Archive for the ‘Debate’ Category

PostHeaderIcon Democracy in UK

Sound familiar?



How is it any different in America? Don’t vote… it just encourages the lying bastards. ◄Dave►

PostHeaderIcon Criminal Arrogance

As usual, Bill Whittle nails it:



…he is right that she really shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it… but; I suspect she will. :(   ◄Dave►


PostHeaderIcon Hail To The Liar-in-Chief

If we are lucky enough for the Obamanation to actually leave office at the end of his current term, the Lame-Stream-Media are determined to replace him with fellow pathological liar Hillary Clinton.


I listened to part of her lie fest yesterday and the reasons she gave for her illegal actions regarding her official email would have been comical if coming from someone less likely to become “leader” of the somewhat free world.

For instance, she used a single email account for both personal and official communications because she did not want to deal with multiple devices. As if a given computing device is tied to one, and only one, email account. Not even a clever lie.

She admits to deleting over 30,000 emails from her account. These included some unknown number concerning yoga routines. Is she insane enough to think anyone believes that this old hag with a butt the size of Texas does yoga? An even less clever lie.

She claims to have complied with the rules by turning over some 55,000 printed pages of emails. How transparent. Not only are all the routing signatures not available on printed copies, these emails cannot be processed by electronic means without re-digitizing them – something that will take weeks or months to accomplish with some unknown introduction of translation errors. This was indeed, clever. If your have something to hide.

Then there is the apparent gap in the emails around the time of the Benghazi fiasco. How convenient.

In a no doubt associated matter, there are those huge monetary contributions to the Clinton Foundation from foreign people and governments which have no business “buying” influence with a cabinet officer who may well become POTUS. But, what should we expect from the wife of an ex president who sold US military secrets to the Chinese. Have you seen photos of their stealth aircraft? Clearly built directly from US plans and specifications.

It is obvious that the Clintons are part of a ruling class in this nation who are above the law. Witness the crimes committed by Bill which, besides the treason with the Chinese, included confessed-to perjury, and probable multiple rapes.

Any nation whose people not only put up with such behavior but encourage it by electing and re-electing the perpetrators deserve the inevitable outcome.

Citizens of an honest nation would be taking to the streets to demand justice. Instead, we allow the criminals and traitors to become rich and treat them like celebrities.

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson

PostHeaderIcon Calling Joe McCarthy

Worth watching and pondering:


If you don’t know Trevor Loudon, you should:

We tend to be myopically focused on Islam these days; but I reckon it is a mistake to ignore this message. When one thinks about it, whether the Obamessiah is or is not a Muslim, the evidence from reading his own autobiographies overwhelmingly suggests he is a committed Marxist. As Loudon points out, he could not get a security clearance to clean the toilets on an American military base! Joe McCarthy must be spinning in his grave… ◄Dave►

PostHeaderIcon Free Speech on Campus

I can’t think of anything that needs to be added to this indictment:



…but I sure wish college students could be required to watch and absorb it. ◄Dave►

PostHeaderIcon Islamic Hate Speech

It seems like half of the PC arguments these days are over what we should or should not say in regards to uncivilized violence by angry young men screaming “Allahu Akbar.” Whether the Jihadi interpretation of the holy writs of their Islamic religion is correct or not, seems rather immaterial to me. They proudly claim they are acting as righteous martyrs on behalf of their god, as directed by their revered prophet Mohammed. Having done a bit of study of the Qur’an and Hadith, I am inclined to accept that they fervently believe that.

I have encountered countless Christians who believe their Holy Bible is the unerring literal word of their God. That modern enlightened Christians can accept that Earth is exceedingly more than ~6,000-years-old, and that “Creation” didn’t quite go down precisely as written, doesn’t change the fact that untold millions still think the fable is unassailable history. Which of the two camps would have the better claim of authority to proclaim the other is ‘misinterpreting’ Genesis? Now, ask the same of the Muslim Jihadis vs. the so-called ‘Islam is the Religion of Peace’ moderates.

CAIR has just condemned as “Hate Rhetoric” an American politician referring to ISIS as “Islamic Savages” on Twitter, and is demanding an apology. What exactly are we supposed to call barbarians shouting “Allahu Akbar” while decapitating a bound non-combatant prisoner, or immolating alive a helplessly caged POW? How about these rather militant Muslims, who prefer shooting their bound civilian captives:


…are they just misinformed about their glorious religion of peace? How unfortunate for the Infidels they encounter. Savage is too kind a word for these barbarous Islamic marauders. It is often preceded by ‘noble,’ as in ‘noble savage,’ and however they delude themselves, or are cheered on by their coreligionists, there is nothing in the slightest noble about these despicable miscreants.

The term ‘Hate Speech’ has always been curious to me. I think of ‘hate’ as more or less the opposite of ‘love,’ yet intertwined by a close connection of some sort. Generally, one can only conjure the emotion of hate for someone one first loved, or at least knew and cared for in some way. If someone says, “I hate you!” it can only hurt if one somehow values their opinion, and wished otherwise. One can easily be prejudiced against a group or individual, with or without just cause, without hating them. It is perfectly reasonable and rational, to ‘profile’ others and decide one is entirely indifferent to what they may think, and conclude that one has no interest in interacting with them in any way, for whatever reason.

Those considering this view bigoted, are precisely those PC busybodies who rant against ‘Hate Speech.’ I am as indifferent to their condemnation as I am to the outspoken defenders of Islam. Why should I care what they think, when they are so incompetent at it? I could care less what Muslims do to each other in their Middle East sandbox, and frankly I am weary of expending American blood and treasure trying to ‘save’ them from their irrational sectarian squabbles. We should ship them all the guns and ammunition they want, and get out of their way so they can efficiently kill each other, while we are busy turning shale into oil, fracking, building pipelines, and drilling in ANWAR.

I have no reason to hate them; but I damn sure despise Jihadists and their primitive religion. As a Natural Born American, it is my unalienable right to say so, PC be damned. Meanwhile, those Muslims wishing to immigrate here need to understand that we have our own culture, which we like just fine, and a constitutional secular government that is, and forever will be, alien to Sharia law. We don’t intend to change either to accommodate your religious preferences. Assimilate or go find a better country. This one is taken. ◄Dave►

PostHeaderIcon Respectable or Contemptible?

Pat Condell finds no reason to show respect for the ‘faith’ of others, and explains why rather succinctly:

Then, Stephen Fry explains even more succinctly why if the faithful are correct about the existence and nature of their god, it is a monster that in and of itself deserves no respect:

While I completely agree with both of these fellows, I am particularly taken with the elegance with which Fry made his case. The nonverbal reaction of the interviewer to some of his statements was priceless! Too bad the Freedom Torch website appears to be defunct. I would have loved to post these there and observe the reaction of the Piously Correct (PC) crowd that once haunted that forum. A clever poll asking which one made the better case for rational thought, could have been most interesting. :) ◄Dave►

PostHeaderIcon Islam – Straight, Fearless, & Frank

Troy has suggested we engage in a discussion of Islam. To set the tone, I suggest we take the lead from our old friend Pat Condell:



It doesn’t get much straighter, fearless, & frank than that…  ◄Dave►

PostHeaderIcon Calling Things What They Are

Try as I might, I just cannot permanently stay quiet. Its like a pressure builds up in me such that I have to give it vent by speaking (or, in this case, writing) out. Sorry about that.

There is currently much yapping going on the media regarding the Obamanation’s refusal to use such terms as “radical Islam” in conjunction with the ongoing terrorist activities that are spreading like wildfire. The administration would evidently have us believe that a relatively few really bad guys commit these atrocities while falsely claiming to be Muslim, when, in fact, they have nothing whatever to do with the “religion of peace”. A lie so blatant as to be funny, were the consequences not so grave.

Yet, this is not the misnaming I wish to highlight. Instead, I feel that someone MUST bring the obvious into the cold light of truth.

Allow me to begin by offering two definitions, both taken from Yahoo Dictionary:



1. One who betrays one’s country, a cause, especially one who commits treason. (emphasis added by me.)



1. The betrayal of allegiance toward one’s own country, especially by committing hostile acts against it or aiding its enemies in committing such acts. (emphasis added by me.)
2. The betrayal of someones trust or confidence.

You may rightly be wondering by now, what can this fool be leading up to? Simply this. Our president is, by the above definitions, a traitor and guilty of treason. Among other treasonous acts, he has:

1. Released high-ranking enemy commanders, knowing they will likely return to the fight against us. The most spectacular of these acts was the release of 5 top Taliban commanders from the prison at Guantanamo in exchange for a soldier who almost certainly deserted his unit during wartime operations – another obvious act of treason.
2. Withdrawn our victorious military from Iraq at a time, and in such a fashion, as to guarantee the collapse of the government there.
3. Promised to do the same in Afghanistan.
4. Done everything in his power to avoid meaningful attacks on ISIS/ISIL, despite their obvious barbarity and their promise to make direct war on the United States.
5. Done everything in his power to ensure Iran successfully develops and deploys nuclear weapons.
6. Essentially ignored the growing threat to world peace posed by the Russian dictator.
7. Trampled the Constitution he swore to protect and defend.

In the above list, item 1 alone constitutes treason because there is no way to explain how such an act fails to give aid and comfort to the enemy. In a word, it is sufficient for Congress to demand severe punishment. Please remember that treason is the only crime defined in our Constitution.

Why then is there no outcry from the media (including Fox)? Why then is there no outcry from the Congress? Why then is there no outcry from any power base? Simple again. The whole useless lot of them either share the Obamanation’s guilt -or- they are so afraid of him that they are hardly more use than a bowl of quivering Jello. Mostly because any attempt to spotlight his crimes, whether treasonous or Constitutional violations, will open them to the deadly charge of racism. Better that the world’s greatest Republic be absolutely destroyed than that one of these precious idiots be labeled racist!

And, do not expect anything to change because the Republicans are back in control of the entire Congress. The only thing we can really look forward to from that quarter is that social legislation, particularly as affects anti-abortion and “family values” will get a new shot of energy.

The high point of my life is that I was privileged to live in these United States during our finest days. The low point is that I may well live long enough to see it all destroyed.

Where are the patriots that once made this Republic great? Why don’t they step forward and offer themselves for election? A believable patriot that could inspire our people could win the coming presidential election in history’s greatest landslide. If only.

Instead, we can look forward to a battle between liars and losers with it making very little difference which one prevails.

Worse yet, when the final collapse begins, most of us will wail that we had no idea such things were happening.

This nation was designed to be self-governing. That is to say, a nation governed by the combined will of its citizens. If we, the “self-governors” refuse to educate ourselves, refuse inform ourselves, refuse to be meaningfully involved in the governance of our nation, the current mess we are in seems an inevitable outcome.

For the moment, most of us seem to be (literally) fat, dumb and happy. However, not much further down the current road will find us starving, dumb and enslaved. Notice that “dumb” is the constant in this equation.

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson

PostHeaderIcon Thinking About Political Partisanship

As our media constantly assure us, political partisanship in our nation becomes ever more extreme and, often, more viscous with each election campaign. One has only to watch a few political advertisements to realize that this is very true.

The question is why?

That same media supposedly has studied the issue and, although it can make some suggestions, usually somewhat misplaced, they seem not to understand the why of it. Despite all the half-baked guesses coming from the media, the issue of political partisanship seems to me to have a much simpler and more obvious answer than any other issue I have mused over in this space.

It is to me an obvious fact that the more valuable the “prize” in any contest, the harder the contestants will try to win that “prize”. There can be no question that the “prize” in any political contest is power. Certainly, at the elementary level, the “prize” would seem to be the capture of a particular office or position. However, it is the power inherent in that office or position that establishes its value.

So, what has this to do with the extremity and viciousness of political partisanship? Simply this… the greater the size and scope of any level of government, the greater the power (value) of each of its offices and positions. As the power of a government grows, the power of its elements grow in kind, ergo, the value of these elements grows apace – or even exponentially.

This is easily seen in history in conjunction with absolute monarchies or dictatorships where murder and war are regular events involved in capturing one of these offices.

Simple conclusion: if we want less political partisanship and all the undesirable things that entails, we must significantly decrease the size and scope of the various levels of our government. If government were forced back into the bounds established by our Constitution, the primary attraction of public office would be public service rather than personal power and self aggrandizement.

Indeed, it is amazing just how many of our current woes could be reduced, if not eliminated, by that simple expedient. Yet we move in the opposite direction.

Why? Because too many of us are simply ignorant fools. An that ignorance is by our own choice.

Oh – as to why the media seem unable to grasp the simple truth that ever bigger government is ever worse government? Simple. They like big government (ignorant fools again).

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson

PostHeaderIcon The Ferguson Paradox

Like most Americans, I get a daily dose of updates from the front lines in Ferguson, MO. Being me, I can’t help but offer a few comments of my own…

To begin with, let me clearly say that I have no idea what actually transpired between the dead youth and the police officer – and, I suspect we will never know for sure because most of the “witnesses” seem to have viewed the incident through lens distorted by their own personal prejudices, these slanting in all directions.

Next, I highly suspect that officer Wilson will see his reputation, if not his freedom, sacrificed in the name of Political Correctness and “community relations”, just as happened several years ago in the Rodney King case. I cite the King case based on my personal opinion that the opinion of the public (and the original jury that refused to convict the police) was very different based on whether they viewed the entire video tape of the incident or the carefully edited version shown by the major media. The point being that “evidence” can be manipulated to cause differing responses from those considering said evidence.

My next point concerns the notion that an “unarmed youth” was shot multiple times by an armed police officer. I contend that a 300+ pound 18 year-old human body, used in anger, can be a quite formidable weapon, particularly when launched against an older human of about ½ the body mass of the perpetrator.

Then there is the major paradox in the case: This involves the claim, probably often true, that many police are very prone to be especially suspicious of the criminal tenancies of young black males. Now, one can reasonably respond that crime statistics support this apparent attitude on the part of the police. One can also reasonably counter that, if police apprehend young black males in excess, that in itself will tend to generate those very statistics. But that is not the paradox. Instead it is this – in far too many cases like Ferguson, too many members of the black community “protest” their alleged over-criminalization by committing repeated criminal acts – looting, rioting, attacking police and innocent civilians – usually in public and often on camera. Can they not realize that such open and obvious behavior is seen by many fair-minded people as justifying the attitudes and actions of the police?

A second paradox is the climate of fear, caused by black outrage, encouraged by “professional racists like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, discourage the open and honest exchange of thoughts and feelings necessary to sort through and, hopefully, resolve this continuing national tragedy. This is (to me at least) especially distressing at a time when a number of the most powerful political offices, most distinguished scholastic positions, and most lucrative entertainment positions are held by members of the black community.

As I have opined multiple times in this space, the genetic differences between the ethnic groups in this nation are superficial to the degree of being meaningless, consisting almost entirely of environmental adaptations that will one day disappear. The meaningful differences are all cultural. While it may well be slowly changing (for the worse), the most successful cultural model in this nation is derived from that of Western Europe. That culture embodies such notions as education, ambition, perseverance, supportive/protective family units, honesty, integrity. Historically, members of all ethnic groups who embrace this culture succeed, to the extent that they usually achieve whatever they desire in their lives. Sadly, far too many members of the black community, especially in our inner cities, embrace an artificial, dysfunctional culture that knowingly rejects those cultural attributes that reliably lead to success. Sadder still, this phenomenon is encouraged by various political groups who profit from a downtrodden, dependent black community. Saddest of all, the worst offenders in this viscous process are themselves members of the black community. The power to change this lies totally in the hands of the blacks themselves – if they would only realize it.

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson

PostHeaderIcon Helping The Poor

I am having blog-withdrawal problems and must contribute something – however, continuing to point out the myriad wrongdoings of the Obamanation and his administration is boring and repetitive. Add to that the fact that I have lost nearly all passion for things political and I am left with the nearly overwhelming need to say something despite having nothing very inteeresting to say.

Then, voila, last evening I found a subject – although nothing really earth shaking. Congressman Paul Ryan was commenting that after several decades and trillions of dollars spent, US government programs to help those in poverty had not worked. (Imagine that!)

Finally, something to dispute, and from a conservative mouth to boot!
Read the rest of this entry »

PostHeaderIcon Introducing Objectivism

In political discussions, I generally identify myself as a small (el) libertarian, since it is too time consuming to explain what I mean, when I say I am an objectivist. There are, however, profound differences between some of the various schools of libertarianism, and the specific philosophy of Ayn Rand, which she named objectivism. This will serve as a succinct introduction to the subject, to which I can link in future discussions here and elsewhere.

The Ayn Rand Institute has some superb interactive online courses. They just added a short 15 minute introductory course on objectivism, narrated by Ayn Rand herself. It is very well done, and I highly recommend it. However, although it is free of charge, one must enroll in their online university to watch it. While safe and painless, few would probably bother to do so. Thus, the following is the transcript of Ayn Rand’s voice-over, without the visuals:

At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did, as follows:

1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality
2. Epistemology: Reason
3. Ethics: Self-interest
4. Politics: Capitalism

If you want this translated into simple language, it would read:
Read the rest of this entry »

PostHeaderIcon Defund the NPS

I am well aware that we are rapidly approaching the demise of America. If the last five years have not inspired the ruling class to do something to prevent the coming total crash of our economy and bankruptcy of the Federal government, nothing will. It is only a matter of (a short) time before we devolve into civil war/revolution (same thing) and the chances of holding it together until the mid-term election in ’14, much less the chance for a reset in ’16, are almost nil. Thus, wasting any time on anything other than preparing for the inevitable martial law looming on the horizon, is precisely that – a waste of time.

