Archive for the ‘government powers’ Category

Why Hillary Clinton Cannot Be Indicted, Part 2

WhyHillaryCintonCannotBeIndicted_part2  <–  PDF version

Since my last essay as to why Hillary Clinton cannot be indicted, a few interesting things have happened. First, President Barack “I lied, period” Obama stated on Fox News Sunday’s 10 Apr 2016 episode:

“I do not talk to the Attorney General about pending investigations.  I do not talk to the FBI directors about impending investigations.  We have a strict line and have always maintained it.  I guarantee it.  I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department, or the FBI; not just in this case, but in any case.  Full stop.  Period.  Nobody gets treated differently when it comes to the Justice Department because nobody is above the law.”

There are several problems here.  Obama said “impending” investigations, not “active” ones.  He did not claim that no one on his staff (such as the President’s Counsel) discusses investigations with the DoJ or FBI.  Every time Obama says “period”, you know he’s lying, like the time he said you could keep your doctor and your health plan, “period”.  If there really is no political interference, surely there would be no need to assure the public about it. Second, Obama endorsed Clinton on 9 Jun 2016.  Now ask yourself, when was the last time any political figure endorsed another, if there was even a 1/100th of 1% chance that the latter could have legal problems?  Never — that isn’t how politicians operate.  He endorsed her because he knows she will not have any legal problems because he and his staff have taken steps to make sure of it. Third, Bill Clinton met secretly with Attorney General Loretta Lynch at the Phoenix airport on 27 Jun 2016.  He went out of his way to wait for her private plane, then requested access (which was granted), and they spoke for about 30 minutes.  Of course, it was all about golf and grandchildren, if you are naïve and gullible enough to believe it.   The respective security details prevented anyone from taking pictures on the tarmac (a public place), and it was discovered only by local Phoenix reporter Christopher Sign (KNXV-TV) based on tips from his local contacts.  What political figure, or lawyer, or government official would be dumb enough to meet secretly with the spouse of a person being investigated by their department?  Ms. Lynch is not dumb. Today she stated that she would “accept” (not “act upon”) the FBI’s recommendation regarding Hillary Clinton.  What was the plan before?  Are we to believe that the fix was in before, but now that she met with Bill Clinton, she will go along with a criminal indictment if the FBI recommends it? Here is what I believe will happen.  As I said in my previous (8 Mar 2016), all the evidence against Hillary is being collected up to be destroyed or permanently sealed just the way Hillary wanted it.  But the FBI report will state that she “or her staff” had “accidentally or inadvertently” committed some “errors of judgment” that would normally amount to “technicality-type” misdemeanors, but in view of her “outstanding  public service”, and “to avoid a political crisis”, no charges will be recommended.  So Lynch will be off the hook.  Hillary, knowing the evidence is safely hidden or destroyed, will then pretend to issue an apology for some “inerrant carelessness by her staff”.  She will do her best to keep from bursting out laughing.  Then the whole thing goes away. That is how things work in banana republics, and that is how our federal government works when high-ranking political figures like Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Loretta Lynch, and Hillary Clinton are involved.  The one thing we do not know is how deep the corruption has pervaded the rank-and-file of the FBI and Justice Department.

Posted in elections, Famous people, government powers | No Comments »

On Same-Sex Marriage

PDF version –>  OnSameSexMarriage

1              Background

2              The Objectives

3              What We Can Do

1          Background

The U. S. Supreme Court issued a ruling on 26 Jun 2015 decreeing that so-called “gay marriage” shall be legal in all fifty states, having been recognized previously by state court edicts in 34 of them.  The homosexual lobby and their supporters have claimed that this effort is nothing more than an extension of equality to homosexual persons akin to the civil rights movement of the 1960’s.  The couples lining up for gay marriage certificates are not the problem; as Vladimir Lenin would say, they are merely the useful idiots.  The true objective of the entire gay liberation movement is part of a much larger plan.

