Elect Donald Trump, and You Elect the Problem

Elect Donald Trump, and You Elect the Problem

The majority of Americans are furious at the government because the government serves itself, not the people.

Politicians do the will of their big donors – the donor class – not what the voters want.  Unelected "civil servants" rule over the people by arbitrarily defining rules that conform to the liberal agenda – such as forcing nuns to support abortion.

Strangely, Trump supporters think the solution to this problem is to elect a member of the very donor class that has disenfranchised average Americans.

Trump trumpets his history of buying politicians to do what was good for Trump, not for the voters.  Similarly, Trump is unapologetic about using the full force of the government to subject a widow to five years of legal hell in order to stay in her own home.

The reality is that Trump is not the solution to the problem.  He is the problem.

Given that Trump has always used government to his own benefit, why should we think that he's suddenly going to change if he becomes president?

Is it because he's calling for a wall?  Given that he has stated recently that pretty much everyone who has snuck into America would be let back in through that wall, it's unclear what good it would do.  Further, we know from Trump's history that he has no problem with illegals and H-2B visa holders working on his projects, instead of Americans, because it saves him money.

Is it because he's so rich that he doesn't lust after even more?  Anyone who listens to Trump knows that Trump is never happy with what he's got.  Further, many members of the donor class have even more money than Trump, and they haven't stopped buying politicians for their own gain.

Is it because he likes and cares about us?  Well, he apparently liked his first two wives, but that didn't stop him from dumping them when it benefited Trump.  Should we honestly expect Trump to treat us better than he treated his own wives?

Is it because we think he can be trusted?  Well, the folks who lost their hard-earned wages because of his four bankruptcies, while he continued to live in luxury, trusted him, and it didn't work well for them.  It wasn't just the rich whom Trump ripped off; regular folks such as retirees and small contractors were left unpaid.

Is it because he's such a great businessman?  Well, four bankruptcies and his unwillingness to release his tax returns indicate that perhaps his self-created image of business wizardry is about as real as the quality of Trump University.  Trump started out with at least a $40,000,000 inheritance, and if he'd just invested that in stock market index funds, he'd be three times richer than he is now.  Other businessmen like Warren Buffett and Bill Gates have grown their fortunes much faster than the stock market.

Is it because he's supposedly pro-life?  Given that he's just said that the Republican Party should endorse abortion, it's unclear why anyone would think that Trump is really pro-life.  Whenever he speaks off the cuff, his pro-abortion bias is clear.  Whether it's praising Planned Parenthood or saying his sister, who thinks that partial-birth abortion is wonderful, would make a great Supreme Court justice, it's clear that the new Trump is like the old Trump: a pro-abort at heart.

Is it because he supports American values?  Well, he just said that men should be able to use women's bathrooms, and his position on so-called gay marriage is inconsistent.  It's useful to note too that Trump basically criticized North Carolina for standing up for women's rights because it cost the state business.  That might be construed to indicate that Trump's ethics are based more on the bottom line than on a deeply held system of moral beliefs.

To an impartial observer, it would seem clear that Trump is running for president not to be a voice for the average American – whom he has consistently exploited for his own personal gain – but simply to reduce the cost of business by cutting out the middleman: the politicians he currently has to buy.

Let's be clear: if the choice is between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, Trump is the better choice.  Clinton wants to destroy the American defined by the Constitution, while Trump is just out for himself and as such would do less damage to America.

But today, we have a much better choice than the donor-class Trump: Ted Cruz.

While Trump has desperately tried to portray Cruz as an establishment figure, that's simply a lie.  Cruz has been hated by the Republican establishment since he hit the national scene.  While Cruz was fighting the establishment in Washington, Trump was donating money to Hillary Clinton and praising her work as secretary of state.

It was Cruz who pushed the government shutdown so hated by the establishment but which resulted in the Republicans winning the Senate.

Trent Lott and Bob Dole – the establishment incarnate – prefer Trump to Cruz, as does Jimmy Carter.

Can anyone seriously think that Trump isn't a dedicated member of the establishment, given that Bill and Hillary Clinton attended his wedding?

If you want to overthrow the establishment in D.C., you need to vote for a real outsider, Ted Cruz, not for a man who boasts about stealing the government for his own benefit by buying politicians.


Tom Trinko,Joseph F Barber

Chippie let go

Chippie The Chipmunk

My brother Ronnie and I were nothing alike. He was good; I was bad. Curious about everything, I got into trouble constantly, and received many a switching because of Ronnie’s snitching. Occasionally, though, events worked in my favor. Such was the case with his good buddy, Chippie the chipmunk.

Wild creatures interested Dad, and if he caught one, he’d bring it home for a few days before setting it free. Once he brought home a chipmunk and put it in a birdcage.

“Boys, what shall we name him?” I suggested Monk, but Dad preferred Ronnie’s choice: Chippie.

When Ronnie tried feeding Chippie a peanut, it bared razor-sharp incisors, expanded its cheek pouches, glared furiously with beady black eyes, and made threatening chirring sounds.

