Category Archives: Politics

Mr Trump’s foreign policy

I had a thought.(rut roh).

What if, just what if, Mr trump is in the vain of JFK? (best willis voice, what you talkin about?) well, what if after all these years of the administrations doing things a “certain way” in the area of foreign policy that has not really been working, Mr Trump has gone a different way that will work better?

Think about it, during the whole cuba crisis thing, everyone were against the way JFK was doing things because they didn’t understand what he was trying to do. Now during all these problems that the standard routines just weren’t working Mr Trump has got an idea that doing it in a different way will make it work? Is he not sending messages to our enemies? (that he can back up). are they not responding in ways that are different? the standard way of sanctioning and all that are just not working.  So the missile boy says hes got a button, after the limited testing he has done while puffing his chest out, Mr Trump comes along and says yea well I’ve got one too, but mine works to put the little boy in his place.

Should we just let Trump be Trump? And see if Mr Trump is smarter than everyone thinks? what if?

Glenn

The SOTU 2018

one or 2 things i took from the SOTU last night-
ok so the dems didn’t stand or applaud, so what. the repubs did that too for obama. no problem.
the problem came when they showed their total disrespect and disdaine for the President by using their phones to text or facebook or whatever it was they were doing. what a way to teach our young.
their booing when the President mentioned immigration and enforcement of immigration law. ok we had that one guy that yelled out you lie. but the booing from the whole of the dems on law enforcement? Pelosi, well what can we say about her that hasn’t been said. Members just plain walking out? come on you don’t do that.

now my takes from the dem response that I got to listen too this am. You must realize that this response was created probably over the weekend (how can you be at the SOTU and be in Mass 1 minute later?)

from the dem response sen kennedy –
stocks and company soar, but fails to reward he worker.
(they forgot all the companies giving back to the workers in bonus’s and higher wages due to the tax reforms)

a government that struggles to keep itself open
(they forgot to mention it was the dems that refused since september to allow passage of a budget and even fought the CR’s)

russia knee deep in out democracy
(aren’t we still waiting on several investigations on this?)

all out war on environmental protection
(some regulations that didn’t make sense other than to cost a company more money)

justice department rolling back civil rights
(Justice department actually holding to the constitution)

dignity isn’t something your born with, but is measured by your net worth
(sure this coming from a guy that is worth ????)

take care of sick kids if we sacrifice dreamers
(here we go defending illegal aliens)

says the repubs only want 1 or the other splitting the nation coaast or heartland
ceos making 300 x the worker is not right
(so a guy that runs a company is not entitled to more than his workers? typical socialist thinking where everyone makes the same)

state of union is hopefull
(hopefull they can get back in power to ruin the country and steal as much as they can)

on what to do to stop the next mass shooting

I am sitting here and watching the news, and I have had a few thoughts here. I have watched over the last several years, and observed the aftermath of each of the school shootings. They all seem to say get rid of guns. Then I look at who did what and why and in each case you have a kid that has emotional problems, has learning disabilities, is unable to make friends, and is on or should be on medication. Then I look at when I went to school.

Yes I rode the short bus, no I wasn’t a window licker. I had issues that my parents struggled to help me with, and they did. Yes I was one of those that had trouble making friends, and no I never had a girlfriend in school. Luckily I never had to be on any medications or have to go thru massive psychotherapy. I was able to go to a special school that helped me learn how to learn. in all this I was lucky to have my parents backing as well as a few kids from the neighborhood to play with.All this is so you can understand my background so I can bring you  thru the next part of my monologue.

Let’s look at these kids one part at a time. They were for a lack of a better term, ?autistic? (mildly?). this leads to problems in the way they look at the world and the world looks at them. They are slower on the uptake if it is not given to them in the best way they process the information. (some need it visually , some in text, some need to hear it.) so this makes the world a little different for them than for you.

Because they have this issue, parents and doctors look for the easy way to help their kid cope with society. This typically involves some sort of pharmaceutical help. These drugs can actually make it worse for the kid to be “normal”, but it makes them easier to manage.

Then because the kid is different from the norm, he will get picked on by his classmates, and ostracized, and made to feel small. this all creates a smoldering anger that the kid thinks I’ll get them for being mean, they will learn.  that anger will build over the years and will never be shown to the world.

