National Divorce, Texit and Separatist Movements

Because I am a person of basic philosophic principles, rather than the finer details spawned from political partisan bickering, I’m going to start this article with a brief explanation of games theory. Ultimately that’s what politics is, on any level; the playing of, and effort to win, a game.

What I mean by games is that life works according to the same principles as a game. You have things you are able to or allowed to do. These are called freedoms. You have things that block you from doing things you want to. These are called barriers. You have goals that you would like to reach or be able to do. When the goals are achieved you win the game. If the goals are not achieved you lose the game.

Let’s use football, because of its popularity in the United States, as an example. In football you have a place to play, which is of course, the field. The players can move about the field, forward, backward and sideways, within the limits of the rules of the game. The movement is freedom. The rules and the opposing team are the barriers. The goal of the game is to move the ball down the field and get it into the end zone or through the goal posts more times than the other team. Part of the goal is to also prevent the other team from moving the ball down the field or through the goal posts.

If there is not a place to play, no rules at all, or people in the game who do not follow the rules, no way to move on the field, nobody to play on the other side, no goals or end zone to try to get into, then you don’t have a game at all. You also don’t have a game where the people playing the game disagree with or don’t understand the rules.

Now, suppose you were required to play a game of football where you had to follow the rules but the other side didn’t. No matter what you did the other side would always achieve their goals and win. You would never achieve your goals or win. Would you be willing to engage in such an activity? Of course you wouldn’t.

Reverse that. Suppose you were to be completely unrestrained by the petty concerns of following the rules, while your opponents were required to follow them. Every time you play, you win. Every. Single. Time. Over. And. Over. How long would you remain interested in that game? You’d get bored I’d bet. Then you wouldn’t play. Then other people also wouldn’t be willing to play against you. Then you wouldn’t have a game.

There is a lot more to the games theory of life than this but for the sake of this article the take away is that you wouldn’t normally play a game with people who won’t follow the established rules. It doesn’t matter if it’s football, baseball, race cars, poker, Scrabble, Dominoes, Risk, Monopoly, the United States of America, or any other game.

If you are in a game and your opponent won’t follow the rules the sensible thing to do, assuming you can’t get them to change their mind and become more ethical, is to leave the game. In fact, no matter what the game is, when it reaches the point where it is no longer playable, the right thing to do is to take your chips and leave. You have every right to do so.

The United States has this thing we like to toss about called “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Suppose that you are playing a game of poker and your goal is to live your life through the pursuit of happiness by the playing of this game. However your opponent decided he is not going to follow the rules and there is nothing you can do to convince him to follow them. You keep losing more and more of your chips and it is very obvious that it’s because of his refusal to follow the rules. So you announce that you have the right to leave and are going to do so because he’s not following the rules. As you slide your chair back from the table and move to stand up, your opponent pulls a big gun and points it in your face telling you to sit back down and keep playing. Certainly that would be a loss of the pursuit of happiness. Possibly it would be a loss of life. Wouldn’t that also be a loss of liberty?

If you are in any relationship with anybody doing anything how could it be said that you have freedom if you don’t have the right to leave? And isn’t the proper technical term for someone who refuses to let you leave the game on your own determinism, “asshole”?

There’s an interesting side note here which comes to mind. People who read my articles or talk to me about politics very much at all would sooner or later have to know that I very strongly disapprove of the actions of Abraham Lincoln. I think he’s the worst president in the entire history of the country. Certainly more Americans have died under his commands than almost all other presidents combined. I could and have written several articles about it but that is not the point of this one. The thing that comes to mind here that I wish to comment on is something I call “Lincoln’s Paradox.” If it is considered immoral for one person to hold another person, by use of force and against their will, how is it then moral for a group of States to hold entire other States of people by the use of force and against their will?

Either we are free or we are not. If we are free, we as States and People, have the right to unilaterally leave the game, especially when the other side refuses to follow the rules adopted within the Constitution. Otherwise we, as Americans, might as well have joined the Soviet Union.

Speaking of the Constitution, when people talk about it, sooner or later there will be in the conversation this principle called the “Separation of Powers.” There will also be in conjunction with that a thing called the “Balance of Power” or a system of “Checks and Balances.”

You will be, or have been, told that this means that we have the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch and the Judicial Branch of the federal government. That’s your separation of powers. Right there. That, or so you are told, is the system of checks and balances.

The president has his powers. The Congress has theirs. The Supreme Court has theirs. One of them gets out of control and the other two are supposed to bring them back in line. That’s the check and balance.

I have a head. I have a right hand. I have a left hand. I too, by the above standard, have separation of powers and checks and balances. If I’m confronted by some ethical dilemma, let’s say I’m on a low carb diet but I’m confronted by an apple pie, because, you know, apple pie is irresistible manna from Heaven. My left hand says “you want the pie.” Could my head and right hand be counted on to stop me from eating the pie?

