RSS Feed

Category Archives: #Constitution

Post Script on the Senate Race

Alabama has some pretty convoluted election laws. There is no real need to get into the nuts and bolts, but it makes me angry when these ignorant know-it-alls on talk shows claim an accusation equals an assumption of guilt. Almost every single talking head calls for Roy Moore to step aside. If he did, a liberal, anti-Second Amendment, pro-abortion, anti-tax cuts, pro-Obamacare, Democratic Party Line Voter will be guaranteed the seat with no competition. Write-in votes have very little chance of ever even being counted. When these accusations were made it was too late to withdraw Moore from the ballot and no substitutions could be made.

So, Alabamians are left with a true ethical quandary. Fortunately, we have more information on the facts and the accusers than is reported on the national media. Also, we have finally begun to see more conservative ads challenging Doug Jones on what he claims are his mainstream views and policies but which do not conform to mainstream Alabama views and opinions at all! 

December 12 Alabama voters will decide what to do, not America and not the media and not Washington.

It is a conundrum.
AL.com

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/how_to_cast_a_write-in_vote_in.html
“The Alabama Legislature passed a law in 2016 so that write-in votes are not counted on election day. The law stipulates that write-in votes for a particular contest are not counted unless the total number of write-in votes is greater than the difference in the number of votes received by the first place and second place candidates. If that takes place, write-in votes are counted on the seventh day after the election. If the number of write-ins doesn’t meet that threshold, they are not counted.”
I know people were wondering why every democrat and every media outlet was so helpfully recommending that some trusted Republican be put forward for a write-in campaign, they never mentioned this though!

Advertisements

It Is Long Past Time To Clean Our House…

Why is it so important to prioritize cleaning out the Deep State?    
When AG Sessions was asked about why he recused himself from the current investigation into the possibility of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign during the judicial hearing today, when the investigation was a counterterrorism investigation as opposed to a criminal investigation, his response illustrated the point pretty well. AG Sessions stated that the ethics attorneys in the DOJ did not approach the issue from that particular angle. Why not? I know that every objective rational attorney in the room immediately wondered exactly who those attorneys were.

  •  DOJ-Specific Conflict of Interest Regulation: No DOJ employee may participate in a criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or political relationship with any person or organization substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of the investigation or prosecution, or who would be directly affected by the outcome. 28 CFR 45.2
  • Political relationship means a close identification with an elected official, candidate, political party or campaign organization arising from service as a principal advisor or official; personal relationship means a close and substantial connection of the type normally viewed as likely to induce partiality.

How an investigation is labeled evidently affects the ethics conflict of interest requirement of recusal for the Attorney General in the DOJ. We are all aware of how much of an impact Mueller has made as the Special Prosecutor. I would argue that if the AG had not recused himself he would have either not appointed a Special Prosecutor at all or he would have appointed someone entirely different. It would have been an impartial, independent and neutral party but things would not be in the mess they are now! There was always the ability to conduct this counterterrorism investigation under the current leadership of the FBI. The present head of the FBI, Wray, is not a media hog, is sworn to follow the facts, has nothing whatsoever in his long distinguished and honorable record to indicate any lack of trustworthiness and is held in high esteem by everyone in Washington worth a modicum of respect.

Such a small thing – cleaning the deep state out of our government administrative agencies. The committee member who asked AG Sessions this question should not have been able to catch him off guard. His consultation with the “ethics section” should have analyzed that provision concisely from all angles and then concluded with an opinion. The AG should have been been informed, well aware of the distinction and should have made his own honestly informed un-manipulated decision about recusal in the first place. It was much too important and the repercussions too great for opinionated “deep state” players to be advising!

Mo Brooks Words of Advice

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/mo_brooks_sticking_by_moore_go.html#incart_river_home

Mo Brooks sticking by Moore: GOP agenda ‘vastly more important than contested sexual allegations’

Updated 8:24 PM; Posted 7:31 PM

By Howard Koplowitz 
hkoplowitz@al.com

“America faces huge challenges that are vastly more important than contested sexual allegations from four decades ago,” Brooks said in a text message to AL.com. “Who will vote in America’s best interests on Supreme Court justices, deficit and debt, economic growth, border security, national defense, and the like? Socialist Democrat Doug Jones will vote wrong. Roy Moore will vote right. Hence, I will vote for Roy Moore.”