Now add in what we have today, the internet. the internet while it can open up a brave new world to this kid, also makes it much easier to be bullied and influenced. It can also make this kid more withdrawn into this cyberworld   with the games and stuff.  They will “make friends” in this brave new world but still be alone. then they go back to the real world and go thru all the emotions again. so they hide, ball up , in an attempt to block the hate. or they will strike out in anger (fights in school, animal abuse).  All this because no one hears them and they have no one to talk to.

what can be done? this is going to sound so left leaning it is not funny, but believe me it really isn’t, All it takes is some kid to simply include them in their circle and talk to them. I have heard that in the last shooting the trigger point was something about his ex girlfriend dating someone. ok, in normal’s lives when that happens you talk with you best friend and they blow off the girl as not being good enough for you and all that stuff. In his case who did he have to talk to? No I don’t think for the next 10 years or so it can change, as the age that anything meaningful and actually easy is not 14 or 15 years old. this has to start before the teen years.

How many stories have we heard that someone was contiplating suicide and it was someone that simply said hi to them or helped them with their books or something simple, and they decided not to kill themselves? yes it is that simple and yet that complex. If you want to stop these school shootings think not about taking away guns which are only a tool for the symptoms, much in the way taking pain killers for a bad tooth only masks the pain. But think about this, The guy that seems a little odd of slow, he may not be able to handle the world like you do, but if you stop and say hi or give them a hand, you could change his world or even help him to understand it better. and with that small change, you will have stopped the anger and the resulting problems.  If you haven’t helped your hurting, it all starts with you.

So to finnish off this diatribe that no one will read, may god be with you, and , well, Hey how ya doing?

 

Glenn

 

A post script note: after getting some reaction from some on this post,

No we are not asking for everyone to be fake nice. that wont help. what we are asking is for 1 kid to say hi, 1 kid to be nice, 1 kid listen to them, 1 kid to learn from them. 1 kid to NOT bully, 1 kid to NOT talk behind their back. 1 kid to include them where possible. 1 kid to help them. 2 parents to back them, 2 parents to show them the way. It doesnt take that much. It doesnt take the whole of the school or community. just 1 brave kid and 2 parents.

TEXAS AND “THE GREEN NEW DEAL

This is my take after watching the sad event that happened in Texas during the cold wave.

from what I have read, this was a cascade failure of the power grid Precipitated by the green new deal. Texas relied on approx. 25% green energy for its grid. The cold  wave that came in froze the wind mills; causing a loss of 25%. Normally this would be picked up by the non green power plants( gas, coal, nuke), however, when Texas asked the EPA for a temporary increase in it’s emissions, the EPA said GTH, grab from neighboring states and for that you will be charged 1900/mw compared to 9$. Texas is not setup to do a lot of power sharing, so that didnt work well.

By the time Texas was able to get permission for an increase in emissions, it was too late. pump stations and equipment had already froze. the natural gas pumps could not supply the needed gas for the power plants to increase production, substations were frozen, power lines had issues. And just like that over 4 million people were without power due to green energy.

A cascade failure due to the Green New Deal is what happened.

Now the left is saying that if Texas had more green energy it would have helped? really?

Power systems have to be balanced and not dependant on 1 source. we are not to the point that green energy is sustainable and reliable.

culture of ??fear??

I have a few words for the left.

stop using fear to make everyone else afraid when you, yourself will do things that put you in fear(supposedly)

just heard a report from a liberal that went to fla for the ball game. she was complaining that she was afraid because she saw so many unmasked and enjoying themselves in large groups.

if your so afraid, why didnt you leave and get out of there? no, you stayed and enjoyed yourself. and now that it is done, you use the fear factor to try to make a point and make everyone feel sorry for you. sorry, I dont feel any empathy with you. you had a chance to get out and didnt. this is no more than fear mongering. pushing the narrative. open your eyes folks and learn. if you know someplace doesnt fit your fears, then leave , dont go. if you do go? dont try and make an emotional play to get someones pity.

this whole thing seems driven by fear. when in actuallity, you look and read, its not that bad. STOP THE FEAR CULTURE FOR POLITICS.

 

After The 2nd Failed Impeachment

After the last week there are some points I would like to make.

We have seen where the house and senate are run by 4 people. Pelosi, Schumer, Mcconell, and Schiff.