The obvious problem in this scenario is that my head and my right and left hands are all part of the same thing. Me.

Let’s think about this. Slowly. The federal government (one thing) is composed of three branches. It (one thing) has a left hand, Congress. It (one thing) has a right hand, the Supreme Court. It (one thing) has a head, the president.

Ummm…the question in the mind of any reasonable human being right now would have to be, “What keeps them from taking all of the pie?”

Those who understand the Constitution know the answer to this question. And there is an answer. It’s called Article One, Section Eight, which I write about frequently, and the Tenth Amendment, which I also write about frequently. Neither of those are the point of this article though, so why don’t I just stick to the point?

The thing not mentioned (intentionally in my most humble opinion) by most Political Science professors, and their liberally written textbooks, is that the States have a whole crap load of their own powers as well. In fact per the Constitution, Article One, Section Eight and the Tenth Amendment, the States have by far more power over their own decisions than the federal government.

So per the Constitution, the Separation of Powers is, as mentioned, the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches, plus the States. Also the system of Checks and Balances includes the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches, plus the States. So if any one or two or three of these go out of control the remaining ones can attempt to bring them back in line.

Sort of.

Remember from above where I pointed out that the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches are all part of the federal government and thus are the same thing?

Okay. So now what we really have in our Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances system is (currently) fifty States on one side and the federal government on the other.

So if the federal government gets out of hand we have fifty States to bring them back in line. Now think about this less obvious fact of the matter; if the abused player leaves the table the cheater also loses the game because he can no longer take all of the pie!

Well, what happens if a lot of the States, and the federal government, decide they aren’t going to follow the rules? No matter what is said or done they just refuse to play the game called “The United States” by the Constitution? Wouldn’t and shouldn’t a truly free people be allowed to protect themselves and leave?

Thomas Jefferson apparently thought so. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” And I find myself rather inclined to agree with him.

The next words from Jefferson, which I also agree with, are; “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Recently there has been a lot of talk about it being time for a national divorce. This is a polite and politically correct term for secession. It’s not new. In fact it as a subject can be traced by a moderately capable researcher all of the way back to the Revolutionary War itself. More recently Texas was talking about leaving when Obama was president. California was talking about leaving when Trump was president. Texas is again talking about leaving with Biden as president. I’ve seen recent poll results from Texas where as many as sixty-six percent of the people polled there say they would support it.

It is a fitting and natural thing for any person or group of people to decide on a day to day basis if it is or is not proper to maintain our relationships to those with whom we are associated. Couples, companies and countries do this all of the time. Sometimes peaceably and sometimes not.

It is completely in keeping with the Declaration of Independence for them to do so. There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids a State from leaving. If there is something in other federal law that does so, and I highly doubt that there is, it would be unconstitutional under Article One, Sections Eight and Ten as well as the Tenth Amendment. There is the legal principle, for those who like Latin technical phrases, “nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege.” In English this simply means that if there is no law against it, it is legal to do.

While I would fight and die to defend this country, and all who wish to be a part of it while following its rules, I agree whole heartedly that it is time, because of the refusal of the federal government, and a significant number of the States, to follow the Constitutional rules, for some States to take their remaining chips, or pie, and leave the table to go and play a different game.

After all, according to the legal doctrine "protectus pieus maximus" isn’t protecting our pie also a very important part of life?

The First Amendment and Social Media: Part 2, The Road to Pravda

I guess that the First Amendment is the gift that just keeps on giving. I can’t help but thinking that there are a lot of people who are getting it wrong. I wrote some of it up a number of weeks ago in this post. My thoughts on the subjects I wrote about then have not changed but I feel the need to add some more to them, thus Part 2.

To start with I would like to point out what the First Amendment actually says. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Please note that this is something specific, which applies to a specific group of people. It says that “CONGRESS shall MAKE NO LAW….” It does not say “Nobody in the government shall….” It is talking about Congress in the federal government and by extension Congress in all of the States.

For this article we are talking mostly about the abridging of free speech.

What is free speech?

It’s pretty simple but sometimes in the passions of humanity we only think of one side of it. Most people would answer the above question by saying, “We get to say whatever we want.”

This is true but that is not the half of it. We also cannot be required to say things that we don’t want to say. The Fifth Amendment also backs this up, even to the degree that we cannot be compelled to answering questions that incriminate us.

All power is a double edged sword. There is never only one side to anything. You can say what you want and Congress can’t do anything about it. So, by corollary, Congress also cannot compel people to say things that they don’t want.

It’s pretty basic.

