The Attitude of a Constitutionalist.

I pity the foo!

Wow. It’s been two weeks since I’ve written an article. I have to remedy that. The problem is that there’s really been nothing on my mind that’s been going on out in the world that I’ve had an urge to write about. It’s not that there isn’t anything going on, because there always is, it’s just nothing that I as a constitutionalist particularly care about. So rather than picking any particular issue I’m going to make it about attitude.

Let me give you an example.

Donald Trump and Stormy Daniels are in the news again along with some guy I’ve never heard of before named Alvin Bragg. Apparently this guy, Bragg, wants to arrest and indict the former president for something related to Stormy Daniels being paid hush money to keep quiet about some supposed affair The Donald had with her.

Did this really happen? Don’t know. Don’t care. Will The Donald be arrested? Don’t know. Possibly interesting but regarding the constitution, don’t care. Will it affect his run for the presidency? Okay, there I care about it a little bit because as my regular readers know, I am not particularly thrilled about former president Trump’s performance in office due to the very large numbers of unconstitutional things he supported as well as his profligate deficit spending. I only care about that to the degree that, while I would rather see him as president over any Demoncrap, I would prefer to have any truly constitutional and fiscally conservative Republican become president over him.

The only point where I would have any concern over this is if Trump should become president again it becomes an issue of the same sort as his former buddy, William Jefferson Clinton. Article Two, Section Four of our beloved Constitution says; “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” There’s bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors in the Stormy Danials case even if it happened many moons before. Even then I wouldn’t have a lot of concern because it is not a high crime or misdemeanor against the United States. It’s more about his reputation than it is about how it affects the country.

“Yes, but Brett, isn’t it important to have a person in office with honesty and integrity?” you might ask.

Of course I care about honesty and integrity. In personal relationships. I’m not looking to marry the guy. I’m looking for someone who can follow the Constitution. I’ve got the attitude of an employer. “Can this guy do the job?” is a legitimate question if I’m hiring him to work for my company. “Does he lie to and cheat on his wife?” is not. “Does he drink?” is not. “Does he believe what religion I am?” “Is his wife pretty?” “Does he have kids?” “Did he build a skating rink decades ago?” While it may be interesting and show his character it is not directly relevant to how well he gets his work done.

For a guy running as president there is only one thing I care about. Will he follow the Constitution?

If he talks about his plans for expanding universal health care I will not vote for him. If he talks about his plans for banning guns I will not support him. If he talks about regulating Big Tech with regards to free speech I will not support him. If he talks about Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security and how they should be expanded I will not support him. If he talks about controlling companies who create energy I will not support him. If he talks about expansion of the federal govern in any way I will not support him. If he talks about regulating healthcare I will not support him. If he talks about raising our taxes in any way or increasing spending I will not support him. If he talks about regulating the schools I will not support him. If he talks about how the government should be involved in abortion, either way, I will not support him. In short, if he talks about anything that is not directly mentioned in Article One, Section Eight or Article Two of the Constitution and “how the government should do something about it,” I will not support him.

Why? Because Article One Section Eight and Article Two are the sum total powers of the president with regards to domestic policy. Constitutionally he has a rather free hand on national and international relations. That’s what the federal government is supposed to do. They are not supposed to be involved in the daily lives of the People in any way. Just as I would do at work, if an employee starts talking about how he’s going to violate the company’s rules, it’s time to start looking for a different person to fill the slot.

That’s what I am. That’s what I mean about being a one hundred percent constitutionalist. I only care about issues that impact how the federal government follows the Constitution. If it has nothing to do with the Constitution, like for example the generally frumpy appearance of the current FLOTUS or stunningly beautiful appearance of the former FLOTUS, I really don’t care. I don’t care if the president is married or has kids. I don’t care if they are the most dorky or ugly creations of God or the most beautiful or the best or the worst. They don’t hold the nuclear codes.

If a candidate for any position in the federal government mentions how they should do something which isn’t directly and obviously backed by the actual text of the Constitution itself, they automatically go into my “NO!!!” list. This is especially true for anybody who is currently holding any position in the federal government or military.

I expect them to hold to the Constitution and nothing else. That is what their oath is. The oath is not to the country. It is to the Constitution.