Moore has been accused by two women of initiating sexual encounters with them when they were 14 and 16 years old and Moore was in his 30s as an assistant district attorney in Etowah County. Moore has denied the allegations, saying the claims are politically motivated.

While Brooks said he would vote for Moore, he declined to say whether he still endorses the embattled Republican candidate. He also would not say whether he believes Moore or the women making the allegations, although he pointed to the Duke University lacrosse case as an example of sex claims that have been proven wrong.
“As a Duke grad, I vividly remember the false accusations against and defamation of the Duke lacrosse team. The players were horribly treated by the news media until the truth finally came out and totally exonerated them,” he said. “As an attorney, I know accusations are easy. Proving them to the satisfaction of a judge, a jury, or here, voters, is another thing. I do not know enough of the evidence to know with confidence what the true facts are.”
Although Moore’s first public accuser, Leigh Corfman, is a Republican who voted for Donald Trump in 2016, Brooks suggested there is plenty of political motivation to make false claims.

“I do believe this, there are millions of people in America who would lie in a heartbeat if it meant adding another Democrat to the Senate,” he said.
The Huntsville congressman earlier told Roll Call that he would be voting for Moore because of policy issues.
“I have seen what a lot of people have said. A United States senator from Alabama is going to have a huge effect on national public policy issues and the votes that will be cast on the Senate floor will determine the future of our country. That is my primary concern,” he said.(emphasis mine-Cat)

Brooks, who was a candidate for the Senate seat in the Republican primary, was ambiguous about whether he would mount a write-in campaign for the Dec. 12 special election. Brooks went on to endorse Moore.
“As long as Roy Moore is our nominee, a Republican cannot wage a write-in campaign, under Alabama Republican Party rules, and be on the ballot as a Republican in the future,” he said.
Meanwhile, conservative pundit Ann Coulter, who endorsed Brooks in the primary, advocated on Twitter for Moore to be replaced on the ballot with Brooks:
Brooks declined to say whether he would be open to that idea.
The more I read the more I question, but I refuse to convict anyone absent more proof and a chance for Moore to defend himself. Furthermore, I agree with the candidate I voted for in the first place. Moore is better than a socialist democrat and it IS a very short term.

REPOST: Who Is At Fault?

Quin Hillyer: Mitch McConnell helped create this mess in Alabama
WRITTEN BY QUIN HILLYER ON NOVEMBER 10, 2017 AT 1:49 PM CST

YELLOWHAMMER NEWS :  http://yellowhammernews.com/featured/mitch-mcconnell-helped-create-mess/