However, I am as prepared as I need to be at my age, so permit me to waste some time (as if we had a viable future), on a rather insignificant issue. On the other hand, if pondering it causes others, who may not be as psychologically prepared for what is coming as I am, to grasp the implications of Obama’s promised ‘civilian security force,’ then perhaps it is not such a waste of time, or so insignificant. I would like to suggest that we start a movement to totally defund and eliminate the National Park Service (NPS).

I am by no means the only one who has been outraged at these wanabe petty tyrants. The obvious relish with which they have been executing their egregious orders, to ‘make it hurt’ the taxpaying citizens, during the quasi-shutdown of the Federal government for the past couple of weeks, is truly disgusting. Somehow, they have lost sight of the fact that our national parks belong to the people, who are only paying them as caretakers and janitors to keep them tidy.
Read the rest of this entry »

PostHeaderIcon Natural Rights Rebutted

After some fruitful discussion on my “Natural Rights Explained” essay, posted here and elsewhere, my blogging partner, Troy, posted his “Natural Rights Refuted” post, neatly dismissing the whole concept. This is my rebuttal to that.

We may be twisting ourselves into semantic knots here, Troy. Suggesting there is no “such thing,” comports with the understanding we had already developed, which suggested that natural rights are ideas, akin to opportunities, rather than things. Yet, as Chris pointed out, ideas are ‘things’ too.

I had been working on the notion that it was sovereignty itself, which was the primary, and the concept of natural rights were mere corollaries of that proposition. Then, the Enlightenment era treatise by Quesnay, suggested that it was the right to pursue one’s own pleasure, which was fundamental and gave rise to the notion of sovereignty, and the other so-called natural rights.

In any case, I entirely agree with your assessment of the intention of Jefferson, et al. That was precisely the point I was making in my original “Sovereign Rights” essay back in ’07, when I interpreted and restated his most famous line about self-evident truths, in the Declaration of Independence, thusly:

“We freeborn Americans are sovereign individuals, each on par with King George III himself, with the inalienable right to live our lives as freemen, pursuing our own happiness, subservient to no one.”

Do natural rights exist? As ideas, they most certainly do. The meaning, validity, and/or effect of those ideas can certainly be fairly challenged; but their existence cannot, and more importantly, probably should not. I think we need to back up and look at the big picture, to assess the whole point of this discussion.
Read the rest of this entry »

PostHeaderIcon Natural Rights Refuted

I have a confession to make – one inspired by friend Dave’s recent articles regarding natural rights. The fact is, I do not believe there is any such thing as a natural right.

Yes, I truly support Mr. Jefferson’s sentiments, expressed in the Declaration Of Independence, that “all men are created equal”. However, I interpret that statement differently than most of my fellow citizens. I believe that what Mr. Jefferson meant, taken in the context of the document in which he said it, is that there is no “divine right of kings”. That there are no special humans, designated and recognized by some deity as having a special, deity-granted right to rule (or tyrannize) other people. One obvious reason this must be true is that there is no evidence of any deity with the authority or the power to grant such a right (actually, this would more correctly be defined as a privilege).

I also support Mr. Jefferson’s contention that all humans have an equal “right” to their lives, to the extent that they can defend their lives; to their liberty, to the extent that they can effectively demand and maintain their liberty; and, to whatever property they can morally and ethically accumulate, defend and maintain.
Read the rest of this entry »

PostHeaderIcon Natural Rights Explained

A typical comment directed at me elsewhere, inspired some cogitation resulting in the following explanation of ‘natural rights':

“What is the point of the constitutional phrase right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness if you can murder babies in the womb? We only have a right to life if we are already born? That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.”

That phrase is found in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, and it was part of the sentence declaring the equality and natural rights of all ‘men,’ not babies, or children, and certainly not fetuses. In our Founder’s time, it probably did not even include women, and for an embarrassingly significant percentage of them, it excluded the entire negro race. Allow me to offer another way to look at this business of natural rights, which may help you make some sense of them.