“Aw, come on, let’s be good buddies,” my brother coaxed, and again extended the peanut, which Chippie swiped at with needle-like claws.

The next day Ronnie removed the cage’s lid and dropped a peanut to Chippie, who gobbled it down. An idea popped into his head … a really bad idea.

“See! Chippie has accepted me as his good buddy. I’m going to ease my hand down and gently pick him up. Then I can hold and feed him at the same time.”

Blessed by Satan with a sadistic mind, I said, “Great idea — that will prove y’all really are good buddies.”

Ronnie slipped on one of Dad’s work gloves, and confident that the chipmunk couldn’t bite through the thick leather, eased the top off the cage and reached toward Chippie, who seemed unperturbed.

As my brother’s fingers closed gently around what he thought was his good buddy, Chippie opened his jaws so wide that it squeezed his eyes shut — and clamped down! Those incisors went straight through the leather and into Ronnie’s thumb.

When my screaming sibling tried to shake loose his attacker, Chippie bit even harder. Jumping up and down and flinging his arm around, he tried desperately to free his hand from the enraged animal.

Finally, satisfied that he had exacted as much pain as possible, Chippie let go. When he did, he and the glove went sailing across the room, knocked over one of Mama’s prized lamps, and thudded ominously into the wall.

Then I heard Dad’s boots clumping up the back steps. I looked at my squalling brother and thought … Oh boy! Your misery has just begun. Dad looked at the empty cage, shattered lamp, and deceased chipmunk, still attached to the glove.

“Which one of you did this?” he roared.

As he removed the dreaded belt, Ronnie begged, “Please don’t whip me, Dad. Look what Chippie did to my thumb!”

His pleas went unheeded, as Dad laid on the stripes. Then we heard Mama wail and saw her glaring at the ruined lamp. Her willow switch picked up where the belt left off.

By the time his punishment was over, Ronnie’s fate was about as bad as Chippie’s demise. Never again did he mention his good buddy, Chippie the chipmunk.

A basic truism of economics is that if you subsidize something you get more of it and if you penalize something you get less

Stand and Deliver - Paul’s Message to Peter

What we learn before we turn eighteen becomes the common sense of our later life. Just as the vast majority of people after careful consideration of all the candidates and the issues end up voting for the same party as their parents so too most people can never break free of the paradigm impressed upon them as they grew up.

Many people repeat the time worn phrase, “Those who don’t learn from History are doomed to repeat it.” As a person who has read and studied History on a daily basis for more than fifty years, one of the major lessons I have learned is that the general public never learn from History, mainly because they don’t read or study it. Perhaps they were spoon-fed a few classes as they meandered through the American education factory but they never tried to do more than memorize enough to regurgitate at the proper time to move on. What was presented was based upon biased agenda of whoever picked the texts and prepared the lessons. The only way to get a broader view is to read and study.

Note how many people can give you statistics ad infinitum concerning their preferred sports team but are unable to tell you the most basic facts concerning American History such as why there were battles at Lexington and Concord, or what was the gun trade and how it impacted the History of colonial America. Americans are woefully ignorant of History; therefore they have no context for the History of the future which is current events. The news of the day is text floating in a vacuum. Remember a text without a context is a pretext. And all the many happenings of the day all become pretexts for the furtherance of the Progressive corporate state.

History forms the seedbed of the future. If we can’t connect yesterday with tomorrow the study of History today is a wasted journey into futility. We might as well read fiction as it is usually better written and more imaginative.

Here is a lesson from History: Socialism doesn’t work. Look at the most spectacular crash of an empire in our lives: the sudden Christmas present to the world of the unexpected evaporation of that great prison house of nations the USSR. Look at the rolling blackouts of Venezuela. Look at the pathetic pictures of a once prosperous Havana now a slum frozen in time. Socialism provides example after example, it just doesn’t work.

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy

Winston Churchill said, “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” Margret Thatcher told us that the problem with Socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money. Ronald Reagan said, “Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don’t need it and hell where they already have it.” The way I see it, once it becomes obvious that robbing Peter to pay Paul is the foundational policy of the State everyone will change their name to Paul.

A basic truism of economics is that if you subsidize something you get more of it and if you penalize something you get less. Using this as a lens, let us look at American society today.

We subsidize businesses that fail. Look at President Obama’s green energy boondoggles. Thirty-four companies that have received taxpayer money are showing us why we end up paying Six hundred dollars for a hammer. These white elephants have either gone bankrupt, they are laying off workers, or they are swirling around the bankruptcy drain.

The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:

1. Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
2. SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
3. Solyndra ($535 million)*
4. Beacon Power ($43 million)*
5. Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
6. SunPower ($1.2 billion)
7. First Solar ($1.46 billion)
8. Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
9. EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
10. Amonix ($5.9 million)
11. Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
12. Abound Solar ($400 million)*
13. A123 Systems ($279 million)*
14. Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
15. Johnson Controls ($299 million)
16. Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
17. ECOtality ($126.2 million)
18. Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
19. Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
20. Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
21. Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
22. Range Fuels ($80 million)*
23. Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
24. Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
25. Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
26. GreenVolts ($500,000)
27. Vestas ($50 million)
28. LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
29. Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
30. Navistar ($39 million)
31. Satcon ($3 million)*
32. Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
33. Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)
*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy. As listed in the Daily Signal.