Now let’s make it a little more complex. I could say to you that “ducks fly south in the winter.” This is true. Ducks do fly south in the winter. That doesn’t mean that you have to agree to hear it. It also doesn’t mean that you have to pass it along to someone else should you decide to hear it. Both of these are covered by the First Amendment as well.

Let’s add more complexity for the sake of fun. I could say to you that “ducks don’t fly south in the winter; they fly north.” This is a lie. This again is something that you do not have to hear. Assuming you have heard this lie you are not required to pass it on.

Freedom of speech means:

1) You can say what you want to.

2) You cannot be compelled to say things you don’t want to.

3) You do not have to listen if you don’t want to.

4) You can listen if you do want to.

5) You do not have to tell the truth but you can if you want.

6) You do not have to lie but you can if you want.

7) True or not, you do not have to pass communication from someone else if you don’t want to.

It is understood that as with all actions a person needs to exercise some responsibility with communications with regards to the potential consequences. You can tell your wife, should you feel that your life does not have enough excitement in it, that those pants do not make her look fat because she in fact is fat, with or without them. You can also be slapped for it. The government has no authority to tell you that you have to lie to your wife, or tell her the truth.

Within the limits of the potential consequences is freedom of speech. Within those limits all of the seven situations above are covered by the First Amendment.

By corollary infringements on freedom of speech is when:

A) You can’t say what you want to.

B) You can be compelled to say things you don’t want to.

C) You have to listen even if you don’t want to.

D) You aren’t allowed to listen even if you do want to.

E) You have to tell the truth whether you want to or not.

F) You cannot lie even if you want to.

G) True or not, you have to pass communication from someone else even if you don’t want to.

All seven of these are violations of the First Amendment IF done by Congress at the federal level or any State.

So one day during a recent pandemic a high ranking Twitter executive decided that it would violate Twitter’s policy to have the opinions of doctors who disagreed with the administration’s position on Covid passed along as tweets by their users. The users who passed this information had their tweets taken down and their accounts suspended.

There is something here that needs to be said because it is one of the immutable laws of the universe. IF YOU GO TO TWITTER FOR MEDICAL ADVICE YOU ARE JUST PLAIN STUPID. I’m sorry to have to say this but it does need to be said just to clear the path to the next item on the list. I also have to say that Twitter is a pretty handy way to get word out there about the potentiality of any given situation but to act on it without verification? Nope. Stupid. However per numbers 1-7 above, it’s covered from government interference per the First Amendment, consequences notwithstanding.

There is something else here that needs to be said because it is also one of the immutable laws of the universe. IF YOU GO TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR MEDICAL ADVICE YOU ARE JUST PLAIN STUPID. I am sorry to have to say this but it does need to be said just to clear the path to the next item on the list. Unlike Twitter government is not really all that handy for anything under the sun.

The next thing on the list that needs to be covered is that Congress was recently grilling the, now former, high ranking Twitter executive about that policy. Included in that grilling were all kinds of questions, accusations and blame about the consequences of Covid, and the qualifications of the Twitter executive in labeling tweets, containing content from doctors who disagreed with the government line on the subject, as misinformation. You can watch the example I’m talking about here.

I have to be very clear here about something. I DO NOT AGREE WITH TWITTER’S ACTIONS IN REGARDS TO THEIR HANDLING OF COVID. They acted as a very sucky company during that time. I am a very firm believer in freedom of speech. Thus, this article. However because of this belief in freedom of speech I agree entirely with the right of Twitter to make its own choices regarding what communications they are going to allow to pass through their privately owned and operated company. It is their business alone and they can run their business as stupidly as they want.

What isn’t Twitter’s business is to do anything whatsoever about Covid. Remember that first law above? IF YOU GO TO TWITTER FOR MEDICAL ADVICE YOU ARE JUST PLAIN STUPID. As the congresswoman pointed out, Twitter executives are not doctors. How exactly are they in any way legally responsible for anything that happened because of Covid? Their business is to provide a place where every Tom, Dick and Harry can go to say something. As a courtesy and customer service they try to make it a safe place to talk, which is nice when it works. But that also implies that they don’t have to pass communications that they don’t think are safe. There is also no requirement for them to be right about it. All of this is covered by the First Amendment.

What would violate the First Amendment would be if Congress made a law that said Twitter HAS to allow tweets containing content from doctors who disagreed with the government line on the subject, when those executives think that it may be misinformation. Look at B, C, E, F and G above.

By the congresswoman’s own questions of Gadde, Gadde was in no position to determine what the truth of the matter was. She believed what she believed and acted on it. I think it was wrong. Congresswoman Mace thinks it was wrong. The thing is that neither you, nor I, nor Congresswoman Mace, were the executive at Twitter in charge of making the decisions. And also by Congresswoman Mace’s question of Gadde she sets the same standard for herself. She’s not a doctor either. So by what medical expertise does she lay claim to the truth? Remember that other immutable law? IF YOU GO TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR MEDICAL ADVICE YOU ARE JUST PLAIN STUPID.

