Archive for the ‘Liberty’ Category

PostHeaderIcon Why Socioeconomic Systems Fail

Today, I venture to opine on a subject this has been over opined about by people far more qualified to offer opinions than yours truly.

Still, I will offer my own opinions with the hope that my use of simplification and common language might be more palatable than that typically used by the over educated.

In theory, a Free Market, operated in an environment of laissez-faire, is the best, most reliable and most equitable economic model available. So, how could such a system possibly fail? IMHO, partly due to its own accumulated success.

What could I possibly mean by such a silly statement? How can accumulated success lead to systematic failure? Simple, it does so when the economic model (the Free Market) attempts to operate in a vacuum. Said differently, when the economic model operates as if it alone is responsible for long term societal prosperity.

Secondly, this socioeconomic model fails when it is overburdened from without.

Thirdly, a state of “general prosperity” is anathema to those among us who, seemingly unable to control themselves, seek to control everyone else instead.

Still sounds a bit silly, does it not? Not to me.

In the case of the United States of America, a mostly free market economy (what I see as a “free enough” market economy) took a fledgling nation from a condition of national non-entity to super-power status so quickly that it gave us all a mild form of collective whiplash. It also gave us a level of general prosperity never before seen in the world and, by many, thought to be impossible to attain.

Then, almost suddenly, it all seems to be unraveling at the seams.

I have suggested 3 basic reasons for this:

→ Accumulated success
→ Overburdening from without
→ The desire to control acerbated by unbounded greed

Let us now discuss these individually, in simple terms and using common sense language:

Read the rest of this entry »

PostHeaderIcon Convoluted Inconsistencies

In the lengthy comment section of the recent “Iowa Values” post, Chris has made some valid observations about some of my inconsistencies, which deserve a more fulsome response than there is room for there:

I completely understand your viewpoint is strictly based on your interpretation of the constitution as well as your own no doubt studious review of other relevant materials such as federalist papers et al. I’ll not begrudge you your opinion as I for a large part agree. Your even right that in the view as a constitutionalist if your view is correct SCOTUS can’t change that. One thing I am content with is letting the people decide if there is an issue. It appears Iowa doesn’t take your view. It’s possible that farther along the process the citizens of other states will see it more seriously. It’s out there. (I don’t see that happening.) In that case any of the candidates in question will be denied the nomination and the argument will be vindicated. If one of them does win the nomination the argument is defeated and therefore moot.

Well, I certainly am not content with letting the people decide if there is an issue with the Constitution. This is not a democracy. The will of the majority cannot change the meaning of the Constitution either. If folks consider a feature of the Constitution outdated and in need of revision, it has built in mechanisms for its Amendment. As designed, it simply cannot be changed by legislative statute, judicial fiat, executive action, or popular opinion. It means what it says, or it is entirely meaningless, and worth less than the parchment on which it was written.

The simple fact is that the majority of the sheeple in America are too ignorant of the very purpose of the Constitution in our Republic, to be trusted with interpreting the original intent of its 18th century verbiage. Their minds are too malleable by lawyerly disinformation, and susceptible to grandiose concepts like ‘Living Constitution.’ It would seem to me irreverent and rather foolhardy, to decide that since voters are inclined to ignore blatant violations of it, such transgressions don’t really matter.

Read the rest of this entry »

PostHeaderIcon Domestic Terrorist?

I knew it would be a mistake for me to look too deeply into the Oregon Rancher vs. BLM story. I was pretty sure that I would just get pissed off, over another unconstitutional activity of the Feds, which 95% of the sheeple could care less about. Even knowing better, I foolishly followed this link an old friend sent me. Here is Lavoy Finicum, the supposed hot-headed, out-of-town agitator / militia member / ‘domestic terrorist’ from Arizona, whom the government murdered in Oregon last week:

 

It is pretty easy to see why they wanted to eliminate him; and I would bet good money it wasn’t because he was a physical threat to the well-armed jack-booted thugs with badges who ambushed him. I also saw the aerial FBI video, which showed him exiting the car at the roadblock and trudging through deep snow, with his empty hands high in the air, surrounded by cops pointing their weapons at him, before they gunned him down. It just makes me sick to my stomach, because he reminds me so much of some of my good neighbors, when I was a cattle rancher myself in the Sierra foothills. I better shut up now, before I say what I really think… ◄Dave►

PostHeaderIcon Trump Won Iowa!

