The "Establishment" Politicians on both sides still don't "get" it!

Perhaps it is because they see any success by President Trump as "Armageddon" to their elite political existence.  I find it hard to imagine that with the myriad professional politicians with elite educational credentials are unable to see the true reason for the election of a businessman with considerable baggage, personally and in business,  to the highest office in the land in preference to a life-long political operative who had so much in common (with, of course, ideological differences) with those on both sides of the aisle.Can they all hold the conviction that Secretary Clinton lost because she was a bad candidate and had at least as much baggage as Mr. Trump?

While it is clear that all professional politicians motives, even as they each deny them, include self-aggrandizement, accumulation of power, money and a sense of an elite status, not one of them seems to have the ability to sense, much less analyze and conclude, that the American voter is fed up with the lying and failure to actually care about the things that the voters who put them in office truly care about.

Some of them seem to think that because they were re-elected even as Mr. Trump won in last November's election they were not seen by the voter the same way that hindsight seemed to indicate those same voters saw Mrs. Clinton.  One wonders if they have any inkling that if in their own races there had been 3 or more choices (including a brash, non-politician) that they might have suffered the same fate as Mrs. Clinton.  Because with very few exceptions, it is clear that such would have been not only possible but likely.

Those of the political establishment have for years...decades, actually...gotten away with making promises that were clearly abandoned as soon as the election results were tabulated.  In some cases it is clear that those promises at the time they were made were clearly lies.

Now that President Trump has held office for almost a year, it has been clear to every citizen capable of voting that every other person elected to the Congress of the United States of America acts to prevent any significant accomplishment by the new President...every one, even those who ran on a Republican ticket.

For eight years, Republicans claimed they had a better way of providing Healthcare in America and were prevented from providing relief for the American people because of the veto threat from a Democrat President...FOR EIGHT WHOLE YEARS!  But once President Trump took office, having promised that when the Republican controlled Congress presented the bill to him, he would sign it...that Republican-controlled Congress failed to pass the promised legislation. That is too egregious to be an oversight, a mistake, or something slipping through the cracks!  They lied.

Meanwhile, the Democrats for the previous eight years had proven over and over again that they also were lying to the American people.  They also were moving further and further to the Left, as they took the side of demonstrators who took to the streets hurting people and destroying property and even attacking, hurting and murdering police.  They claimed such violence was only "sporadic" and that it was all part of "free speech."  Somehow they missed the concept of the guarantee being for the right to avoid prior censorship, but not consequences for what was said.

It is unfathomable that professional politicians do not recognize that the majority of the country see them as the equivalent of an invading, occupying force that holds office through subterfuge and fraud while exercising their power to obliterate individual freedom(s) and control both speech and action.

Clearly, the citizens of this country do see that as the truth, hence the election of President Trump.

Instead of colluding with each other to try to take Mr. Trump down...instead of investigating the election, obstructing real partnership to get reasonable legislation passed...and colluding with a clearly "Leftist" media for the same purpose, they should recognize, admit, and act to prove they are prepared to abandon their lust for money, power, and status by actually listening to and acting on the wishes of their constituents.

If they do not, the next election cycle will see a lot of members of Congress on both sides of the aisle facing challenges from candidates that will make President Trump look like an agreeable teddy bear.  And those candidates will win.

"Open Border" advocates are not "American"

I repeat..."open border" advocates are not "Americans."  Oh, they can be citizens. They can also be citizens of other countries.  But they are absolutely not Americans.

Why?

Because the concept of a country...every country... is that it has borders.  Those borders are definite.  They are defended.  They are enforced.  It is effective borders that make, for instance, Germany different than France, and Italy different from Austria.  If it weren't for borders, eventually the languages would merge, individual traditions would fade and the individual country identifications would fade into oblivion.

Those who advocate open borders for the United States of America ... and for the rest of the world if asked ... are those who believe in a World Order or World Government,

They see no value in the United States Constitution, or any other country's founding documents or beliefs, because it is their intention to create a world-wide unit that will be run by an entity populated by those they consider gifted, educated (by their definition) elites that will direct how the rest of the world's population will behave and live.

Should you doubt this, "google" Agenda 21, read all the basic documents and position papers, then check to see the progress that it has made in various countries of the world and get back to me.

Whether our President was Clinton (Bill or Hillary) or Trump matters little to them except as to the degree either of them would present road blocks to the New One World Order.  Think of it as the German Reich on steroids.

