Saturday, June 28, 2025

jurisprudence of just prudence?

  With the announcement of the Supreme courts' opinion yesterday the whole birthright citizenship issue rises to the top once again. All the constitutional scholars are weighing in on Facebook, lawyers and judges flocking to that like it's a golf course. Personally, I'm just the lowly caddy or groundskeeper. I have read the rules and formed my own idea about exactly what they mean. But I don't have a dog in this fight, not really, and so can take a completely objective look at the situation. The argument is, anyone born on American soil, unless they are the child of an enemy soldier or diplomats, are automatically citizens. That is what is being taught today. The question being, is that the actual intent of the legislation as it was written originally? 
  As I pointed out I'm no legal scholar, no expert on the law or on history. Thing is, I can read and form an opinion for myself. That's what education is supposed to accomplish anyway, education isn't the repeating of "facts" but rather gaining an understanding of the subject matter. I could spend days, weeks or months studying the 14th amendment and all the related opinions issued by the supreme court regarding that over the years, but all that would accomplish is hearing the arguments. 
  I've already heard the arguments from both sides of the debate. What it really boils down to is the intent of the 14th amendment in the first place. The big issue to be resolved at the time of the passage of that amendment was granting citizenship to those that were freed slaves. Remember at that time the Democrats didn't even view freed slaves as whole people, just 3/5ths. The southern states were busily creating what we call the Jim Crowe laws and the 14th amendment was a method to subvert all that nonsense.  Yes, it was a civil rights issue. The legal terms concern birthright by the soil or birthright by blood. I know there are Latin legal terms for that Jus Soil and Jus Sanquinis, I googled that as I don't speak Latin. Currently in the United States it is birthright determined by the soil. 
  You see, in my opinion, during that time in 1868 there were many that remembered and indeed had known, veterans of the revolutionary war. You couldn't very well start saying citizenship is by the blood when your blood belongs to another nation. See the issue there? Today we are all celebrating our "heritage" and embracing that. That wasn't the case in 1868. The importation of slaves was illegal beginning in 1809. Given the life expectancy in those days, there weren't that many slaves left that hadn't been born on American soil. So, it seemed to be the logical choice. Even today citizenship based on Jus Sanqinis is the far more common law. Citizenship based on the place of birth is in the minority worldwide. 
  As with almost everything there are those that will find a way to exploit whatever it is to their advantage. That is, after all, the stock and trade of lawyers. That's where all the court rulings and opinions enter the picture. That's what it says but that isn't what it means. In more modern times there are those that have been exploiting that "by the soil" to their advantage, what we have taken to calling anchor babies. And that is being defended because well, they aren't enemy soldiers or diplomats. Then you can argue their parents should remain, as citizens themselves, to take  care of those children. And  of course, they should receive all the benefits of a natural born or naturalized citizen, it's only fair. 
  If only they had included, except anyone born on American soil whose parents are in the country illegally, all this would have been avoided. But they just said enemy soldiers and diplomats. But the lawyers have argued the phrase, under the jurisdiction of the United States, grants that citizenship. Strangely, if a criminal, or a suspected criminal, or even if they are not even suspected of being a criminal is in our country, their country can request they be returned because, they are under their jurisdiction. That's right. If the nature of that request concerns something criminal, it is called extradition. In any number of other situations that request is called Repatriation. They are not American citizens because of jus sanquinis, the right of the blood. A few countries include, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Cost Rica, Honduras and Peru. Their children are also citizens of those nations. What right does the United States have to deny that? Depends on jurisprudence.
  The United States has had an immigration policy since 1875. It was called the Asian exclusion act. It's purpose was to limit the amount of cheap labor, exclude criminals and prostitutes. As the name implies it was mostly the Chinese at that time. Little changes over time. Today we are concerned with Latino peoples for the same reasons. Cheap labor, criminals and drug dealers in place of prostitutes. They have taken advantage of our immigration policies to gain entry and avoid deportation. Back in the 1800's there was this thing called a "credit ticket." That was paid for by American businessmen to attract Chinese laborers. The plan was to pay for their passage and they could work off the debt. You know, like the company store thing and sharecropping. That was part of the reason for the Asian Exclusion Act, also called the Page act. But there had been policies before that, all the way back to 1790, this one however was the first to restrict based on nationality. 
  It is important to understand that yesterdays opinion did not give Trump the power to end birthright citizenship. That isn't what the ruling was all about. All it said was that a single federal judge could not block a presidential order. It did not rule on the constitutionality of the order itself, only on whether a federal judge has the authority to effectively block that order nationally. All the other legal avenues remain open to block an order from the president. Birthright citizenship is still in effect and will remain that way until another opinion is issued or the 14th amendment itself is amended. 
  It's a question of jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the legal authority to make judgements or legal decisions. How do you determine jurisdiction? That is accomplished by mutual agreement. We all have heard that possession is 9/10 of the law. That isn't strictly true. Possession is establish by a superior legal claim. But, as we all know, it's sure a lot harder when I'm holding it. It's my thinking that any nation that provides citizenship based on the blood (jus sanquinis) has a legal claim to any child born in America. Whether they choose to exercise that power or not isn't the question, they have jurisdiction. Have we been "kidnapping" these children all along, forcing United States citizenship upon them? Do they not have a right to claim citizenship in the country of their blood? Seems to me they would just as surely as the right of jus soil. All depends upon the jurisdiction doesn't it? 
  Now if your parents were confederates and you were born during the civil war you weren't born a citizen of the United States. You were repatriated. That was accomplished by Andrew Johnson (D) as president completely by 1868. You have to ask yourself, what if Lincoln had remained president. Would all those enemy soldiers and diplomats have been repatriated? 

                                                                              

                                                                                     