I can already see it happening. Twitter allowed the wrong information to pass (I think) and suppressed the right information. Some people acted on that information as presented in the Tweets that were allowed to pass. IF YOU GO TO TWITTER FOR MEDICAL ADVICE YOU ARE JUST PLAIN STUPID. Some people paid the consequences of doing so. So as big government does what it does, I can see them making a law; the effect of which would make social media companies pass along information that those companies would not normally wish to pass.

As human nature would have it, during the next crisis, sooner or later, some amount of that information will be wrong too. The blame game will start again as the politicians who allowed it to happen, dive for political cover. So the government will make more laws to protect people who may be harmed by it. Sometime a law is going to come up saying that social media companies are only allowed to pass along information that is the truth.

Well hell’s bells! Who knows what the truth is? Guess what they’ll do then? They’ll decide for us what the truth is. Maybe they’ll even appoint a Secretary (or Minister) of Truth, you know, someone who can tell us all what is true and not true. Then they can punish people for not telling the truth as they see it.

The road to Orwell is paved with good intentions? Don’t for a second believe that people won’t fall for it. There is Pravda.

While I agree and sympathize with Congresswoman Mace’s position, that Twitter shouldn’t have suppressed the information, it’s also not within Congresswoman Mace’s power under the First Amendment to dictate what communications a privately owned and operated social media company should allow their users to pass.

Now should the admirable congresswoman decide that she wants to politely ask some social media company to pass or withhold a certain class of information, I think she would be well within her rights. The entirety of Congress could do so and be well within their rights. The FBI would be well within their rights. The White House would be well within their rights. You can ask questions of people and make requests of them. As long as they voluntarily go along with it, according to their own will, no foul.

Guess what? The First Amendment covers government officials too. It’s perfectly okay for an FBI agent, for example, regardless of rank, to oppose the reelection of his boss and seek out and publicly push a narrative that is supportive of that goal.

The second they try to use government to force the issue is where it becomes a problem. Here’s the tricky thing. “Congress shall make no law….” This is a specific action prohibited to a specific group of people. If Congress doesn’t make a law, signed by the POTUS, it is not a violation of the First Amendment. This does not apply to the POTUS. This does not apply to the FBI. However it would most certainly be an abuse of power and corruption and the government officials engaging in this kind of behavior should be locked up for a very long time.

The First Amendment either literally means and is limited to what it actually says or it means something vague, nebulous and ambiguous that the Supreme Court can reinterpret into saying that school teachers can’t pray. Government officials, just as you or I, can say whatever they want. I could even make the case that it is more so for them. What is the First Amendment for if it does not mean that political speech is protected for the people in the places where it is used the most?

There is an argument out there that basically says, “It all depends on whether Twitter is a publisher or a platform.” I think this is pure bunk. I can’t find the part of the Constitution that says, “Congress has the power to define the difference between a publisher and a platform and thus further decide what each can or cannot say.” That in itself would seem to be contrary to the First Amendment.

There are a lot of details I’m not talking about here because the situation is too large to cover. I tend to lean towards the big picture basics of political philosophy rather than the finer details. What I would ask is that people very carefully look at the underlying principles. The advocates of big government are very fond of never letting a good crisis go to waste. Covid is an ideal crisis; if not by its own virtues but by what it has been unnecessarily made into.

No matter what side of the aisle you fall on we want to be very careful regarding any laws regulating social media and government’s relationship to it. Almost all of it crosses directly through the path of the First Amendment.

Donalds, Demagogues and Despots

I guess I’ll start this article with a definition. Demagogue: noun - a political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument.

Here is a basic, logical and demonstrable fact. Biden, if you were depending on him for your freedom, is not going to save you from the bad guys. The evidence should be quite apparent because if you are on the political left, the political right is still a threat to you. Right?

I mean that if Joe Biden was our country’s savior and was as brilliant as his supporters claim he is, then everything would be great. Right? There is no excuse for a supposed brilliant leader to fail in this way assuming he is everything that he is cracked up to be. If he were right in every way, as his supporters claimed of him, then he’d be the greatest president ever and we’d all be free and happy.

Here is another basic, logical and demonstrable fact. Trump, if you were depending on him for your freedom, is not going to save you from the bad guys. The evidence should be quite apparent because if you are on the political right, the political left is still a threat to you. Right?

I mean that if Donald Trump were our country’s savior and was as brilliant as his supporters claim he is, then everything would be great. Right? There is no excuse for a supposed brilliant leader to fail in this way assuming he is everything that he is cracked up to be. If he were right in every way, as his supporters claimed of him, then he’d be the greatest president ever and we’d all be free and happy.