We penalize success. Our corporate tax rate is the third highest in the world

We penalize success. Our corporate tax rate is the third highest in the world. Because of this many of our most successful corporations are seeking to relocate to other countries with lower tax rates in a practice known as Corporate Inversion. Some stock holders might call that due diligence. Our wanabe Big Brothers call it treason. Our Dear Leader followed his habit of ruling by decree and declared the procedure to be illegal. Afterwards he renewed calls on Congress to pass a law to prohibit the practice putting the cart before the horse constitutionally speaking. We can’t build a fence to keep intruders out, but we can build a legal fence to keep earners in to pay for the very system that is penalizing them for succeeding.

The evidence that Socialism doesn’t work is all around us. The cratered hulks of socialist failure abound. Yet in America today we are told that the majority of Millennials have given up on Capitalism and embrace Socialism. This shouldn’t be surprising. If you receive a trophy for showing up it should not be surprising if you expect a trophy for showing up.

And then we have the phenomenon of Bernie Sanders. An avowed Socialist who has never had a private sector job, never had a steady paycheck until he was in his forties when he was elected to public office, and was even thrown outof a Hippie commune because he refused to work.

Here is this ne’er–do–well who has never created a job, run anything productive, or even held a real job who wants to penalize everyone who works to support everyone who doesn’t, and millions of Americans say yes with their votes and their donations. If you need a visual for passing the tipping point Obama with his fundamental transformation of America, Hillary with her it’s-my-turn-I’m-a-woman-vote-for-me-entitlement attitude and Goldman Sachs paychecks isn’t enough just take a look at Red Bernie and his fellow travellers.

How did it ever come to this? We allowed our educational system to be captured by Progressives who indoctrinated generations of America hating, entitlement grabbing, special interest supporting citizens who have voted for getting more and more and more and willing to contribute less and less and less.

If socialism works, why don’t we just vote ourselves $100,000 a year, free medical, guaranteed retirement at 40, and a home in the Hamptons while we’re at it? Just charge it to Peter, if you can find him.

One final question might frame the discussion nicely, “Who is John Galt?”

War is Not ‘Good’ For the Economy

War is Not ‘Good’ For the Economy

In my last article, I said that some war criminals are equal than others. In case anyone still hasn’t gotten the message, have a look at this article. Evidently, the United States can attack a hospital, which is a textbook-perfect example of a war crime, and then basically get away with it. Again, they basically gave the perpetrators what amounts to a “fix its ticket” as “punishment”. I bet the reason was because the actual order for the attack originated high up in the Pentagon, from guys with heavy political connections beyond the usual shuck-n-jive they’ve got with so-called “civilian leadership”.

You know what? With all the rhetoric coming from various politicians these days, let’s all pause for a moment and give thanks that we live in the most hypocritical nation on Earth. Gee, what happened to “the greatest nation on Earth”, Jack?! That flew out the window right about the time the Pentagon odometer clicked over past 10,000 civilians killed for nothing and the morality warranty was voided. War is not healthy for children or other living things, the poster on the wall once said. Now it says war is good for the economy. Is that so?

Excuse me, but what happened to cars, stoves, bicycles, kitchen appliances, tools, and other durable products we once made here being good for the economy? I’m curious because once upon a time, you could buy an American-made product and it didn’t fall apart in your hands but you could pass it down to your grandkids. I’m at a loss to explain it. At what point did we come to think killing people was a far better way to make money than building them a stove to cook food? Did someone say, “Meh, I just can’t get into this whole farm tractor thing anymore. I’d rather build a robotic death machine that can be programmed to kill everyone that speaks Arabic!” Now, when a crime syndicate kills people for money (because it’s good for their economy), the government jails them. But the government can do this and not only get away with it, but they can pay a whole network of corporations to supply the weapons necessary to carry out those orders.

Speaking of which, there was an article in the paper the other day saying military robots programmed to kill are on the way. Excuse me, but they’re already here. We call them “drones”. Well, and also the “Pentagon brass”, but they’re allegedly semi-human. The jury is still out on that definition. Anyway, they’re trying to establish an “ethical base” and a “target identification” software program so the robots don’t run amok and kill people indiscriminatingly like the U.S. military already does. Or so these robots don’t attack civilian targets such as hospitals like the U.S. military already does. Hey, maybe we better hurry up that software program and turn it into a slideshow for the Pentagon. Of course, this protocol already exists. It’s one of the Ten Commandments: Thou shalt not kill. Oops.

Only the Pentagon would think we need to discover a morality behind appropriate methods to kill people using machines that can decide who to murder based off of a software program. Wow. Can anyone imagine what’ll happen when they get a computer virus? “Well, we regret the loss of innocent life at the Market Square Massacre, but it was a software glitch. But there’s good news! It’s covered under the warranty!” Pardon me while I puke. We’ve gone from building bicycles and stoves to death machines and robot soldiers.