Friday, June 27, 2025

the mob

  I'll preface this by stating that I am not a big sports fan, not a follower of anyone in particular and in this instance I am 100% nonbiased. It was announced by the NFL that Justin Tucker has been suspended for ten games, although he hasn't signed with any team as of yet. He's being suspended based on allegations. He has not been criminally charged with anything. There has been no trial, no hearing. or anything even close to that. The Baltimore Ravens, his former team didn't renew his contract with them, they called it a football decision. Given the fact that Tucker has been the most accurate kicker in the history of the game one does have to question the coaching on that call. A football decision? No, I think it was a public relations decision. And just what has been alleged about Tucker? An ever increasing number of ladies that work at the massage parlors clammed Tucker exposed himself to them and brushed up against them! It was over ten years ago that the behavior supposedly took place. That all seems totally unjust. The NFL  basically gave him a guilty sentence. I question why? I can only surmise that is because of "societal expectations" and the threat of a boycott should the Ravens and the NFL not comply with the court of public opinion. 
  In other news a school teacher was accused of sexual misconduct with his students. This male teacher was accused of inappropriate touching those young girls. There was a full investigation and a trial was held. He faced 21 charges. He was found not guilty of 18 of those charges. There was no decision made on the the remaining three. Those three remaining charges are assault in the second degree. He had been held in prison for over a year prior to the trial. Following the trial he was released and a hearing is scheduled to discuss the remaining three charges. His career is ruined and indeed his life changed forever by this. The public is up in arms about the verdict and demanding he be retried. In short, the court of public opinion is demanding a verdict of guilty, anything else is unacceptable. Even the states attorney is on television in support of this course of action. He would retry the case and issue a verdict of guilty! That should be troubling to anyone that has any concern for justice.
  I'm starting to see a pattern here. Certain crimes need only be alleged, not proven for a guilty verdict. If the court of public opinion declares your guilt, you are guilty regardless of judge or jury. Either that or whatever you are accused of having done is bad for business, I don't want to be associated with you and so distance myself  by whatever means I have available to me at the moment. Whether that is refusing to renew your contract or putting my support behind the court of public opinion for political reasons. It's like all this "woke" stuff that has been taking place. But, on a positive note a great deal of that stuff is going away do to public opinion. Go woke, go broke summing that up nicely. 
  I keep hearing that being in the country illegally isn't a crime, that those folks don't have a criminal record. The reasoning being, they haven't had a trial, they haven't received due process of law! The law could exonerate them of having broken the law because, well, they had a good excuse. Yes they broke the law, but it shouldn't be a law, so that doesn't count. It's bad for business! Just who is going to do the plantation work? The only solution is to make the illegal, legal. Problem solved. 
 The public will decide the outcome of all trials from now on. We will just establish a social media site for that purpose. You just cast your ballot, it is instantly recorded and counted and a date set for final balloting. Then, you are guilty or innocent based on that poll. Juries are not necessary! We can vote from home and we can determine guilt and innocence based on media reporting. A jury of twelve is just outdated, that needs to change. It's like only having nine justices on the supreme court! We need a lot more than that is order to secure a fair opinion on anything. Heck, there are more constitutional scholars on Facebook alone than there are in the halls of government. The public should decide by popular vote. Whatever is best for business. 
  Our entire judicial system is predicated upon the acceptance of the verdict. Yes there are provisions for appeal based on legal actions. An appeal can't simply be based upon, I don't agree with the verdict. That is the case with that school teacher. The families of those children are upset, disappointed and angry that a not guilty verdict was returned by a jury of their peers. What actions are to be taken on the three unresolved charges has not been decided. But there is a public demand for another trial, one with the desired outcome! I don't have an opinion on his guilt or innocence, I haven't listened to any testimony. His defense team succeeded in their efforts. As far as I know there were no procedural errors, nothing irregular about any of that. The prosecution failed to prove their case. We are supposed to accept the verdict. I'm not saying you have to like it, or to agree with it, but you do have an obligation to accept it. 
The buck really does stop with you. That is how liberty and justice for all is achieved. Failure to do so causes civil unrest. Mob rule is no rule at all. 

                                                                                  


                                                                                        

Thursday, June 26, 2025

Chances and changes

 The last military draft in the United States took place on December 7, 1972. Just thirty one years earlier  we were attacked on a Sunday morning. Twenty one of our ships destroyed and two thousand four  hundred dead. War was declared and thousands answered the call to duty. Thousands volunteered and there was a draft as well. Over the course of the war over ten million served. Often called the greatest generation for their courage and sense of duty they secured freedom. It has been fifty two years six months and twenty days since the final draft. The United States has not declared war on anyone since June of 1942 when we declared war against Bulgaria, Hungry and Romania. That hasn't prevented us from being engaged in combat, losing millions of lives. It's just that now, it's an all volunteer force. 
  Serving in the armed forces has always been a voluntary thing, at least in essence it has. Those that have been drafted voluntarily answering the call to duty. Although they were often looked down upon as somehow not quite as patriotic they served, they fought, and they died same as everyone else. Does the motivation for doing so really make a difference? Yes, those refusing to answer the draft were subject to prosecution, to penalty, and indeed imprisonment, branded a coward. But that is where all the exceptions and exemptions enter the picture. It isn't a modern day thing, you could simply pay for someone to take your place in the civil war to avoid that. Even today, without having had a draft in well over fifty years, we hear the derision hurled at individuals, you're a draft dodger! Sometimes the one hurling that insult never served themselves, but they had a good excuse. They always have a good excuse. 
  I was eighteen in June of 1972 serving aboard my first ship. I had enlisted in the Navy in January of  1971 on the delayed enlistment program. My name never appeared on the draft listing. I do remember some of my classmates and friends anxiously waiting for the list to be published. Waiting to see if your number was chosen. Vietnam was in full swing and having your number come up was a rather sobering thought! I hadn't joined the Navy to avoid being drafted into the Army, that wasn't even remotely in my thinking. My oldest brother had been in the Navy, one of best friends Dad had been in the Navy and another best friend was joining the Army. I had to make a choice. I flipped a coin, heads it's the Army, tails it's the Navy. That was as as much though as I put into that. Nice to be young, full of confidence and bravado. I'm certain I wasn't the first to do something like that. Young men have often been anxious to "join the fight." It was going to be an adventure. Gallant or flippant? 
  Personally I think everyone should have to serve in some fashion. What I mean by serving is being held to a strict discipline. Being in the military does force you to grow up and mature a bit. Granted it doesn't always take and some will run, but for the most part it is a learning experience. You do learn to work as a team member. I know, it's an old story now, but when I was in school discipline was different than what it is today. Excuses were far and few between! We were taught you can do it without having a cadre of professionals giving you support and mental health days. You were expected to be on time, be there every day and pay attention. You were held accountable for any lapses! Our stress came from being held accountable. It was expected and you learned to deal with that. When you didn't, you acted out. Acting out wasn't tolerated or medicated, it was corrected. That's discipline.
  With all this talk of war in the news today it does make me think about that. Things change, technology advances and the needs change. Do we need millions of service people to effectively fight a war today? I believe the reality is, no we don't. The fighting of the battles has become increasingly remote over the centuries. Today we can launch rockets, missiles and drones from anywhere on the planet and strike any other place on the planet. War has become quite impersonal! Well, except if you the one being bombed or whatever, that's pretty personal. Males between the age of 18 and 25 still have to register for the draft and that includes immigrants! Failure to do so is a felony punishable by a 250,000 dollar fine and/or five years in prison. That applies to all male immigrants between the ages of 18 and 25 including refugees, asylum seekers and the undocumented! Haven't heard of anyone being held to account for failure to do so, but I suspect there are quite a number that haven't. A bunch of draft dodgers!

                                                                                   

 The draft lottery was based on birth dates. The Selective Service System (SSS) operated draft lotteries between 1969-1972, assigning random draft numbers for men born in years 1944-1952 based on date and month of birth. The first men drafted were those turning age 20 during the calendar year of the lottery.    Results were published in the newspapers. 