Consider that the United States of America is almost an ungovernable entity as it now exists, thanks to President Lincoln and the Civil War.  And that has nothing to do with slavery.  That is based on the fact that the founding fathers realized that a Republic was an effective and responsive form of government only for a limited area or limited population.  They full expected that as the colonists expanded into the continent and the population grew that new Republics would be formed to retain the responsive self-rule that they so valued.  They full expected those new Republics to create treaties and alliances with the original for the purpose of self-defense, but that each would have a government that would serve the citizens of each respective Republic.  Consider this: at the time of the formation of the Republic, each member of the House of Representatives represented  30.000 people.  Today, each member of the House represents 720,000 people.  To get the same level of responsiveness today, the House would have to consist of over 10,500 people.  Does any sane individual really think that your Elected Representative is influenced by what you...or even you and one thousand of your friends...thinks?  Does any sane person think that this ratio is even in the ball park of ensuring representative government?

But as bad as this is, consider what would happen with a World Government.  Jefferson accurately indicated that eventually government becomes the enemy of individual freedom.

That being so, the question now is whether a sufficient number of our citizens are Americans, and if they are prepared to fight to preserve at least the diluted representative government that we still have.

I don't know the answer...but I suspect that the next decade will reveal the answer.

We have forgotten...

Those on the Left speak of the Constitution as a "living breathing" document.  Under this definition, they declare that it has not only the right, but in the natural order of things, to evolve to be useful to today's United States of America.

This is utter hogwash.  It is an attempt by those who don't like what the Constitution contains, with special emphasis on its limitations of government authority and huge areas not written of, to try to claim authority for their actions today from the ultimate secular authority...the documents founding this nation's government.

Years ago, I visited our Capitol.  I looked at the original Constitution.  It was paper, ... inert.  It did not have a pulse or a heartbeat.  It decidedly was NOT a "living, breathing" document.  Like a contract written today, it says what it says; the clear meaning of the words are easily discernible simply by reading the document.

What no longer exists today is the public's general knowledge of the Constitution and the attitude of those that created it...an attitude largely ascribed to by the general populace of the time.  For whatever reason, today's educational system doesn't teach American History in anything close to a comprehensive manner; ask a young person or a student about the founding fathers and their points of view regarding government and you get blank stares.  Our educational failings have the potential to destroy the America that the founding fathers attempted to create.

The interpretation of the Constitution is NOT an exercise in creative writing or free association mental gymnastics.  Just as with laws written by Congress, it is a matter of looking at the clear and normal meaning of the written words, and supplementing that with a reading of the contemporaneous writings and utterances of those who created and voted to adopt it.  This approach is absolutely logical and does not require a "rocket scientist."

Those of us who were "educated" before students were given equal rights with educators and parents and allowed to dictate what and how they should be taught know just how much antipathy the founding fathers had for government.  They had suffered from the not-so-tender mercies of the English Government, and realized the danger that granting power to any government posed to individual freedoms.  Jefferson said it best, and is most often referenced, when he said that ultimately all government becomes the enemy of individual freedoms.  So...if they disliked government so much, why did they write the Constitution and create another one for themselves?  Does anyone think that they felt that they could do it better and create a ruling body that would be benign and no threat to the people?

They did not!

There was one over-riding reason for creating a Government of the United States of America: to protect it against another nations attempt to take over and govern the people of the colonies.  In other words...to defend the country's autonomy.

All the rest is an attempt to prevent the Government from encroaching on its citizens.  It took no position about individual action regarding other individuals; the founding fathers were concerned with limiting government action that would effect citizens.  Militias were not the creation of the government; people created their own...and that right, with the effect of making hugely difficult any government desire to control the citizens by disarming them, to possess arms and be able to defend themselves against ANY government, including our own if it became the enemy, is right there in writing.  The right to rise up and overcome any government is made clear in our Declaration of Independence and does not have any exception for our own government; all can develop a threat and require revolt.

Read the comments, letters and other documents left by the Founding Fathers, with particular emphasis on those who signed the Constitution.  Their attitude was never about how to give the national government power or how to make it efficient; while one was needed for defense, in all other things it was perceived as a nascent threat to the freedom that has just been won on the battlefield, and the Founding Fathers fondest hope was that the government would practice the art of benign neglect in all areas of the colonists lives with the singular exception of defense of the nation.

Truly, the fears of the Founding Fathers have come to pass.  But the foolishness of a paper document "living and breathing" is just an exercise in creative writing...with the emphasis on creative!  It was the Founding Fathers who were living and breathing...and they were living and breathing the collective fear of just how dangerous government could become to the citizens over which it might develop power.  Their desire was to limit governmental power of citizens.  Thus, they did what they could to make the government inefficient and put in what they hoped would serve as checks and balances.  Unfortunately, those who gain positions of power adopt and adjust, and also connive, to extend power and avoid answering to the people.

If there is any hope of saving the creation that once was the United States of America, the voting public needs to learn...and in some cases re-learn...the attitudes and intent of the living, breathing Founding Fathers.  Therein is the key to understanding our Constitution.