Regardless of what the United States government says, killing other people is wrong. You can disagree with their governments without seeking to violently get rid of them by killing enough of their soldiers and civilians to make that possible. When other countries or terrorists do that to us, we sit here and whine and act shocked and sit there bawling like crybabies over it. Pardon me, but do unto others as you would have them do unto you. When you sit there and demand bombing raids on people that have not so much as let their cats crap in your flowerbeds, why then should you be at all surprised when the killing manifests here and not there as you so desired?

In case anyone forgot, these are human beings we’re killing. Civilians aren’t bulletproof or bombproof. Women, toddlers, infants, grandmothers—that’s who is blown to bloody shreds when you hear “We regret the loss of innocent life…” from the Pentagon. If you see a city park with kids playing on the swings and mothers wiping the mouths of babies, that’s who ends up dead when United States bombers make a little “mistake”. A mistake is when you forgot the mustard at a store and you’re having hot dogs for lunch. Not a bunch of dead kids and moms because you needed to demonstrate some political point none of them actually care about. What, you’re “saving” them? From what? Living longer?

There is an easy way to avoid having to “regret” the loss of innocent life. It’s called minding your own danged business and not killing them in the first place because you inserted yourself into another nation’s business. Excuse me, United States government, but who exactly gave you the right to decide who is or is not the “legitimate” ruler or government of another country? What gave you the right to bomb a flippin’ hospital and then blow it off like you backed into someone’s car at the mall? “Gosh, we’re sorry. But our insurance will cover it…” You guys are swell. I bet that brings great solace to those dead doctors and patients and their families.

War is not healthy for children or other living things. It’s not healthy for anyone else, either. Nor is it healthy for our economy because without it, we haven’t got those stoves and bikes to build instead of bombs and murderous robots we’ll call “weapons”. Watch the U.S. cities fight tooth and nail for the factory to build those robots because it’ll mean jobs to help their local “economy”. War is not good for the economy. It causes our economy to be enslaved to it like some horrific economic Mameluk. Right, war is good for the economy. That’ll bring solace to the man who lost his beloved wife in a U.S. bombing raid. Hey, you lost the love of your life, but you’re free now, right? Or the mother burying her kids, will she see the value of U.S. foreign policy objectives? I say again: These are human beings. They’re not “collateral damage” or whatever. They’re people that are the same as we are. And made in the image of God as we are.

Protest Turns Violent at Donald Trump Rally in Costa Mesa, California

How Many Illegal Alien Criminals Released by Obama Were Involved in Violent Protests Against Trump?

Perhaps it’s just coincidence or simply a matter of bad timing, rather than a vast left-wing government conspiracy against American citizens by an administration known to be openly and bitterly hostile to all things American.

Still, the confluence of events is quite remarkable.

To wit, recent reports indicate that the Obama administration released, rather than deported, thousands of criminal illegal aliens, including some guilty of murder and rape.

This is particularly ironic when considering the fact that violent protestors, many carrying Mexican flags, rioted against Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump in Costa Mesa on Thursday.

As reported regarding the nonsensical release of murderers and other violent illegal aliens:

“U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has revealed that 124 illegal immigrant criminals released from jail by the Obama administration since 2010 have been subsequently charged with murder.

A Center for Immigration Studies report on the data from ICE to the Senate Judiciary Committee added that the committee is not releasing the names of the murder suspects.

“The criminal aliens released by ICE in these years — who had already been convicted of thousands of crimes — are responsible for a significant crime spree in American communities, including 124 new homicides. Inexplicably, ICE is choosing to release some criminal aliens multiple times,” said the report written by respected director of policy studies, Jessica M. Vaughan.”

With respect to the violent protests, as reported:

“A protest outside a campaign rally for Donald J. Trump in Costa Mesa, Calif., turned violent late Thursday night, as the crowd smashed a police car, the authorities closed nearby streets and officers arrested about 20 people.

The unrest erupted outside an amphitheater where Mr. Trump, the favorite in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, was addressing several thousand supporters, according to the Orange County Sheriff’s Department.”

The big, urgent question: Has the Obama administration deliberately released illegal alien killers in order to populate violent anti-Trump riots?

No longer political puritans

The current field of “conservatives” carries the trappings of being Progressive Democrat Lite more than the stormy and tempestuous political Puritans as we might suppose

No longer political puritans

While putzing around with the TV remote, I was afflicted with the Fox News Channel’s attempts to interview Chris Christie. It seems Christie, in his effort to be the “chosen one” the Republicans press forth to tilt at the windmill that is Hillary Clinton, is under fire for “pulling a Jindal” by removing himself from his duties as Governor [of New Jersey]. This places Christie in league with Rubio, Paul, and Cruz as each chases their dreams of ruling over the Washington Autocratic Bureaucracy instead of fulfilling prior campaign promises to serve their constituencies as Senators.