Wednesday, June 25, 2025

running wild

 "If I were the Devil, I would encourage schools to refine young intellects, but neglect to discipline emotions; let those run wild." (Paul Harvey) Do you remember Paul Harvey? His, the rest of the story was always interesting to me, who doesn't like to know that. Today he would be called a right wing extremist I suppose, maybe even taken off the air. That the main stream media would attack his views and opinions at every turn isn't in doubt, I wish he were still here to answer them. Mr. Harvey did have a way with words and a way of getting to the point without excess baggage. I'm no expert on Paul Harvey, I wasn't a devoted fanatic of his shows, wasn't buying his books, if he wrote any, or anything like that. You can say I was just a casual listener. Mostly I just remember his "rest of the story" segments that were always surprising. I read later on he had an entire staff of people, including his son, researching all of that.
This segment, speech or whatever you wish to call it about "if I were the devil" has become one of his best known. In it he speaks to the truth of it all. It doesn't matter if you believe in the devil, the devil is just a metaphor in this instance, and it doesn't matter if you believe in the Christian God, the Jewish God or the Muslim God, which by the way, are all the same God. What Paul is saying is this is how you create chaos, unrest and rebellion. Without discipline there can be no civilization. Discipline has to be learned! That is the simple truth of the matter. The enforcement of discipline, is the function of societies. The type of society will determine the method of discipline but the purpose remains the same, order.
"And what do you bet I could get whole states to promote gambling as the way to get rich?"  "I’d pedal narcotics to whom I could. I’d sell alcohol to ladies and gentlemen of distinction. I’d tranquilize the rest with pills. "So I’d set about however necessary to take over the United States. I’d subvert the churches first — I’d begin with a campaign of whispers. With the wisdom of a serpent, I would whisper to you as I whispered to Eve: ‘Do as you please." These are just a few lines from that speech. Every one is what we are witnessing today and that was written in 1965. Yes, he is using biblical references because that is what the majority of the people would understand and relate too. This is America whose foundation was built upon Christian values. How many deny that today? Seems to me like the plan is working just as Paul Harvey said it would.
  It is the lack of discipline that allows all of these things to transpire. At this very moment we have a large portion of the population fervently working against the interests of the United States, with unbridled emotions. We have a large portion of the population now defending lawlessness, actively working against law enforcement officials, a total dismissal of discipline. Discipline is restraint and self-control, adhering to the rules of society even when you don't agree with those rules. You can't act like children throwing a temper tantrum and expect anything beneficial to come from that. What will be the final response to that behavior? The imposition of discipline by whatever means is deemed necessary, usually by an abandonment of emotional control, emotions running wild. 

                                                                                        

Tuesday, June 24, 2025

I can explain

  It's been a tense few days what with the developments in the middle east. There is genuine reason for global concern. The unfortunate truth is Iran and Iraq are still at it. Another unfortunate truth is the global concern is centered on economics. That is the real issue with this conflict. That is the issue that will get others involved. The United States and every other developed nation in the world proclaiming they are just protecting their interests. That's the long and short of it. It may or may not be what history records. History, after all, is written by the victorious. There has been fighting in the middle east, among those nations for many centuries and few victories can be claimed. Short term peace has been achieved, long enough for countries to rearm themselves. Will the debate over ideology ever end? I have serious doubts about that. 
  History is a memory. Each of us remember things a bit differently. It's something I have written about a few times and it is a source of fascination to me. How we can both watch and witness the exact same action and tell the story completely differently. Remember playing telephone as a child? That's what happens with history as well, the message changes with almost every telling. With history that seems to happen with each generation. What will be remembered regarding this latest conflict? The story of Trump will certainly change in each version. Think about this, what do you remember about the Kennedy years or the Johnson years. What version of those stories do you repeat? 
  Consider the history of the Jews? They have always been the victims of history? They suffered everything from being enslaved by the Egyptians, to the holocaust. No one denies that these events took place. Then there was the birth of Jesus and a new testament. The old testament of Moses being updated and replaced. The Jewish people don't call it the old testament however, they call it the Jewish bible or the Tanakh. That development created lots of issues for the Jews. A few centuries later and the religion of Islam arrives on the scene to further complicate things. If you are a Jew you probably feel like the Christians and Muslims have been attacking you ever since. And there is historical evidence to support that. 
  What is the conflict always about? It's about economics. It's about the land, the resources and the potential wealth to be derived from that. The Jews were set free to seek their promised land, the land of milk and honey. Now I'm no authority on any of this, I'm not even well informed, and that is my point here. I'm simply repeating the stories I have been told or read in history books. You may or may agree with my conclusions. Twelve tribes that spread out across the land. All twelve tribes have been persecuted ever since is the narrative I've always heard, from the Jewish folks. Christians have a different story about all of that. It was the Jews that killed Jesus! Then the Muslims come along and they want to kill everybody! Well, the Muslims will kill you unless you pay them a tax that is. They could just enslave you as well. But there is hope, you can simply denounce your own religious beliefs and submit to Allah! Do that, and you can live. That's the history that I've heard and read some texts about. Mohamed was a bitter, angry man from all accounts I've read about his life.
  How does history recall the battle of the little big horn? Was that a victory for the native Americans or a massacre? That story has changed several times, along with the reasons behind the civil war and any number of historical events. History is a memory. History is the way you remember it. That's what it is. In all my writings, recording my thoughts and memories, I am recording history as I saw it. What I have seen is that little changes. Motivations remain the same. We act today in the hope that we can change the past. We are attempting to write a memory. It's the folly of mankind, a sort of ironic twist from our creator. 
 There have been various attempts to correct this. I believe it is safe to say religious practices have always been at the heart of things. It's what people believe that motivates them. It makes little difference if it a rock or a God, if that is what you believe will "help" or at the very least, not hurt you, you act accordingly. That depends upon your having a belief in a higher power than yourself. Something or someone you can appeal to. The issue there is in following the rules. There are always rules with Gods. What if we just eliminate the gods? Some of our founding fathers did just that, sort of. They called themselves Deists. They still believe in the Gods but believe the God(s) will not intervene on behalf of anyone. They just created everything and are watching it all unfold. A sort of, "trust the science" approach. It's just an different ideology. Basically it is a political system rather than a religious one, thereby eliminating the rules. You get to set your own rules, depending upon your own self interests. 
  And that is where we are at today. It's where we have really always been. I don't see that changing. The authority for setting the rules is what is under constant attack. Whether that is a god or an individual that is what is being challenged and questioned throughout history, establishing authority by appeasement or by force. Whose rules are you going to follow? I'd suggest that it will be whatever is in your best interests. Power, wealth, popularity, security or eternal life? What motivates you? Is your history the way you remember it? Well, not if you ask someone else it wasn't. It probably isn't if you are completely honest with yourself. But, I can explain. 
                                                                                   

