ultimately "BECOME THE MAJORITY".......in other words, "THEY BELIEVED THAT GOOD WOULD OVERCOME EVIL", and that a "Man's Word Was His BOND".....even though they installed "STOP GAPS" for such events, they UNDERESTIMATED MAN'S DECEITFULNESS, and, by doing so, "THEY LEFT THESE MATTERS TO WHAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE UNAPPROACHABLE SCHOLARS & JUDGES", which is WHY THEY GAVE THEM "LIFETIME APPOINTMENTS" - because "THEY TRUSTED THEM SO MUCH"!!!

      That's where it ALL BROKE DOWN.....they put TOO MUCH POWER IN THE HANDS OF TRUSTED REFEREES, whose job it was "TO SETTLE DISPUTES FAIRLY", even if that meant "DISREGARDING THE CONSTITUTION - WHICH WAS MADE AMENDABLE"!!

      Delete
    9. (4)

      So, what was ORIGINALLY MEANT TO PROTECT THE MINORITIES, became the instrument to make the "Minority BECOME the Majority", simply by way of "UNLIMITED, AND UNCONTROLLED LAWSUITS, WHICH OVERWHELMED THE JUDICIARY, AND MADE WAY FOR IMPROPER, AND UNETHICAL DECISIONS MADE BY THE JUSTICES - WHICH ALWAYS ENDED UP PROTECTING THE MINORITIES, AND MADE THE "MAJORITIES SEEM TO BE EVIL BECAUSE OF THEIR WEALTH, AND STRENGTH OVER MINORITIES".....which is why "EVERYONE HATES THE RICH", because it's been "TAUGHT TO US THAT THEY ARE EVIL"....just like you said - with OUR EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM.

      So - how do you change what has been "A PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT STARTED SHORTLY AFTER THE CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN"???

      You'd have to go back in time to UNDO all that the "JUDGES" have done to erode the very LAWS which were written to "KEEP US UNITED IN A COMMON CAUSE OF FREEDOM"!!

      Yes, my vision is BLEAK to say the least.
      All we had to to was "ENFORCE THE LAWS" - not "REWRITE THEM"......but, I guess that's called "PROGRESS".

      Delete
    10. There is a LOT of truth in what you've said Jerry. Your question; "So - how do you change what has been "A PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT STARTED SHORTLY AFTER THE CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN"???" is the most applicable part of it. We don't really have to go back in time and undo it though. We do have to get people to understand that PRESCIENT from the Courts ARE NOT LAW.

      Take the Supreme Court for example; there is nothing in the Constitution that says they are the supreme arbiter of what is and is not constitutional. Yet we treat everything they rule on as if it were binding law. It isn't and was never intended to be. This is the effect of the progressive agenda. Like Goebbels used to say, if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth. This is how governments are overthrown and it is also our most serious danger, domestically. Well the progressive lie is that the Supreme Court has the lawful authority to overturn the other two branches of our government. They don't, assuming the Constitution is followed, have that power at all. And they shouldn't because they are so frequently and obviously WRONG!!! For example; it is a Supreme Court opinion that black people don't have rights equal to white people. How wrong can you get? Yet is precedent from the courts is law...

      I recently came on this link supporting my view on this in Jefferson's words. http://famguardian.org/subjects/politics/thomasjefferson/jeff1030.htm

      The upshot of this link is that the three branches are equal, rather than the Supreme Court being superior to the other two. And the bottom line of it is that a lot of the decisions, accepted by the People, are totally bogus and have nothing to do with the actual power of the Supreme Court.

      So we don't have to go back in time, really. We just have to get the People to realize they've been duped and how. Once they realize the truth for themselves the rulings can no longer stand. There is no such thing as "common law," that is law made by the rulings of judges, in the US Constitution. It's just not there.

      Delete
    11. I agree Brett - we've been "bamboozled, hoodwinked, and lied to" ~ Malcolm X ~

      Wouldn't you agree, then, that getting back to the Laws we have on the books, and enforcing them, would be the best place to start?
      I think you would agree to that.

      We both know that Donald Trump is an "Unproven Entity", simply because he's never held any Official Political Office.
      We both know that the "Liberal Media", as well as His Own GOP ( Nearly 16 of them BROKE THEIR SIGNED PLEDGES TO SUPPORT HIM ) have turned their backs on him...."WHY"??

      Because he represents that kind of "CHANGE" you, and I are both looking for....."He's upsetting the apple cart" - He's a THREAT to "The Old Ways Of Doing Things".

      That's what you , and I, BOTH WANT. It just that we might disagree on the AVENUE TO GET THERE.

      Seriously speaking, He's as close to a REVOLUTION that we're ever going to get - YES, HE'S INSANE!! That's what we need!!
      We need a 'General Grant" regardless of HOW DRUNK HE WAS....but, he sure as hell GOT THE JOB DONE!!

      You've been saying what I've been saying, and we're talking "past each other".
      Forget "THE WORDS" for a moment....because ALL POLITICIANS HAVE WORDS - Yes, even Donald Trump.

      Does he have an AGENDA?.....absolutely - WHO DOESN'T???
      That's not a BAD THING EITHER....what's good for HIM is also GOOD FOR US.....and, "he's the Only One Willing To BUCK THE OLD ESTABLISHMENT"......everyone else "IS THE ESTABLISHMENT", including the most sincere "CONSERVATIVES" - they're politicians too!!
      And, THEY HAVE AN AGENDA TOO!!.....One which the LEFT DISAGREES WITH.......so, not everyone is going to agree - Right?

      We can at least agree on this..."DONALD TRUMP IS DOING WHAT WE WANT TO BE DONE".....he's just NOT AS "ELEGANT" & REFINED AS THE REST OF THOSE POLITICIANS THAT HAVE BEEN DOING THIS THEIR ENTIRE LIVES.
      That's a GOOD THING!!......We need "NEW BLOOD".......let's HELP HIM LEARN - Not tear him down!!

      We both know what he's going to do......so does everyone else!!

      "AT LEAST WE KNOW".....it may not be "PERFECT" the way you want it to be - "BUT AT LEAST IT'S A START IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION OF GETTING BACK TO THE CONSTITUTION".

      You said it would be a SLOW RETURN....even HUNDREDS OF YEARS....but, "IT'S GOT TO START SOMEWHERE" - right?

      Who else is out there saying "THEY WILL BRING IT ALL DOWN"???

      Everyone else out there is saying "WE CAN MAKE IT BETTER"...but, THEY SAY NOTHING ABOUT "ENFORCING THE LAWS ON THE BOOKS" - not one of them!!

