Archive for the ‘government powers’ Category

Review of the 2016 Election, Part 4: The Media

PDF version –> reviewofthe2016electionpart4media

The so-called “mainstream” media is still in shock over the Presidential election; it is impossible for them to understand how their chosen queen, Hillary Clinton, could lose the election against such an unconventional and defective candidate like Donald Trump.  The best explanation they have come up with is that every half-baked retarded irredeemable deplorable in the nation suddenly sobered up on Election Day and decided to vote against their own best interests.  Their constant harping over the popular vote vs. the Electoral College vote only proves their unlimited power to make excuses.  It the Electoral College, dummies, as it has been since the founding of the republic.

We hear a lot about the “liberal bias” in the mainstream media.  It is actually a socialist bias, and it comes from several sources.  First, most journalists and commentators happen to be socialists or at least raving 1960’s liberals; convinced that their platform and ideology is the only correct one, it imperative (they think) to educate/indoctrinate all the unwashed ignoramuses as to benefit of arbitrary government power (except against them).  Underlying this attitude is the assumption that they are uniquely qualified to determine who should have political power and who should not.  Secondly, many in the media would rather create or shape the news rather than report it, partly to advance the cause, partly to widen their audience to justify higher compensation, and partly to get closer to the powerful as a means to gain influence for their own benefit.  The mainstream media has given up on checking the growth of government power; they are now actively endorsing it. The members of the media have become powerful by association with the powerful.  Third, their embrace of socialism requires that they believe in their own moral superiority; the causes they endorse are righteous because they are righteous; they are correct policy because they are correct policy, and nothing more need be said about it.  Fourth, in this day of 24-hour news channels, there is an enormous amount of airtime to fill.  It is now possible to provide time to those with the most extreme views as a way of making garden-variety socialism seem reasonable.  Fifth, the quest for revenue causes the news and opinion shows to have a great many commercials, and the “interviews” (I am using the term loosely), are so short as to be useless for an honest examination of facts or claims.  There is barely enough time between commercial breaks for the moderator deliver a sermonette disguised as a question and for the guests to shout their slogans or talking points over each other.  The long-suffering public learns nothing.  One tunes into ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, and PBS to be entertained, not informed.  FNC is only marginally better.  When you read The New York Times editorials, it suddenly occurs to you that Jayson Blair was the most logical writer they ever had.

Socialists in general are ignorant of history: they actually believe that paradise on earth is possible, which ignores the nature of mankind.  The only thing missing is enough government power to enforce paradise: so the media, probably without realizing it, promotes tyranny in the interest of freedom.  But it will never tolerate unfreedom for itself, only for you.  They are identical in function to the corrupt medieval Catholic church.

But the one thing the socialist mainstream media is most angry about is that Mr. Trump found a way via social media to bypass their filtering function.  He was able, using his formidable name-recognition, to take his message directly to the public (not to mention he had the right message for this election cycle).  I don’t think policy by 140-character spontaneous random neuron-firing is a good way to govern.  Unfortunately, the modern mainstream media is simply not up to the task of performing the important function of examining the government’s actions.  It is either too ideologically biased, too ignorant of history, too partisan, or too lazy.

 

Tags: , ,
Posted in elections, government powers, progressive | No Comments »

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.

Tags:
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 »