Monday, June 23, 2025

because I said so

 The first amendment. The guarantee to the people that they may speak freely. It was number one on the list of amendments because of the fear of being silenced. That was something all too familiar to those former colonists. They really didn't have a voice during that time, only the aristocrats and power brokers had a voice. Compromises and concessions were made to get the constitution ratified by the necessary number of states, nine. Following that it was further agreed that amendments were required. Twelve were proposed and ten chosen. We all know the second amendment, the right to bear arms. And the reason for that amendment was obvious enough in those days and should remain obvious to any thinking person.
  In case anyone doesn't understand I will state it plainly. You can say whatever you like, but if you can't back it up, it means nothing! And that is the the reason for the second amendment in a nutshell. We had declared ourselves free from Great Britain, we even wrote it down and had it delivered to the King. We had spoken loud and clear. Then we had to back up those words, with action. We did so, eventually defeating the English and establishing our constitutional republic. We walked the walk! Thousands had died in battle and from disease but the message stuck; we are a free and independent nation. Not just because we said so, we made it so.
  Now you can argue and debate about who has the right to tell anyone else what they can or can not do. That is what we commonly call diplomacy. It works that way in families, and it works that way on the world stage as well. The right to tell others is the basis for all religious practices, receiving authority from the divine, the greater power, whatever you envision that power to be. You can dictate right and wrong and it isn't just a right, it is a duty. Even when it is simply for your own salvation you are obligated to show others the path! You must tell them. If they refuse to listen, force may have to be used. Spare the rod and spoil the child. You have to back up your words with action. All groups form to initiate an action, unless it is a debating team, they just talk about it. 
  The application of force is not wrong. It is only the timing of that application that becomes the issue. The right to self defense is a human right, not a right controlled by government. Governments will attempt to control the means of your defense, limit your capacity to strike back, for the common good but ultimately the people retain the right to self defense. Kings and their armies have been defeated by peasants with pitchforks. You can not control a population by appeasement. The reason is a basic one, you will never satisfy everyone. The more that is compromised, the more given and forgiven, the larger the demands become. That is just another of those little quirks in humans. We always want more. Our only means of restraint being "personal" choice or "authority", both requiring your willingness to comply.
  Everyone would prefer diplomacy over force. In that way, everyone wins a little bit. But man wants to win it all, a part of our nature. You may ask why would anyone want billions of dollars, more money than they could ever spend. Why do you want to win the race? How much are you willing to compromise to achieve your goals? It is what we sometimes call ambition, drive and the desire to succeed. We admire those that strive to achieve their goals against the odds, they are our heroes. They are uncompromising! It's what they said they would do and they did it. And that is the danger of free speech. There are times when that speech motivates us, pushes us forward, call it pride or being empowered, that speech is the motivation for action. The talking is over. And the last response will be, "because I said so." The decision has been made. Conversations begin with whispers, fights begin with a shout. 

                                                                                   

Sunday, June 22, 2025

it isn't fair

  I got up this morning and checked my Facebook page as usual, I saw several places where Trump says we have bombed Iran's' nuclear facilities. I haven't turned on the morning news as yet and haven't verified the validity of those posts. It is a source of annoyance that I feel it absolutely necessary to double check everything I see on there. I'm always further annoyed to discover that it is either completely false or slanted so heavily as to be ridiculous. I did do a quick check using Google and the facts seem to be that we did indeed attack three facilities. 
  That is surely cause for deep concern for everyone in this nation and indeed, the rest of the world. It's a very high stakes game, diplomacy by bomb! What will the reaction be? Whatever it is, it won't be good. There's this thing about war, no one plays fair. I have always been baffled by this concept, this idea, that there are rules of engagement. Yes, before the hostilities begin, before the first shot is fired, diplomats sat at a table and discussed this. What they discussed was the ways in which you could kill each other, and who you weren't supposed to kill. 
  Now it's true I have never been engaged in combat, never had to fight for my life. I can tell you however, unequivocally, without a doubt, is that I would use any means necessary to win that fight. No, I wouldn't fight fair. Would a nation do otherwise? History says, absolutely not. Eighty years go the United States used two nuclear bombs against the Japanese. That decision is still being debated  to this day. Did it end the war early, saving millions of lives, or was it just a horrific attack on civilians? That is the argument we will continue to have, heightened now by these attacks. No nuclear weapons were involved with this attack, the intent being to prevent the use of nuclear weapons in the future. Will Iran just acquiesce and remain peaceful? I have no belief that will be the case. They will fight, and it won't be fair, according to any rules, or with any concern for decency, humanity, or any moral and ethical codes.
  What does this mean to the average American? How will it affect us? I hear talk of sleeper cells and what terrorist acts they may attempt. It's a real concern, it's very real. It's my thinking a great deal of this hinges upon just how committed those folks are to Iran and the religion of Islam. Despite the cries of Islam is the religion of peace, as most religions proclaim, we are all aware that the "true" believers will take up arms! That commitment is something that is immeasurable. History is jam packed with instances of "fanatics" facing impossible odds, more than willing to die, for whatever cause they "believe" is true and just. The line between "believer" and "fanatic" is a very thin one indeed. 
  The big question and debate centers around whether we should be involved in any of that at all. We are in support of Israel. Are we obligated to intervene, to help Israel defeat Iran? Well, the same argument was being made prior to WW1. We had a policy of isolation then, we didn't want to get involved in any European conflict. There was much resistance to us entering the fray. We were drawn in by what? The Germans weren't playing fair, they were practicing unrestricted submarine warfare, which meant they sank our merchant ships. Why did they do that? They wanted to win the war by denying supplies to their enemies. They didn't care about the rules. Then, in the second world war we all know the Japanese attacked us, on a Sunday morning, without so much as a warning. In all the following conflicts, wars and police actions we have joined in because of diplomatic agreements. Those agreements made before the fighting began.
  The objective is preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. Currently they are nine nations that have that capability. There have been talks and negotiations among those nations to reduce their stockpiles and to prevent other nations from developing them. The claims are always we don't anyone to use them! We've all heard that argument, there can be no winner should those nucs begin to fly! There is much truth in that, it isn't an idle statement designed to strike fear in people, it's a scientific fact! Nuclear weapons, but more importantly perhaps, the ability to deliver them, is the biggest hammer of all. Is it fair to limit nine nations to that technology? It certainly is if you are one of the nine. And that's the thing with these nuclear weapons, it's like opening Pandoras' box, there is no putting them back in. How can we learn to live with them? I think the best we can hope for is setting a limit and preventing the spread. If that involves using force, that is what we will have to do. Yeah, it just isn't fair. 