      They keep saying "MY WAY IS A WAY BACK".....but, for how many years have we been HEARING THAT BULLSHIT????
      Same old lines...."VOTE FOR ME"!!.....same old RESULTS....we wait for the NEXT PERSON TO MAKE PROMISES.

      What I love most about Donald Trump IS THAT HE'S NOT THE SAME OLD.....INSANE OR NOT - "HE'S NOT ONE OF THEM" - that's a FACT!!

      Like you said....it takes time, but we need to start going in the Right Direction FIRST.....then we can navigate much better afterwards, right?

      At this point in our lives, and our children's lives >>>. RIGHT NOW WE'RE GOING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION!!


      We need a STRONG CAPTAIN ( CURSING AND ALL ) TO TURN THIS MIGHTY SHIP BACK AROUND!!!

      Who do you that has that kind of STRENGTH at this point in time??....I CAN'T THINK OF ONE PERSON.

      But, I'm willing to "START BY GIVING HIM THIS CHANCE TO GET US AT LEAST ON THE RIGHT PATH"....others will FOLLOW AFTER HIM TO MAKE IT EVEN BETTER - that's a CERTAINTY!!

      Delete
    12. (2)

      They say; "when you're up to your ass in alligators - it's no time to be cleaning out the swamp".
      THEY'RE WRONG .....that's the ONLY TIME TO BE CLEANING OUT THE SWAMP!!!

      Did you hear any of that coming from Ted Cruz? Or from Rand Paul? - NO!!

      You heard the 'SAME OLD VOTE FOR ME BULLSHIT THAT WE'VE BEEN HEARING FOR 50 YEARS".

      Donald Trump reminds me of MYSELF.....I'm a NO NONSENSE, GET IT DONE, OR GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE WAY KIND OF GUY!!
      We can't do this BY BEING POLITE ALL THE TIME....but, at least I ALWAYS GOT THE JOB DONE, and yes - I hurt a few people's FEELINGS along the way....but, as a COP, I don't have time to CONSIDER PEOPLE'S FEELINGS - I have ONE JOB TO DO, regardless of WHO IT HURTS, or even KILLS......and that is "TO PROTECT LIFE & PROPERTY" at any costs.

      Believe me when I say this - New Yorker's are ALL NO NONSENSE KIND OF PEOPLE - we don't waste time on "PLEASANTRIES", that's just a LUXURY we cannot afford when faced with someone trying to "KNOCK YOU OFF YOUR HORSE"!!

      That's the kind of person Donald Trump IS, and that's the kind of person we need - NOW!!

      It's got to start somewhere Brett....the REVOLUTION HAS TO BEGIN SOMEWHERE....and, it's NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN WITH WEAKLINGS LIKE JEB BUSH, who won't even HONOR HIS OWN PLEDGE TO SUPPORT THE NOMINEE!!!.....That says a LOT about so-called 'CONSERVATIVES IN NAME ONLY".

      So, yes, I've given this very much serious thought....and I'd rather put my life in Donald Trump's hands than anyone else's at this point in time, and, you'd do well to "Trust A Man Who's Willing To Do The Things That We Both Want Done", regardless of HOW HE DOES IT....besides - CONGRESS WILL SCHOOL HIM "IF HE GETS OUT OF LINE".....and "he's been LISTENING!!!

      Delete
  8. Jerry, I want to say two things before I talk about Donald Trump.

    First of all my grandfather was a cop. He was Chief in a northwest Ohio town where I grew up. I've got his badges right here on the desk in front of me and his service revolver in the safe. I grew up around cops and I know the kind of people they are, and the job they do. The benefit of any doubt always goes to the cop first.

    Second, I really appreciate your love of this country, your passion for it, and your service to it. And I understand that is what drives you to the line of political thought that you occupy. Yes, we are sort of talking past each other. And I get fully that we need to do something different than what we have been doing.

    Now, what we HAVE been doing is NOT INSISTING that our political leaders follow the Constitution. That IS their job and they've been failing...miserably. The only way to restore constitutional law is to INSIST that our political leaders follow it. We can't just do something simply for the sake of being different because there are a lot of different things we can do that would be wrong. The "different" and correct thing we need to do is FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION and INSIST that the government do the same.

    So let us talk about a specific issue that bothers me about Donald Trump. Healthcare. He wants to repeal Obamacare (GOOD!) and replace it with a system of his own design. Now here's my problem. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT GIVES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ANY AUTHORITY TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT ANYBODY'S HEALTHCARE. Nothing! Zero! Zip! Nada! ANY and ALL involvement by the federal government in the healthcare system is strictly forbidden in the Bill of Rights by the Tenth Amendment. Thus, whatever Donald Trump wants to replace Obamacare with is just as unconstitutional as Obamacare. It might be better. In fact it is likely it would be. But it is still a Big Government statistic solution to something that they should never have been involved with in the first place.

    So let's say Donald Trump gets his (still unconstitutional) system in place and it gives power to the government over the healthcare system. Let's also say he runs it brilliantly and fixes everything. He's only going to be there from four to eight years before the next guy comes in and screws it up again OR uses the system with malice against people who don't support him.

    You see the problem here? I agree with you that Donald Trump is different. But he's not the small government, pro-individual freedom, pro-Constitutional type of different that I can support. The American People can fix all of this stuff for themselves. And under the Constitution that is exactly what we are supposed to do. On average We don't need a leader to put rings in our noses and pull us all around so we don't make mistakes and screw ourselves up. We just need someone to get the oppressive federal government out of our way so We will have the freedom to take care of our own lives.

    Were he to say, "We are going to get the government out of the healthcare system COMPLETELY!" I'd have a greater tendency to back the guy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On guns and concealed carry, this text comes from Trump's web site: "NATIONAL RIGHT TO CARRY. The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway. That’s why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states. A driver’s license works in every state, so it’s common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state. If we can do that for driving – which is a privilege, not a right – then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege."

      On the surface this looks good. Certainly a better position than the Democrats. On that we can agree.

      But if the Second Amendment is truly applied, "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," why would someone ever need a concealed carry permit? Why do I, as a person who is a law abiding citizen of the United States have to apply to ANY government agency to carry a gun, which is a constitutionally protected right? This position of Trump's is still a Big Government statist infringement on my individual rights, again something they have no authority to do.

      On the same page he says, "ENFORCE THE LAWS ON THE BOOKS". The problem is that most of the laws on the books are unconstitutional! If Donald Trump were to say that most of the laws on the books are unconstitutional it would show his support for the Constitution as well as his true understanding of it. Otherwise it just seems like another soothing platitude for the masses who don't know and understand what their rights really are.