This last impeachment showed us that the parties are no longer interested in following their oath. They voted to bypass the constitution and the plain wording it proffers. In their anger, In the first vote, they decided that the constitution did not matter. they voted that a bill of attainer could be used against a private citizen. That when the constitutional argument they were using was meant solely to take an official out of the office after a serious legal issue, they disregarded the meaning of it. they disregarded the same argument that all the courts have been using to throw out any election challenge, that of Laches.  y6u see, the only remedy offered under the constitutional law they used was eviction from office, THEN the optional remedy of no longer being able to hold office again.

Article 1 section 3

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

The way it is written, you must satisfy the first before you can do the second. . since President Trump had already left office there was no way to satisfy the first, namely removal from office.

Article 1 secton 9

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

BILL OF ATTAINDER, legislation, punishment. An act of the legislature by which one or more persons are declared to be attainted, and their property confiscated.
     2. The Constitution of the United States declares that no state shall pass any bill of attainder.
     3. During the revolutionary war, bills of attainder, and ox post facto acts of confiscation, were passed to a wide extent. The evils resulting from them, in times of more cool reflection, were discovered to have far outweighed any imagined good. Story on Const. Sec. 1367. Vide Attainder; Bill of Pains and Penalties.
Since President Trump was a civilian at the time of his trial, any finding by the senate would constitute a bill of attainer.

Next point. This trial was not run by evidence, as much as fear and hate. The prosecutions case relied on the members remembering the recent fear they experienced in the overtaking of the capitol building. they made sure to play hours of video showing the break-in and over taking of the building. they presented almost no evidence for what they charged. the prosecution presented a lot of hearsay, news reports, and doctored evidence. they changed the charges mid stream from the events of the day, to include everything from the day Trump came down the elevator. They even added charges in the middle of the trial, saying they were implied. However in any court case you can not charge someone with an implied charge, it must be written out.

Then we come down to the verdict, which clearly was known even before the trial. The members of the senate were told how to vote by their leadership.  The democrats were not allowed to challenge the constitutionality of the charges. All they were allowed is orange man bad.

I do not know what President Trump did to make them so mad and hate him like they do. However there seems to be nothing but hate from the left. It has to be more than he beat her in the 2016 run.  As there was nothing but hate from before he even got off the stairs.

I am pretty sure we are in the midst of a giant cancel culture thing on this election. We are being told that what we saw is not what we saw.  There have been hearings, sworn statements, and even video’s that questioned the election. yet we are told there was nothing. We have a full county of commisioners that are getting away with disregarding the states attempts at verifying the election. And yes, I do understand that our election can influence the world. As the voting system that is being challenged is used world wide, and if proven to “shift” votes instead of simply counting them, it could topple some governments(???Burma???).

At this point, all I am sure of is this is a mess. Our government has forsaken its bible of the constitution. And we have 2-4 people running the country, instead of 457. That the judicial is as corrupt as the legislative, and our executive is a farce. I wish it otherwise. the point we are at??? We maybe at the end or in the very least ripe for takeover by a foreign country. We need to get it right.

Glenn

 

WOMEN AND THE CENSUS

Yes, here is another of those, saw a post and wanted to see something and found out another, posts from me.

Was looking thru the US Constitution again, and found something kinda funny. I will post the relevant articles below, but for now here is a weird thing.

Did you know that the Constitution says that representatives will be apportioned based on the number of whole persons(have to check on the meaning of that later) and that if any man is found to be able to not vote due to crimes and such, the apportionment will be decreased by that number of men not able to vote.

Note it says any man not woman, even the 19th only says that women can vote not that they are counted for representation. I have checked everything that I could and found nothing that gives any change in status for counting representation. So you can have 25k men incarcerated and that would change the number of representatives, but having 1 million women in jail would change nothing.

Here is the 14th amendment (replacing text from earlier in the Constitution)

  1. Representatives shall be apportionedamong the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

and now the 19th

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

 

CENSUS AND THE 19TH AND 26TH AMENDMENTS

Good Day;

There have been questions about putting a citizenship question on the census. After a lot of reading in the constitution, as a constitutional novice, I have come up with a better question that is in accord with the constitution. This question is a simple one that abridges no rights to any group. The question would be, are you allowed to vote in a federal election. This question is actually required by the constitution.  You see the way the constitution says it, you count everyone, and then take out those that can not vote in a federal election. simple huh?