Leave it to my mentor, Robert Ringer, to get the essence of the event right, “Trump and America Win Iowa Caucuses!“:

Forget what you’ve heard from the media. Donald Trump and America were the clear winners of the Iowa caucuses. And while we’re at it, let’s applaud Ted Cruz and Ben Carson (and maybe even Carly Fiorina and Rand Paul for playing small supporting roles).

Trump, along with the other above-mentioned candidates, gave the middle finger to the D.C. Crime Syndicate that has long had its jackboot on the throats of more than 300 million Americans. Psychologically, it was the same as if they had gone into the RNC headquarters and started breaking chairs and windows and smashing statist politicians in the mouth. It’s been like watching a Dirty Harry movie.

Because of Trump’s refreshing brashness, name-calling, and delicious disrespect for the establishment gatekeepers who are supposed to control everything, America and Americans now have hope. Americans owe a huge debt of gratitude to Trump, because it was he who came out swinging on day one and, even after an attempt to isolate him in the first GOP debate, broke all the rules of establishment etiquette.

I’m talking about rules that have made sure that Demopublicans like Mitch McConnell, Mush McCain, Lindsey Graham, Paul Ryan, et al can always be counted on to support the statist quo. The deal has been straightforward: “Cooperate with us and we’ll continue giving you a significant chunk of the spoils (i.e., money and power).”

Statist quo” – I love it! (Don’t miss the long ‘A’ and ending ‘T’) His premise is absolutely spot on. I don’t see how anyone could argue that the dismal showing for the GOPe candidates would have occurred without Trump in the race.

Read the rest of this entry »

PostHeaderIcon Us Anti-establishmentarians

The last paragraph of Matt Kibbe’s, “The Establishment Took a Beating Last Night” struck a chord with me:

The old rules of politics are quickly crumbling, chief among them the opinions of elder Republican statesmen like Bob Dole. Senator John McCain, no Yoda he is, seems to help Ted Cruz every time he opens his mouth. Not only don’t voters care, any whiff of support from establishment interests now hangs around the necks of candidates like a dead albatross. All of this is shifting power away from D.C. insiders back to the end users — the citizens. Mid-paradigm shift, it’s a messy process. Expect the ruling class to continue to find refuge in their old two-party duopoly. But there’s no going back.

Us anti-establishmentarians need to take care that our disdain for the Washington Machine is firmly anchored in the principles of individual liberty, community-based problem solving, and the disruptive entrepreneurial innovation that is the only path to actually making America great again.

I don’t know how it could be said any better. :) ◄Dave►

PostHeaderIcon Impeachable Offenses

We are getting down to the short strokes on Hillary’s unconscionable security breaches. Friday’s release of more of her e-mails didn’t include: “22 Clinton Emails Deemed Too Classified to Be Made Public.” If the ‘rule of law’ actually reigned in this oligarchy, which we laughingly call the ‘Land of the Free,’ this evidence would land her in Federal Prison. Yet, we all know that it won’t.

To me, the even greater offense revealed in that NY Times article, is that another 18 of them will not be released, because they were between her and Obama, and it is too early to release his records. Really? How does that square with this “Face The Nation” interview 11 months ago?:

This unforgivable lie seriously pisses me off. If we ever get around to that Article V Constitutional Convention, I hope the delegates have the good sense to make it a felony and high crime, for any politician to ever tell a baldfaced lie to the American people, for any reason. They are not required to answer embarrassing or security related questions; but they should never be permitted to outright lie to us – ever. For the POTUS to do so, merely to cover his political butt, should be an egregious impeachable offense at the minimum… if not a hanging offense. Who the hell does this arrogant, lying, horse’s ass think he is? :( ◄Dave►

PostHeaderIcon Denninger on Trump

I have always respected the opinions of Karl Denninger of Market-Ticker.org, “So Post Debate, What Happened?“:

Who won last night’s debate?

Trump. And he wasn’t there.

Who lost? Fox News, which led the “debate” with a cheap shot at Trump. Megyn did herself no favors in that regard, and she had better hope that nothing ever disrupts the media oligopoly (a losing bet, IMHO) as if it does she’s going to find her best and highest calling in Nevada somewhat outside of Clark County.