If ever there is legitimacy to playing a “blame game,” it exists right now with regard to the mess Alabama Republicans face in a special U.S. Senate election that should not be occurring in the first place.In order of approximate chronology rather than of seriousness, here are all the places the blame lies – with the obvious caveat that by far the largest part of the blame lies with Roy Moore, if the allegations against him are even close to being true.
1) Luther Strange. I am reliably informed that numerous people, wise and experienced, advised Strange not to allow his name even to be considered for appointment to the Senate under the unique circumstances then existing. If he wanted to be the senator, he should have run under his own power, not as the selection of the very governor Strange was supposed to be investigating on criminal charges. The appearance of a conflict of interest was too obvious and too appalling.
2) Robert Bentley. Of course the governor should not have done any of the things that compromised himself in the first place – but, having done so, he should never, ever have considered Strange for the appointment. See above.
3) Mitch McConnell and his minions/Political Action Committees (henceforth: MMMPACs). MMMPACs, having failed to learn the lessons of earlier interferences in state elections (for example, opposing Marco Rubio in Florida, Ben Sasse in Nebraska, and others who proved to be excellent senators), decided to waste some $9 million on behalf of the un-re-electable Strange. Even worse, MMMPACs tried to act as bully-boys, threatening candidates and campaign consultants that if they opposed Strange, they would never work in/have no future in Republican politics ever again. Potentially strong candidates – ones who could have defeated both Strange and Moore – were thus bullied out of the race.
4) Governor Kay Ivey. She was wrong, both practically and I believe legally, to call for the special election this year. Practically, a cash-strapped state should not be spending $15 million to run an election when there would really have been no harm in waiting until a regular election in 2018. Also practically, the unique circumstances of the Bentley scandal meant that the political waters were too roiled to allow the public a “normal” and thoughtful consideration of the potential candidates, with too little time for some potentially good candidates to get organized enough to make the race. Finally, while nobody challenged her in court, I am convinced that once Bentley had called the election for 2018, nothing in state law allows a governor the power to unilaterally change a duly called election date. In short, this election should not have been held until November of 2018.
5) Mo Brooks. This is the least of these blame points but it warrants inclusion on this list. The conservative with the best chance of sneaking past Strange into the runoff with Moore chose an ill-conceived tactic that blew up in his face, by airing a TV ad with video of Brooks being interviewed at the scene of the shooting of Majority Whip Steve Scalise. Scalise’s staffers themselves were outraged, and were quoted complaining that Brooks appeared to be trying to profit politically from the assassination attempt.
6) Strange and MMMPACs. Together, they ran one of the most despicable campaigns I have witnessed in more than four decades involved in or covering politics. They poisoned the well with harshly negative, even vicious, and at least somewhat untrue attacks against both Moore and Brooks. (The worst was the one insinuating that Brooks somehow was weak against ISIS!) And when they weren’t wrongly attacking their opponents, they were running ads for Strange that were so trite they insultingly played into national stereotypes about supposedly simple-minded Alabamans. So obnoxious were their tactics that, if basing the judgment on the campaign alone, neither Strange nor McConnell should ever hold office again.
7) Donald Trump. He, too, should have stayed away from a state’s party primary. By jumping in before the first primary, he helped (at least at the margins) Strange ward off the challenge from Brooks. Well, if the national pooh-bahs wanted “anybody but Moore,” the only way by then to stop Moore was for Brooks to edge past Strange into the runoff. As I said the very day qualifying for the race closed, Strange had no chance on God’s green Earth to defeat Moore in a runoff if those were the two candidates who emerged.

It is time for a hard and fast new rule: National party committees and so-called “Leadership PACs,” and their affiliates, should avoid all direct financial involvement in party primaries. Sure, they can and ought to try to recruit good candidates, but their recruiting pitch should be this: “We can help line you up with good strategists and workers and policy briefings, and we will commit to raising X amount of money for you if you emerge as the nominee. But aside from that, winning the nomination is up to you; we are holding our money and our clout for use against Democrats in the general election, not to trash fellow Republicans in a primary.”

Mitch McConnell, Luther Strange and company utterly screwed up this whole election. They should hang their heads in shame.

Yellowhammer Contributing Editor Quin Hillyer, of Mobile, also is a Contributing Editor for National Review Online, and is the author of Mad Jones, Heretic, a satirical literary novel published in the fall of 2017.

REPOST: RENEWAMERICA.COM

Transgenders in the military – who decides: Congress, the president, or federal judges?


 By Publius Huldah

6 November 2017

In a case now pending before the US District Court for the District of Columbia,1 the trial judge recently granted a preliminary injunction which purports to temporarily stop the Trump Administration from banning so-called “transgender” persons from serving in the Military.

But we will look at the real issue: Does the Judicial Branch of the federal government have constitutional authority to require the Legislative and Executive Branches of the federal government to permit transgender persons to serve in the Military?
Instead of going along with what everybody says – or expounding on one’s personal views on the topic – let us consult and obey the U.S. Constitution:

  • Article I, Section 8, clauses 11–13 delegate to Congress the powers to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, make rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; raise and support Armies; and provide and maintain a Navy.
  • Article I, Section 8, clause 14 delegates to Congress the power “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;”
  • Article II, Section 2, clause 1 says, “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States….”

In Federalist Paper No. 69 (6th para), Alexander Hamilton says:
“…The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States…. [H]is authority…would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy….”
So! All the powers over the military which have been delegated by the Constitution are vested in the Legislative and Executive Branches of the federal government.