There are issues like J6. There are peaceful protesters, guilty of nothing more than trespassing, who have been held without trial for several years now. Evidence has been withheld regarding the actions of Jacob Chansley and the Capitol Police Officers who escorted him around the building and let him into the Senate Chamber. Let’s not even talk about the murder of Ashli Battitt. This is a clear violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendment.

Speaking of J6 and Trump’s second impeachment, he did nothing wrong regarding J6 and the impeachment was the most politically bogus abuse of the power of Congress in recent years. Anything the Demoncrap Party says about Trump is bogus and personal, and has nothing to do with his constitutional performance EXCEPT FOR THIS ONE THING!!!

Pay attention here folks. This is important.

I’ve never understood why the Demoncraps INSIST that J6 be called an insurrection. Unarmed mostly peaceful people invading one building and interrupting a government function is not anywhere close to the same magnitude as overthrowing a government, which by definition is what an insurrection really is.

So follow me here. President Trump is on record by the second impeachment for his role—as bogus as the charge is—in inciting a riot which is now publically accepted as the “Insurrection of January 6^th.” I refer you now to the United States Constitution, Amendment Fourteen, Section Three, which says; “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same….”

They, by naming the J6 protests an insurrection, plus naming President Trump as a participant in them in his second impeachment, are trying to disqualify him from running for office again. The other shoe hasn’t dropped on this and the most likely reason is in its timing. Mark my words, it will happen.

As I’ve said, I don’t care for President Trump because he’s not particularly strong on the Constitution but I do care about this because it is a prime example of the Demoncraps in Congress abusing their power in an unconstitutional way.

I can just scroll down my Twitter feed and comment whether I care about an issue or not. When I do care about it it’s certain it will have something to do with the Constitution. It is the only way that I view anything in politics. I don’t care about Demoncraps or Republicans or their parties. I don’t care about the political games they play with us and each other to win. After all, what this is about is the attitude of a constitutionalist. The government should follow the supreme law of the land regardless of party.

I care about climate change but not in the way that you might think. I think it is a hoax to bilk us out of money and power. Should we try to keep the Earth clean and functioning? Certainly! However, politically I only care to the degree that I can’t find anything in the Constitution that gives the federal government any authority to do anything whatsoever about it domestically. Carbon dioxide is plant food. That is a well known fact.

There is nothing in the Constitution for the federal government to do anything about Covid. Zero. Zip. Nada. All of the regulations, shutdowns, mandates, etc., which the American People have suffered at the hands of the federal government have been in direct violation of the Constitution. The only point they could possibly be involved is if it was of the order of magnitude to become a threat to national security. This also goes to every single one of the Covid relief payments, which were only necessary because of their unconstitutional interference in the first place. All bills and regulations spawned at the federal level have nothing to do with any valid power of the federal government, especially the ridiculous tens of millions of dollars of money sent to Pakistan for gender studies as part of a Covid relief bill. Which president signed that one by the way?

I care about things like the Ukraine but only because it is an unconstitutional issue. If we wanted to support an ally in a declared war in which we were a direct participant it would be a different issue. But to take money from our pockets to send to another country? Nope. There have been numerous calls to audit the money being sent there to help them. This would be a totally ridiculous waste of time when every single penny sent is a direct violation of the Constitution. This by analogy would be like auditing the expenditures of a bank robber to make sure such spending is completely ethical.

I don’t care how much a man loves his country. Really. I don’t care if he hugs the flag, kisses it, takes it to bed with him or has it branded into the flesh of his chest. It’s one thing to say he loves this country. It’s another thing if he is a government official and says he loves this country while not following his oath to the Constitution. If it were possible to hate this country and follow the Constitution I would prefer him over someone who claimed to love it while not following the Constitution.

Could there ever possibly be something more unconstitutional than reparations for slavery? To have money taken from people today who never owned slaves and pay it to people today who never were slaves, when the last time there was slavery in this country was 155 years ago is an outrage.

I don’t care if Oprah Winfrey thinks she’s been oppressed.

I don’t care if the nominated leader of the FAA is black, white, green, purple, male, female, trans, educated, uneducated, human or any other thing you can name in the universe. Why? Because the FAA is not supported anywhere by the Constitution. It is none of the federal government’s business under the Tenth Amendment.