In the case of Donald Trump he would still be president if he was indeed everything his supporters claimed of him. The “GREATEST PRESIDENT EVER!!!” who was “RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING!!!” would not, and could not, be defeated under any circumstances, by honest election or cheating.

Right?

How could someone who is so wise and brilliant ever be defeated? Unless the greatness of his wisdom somehow didn’t include the fact that people cheat when political power is at stake. Wouldn’t the greatest president ever have known this and compensated for it? Shouldn’t the guy who was right about everything have seen the outcome of the 2020 election and compensated for it to the effect of his victory? If he really was the greatest president ever then shouldn’t he still be president?

So now he is running again in 2024. Already I see the same old same old lining up. “Donald Trump is the only one who can save the country!”

Well, why didn’t he save it last time? If he in fact could, shouldn’t he have done so then? How did such a “brilliant man” get defeated by something as simple as political cheaters?

“Oh! But the Twitter files and the FBI suppressed the story about Hunter Biden’s laptop and that swayed the votes of enough people to throw the election to the Demoncraps!!!” Either that or the voting machines were corrupted. Or Pence betrayed him. Or the States cheated in their elections. Or the Main Stream Media were against him. Or the establishment RINOs undercut him. Or he was subject to more abuse than any other president in history. Excuses for failure, all of them.

And your point then is that Super Trump, who his supporters are counting on to save the whole country, couldn’t handle something like that? Isn’t that the very thing a political superman should be able to handle?

Now it seems like I’m bashing Trump, as well as Biden. It’s true. I think they both deserve it. A good leader gets good results. Good results aren’t when your opponent wins and crashes the country into the ground. No excuses.

The only reason I’m talking about Biden and Trump is because they are the current issue.

Here is a basic, logical and demonstrable fact. Obama, if you were depending on him for your freedom, is not going to save you from the bad guys. The evidence should be quite apparent because if you are on the political left, the political right is still a threat to you. Right?

I mean that if Barack Obama was our country’s savior and was as brilliant as his supporters claim he is, then everything would be great. Right? There is no excuse for a supposed brilliant leader to fail in this way assuming he is everything that he is cracked up to be. If he were right in every way, as his supporters claimed of him, then he’d be the greatest president ever and we’d all be free and happy.

So…

Here is a basic, logical and demonstrable fact. Bush, if you were depending on him for your freedom, is not going to save you from the bad guys. The evidence should be quite apparent because if you are on the political right, the political left is still a threat to you. Right?

I mean that if George Bush was our country’s savior and was as brilliant as his supporters claim he is, then everything would be great. Right? There is no excuse for a supposed brilliant leader to fail in this way assuming he is everything that he is cracked up to be. If he were right in every way, as his supporters claimed of him, then he’d be the greatest president ever and we’d all be free and happy.

How about Clinton?

Here is a basic, logical and demonstrable fact. Clinton, if you were depending on him for your freedom, is not going to save you from the bad guys. The evidence should be quite apparent because if you are on the political left, the political right is still a threat to you. Right?

I mean that if Bill Clinton was our country’s savior and was as brilliant as his supporters claim he is, then everything would be great. Right? There is no excuse for a supposed brilliant leader to fail in this way assuming he is everything that he is cracked up to be. If he were right in every way, as his supporters claimed of him, then he’d be the greatest president ever and we’d all be free and happy.

Ditto; Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt, Hoover, Coolidge, Harding, Wilson, Taft, Roosevelt, McKinley, Cleveland, Harrison, Cleveland, Arthur, Garfield, Hayes, Grant, Johnson, Lincoln, Buchanan, Pierce, Fillmore, Taylor, Polk, Tyler, Harrison, Van Buren, Jackson, Adams, Monroe, Jefferson and Adams.

Every one of these guys had something that they were supposed to save the country from. Every one of them had supporters who said he was the greatest president ever and detractors who said he was destroying the country. Every one of the people who they ran against was either someone who was going to save the country from the ultimate evil or was themselves the ultimate evil from whom the country had to be saved from.

The only one ever elected unopposed was Washington, without whom we would likely not have had a country with our Constitution to begin with. Greatest president ever? He gets my vote for that and even he wasn’t perfect.

Presidents are not Gods. Presidents are not super heroes. Presidents are not saviors. There are none of them who are so brilliant as to be “RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING!!!” Right about everything would include being right enough to prevent the other side from beating him. Right about everything would include following the oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” rather than cranking up the national debt by eight trillion dollars, jumping on board with corrupt and tyrannical Covid “emergency measures” and banning firearms accessories by executive order.

The only being in the universe that is right about everything is God.

Did Donald Trump save the country the last time? If the answer to this is “yes” then why is Biden president? If the answer is “no” then why would someone think he would save it and make everything okay the next time around?

