Posts Tagged ‘Constitution’

On Obama, Islam, Trump, and Carson

Posted by Troy on 22nd September 2015 in Current Events, Political

Trump and Carson have fallen off the cliff.  One dared not correct someone who called Obama a Muslim, and the other said he wouldn’t advocate for a Muslim for President.

I think Trump had an excellent retort:  Do you think Obama would defend me if someone said something bad about me?

Hell no.  Of course not.  But I have another issue…so…is being a Muslim a bad thing?  Sounds that way.  If being Muslim isn’t bad, then why would Trump be inclined to correct the man?  The only way this criticism holds any water is if being Muslim is a bad thing.  If the man had said, “Obama is a child molester,” then maybe Trump should say something to correct a maliciously false critique.  Otherwise, why should Trump involve himself?  By now, one believes that Obama is or is not a Muslim.  Nothing will convince that man otherwise.

Then there’s Carson.  He said he wouldn’t advocate a Muslim for President because Islam is inconsistent with American values.  Everyone went nuts.  So…what is consistent with American values?  A woman having to provide 6 eye witnesses to prove rape?  Stoning for adultery?  Stoning for being gay?  Fill in the damn blank on anything related to women?  Their pretty narrow view on Freedom of Speech?  Shall we continue?  Not to mention the fact that we keep getting heavily involved in the Middle East.  Let’s just put that out there.  Their religion requires that they advance Shariah Law.  And their religion also allows them to lie in order to advance Shariah.  Honestly…based on these two facts, how could anyone in their right mind ever vote for a Muslim for President unless they, themselves, were Muslim?  You can’t even judge such an individual on their words or actions because their religion gives one over-riding rule: Advance Shariah by any means possible.  Could it not be that they acted and spoke of tolerance and of Americana just to gain such a position of power to fundamentally transform America?  Just saying.

Ya know what?  The Democrats should run a Muslim.  That’ll show us.  The first Muslim President.  But I guess they prefer words over actions.  Words are cheap and easy, aren’t they?

Carson said he would not advocate a Muslim President.  He didn’t even say that he would ask others NOT to support a Muslim President.  He never said anything regarding if a Muslim COULD run.  Of COURSE a Muslim is ELIGIBLE to run.  Carson just thinks that a Muslim for President would be a mistake.  Anyone being intellectually honest would agree.  Anyone that disagrees is either Muslim themselves or so wrapped up in their worship of tolerance they are not being logical or honest with themselves…or are ignorant on the Koran.  I guess that’s another possibility.  Pick it up and give it a read.  It’ll give you a new perspective on Islam other than what the media is advocating.

Long Live the Constitution!

Rand Paul’s Epic Takedown of John Kerry

Posted by Troy on 3rd September 2013 in Current Events, Political

Thank you, Rand Paul.  You seem to be the only person in the government that actually cares about the Constitution.  Here’s a question for all of you peeps that say that the President can send our forces where ever, whenever.  If Canada fired some missiles into New York City, do you think we would buy it if they said, “Oh!  We didn’t declare war on you.  Our Prime Minister can just has the ability to do whatever he wants.”  Or do you think we would have the same caviler attitude if Obama was talking about shooting off some missiles into China for their numerous human rights abuse?  We are supposed to be outraged by the use of chemical weapons, but what is the difference between that and the human rights abuses of China?  The starving of citizens in North Korea?  All of the warlords and massacres throughout Africa and the Middle East?  Why do we seem to be so willing to get involved in this particular conflict and not any of the others?  1,400 people have died from chemical warfare.  Where was Obama’s outrage while 100,000 were slaughtered while he was busy pushing gun control and all his other pet projects?  The answer is that the only reason he cares about this is that he had to open his mouth and lay down this “red line.”  Now HIS reputation is on the line.  He doesn’t care about America’s reputation.  In truth, we should not view our reputation as in line with Obama’s reputation.  Just because you screw up and elect an imbecile for President does not mean you have to back every moronic stance he has.  Why are we determined to have innocent Americans and Syrians killed at our hands to save Obama’s reputation?  The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war.  Presidents as far back as Kennedy have made the case that, as leader of the military, they can do whatever they want.  The fact of the matter is that an act of war is defacto declaring war.  Don’t believe me?  Have Obama throw a tomahawk down in China and try to explain the subtle differences to the Chinese.  It is clear from anyone that’s read the Federalist Papers, as Rand Paul obviously has, that Congress is supposed to declare war first before our forces are moved into foreign countries.  There is no upside at this point.  We can look like we chickened out or we can risk material and lives in war.  Obama can say that this is some sort of limited engagement, but will he still say the same thing if Russia sinks one of our war ships?  This situation is perilous and could drag us deeper into a bigger war.  And for what?  To help install Al Qaeda related forces to power?  Is that our big win then?  The other option is that the engagement is going to be so limited that it won’t accomplish anything at all.  If so, why do it?  If you’re not willing to actually fight a war, don’t fight it.  If you’re not willing to put boots on the ground and actually win the war, don’t fight it.  It’s that simple.