The Judicial Branch has no role to play in the organizing and operation of the military forces.(emphasis mine-cat)

Pursuant to Article I, Section 8, clauses 11-14, Congress alone has the delegated authority to decide who may serve in the military. If Congress issues rules banning transgender persons from serving, then it is the President’s job, as Commander in Chief, to enforce those rules.
Accordingly, instead of participating in the litigation before the federal district court, the Trump Administration should instruct the federal judge on the long-forgotten concept of “Separation of Powers” and advise the court, “You have no jurisdiction over the military – we will not participate.”

1. Military courts and military lawyers in a nutshell

The Judicial Branch of the federal government was created by Article III, U.S. Constitution. That Article created the Supreme Court, and authorized Congress to ordain and establish, from time to time, such inferior courts as needed. Pursuant to that authority, Congress has established 94 federal district courts (where most federal trials are conducted), and 13 U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals.

The U.S. military has its own court system which is not part of the Judicial Branch of the federal government. The military courts are “Article I Courts” created by Congress in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).2 They consist of trial courts where courts-martial are conducted; each Branch of Service has its own “Court of Criminal Appeals”; and the “U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces” hears appeals from the Services’ Courts of Criminal Appeals.

And when military commanders need legal advice, they get it from their own Service lawyers (this is one of the duties of lawyers in the Judge Advocate Generals’ Corps).
The Judicial Branch of the federal government has no constitutional authority over the U.S. military.

2. Federalist Paper No. 80 and the meaning of “arising under”

Some may assert that the Judicial Branch has authority to determine who may serve in the military because Article III, Section 2, clause 1 says,
“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases…arising under this Constitution and the Laws of the United States….”

But they would be wrong. In Federalist No. 80, Alexander Hamilton explains the jurisdiction of the courts created by Article III: In the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 13th paragraphs, he shows that the purpose of the language quoted just above is to authorize the Judicial Branch to enforce the Constitution – not re-write it; and to enforce constitutional federal laws – not re-write them.(emphasis mine-cat)

Furthermore, in Federalist No. 81 (8th para), Hamilton addresses judicial encroachments on legislative authority, and reminds us that such encroachments need never be a problem because of the courts’ “total incapacity to support its usurpations by force”; and because Congress may protect the country from usurping federal judges by impeaching, trying, convicting, and removing them from office.

3. Political questions

Accordingly, when a power is vested by the Constitution in the Legislative or Executive Branches [the “political branches”], the federal courts [the “legal branch”] have traditionally refused to interfere.

In Martin v. Mott, 25 US 19 (1827), the Supreme Court considered the Militia Act of 1795, which authorized the President to call forth the militia when he judged it necessary to repel an invasion.3 The Court pointed out that the power had been confided [entrusted] by Congress to the President, and”We are all of opinion, that the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen, belongs exclusively to the President, and that his decision is conclusive upon all other persons.”

In Foster v. Neilson, 27 U.S. 253 (1829), which involved a dispute between the United States and Spain over territory, the Court held that once those departments [Executive and Legislative Branches] “which are entrusted with the foreign intercourse of the nation” have asserted rights of dominion over territory, “it is not in its own courts that this construction is to be denied.” “A question…respecting the boundaries of nations, is…more a political than a legal question; and…the courts of every country must respect the pronounced will of the legislature.”

Likewise, the power to determine who may serve in the military has been delegated to the Legislative Branch of the federal government – i.e., Congress. The Judicial Branch may not substitute its judgment for the will of the Legislative Branch; and if it attempts to do so, Congress should employ the remedies suggested by Hamilton in Federalist No. 81.

4. The President’s “check” on the federal courts

Finally, let’s look at Federalist No. 78 (6th para) where Hamilton – unlike the pundits of today – tells us the truth about the powers of federal courts:
“…The judiciary…has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments

An informed President who is a manly man will ignore ultra vires orders of the Judicial Branch.

5. Conclusion

Let us put the federal courts in their proper place! Congress and the President have the recognized power to refuse to go along with unconstitutional or ultra vires acts of the Judicial Branch; and their oaths of office require them to do so. Congress also has the power to rid us of usurping federal judges via the impeachment process.