Bobby Jindal initiated the program as governor-in-absentia for the eight years he was in office. In fact, Jindal began his Presidential campaign in 1996 while he was employed by Mike Foster as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals. In 1999 Jindal was named president of the University of Louisiana System; and then appointed by George W. Bush in 2001 as principal adviser to Tommy Thompson, Secretary of the. U. S. Department of Health and Human Resources.
The development of this extensive and well-documented political pedigree is obvious despite his steadfast denials as to presidential ambitions.

Uh huh.

Now Christie, Paul, Cruz, and Rubio are skulking in the shadow Jindal cast. Following Jindal’s precedents, each has managed to repudiate or outright lie concerning devotion to their respective constituencies and the needs of those people. Luke 16:13 says: “No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” KJV [A mammon is a personification of wealth and avarice as an evil spirit. Some would say this exactly describes some politicians.]

So, as we in the “peanut gallery” suffer the roar of the greasepaint and the smell of this entrant crowd of clowns bumbling around beneath the Big Top, we find the circus is the domain of a crippled elephant struggling to surreptitiously advance the agenda of the # already in power. This poorly crafted effort to emulate great performances of the past is now no more than a poorly crafted attempt at mimicry of the opposing party. And nobody seems to understand what they’re stepping in isn’t clover but is more like the effluent left behind by their predecessor pachyderms.

Politicians are at best disingenuous and outright liars at worse. The GOP candidate hopefuls gaining the most attention are a billionaire blow-hard and a retired neurosurgeon. Neither seems to fit the bill of Machiavellian chevalier. The one is as politically adept and as diplomatic as a jackhammer used for a circumcision, and the good doctor simply tells the truth as he sees it. His dignity and humility seem to be the real deal. His integrity appears to prove he’s not cut-out for the political realm—too much honesty.

The current field of “conservatives” carries the trappings of being Progressive Democrat Lite more than the stormy and tempestuous political Puritans as we might suppose. This is largely due to how Progressive politics has been covertly pushed before the people by charlatans seeking self-serving elevation in society by pursuing political office. Enter Jindal, Cruz, Rubio, Paul, and Christie as they promise service and representation to the people who elected them. They then run this marathon of the damned to the finish of their political lives. If you run too much too often (and in our estimation too bloody long) you become the next Harold Stassen, a tired joke from another time. Stassen sought – and lost—the GOP nomination ten times between 1948 and 1992. Today Stassen is remembered as the “Grand Old Loser”.

Well, we now have so many vying for the dubious distinction of “Grand Old Loser” by virtue of their quest for a position that they regularly demonstrate they’re not qualified for now. Our disqualification of them is based on the ever-present fact they can’t keep the promises already made to their constituents. They’ve abandoned personal performance responsibilities to campaign for an office higher than that they sought last.

Does this show integrity? Does this indicate reliability, veracity and steadfastness in office? Or does it present a picture of avarice, self-aggrandizement, cupidity, and a selfish drive to control and dictate?

Shall we elect a replacement president cast in the mold of Barack Obama, a man more interested in fundamentally changing America for the worse; or shall we elect a disingenuous clown soon to fall flat on his face as he trips trying to enter the clown car?

Pay attention. It’s all up to you.

Thanks for listening!

Sarge 

A crisis in American governance “The Court”

A crisis in American governance

“The Court”


This, like any form of commentary is a matter of personal opinion and as such is the moral equivalent of a rectum. Everybody has one and most all of them stink.  The Bill of Rights is a spectacular effort at defining governance and the protections from government and petty tyrants offered the individual. It is stellar in its impact and brilliant in its conception.

So what’s the problem?

We’re steadily assaulted by the Executive branch in their thinking they have specific powers never clearly enumerated in the specificity of the constitutional verbiage used. It’s left open to interpretation by the party overstepping their bounds. In other words, the lack of firmly defined principles in the past has created a crisis in American governance today.

The final arbiter of these problems between the representative legislature and the Executive is supposed to be the Supreme Court. “The Court” is supposed to decide the Constitutionality of any enacted law against the standards set within the Bill of Rights as written. The law is NOT supposed to be defined by the dogmatic harangue of any political party in obedience to its party leaders. It’s supposed to be balanced against the words written and the ideals understood. It’s my belief the Bill of Rights is a document of extreme clarity in its simplicity. It’s meant to protect the individual as a member of a society. It’s meant to define OUR culture as strictly American as opposed to a version of hyphenated, fragmented and potentially abusive ideologies at odds with the American Dream as envisioned by the “Founding Fathers”.

The Bill of Rights and its companion piece, the Constitution, was developed because the writers were only too familiar with the abuses suffered under the rule of the despotic and insensitive King George III. Despotism wasn’t an abstract notion for them. It was reality and they knew the processing of the avaricious nature of man was to subjugate his fellows purely from a stance of superior military numbers and injudicious legislative actions designed to serve the elite and maintain their posture and alleged superiority in fact and practice.