      The bottom line is that the kind of "different" we really need is to get the federal government out of the business of gun control, healthcare, Social Security, education, and every other place where they have no business being. That's the only thing that will work.

      I have no doubt of your sincerity in your wishes to do what you think best for the country. I have no doubt of Donald Trump's as well. But good intentions are not enough for the most powerful positions in the country. One has to know what they are doing and why. Just like you would be less likely to trust a rookie cop, not because of his intentions but because of his knowledge and experience, I don't trust inexperienced politicians who don't seem to really understand the "hows" and "whys" of the Constitution.

      Here are the links to Trump's positions I've mentioned above. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/second-amendment-rights and https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform

      Delete
    2. Hi Brett,
      Those are certainly two great issues you've mentioned. I'm not sure I can give you specific details on how they would be different under Donald Trump if he's posting that on his website. But, I can tell you want "His Positions" are, which are NOT on his website, and for a very specific reason "Why" they're NOT on his website.
      There are things a candidate can only say that "Line Up With The Party's Platform", which I'm sure you understand. Those platforms have been carefully designed, mostly because "That's What The Base Wants To Hear". I don't know any candidate that would "Go Against His Own Party's Platform" - as Donald Trump has already been "THREATENED" by the party that "He Would Lose Their Support & Financial Backing, As Well As Their People On The Ground Getting Out Votes For Him" - that's a HEAVY COST TO PAY, especially "LOSING YOUR BASE" - I know you understand that as well.
      What's he to do then?.....this is where "Politics" comes into play, and this is where "He's Forced To Play Ball With His Own Party". You've seen this actually happening to him on numerous occasions, and, they're watching him like a HAWK, and, the Jeb Bush's are just waiting for him to muck it up - especially Mitt Romney, whose looking to get in without doing ANY WORK, he would jump in INSTANTLY.....both ways are a losing proposition for Trump, or, the Party, so he's FORCED to do this, and remember, He DID PUT IN THE WORK, and he won the Nomination, which was RELUCTANTLY GIVEN TO HIM.

      Before all that happened his "Position On Healthcare" was very simple - He said to FORCE THE INSURANCE COMPANIES TO SELL "ACROSS STATE LINES" (which they've never done), and, "ALLOW PEOPLE TO HAVE TAX FREE HEALTH CARE SAVINGS ACCOUNTS" ( like an I.R.A ), and, "CANCEL GOVERNMENT INSURANCE" ( Except for Medicaid & Medicare ). He also wanted things to "return to what it was BEFORE".
      He wants "EMPLOYERS TO INCLUDE CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE EMPLOYEES HEALTHCARE SAVINGS ACCOUNTS", and let the EMPLOYEE CHOOSE WHATEVER INSURANCE THEY WANT - unlike it was BEFORE, when an Employee was STUCK WITH THE EMPLOYERS HEATH PLANS.
      That's why it's FIRST, MOST IMPORTANT TO ALLOW INSURERS TO SELL ACROSS STATE LINES "TO BE MORE COMPETITIVE", instead of having "MONOPOLIES IN THEIR OWN STATES"......that was Donald Trump's ORIGINAL PLANS.
      The only thing the Government would be doing there is "Making Sure That EMPLOYERS PAY SOME OF THE COSTS" - just like they did BEFORE Obamacare, which forced the employers TO CANCEL ALL CONTRIBUTIONS, as well as Reducing Hours to escape being FORCED TO PURCHASE OBAMACARE'S OUTRAGEOUS COSTS, which would've PUT THEM OUT OF BUSINESS.

      This plan works just fine, and, people would actually have BETTER PLANS @ LOWER COSTS because INSURERS WOULD BE COMPETING FOR THEIR BUSINESS now that "State Lines HAVE BEEN ERASED".....EVERYONE WINS HERE.
      Employers would be hiring people, and using the same "INCENTIVES" as they did before by "Providing Matching Contributions To The Employees Savings Accounts" as part of the Employees SALARIES - just like BEFORE....(But, it would be even CHEAPER NOW)

      Delete
    3. (2)
      Donald Trump is a 2nd Amendment LOVER....he always "Carry's A Gun", and, he's also been ENDORSED BY THE N.R.A.
      And, they ENDORSED HIM EARLY, BEFORE HE EVEN WON THE PRIMARIES - that says a lot about "HIS INTENTIONS".
      I don't disagree about "Concealed Carry Permits" across State Lines, or, Locally.
      quite frankly "THAT'S AN EASY FIX" for the Federal Government.....not so much "FOR STATES" though!!
      What you want is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO TELL THE STATES TO DO THIS - but, at the SAME TIME "You Don't Want Them Involved"??
      Can't have it BOTH WAYS Brett.
      The same goes for "Health Insurance", where the Federal Government will be FORCING EMPLOYERS TO CONTRIBUTE TO YOUR SAVINGS ACCOUNTS.....again, you can't have it BOTH WAYS.
      Sometimes you have to admit that "WITHOUT GOVERNMENT FORCING CORPORATIONS, OR, STATES TO DO THINGS - YOU'D NEVER HAVE THE RIGHTS YOU WANT ENFORCED AT ALL" IF IT WERE UP TO THE "STATES"....that's STILL A GOVERNMENT - like it or not.
      Those are the times WE NEED THE GOVERNMENT TO ENFORCE THE CONSTITUTION.....otherwise there would be ANARCHY, right?
      It's like "Having Your Cake & Eating It Too"....so, I know that all you want is "A SMALLER GOVERNMENT", not "No Government", but, that can't happen UNLESS THEY ARE INVOLVED.
      As a Police Officer it's very dangerous for us when someone HAS A GUN....permit, or no permit!!
      A gun is a RED LIGHT FOR ANY COP......what happens when YOU FORGET TO HAVE YOUR "PERMIT WITH YOU"??
      What should a Cop do??
      The reason that "PEOPLE MUST HAVE PERMITS IS NOT TO VIOLATE YOUR RIGHTS"......it's to "PROTECT OTHERS FROM SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO HANDLE A GUN PROPERLY, AND TO INSURE THAT THAT PERSON HAS BEEN PROPERLY TRAINED ON GUN SAFETY", AS WELL AS "COMPLIANCE WITH POLICE INSTRUCTIONS IF THEY SHOULD BE DETAINED".
      Not every State REQUIRES THAT....which makes it hard for POLICE TO BE SAFE.
      Sometimes a person WON'T EVEN TELL A COP THAT HE HAS A GUN - THAT'S A GREAT WAY TO GET KILLED!!!!
      It's for "STUPIDITY'S SAKE" Brett that anyone "Carrying A Gun" should be WELL TRAINED ON HOW TO USE IT "SAFELY", AS WELL AS "COMPLIANCE PROCEDURES WHEN ENCOUNTERING POLICE".
      You can't just "LET EVERYONE HAVE GUNS WITHOUT REQUIRING A PERMIT"....because "MOST PEOPLE ARE ASSHOLES"!!
      You already said the REASONS, when you said "IT'S A PRIVILEGE", and, "Like A Drivers License YOU MUST ALSO BE WELL TRAINED ON ROAD SAFETY"......why?......"TO PROTECT OTHER PEOPLE". The same applies to people driving "TRACTOR TRAILERS".....you can't just let someone with a "REGULAR DRIVERS LICENSE DRIVE A COMMERCIAL VEHICLE"!!!....for one thing "IT WEIGHS ABOUT 30,000 MORE POUNDS THAN YOUR TINY CAR, AND, IT DOESN'T STOP ON A DIME LIKE YOUR CAR DOES".
      It's always been about "SAFETY FOR OTHERS, AS WELL AS FOR YOURSELF".....it's also why YOU'RE FORCED TO WEAR "SEAT BELTS"!!
      "Safety" is the KEY WORD here....and, "WITHOUT REGULATIONS PEOPLE WILL DIE" simply because of STUPIDITY.
      Someone has to GOVERN THAT!!
      Now, if you CAN'T PASS A SAFETY PROGRAM...then you should NEVER BE ALLOWED TO HAVE A GUN!!!....2A, OR NOT!!
      Wouldn't you agree with that???
      So, I don't agree with you on Government Regulations Concerning PERMITS....and, if someone comes near your family with a 'LEGAL GUN", but, leaves it on the SOFA "LOADED & COCKED"......would you want that person IN YOUR HOME???
      Wouldn't you want the "PEACE OF MIND KNOWING THAT THAT PERSON IS WELL TRAINED TO CARRY A GUN"???
      You'd be CRAZY not to want that.