I don’t care about the Pledge of Allegiance. It should not be mandated in schools. It is unconstitutional in that it claims the United States to be one nation when the US is really fifty sovereign nations. Additionally it was written by a socialist, likely with deliberate intent against the Constitution.

The notion that “reaching across the isle to get things done” really fills my mind with outright disgust. You cannot compromise with insanity. You cannot fulfill your oath to the Constitution by compromising it’s principles with people who are clearly against it. Compromise is only for the rational.

Any politician who calls the United States a democracy gets a lot of points against them. The United States is a republic per the Constitution, Article Four Section Four. Any politician calling this country a democracy is working directly against the Constitution.

Biden said once upon a time that he would cure cancer. You know what? That’s none of his business. I can’t find the “Cure Cancer” clause in the Constitution. Yet some criticize him for not keeping his promise to do so. Well, he’s not supposed to! Curing cancer is a great thing for doctors to do. It is not a great thing for governments to do.

There are a lot of calls for the federal government to ban the mutilation of children under the premise that they were somehow born the wrong sex. As much as I am against this kind of “surgery” I would also be against the federal government being involved in it. This is a thing for the governments of the States to do under the Tenth Amendment. Do I think the States should all ban this? Hell yes! The federal government has no authority either way with this, nor should they have. This is one of those things where if you give them the authority to do what you want, sooner or later someone will come along and use it in a way that you don’t want. Think ahead.

Recognizing things like this rapidly takes some practice but it is time well spent. First you have to know the Constitution to know what things the federal government is allowed to do as well as things they are not supposed to be involved with. The best practice you can do, and I very highly recommend that you do, is to first learn the Constitution, particularly Article One Section Eight, as well as the Tenth Amendment.

Then go to some speech a politician recently made and read it. Preferably you would do this in a word processor of some sort but you could also just print it out and do it with highlight markers. Highlight the things that the politician says he wants to do that are not specifically mentioned in Article One Section Eight. This is easier than you would think it is because there are only about twenty things that are mentioned there as federal powers. Then read the speech and highlight with a different color the things that are specifically named in Article One Section Eight. Count the words up that are highlighted with the different colors and divide one into the other. That would give you a percentage ratio of what the politician does to follow/violate the Constitution. Remember, everything not specifically mentioned by the Constitution is a State’s power per the Tenth Amendment.

When you do this enough times with enough speeches made by people whom you support, and find they are really not very fussed about actually following the Constitution, you too will develop the attitude of a constitutionalist.

The Donald, CPAC and that Pesky Constitution

Aaaah ssssooo! Here I am about ready to write another bad article about Donald Trump. I really don’t mean to but there’s just too much that he keeps saying and doing that is outside of the bounds of the Constitution and the Constitution is just my thing.

I don’t usually play political games and truthfully I hate politics. I rarely comment on Demoncraps because…you know…they’re an evil bunch of crap and are rarely worth my time other than to say that they couldn’t act in favor of the Constitution to save their very lives.

I only comment on people who may benefit from it or who I have some hope. Even then it is only with the possibility that they may fall down a flight of stairs through their mistakes and somehow land on their feet. I have some hope for the Republicans in this, that somehow the true conservatives within the party will somehow gain enough power to wrest control of Congress or the presidency and actually be worthy of their oaths which they have all taken toward the Constitution.

I used to do this thing where I would take someone’s speeches and sift through them and give a score as to how well what they were saying conformed to the Constitution. Just as a couple of examples for the sake of comparison you will find attached here President Reagan’s First Address to Congress which scored at 74.1%. President Trump’s First Address to Congress scored 52.6%. Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address was so horrendous I couldn’t even score it. President Trump’s First inaugural Address scored a dismal 36.2%.

I’m not saying that I dislike The Trumpster. I think he’s kind of funny and entertaining. If he were staring on a TV show about business I’d be a fan. He’s got some good ideas if he were to be running a big business. But it is not the business of a president to run the country as if it were his own personal business. That he is a successful business man means nothing to me as a president. The oath of office is not to the country. It is to the Constitution and it is how the Constitution says that the country is to be run that counts in this matter.

What the liberals say about him is just a big pack of lies. Most of which they themselves are guilty of. They think they have cause to be critical of him and I disagree with their reasoning on the subject. As you read my comments about him you will notice that none of what I say is personal. Almost all of my comments on him are with regards to the duties of the presidency and what the Constitution says about it.