Happy Easter!...Thoughts and Ruminations...

It has been a long, long time since I was a "practicing" anything...so I guess for most people that would make me a CINO in current acronym parlance (Christian in name only).  I am not sure if that is factual, but perceptually I cannot disagree with that moniker.  I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian home, but the idealism of what was taught clashed with the apparent hypocrisy of how people actually lived their lives resulted in disillusionment. The resulting search and study of most of the known religions of the world for "the Truth"  revealed scads of pretenders to that throne, not all of them religious.  But there was one constant theme: do what we say and your life will be better, either here or in the hereafter.  And Islam was downright threatening with it's instruction to convert or kill non-believers; there was no element of invitation or choice there.

This "obedience" thing was and is a non-starter for me.  My mother named me for the eighth disciple of Jesus...Thomas...often known as "Doubting Thomas."  I have no idea what moved my mother to that choice, but I have no question that it was accurate...and I have been both blessed and cursed with that attitude most of my life.  Now I just embrace it as a characteristic like having blue eyes or black hair...neither good nor bad, but a fact.

But, returning to the point, this obedience thing usually involves money, and doing as I am told.  It also involves not questioning either the ultimate destination of that money or the purpose behind the commands...at least not beyond getting generalities, like "helping the poor or deserving" or "to insure your being blessed by God" or the infamous "we know better than you" which occurs most often in political ideologies and is uttered by those in or vying for public office.

So I have turned my back on all organizations, both religious and secular, because when man gets involved in any group activity it inevitably becomes most concerned with controlling others for the benefit of the leadership, ultimately abandoning all but lip service to it's original reason for creation.

What does this have to do with Easter?  Well, it gets back to the instincts within us that exist without indoctrination, training or learning; it involves that "gut" feeling that we all experience when coming across something or someone for the very first time.  When that happens, I always get one of two feelings: either a "wow, that is great", or a "Whoa...I don't like that much."  Of course, we then spend  hours...or days, weeks or years...trying to get our brains to agree, or trying to convince our gut that it was wrong.  But the end result most of the time is that if we follow our gut, we turn out OK.  To me, that is God (or whatever higher power of any kind that you are comfortable with) trying to guide us.

And this morning, my gut turned my attention to the part of the scripture that dealt with God knocking on the door and waiting to be invited in.  And the part of offering...but not ordering... needing to be invited, resonated within me.  It was not obedience to commands as much as it was an offer to reveal choices from which I would have to select that was important...it was that I   was also free to not "answer" the door.

That "aha moment" was, for me, the granting of the ultimate personal freedom simultaneously with the offer of knowledge and guidance beyond the scope of personal experience. No strings attached. No contract. No hypocrisy...well, except for my own.

I learned a lot of things during my search for the "truth" and I have been blessed with much because of it...but in terms of what I thought I was specifically looking for, I did waste a lot of effort and time.  For me only (I am sharing, not proselytizing) the answer was within me, and the only requirement was that I stop and both "listen" and "feel" instead of being so "busy".

One final note on organizations. People should band together to accomplish certain things...but their "organizations" should disband once the initial need is achieved.  If a secondary "need" is seen, form a new organization...do not continue the old one.  Keeping "standing" anything...committees, governments, religions...leads to power struggles and loss of individual freedoms that have little or nothing to do with the original purpose.

The Danger to America is not Ideological...

Jefferson once said, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground."

We have been proving the truth of that statement for almost 235 years now. Mr. Obama's ideal of government isn't to be faulted for it's ideology. That is immaterial. It is not the ideology of government that destroys us, it is it's totalitarian nature.

The nature of government is to control. It eats away at individual freedom, sometimes painfully but often inexorably quiet, taking a small freedom here, an insignificant one there until the individual is left only with the decision of whether to live or die...and even that disappears over time.

It is politically incorrect for the Left to acknowledge openly that they believe in such totalitarian control, preferring to quote the mantra of "the common good"...but ask them who is to define that term. Whether a one person dictatorship, or a dictatorship by committee or ideology or religion, or by any other name...the result is a totalitarian government that eliminates personal Freedoms. And those on the Right argue that small government is the answer....the same logic as jumbo shrimp, it is a logistical oxymoron. It is like trying to be just a little bit pregnant.

I must allow that I believe in a totalitarian government...as long as I was the Dictator, since I believe in the practice of benign neglect. But I lack the desire or the ego to want the job, and everyone else, whether in the form of one person or a group going by different titles, such as Senator or Congressman, is just totalitarian government no matter what it's title.

We allow our captors to focus our unhappiness on the strawment of ideology or religion or form of government, allowing them to continue the business of taking our freedoms and ruling us all.