With regard to Biden, I have a half rotten potato in my cupboard that I think would be a better president. With regard to Trump, while he was very, very, very, very far from perfect (and again the evidence is in his defeat, stolen or not) in my opinion, he was a better president than Biden.

This is something that I hate to point out because it does not gain me any followers but it has to be said. Being a better president than a half rotten potato does not constitute being the greatest president ever. Really, it is kind of a low bar.

Demagogue: noun - a political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument.

The “savior of the country,” “the greatest president ever,” “right about everything,” etc., all of the way back to the beginning of the country are appeals to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people. Every single election cycle all of the way back contained the same arguments in some form or another.

I think we as a country have to take a step back and realize that there is no political leader who is going to save us. The second we start to go down the road that there is some great somebody who will come along and make everything alright, We the People cede our own power to demagogues. It will only be a matter of time until one of them is also a despot.

Presidents are supposed to be servants, not masters. Presidents have a written out list of things that they are and are not supposed to be involved in. That list of things is included in the Constitution.

How do I think a person should choose who the next president should be? Surprisingly enough my choices for president do not have anything to do with memes I see on social media that claim a past president did everything he promised when in fact he couldn’t even follow his oath. My choice is based on what the candidate says they will do when in office and how much of it is or is not supported by the Constitution.

It’s an objective standard.

If he says he’s going to put a car in every garage and a chicken in every pot I mark it as a reason to against him. If he says he’s going to take care of my healthcare I mark it as a reason to vote against him. The president of the United States is not there to provide for us by giving us other people’s money or stuff. If he uses executive orders to do things in violation of the Constitution I mark it as a reason to vote against him. Likewise if he says or does something that is in keeping with the Constitution I mark it as a reason to vote for him.

Between the Trumps and the Bidens all I keep hearing is that same old thing. They are going to give us this or that for their support and save us from the other guys who are an evil worse than the country has ever faced before. Forget the British. Forget the Nazis. Forget the Communists. Forget the “Civil War.” Forget the potential of nuclear Armageddon. The country is in more danger now than it ever has been… Or so they say. And we, now more than ever before, need our candidate to save us from the other candidate. And only our candidate can do it.

They are going to save us from ourselves and the country for us, rather than getting themselves out of the way so we can save the country for ourselves; which is exactly what the Constitution says they are supposed to do.

Someone asked me the other day what I thought would happen to the corrupt Demoncraps if Trump gets back into the White House. That’s predictable. The same thing as happened the last time he was in the White House. Four years later we will be again where we are now.

When it comes right down to it nobody is going to save us from the hazards of a bloated and dangerous government except us.

The next time you hear a political candidate talk take what they are saying and find what part of the Constitution authorizes whatever they say they are supporting. If it isn’t specifically listed in it then the 10^th Amendment applies and it’s supposed to be a power of the States.

You will never view any political candidate the same ever again.

Ban All Guns Now!!! (The real argument for gun control.)

Today is my sixty-first birthday and as I write this I find that I have to review my life’s choices. This article is going to be rather different than my typical blog post because I’m writing it from the hospital. I’m pretty healthy overall so there are no worries about that. I’m being treated for a slightly fractured wrist and a concussion, possibly with a minor skull fracture. You see, I just had… well… It can only be described as an incident.

Let me start from the beginning.

Since my service in the Navy I’ve always done whatever I could to stand up in defense of the Constitution. As the years pass it has sort of become my life’s work. I’ve always had a gift for words and I’ve discovered that it’s pretty easy to reach out to people through social media, thus the blog which you are reading now.

Included in my defense of all things Constitutional I have in the past supported, of course, the Second Amendment. I don’t own any guns and have never shot one, or even been around someone shooting them…at least before today, and it’s very likely that I will never shoot one again. My only exposure to them was on television shows, movies and news broadcasts from the Main Stream Media. I had zero experience but it’s part of the Constitution, so I defended it as per my oath. Right?

As you get older you start to look at things from the standpoint of the ever present and infamous Bucket List. So having taken off the week in celebration of my advancing years I decided to mark a few of the higher items off of my list. Right there on top of the things that I wanted to do is to shoot a gun. Seeing that there is a gun range locally which includes rental and instruction, I decided to spend this morning trying it out for the very first time.

So in the car I went. To the range I went.

As I walked in the door I could tell that there were at least several other people shooting. I could hear the gunshots. Their effect on me was… well… profound. It’s kind of like that feeling you get just before your first girlfriend… well… decides that she, in fact, you know. Not the same obviously but somehow disturbingly similar. It’s like the vague recognition that your life is somehow about to change in some profound way.