I frequently find him saying things that are so grossly unconstitutional that I’d have thought they were quotes from Woodrow Wilson or FDR; someone of that ilk. His comments on what he wanted to do for universal healthcare in his run for the presidency in 2016 made me realize that I could never support him.

Sigh. Here’s the thing; THE MORE WE, AS CONSERVATIVES, TOLERATE AND EXCUSE A PRESIDENT WHO DOES NOT FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION, THE MORE THE LIBERALS ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET AWAY WITH IN VIOLATING THE LIMITS THE GOVERNMENT IS SUPPOSED TO ADHERE TO. The successor inherits the power of the predecessor. Trump’s followers trust him with unconstitutional power, because, well, you know, he’s a good guy and they sound like good ideas on the surface. Biden then inherits that same power we trusted Trump with and uses it against us. Four years things go really well before it all turns to crap. What we are going through now is to that degree on Trump for passing all of the unconstitutional power he used on to Biden.

The purpose of the Constitution is to protect us from that. So while a large portion of the people who read this blog are dedicated Trump supporters, and I write this knowing full well that I’m going to offend some of them, I have to take the risk and say what is on my mind. It’s about the Constitution.

So here we are at CPAC, 2023. I could sum up eighty-five percent of his speech as a combination of three things. 1) See how great I am? 2) See how mean to me they’ve been? 3) See how stupid they are?

Don’t get me wrong. It was very entertaining. And mostly right. But in the entire thing, about two hours of talking, he only mentioned the Constitution once! And that once was how he wanted to change it!

This guy, by oath, is sworn to the Constitution’s defense. That’s what a president is really for.

The remaining fifteen percent of the speech was split between things he wants to do that are constitutional or unconstitutional. As is typical with him according to my observations they are about 50/50.

I’m only going to cover the unconstitutional things here.

So he commented about “No voter id.” That’s all fine but elections, per the Constitution, are held by the States and are really none of the federal government’s business. I’ve written about that here.

He made the statement that “We will route the fake news media.” Ummm…First Amendment? Anybody? As much as I disagree with the fake news media we can’t go down the road of regulating them. Honestly he didn’t suggest it and I have hope that he meant routing them by pointing out the truth to their discredit. That said his history for suggesting things that are grossly unconstitutional makes me wary, to say the least.

We are not going back to people that want to destroy our great Social Security system. Even some in our party, I wonder who that might be. Want to raise the minimum age of social security to 70, 75, even 80 in some cases. They are out to cut Medicare to a level that it will no longer be recognizable. Let’s be honest here. Social Security and Medicare are both Ponzi schemes created to rob money from the American People. If you were to set up a private system using the same rules you’d share a cell with the likes of Bernie Madoff. Setting that completely aside there is still the Constitutional issue. Both of these are grossly unconstitutional violations of the Tenth Amendment. I’ve written more on that here.

“A wonderful town in Ohio has difficulty, we are going to take care of that town. That city that village prior to worrying about the rest of the world.” I live in Ohio. A friend of mine from Navy boot camp is from East Palestine. I feel for those people. But this is not a federal issue. There is no authorization within the Constitution for disaster relief of any kind. It is a violation of the Tenth Amendment. There has been three times where entire cities have been wiped out in American History. The Great Chicago Fire. The Great Galveston Hurricane. The San Francisco Earth Quake. These three cities received no federal relief and somehow they still managed to exist quite well. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t help. We should. But at the forceful influence of the federal government and the thugs from the IRS? Nope. Unconstitutional.

“I smashed the false idols of the free-trade fanatics. These are for they are getting pretty rich probably the second. I left the china lobby, bringing in hundreds of billions of dollars pouring into our treasury from china. Thank you very much China. When no other president got anything from them. Our trade deficits were $700 billion per year. Think of it dollars per year.” Now here is something that I have to comment on that is just plain silly. The hundreds of billions of dollars pouring into our treasury did not come from China. We the People paid those tariffs through elevated prices on imports from China. That money doesn’t come from them. It comes from us. There are a lot that great conservative economists like Milton Friedman and Walter E. Williams had to say about this. And with them I agree. If there is one thing that is distinctly conservative it is the right to free trade. This is not exactly a constitutional issue but I had to comment on it for my own sake because I believe in free trade without government interference. Trade deficits are not the evil they’re cracked up to be.