      Delete
    4. (3)

      So, I can NEVER SEE SUPPORT for giving people "THE RIGHT TO CARRY WITHOUT PERMITS" - EVER!!
      And, I know that even the NRA agrees with that.....they support "GUN SAFETY" - who wouldn't??
      That means REGULATIONS, that means GOVERNMENT, - STATES ALSO!!
      The part about "Going Across State Lines" is UP TO THE STATES - not the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
      Even "CITY MUNICIPALITIES, AND SMALL TOWNS, HAVE THEIR OWN RULES CONCERNING GUNS".....some may not allow ANY GUNS, ever.
      The Federal Government CAN'T STOP THAT....just like they CAN'T STOP "SANCTUARY CITIES"!!
      All the Federal Government can do is "STOP FUNDING THOSE CITIES, OR STATES".
      The only way to change all that is to make AMERICA "ONE STATE" - not "50".
      So, that's why YOU DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING ABOUT THAT ON DONALD TRUMP'S WEBSITE......he has NO POWER to change that - nor should he.
      This is what I was talking about EARLIER.....certain people want certain things - and, everyone WANTS THAT RIGHT, which is overwhelming the courts.
      It's when the COURTS ARE FORCED "Because Of One Person's Desire To HAVE THAT RIGHT" - to "Change The Laws FOR ONE PERSON, Rather Than For The MAJORITY"....who, in this case, wouldn't agree with you Brett.

      Delete
    5. (4)

      Brett,
      You have to remember that when the Constitution was written they didn't have "CRACK ADDICTS, HEROIN ADDICTS, AND MOST PEOPLE DIDN'T HAVE MENTAL PROBLEMS".

      The never anticipated such things when it was written.
      Surely you must realize that "TIMES HAVE CHANGED FOR THE WORSE" concerning people's "CARING ABOUT LOSS OF LIFE".

      They didn't even have CARS BACK THEN - did they?

      So, of course "RULES HAD TO BE MADE", because "THESE ARE ALL NEW THINGS THAT NEVER EXISTED BACK THEN".

      Today, even "manufacturers" have to have INSURANCE in the event that "THEIR PRODUCT MIGHT CAUSE INJURY", and, that happens a lot. Those manufacturers have to PURCHASE "LIABILITY & COMPLETED OPERATIONS INSURANCE", just in case their "PRODUCT IS DEFECTIVE", and most times THEY ARE!!

      Yes....the Constitution "GAVE US RIGHTS".....but, it NEVER GAVE US THE RIGHT TO BE STUPID!!!!

      That's why it's "AMENDABLE", because they had NO CLUE on 'What The Future Might Bring". Thus, they had to ALLOW FOR THE UNKNOWN, and, they had to ALLOW THE LAWS TO BE AMENDED to accommodate any such "PROGRESS".

      Every year, "CAR MANUFACTURERS" are given "NEW REGULATIONS" for either "EMISSIONS", "BRAKES", "FUEL TANKS"...etc, etc, etc
      WHY??
      Because "NEW THINGS KEEP GOING WRONG, CAUSING DEATHS".

      LOL - you see this EVERYDAY on the News, don't you?

      If we NEVER "PROGRESSED"....then there would never be any need to "AMEND" - would there??

      That's why we have a "CONGRESS"....they make "LAWS" to keep up with "Modern Trends".

      Your mind should be able to do the SAME THING.....sometimes, ya just gotta go with da flow, Bro!!
      It's a NECESSARY EVIL because the world is constantly CHANGING.

      As much as I'm a fervent believer in "Original Law", I'm also REASONABLE enough to "Accept That Things Do Change", and that REQUIRES NEW ACTIONS on the part of REGULATORS.

      Delete
    6. P.S. Brett....

      You said that you're a "LAW ABIDING CITIZEN" - great!!

      What does that mean???

      It means 'YOU MUST ABIDE" - if not, then You're An OUTLAW.

      Surely you must see the points I'm making here are "VALID" - right?

      I'm pretty sure that's why Donald Trump always ends his RALLY'S with the Rolling Stones Song; "YOU CAN'T ALWAYS GET WHAT YOU WANT".
      But, if you try sometimes - "YOU GET WHAT YOU NEED".

      Are the laws UNFAIR sometimes? ABSOLUTELY!

      But, without the LEFT trying to ELIMINATE ALL THE LAWS....we've got plenty of laws that JUST MAKE COMMON SENSE.
      Are there TOO MANY LAWS?....again ABSOLUTELY!