Look at “your” president, (he ain’t MY president) and the Congress composed of millionaires and privileged characters believing they define YOUR rights and are better suited than you to decide your operative present and your proposed future. If you can’t see and recognize their egotistical, self-centered, self-possessed, self-aggrandizement; simply look at their acceptance of one of the most obvious forms of conflict of interest: they write their own paychecks as defined by laws they authored, passed and enforce without the permission of the people of the United States.

Can you do that?

“The Court” is supposed to take law as written and define its constitutionality as it applies to that one individual law. It must ask: “Does this law protect and serve the individual as a member of society?” NOT : how does this OPEN society to accept new and different concepts of “constitutionality”. “The Court” wasn’t meant to be the de facto rubber stamp approval offered for the duration of a politically dogmatic and thus, prejudiced party affiliation. These political affiliations can last decades because placement on “The Court” is for life. (That’s better than many marriages last.)

“The Court” has become a joke in the way it operates. Specific justices say they are the “best” at defining and “INTERPRETING” the Constitution. It’s my stance there should be NO interpretation of the Constitution but rather the application of interpreting the individual law under contest and controversy as it applies to the Constitution. It’s too easy for people (justices) to be influenced by personal interests and beliefs. They’re human. They’re prejudiced as are all people. Their rulings reflect those prejudices and thought processes.

In many cases the Declaration of Independence is mistaken as a Constitution driven addendum to the Bill of Rights. It states in the second paragraph: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness.”

As can be seen, “The Court” (in many cases) decides the constitutionality of any law based on the Declaration of Independence rather than a strict balancing act against the Bill of Rights. Is abortion a constitutional right? Is the Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, Transsexual (LGBT) issue a matter of “constitutionality”? Is marriage defined in the Constitution of the Bill of Rights?

No. Nowhere do you find these issues defined in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Therefore marriage as a social (secular) and/or religious contract is a matter of contract law; not specifically defined by the Bill of Rights. It IS developed under the Declaration of Independence where it says: “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Therefore, I suggest and believe these issues are NOT enforceable by law as constitutional or non–constitutional. They are a matter for the states to decide under the principles of contract law; not Federal law.

“The Court” continually sticks its collective noses in a septic tank and self-righteously proclaims the treatment of some groups stinks. That’s not their job.

“The Courts” job is to weigh enacted law against the Bill of Rights and its amendments. It’s not to produce reasons to be on the cover of Time Magazine.

Thanks for listening

Sarge

NO lone patriot

We don’t need to drive others away because we need to be seen as more important than the people we claim to represent.

NO lone patriot

“You see there’s a difference between class and style. You got class, and I got style. And before we ever get to the courthouse you’re gonna know the difference between the two.” Larry Flynt

It’s always interesting to note how people grow, or cease to grow when confronted by change. I belong to a group of people seeking to enlighten and educate people to the fact liberal agendas are based on specific socialist principles clearly evident and patently offensive to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

When I joined this group we were accessible to our extended membership. We had contact with them through a very good and visible website extolling the virtues of our cause and the variant tactical ideas available to fight liberal, UN driven agendas tending toward the development of “One World Government”. Now we have (some people might say suffer) weekly sessions where the “elite meet, greet and eat” before “discussing” issues pertinent to our cause.

The word “discuss” is misleading because of the position one have taken. He believes because he is allowed the hominem of “spokesman” he alone knows what and how the group’s agenda should be put forth. He believes he alone is permitted to say, and in the manner he alone finds fit, what the organization stands for and wants to accomplish organizationally. He’s done this since the beginning of my association with this group which spans a couple of years now.

I can say at this time he does occasionally hit the nail on the head as it pertains to our problems in this great nation. But his message has turned cliché, time worn, hackneyed and trite. It’s boring and dull minded (as he has alluded to in the case of my being “only a blogger”) to the point of being a caricature of what this group is seen as to whit; “bigoted, angry old white guys”.

Times change. They change with each passing moment and the anger and furor of the past political arena where it’s been witnessed government has slipped its leash once held firmly in the hands of the people. The way and manner used to capture the reality of the outrage felt by us was righteous and honest in its delivery. We wanted to impact the malefactors. We wanted to hit back HARD and with the unmistakable furor and righteous indignation our colonial forebears showed when they protested. They then revolted against the steadily tightening noose the British slipped around America’s neck to strangle all protest; much like we see today.

Alinskyism in action

One of the chilling aspects of this problem is the time when any organization finds its representatives seeking to (in a self-aggrandizing manner) ascend to dominance; not leadership. The low self-esteem of the individual leads him to quote his bona fides at every imaginable moment, so as to assure we understand how important he is to our cause. It’s only his opinion matters. It’s only his 1st Amendment rights exist as he shouts down his colleagues’ thoughts and ideas. Only HE knows what’s right and proper for the nation. He calls this DEBATE when in reality it’s only Argument for the sake of argument.

It’s Alinskyism in action. It’s only the act of a bully seeking dominance. Personally he’s got class; but he has NO sense of style (or elegance) in his delivery of the message to his audience. He’s a sledge hammer being used to crack an egg. It doesn’t always work when you need the yolk for the recipe.