“I arrested the Marxists who toppled statues of our great heroes in Washington, D.C.. I arrested them. They were knocking down the most beautiful artwork, the most beautiful statues of great heroes. He didn't even know who they were, they just wanted anarchy and I passed and signed an executive order anyone who does that get 10 years in jail with no negotiation.” An executive order bypassing Due Process in the Fifth Amendment? Does this really seem like a good ideal for the president of the United States to do?

“And then Covid came in, and we did great job. We never got credit for that job we did a great job with Covid and gave back something very strong.” I remember a lot of press conferences with Doctor Fauci and Donald Trump. Every day press conferences for a while. All the while saying and doing all kinds of things unconstitutional for the federal government. There is nothing in the Constitution giving the federal government any emergency powers for diseases or pandemics. Nothing short of a threat to national security should involve the president on this subject.

“We have more oil in the United States than any country in the world, including Saudi Arabia. People don't realize it. In Alaska, I approved a site, we all know what the site is. Probably the biggest in the world. And the democrats said no, it's over. They turned it down. Ronald Reagan tried to do it. Every president, republican, and some democrats tried to do it. I got it done.” There is nothing in the Constitution that backs any of this up as a federal power. Granted, the federal government has its (very greedy) hands all involved with energy but it is all unconstitutional per the Tenth Amendment. The States can do this but the feds shouldn’t. And yes, we have more oil under our ground than any other place in the world. We can’t get to it because the federal government has no respect for the States, the People or the Tenth Amendment.

“I will end the scourge of homelessness taking of our cities and suburbs.” Good idea for the States and the People. But the Tenth Amendment makes it none of the federal government’s business.

“Frankly, the federal government should take over control and management of Washington D.C..” Ummm… dude! It already has that control. Article One, Section Eight, Clause Seventeen. How does he not know this? This is one of those things that just boggles my mind.

“Under our leadership we will take the homeless, drug addicted and severely deranged, get them off our streets and create tent cities where we will get them the help they so desperately need.” Tenth Amendment again. The States have this authority. Not the feds.

“I will fight for parent’s rights. Can you believe here we are? And I said I'm going to fight for parent’s right? Who would thought he would say, don't you think the parents have good rights? Who would've thought you have to say it, because they took the rights away. Including universal school choice and the direct election of school and supposed by the parents. We want the school principal to be elected by parents. We love the children more than the parents. If any principal is not getting this done, the parents should be able to fire the principal and select someone new.” Do you ever wonder why the federal government and Demoncraps have so much power in the school system? Do you ever wonder why parents are losing their rights to these dirt bags? There is no authorization for the federal government to do anything about education. Nothing. It’s all a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

“We will teach our values and promote our history and traditions to our children. We well, in other words, be proud of our country again.” Same as the previous comment. Tenth Amendment. It is not up to the federal government.

“I will revoke every Biden policy regarding the chemical castration and sexual mutilation of our youth and ask congress to send me a bill prohibiting child sexual mutilation in all fifty states.” I’m going to say it. The transgender movement is insane. I mean total bat-crap-crazy-loony-tunes insane. But I can’t find any Article, Section or Clause in the Constitution for the federal government to do anything about it. The States should. The feds, per the Tenth Amendment, shouldn’t.

“And we will keep men out of women’s sports.” Again, the Tenth Amendment. My God! It’s as if he doesn’t even know it is there! I agree this should be done but everything under the sun is not a federal issue.

“By defeating Joe Biden I will save your economy I will save your retirement accounts and I will save your jobs. I have the greatest job's history of any president ever.” The reason the economy sucks under Biden is because the federal government is too involved with it. Part of this is President Trump’s cranking up the national debt by eight trillion dollars in half of the time that Obama did it. This is the quintessential idea of conservatism. The more the feds get involved with this the worse it gets. Our money and jobs are ours. It’s none of the president’s business, again per the Tenth Amendment. Granted, Trump did a good job at that part of it but his unconstitutional overreach here left us all open for Biden to come in and destroy it all.

“I will have a four-year plan to phase out all Chinese imports of essential goods and gain total independence from China.” It’s none of the federal government’s business what I buy or where it comes from. Tenth Amendment again.