I was greeted by a friendly woman at the counter and I told her that I was new to the whole firearms thing and wanted to give it a try. She mentioned that the range had a safety officer who was an NRA rated firearms instructor and for a nominal fee made his services available to me. For the sake of his protection I’m going to call him Pete.

Pete seemed to be a very highly trained professional and he’s exactly what you’d picture of someone who spent his days hanging around at a gun store with a gun range. Average height, glasses, grey beard to the middle of his chest, reminds you a little of ZZ Top, slightly overweight. But all in all a very direct, yet friendly and helpful guy. One hundred percent business when it comes to gun safety.

He asked me what I wanted to shoot or if I even had anything specific in mind. I told him I’d feel more comfortable starting with something smaller and then working upward a bit but I wanted as much experience with different kinds as I could get. He grabbed an assortment of handguns and rifles along with several boxes of “bullets” which he insisted that I call “ammunition” or “cartridges” or even “rounds.” But I knew in my heart that they were really bullets.

Before we went in to the shooting range he explained the safety rules and showed me each of the guns and the basics of how to operate them. Because some of them were “semi-auto” (otherwise known as full military grade assault weapons) he showed me the “clips” which he insisted were not clips but in fact were called “magazines.” Yeah, they were clips and I was becoming somewhat impatient to, you know, get on with it, just like with the first girlfriend… you know. The pops and bangs of the other shooters in the range were having some effect on me which was as unpredictable as it was difficult to describe. I did my best to keep my manners and hid my deeper feelings which were then threatening to get out of control.

After giving me the lowdown on operations and safety we grabbed all of the guns he was planning to instruct me on the use of and into the range we went.

Pete loaded up a clip with bullets and shoved it into a gun while explaining that it was a .22 and put it on the counter in front of me. I, being as safety conscious as the next guy, and out of foolish male pride in not wanting to embarrass myself by stupidly violating the rules, kept the gun pointed safely down range as I picked it up, lined the sites up on the target and for the first time in my life I pulled the trigger.

Oh God, if only I could take back that moment. Why is it that life doesn’t have an undo button?

The gun went POP! There was a tiny bit of recoil, and then the smell… that smell as I inhaled just the tiniest whiff of gun smoke for the first time. Right away I knew I had to have some more, so again I pulled the trigger. Then again. And again but faster. Then faster. And faster. Then the slide locked open because the clip went empty.

“More!” I shouted at Pete, “I want more!”

Pete loaded up another clip, slid it into the gun, chambered a bullet, flipped on the safety and put the gun on the counter.

I picked the gun up, flipped off the safety, then hard and fast pulled the trigger until the clip was empty.

“More power!” I shouted at Pete, who at this time had a look of concern on his face, “I want something more powerful!”

“This is a 9mm,” he said as he slid the clip into a different gun. He had barely enough time to step out of the way before I grabbed the gun, flipped the safety off and began pulling the trigger.

“Oh yes, YES!” I shouted as the smoke hit my face, empty bullets bouncing everywhere, the gun going “BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!” in an increasingly rapid staccato of discharges until the gun went empty.

“MORE POWER!!!” I shouted at Pete after slamming the gun on the counter and grabbing him by the front of his shirt and shaking him.

“Okay, okay, okay! Take it easy! This one’s a .44 magnum. It’s got a lot more reco…”

I grabbed the gun without giving him a chance to finish, pointed it down the range and pulled the trigger. “BOOM!!!” The gun went off. I felt the recoil clear down to my knees as my vision for the flash of an instant turned into a wall of flame. The sound was so loud that I could feel the fluids in my body compress for an instant. “Oh yeah!” I said smiling and looking at the gun in my hands. “That’s the stuff!”

Before Pete could react I spun around and shot the glass out of the window of the shooting range. I rapidly grabbed the AR-15 and as much ammo as I could, then jumped through the window, ran out the door and out into the street.

“Papa needs a new set of wheels!” I shouted as I took aim with the .44 magnum at the tires of a passing car. The left front tire exploded, the car spun sideways and rolled over blocking the lanes. As traffic came to an abrupt halt I ran up to the four wheel drive Jeep, yanked the door open and threw the driver out on to the road. As I spun the wheel I was burning rubber and going across the median into the opposite lane. I knew where I had to go. I had to tell everybody about what a wonderful feeling shooting a gun was! And I had to do it right now!

I went as fast as that Jeep could carry me toward the local news radio station. Anytime anybody got in my way I would just lean out the window and shoot the tires out. I was spinning out cars left and right as I went screaming at top speed down the road.

When I got to the station I didn’t even bother to park the Jeep. I didn’t even take it out of gear. I just slowed down enough to make a jump for it, opened the door and leapt out, doing a tuck and roll with the .44 magnum in one hand and the AR-15 in the other.

