Fools Hate Knowledge

The things to be shared here may be considered controversial by some. The primary reason for them to be considered controversial goes back to my repeatedly shared thought of Thomas Paine: “A long habit of not knowing a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right”. 

Though some would have you believe otherwise, those who constructed the US Constitution did not frame it in complex legal terms designed only for examination by learned attorneys and judges of the higher courts. It was written in plain English, understandable by the general public, and circulated throughout the 13 states for the purpose of gaining popular approval for ratification. Unfortunately, long ago, general interest in the meanings of those simple words have become of less and less concern. This is especially true among those who have supposedly professed to teach those words and others who vow to defend and protect them. The result has been widely accepted infringements on the true protections provided by the US Constitution (see Thomas Paine above).

Without delving into what would necessarily be a lengthy historical background of the founder’s motives for their constitutional wording, let’s look at a specific example. That concern is a thing called “executive action” that we are to accept like foolish sheep. We do so because we do not know better and are fearful of embracing the truth.

Article I, Section 1 of our constitution states:

“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.”

Do we need someone with a political title or lofty intellectual standing to tell us what the word “All” means? That was a rhetorical question.

That next word, “legislative”, has more than three letters in it, so we may need to consult Webster’s 1828 online dictionary. There we find that it has something to do with making laws. We further find that any action that mandates, prohibits or permits specific actions by the people is a law, no matter what else we may want to call it. In the federal government, only Congress has such powers over the people, and those are specifically enumerated.

Moving to Article II, Section 3, there is a requirement that the US President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. This is simple English. There is no wiggle room for creating, modifying, delaying or ignoring the laws that are passed by Congress. The President is ultimately responsible for filling the offices of the various executive departments, but those departments are for the purpose of executing existing law, not adding to or otherwise modifying. There is no allowance for the President or any executive department to engage in the making of laws, just because we rename them “executive orders” or “regulations”. Further, Congress does not have the constitutional authority to confer such power to any other entity.

We have even reached the point of lack of knowledge of the truth that we are now accepting that a negotiated agreement between countries is no longer a “treaty” if we call it a “deal”.

The clamor from those who are offended by this information now arises:

“But look at all the others who have done it!”

… And I say:

“Look at what Thomas Paine said”… and that would be quickly followed by the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson, “A nation that expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of society, expects what never was and never will be”.

 

 

Posted in constitution, education, government, history, liberty, opinion, politics, Presidential Priorities | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Abolition of Private Property

Let’s suppose some guy told you he was going to take something away from you. Then he proceeded to tell you precisely how he was going to do it, whether you liked it or not. Now suppose he began to do exactly what he said he was going to do, and lots of folks encouraged him because he told them he was going to give them some of your stuff.

At that point (1) would you say, “He didn’t really mean what he said, and furthermore, anyone who claims he did must be some kind of a conspiracy kook!”?…  Or (2) would you do everything within your power to stop him?

Let’s just see which one you would choose.

About 15 years or so before our “Civil War”, a couple of guys named Marx and Engels devised a plan for a utopian world society. Of course they saw themselves and people of their persuasion as the directors of that dream world.

Engels produced a written design of that worldwide plan in 1847. It was called The Principles of Communism, concisely stated in 25 principles. It was written in Q & A form. For the purpose of determining your answer to the aforementioned questions, only a few of the principles will be noted.

Principle 14 – What will this new social order have to be like? “… The abolition of private property is, doubtless, the shortest and most significant way to characterize the revolution…”

Principle 17 – Will it be possible for private property to be abolished in one stroke? “No… the… revolution will transform existing society gradually…”

Principle 18 – What will be the course of this revolution? “Above all, it will establish a democratic constitution… “, and, “The main measures … are the following…” …“(i) Limitation of private property through progressive taxation, heavy inheritance taxes, abolition of inheritance through collateral lines (brothers, nephews, etc.)…”

Principle 25 – What is the attitude of the communists to the other political parties of our time? “In America, where a democratic constitution has already been established, the communists must make a common cause with the party which will turn this constitution against the bourgeoisie… “.  Engels had explained that bourgeoisie meant capitalists.

In then Senator Barack Obama’s book, The Audacity of Hope, he shared that Warren Buffett, the second richest man in the world, invited him to discuss tax policy. They spent some time talking about “globalization” and other topics, but Mr. Buffett was particularly “exercised” about Pres. George Bush’s proposed elimination of the estate tax. He exclaimed, “When you get rid of the estate tax, you’re basically handing over command of the country’s resources to people who did not earn it”, that is, the surviving family members. Senator Obama concurred and further complained that the distribution of wealth was skewed and at some point “one has enough”. This might cause one to wonder, at what point would Warren Buffett and Barack Obama allow someone else to distribute their wealth?