You know him. In the Democrat Party his name is Barack Obama or it could be Harry Reid. His counterpart in my group is known to all.

Our friend, in his efforts to overpower all others, uses Alinskyist Tactics and techniques to assure he moves ahead and his hallowed efforts are recognized as propellant as it concerns our efforts to arrest liberal, pro-UN agenda matters. In his mind he’s the lone Patriot standing tall and self-sacrificingly resolute against all who don’t see it his way. In this he’s dead-wrong.

Others see him as an inarticulate fool railing at the sunset because the darkness encroaches on how he views the world. Nobody can see his brilliance for the sad darkness of his spirit and drive.

This is what’s happening to the Tea Party Movement. Individuals have started organizations and programs they say are designed for our benefit and welfare. But, in reality, have you ever noticed the only time they speak directly to you is when they are trying to misdirect you and pick your pocket for “operating costs”. No matter the reason for the misdirection, whether it be because your poorly developed ego must be assuaged for lack of internal strength; or you’re trying to make millions to be used to pay you and your staff; the result is people are getting ripped off because the organization and/or the individual isn’t honest with themselves or you as colleagues.

This is a warning. If this self-serving bullying bulls#it keeps on keepin’ on; we’ll have no right to challenge and question the government. We’ll be seen as being as bad as our present government is. They’re already attacking the Bill of Rights and subverting the Constitution through Executive Orders serving no purpose but those desired by our enemies.

We don’t need to drive others away because we need to be seen as more important than the people we claim to represent.

Thanks for listening

Sarge 

Agnostic intellectualism

I have yet to witness government offer solutions unless bureaucratic hacks see personal benefits in their ridiculous actions and/or don't suffer the disruptions their inaction and incompetence create

Agnostic intellectualism

I’m a curmudgeon, a cynic, a misanthrope, and a scoffer. I don’t believe in the unfettered altruism of any public servant sucking the blood from the public coffers.

They promote verbal solutions to problems they could instead solve if they simply got off their collective buttocks. Were they living in the real world, they’d be sitting in traffic immediately outside the ivory towers we know as the Department of Transportation and Development, (DOTD) Building and other dustbin collectives of Progressive politics, failing to get the job done while sitting on soft butts and collecting hard money. The fact is, the “NEW” Bridge has been obsolete since the day they cut the ribbon opening it. This is because the motoring public grows DAILY as teenagers obtain driver’s licenses and parents give them cars.

DOTD should’ve been actively planning auxiliary routes (and here’s a radical thought): saving funds for the construction of another bridge to depressurize the “NEW” Bridge in the future. But no—everyone began accomplishing nothing to solve this problem for any motorist trying to get past Baton Rouge to points of civilization east of here. American truckers cringe at the idea of travelling Interstate 10 through West and East Baton Rouge to deliver goods through the only spot in the nation where traffic narrows to a single access lane (eastbound at Washington Street).

Now, DOTD is trying to convince us that spending 3.4 MILLION bucks to develop electronic signage advising us of the duration of our potential suffering, is a good idea. DOTD actually doing its job—planning new roadways and automotive routing, and poking our Congressional slackers and representatives to gain money for actually alleviating the problems—is, it appears, out of the question.

Local council representative Barry Hugghins said: “This is a good example of how dysfunctional DOTD is… [they] waste money to tell people how bad their misery is—I think they already know. I see this more as a sign of desperation that they don’t know what else to do.”

The Advocate’s Terry L. Jones quoted DOTD Spokesman Rodney Mallett as saying: “The network of signs is an important technological breakthrough and is an advancement of the ‘Intelligent Transportation System’ that provides travelers across the state with a lot of valuable information.”


Jones goes on to say: “The La. 1 sign will provide travel times from the sign’s location to the Interstate 110, U.S. 61 and U.S. 190 interchange. Mallett says its purpose is to herd drivers using La. 1 to get to the northern parts of Baton Rouge toward the old Mississippi River Bridge along U.S. 190.” What if you want to go south on I-10? (Crickets chirp.)


According to Mallett: “While the I-10 bridge is over capacity, the U.S. 190 bridge is underutilized.” But what if you want to go east on I-10? (More crickets chirping.)

This last statement shows the level of agnostic intellectualism directing our highway program. The “OLD” Bridge is in the midst of a years-long painting and refurbishment process requiring the closure of multiple lanes at any given time. Whenever traffic on the I-10 Bridge builds, there is an immediate back-up from the “OLD” Bridge to Port Allen. This happens on an almost daily basis.

Mr. Mallett would realize this if he pulled his head from his surveys and statistics and actually tried to exit West Baton Rouge on any day and at any hour after 2p.m. But I do not expect hyper-educated highway engineers to actually drive on highways they do not construct. The new governor (like every past governor before him) has access to helicopters and airplanes allowing him to arrive at political functions without being inconvenienced, thereby conveniently avoiding learning of situations and circumstances which disrupt taxpayers’ lives.