Long Live the Constitution!

Proposed Unconstitutional Moves

Posted by Troy on 9th January 2013 in Current Events, Political

In response to the issues facing us today, some people are proposing broad, unrestrained, executive power as the solution.  In layman’s terms, turning the President into a dictator.  Here are some of the suggestions:

1)  For the debt limit – Let’s just mint a one trillion dollar platinum coin.  This would be used to pay off the debt.  Wow, yeah, the rest of the world couldn’t figure out that this is the same as printing one trillion more dollar bills and paying off debt, monetizing the debt.  Peachy.

2)  For the debt limit – Give the President the power under the Fourteenth Amendment to raise the debt limit as he sees fit.  I still don’t understand what interpretation supports this.  Congress has control over all spending.  That includes the debt limit.

3) Gun control – Use some sort of executive order to work around Congress to counter a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

Here’s an answer to all of these tactics.  If he uses any of these tactics, he is acting in direct opposition to the Constitution.  All of these issues are meant to be addressed by the three co-equal branches of government.  Laws are meant to be written and passed by the Legislative Branch, signed into law and enforced by the Executive Branch, and interpreted by the Judicial Branch.  When one branch takes it upon themselves to make, interpret, and enforce the laws, that is the act of a dictator, and he MUST be impeached.  Of course, people are too chicken to say it.  He could burn the Constitution on live TV, and anyone calling for his impeachment would be called a racist extremist.  Oh well, huh?

Long Live the Constitution!

Obama is the Future!

Posted by Troy on 4th September 2012 in Current Events, Political

Well, thank God that…oh wait, I can’t say that.  The Democrat National Convention did their best to carve out any mention of God (outside of the opening 2 hours of Muslim prayer) from their program.  Okay…well, thank whatever then that this is cleared up: Obama is the Future, and Romney is the Past.  Great.  Now we have a…oh wait, no…There’s a problem with this argument…Obama isn’t the Future…He’s the Present.

Sooooooo…how does the Present stack up then?  A mired economy?  A monetary policy that will cause inflation and destroy the US dollar as the world’s currency?  Continual, unsustainable deficits?  Continued unemployment?  Nationalization of the health care system (endgame of Obamacare)?  A tax system that is actually based on “fairness” rather than maximizing revenues to the government?  More and more laws (they may call them regulations, but they’re laws) that are passed outside of the legislative process?  Additional reductions to our nuclear arsenal, making us weaker to our enemies?  Relinquishing our national sovereignty to the UN and other multi-national organizations?  Giving away citizenship to large swaths of illegal aliens, undermining our natural culture (immigration should be controlled to force assimilation)?

Of course, I suppose you could say that he is the Future, and this is the beginning…so, how does that stack up?  Let’s project trillion dollar deficits for the next four years?  Yikes.

As far as Romney being the Past, how many people would like to go back to the past?  The 1950′s were pretty nice in a societal context (minus the civil rights issues anyway).  Would you change this economy to the one from the 1980s or 1990s?   I could think of a lot of good things about the past.

And let me just take a few pot shots at Mayor Castro: This guy is not eloquent.  It IS about drive.  It is NOT about opportunity.  There is NOTHING that will hold someone back if they have the drive.  His drivel makes me sick.  He proposes (like the rest of the Democrats) that the economy rests upon the middle class.  That’s cute considering that this administration has done more to rape the middle class than any other administration in history.  He wants to talk about the opportunities of education?  Students did better in the past with far less “investment.”  Know why?  Because students were scared to death of their parents if they got F’s.  It’s about parenting.  A teacher cannot replace a parent.  I will be on an inner-city youth that is driven to succeed and supported by their parents over a rich kid that wants to party and doesn’t study and who’s parents don’t care.  He wants to say that it isn’t about you, it’s about your kids (the ones that aren’t aborted anyway).  The problem is that you have to do the best you can and raise your kids the best you can to give them that.  You have to have a good job and the drive to succeed to make your child’s life better.  It is not the taxpayers’ obligation to pay for their college.  If you want that for your kids, make it happen!  Make them study.  Valedictorians get scholarships.  And how DARE he invoke the Founding Fathers?  WHAT, WHAT in the Democratic platform would the founders approve of?  Getting rid of God altogether?  Adams would faint.  Inflationary monetary policy?  Hamilton would shoot  them.  Giving up our sovereignty?  Jefferson would be outraged.  Welfare?  Franklin would scoff.  Regulations over the legislative process?  Madison would be bewildered.  Cutting our national security?  Washington would curse.  Abortion?  That’s what they want to harp on…don’t you think any of them would be appalled?  I have NEVER heard a Democrat speak with any actual love for our Founding Fathers.  NEVER.  Have you?  I’m being serious here.  They may praise the First Amendment (excluding the Freedom of Religion anyway), but past that, they have no love for this country as it was founded.  The Constitution is something which is to be overcome, to be surpassed by something better–not amended, replaced.

The Democratic National Convention has shown me a few things so far.  1) Their values are outside what the majority of Americans believe.  They seem to believe that Americans wish to go secular.  They seem to think that Americans want additional debt.  They seem to think that Americans wish to punish the wealthy.  2) Their election is based upon class warfare.  Marx would be proud.  Remember, Obama was raised by Marxists.  They are trying to separate us and get us to attack the rich.  I don’t begrudge the rich for who they are.  I wouldn’t trade places with Bill Gates or Soros or Mitt Romney.  I love who I am.  I love the life I made for myself because it is MY life.  It reflects my values and my choices.  The fact of the matter is that we could all be rich…it just takes a single minded obsession to gain wealth and a certain amount of common sense.  Benjamin Franklin worked three jobs every day from sun up to sun down every single day of the week.  He became rich.  You make more than you spend, and you don’t waste.  Look at what you spend money on.  Most of it is crap you don’t need and really don’t want when you get right down to it.  3)  All they can do is demonize Mitt Romney.  I don’t even know where to begin with this.  4)  ”Hope and Change” has been replaced with “The Future!” or “Forward!”  Forward to bloody what?  Where could this possibly end that is positive?  Seriously, map it out!  Tell me what stupid policy of his is so positive?  Have any of his ideas actually worked out?  Nope?


New Constitutional Amendment Denies Bill of Rights

Posted by Troy on 21st April 2012 in Current Events, Political

On the heels of the Citizens United case, the Democrats are now pushing an Amendment to the Constitution that will deny that corporations (profit or otherwise) have any rights under the Constitution (but Unions, I’m sure, are still cool).  That is to say, that only individuals have rights.

First of all, I would like to point out that the Democrats likely have an issue with Citizen’s United SOLELY due to the fact that corporations tend to favor Republicans.  I have a feeling, if it was the other way around, they would be defending the rights of corporations.

Second, corporations are made up of individuals.  They hire individuals.  They sell goods and services to individuals.  They should have every right in the world to defend their interest as long as they are not giving out false information.  If they are found giving out false information, they should be liable the same as any individual.  Here’s a question for ya: a demagogue launches into a tirade about how a factory is polluting the air and the water and that you should elect them so they can force the factory out of town.  Shouldn’t the corporation have the right to buy ads that show that the candidate has ties to a competing company?  Shouldn’t they be able to defend their interest and point out how the local economy depends upon this factory?  If not, then the demagogue wins, boots out the factory, and the town dies as the economy evaporates.

Third, corporations clearly have rights.  Under the proposed Amendment, corporations would have no rights before the law, to searches and seizures, or to speech.  What about the right to gather peacefully?  We could go on an on.  Clearly corporations have rights.

Fourth, this Amendment could set up a police state scenario.  Since news organizations are owned by corporations, a strict reading of the law would give the government a complete right to censure the news.  This is particularly concerning since the First Amendment states that Congress should make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.

Finally, I would like to point out that I do actually commend the Democrats for actually following Congressional law and trying to get what they want by the Amendment process.  They usually just ignore the Constitution and do it anyway.

The cure is worse than the disease in this case.  The current laws are enough to deal with the situation.  What is the liability for libel which causes someone to lose a Presidential election?  It’s huge.  You have the wages lost during the Presidency, book deals, speaking engagements, and the increased earnings after the job.  A few libel suits of this nature would ruin all but the most massive corporations.

Long Live the Constitution!

Overturning Obamacare is Judicial Activism

Posted by Troy on 3rd April 2012 in Current Events, Political

According to Obama, the Supreme Court overturning Obamacare would be a case of judicial activism at its worst because it was passed by a majority of Constitutionally elected representatives.  This argument is so juvenile it is hardly worth the intellectual expenditure to refute it…but I will anyway.

So if a Constitutionally elected majority of representatives made a law against practicing Islam, that would be cool?  Oh, what about denying blacks the right to vote?  Oh!  What about forbidding Spanish from being spoken?!  OH!  What about a law that limits freedom of speech to English!!!!  oh oh oh!  What fun we could have with this!!!!

How was Obama a Constitutional scholar and not understand the simple mechanics of checks and balances.  Eh, Constitutional law is hard… Hey, Obama!  If you need a tutor, call me up.  I’d be happy to explain it to ya!

Just trying to be helpful.

Long Live the Constitution!

The War on the Constitution

Posted by Troy on 8th February 2012 in Current Events

Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg said that she would not look to the US Constitution if she were writing such a document today.  She believes the Canadian and South African Constitutions are superior to ours since they include references to “Human Rights.”

First of all, what could be more inclusive of human rights than the Ninth Amendment, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”?  I would be very wary (as the Founding Fathers were) of a document that sought to detail what rights belong to you as it also means that any not listed do not belong to you.

Second, she is a Supreme Court Justice who must uphold the Constitution.  She should hold it above all else in this world.  If she does not have such love for the document, she should step down.  Not that I want her to step down at the moment because Obama would only replace her with another anti-Constitution nut job.

Third, if people think that the Constitution is old and would like to have more rights listed or whatever, guess what, they can amend the Constitution!  Yes, the Founding Fathers gave us a way to do that.  The enemies of the Constitution never point out this fact.  The reason they just want to completely trash the Constitution is because they know that their ideas would never have enough support to actually amend the Constitution.  In this way, the Constitution is protecting us in the manner the Founding Fathers intended.

Finally, I would like to point out that the reason we are in all this trouble now is because we have not followed the Constitution since Woodrow Wilson.  The Federal government was meant to only have very limited taxing powers (which would completely prevent corporate cronyism and entitlements), war should only be declared by the Congress (ending the constant wars and “police actions”), and we should only have sound money (ending inflation and the fiat monetary games).

This is just a sign of the war on the Constitution.  When I was young, we were taught to look upon the Constitution with love and to love capitalism and shun communism and socialism.  Now, the media and schools are teaching that the Constitution is flawed and old and that capitalism is unfair.  These are dangerous time.

Long Live the Constitution!

Ron Paul in New Hampshire

Posted by Troy on 10th January 2012 in Political

I will post a link to his speech as soon as someone posts it, but watching this speech will show people why Ron Paul is a serious candidate.  It’s about freedom.  The only reason people like Democrats is because they want their personal freedoms protected.  The reason why people like Republicans is because they want their financial freedom protected.  Libertarians are the best of both worlds without the bad of either.  This is why the establishment fears Ron Paul.  Finally, there is a Libertarian that is showing wide appeal.  I believe Ron Paul will crush Obama–newsletters and all.  I give him my full endorsement.  However, let me clear.  I will support whoever runs against Obama.  If Ron Paul and his supporters cannot secure the nomination, I would not wish for them to try as a third party.  Beating Obama must happen.  If he wins, we are done.

Long Live the Constitution!

Take note how you should rise up

Posted by Troy on 21st December 2011 in Current Events

This story shows the contempt our rulers have for the Constitution and how important the Constitution is to defending our rights.  This also shows why the Constitution is the enemy to those who would attack our freedoms.  This is how you do it.  Network.  Expand.  Convert.

Long Live the Constitution!

Anwar Al-Awlaki Killed/Assassinated/Executed

Posted by Troy on 3rd October 2011 in Current Events

I have always said that American citizens must have Constitutional rights.  So, where do I come down on Anwar Al-Awlaki?

1)  He is a US citizen with full rights thereof.

2)  He was involved with various plots to kill other US citizens.

3)  He fled to another country to escape justice.

Okay, first off, one could make the argument that Anwar Al-Awlaki was either a traitor or actively in a state of war with America.  There are problems with this.  Even if he was a traitor (and he was), Congress still has to find him guilty of it.  That leaves the “State of War” issue.  That one we could argue until we are blue in the face as to what constitutes a war.  Typically, this is between two countries.  However, is it not possible to have a state of war of two nations (nations being a different concept here) such as in the Crusades when all Christians and all Muslims were “at war?”  I think he could qualify as such.  If someone is shooting at soldiers in a fire-fight, do they have to verify which ones are American-born and arrest them?  Of course not.

The fact of the matter is that, even with all this, he should have been arrested and tried.  However, this is idealistic at best and dumb as hell at worse.  What were we going to do?  Invade a country?  Fight a war in which he would probably escape.  Stay there for decades?  Or could we just pop him with a bomb and save billions of dollars and thousands of lives (on both sides)?  Then again, I’ve always been a fan of assassination in war (see my post in defense of assassination).

We romantize it often, but how is this any different than the old west’s “Dead or Alive?”

In this case, I agree with the President.  Bombs away.

Ummmm…Long Live the Constitution?