As an added note of generally known fact, one of our political parties favors the inheritance tax, and the other does not.

Now, you are free to reconsider the two questions that were originally posed.

 

 

Posted in constitution, education, government, history, opinion, politics, Presidential Priorities | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Question Re Islam

Our local newspaper has, in times past, published letters noting the peaceful nature of the Qur’an, the Prophet and his traditions. Even though such items can be truthfully cited, there seem to be other, supposedly authentic, records that reveal conflicting views.  I cannot speak, read or write the Arabic language.   Therefore, I am respectfully and seriously in need of validation of the sources upon which to base my understanding. If my views of a contradictory nature are the result of invalid sources, those opinions should be open to correction.

First of all, violent aggression practiced by Muslims of the post Mohammed era is historically documented.  Upon the death of the Prophet, violence erupted over leadership of the movement. This conflict continues today (Sunnis/Shiites).  The practice of military conquest also brought about the submission of all of North Africa and achieved success in the invasion of Spain and part of France.  Those conquerors claimed to be acting in the name of Allah and under the auspices of the Prophet of Islam. All of that was accomplished some three hundred years before the first Christian Crusade was initiated.

As for the true expression of the teachings and traditions of the Prophet, again, my sources that appear to be in conflict with the peaceful nature of the Prophet may be invalid. Those reports are supposedly based on the recordings of Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sa’d, selections from the Qur’an and collections of traditions found in the Bukhari.

Brevity will allow only a couple of examples of violence committed during the time of Muhammad.

  • The Prophet directed a siege of revenge against the Banu Qurayzah, a Jewish tribe. Following their surrender, he allowed and participated in the slaughter of all males above the age of puberty.
  • Demeaning poems were published, and the Prophet called for the assassination of the poets. The requests were honored.

Question:

If these records of the actions of the Prophet and the historical records of post Muhammad Islamic  invasions are valid… how can we believe that Islamic immigration is no cause for concern?

I must deflect one retort which has already  been presented to me.

To wit: “Look at the atrocious violence committed by Christians, look at the Inquisitions.”

To which I responded: “You have a point that men have done such things in the past, but I declare that such men do not portray the founder of their faith. Jesus would not allow his disciples to commit violence to protect him from certain death. The only records I can find indicate that Muhammad called for the death of people who hurt his feelings.”

If there is someone who will publicly and accurately convince me that my previously noted records of Islam are false, my opinions are subject to change.

 

Posted in education, God, history, opinion, politics, Presidential Priorities, religion | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Clinton Media

 

A brief peek into the Clinton/media romance.

After serving as President Bill Clinton’s senior adviser, George Stephanopoulos authored All Too Human wherein he unmasked the bias of CBS. He disclosed how Don Hewitt, the executive producer of CBS’s highly rated news program, 60 Minutes, coached both Clintons during the taping of a program that was designed to deflect the political damage of Bill’s affair with Gennifer Flowers. Hewitt even boasted that he had made JFK president and he could do the same for Bill.

During his association with the Clintons, George was fortunate enough to qualify for a $835,000 mortgage on a  $125,000 salary. The loan just happened to be secured through a banker who was admired by Bill.

Hillary thought a lot of George also. As he was leaving the staff, George recalled her private good-bye. After an affectionate embrace, with shining eyes and hands on his shoulders, she said, “I love you, George Stephanopoulos”. George replied, “I love you, too”.

As luck would have it, George found a job with ABC where he steadily rose past others to the position of Chief Washington Correspondent and host of the prestigeous news program, This Week, where he displaced established co-hosts, Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts.

Again as luck would have it, George was fortunate enough to be selected to “moderate” the ABC Republican presidential debate in 2012. There he famously assumed the role of debate participant as he grilled Mitt Romney for more than three minutes over an irrelevant and absurd question which the Democrats just happened to turn into the “Republican war on women”.

Are we to believe that George, ABC and CBS have put away their prior feelings regarding the Clintons and the Republicans and have now become neutral conveyors of the news?

Posted in government, history, opinion, politics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

2nd Amendment Right? Hogwash!