The program Trump put together, with essentially zero notice, was very nice. It was the best political speechifying and rallying that I’ve seen since I have been sentient enough to pay attention to it. It was so because it was uplifting and yet not promotional for oneself; it was in fact selfless.

Trump instead took to praise other people, to uplift others, and instead of raising funds for himself and his political ambitions he managed to pop up somewhere north of $6 million for veterans with one of those millions being his, personally.

Personally, I didn’t exactly register ‘selfless’; but in comparison to what was occurring three miles up the road, certainly not overtly self-serving. BTW, for those who have not lived in Nevada, Clark Co. is the one containing Las Vegas, and is the only Nevada county where prostitution is outlawed.  😉

Read the rest of this entry »

PostHeaderIcon Cruz’ CFR Connection

I find this astounding… I have often wondered where Cruz’ father disappeared to. As a Christian preacher, he was quite active in promoting his son before he declared his candidacy; but has since dropped out sight completely. Then, why do we hear almost nothing about his wife? I had heard that they met while working on Bush 43’s campaign in 2000; but somehow had the impression she was a meek stay-at-home mom for his two daughters.

Not until the scandal of the so-called ‘loans’ she arranged for him not being declared, did I learn that she was actually a very highly placed banking executive. Now I learn that she is even higher in the oligarchy than that. How many of you conservative Cruz supporters were aware that she is a longtime member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)?

Most conservatives consider this somewhat shadowy outfit to be rather nefarious. Conspiratorial musings aside, one thing is for sure. This membership-by-invitation-only organization is the epitome of a private club for the establishment oligarchy, which oversees the Incumbrepublocrat duopoly. Usually, the final Republican and Democrat candidates for POTUS are both members. They don’t care which one wins, as long as they maintain their influence over either. Needless to say, Hillary is a member.

Have you ever noticed that the same names keep cropping up, in highly placed advisory and ministerial positions, in the administrations of either Party? These influential, supposedly bipartisan, policy wonks are supplied by the CFR. Does the frequency with which so-called journalists jump in and out of government positions confuse you? Most of the influential members of the press are members too. By no means exhaustive or authoritative, Wikipedia maintains a list of “Notable Current Council Members.” Scroll through it and see how many names you recognize. :)

Anyway, back to Heidi Cruz. Do you remember all the controversy about ten years ago, over the plans to create a “North American Union,” consisting of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico? Texas was building an 8 lane superhighway north from the Mexican border that was intended to eventually reach Canada. Mexico was to extend it south to a west coast port.  A new currency called the “Amero,” was to replace dollars and pesos. The borders between the three countries would essentially be eliminated and wide open, similar to the E.U., etc. When made public, conservatives went ballistic.

Read the rest of this entry »

PostHeaderIcon Demographic Apocalypse

We can’t seem to entice much interest in discussing more weighty matters beyond the Incumbrepublocrat kabuki dance; but I’ll try one more time. When I wrote my “Dark Ages II” essay nine years ago – around the time that some of us first met online – much of it was partially inspired by my recently having read Mark Steyn’s, “America Alone.”

He has just posted a thoughtful 10-year followup article on the subject, “It’s Still the Demography, Stupid,” which is well worth reading and pondering:

Ten years ago this month – January 2006 – The Wall Street Journal and The New Criterion published my first draft of what would become the thesis of my bestselling book, America Alone. The Journal headline sums it up: “It’s the Demography, Stupid.” Opening paragraph:

“Most people reading this have strong stomachs, so let me lay it out as baldly as I can: Much of what we loosely call the Western world will not survive this century, and much of it will effectively disappear within our lifetimes, including many if not most Western European countries. There’ll probably still be a geographical area on the map marked as Italy or the Netherlands–probably–just as in Istanbul there’s still a building called St. Sophia’s Cathedral. But it’s not a cathedral; it’s merely a designation for a piece of real estate. Likewise, Italy and the Netherlands will merely be designations for real estate. The challenge for those who reckon Western civilization is on balance better than the alternatives is to figure out a way to save at least some parts of the West.”

Hmm… it seems that I can’t nest quotes, so I will put the passages he is quoting in his recent article in italics. It is well worth going and reading the whole thing anyway. :)

Read the rest of this entry »

PostHeaderIcon Dole on Trump

Or, perhaps more accurately, “Dole Dumps on Cruz.” :)

It would seem that Ted Cruz hurts Bob Dole’s feelings, when he rhetorically asks who remembers President Dole, President McCain, or President Romney in his stump speeches: “Bob Dole Warns of ‘Cataclysmic’ Losses With Ted Cruz, and Says Donald Trump Would Do Better“:

Bob Dole, the former Kansas senator and 1996 Republican presidential nominee, has never been fond of Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. But in an interview Wednesday, Mr. Dole said that the party would suffer “cataclysmic” and “wholesale losses” if Mr. Cruz were the nominee, and that Donald J. Trump would fare better.

“I question his allegiance to the party,” Mr. Dole said of Mr. Cruz. “I don’t know how often you’ve heard him say the word ‘Republican’ — not very often.” Instead, Mr. Cruz uses the word “conservative,” Mr. Dole said, before offering up a different word for Mr. Cruz: “extremist.”

That was perhaps a revealing observation. Cruz is undoubtedly the more conservative; but Trump actually seems more like a Republican.

Read the rest of this entry »

PostHeaderIcon Trump for Caesar?

Wait! Don’t lose your lunch yet. :)

I have been having a delightful debate in the comment section of Robert Ringer’s blog post, “Discovering You’re Sane,” which participants here might appreciate. The exchange, which started as a civil debate on the relative merits of Trump v Cruz, soon evolved into an infinitely more thought-provoking analysis, of the irreversable present state of our nation’s political evolution.

Viewing our situation through the lens of history, particularly the timeline of Rome’s evolution from a republic, into an empire, and its final collapse in the Dark Ages, a poster calling himself “Reality Seeker” offered a perspective I had not heretofore considered:

I’m voting for Trump (despite the fact that I dislike him) because the American Empire needs a caesar. And Trump shall make a far better caesar than Cruz. Although, I must admit, that Cruz’s Goldman, Citi and other inside connections qualifies Cruz as the type of ruthless hypocrite necessary to be caesar; however, he still falls short of the task of running an empire juxtaposed to DT. By the way, the term president has become a euphemism for caesar— FYI— so try and get used to that fact, will ya?

In American history the Rubicon was crossed long ago ( Lincoln did that when he refused to allow state’s rights) and did they teach you that in public school? We’re not going back to an American republic anymore than Rome went back to being a Roman republic — FDR made sure of that. Americans would kill Jesus, again, before they gave up their welfare-warfare empire. So, at this point, in the cycle of empire, the question is not who can return America to a constitutional republic, but, rather, who can better maintain the AM ( American Empire) and keep us from FALLING into what I call The Great Dark Age. Just to be clear: anybody who believes we can actually return the AM to a republic (or even a country of classical liberalism) is living in a dream world. DREAMER! That’s who you are! FYI—there will be no Ron Paul as president or anybody like him— ever. There will be no Thomas Jefferson as president, again— ever. There will be no George Washington — ever. From now on it’s, drum roll and trumpets please, caesar………. Sorry, but that just the way the rise and fall of empires happens…..shit happens.

So pick your caesar, wisely.

I believe that Trump will be a better caesar, because he’ll tax foreign countries more and the domestic population less. DT said that’s what he intends to do, and I actually believe him. That’s just one reason he gets my vote. Trump understands how to make an empire great again. He said he’s going to make the empire great again, and I actually believe him. Ted Cruz —- along with his lovely wife who is in bed with Goldman— shall make Goldman great again— that much I’m sure— but Ted won’t be nearly as good of a caesar as Trump. Trump, trumps them all! He’s going to push — like any good caesar would— for more tribute from the outsiders.

Now, how is that for a dose of reality from its seeker? I find his logic to be sound and uncommonly persuasive.

Read the rest of this entry »

PostHeaderIcon Palin on Trump

This is ‘uuuuuuuuge! “Sarah Palin Endorses Donald Trump, Rallying Conservatives“:

Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor and 2008 vice-presidential nominee who became a Tea Party sensation and a favorite of grass-roots conservatives, will endorse Donald J. Trump in Iowa on Tuesday, officials with his campaign confirmed. The endorsement provides Mr. Trump with a potentially significant boost just 13 days before the state’s caucuses.

“I’m proud to endorse Donald J. Trump for president,” Ms. Palin said in a statement provided by his campaign.

Her support is the highest-profile backing for a Republican contender so far.

“I am greatly honored to receive Sarah’s endorsement,” Mr. Trump said in a statement trumpeting Mrs. Palin’s decision. “She is a friend, and a high-quality person whom I have great respect for. I am proud to have her support.”

I’ll bet he is. :)

Read the rest of this entry »

PostHeaderIcon The Trump Revolution

I have said that my initial interest in Trump, was the hope that he could destroy the GOP wing of the Incumbrepublocrat Duopoly, by running as a third party candidate after they pissed him off. I lost any enthusiasm for the notion, once he signed the GOP loyalty pledge.

Perhaps I was a little hasty. He seems to be doing a fine job of destroying the GOPe from the inside. I imagine that there are already regrets among them that they talked him into staying in their tent. Robert Ringer’s latest post makes the point that we are experiencing no less than a revolution:

This is really what the Trump revolution is all about. DT is a symbol of sanity, so much so that even people who don’t like him are going to vote for him. In fact, when you dissect it more closely, the Trump revolution really isn’t even about Trump. It’s about things like truth … and courage … and straight talk. It’s about people getting confirmation that they really aren’t insane.

Anyone with a lot of money and a high profile could have elicited the same response that DT has been getting from millions of angry Americans, but no other billionaire chose to do what he’s doing. So Trump is the one who gets — and deserves — the credit for starting a revolution. The revolution may or may not succeed against the statist government structure that has been entrenched for decades, but, make no mistake about it, it is a revolution.

People have grown weary of having to deal with the nonstop B.S., lies, and political correctness that come at them from every direction day in and day out. An it’s not just Tea Party Republicans who are angry. A recent poll by Mercury Analytics, a research company with clients that include MSNBC and Fox News, shows that 20 percent of likely Democratic voters would vote for Trump in a general election. Repeat — 20 percent of Democratic voters.

Read the rest of this entry »

PostHeaderIcon Does SCOTUS Matter?

There has been much discussion hereabouts of late, regarding the need for the SCOTUS to legally define the term ‘natural-born citizen’ (NBC), as used in the Constitution. Currently, there is a cloud of legal uncertainty surrounding the candidacies of both Ted Cruz and Marco Robio, because many believe they are Constitutionally ineligible for the office of POTUS. Ultimately, this could only be settled by a SCOTUS ruling, which heretofore they have deliberately avoided making. Multiple lawsuits have already been filed in multiple jurisdictions, and more are planned, challenging their eligibility, in hopes of forcing the SCOTUS to provide a definitive answer to the question.

After over 5 years of research and pontificating on the subject, I am among those convinced beyond a shadow of doubt that neither Cruz nor Rubio qualify as NBC. I have repeatedly stated that I could never vote for either, for that reason. Then, only yesterday, I averred that it was past time for the SCOTUS to do their job and make a definitive ruling on the issue, to lift the cloud of doubt dogging these and future candidates, one way or the other.

That seemed entirely reasonable to me, until Chris asked a very good and pointed question:

BTW I do need to ask. If the SCOTUS finds in favor of Cruz being a natural born citizen would someone that would disagree with the decision accept it and evaluate him on merit equally to others? If not what difference does it make?

Zing! Oh boy… hmmm… now where did I put my navel? :)

After a fair amount of cogitation, my answer is complicated and necessarily nuanced. Let me try to elucidate it.

Read the rest of this entry »

PostHeaderIcon Marco Rubio’s Turn

Under Constitutional law, Marco Rubio is not a natural-born citizen, and thus is ineligible for the office of POTUS. He was born on US soil, to two Cuban nationals, who did not bother to become US citizens until four years later. Thus, Rubio became an American citizen one of two ways. Either he is an anchor baby, under the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment, or because he was a minor, he automatically became naturalized along with his parents.

Any interpretation of NBC that would include Rubio would have to rely on the former, and automatically would include every anchor baby ever birthed here. This would be the case, whether or not either parent was ever subject to the jurisdiction of the US, or the child was born a citizen of a parent’s home country and owed allegiance to it. This, of course, is the very opposite of the intention of our Founders, in establishing the NBC requirement for Commander in Chief.

So, while Cruz is relying on only 1/2 (mother only) of the “jus sanguinis” (right of blood) component of NBC to claim his eligibility, Rubio is relying on only the “jus soli” (right of soil) component to claim his. If one thinks about it, both can’t be right! I submit that neither are, because NBC requires both components (and both parents). Once again, the only way both could be considered NBC, is to interpret that term as simply meaning acquiring US citizenship at birth, by whatever naturalization process or legal interpretation Congress from time to time may approve.

It turns out that another lawsuit, now challenging Rubio’s eligibility, has been filed in Florida:

Read the rest of this entry »

PostHeaderIcon Coulter on Cruz

I was really surprised at the amount of time spent on the issue of Ted Cruz’ citizenship in the debate last night. It was taken seriously, and not laughed off as ridiculous by anyone, even Cruz. Yes, he was prepared for the question and had some good one-liners; but his actual defense seemed to be a continuation of his cavalier attitude. He regards it as virtually incontestable settled law, and only being brought up because his poll numbers were rising. I did not get that impression at all.

Trump repeatedly referenced his Harvard Law professor, Laurence Tribe. It happens that he recently penned a Boston Globe editorial, calling Cruz out for his hypocrisy, while declaring him Constitutionally ineligible for POTUS under his own ‘originalist’ position on Constitutional interpretation:

There’s more than meets the eye in the ongoing dustup over whether Ted Cruz is eligible to serve as president, which under the Constitution comes down to whether he’s a “natural born citizen” despite his 1970 Canadian birth. Senator Cruz contends his eligibility is “settled” by naturalization laws Congress enacted long ago. But those laws didn’t address, much less resolve, the matter of presidential eligibility, and no Supreme Court decision in the past two centuries has ever done so. In truth, the constitutional definition of a “natural born citizen” is completely unsettled, as the most careful scholarship on the question has concluded. Needless to say, Cruz would never take Donald Trump’s advice to ask a court whether the Cruz definition is correct, because that would in effect confess doubt where Cruz claims there is certainty.

People are entitled to their own opinions about what the definition ought to be. But the kind of judge Cruz says he admires and would appoint to the Supreme Court is an “originalist,” one who claims to be bound by the narrowly historical meaning of the Constitution’s terms at the time of their adoption. To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.

Do read the whole thing, it is not very long. That was distressing enough to his legal position; but Ann Coulter has delivered a rather devastating legal analysis, which includes several points that, in all my study of the NBC question, I had not encountered before:

Read the rest of this entry »

PostHeaderIcon Tyranny Redux

Here is a good article by Mike Maharrey entitled, “America Embraces the Tyranny its Founders Fought to Reject.” After a good discussion of our founding, and the differences in our Constitution and that of Great Britain, it concludes:

Even a casual look at American governance today reveals a system having much more in common with the 18th century British model than the one the founding generation forged nearly 250 years ago. America operates under a “living breathing” constitution with the U.S. Supreme Court taking on the role of sovereign.

In 1776, the British Parliament acted with absolute sovereign authority. Today, the federal government rules with that same kind of unlimited power. The federal government determines the extent of its own authority through the Supreme Court. Any limits on Congress or the president are merely theoretical, constrained only by the whims of five out of nine politically connected lawyers. Every opinion of the Supreme Court becomes “part of the fabric of the Constitution.”

For all practical purposes, the federal government today operates without any limits at all. Everything the federal government does and approves is considered “constitutional.”

Even though the founders committed the U.S. Constitution to parchment, judges, politicians and academics have morphed the meaning of words and changed the character of the “supreme law of the land” into something that the framers and ratifiers would scarcely recognize.

Americans won the Revolution, but they squandered the fruits of victory in a quest for government solutions to every problem. Instead of a limited government committed to protecting basic rights – life liberty and property – we have an institution that attempts to control every aspect of our lives.

We have become what our forefathers sought to destroy.