Even the most primitive of societies recognize an institution of “marriage” as being between one man and one woman.  All of the major religions also adhere to this common concept, including the dominant religious institutions in America, the Judeo-Christian heritage.  At first, this ruling appears to be nothing more than a change in the dictionary definition of words: while by tradition and religious doctrine, marriage has always meant one thing, and now it means another.  But consider an old joke told frequently by Abraham Lincoln: “How many legs does a dog have, if we agree to count the tail as a leg?”  The answer is of course, four: counting the tail as a leg does not actually make it a leg.  Likewise, calling a legal union of two persons of the same sex a “marriage” does not make it so.  It is simply a moral fiction (although a legal reality); they are gay/fake pseudo marriages, not to be confused with the normal ones.  So far this ruling leaves existing normal marriages unaffected.  If this were the end of it, then those of us who adhere to the traditional definition could say to ourselves: let them have their gay/fake pseudo marriage victory, and be done with it.  The problem is that the homosexual lobby and their funding sources have not declared victory, packed, up and gone home.  The reason is obvious: there is no reason to go home.  This is the first victory for them in a series of planned legal battles.  For them it is only the beginning.

2          The Objectives

The homosexual lobby and their supporters have assured us, along with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy (who wrote the majority opinion), that the First Amendment protection of freedom of religion is preserved entirely.  But if the Court can redefine “marriage”, surely it can redefine “religious freedom”.  The effort to make gay/fake pseudo marriages a legal reality did not start and end with a few homosexual couples seeking the same legal status as normal marriages.  On the contrary, this was a well-thought out campaign, engineered and funded by a large legal team devoted to the cause.  I suspect the funding came from organizations whose real aim is to intimidate or embarrass religious people into abandoning allegiance to God in favor of allegiance to government.  Since the homosexual lobby and their supporters have nothing to lose and everything to gain, I expect that there soon will be several legal challenges to religion in general and Christianity in particular.

First, there will be a movement to require churches and synagogues to perform gay/fake pseudo marriages, even though their doctrines prohibit it.  They will carefully omit to impose this requirement upon mosques, out of fear of being called Islamophobic.  The claim will be that Jewish and Christian religious institutions (as the dominant ones in America) cannot discriminate against homosexuality any more than commercial businesses can.  They will claim that: a) since marriage is a legal function of the state, and b) since clergy conduct marriages by license from the state; therefore: every member of the clergy licensed to perform marriages must do so in accordance with the legal definition, which now includes gay/fake pseudo marriages.  Those religious institutions that fail to do so will have three choices: a) stop performing all marriages, b) perform gay/fake pseudo marriages on an equal basis with normal ones; or c) lose their tax-exempt status under the tax code.  As can be readily observed, any of those options is a victory for the homosexual lobby and their funding source.  The homosexual crusaders are not going to file suit against the Catholic Church, or the Mormons, or the Missouri Baptist Synod.  Those organizations have the means to fight and win.  No, the crusaders will find some small non-denominational Christian church and make an example of them as small-minded bigots.  A small church will be no match for the legal power of the crusaders.  They will attack Judaism and Christianity, but will make an exception for “recognized minorities” like the Moslems.

The second attack will build upon the first: an attack on the religious texts themselves.  The argument will be that since doctrines concerning marriages are contrary to the now altered legal definition of marriage, adherence to them violates the principle of equality under the Constitution, and is ipso facto, proof of hate speech.  Anyone holding those beliefs will be designated a “hater”, discriminator”, and “enemy of equality”, thus forfeiting their rights under the First Amendment.  Likewise any institution promoting the traditional definition of marriages will be branded a “hate group”.  The lawsuits will pile very high; the goal being to bankrupt both individuals and institutions under the anti-discrimination laws and to cause religious institutions to lose favor and membership.  The end goal is to promote government as a higher class of morality and thus enhance loyalty to government in place of loyalty to God.

The ultimate objective is to get the Bible and Torah banned as “Haters’ Handbooks”.  They will carefully omit any reference to the Koran out of fear of reprisal.  Even the most hardened Marxist proponent of gay/fake pseudo marriages will likely admit the difficulty here.  But Marxists and others who worship government have time on their side, and with courts willing to arbitrarily redefine the dictionary definition of words, religious freedom faces an uncertain future.

3          What We Can Do

The fact that gay/fake pseudo marriages are legal does not mean that individuals are required to believe that they are legitimate.  They are legally recognized, nothing more.  The first thing to be done is to consistently call gay/fake pseudo marriages what we believe them to be: fake and artificial.  Let them prove otherwise.