When Enlightenment thinkers developed the philosophical concept of natural rights, it was in the context of individual sovereignty. The extant paradigm for Western civilization at that time, was that one was necessarily born into servitude, to the sovereign potentate claiming dominion over the territory in which one was born. There were different classes in society, enjoying differing levels of privileges; but all were born subjects of their king, whether serf or gentry. Supported by the clergy, the king had the divine right to rule over his subjects. He could order a subject’s head detached on a whim, and a serf was not permitted to relocate or change occupations without permission.
Read the rest of this entry »

PostHeaderIcon The Defensive Culture War

I am involved in an interesting discussion on a conservative site frequented by Christian fundamentalists. This morning, a fellow named Rich made a comment suggesting that the Left is waging a “war against Christians,” and that political activism by the religious Right, is “most always” to counter that. It inspired me to share a unique perspective I have, as a non-combatant in the culture war raging across our land, who has communicated extensively with participants in both camps. I think it is worth sharing with a wider audience, so it follows:


The tragedy, Rich, is that most of those on the Left think they too, are playing defense. I spent a couple of years back in ’07 and ’08, frequenting freethinker forums, which were mostly populated with insufferable ACLU type atheist activists. There, I essentially played the opposite role that I have here. I referred to myself as a godless redneck heathen, and defended the traditional American culture extant in flyover country. I was as much an enigma there as I am here.

Here, my patriotism and more or less conservative political views, generally resonate; but my lack of faith, and unabashed willingness to challenge Christian dogma, is confusing and consternating to most. There, I passed their godless test; but my unabashed willingness to defend Judeo-Christian culture, and challenge their equally dogmatic Politically Correct ideology, drove them nuts. Thus, I can report with some authority, that they are irrationally afraid of the Piously Correct agenda.

While flawed in their support of government coercion, for the purposes of redistributing wealth for ‘social justice,’ they are fulsome in their support for civil rights for all mankind, and adamant in their insistence that government stay the hell out of their personal lives. In this, I was in full agreement, although I took pains to point out their inconsistencies, and insist that I wanted government to also stay out of my personal pocketbook.
Read the rest of this entry »

PostHeaderIcon WMD versus WID – Death By The Penny Or Death By The Pound

In the ridiculous “debate” now going on between various factions in what passes for a government in this sad Republic (if I may be so bold as to still name it such), regarding our potential intervention in the civil war currently raging in Syria, much seems to hinge on the method by which the victims of that war are wounded or killed.

Indeed, and for some years now, it has been United States policy to cause all manner of international uproar over the fact that nations, other than our own, might have and –shudder– actually use a WMD – otherwise known as a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

In the first place, there is one thing has never been defined to my understanding or satisfaction; that is, how large must a singular act of destruction be in order to qualify as “mass”?

In the second place, by what logic is it somehow worse for destruction to be caused by a singular act that meets the mysterious criteria of “mass” versus the same net amount of destruction being caused by repeated application of WID (Weapons of Incremental Destruction)? After all, did not our very Republic introduce the use of such WMD to end WWII in Asia under the theory that a couple of massive acts of destruction would, in the long run, result in less total damage than the continued application of WID? (Please note that I use the word destruction to describe the destruction of both people and objects.)
Read the rest of this entry »

PostHeaderIcon Proposed Constitutional Amendment #9

(As promised (threatened?) in a previous article, I intend to submit a number of proposed amendments to our Constitution that, in my own judgment, would help restore a Constitutional Republic in our nation. Some of these are my own, some are based on Mark Levin’s The Liberty Amendments and some have been suggested by others).

Repeal of the 25th Amendment

The 25th amendment the the United States Constitution is hereby repealed. All legislation and regulation implemented under the authority of the 25th amendment is likewise rendered null and void.

The 25th amendment was implemented to allow appointment of a Vice President, when such office shall become vacant, rather than rely on the order of succession originally established by our Constitution. The main impetus for the 25th Amendment was that the then Speaker of the House (Carl Albert) was totally unwilling to succeed to the Presidency.

The 25th Amendment has already given us an “appointed President” (Gerald Ford). It also gave us an “appointed Vice President” in the form of Nelson Rockefeller, a person who had repeatedly been rejected by the people in his own attempts to win his party’s nomination for President. Given the assassination attempt on President Ford, the Republic was very nearly subjected to a situation where a person repeatedly rejected by the people would, nevertheless, have gained the Presidency.

Please offer constructive comments as you see fit.

Troy L Robinson

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Political Spectrum
Political Circle

Think Up/Down not Left/Right

Internal Links
Other Sandboxes

Please also join us here. ◄Dave►