      That's where we can 'TRIM THE FAT" so to speak.......but, without "COMMON SENSE REGULATIONS" people will DIE, Brett.
      In those cases, if it causes DEATH, then I agree with HAVING LAWS AGAINST IT - but, that's just me, and "MY OWN OPINION".

      Delete
    7. Jerry, there are some serious flaws in your responses here. I can see some logic in you line of thinking but somehow you keep reversing what I've said.

      On healthcare you mention that Trump wants to force the insurance companies to sell across state lines. Well the only reason they don't do that already is because the federal government has made it illegal. Your position is exactly backwards. They would sell across state lines except for the unconstitutional law restricting that, which is also likely based on a bogus interpretation of the Commerce Clause in the Constitution. Bottom line is the federal government has neither the authority to force a private company to sell across state lines nor prevent it. Any effort to do so is outside of the law. You say I can't have it both ways. Great. I want it neither way. The feds need to stay out of private business completely, especially healthcare. That's what allow corruption and lobbyists into the system. You want to get rid of lobbyists in healthcare, completely? Force the government to follow the Constitution.

      You've stated that "WE NEED THE GOVERNMENT TO ENFORCE THE CONSTITUTION." Exactly backwards my friend. The People are supposed to enforce the Constitution on the government. Not the other way around. We should spend some time on this because it may be the root cause of our misunderstanding. The Constitution is a specific list of powers that the federal government are authorized to do ON BEHALF of the States, this can be found in Article One, Section Eight. It is also a list of specific things the federal government is not allowed to ever do, this can be found in Article One, Section Nine. I highly recommend you read them. More than that, the Tenth Amendment states that ALL POWERS NOT LISTED IN THE CONSTITUTION BELONG TO THE STATES AND THE PEOPLE. The States are SUPERIOR to the federal government. It is the States that wrote the Constitution to place and impose limits on the federal government. It is the States who decide who will be in the federal government. It is the States who elect the president and representatives from the States who authorize or deny his decisions. The federal government is not supposed to be the supreme power that it has become. The bottom line is that anything the federal government does which is not specifically listed in the Constitution is unconstitutional and should be considered illegal. Yes. I understand that that's not what they are doing. And that is why I object to them so strenuously. But you need to understand this one point, if you get anything from our conversation at all; ALL CORRUPTION IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND ALL PROBLEMS RESULTING FROM THAT CORRUPTION, STEMS DIRECTLY FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOING THINGS THAT THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THEM TO DO.

      Delete
    8. That the federal government is getting involved in everything under the sun IS the very definition of corruption itself. The supreme power base of this country is supposed to be dispersed across the States, not concentrated in Washington D.C. That it has become so centralized in DC is the real reason dim-witted liberals like Hillary Clinton are a threat. There's more power in DC than there is supposed to be and it's become enough power to establish a clear tyranny over us all.

      The Constitution does not give us rights as you suggest; it does list several that need protection from the federal government, but it specifically does not GRANT them. The truth in this statement is documented in the Constitution itself in the 9th Amendment which says; "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In other words, the rights are inherently ours. We have the right to speak. We have the right to live. We have the right to protect ourselves. And yes, we have the right to be stupid and to die in stupid ways. It's none of the federal government's business what any individual citizen does about or with his own life. That's what freedom is, by definition. Your philosophical premise seems to be somewhat reversed from what the Constitution actually says and would require a total tyranny to enforce.

      I would recommend to you that you spend some time reading the Constitution and learn what it really says, and why it says it.

      Delete
  9. Brett, I NEVER SAID that "The Government Gives Us RIGHTS", nor, have I EVER IMPLIED IT. Although, you're right - it does "APPEAR" as though they do exactly that, especially with our "Out Of Control Executive Orders", as well as "Supreme Court Decisions".
    If I have "IT" backwards, it's only because "THE SYSTEM IS BACKWARDS" - not me.....still, it is "THE LAW OF THE LAND", regardless of ME having it backward, or YOU. I'm not arguing that "Our Rights Come From The Constitution, And NOT THE GOVERNMENT", but, I am saying
    "THE GOVERNMENT IS WHO WE TURN TO WHEN WE NEEDS OUR RIGHTS TO BE ENFORCED".....unless, of course, you have ANOTHER ENTITY that's OBLIGED TO DO THAT FOR "INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS"???
    Brett....pray tell me......WHO IS THE ENFORCER OF OUR RIGHTS???
    Is it the POLICE? Is it the COUNTY? Is it the STATE? Is it the FEDERAL GOVT? Is it the SUPREME COURT??
    Is it "YOU", or "ME"???
    You're reaching for STRAWS Brett, especially with such an ignorant statement of saying "WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE STUPID".
    You can PRACTICE THAT RIGHT IN "YOU'RE OWN BACKYARD" - don't bring you're STUPIDITY INTO MY BACKYARD, OR NEAR MY FAMILY - because YOU WILL END OF DEAD!!.....which is exactly what YOU WOULD DO IF SOMEONE BROUGHT THEIR STUPIDITY INTO YOUR BACKYARD!!
    (Which is you're right - being stupid, and all)
    I've got to ask this, what you might call, "IMMATURE QUESTION" Brett - Exactly what, and why do you think "LAWS ARE MADE FOR"??????
    I would suggest YOU LOOK IT UP IN A DICTIONARY, and see WHAT "LAW MEANS".
    "Laws Are RULES TO LIVE BY".....they are "CONSTRAINTS ON WHAT YOU ARE ALLOWED TO DO, AND, WHAT YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO".
    To NOT DO THEM puts you in "VIOLATION OF THOSE LAWS".....but, WHY WERE THEY THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE??
    "TO KEEP THE PEACE", which is why Law Enforcement Officers are called "PEACEKEEPERS"......THEY'RE NOT CALLED : 'LET PEOPLE BE STUPID OFFICERS", are they???
    Your argument, if you can call it that, is completely ASININE, and makes no sense whatsoever!!
    The Constitution, my friend was "WRITTEN TO STOP KING GEORGE FROM ENFORCING HIS WILL ON AMERICANS WHO DECLARED THEIR INDEPENDENCE FROM ENGLAND".
    What that means is...."NO OFFICIALS FROM ENGLAND HAD ANY RIGHTS TO COME INTO OUR HOMES, HANG US, TAX US, OR GOVERN US IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER".
    We "Declared Ourselves FREE FROM ENGLAND'S LAWS, AND TYRANNY".
    And, in doing so..."WE FORMED OUR OWN GOVERNMENT - SOVEREIGN FROM ENGLAND, AND INDEPENDENT FROM ENGLAND".
    But, make NO MISTAKES Brett......"WE ARE, AND HAVE ALWAYS BEEN A GOVERNMENT OF LAWS".
    Some laws were written to "PROTECT THE PEOPLE FROM GOVERNMENT".
    Some laws were written to "PROTECT THE PEOPLE FROM OTHER PEOPLE".
    Some laws were written to "PROTECT THE PEOPLE FROM COMMERCE".
    Some laws were written to "PROTECT THE COMMERCE FROM PEOPLE".
    All laws were written to "ALLOW EQUALITY AMONG ALL PEOPLE".
    The Constitution "ALLOWS THE GOVERNMENT TO ENFORCE THOSE LAWS WITH PENALTIES, IF THEY ARE NOT ADHERED TO", which, of course, "IS THE ONLY REASON TO HAVE A GOVERNMENT"......it is "TO GOVERN"!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's how WE POLICE OURSELVES FROM NOT ONLY STUPIDITY, WHICH LEADS TO OTHER PEOPLE'S RIGHTS BEING INFRINGED UPON, AND PLACES OTHERS IN DANGER BUT, ALSO FROM PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THEY ARE "ABOVE THE LAW".
      By YOUR INTERPRETATION...."There Should Be NO GOVERNMENT".......just LAWS DEPICTING "OUR RIGHTS", with absolutely NO ONE TO ENFORCE SUCH A DOCUMENT.....again, that makes NO SENSE AT ALL.
      You've said it YOURSELF....."WE ELECT PEOPLE AS OUR VOICES, TO ACT ON OUR BEHALF, TO ENFORCE THE LAWS OF THE CONSTITUTION", as well as "GIVING THEM THE RIGHTS, BY LEGISLATION, TO CREATE LAWS FOR FURTHER PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE FOR WHOM THEY REPRESENT".
      That's why "ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES", because IGNORANT PEOPLE WANT THE RIGHT TO BE STUPID, AND "DO WHAT EVER THEY PLEASE", AND, THEY ELECT THE PERSON THAT SAYS "I WILL DO THAT FOR YOU", RATHER THAN ELECTING A PERSON THAT SAYS "I WILL ENFORCE THE LAWS" THAT THE "REPRESENTATIVES YOU'VE CHOSEN TO ACT ON YOUR BEHALF HAVE PUT INTO LAW"......which simply means; "YOU WANTED CHANGE, YOU ELECTED REPS TO MAKE CHANGES, AND, A PRESIDENT THAT SIGNED IT INTO LAW" - YOU DID ALL THAT BY YOURSELF "WITH YOUR VOTES".
      And now....you don't like the results, so you blame the people YOU ELECTED INTO OFFICE, which is EXACTLY WHERE THE BLAME BELONGS!!
      The blame doesn't belong to "THE GOVERNMENT WE HAVE".....it belongs to the "ENFORCERS THAT DON'T DO THEIR JOBS".
      What YOU WANT, is exactly THAT.....you want a GOVERNMENT THAT STAYS OUT OF YOUR WAY SO YOU CAN DO WHATEVER STUPID THING YOU WANT - right?
      On what world do you think that will work???????