                                                                              

   

Saturday, June 21, 2025

The clique

  Facebook has connected me with a number of personalities from my past. I say personalities because whereas the names are familiar their actual character is unknown to me. It has occurred to me that either I wasn't paying attention, or I was just minding my own business. I'm thinking about my youth, from kindergarten through high school. I don't recall many instances were religious or political views and opinions caused any issues. Yes, there were a couple. Once I brought a Nazi flag to school, it had been captured by an uncle of mine while serving in the war, and that flag upset some of the Jewish kids. That's when I learned about that. Another occasion was the Kent State thing. We had an assembly about that. In my view all it accomplished was to get people upset. It almost started a physical confrontation as I recall. Still, for the most part I had no idea about what the other kids were thinking about that stuff. Mostly we just lied about our exploits. Call it being creative with the storytelling. 
  A two or three year difference in age was a big deal during that time. The "big" kids didn't hang out with the "little" kids. I barely knew the brothers and sisters of my friends, they either being too old or too young. I knew little if anything about what they were doing and saying, unless of course, they were in trouble in some way. We always talked about that. It was a bad thing back then, getting in trouble, it didn't entitle you to much, mostly getting punished for that behavior. You certainly didn't call out your teachers or the principal making any demands. We didn't have activists back then, we had troublemakers! Kids that were acting out. I'm guessing some of those kids were just saving it up for later on as I read some of their postings. Maybe it was those that went to find themselves. I'm thinking they got lost though.
  For the most part your family name defined who I thought you were. What I mean is, I was told stories by my parents and others about your family. They may have been a family of fishermen, farmers or business owners. Each group was a bit different, what we may call "cultural" differences today. The haves and have nots. We had those that lived on the fringe of society and those that thought they were society. Cultural stereotypes is what I'm thinking about. Personalities. 
  We had some that were living "above" their station and some that just didn't care at all. All that was reflected in the little cliques in school. It did change slightly year to year during elementary school when we had different classmates, a sort of forced integration. In high school that changed and became more of your choice to associate yourself with. The "in" crowd, the "the smart kids" the "sports guys and girls" the "band members" and then all the other little sub-groups. Ideally you were cool, tough, smart, and had money. I didn't have any of those things. 
  Were we just naive? Or was it that we were just minding our own business? Is that such a bad thing? I can honestly say I wasn't too concerned with what anyone else was doing as long as it didn't interfere with what I was doing. I was vaguely aware that there were other kids that held different views and opinions than myself, but I didn't feel any need to correct them. Everyone is entitized to make their own mistakes. That philosophy was summed up with this old adage, you made your bed, now lie in it. Who you vote for isn't my business. Who you are attracted too isn't my business, unless it is me. What God, God(s) you worship isn't my business. All of that becomes my business when you make it that way. And in my experience that will never be met with open arms and a welcoming gesture. No, usually the reaction isn't a good one. And what I have learned over the years, is that is why I wasn't hanging out with those folks in the first place. It wasn't anything personal, just a cultural thing. 

                                                                                 

Friday, June 20, 2025

You buying it?

 Concessions. What comes to mind when you hear that? I think of someone selling something. But it also can mean a surrender, a weakening of the spirit or will. The willingness to compromise, to give something up. To make a concession, to concede. It appears to me we as a society have been busily engaged in making concessions, especially over the last fifty years or so. Some would call it progress but I'm not convinced about that. Are things really better today? Well, that all depends upon your viewpoint I suppose. I'd say we have certainly advanced in our technology, made amazing medical advances, but our happiness and security have suffered as the result of that. I know I don't feel as content, as secure as I did say ten years ago. Perhaps the flood of information and misinformation has contributed to that. 
  It's my feeling we have just made too many concessions. We have decided to concede morality and ethics as an ideal of the past, something to be admired, but not something that is a necessity. When those morals or ethics interfere with our wants, they will be set aside. We will do what is best for business! Doesn't make any difference what that business happens to be either. I don't care if you're selling socks or the head of the largest religious group on the planet, concessions are being made to retain "customers." That old fashioned idea of fidelity being discarded. Step up to the concession stand, buy this.
  Politicians and used car salesmen are in the same business really, getting you to buy something. The promises will be made, tongue in cheek, both parties are aware of that, but the want is great and so a concession is agreed upon. It's great for today, maybe even tomorrow, but after that all bets are off. Still, you got what you wanted. And now we are offering a compromise, reassuring the buyer, if this turns out bad for you, we will provide help, treatment and counseling. You won't be held accountable for that, it's not your fault. And we won't allow morality or ethics to interfere in any of that either. You have the constitution guaranteeing your right to do whatever you want. That's freedom! 
  We are a nation ruled by the majority. But not a simple majority, a 2/3 vote is required in many instances, although concessions to that rule are provided. I view the constitution and the law as establishing the moral and ethical conduct expected from the people. When 2/3 agree on whatever, it becomes a part of that. But, concessions have been made over the years. Consider the issue of slavery. The word slavery never appeared in the constitution. It was protected however, by several clauses, clauses that were basically concessions to the southern states to get them to sign that document,  morality and ethics were set aside. That concession eventually led to the civil war. 
  The moral choice isn't always what is best for business, but it is the right choice! Today we are busy making concessions to the minority. Groups representing less than 14% of the population being granted special considerations and protected status. A concession to what? Moral and ethical behaviors expected in the society is the answer to that. Based on what? Your skin color or sexual orientation? Conceding to cultural differences? A compromise? 
  What is all that leading up to? Civil discord. Concessions have been made through legislation. Or have those concessions actually a compromise? Just a vehicle to secure votes. Are you really willing to concede the Republic, establish a simple democracy, to retain power? That happened back in 1861 and history does have a way of repeating itself. As for me, I firmly believe there are things that should never be compromised or conceded. Not for sale at the concession stand! I'm not saying you shouldn't look around, do a little shopping, view the products offered, but just because you are at the concession stand doesn't mean you have to buy it! 

                                                                                      
 Got this from AI regarding what the confederate constitution was saying; "The Confederate States of America's constitution affirmed the importance of state sovereignty and explicitly protected slaveryIt also established a six-year, non-renewable term for the president, a line-item veto, and a focus on states' rights. The preamble emphasized that states acted in their "sovereign and independent character" when ordaining the constitution."  So not a "united "states, everyone does their own thing, with term limits and a line item veto power. 
Basically a sales pitch, we will do this together but you can still do whatever you like. A concession.