 

Let us consider the opinion of the man most qualified to explain the purpose of the US Constitution, James Madison, as he was attempting to relieve the fears that the proposed constitution would permit the federal government to become masters of the people and the states…

He had noted that being armed was an advantage the Americans possessed over almost every other nation, and then continued…  “Notwithstanding (means regardless of or in spite of) the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe… the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms… Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power… Let us no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.”…

Unfortunately, that long train of insidious measures began at the turn of the 20th century with the National Guard laws bringing the original militia under the control of the federal government. The next step was to teach generations of Americans that the right to possess arms comes from an amendment to the constitution. If you read the preamble to the first ten amendments (bet no teacher or text book ever told you there was one), you will find that they were designed to restrict federal control. They were never intended to be a list of rights the federal government grants to the people.

One more prescient opinion: “A long habit of not knowing a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.”  Thomas Paine

 

 

 

Posted in constitution, education, government, history, liberty, opinion, politics | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Clinton-Trump-Grieving Parents

Let’s look at the recent commotion involving Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump and the grieving parents.

First, Mrs. Patricia Smith held Mrs. Clinton responsible for her son Sean’s death. He had told her that he thought he would die because their security had been reduced in Benghazi even though both the British and International Red Cross personnel had been evacuated due to concern for their safety. More than one request for increased security had been denied, and the anniversary of 9/11 was approaching.

Understanding that Mrs. Clinton held the position of the chief officer responsible for the safety our country’s foreign officials, there are a limited number of alternative responses available for Mrs. C to explain the lack of adequate security in a hostile land which was occupied by elements that would like to do us harm on that particular date.

She could claim lack of knowledge of the amount of security needed. She could claim no one could have done anything that was more appropriate. She could admit incompetence. She could blame others. She could confess that enhanced security was withheld for political purposes. Take your pick.

Further, Mrs. S said that Mrs. C had told her a video incited the attack, even though it was later proven that Mrs. C had immediately told others a different story. The claim by Mrs. S was verified by other Gold Star parents. However, Mrs. C continues to charge that Mrs. S’s memory is faulty. That was a nice (?) way to say that Mrs. S is weak minded or lying.

It seems that no one wants to find any offense toward a grieving parent in the words and actions of Mrs. C, and various news sources have disparaged Mrs. S for expressing her criticism.

Mr. Khizar Khan attacked Mr. Donald Trump under the umbrella of grief for the death of his son, Humayun Khan, who was killed in Iraq on June 8, 2004. Three other presidential elections have transpired since that tragic event. He did not appear on national media to share his grief during those campaigns.

Mr. Khan emotionally expressed his disapproval of Mr. Trump as though Mr. T was somehow responsible for the fate of Humayun.  Mr. Trump has declared Humayun a hero, and is on record as being opposed to the military action that resulted in his death.  Mrs. Clinton voted in favor of that invasion.

It is obvious that Mr. Khan was actually angry about Mr. Trump’s position of a temporary ban on Muslim immigration from countries where violent radical Islam is known to be present. Mr. Trump’s original expression regarding his position may have been too emphatic for some, but it was what it was. He had said that Muslim immigration should be suspended “until we can figure out what the h—– is going on”.

Mr. K incorrectly accused Mr. T of not knowing the US Constitution, ostensibly regarding immigration. He failed to identify the article and section that prevents the federal government from limiting any or all immigration. Such article and section do not exist. Perhaps the inquiring minds of the news media should search Mr. K’s professional profile for additional information that may have motivated his opposition to Mr. T’s position.

Mr. K and all of Mr. T’s enemies accuse Mr. T of “attacking” Mrs. Khan because he said, “…she had nothing to say… maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say”. At least he did not insinuate that she was of a feeble mind or lying as Mrs. Clinton has done regarding Mrs. Smith.

Many people do not know what things have actually been said, and they continue to believe the sound bites blurted by the media and parroted by Mr. Trump’s enemies, Dems and Repubs alike.

Posted in opinion, politics | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Citizen Obama

The US Constitution requires all presidents to make the following commitment before entering office:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

In 2006, then Senator Barack Obama wrote in his book, The Audacity of Hope:

“… I see a certain appeal to this shattering of myth, to the temptation to believe that the constitutional text does not constrain us much at all so that we are free to assert our own values unencumbered by fidelity to the stodgy traditions of a distant past.”

In order to give himself a bit of wiggle room, he continued:

“… Maybe I am too steeped in the myth of the founding to reject it entirely.”

He never explicitly stated which articles and sections he does reject.

It is difficult to defend a position that a person could truthfully and simultaneously embrace these diametrically conflicting declarations.

At this point in history, June 2016, I would not bother sharing these truths if Mr. Obama had not assured us that he intended to remain in the public arena for the purpose of indoctrinating others in his point of view.

 

Posted in constitution, education, government, history, opinion | Leave a comment