      Delete
    2. I'm sorry Brett.
      But, this conversation has run it's course.

      I "Get It"....you don't want ANY GOVERNMENT - that's fine! Most nut jobs don't.

      The only people that want to "RUN A MUCK" are usually CRIMINALS, and they are the "LOUDEST VOICES AGAINST ANY LAWS".
      They hate PRISONS
      They hate COPS
      They hate LAWS

      As for myself, and, BEING A DEFENDER OF LAWS, AS WELL AS AN "ENFORCER", by which I've taken OATHS TO PROTECT, your "Point Of View' is like an EAR PIERCING SOUND that could drive me to the brink of insanity.

      It's like 'OIL & WATER".....it just doesn't go well together.

      You're on "One End Of The Spectrum", and I'm on the COMPLETE OPPOSITE.

      You're okay when a COP HELPS YOU OUT, AND CATCHES THAT THIEF THAT JUST ROBBED YOU.....
      But, you're NO OKAY with that same COP "ENFORCING A LAW REQUIRING YOU TO HAVE A GUN PERMIT".

      In other words - The Law Is Only Good For You When IT HELPS YOU.
      But, if it STOPS YOU FROM DOING AS "YOU PLEASE"......suddenly YOUR AGAINST ALL LAWS.

      Yes, I've said it SEVERAL TIMES now, Brett - "YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS"!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      You can't "HAVE YOUR CAKE, AND EAT IT TOO"!!!!!!!!!!!!

      You're one of those people that COMPLAIN LIKE A MUTHER FUCKER ALL THE TIME WHEN THINGS JUST DON'T GO YOUR WAY, but, AT THE SAME TIME - YOU WANT THE "PROTECTIONS THAT COME WITH THE LAWS", but, "YOU JUST DON'T WANT TO BE SUBJECTED TO THE LAWS YOURSELF"!!

      I think that's the PERFECT ANALOGY for all of your so-called "ARGUMENTS".

      With me.....when I "PICK A SIDE", I usually "STICK WITH IT THROUGH THICK, OR THIN".

      That's called "MAKING MY STAND FOR WHAT I BELIEVE IN, AND, SEEING ALL SIDES IMPARTIALLY, WITHOUT ANY BIASES", and, "TREATING ALL SIDES EQUALLY". From there I can easily see "WHAT THE RIGHT THING TO DO IS".

      As for you.....YOU'RE ALL OVER THE MAP......You want this, but, don't want that, you stand for this, but, won't stand for that.

      "Pick A Side" based on your BEST RESEARCH - and "STICK WITH IT".....but, most of all, Brett - BE FAIR ABOUT IT, AND NEVER "FLIP-FLOP" WHEN YOUR ARGUMENT CAN'T HOLD ANY WATER.

      Learn how to say; "You're Right" - "We Need Laws, And We Need Someone To Enforce Them, Regardless Of My Own Personal DESIRES Of What Kind Of Laws I Want In Effect For My Own Personal Reasons".
      Learn how to see "THE OTHER SIDE OF A COIN".....and that there are far more "OTHER PEOPLE" in the world besides YOURSELF, and that "THE BEST LAWS ARE THE ONES THAT PROTECT THE MOST PEOPLE"......not the ones that "ALLOW YOU TO BE STUPID WHENEVER YOU FEEL LIKE IT"!!!!.......That's NOT A RIGHT that anyone should have!!!!
      And, quite frankly, I'm very disappointed that you even said such a CHILDISH THING.

      We're done here....I can't keep beating a dead horse.

      Delete
    3. You know Jerry, in all of that chatter you've still not said one word regarding how Donald Trump is going to follow the Constitution.

      Oh, you've insulted me, berated me, talked down to me, misconstrued everything I've said and twisted it into all sorts of things that I've never said or would say.

      It is well said that a person who can't make a valid point resorts to personal attacks on their opponent. By not showing me where Donald Trump would follow the Constitution, and attacking me on a personal basis along with twisting my obvious intent, you have confessed that you can't provide any kind of valid proof that Trump knows or cares about the Constitution.

      So, would you like to provide proof that Donald Trump will follow the Constitution? Or would you just rather keep making up stuff that I've never said and call me childish for my saying the things I've never said which you made up as if I've said them?

      If I am to be wrong in this conversation your next response will be compelling evidence that Trump will follow the Constitution. IF YOU RESPOND IN ANY OTHER MANNER THAN IT WILL BE RECORDED HERE THAT YOU ARE WRONG.

      Get to the point sir.

      Delete
    4. Incidentally, I'm wondering... Are you certain you're not a liberal? You really sound like one. You know; big government involved in everything as our saviors, generally troll-like behavior and responses, personal insults when you can't make a valid point relating to the discussion, unable to understand what the person who is talking to you is actually saying and twisting it out of context, EXTREME, DRAMATIC AND PROFANE RANTS about dis-related subjects, plus a general disregard for the Constitution and constitutional law and the limits it is supposed to impose on the federal government... You should consider voting Democrat. You'd fit in well.

      Delete
    5. (1)
      Now for some "GOOD NEWS ABOUT YOUR HERO - LYING TED CRUZ".......

      http://heavy.com/news/2016/09/read-ted-cruz-full-statement-announcement-post-will-endorse-endorses-endorsement-donald-trump-for-president/

      HAHAHAHA....(EVEN HE DOESN'T BELIEVE THE SHIT THAT YOU DO, WHICH IS WHY HE "ENDORSED DONALD TRUMP")....SO MUCH FOR YOUR "CONSTITUTION DEFENDERS"!!!

      Ted Cruz has endorsed Donald Trump for president. (Getty)

      Texas Senator Ted Cruz has officially endorsed Donald Trump for president.

      In a statement posted on his Facebook page on Friday, Cruz reversed himself and said he will vote for Donald Trump in the 2016 election. This comes two months after Cruz declined to offer his endorsement at the 2016 Republican National Convention, later saying he would not support someone who attacked his wife. This was in spite of the fact that Cruz signed a pledge to support the Republican nominee.

      At the conclusion of his Republican National Convention speech, Cruz was booed by those in attendance when it became clear he was not there to provide an endorsement.

      “I am not in the habit of supporting people who attack my wife and attack my father,” Cruz said at the time, according to the Wall Street Journal. “And that pledge was not a blanket commitment that if you go and slander and attack Heidi, that I’m going to nonetheless come like a servile puppy dog and say, ‘Thank you very much for maligning my wife and maligning my father.’”

      During the Republican primary, Donald Trump mocked Heidi Cruz’s looks on Twitter and accused Cruz’s father of being involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

      On Friday, Cruz pointed to the importance of the Supreme Court in the 2016 election, and this move comes after Trump released a list of potential Supreme Court nominees. The statement clearly indicates that Cruz wants his supporters to look at this as a vote against Hillary Clinton rather than a vote for Donald Trump.

      Here is Ted Cruz’s full statement in support of Donald Trump:

      Delete
    6. (2)

      This election is unlike any other in our nation’s history. Like many other voters, I have struggled to determine the right course of action in this general election.

      In Cleveland, I urged voters, “please, don’t stay home in November. Stand, and speak, and vote your conscience, vote for candidates up and down the ticket whom you trust to defend our freedom and to be faithful to the Constitution.”
      After many months of careful consideration, of prayer and searching my own conscience, I have decided that on Election Day, I will vote for the Republican nominee, Donald Trump.

      I’ve made this decision for two reasons. First, last year, I promised to support the Republican nominee. And I intend to keep my word.
      Second, even though I have had areas of significant disagreement with our nominee, by any measure Hillary Clinton is wholly unacceptable — that’s why I have always been #NeverHillary.

      Six key policy differences inform my decision. First, and most important, the Supreme Court. For anyone concerned about the Bill of Rights — free speech, religious liberty, the Second Amendment — the Court hangs in the balance. I have spent my professional career fighting before the Court to defend the Constitution. We are only one justice away from losing our most basic rights, and the next president will appoint as many as four new justices. We know, without a doubt, that every Clinton appointee would be a left-wing ideologue. Trump, in contrast, has promised to appoint justices “in the mold of Scalia.”

      For some time, I have been seeking greater specificity on this issue, and today the Trump campaign provided that, releasing a very strong list of potential Supreme Court nominees — including Sen. Mike Lee, who would make an extraordinary justice — and making an explicit commitment to nominate only from that list. This commitment matters, and it provides a serious reason for voters to choose to support Trump.

      Second, Obamacare. The failed healthcare law is hurting millions of Americans. If Republicans hold Congress, leadership has committed to passing legislation repealing Obamacare. Clinton, we know beyond a shadow of doubt, would veto that legislation. Trump has said he would sign it.

      Third, energy. Clinton would continue the Obama administration’s war on coal and relentless efforts to crush the oil and gas industry. Trump has said he will reduce regulations and allow the blossoming American energy renaissance to create millions of new high-paying jobs.

      Fourth, immigration. Clinton would continue and even expand President Obama’s lawless executive amnesty. Trump has promised that he would revoke those illegal executive orders.

      Fifth, national security. Clinton would continue the Obama administration’s willful blindness to radical Islamic terrorism. She would continue importing Middle Eastern refugees whom the FBI cannot vet to make sure they are not terrorists. Trump has promised to stop the deluge of unvetted refugees.

      Delete
    7. (3)

      Sixth, Internet freedom. Clinton supports Obama’s plan to hand over control of the Internet to an international community of stakeholders, including Russia, China, and Iran. Just this week, Trump came out strongly against that plan, and in support of free speech online.

      These are six vital issues where the candidates’ positions present a clear choice for the American people.

      If Clinton wins, we know — with 100% certainty — that she would deliver on her left-wing promises, with devastating results for our country.

      My conscience tells me I must do whatever I can to stop that.

      We also have seen, over the past few weeks and months, a Trump campaign focusing more and more on freedom — including emphasizing school choice and the power of economic growth to lift African-Americans and Hispanics to prosperity.

      Finally, after eight years of a lawless Obama administration, targeting and persecuting those disfavored by the administration, fidelity to the rule of law has never been more important.

      The Supreme Court will be critical in preserving the rule of law. And, if the next administration fails to honor the Constitution and Bill of Rights, then I hope that Republicans and Democrats will stand united in protecting our fundamental liberties.

      Our country is in crisis. Hillary Clinton is manifestly unfit to be president, and her policies would harm millions of Americans. And Donald Trump is the only thing standing in her way.

      A year ago, I pledged to endorse the Republican nominee, and I am honoring that commitment. And if you don’t want to see a Hillary Clinton presidency, I encourage you to vote for him.

      Delete
    8. NOW...YOU READ THAT "LAST LINE TED CRUZ SAID"......

      And if you don’t want to see a Hillary Clinton presidency, I encourage you to vote for him.
      -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      So....here's yet ANOTHER ARGUMENT YOU'VE LOST!!!

      Have you had enough yet?????

      I have.

      (DROPS MIC)

      Delete
    9. Fact of the matter is this......you asked where "I CAN PROVIDE PROOF THAT DONALD TRUMP WILL DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION"..

      I hope that you would ACCEPT THE WORDS OF YOUR HERO - TED CRUZ, SAYING EXACTLY THAT!!!

      It's obvious that YOU WON'T LISTEN TO ANYTHING I HAVE TO SAY (which doesn't agree with YOUR VIEWS)....but, maybe, just maybe, YOU'LL LISTEN TO YOUR HERO - TED CRUZ???????

      Does this SETTLE THE MATTER FOR YOU , BRETT????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

      I should hope so.....if not, then YOU'RE A LOST CAUSE, and not worth any of my time at all.

      Say Good Night Gracie....

      "GOOD NIGHT, GRACIE"!!!

      Delete
  10. I'm "D" - none of the above. I'm not a Conservative, not a Liberal, not a Democrat, not a Republican, not a Libertarian, not a Green Protector, not an Atheist, not a Christian, not a Religious Fanatic, not a Crusader, not a Muslim, not a Jew - in fact, "I'M NOT ANYTHING THAT YOUR PUNY MIND CAN THINK OF"!!
    I'm certainly NOT LIKE YOU......which should have been OBVIOUS to you in my first comment, but, still, that FACT has gone OVERLOOKED BY YOU, for OBVIOUS REASONS....which are: "YOU CAN'T RELATE TO ANYONE THAT HAS A DIFFERENT VIEW THAN YOU DO". You TRY to prove that by writing "YOUR VIEWS", but, you just can't stand any CRITICISM, can you?
    Don't answer that......you already did with your DIATRIBE ABOVE, which, quite frankly, has me laughing my ass off.
    It must really be FRUSTRATING for you when you encounter RESISTANCE TO YOUR VIEWS.....so, you've reduced your argument to "STRICTLY NAME CALLING", and hoping that I will respond with the same CHILDISH CRAP YOU'RE PULLING RIGHT NOW.
    Yes, I've called you NAMES.....but, "THEY WERE IN CONTEXT TO THE SUBJECT MATTER" in an ATTEMPT to let you SEE YOUR OWN FOLLY.
    I suppose that was TOO SOPHISTICATED FOR YOU.....and, my "MEANINGS WENT RIGHT OVER YOUR PUNY HEAD" - not a very hard feat to accomplish.
    And, you've PROVEN that my comments only IRRITATED YOU to the point of "NO APPROPRIATE RESPONSE, EXCEPT TO TRY TO INSULT ME", which is something else you've done TERRIBLY, but, I'm not at all surprised at.....in fact, it was EXPECTED!!
    People like YOU can't stand NOT HAVING THE LAST WORD - even though "I CLEARLY SAID THIS ARGUMENT WAS OVER".....now, WHY IS THAT?
    Are you DENSE?......I suppose you're mostly JUST STUBBORN, AS WELL AS IGNORANT.
    But, I'm NOT YOUR DADDY....and SCHOOL IS OUT.....I'm done SCHOOLING YOU.....or, haven't you figured that out yet???????

    Here's the BEST WAY TO KEEP AN IDIOT IS SUSPENSE;

    Everything you ASKED ME ABOVE.......I will give you the ANSWERS LATER, okay?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Again, lot's of subjective, imaginary, and off topic disparagement towards myself but no feasible defense of your man, Donald Trump, with regards to the Constitution. What you or I, or Ted Cruz, are, or say, is not the topic. Donald Trump's positions being unconstitutional are the subject of this link. Maybe at some point you'll begin to understand that Ted Cruz wasn't my first, or even second or third, choice. I've put it in pretty simple English, or so I thought, but...

    Again you've got to only answer this ONE question to win this with my full compliance and willing participation and admission of my own misunderstandings. Again you fail to answer—being distracted into trivial insults and issues not relating to the topic—indicating only the fact that I am right and you don't understand or care about the Constitution.

    Quoting Ted Cruz or trying to insult me does nothing for your case because I can blast holes in his arguments that you've posted above too, and I really couldn't care less what you think of me.

    So, Jerry, try again. Start with heath care as a single subject, and tell me what Article, Section and Clause of the Constitution gives the FEDERAL government of the United States any controlling power over health care. Then tell me how that Article, Section and Clause apply to Donald Trump's replacement for Obamacare. It's a pretty simple thing to do if your argument has any logic to stand on.

    And just in case you were wondering, this is my blog. I will have the last word no matter what. It is up to you how foolish you wish to appear at the end of it all.

    Good luck! And best wishes! :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can have your last word, and your blog - NEITHER ONE OF THEM INTEREST ME.

      God help the person that tries to "PUT YOU INTO FULL COMPLIANCE"......there's never any reasoning with a fool.

      Now, you're also in my long list of wanna be's that I've left in my REAR VIEW MIRROR.
      If you have anything more to say...."SAY IT TO MY ASS".

      Delete
    2. I've never asked for FULL compliance, although that is required by the presidential oath. I've asked you for the constitutionality of ONE SUBJECT. Healthcare.

      On that ONE SUBJECT, you've got nothing that defends Donald Trump with regards to the Constitution, as a result you're trying to make me the issue. Certainly, if we were to have a civil conversation we could spread out onto other things but I suspect you've got nothing positive to contribute there either. It just seems to be the pattern.

      Thanks for you admission Jerry! And I think actually talking to your ass might be better because your head is still coming up with nothing to defend your guy. Maybe that part of you would have better manners too.

      Again, I thank you and honor you for your service, both as a police officer and veteran. It's just too bad you're so weak on your oath to the Constitution and understanding of it.

      Delete