With that being said, I have a question. Did the 19th and 26th  amendments change the 14th amendment? I ask this as with the census fast approaching it is needed to find out the actual enumeration in respect to representation.  I will post the section of which I speak  to help.

  1. Representatives shall be apportionedamong the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

The section in bold is the section in question. As you can see it specifies male citizens of the age of 21.  With the 19th saying women have all the rights  as men, do they not then bear all the responsibilities?  Thus if you loose your right to vote in a federal election, you would then loose the right to have the representation in such an election? Similarly those that are 18 having received the right to vote for their choice of representatives would also loose that right?

My research thus far has alluded no answers to this important question. any help would be appreciated.

Thank you

Glenn

ON THE 14TH AMENDMENT

I am going to copy an article here as a start to the facts. then I will delve into the language and stuff.

From the website the daily signal, authored by hans von spakovsky. titled birthright citizenship: a fundamental misunderstanding of the 14th amendment.

  • What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to such children.

Critics claim that anyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen, even if their parents are here illegally. But that ignores the text and legislative history of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to extend citizenship to freed slaves and their children.

The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.

Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.

But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.

The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.

As John Eastman, former dean of the Chapman School of Law, has said, many do not seem to understand “the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction, which subjects all who are present within the territory of a sovereign to the jurisdiction of that sovereign’s laws, and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the sovereign as well.”

In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.

American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are.

Even in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case most often cited by “birthright” supporters due to its overbroad language, the court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen. That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally must be considered a U.S. citizen.

Of course, the judges in that case were strongly influenced by the fact that there were discriminatory laws in place at that time that restricted Chinese immigration, a situation that does not exist today.

The court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment as extending to the children of legal, noncitizens was incorrect, according to the text and legislative history of the amendment. But even under that holding, citizenship was not extended to the children of illegal aliens—only permanent, legal residents.

It is just plain wrong to claim that the children born of parents temporarily in the country as students or tourists are automatically U.S. citizens: They do not meet the 14th Amendment’s jurisdictional allegiance obligations. They are, in fact, subject to the political jurisdiction (and allegiance) of the country of their parents. The same applies to the children of illegal aliens because children born in the United States to foreign citizens are citizens of their parents’ home country.

Federal law offers them no help either. U.S. immigration law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) simply repeats the language of the 14th Amendment, including the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

The State Department has erroneously interpreted that statute to provide passports to anyone born in the United States, regardless of whether their parents are here illegally and regardless of whether the applicant meets the requirement of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. Accordingly, birthright citizenship has been implemented by executive fiat, not because it is required by federal law or the Constitution.

We are only one of a very small number of countries that provides birthright citizenship, and we do so based not upon the requirements of federal law or the Constitution, but based upon an erroneous executive interpretation. Congress should clarify the law according to the original meaning of the 14th Amendment and reverse this practice.

Originally published by Fox News in 2011

  • Now to read the actual text (not the text they show you in the school books) –
  • All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdictionthereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Let’s break it down. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. What does this mean according to the original framers? the main word to concentrate on is under the JURISDICTION.  Those are the key words. you see to be under the jurisdiction in this case means that you have no allegiance to a foreign land. If you come in to our country and have not declared your citizenship then you are not under our jurisdiction.

The principal authors of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment — Senators Lyman Trumbull of Illinois and Jacob Howard of Ohio — elucidated the meaning of jurisdiction in those provisions. The point was to stress “complete” jurisdiction, as in “not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

When the original framer of this amendment created it, he said it was not for any foreigner, thus the word jurisdiction.(paraphrased) this amendment was originally created to give slaves official citizenship. It was never meant to create what the recent courts have done. Since the recent courts have gone well past the original framers intentions, a new court can over turn.

Now for a little sideways look at the rest of section 1. (going out on a limb in logic here).

According to this…. nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. a foreigner is not entitled to any of the protections of our laws or the protection of life, liberty and happiness. because as you see we have that pesky phrase again.  Or do we? well it might be interpreted like that, but the qualifier ,within it’s, so that means? in the country or territory? I can leave that one up to the lawyers. So you see it is all in the words and their meaning at the time as explained by the people that wrote them.

I am including a link to another article that helps understanding –

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/11/birthright-citizenship-14th-amendment-does-not-mandate/?fbclid=IwAR3etblp2h688lduH34ZbelPVdtgH4mv9G_mPER44hZIsEChESu627o0rqs