Thursday, June 19, 2025

Celebrate the date

  Trying to make sense of this Juneteenth celebration. It begins when a union General, Gordon Ganger, arrived in Galveston Texas. He announced general order number three informing all Texans that President Lincoln had set all slaves free. Well, all slaves in the southern states anyway, those states in rebellion, it didn't set slaves free in the union states. This came as a surprise to the slaves in Texas as they hadn't been informed of that order. Imagine that, your captors not telling you about that. That took place, of course, on June 19, 1865. Those slaves were jubilant, and justifiably so, still there were many slaves being held in the north so not everyone was free. It wasn't until December 31, 1865 that slavery was abolished throughout the land.
  Maryland, Kentucky, Delaware and Missouri allowed the holding of slaves until December 31, 1865 when the 13th amendment was ratified. Other states that came under union control during the war had to abolish slavery as a condition of readmission to the union. Those areas under under control before the war did not have to do that until the 13th amendment made it the law of the land. There were at least two thousand slaves being held in union states until that time. It seems to me that is the date that should be celebrated as it did in fact free everyone! And it needs to be pointed out that the former slave owners were the ones still denying blacks rights right up until 1964, a full 99 years after that happened. A hundred and one years since June19, 1865. 
 I'm just trying to make sense of a holiday that celebrates hearing a proclamation from a President, two years, 5 months and 18 days after the fact, that didn't really apply to them until after their captors were defeated. They are celebrating because they weren't told that they were free, although they hadn't been free. Others remained in bondage because that proclamation didn't apply to them, although they were in the states that fought to implement that proclamation in the first place. Just what is it that is being celebrated? A small segment of a population that heard the news 2 years, 5 months and 18 days late? Or are we celebrating freedom? If that is the case shouldn't it be celebrated when everyone was set free? 
  Juneteenth has been celebrated in Texas since the late 1800's. It makes sense to have a local celebration of that day, that event. It was on that day that so many were finally aware they had been set free. I'd celebrate that too! It wasn't until 1980 the state of Texas recognized that day as a state  holiday. President Joe Biden made it a national holiday forty one years later. That was in response to civil unrest about the death of George Floyd and some others. It was the offering of an olive branch in my opinion. 
  Now a national holiday celebrating the 13th amendment would be a good idea, that is when freedom really arrived. In fact it was on December 18, 1865 when the 13th amendment was officially certified. That would be a great choice for a date to celebrate. That was the real day for freedom. Slavery was abolished throughout the land!  
  History can be a fascinating thing to study when you look past the dates and look into the motivations. Consider this as an example. Southern Democrats seceded from the Union because they wished to retain their "right" to hold slaves. Yes, by far the majority of those being held were African Americans but the "right" to hold someone as a slave didn't hinge on that, it was just a moral choice for economic reasons. Anyone could be held as a slave! Those same Democrats failed to tell their slaves that the president of the union had set them free. Why didn't they tell them? Now that's a silly question isn't it? So the democrats lose their war and their "right" to hold slaves. Their response was what we call the Jim Crowe era. That continued for decades, at least three generations past Juneteenth. Then in 1964 the civil rights act passes. That was the end of Jim Crowe. It took some doing as a filibuster, by Democratic Senator Byrd lasting 14 hours and 13 minutes took place. But that wasn't the longest filibuster by a Democrat concerning a civil rights bill, that honor goes to Strom Thurmond, 24 hours and 18 minutes in opposition to the 1957 civil rights bill. Then in 2021 another Democrat, Joe Biden makes Juneteenth a national holiday. A final reckoning? Hardly, as the democrats continue in their oppression of the African American families in this nation. Jim Crowe is still kicking a bit. That control is being exercised by the same method as always, dependence upon their (democratic) benevolence. The motivation remains the same. It's an economic thing, not a morality thing. Heck, we democrats aren't bothered by any of that stuff. Buying and selling people, killing unwanted babies, whatever you like, it's all good. 
  
"Every Republican (84), Independent Republican (2), and Unconditional Unionist (16) supported the measure, as well as fourteen Democrats, almost all of them lame ducks, and three Unionists. The amendment finally passed by a vote of 119 to 56, narrowly reaching the required two-thirds majority." That from Wikipedia. That is how freedom was won by the passage of the 13th amendment, certified official on the 18 December 1865. Give it your own name, Decemeberteenth just doesn't roll off the tongue very well. That's the date to celebrate! 
 Those Democrats didn't give up easily, that's a historical fact. They are still at it in fact, vote for us, we'll take care of you, you can't do it on your own! We have these "programs" you know, for you "underserved, underprivileged, uneducated, marginalized and oppressed by history people of color. We'll take care of you, hey, didn't we just give you your own holiday? Haven't we erected statues and renamed military bases, we even took Aunt Jemima off that syrup bottle, that's how much we care.
  Yeah we used to think you counted as 2/3 of a person, but we've changed. Color doesn't matter to us, brown people can do the same jobs you used to do and you can see how supportive we are of them. We really did mean to tell you about that emancipation proclamation thing, but we were busy fighting a war to keep you in bondage and it just slipped our mind. And in 1957 that whole voting rights thing was just au unfortunate misunderstanding. Then again in 1964 it was just a misunderstanding, nothing personal about any of that. It's all the fault of those republicans. If they had just let us keep our "workers" none of this would have happened. But no, Lincoln had to go and make a big proclamation! Just because we bombed Fort Sumter was no reason to get all upset and start a war over it. We democrats are mostly peaceful you know. If it weren't for Democrats you wouldn't be celebrating Juneteenth at all! 

                                                                                 


  

Wednesday, June 18, 2025

gaining cred

  It was on this date June 18, 1812 that America declared war on Great Britain. The war of 1812 isn't talked about very much, it's seems to be more of a footnote in history than anything else. People did fight and die in that conflict and that needs to be remembered. I had ancestors engaged in those battles and they all made it home safely. At least one I'm aware of was given a land grant for his service. It was the first war ever declared by the United States of America. James Madison was president, a democratic-republican having defeated the federalist party candidate, DeWitt Clinton. No relation to Bill or Hillary though. The war centered on the naval blockade by the British that severely impacted the American economy. You could say it was related to tariffs in that it was impacting international trade and business. The federalists opposed the war, calling it Madison's war and staging protests for over a month. Not much changes over time .
  The most well known fact about the War of 1812 is Francis Scott Key writing the Star Spangled Banner. We all know how he watched, as a captive aboard a British ship, the bombardment of Fort McHenry. In the dawns early light he saw our flag was still there! The tide of the war was changing then and the British were seeking a peaceful solution as they too were in dire financial straights. They had just finished a war with France after all and their resources had been stretched pretty thin. Madison thought the we would easily take Canada from the British. That didn't happen. Today we are hearing about Trump wanting to make Canada a state. He isn't the first one to think about that. Canada didn't become self governing until 1867. It wasn't until 1982 that Canada gained complete autonomy from Britain, able to amend its' own constitution without the approval from Parliament. The war of 1812 wasn't really about taking territory, it was about opening up trade.
  The federalists eventually became the Democrats we know today. The democratic republicans, simply republicans. You will hear people say how the parties flipped and flopped. The democrats like to say that, we're really the republicans and you're the democrats. It's the same childhood saying, I'm rubber and your glue, anything you say bounces off me and sticks to you. The federalists opposed the war because of economic concerns and proclaimed it a power grab by Madison and the democratic-republicans. A sort of, no kings thing. History is full of little things like that. The republicans supported the war based on National honor, feeling the British impressment of our sailors and interfering with our trade with other nations, warranted such a response. It had only been 29  years since the end of the revolutionary war, Britain signing the treaty of Ghent And yes, some wanted to acquire more territory for the United States, and Canada would be perfect. The thinking being to kick the British out of there, removing them from our front door!
  Some call the war of 1812 the second war of independence. That isn't what it was all about at all. Great Britain wasn't interested in fighting to regain the colonies. It was the United States that declared war on them. We weren't going to be pushed round, taken advantage of or bullied. We had gained our independence, our sovereignty and demanded respect on the world stage. We have held that position ever since and became and remain the strongest nation on the planet! The war of 1812 was that announcement to the world. We have earned our freedom, we now have that "street cred" and will never surrender that. Our flag still flies and will continue to fly proudly. There are times when you have to do the unpopular thing, make those tough choices and exert your presence. We will not be taken advantage of, or bullied by anyone! We will stand up for ourselves!  