“We want everything including electric cars but we also want gasoline because the cars go longer and they are preferred by many people.” Nothing in the Constitution gives the feds any power over this. Tenth Amendment yet again.

“We want oil and gasoline and natural gas because it is cheaper, better and much more powerful. It is April Fools' Day. Under my leadership we will regain energy independence that we had three years ago. We were on our way to massive energy dominance. We would have been paying off our debt, because energy is big numbers it is not like you are selling a little product you're selling the biggest product of all it is energy. We would have been paying off our debt. We would have been the strongest. We were going to be, we were already bigger under my administration than Saudi Arabia or Russia. We were going to be bigger than both of them combined and within about a year we would have made the kind of money they are making times five.” The federal government has no authority over cars or energy and they are not supposed to be making money from it or them. Donald increased our national debt by a whopping eight trillion dollars. Why is he concerned about national debt now? But I digress… Tenth Amendment on all of this…again.

“I will fight for a constitutional amendment to [propose] term limits on members of congress.” Term limits are very, very, very bad. This is the one time he even mentioned the Constitution. This is his disagreement with it and how he wants it to be changed. If an old tiger is chewing on your throat it does no good to substitute a younger tiger for the older one. The problem isn’t the age of the tiger. It’s that the tiger is chewing on your throat. Term limits are like that. But more than that they don’t limit the powers of the federal government. They limit the choices of the American People on who they have to represent them. I’ve written more on term limits here and here.

“And I will move heaven and earth to fully and finally secure our elections. All republican governors should immediately go for paper ballots one day voting and voter id.” This one is one the line for me. The elections are run by the States. That’s the way it is supposed to be and for good reason. It keeps the president and Congress from running their own reelections. If you want to know what the Constitution says about elections you can find the article I wrote about it here and decide for yourself.

“Our objective will be a quantum leap in the American standard of living especially for young people.” Tenth Amendment again.

"As I announced yesterday we will hold a competition to build new freedom cities along the frontier and to be a populous America with a new shop at home ownership in the American dream.” Not only would this be grossly unconstitutional per the Tenth Amendment—again—but would be a profoundly stupid thing to do. Cities are built by people who want to live and do business in them. You don’t just pick a spot on a map and build a city there hoping that “if you build it they will come.” If there were someplace a city needed to be built there is a 100% chance it’s already there. And why should I, as a guy from Ohio, which is not a frontier State, be forced to pay my tax money to build a city on the boarder of Arizona and Mexico?

“We will rename our schools and boulevards not after communists but after great American patriots.” As much as I would be in favor of such a thing it is not any of the federal government’s business. Tenth Amendment.

“We will get rid of bad and ugly buildings and returned to the magnificent classical style of western civilization.” Unless it is a federally owned building he’s talking about the Tenth Amendment applies here too.

“We will support baby boomers and we will support baby bonuses for a new baby boom.” So he wants to make us pay for other people to have babies too? How does this guy even call himself a conservative? This is not only a flagrant violation of the Tenth Amendment but as grossly liberal an idea as I can imagine; universal healthcare notwithstanding. Imagine this. The federal government with the power to regulate how many babies you can or cannot have. What could possibly go wrong?

“All of this is within our reach but only if we have the courage to complete the job, got the deep state and reclaim our democracy and banish the tyrants and Marxists into political exile forever.” This one is a favorite pet peeve of mine. Article Four, Section Four of the United States Constitution says; “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” The United States is a REPUBLIC! You would think a REPUBLICAN would be able to properly identify what kind of government the United States has. To his credit he later called it a republic. Look. This is really simple. If you live in a country where the People voted directly on national issues you live in a democracy. If you have representatives who vote on your behalf on national issues, no matter how they are chosen, you live in a republic. These are not the same thing. They are mutually exclusive.

These things as constitutional violations are pretty gross. Really. For the life of me I can’t understand why anybody who is for the constitutional rule of law in this country could support him. Granted, he loves the country. I genuinely admire him for that. He has done a fair number of things that have been good for it, inside and outside of the Constitution. However I would find it very difficult to believe he loves the Constitution which he is sworn to.

That said; I still have a half rotten potato in my cupboard that would be a better president than Biden.

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.