Secondly, recall that what goes around comes around.  There is no reason why those of us who “cling to our Bibles” cannot play the same game of changing the dictionary definition of words.  Henceforth, the words “gay” and “lesbian” shall not mean “homosexual”; they shall both mean “child molester”.  See how simple that is?

Third, we should try to pre-empt the legal challenges against churches and synagogues by encouraging our state legislators to pass appropriate legislation.  I have taken the liberty of sketching out the legislation:

Whereas the U. S. Supreme Court has seen fit to extend the title of “marriage” to persons of the same sex;

Whereas each State is obliged to permit the establishment of marriage between persons of the same sex, which shall have the same full legal rights as traditional marriages;

Whereas the power to regulate who shall have authority to perform said same-sex marriages falls to each State;

Resolved: same-sex marriages shall be performed only by paid employees of a State, County, or Local government, to wit, Judges, Justices of the Peace and the like — except:

Other persons not employed directly by the State, County, or Local government, but otherwise authorized to perform traditional marriages, may apply in writing to be granted such power to perform same sex marriages.

The regulation shall provide:

a. There shall be no fee for the application;

b. The application shall be immediately granted by the Secretary of State upon receipt;

c. No additional encumbrances shall ensue to holders of the same-sex marriage authority;

d. The same-sex marriage authority shall not be transferable to other persons

e. No person shall be required to make an application so described.

Fourth, and most important, recall that ultimately God is the judge of all things.  It is not our place to judge people for homosexuality, or to judge them for desiring some legal recognition for it.  It is our duty to first practice the faith and secondly to preserve our right to do so under the U. S. Constitution.


Posted in government powers, living constitution, progressive | No Comments »

On the President’s Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws

PresidentsDutyToFaithfullyExecuteLaws  <– PDF version

President Barack “I lied, period” Obama recently issued an Executive Order that exempted many illegal aliens from deportation if they met certain nebulous requirements.  It is alleged by His Most High Incompetence that this order would affect only about 5 million people, but there is no reason to believe that figure in favor of any higher number.  Many have claimed that Obama’s particular Executive Order is illegal, since, by waiving a part of immigration law, he is failing to faithfully execute the laws per his oath of office as required by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.  So far, 25 states have joined in a lawsuit seeking to have the order overruled, and the next Congress has claimed it will do the same (probably by endorsing and expanding it).

But the real question is: where does a President and his Justice Department toadies get the arrogance to ignore their oaths of office?  That has already been answered by St. George Tucker, an early expositor of the Constitution [1] in a series of essays published in 1803:

Lastly; it is the duty of the president to take care that the laws be faithfully executed; and, in the words of his oath, “to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States.”

The obligation of oaths upon the consciences of ambitious men has always been very slight, as the general history of mankind but too clearly evinces.  Among the Romans, indeed, they were held in great sanctity during the purer ages of the republic, but began to be disregarded as the nation approached to a state of debasement, that fitted them for slavery.  Among Christian princes, they seem only to have been calculated for the worst, instead of the best purposes: monarchs having long exercised, and seeming to claim, not less than the successors of St. Peter, a kind of dispensing power on this subject, in all cases affecting themselves.  A due sense of religion must not only be wanting in such cases, but the moral character of the man must be wholly debased, and corrupted.  Whilst these remain unsullied, in the United States, oaths may operate in support of the constitution they have adopted, but no longer.  After that period an oath of office will serve merely to designate its duties, and not to secure the faithful performance of them; or, to restrain those who are disposed to violate them.

Why does this kind of arrogance prevail?  Because the officers of the government have adopted corruption and immorality as their mode of operation: what matters to them is the political expediency of the moment without regard for what is right, wrong, or important in the long term.  It is not actually a legal matter: no court ruling will affect the basic corruption.  Left unchecked, this level of corruption will eventually cause the republic to degenerate into tyranny.  Montesquieu [2] notes:

When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils, but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil.

We can only hope that the American people will be more discerning at the next presidential election.

[1] St. George Tucker, A View of the Constitution of the United States, Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, p. 282, (1999).  The original was published in 1803.