Endnotes:

1 The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia was established by Congress pursuant to Art. III, §1, U.S. Constitution.
2 Congress’ authority to create the Military Courts is derived from Art. I, §8, cl. 14, U.S. Constitution.
3 Article I, §8, clause 15, delegates to Congress the power “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”
4 I trust you see why Hamilton is viciously smeared. The relentless attacks on our Framers have a purpose: Take them down – and our Foundation is destroyed. Hamilton wrote most of the Federalist Papers, which Madison and Jefferson recognized as the best evidence of the genuine meaning of our Constitution. What effect do these constant attacks on Hamilton have on peoples’ respect for the Federalist Papers? Beware of false friends who undermine our foundation; and of jealous men whose claim to fame is that they attack Hamilton.

© Publius Huldah

My full apologies to the author since I do not have the knowledge to transfer the article to WordPress EXACTLY with her formatting. Please read her original (and other most worthy contributions)  http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/huldah/171106

Just A Thought (or three)

In a time of stiff world-wide competition among a very few countries and global corporate conglomerates for total and absolute domination of technology, artificial intelligence, bio-engineering and its associated chip development, etc., etc., etc. when everything we read seems to be purloined from the pages of a classic Sci-fi thriller, this would seem to be the time to pay more attention to the atrocious problem of so much of our technological work product being siphoned away from our shores. Sometimes it is required in order to obtain a new market (should not be allowed), sometimes acquired in merger or acquisition (rare) and then sometimes it is stolen (bingo!) China has even stated through it’s media that it plans to rule the world (insert evil laughter here) through technology and STEM development and domination. 

Obviously, in the course of “growing up as a republic” we have allowed some institutions to become established with an insufficient amount of oversight. As a result these institutions have recently made it increasingly obvious that “We, the People” should shine the light of exposure on these highly secretive organizations so that they may either be cleaned up or abolished entirely. Proper controls and procedures could be put in place under President Trump, General Kelly, Senator Lee from Utah, Senator Cruz from Texas, or perhaps a few other select individuals HONEST, TRUSTWORTHY, UNPURCHASED and wholly committed to the Constitution in order to ensure Government security, defense of the homeland and intelligence is not compromised or released. However it is done, our president needs to set up some sort of review board or committee for:

  1.  Intelligence agencies
  2. DOJ
  3. IRS
  4. State Dept.

Our three branches of government no longer even blink when crossing the boundaries set by the Constitution. Federal appellate courts are blocking lawful Presidential Executive Orders on ideological grounds. The judicial branch has no knowledge, no familiarity and no authority over immigration yet, for example, a Maryland federal judge suspended President Trump’s executive order requiring more extensive vetting of refugees entering this country. We MUST return to the principles and the fundamentals set out for us in our founding document. We must get rid of the arbitrary administrative rules, regulations and requirements which have been attached to the people’s institutions in order to circumvent the purpose of those bodies or shift the responsibilities which each member bears as part of his duty to his/her constituents. Even more common it is used as a method to hide what he/she is voting for or against.

I will no longer be tactful and polite about it. The Democratic Party appears to have launched a campaign to chip away at our Republic, pushing this radical idea that being born on U.S. Land makes you a citizen, advocating for the rights (?) of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS!, advocating for and passing laws to protect lobbying, advocating for the consideration and even the application of foreign law in our courts (including sharia law) and I am not even covering education or the entertainment industry. Why does the Democratic Party want to change America in such a radical way? 

If we want to keep our American culture and our Constitutional Republic we had better wake up and closely monitor our representatives and senators. If the people we elect to vote in our name do not vote with our voice, if they vote for big business, if they vote with the media, if they vote with non-citizens – then we can not afford to vote them back into office again.