“Wow! Look! It’s Chuck Norris!” I heard a passing pedestrian say as I came to my feet again. But I didn’t pay attention because I was on a mission from God to inform the entire planet what a wonderful feeling I had discovered!

I didn’t bother opening the glass door to the station. With a flurry of rapid gunfire from both barrels I blew the glass out. “Hinges are for sissies!” I said to the rather terrified and beautiful girl at the reception desk as she screamed and dove for cover.

I kicked open the door to the broadcast room and leaped through, grabbing the morning talk show host by the collar, in one swift series of movements. I yanked him out of the chair and threw him out of the room as he whined like a little girl something about how he has a wife and children and please don’t shoot him. I wasn’t really paying attention as I closed and locked the door behind him.

I turned to the guy who was in the control room behind a glass window, pointed my guns at him and calmly told him to make sure I stayed on the air.

“Good afternoon radio fans!” I said as I sat in the chair pulling the microphone up to my mouth. “Today’s broadcast is going to be a little bit different. My name is Brett Ashton and I have something very important to tell the world. My message is ‘GUNS ARE THE GREATEST THING EVER!!!’”

I looked down on the desk and noticed a can of Pepsi, unopened and still cold from the refrigerator. The talk show host must have just gotten it out during the commercial break to keep from going dry while he was talking. Pretty handy really because in all of the excitement in getting here I’d completely forgotten to rob the convenience store on the way. Mental note for next time.

“Today is my sixty-first birthday and I have just had my first experience with shooting firearms!” I said into the microphone. “I’m so very excited about it that I just don’t have the words to say how I feel, so I just wrote a song on the ride from the gun range to the radio station. I sing it to the tune of the Scarecrow Song from the Wizard of Oz and it goes something like this…”

I then began singing the song and shooting the AR-15 or the .44 magnum in time with the song.

I’d be killing all the people,
In the church under the steeple,
If I only had a gun!
BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM!

All the maiming all the killing,
All my victims' blood is spilling,
If I only had a gun!
BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM!

See that jerk behind the wheel?
I could really make him squeal,
If I only had a gun!
BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM!

I could take my gun to work,
And be killing all the jerks,
If I only had a gun!
BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM!

Oh I could make lead fly
As I shoot some more and more
I could maybe even try and block the door
And then I’d kill a couple more!

I could hear my gun go POP,
I could kill myself a cop,
If I only had a gun!
BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM!"

All the screaming, all the crying,
All the bleeding all the dying,
If I only had a gun!
BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM!

I could kill the kids at school,
Wouldn't that be really cool?
If I only had a gun!
BOOM! BOOM! BOOM! BOOM!"

All the shooting what a feeling,
All the death I could be dealing,
If I only had a gun!
BOOM! BOOM! click, uh oh!

“GO, GO, GO!” I heard the shouting from the SWAT team screaming from the hall as they battered down the door when they entered the room. In the scuffle I was knocked out of the chair, fell on my wrist breaking it, as my head cracked against the corner of the table. Everything went black.

Apparently several minutes went by as they strapped me to a gurney and rolled me out to the waiting ambulance. As I slowly regained consciousness I realized I had been speaking the entire time I was knocked out. “Make my day! Do you feel lucky punk? Make my day! Do you feel lucky punk? Make my day! Do you feel lucky punk? Make my day! Do you feel lucky punk?” I kept saying over and over again.

Surprisingly enough the captain of the SWAT team didn’t seem the least bit angry with me. He looked at me with sympathy and asked if I was feeling better. I felt like the last couple of hours of my life were so dreamlike I could hardly believe they were my own memories. I decided to take the opportunity to ask him what happened. I was so sane, so normal in every way, then… this!

“What happened?” I asked him.

“Oh it’s just something that happens from time to time sir. Usually it’s the quiet ones. Fortunately, property damage aside, nobody was seriously hurt this time.”

“Is there anything that anybody can do about it?” I asked.

“Yeah, usually watching ‘Dirty Harry’ about seven hundred times in a row would do the trick.”

So here I am. Recovering in the hospital on my birthday. Cranked up on pain killers and watching “Dirty Harry” while I write this post. I’m very sorry if all of the grammar isn’t correct. It’s difficult to type with a broken wrist and the pain medication I’m on.

Anyhow, the point is that all guns should be banned. Like right now. There is no time to wait. Because evidently they can make even the most quiet and well balanced ones among us, suddenly and apparently for no reason at all, go completely crazy and shoot the hell out of everything.

2/10/23, Update: I just got off the phone with my lawyer. Understandably I called him because I was somewhat concerned about the legal ramifications to my shooting spree yesterday. He says that no charges are being filed against me because obviously none of it was my fault. It was just temporary insanity brought on by being in close proximity to guns. He said he has a team working on filing suit for damages against the firearms manufacturers though. So that's a good thing...