[2] Charles de Secondat, (Baron de Montesquieu), The Spirit of Laws, Book VIII, chapter 12.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Congress, government powers, U. S. Constitution | No Comments »

A View of the Islamic State

A View Of The Islamic State  <– PDF version

The Islamic State (IS), formerly known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), formerly known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), formerly known as an offshoot of Mr. bin Laden’s al-Qaeda organization, continues to demonstrate that they are incapable of any semblance of civilized conduct in either peace or war.   It has thus far conquered and controls an area bridging both Syria and Iraq encompassing about 12,000 sq. miles, more or less.  It has seized military equipment from the Iraqi army (which fled the scene); this is the same U.S. equipment left behind after the Iraq war, supposedly for Iraqi self-defense.  It has captured and then summarily executed numerous Syrian army personnel.  It has beheaded an American journalist, James Foley, and displayed the video on the internet.  It has forced many thousands of people which adhere to Christianity and the Yazid religion from their homes under pain of “conversion to Islam or death”.   Its leader, Abu Bakr al-Bagdadi, (formerly a resident of the Guantanamo Bay prison) has claimed that IS intends to establish a worldwide Islamic Caliphate, and that the organization’s symbolic black flag will one day fly over the White House.  Some American commentators have suggested that IS constitutes an “existential threat” to the U.S. and must be defeated, preferably with a coalition, but by the U. S. alone if necessary.  That would require land forces in both Syria and Iraq, something the American people are not prepared to support.  President Barack “I lied, period” Obama, leading with his behind as usual, has ordered a series of minor air strikes against IS forces scattered in Iraq, but recently admitted he has no strategy to deal with IS in general.

If the dictionary definition of words matters anymore, I am doubtful the IS could actually conquer America.  It could launch some internal attacks, disrupt some segments of the economy temporarily, and put a scare into the weak-minded.  Those attacks would encourage any Islamic jihad sympathizers already here, and may cause a rush of more such supporters over our non-existent southern border.  Naturally the American politicians would use those attacks to justify further encroachments upon the liberties of Americans, as they did after the 11 Sep 2001 attacks.  This last characteristic is the true threat from IS.

However, IS may well constitute an existential threat to some nations in the Middle East: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, Bahrain, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman, Egypt, Lebanon, and of course, the ultimate prize, Israel.  King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has addressed the threat posed by the IS, stating [1]:

“If we ignore them [IS], I am sure they will reach Europe in a month andAmericain another month.  … You see how they carry out beheadings and make children show the severed heads in the street.  …  It is no secret to you, what they have done and what they have yet to so.  I ask you to transmit this message to your leaders: ‘Fight terrorism with force, reason, and (necessary) speed.’ “

Fine speech, Your Majesty, fine speech indeed.  So, Your Majesty, tell us dumb Yankees how many divisions of heavy armor, how many infantry divisions, and how many squadrons of fighters and bombers has the mighty kingdom of Saudi Arabia committed to fighting IS?  None.  How many divisions and squadrons have been committed to fighting IS by the other nations at risk mentioned above?  Zero.  There won’t be any, not now, and not ever.  How many of the principal clerics of the above Moslem nations have issued a fatwa against IS?  None; they never have and they never will.  Why is that?

There are two reasons.  First, IS is what you get when Islam, the “religion of peace”, is no longer constrained by secular dictators or tyrannical monarchs.  Since the above named nations are devoted to Islam, they probably support the goal of IS, but would like to avoid being its victims.  King Abdullah conveniently forgot to mention that the official religion of his nation, the Wahabbi (Salafi) form of Sunni Islam, is the ideological force behind IS, al-Qaeda, and other jihadists worldwide.  What they really want is a kinder, gentler IS, chastened by limited American force, that will share power with the existing entrenched monarchs and dictators.  Second, the above-named nations have grown comfortable from the proceeds of the oilfields, and desire the Europeans and dumb Yankees to do their fighting for them in order to protect their delicate sensibilities.  In this way the Saudis and other Moslem nations can share in the global expansion of radical Islam with its attendant wealth, power, and underage girls without giving even the appearance of opposition to their Moslem brethren.  We shall see if Mr. Obama will take the bait.

[1]  “Saudi king warns West will jihadists next target”, 30 Aug 14,




Posted in Bill of Rights, government powers, war powers | No Comments »