                                                                               

  

Tuesday, June 17, 2025

celebrating the colors

  With all the discussion around the recent military parade I just naturally have to add my observations and comments. It is part of the reason I write these blogs after all, as a record of my thoughts for future generations. I have made it known that I fully supported having such a grand parade to celebrate the army's 250th birthday. A show of respect for those that have and those that continue to serve. It also doesn't hurt to show off your strength just a bit every now and again. Seeing is believing! Well, it used to be that way but that is another discussion for another day perhaps. You can't be too sure about what you are seeing these days. I did watch that parade and was proud of my Army, even though I'm a retired Navy man. 
  I hear much about the cost of this parade, most reports estimate 45 million dollars. These costs include road repair after tanks and such go down the roadway. There was the cost of outfitting all the soldiers with the various uniforms to represent various time periods. They also figured the cost of fuel for the vehicles, transportation costs to get them there and the pay. President Trump is reported to have said, that's peanuts. Whatever the actual cost was it's my feeling it was worth the price. And here's the thing, we don't know how much it all costs. Do a google search for that information and all you will get is somewhere between 25 and 45 million as a guess. Accounting is an art form. The numbers can be manipulated and recorded in any number of columns. Yes, accountants are very creative people indeed. For that reason we have these figures of somewhere between 25 and 45 million, maybe, could have been.
  I was struck however, as I watched the parade on Fox5, that there were advertisements. I don't know what else you would call it when it the said who was "sponsoring" the parade. I remember seeing Lockheed Martin and Oracle. I find that a bit unsettling. Now, as I said I'm in full support of having this parade but I'm not too sure about advertising for your sponsors! It came across as a bit cheap and cheesy to me. Given the amount of taxes we the people are paying I'm thinking we should be able to afford a parade! But that seemed to me like, we needed a sponsor. Walmart donated $500,000 but said it wasn't really for the parade, it was for the Army's' Revolutionary war exhibit. 
  Other sponsors also saying it wasn't for the parade but for a variety of other things. In my view those sponsors are just hedging theirs bets and attempting to straddle the fence. I support the parade but I don't support Trump even though I'm giving a significant amount of money in support of the parade, not in support of Trump, unless that is a good thing with you, then we support Trump. For me it's like Target and some other big box stores with their "pride" stuff. They are all in, until that proves to be not so popular, then it's scaled back a bit or eliminated altogether. We support the LGBTQ+ community but we won't say that too loud anymore, we'll just whisper it hoping you don't hear. 
  But whatever the reason for those sponsors, whatever their motives were, isn't the point. I'm just saying I found it a bit tacky. Are we going to start attaching advertising to military uniforms as well? You know, to defray the costs. Nike supplying boots and Under Armor suppling tee shirts or whatever? Many years ago, when I was on active duty, the Navy was looking for a new supplier for bell bottom jeans. Yes, I was in the Navy when we wore bell bottom jeans and I loved it! The Levi Straus company bid on that contract but insisted on having their little red tag on them. That was rejected by the government office that decides on such things. Levi's held fast and we started getting jeans from some other supplier of inferior quality, but they were cheaper. Look, I'm just saying we shouldn't be having sponsors when it comes to such things. Sponsors are trying to attract business, that is why they give the money. If our military now needs sponsors, we are in worse shape than I thought!
 The U.S. Semiquincentennial Commission was established in 2016 to plan and orchestrate the 250th anniversary of the United States. Barack Obama was the president at that time. So, the roots of this parade can be traced back to him. It was a non-partisan decision by congress to authorize this, everyone agreeing we should celebrate that milestone. This celebration will culminate on July the 4th. Flag Day was chosen as the day for a grand military parade to "carry the colors" of the United States of America. That was the sole reason that date was chosen. It had nothing to do with Trumps birthday. Trump wasn't even in anyone's thought while this was being planned back in 2016. It just turned out to be an ironic circumstance. 
  What that parade was celebrating was the adoption of our flag on June 14, 1777 as the official flag of the United States of America. The significance of the flag has been lost on many today. Before there were telephones and radios, flags were the communication of the battlefield. The flag identified who you were! Very important thing to know in the heat of battle so as it avoid what we call today, friendly fire. That flag shouted it out to the world, we ae the United States of America. We have all seen in the movies how the flag bearer went down and someone else quickly picking up that standard. That is historically accurate! The flag bearers were a target for the enemy. Picking that flag up when it fell in battle was a very brave act, making yourself the target. That is an act of bravery. That is why we are the land of the free and the home of the brave. That is the bravery that made us free. Yes, it is that Flag! That is why we should honor and respect that flag. 
  It's a shame that we don't recognize flag day with much more than a date on the calendar. No three day weekend associated with that, no big parties or picnics. This year we did have that grand parade to celebrate that flag. It should serve as a reminder of all those that have "carried the colors" in harms way. That flag flies because of their bravery! That flag is the symbol of their home! They carried in proudly and protected it from falling with their lives. That's why we were taught the flag should never touch the ground! Each time it does should be a reminder, a life lost defending you! That's the only time that flag hits the ground. Held in the arms of a fallen soldier and picked up again by another brave soldier, another American that continues the fight.
 I am humbled and proud to join in that parade, a parade to celebrate the colors. Red for Valor. White for Purity and Blue for Vigilance. 

                                                                                      

                                                                                     

Monday, June 16, 2025

Joe the 1st

  In thinking about these no king protests I can't help draw a parallel to the loyalists of the American revolution. They were in full support of the king. So why would that parallel the protests today? Well, those protesting were only concerned with their own self interests. The were concerned about their wealth, their position in society, and not upsetting the political picture as it existed. They were willing, eager even, to support that King regardless of any usurpations on his part. Want to house troops in my house, no problem, well as long as it isn't really my house, anyone else's house is just fine, you know the peasants. So what if we have to pay a little more taxes, we will just pass the cost on to the consumers. Hey, we can always get some indentured servants or slaves to do the manual labor, that's not an issue. It isn't like we have to pay them a fair wage or anything. 
  We don't need an Army or Navy for anything, the King will protect us all. That's free! We don't have to pay anything for that. Yeah, we have to pay a tax on all paper goods, but that isn't paying for an Army or anything. It's the same today. We have to pay taxes on goods and services, on gambling winnings and buying marijuana, but we can give free medical care to those not working or paying any taxes. So, we're not paying for medical care, we are paying for those goods and services. And in many cases it isn't a tax at all, it's a fee! Fees are quite different from taxes you know. That's why we need a King, to make  important decisions on stuff like that, after all, the common folks, the uneducated masses, just don't understand any of that. 
  But today we know better, and we don't want a King! We want a puppet that will do our bidding! We don't want a King that will hurt our feelings, or hold us accountable for anything, it's not our fault, it is all systemic! It all started with those upstart revolutionaries. They were the ones that wrote letters to the King, petitioned the Parliament and got the King all upset! If they had just gone along with everything it would have been fine. Demanding redress from the King? Bunch of peasants. Thinking they could just do it on their own. 
  The loyalists actively fought alongside the British troops, provided intelligence, logistical support and created chaos and division among the people. That all sounds pretty familiar to me. Sounds exactly like a "no kings" protest to me. The same people organizing "resistance" groups to report the presence of ICE agents or other law enforcement activities to aid the criminals they support. A group actively trying to disrupt the functions of our constitutional republic! They proclaim the constitution is outdated, it needs to change, it needs to be destroyed and replaced with a democracy! If the mob says this, that is what it should be! The only rule of rule there should be is, I can ignore the rule of law when I don't like it. I demand due process, unless that due process finds me guilty, then it needs to be revised. 
  Loyalists and liberals. Same group different generations. Same political mindset. The people only exist for my benefit. The people being those subject to my rule. Sure, I may have to provide the people with a few trinkets, throw them a bone once in a while, but they exist to serve my purposes, not their own. When those people start to cost too much, they must be repressed! We can do it with a whip or by the withholding of the "free" stuff like food, housing and employment opportunities. The choice is theirs! If they start to get too uppity, we'll give them a little bit more, tell them they are empowered, or start importing some other groups to do our bidding. We will however retain our power, our authority at all costs! We almost lost it all back in '65, that was a close one, and again in '64 with that civil rights act. And now, now those conservative patriots want to enforce the law! They're trying to deport our workforce! We can't have that! We are protesting! 
  Today we have a group of "loyalists" that want to replace the existing political system with a straight democracy. Majority rules! That's the rallying cry. The 51 defeat the 49 on every issue. That's why we need to abolish the electoral college. We should just count the votes. Of course we shouldn't require anyone to prove they are entitled to vote, if they come to the polls, they vote! They even need to be a citizen of this country. We can just bus them in if that becomes necessary! Better yet, we will just have "in home" voting using the provided voting device from the party of your choice. Voting from home will ensure everyone is represented. 
  Another interesting parallel between the loyalists and liberals is the action of fleeing to another nation when they lose. Yeah, that' s exactly what many "loyalists did after the revolution, they ran to Canada, Great Britain and the Caribbean. There were those that did stay and attempt to reintegrate into America but they faced discrimination and prejudice, I can't imagine why. Well, make bad choices and you will get bad results. Loyalists, as it turns out are only loyal to one thing, themselves. Democrats are the same way, proclaiming they are the party of the people, just like the German Socialist Party was the party of the people. 
  The problem with that being, they don't care anything about any other people but themselves. It's their way or the highway. A pure democracy does not care about the minority! The constitution is the instrument to balance the majority against the minority and provide an equal playing field. It incorporates the interests of all. A strict democracy where the majority rules does not. It's really like I always say. "everyone wants to be treated equally, until they are". That sums up the democrats. It's all good when it goes their way, but when it doesn't, it just isn't fair. We need to change the rules! We should erase Article 11 section 1 clauses 2 and 3. Oh and amendment 12 as well. There should be no compromise. That is what the electoral college is. It is a compromise between having Congress elect the president and having the popular vote elect the president. 

                                                                                    

Remember this King? Friday the X111 om Mister Rogers show. That's what the Democrats would like to have. They had one too, Joe the 1st. They had hoped to replace him with Kamala the ignorant but that didn't work out. So they've decided they don't want any king now. Kings bad, puppets good. 
                                                                                           

Sunday, June 15, 2025

Strength

  As we all are aware yesterday we had a grand parade to celebrate the US Army. We also had protests across the land called "No Kings Day" protesting President trump. It was also Flag day and Presidents Trump birthday. Yes, you could say a lot going on in America. I just watched the parade on television. I enjoyed the parade and feel like it was time to have one again. First one in thirty one years. Every quarter of a century or so is reasonable enough in my opinion. Nothing wrong with honoring the troops and showing just how big a stick you carry! Deterrence can mean a glorious parade. It is a function of diplomacy, like it or not. Strike the fear into those having bad thoughts! We need to do that with the kids today as well, make them just a little afraid, fear inspires careful consideration before acting. Yes, fear can give one pause.
  I haven't got much to say regarding those "no kings protests"  as I simply dismiss them as nonsense. Just another "virtue signaling" thing for the insecure folks. There is safety in numbers, that can't be denied, until those numbers lead you over the cliff anyway. Haven't heard much about them so guessing things were kept mostly peaceful, the left often bragging about that. I don't care what they did.
  Meanwhile in other news I'm thinking we will see the fall of Iraq in the near future. The timing of this parade might prove to be quite fortuitous. The display of military might, in a very public way, may deter any third world nation having designs on taking action against the United States. Perhaps there are those that will heed the warning issued to the Imperial Japanese regarding waking a sleeping giant. The United States has been quite restrained in our response since that time if you really think about it. The only exceptions being Desert Shield/Desert Storm, the Gulf war, in 100 hours we expelled Iraqi forces from Kuwait! In just under seven months the whole deal was done. Shock and Awe! Then again after the 9/11 attack our response was swift, sure and lethal! 
  The simple truth of the matter is, strength retains control. Following the constitutional convention Benjamin Franklin was asked: what form of government have you given us? Franklins' response was, a republic, if you can but keep it. You can only keep that in the same way it was created, by strength, by force of will and military might. It must be remembered that the "colonies" had little in the way of a military, we had militia. As Americans we don't like to talk about that, but if it weren't for the French navy and their troops providing support the outcome would have been quite different. We needed that "strength" that only a well equipped military could provide. 
  The British were quite certain we would be easily defeated because we had no real military, just a bunch of protestors, protesting the King and his policies. Taxes were imposed upon the colonies to pay the war debt of England. There was a huge debt from the seven years war, also called the French and Indian wars. The King thought those taxes were just and fair because it was the British army that provided protection to those colonists. The colonists disagreed saying, we will defend ourselves! And we tried doing that, soon discovering we needed some help. Franklin was dispatched to France to get help. He succeeded. After the war we owed France some 2.02 million dollars! In 1783 the national debt reached 43 million  and Congress was authorized to raise taxes. That was the beginning of our debt. If we had an army of our own that wouldn't have happened. So, yes, having an Army, a well equipped military is essential to preserving the Republic. Costs a lot of money and the public should see what they are paying for. 
  You are not going to keep a republic by protesting the election of the president. I know I hear the cries of "this is what democracy looks like" and they are correct. It's a mob! That's exactly what a democracy consists of, a mob where the majority rules, the 51 controlling the 49. You get whatever the mob decides! That's great if you are one the mob, not so great when you aren't. Southern democrats were a mob controlling slavery in America. They even waged a war in an attempt to defend just that. They lost because they didn't have sufficient military might. They couldn't match the industrial complex of the northern states. The republic was saved, by military strength. 
  Yes, it was a grand parade, a show of strength, a show of unity! It was inspiring and provided hope for the future. We can regain the glory of the past by honoring that legacy of service. Those protesting are no different than the "loyalists" during the revolution. They are concerned only with their livelihoods, their fortunes and their "quality" of life. They felt the safest thing to do was just maintain the status quo. Let Britain provide for their defense, they didn't want to endanger themselves! Meanwhile, fifty six representatives of the people signed a document stating this: "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." And that, is what that parade was all about!