Alas, we have but ONE voice expressing our discomfort with the way DOTD wastes our time and money—that of Barry Hugghins, who says: “They’re going to spend [money] on a sign that’s not going to move anybody anywhere but tell them how bad their problem is? If you were a fiction writer, you’d have trouble making up this kind of stuff.”

Chris “Fish” Kershaw, our other councilman, issued his apologia to the throne of big government by contributing this pearl: “I work in Baton Rouge; I’m going over the bridge almost every day. If you tell me it’s going to be an hour to get to work, I’m probably going to turn around, go home and call in and tell my employer I’m going to come in later.”

Isn’t that special? Unfortunately, not everyone has such understanding employers. Many of us are docked for not being on the job. Some of us could be suspended or fired for excessive tardiness or absenteeism. That, Mr. Kershaw, means most people in this cruddy economy. And—surprise! surprise!—we are the people who are travelling across the “NEW” Bridge when it breaks down, almost without fail, DAILY.

Riley “PeeWee” Berthelot, our Parish President and one of the few people to advocate for sensible re-routing of traffic around the problem, said: “The money they’re spending ... looks like we could have come up with some better solutions.”

I have yet to witness government offer solutions unless bureaucratic hacks see personal benefits in their ridiculous actions and/or don’t suffer the disruptions their inaction and incompetence create.

Let’s rent a dump truck and place everybody, from the governor down through the DOTD hierarchy, in the uncovered bed of that truck on a nice summer day so they can bake under a hot sun in stagnating, motionless congestion… or perhaps we could just disconnect the air-conditioning on their publicly financed drive-home vehicles as they sit on the “NEW” Bridge at high noon while stuck behind a lane-closing wreck.

Thanks for listening!

Sarge

Regulations Are the Ties That Bind

It might not have its own government, citizens or flag, but the world’s fourth largest economy has become a force — and a threat — to be reckoned with. What constitutes this mysterious economic might? None other than the $4 trillion in federal regulations imposed by the U.S. government. You read that correctly. If the cost of government regulations were its own country, it would boast the fourth-largest GDP in the world — bigger than the economies of Germany, France, Brazil, Russia, Italy, and the United Kingdom. And it’s just a couple of hundred billion away from matching the entire federal budget.

This bombshell comes courtesy of a new study by the Mercatus Center, which analyzed data from 1977 through 2012 to discover the cumulative costs of regulations (or, more accurately, taxes by a different name). While most studies of the economic impact of regulations have focused on select industries and/or specific regulations, the Mercatus study looked at data across 22 industries.

The picture ain’t pretty.

The study found that regulations, “by distorting the investment choices that lead to innovation, [have] created a considerable drag on the economy, amounting to an average reduction in the annual growth rate of the US gross domestic product (GDP) of 0.8 percent.”

In plain English, if regulations had remained steady at 1980 levels, our economy would have been 25% — or $4 trillion — larger in 2012 than it was. This represents a whopping $13,000 loss per person in just one year. All to ensure every aspect of our lives is compliant with Uncle Sam’s Big Government Guidebook.

Unfortunately, President Ronald Reagan wasn’t joking when he quipped, “Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

Just how many regulations are we talking about? As of December 2015, more than 81,000 pages-worth of federal rules, proposed rules and notices. According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), these pages included 3,378 final rules and regulations, of which 545 affect small businesses. And this didn’t count 2,334 proposed rules.

Regulations have become such a behemoth that CEI created tenthousandcommandments.com, which looks at “the other national debt — the cost of regulation.” (In case you’re wondering, as of last week, 2016 already has 1,001 new federal rules.)

Not surprisingly, the regulatory landscape only grew worse under Obama. As Investor’s Business Daily notes, Obama’s administration foisted 172 “economically significant” regulations on Americans in his first term, and 200 more since, thus far outpacing both George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. And Obama’s rules include things like, oh, the government takeover of the health care industry and the EPA’s coal-killing carbon emissions rules.

It’s little wonder our annual GDP growth has been sluggish at best. So sluggish that in 2013, the Bureau of Labor Statistics called slower GDP growth “the new normal.” GDP growth in the first quarter of 2016 was a woeful 0.5%, the weakest in two years. (It was an anemic 1.4% in the previous quarter.) And Obama is on track to be the only president in U.S. history without a single year of 3% growth on his watch — he’ll be doing well to average 1.55%.

Remember those wondrous numbers while Obama’s sycophants at The New York Times' feature their puff piece in which he “weighs his economic legacy.”

“I actually compare our economic performance to how, historically, countries that have wrenching financial crises perform,” Obama mused. “By that measure, we probably managed this better than any large economy on Earth in modern history.” Go back and read the aforementioned numbers and see if you agree that he “managed this better.”

What’s the solution? For one thing, eliminating thousands of pages of federal regulations. It’s straightforward but hardly palatable to the government elites who believe they’re most qualified to run your life.

Frighteningly, the alternative is the continued growth of the regulatory nation that keeps our economy in chains.