“…politically connected lawyers.” What a deliciously derisive term for the Supreme Court! That goes into my bag of clever aphorisms for future use. :)

Otherwise, there is nothing amusing about this recurring theme that we have already lost our republic, and there is little we can do about it. :(  ◄Dave►

 

PostHeaderIcon Cruz the Canadian

As I have long predicted, the fact that Ted Cruz is not a Natural Born Citizen (NBC) is not going to go away. I can’t be the only principled participant in the past heated debates over the meaning of NBC, to notice that Obama probably comes closer to being eligible for the office of POTUS than Cruz does. Overnight, it seems, it is now being openly discussed everywhere.

Five years ago, I wrote the essay, “Support and Defend,” calling for a halt to the rapid dismantling of our country, by the committed Marxist revolutionary, who had nefariously usurped the office of POTUS. In it, I took great pains to condense my research into the contemporaneous meaning of NBC, as succinctly as possible. For those not tuned into those debates at the time:

There are three ways one may acquire U.S. citizenship, one of which is the “naturalization” process, whereby a foreigner renounces previous allegiances to become an American. For “birthright” natives, we recognize both “jus soli” (right of soil) or “jus sanguinis” (right of blood) citizenship; but the only way to be considered a “Natural Born” citizen is to qualify as both. Please read the following paragraph carefully… at least twice:

We regard those born on our soil as “birthright” natives (jus soli), regardless of parentage; but they may also be regarded as citizens (jus sanguinis) of a foreign parent’s country. We also regard children born to American citizen parents as “birthright” natives (jus sanguinis), regardless of the place of their birth; but if born overseas, they may also be considered citizens (jus soli) by the country wherein they were born. (e.g. “anchor babies” are born citizens of both the U.S. and Mexico). By definition, “Natural Born” citizens are free of such potential divided loyalties, which means they must have been born on our sovereign territory (jus soli), to parents who were both already legal U.S. citizens (jus sanguinis). This legal term specifically means precisely that; it is not a synonym for “native born,” or “birthright,” or just the opposite of “naturalized.” It defines a citizen with no legal ties whatever to any foreign country, who thus could never be conflicted by divided loyalty.

While Cruz wasn’t on anybody’s radar at the time, I did caution:

Read the rest of this entry »

PostHeaderIcon The People’s Pottage

In the comment section of Robert Ringer’s Post on Trump a couple days ago, one Charles Garret remarked:

You are right. This is going to be a wipe out with Trump. I am 85 and we understand Trump. We are fed up with what’s been going on in our government for the last 50 to 60 years.

This elicited a curious reply from an anonymous ‘Guest’:

Based on your name and age I think you will enjoy (or know) Garet Garrett, The People’s Pottage, available online to read for free.

Mildly intrigued, I did a search and found the book available as a free PDF download from one of my favorite sites, the Mises Institute. It was originally published back in 1953, and their blurb stated:

A time came when the only people who had ever been free began to ask: “What is freedom?”

Who wrote its articles — the strong or the weak? Was it an absolute good? Could there be such a thing as unconditional freedom, short of anarchy?

Given the answer to be “no,” then was freedom an eternal truth or a political formula?

The three essays brought together in this book, entitled respectively, The Revolution Was, Ex America, and Rise of Empire, were first published as separate monographs by The Caxton Printers. They were written in that order, but at different times, as the eventful film unrolled itself. They are mainly descriptive. They purport to tell what it was happened and how it happened, from a point of view in which there is no sickly pretense of neutralism. Why it happened is a further study and belongs to the philosophy of history, if there is such a thing; else to some meaning of experience, dire or saving, that has not yet been revealed.

What is Freedom? … Could there be such a thing as unconditional freedom, short of anarchy?” Is this in my current mental wheelhouse, or what? :)

Read the rest of this entry »

PostHeaderIcon Additional Evidence of Dictatorship

The Obama administration announced during a conference call with reporters Monday evening that the president’s upcoming executive order may require somebody selling even a single firearm to obtain a Federal Firearms License.

During the call White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, White House Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett, and Attorney General Loretta Lynch explained the details of the order, which will be announced publicly by President Obama Tuesday at 11:40 a.m. The action, officials explained, would include guidance on how the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives will now determine who is “engaged in the business” of selling firearms under federal law and, therefore, who is required to obtain a license to sell firearms.

Complete article here.

This is a good example of a “law” (dictate) that everyone should simply ignore. This kind of bullying only works when we willingly submit.

Troy

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
Archives
Internal Links
Other Sandboxes
T-Speak
Please also join us here. ◄Dave►