An elected office is a service job. Those who are called to SERVE are obligated to fulfill the promises they make, to work for the goals and needs of the poorest as well as those who own small businesses and the largest corporations equally. Any elected office is hard work involving more problems than possible solutions, it requires being excruciatingly frugal with the taxpayer’s money while concurrently being generous of heart but armed with research on how to get the most bang out of every single buck. An honest Senator or Representative does not get rich in Washington or the state capital, does not vote for automatic pay increases, outrageous perks or unbelievable pensions. For an ideal in service we need to think back to the beginning when George Washington was asked to become King by a very sincere and thankful nation. Most generals, heck most men who had fought tooth and nail, sacrificed and been through so much would have accepted the offer to continue to lead and protect the fledgling nation through its formative first years with the power to ensure all was done correctly and all the states stayed in line.               
GEORGE. WASHINGTON. SAID. NO. 

Just Another Gun Duel

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

🇺🇸

It has been said millions of times…guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Evidently, to many who live for simplistic solutions this nice catch phrase sounds great but it has no meaning whatsoever. Their belief is that if you remove guns from honest people you will stop massacres, crime, and all random acts of violence. They are absolutely wrong.

As has been proven in other societies, criminals do not give up merely for lack of a gun. Tasers, physical violence (with bats, foreign objects like knives or daggers) or cunning can often be employed instead. Where only one person is required to waive a gun around, two or three criminals working together offer enough of a threatening presence to achieve the goal. Also, consider that today most crimes are not the type that utilize a gun, they just steal from people by con. Identity theft is on the rise yet congress does nothing to protect citizens against the most basic collection of information by large corporations choosing instead to focus on guns. Email scams, Internet rip-offs are all out there just waiting for stronger regulation….but that would be hard.

The most obvious of all, of course, is that any laws that are passed of whatever stringency will have absolutely no affect on criminals, only on honest citizens who buy guns legitimately. Criminals do not buy guns in stores or in gun shows, they get them on the black market. No laws or regulations and no taxes to bother with on the black market. There are black market guns everywhere. Criminals don’t care if we put harsher regulations on gun ownership, as a matter of fact, it would make their lives infinitely safer and easier if innocent people cannot defend themselves! After all, even the mass killings tend to hit “soft targets” which means those places where guns are not allowed! Doesn’t that tell anyone anything??

🇺🇸

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
🇺🇸

Chicago is a great example of what happens with the criminal element when you impose some of the strictest gun control in the US. The gang members and other criminals do not turn in their guns, honest citizens are left with no way to defend themselves and a city that was once wonderful now has a section that has one of the highest crime and murder rates in the nation! None of this is news, we all know it, so why are we not paying attention?
If government could protect us 100% of the time we would be 100% safe and no mass murders or crimes would ever occur.The government tells us that the police are there for our protection, but they are not everywhere all the time. As much as I respect and honor our warriors in blue, we were designed to be a country with guns and a brave people who could protect and defend themselves and their neighbors.

People, especially those in the government, tend to skip over the main reason that the founding fathers made sure that the citizens of this country would forever keep their God given right to bear arms. There was no guarantee that the new Constitution would stand the test of time. Many were very afraid that too much power had been given to the centralized federal government. They had experience with an oppressive British King and were wary of any form of it. We have our guns because a well armed populace is a bulwark against tyranny. It is true that our forefathers were closer to the land and hunted more. But make no mistake, if you read what they had to say on this issue, they were not ambivalent.

The liberals have chosen guns as an issue. However, if a disturbed, insane, evil person or a radical jihadi terrorist is determined to cause havoc and kill massive numbers of people – he does not have to use a gun! A gun is just a tool. I have friends who can shoot a bow as accurately as a gun, knives, bombs, cars, vans, eighteen wheelers, acid, poisons, etc. Jumping on the gun issue seems to be screaming at one of the symptoms when we ought to be looking at the genesis of the problem.

🇺🇸

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”– William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

Preacher01704's Weblog

My Published Works

A Backpack , A Chair and A Beard

Think of all the beauty still left around you, and be happy

Classic, Not Contemporary

Reviving classical life in a modern world

larrysmusings

This WordPress.com site is for insights, observations and commentary on various issues. We are part social critic, part philosopher, part dreamer, and part seeker after elusive truths.

A swede's take on America

politics, islam, usa, sweden, muslims, middle east, world politics

The Rouser

Wake up. Ask Why?

Reclaim Our Republic

Knowledge Is Power

SMALLGOVREPORT

Always question the premise

%d bloggers like this: