Globalism Series - Open Borders

The ultimate goal of the globalist is a united world society, governed by a singular government enacting universal laws, enforced by a world court. This is a goal which is not only incompatible with the vision of the United States and the will of her people; it flies against many other governments and nations and peoples as well. To suggest that this would be a simple task if people would just "cooperate" is to make an ill-informed statement at best.

As discussed in the previous article, the only answer to radically alter the acceptance quotient of the world population is the total elimination of contrary thought. That can be done by the use of social pressure to deviate from independent thought and adhere to the normative mindset defined by those in power. It can be done through the use of political power, by means of criminalizing deviant behavior, expressions, and acts of will. It can be accomplished through the use of mass media's influence on the so-called "Low Information" populous. The ultimate method was demonstrated by Pol Pot, Mao and Stalin.

The introduction to this series discussed how this is done via society and the changing of language and expression. This subtle change allowed those with a globalist agenda to radically alter the willingness to accept socialistic and communistic philosophy within a few generations. The change is most evident in the fact that while there have been socialists and communists that have run for office in the US before, none have ever enjoyed the support that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren now see.

The previous article ended with a statement: "The real problem, ladies and gentlemen, is the myth of Open Borders."

As anyone who has followed the news during the Trump Administration is aware, the phrase "Open Borders" has been discussed at length. In fact, it has gotten to the point that few people within the news media are using it any longer. This does not by any means indicate that the drive to establish open borders has ended. If anything, like a shark, the time one should really be on guard is when it can no longer be seen.

Proponents of Open Borders philosophy are not all necessarily globalists. However, every globalist must by necessity support open borders. The difference between the two is that one wants more peace, love and dignity; the other recognizes the reality, which is total power and control. Make no mistake, Globalism uses the first group to drive forward the agenda of the second group.

At this point in play, discussion of no walls or fences on borders has run its course. That conversation will surface again, but for the time being, it has served its purpose. Now is the time to dial back the verbal debate. Now is the time to once more return to working in the shadows. Behind the backs of freedom loving people.

And as such, enter The Hague and the International Criminal Court (ICC).

By Hypergio - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0 

Within the halls of this massive compound, trials are held and verdicts are handed down which supersede the justice systems already in place within the countries that have signed on to the Rome Statute. (Text of Rome Statute) Not all countries which have signed the statute have justice systems. Of those that do, not all such systems work as they should. Thus the ICC serves a needed purpose, yet it can be exploited.

This statute is the same one that former presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama attempted to sign. In both cases, signatures was not ratified by Senate and were later revoked by the succeeding president. Both Bill and Hillary Clinton have mentioned their support for the ICC several times, as well as their desire to see the US come under its jurisdiction. Obama has echoed these sentiments, even going so far as to declare the US a "cooperating observer."

It is through this back and forth relationship with the ICC that the United States of America; which withdrew its signature from the Rome Statute and has most recently reversed the Obama era cooperation; has now found itself in a battle for sovereignty.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the backdoor to Open Borders in the US.

The Rome Statute explicitly allows the ICC to work and maintain jurisdiction where the signatory nation has no justice system in place, or has a corrupted system in place; think of the trial one might receive in China under Mao. (Incidentally, China is not a signatory.) The ICC has no jurisdiction over nations which have not signed; nor over nations which have rescinded their signatures; nor over nations which have a fully operational justice system and the capacity to prosecute and try criminal cases within that system. Nor does it have jurisdiction over the citizens of those countries, which seems a very redundant thing to write. Unfortunately, as will soon be seen, it must be put into words.

In short, the International Criminal Court has no jurisdiction over  the United States, nor its citizens, nor any part of its governmental workings up to and including the military. Those are the guidelines by which the ICC was organized, they are not the opinion of any one person.

Right now, in The Hague within the walls of the International Criminal Court, members of the United States Military are being accused and tried. Not directly, but rather it is being argued that those who are accused of "war crimes," (think Nazi - These are the definitions for the phrase), should stand before the ICC. The information gathered by the ICCs Prosecutor against the US military service members; if indeed it exists; has not been turned over to the United States for the purpose of prosecuting those responsible. Rather, it is currently being argued that the ICC can force jurisdiction upon the US, because Afghanistan is a signatory.

While this may not seem like much; indeed, it may seem as though the United States should cooperate in this instance; nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is that just by showing up, an official attorney for the US; say a member of the Attorney General's Office; gives the Prosecutor and the ICC at large carte blanche in any matter concerning the United States.

Some will and have argued that that would be fine, as it would apply only in this single case. Again, this is an erroneous statement made from either a grievous lack of insight, or a globalist perspective. Granting the ICC jurisdiction, even in a single matter, establishes precedent. That precedent is the foundation upon which the Globalist agenda seeks to override the sovereignty of the United States. Once the ICC has jurisdiction, the laws of that country become subject to those enacted by the United Nations, and other international bodies (e.g. INTERPOL).

This is the picture of a United States under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. A Marine is accused of killing a child in front of the child's mother. This is considered to be a war crime according to the case currently being presented in The Hague. The United States Attorney General tells the ICC Prosecutor that the US will handle the matter internally. The ICC at this stage can then point to the Rome Statute and claim that the US is in violation of implied acceptance of the Statute and the rules therein, subjecting the nation as a whole to disciplinary action. This is done by referral to the Assembly of States Parties; their referral to the United Nations with recommendations; and the acceptance by the United Nations to put those recommendations into force.*

To be clear on this last point: Even though the United States has a fully functional and generally sound justice system; and the ICC supposedly operates by the doctrine of complimentarity; the end result is either the loss of sovereignty for the Unites States and increased power for the ICC, or the economic damage such actions as embargoes can have upon a nation's economy.

For the sake of clarity, the doctrine of complimentarity simply states that "[t]he ICC is intended to complement, not to replace, national criminal systems; it prosecutes cases only when States do not are unwilling or unable to do so genuinely." The ICC Prosecutor is at this stage arguing; whether literally or by implication; that the United States is subject to the Statute because of its actions within a member nation (State), and that it is unable to prosecute trials involving accused military members genuinely.

It should be noted that this tribunal in the International Criminal Court in The Hague is going on right now. In fact, it has been going on for the last two days, and has only a day of oral argument left. This is not fiction. This is not sensationalism. This is not "fake news." If ever something was truly deserving of being called fake, it would be every news network and outlet that has failed to cover this story as it should have been.

This is the backdoor by which the Globalists seek to enter. And this is the biggest fight against that agenda yet.




This is the second in a two part series. The previous article in this series can be found here. The introduction can be found here.



*Please forgive the obscene oversimplification of this process. It is far more complicated than presented, however such detail carries with it the threat of boredom in the average reader.

Globalism Series - Globalism

This series was introduced in the last post, which can be read here. The gist is that Globalism, and its inevitable antecedent philosophy of Open Borders, is perhaps the worst idea mankind has had. Well, apart from genocide. It is not only unrealistic, it is an open door to global catastrophe, likely ending in a return to the Dark Ages. Globalism was initially viewed as a flight of fancy and usable only for science fiction. Today it has become the delusion that many believe possible. Forwarded slowly and patiently by proponents through various means, Globalism is this era's Imperialism; but with a far more disastrous potential set of consequences.

The "Big Problem"

The biggest problem with Globalism is the existence of enemies of state. That is not to say that there are not other great problems, but this is by far the most immediate. 

Photo by NASA on Unsplash

The concept of Globalism when put simply is this: No individual or sovereign nations, just a single world ruled by a group of individuals. While there are proponents who adhere to a more watered-down variant, the ultimate goal of the Globalist agenda is a singular world government. This means that all currencies, resources and laws must eventually be unified. It also means that all individual systems of government must fall. 

Initially this was one of the biggest reasons why many thought that Globalism could never be advanced as a viable possibility. It was suggested that the only way of doing this would be to court anarchy, and anarchists and governments don't readily mix. Thus, if the globalist were to incite anarchy within the nations; and then attempt to set up a world government; it was believed that they would fail miserably. 

Proponents of Globalism set upon a far different approach than the one previously mentioned. Rather than inciting anarchy, they simply worked subtly to breed dissatisfaction. It was a far more laborious process that required a long-term commitment, but globalists were willing to make that sacrifice. They introduced the concept of a singular government into every form of media, from educational to entertainment. At the same time, subtle changes were made within society to foster a growing dissatisfaction with current governments specifically, and life in general. An emphasis was placed upon the importance of dreams in the mid to late 1900's, and mass media underscored this message. At the same time, movies, theater, books, art and games were pushing a constant supply of dream material. It was suggested that the current system could not work, resulting in a dreary, post-apocalyptic world. Other offerings suggested that a Utopia could be achieved if only mankind could band together in a common bond. This approach worked.

The problem with the approach was that it did not address the major obstacle to the success of Globalism. That problem was the continued existence and growth of enemies of state; more specifically, those individuals and groups that would seek to work havoc in areas of the world populated by people they hated. Many of these enemies are not dissuaded from mass destruction today, even with the threat of reciprocity, annihilation, trial and imprisonment or execution. Think about this combined with a global society that doesn't restrict travel, and the problem becomes frighteningly clear.

The Attempted Solutions

"AOC"

The way to deal with enemies of state, and for that matter opponents of Globalism, has been debated. Some suggest that the simple act of opening national borders and allowing unrestricted travel will be a grand enough gesture of good will that enemies will simply cease to be enemies. For people such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, it seems as though belief in the magical solution is all there is to the problem. 

Others suggest turning to technology. Utilizing ground sensors, listening posts and video towers to monitor hypothetical borders; without implementing walls, increased border security personnel, or other practical forms of enforcement; will certainly discourage those with vile intent. Andrew Yang, a Democrat Presidential hopeful, has actually laid out something very similar to this approach. (It should be noted that as of yet, he has not openly endorsed Open Borders; but he is on board with AOC's "Free Income" stance, calling his concept "The Freedom Dividend." This alone would require another article.)

Still others suggest that what must happen is to simply do away with national identity. This has already been seen in practice on a smaller scale with attempts to color patriotism as "exceptionalism," describe a desire for secure borders as "racism" and "white supremacy," and various other methods. These individuals are not above twisting a movement to suit the purpose. For instance, the concept of "White Privilege." While originally describing a very real social problem, has also been hijacked for the purpose of shaming a large segment of the population into silence on any national issue. While some still utilize it for its original purpose, be aware that others use it for the sake of virtually bludgeoning a critic into silence. In spite of these guerrilla tactics the Big Problem remains the same, because they have not addressed reality.

The Actual Solution

What few globalists will admit, especially in this political climate, is that there is an extremely obvious and thoroughly effective solution to the Big Problem. Few if any proponents of Globalism will discuss this, because it clearly illustrates the carefully concealed double standard by which they and others of a similar mindset have come to thrive. Make no mistake: Those most powerful proponents embrace Globalism not because it requires harmony, but rather that it demands subjugation. Their altruism is shattered when motivations are broken down to the simplest denominator. They want more power. 

The aforementioned Big Problem, then, is a genuine obstacle. It cannot be properly addressed, however. Not until the majority of the population is on board with the life-changing answer to all things, which is the public relations campaign of Globalism. 

Photo by Václav Pluhař on Unsplash

The actual solution has also historically been called "The Final Solution." No, not "die Endlösung der Judenfrage," but something far more diabolical. In keeping with the theme, call it "die Endlösung für die Staatsfeinde." 

Pure and unaltered Globalism cannot function without unanimous consent. The most powerful proponents know this, and perhaps some of the lesser proponents recognize it also. The answer then is not a pie-in-the-sky alternative to immigration. Nor is it the delusional fantasy of making friends of enemies simply by treating them as friends. These do not address the core failings of humanity, and though Globalism is built upon a solidly humanistic foundation, it recognizes this as fact. Thus the actual solution is the termination of all opponents. 

Allow this to sink in for a moment.

Globalism cannot function without everyone agreeing to it. Not everyone does agree. Not everyone will agree. In order for it to be properly implemented and maintained, those in opposition must be dealt with à la Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao. No other approach actually eliminates the greatest obstacle to the globalist agenda. Unlike the three beacons of awesomeness mentioned however, this must take place on a global scale. 

Breathe Easy... For Now

For those who view the world through the lens of transhumanism; for those who are hopeful agnostics or atheists; or those who hold some other view that takes a greater-than-deserved optimistic view of humanity; the idea of genocide on a global scale is abhorrent. When the summary of this article was shown to a professor emeritus of philosophy, his reaction to the last section's conclusion was a combination of horror and denial. He gave permission to be quoted in whole or in part, but only on the condition of anonymity:

"...I can find no rational reason to dispute your logic, yet I cannot accept it as being a possibility, let alone a probability. Though humanity is capable of great evil, it is also capable of great good. The more humanity evolves, the more likely the tendency towards good. ...Humanity's growth as a species from the earliest examples unto the present day, from physical attributes to ethical reasoning [demand that] ...I can neither dispute nor accept your conclusion due to conflict of interest."

For those who hold fast to the notion that this the only life one gets, and after comes the grave and nothingness, the following advice is given: Breathe Easy. The globalist agenda has been one of slow, steady and subtle change. This makes it highly unlikely that any planet-wide genocide will happen within the next several years. While the growth of Globalism has certainly accelerated, it is unlikely that any large segment of the population will accept such a solution... Yet. 

For those who believe that the Bible is real and trustworthy: Breathe Easy... For Now. The book of Revelation clearly shows that the Antichrist rules a one-world government, it is true. It is also clear that only under this same leader does the aforementioned genocide take place. Contrary to popular belief, while the last few presidents may be (or have been) possessed of a spirit of antichrist, not one is the Antichrist. 

The real problem facing our society today is not a sudden materialization of Globalism. The real problem is what absolutely must come before Globalism can be achieved. 

The real problem is not the "Final Solution" being ratified tomorrow. The real problem is what is being talked about now, on Capitol Hill. 

The real problem, ladies and gentlemen, is the myth of Open Borders.

Globalism Series Introduction

There is a myth going around that ought to be addressed. Truthfully, it should have been addressed when it first starting gaining steam, around 2012 or so. However it would appear that few people are willing to bite the bullet and actually give a rational and intelligent rebuttal to this myth. This is due to the fact that to do so would be to court a political maelstrom, and few people know if they could survive such a storm of controversy. As an individual that has dealt with more than his fair share of withering criticism, the idea is not foreign nor is the aversion. 

With that stated, it is time to place cards on the table. When first faced with the damaging ideology of globalism, many people chuckled and suggested that it could never gain traction. People are smart. People are intelligent. The idea of a unified world without first taking radical measures to ensure its feasibility could never happen, they said. 

Unfortunately, these folks did not foresee the 1960's and 1970's, with their rising emphasis on socialist and communist philosophy. They did not foresee the recession of the 1980's; the persecution of small businesses and self-employed operators in the 1990's; and ultimately, the wide acceptance of socialist and communist philosophy within mainstream society as a result of Bernie Madoff and the Wall Street movement in the early 2000's. 

What the political gurus of the 1940's did not foresee has come to pass, and today the myth of Globalism; and its inevitable antecedent philosophy of Open Borders; has gained greater traction than could ever be thought possible. It has done this, not by taking such radical measures as would be needed to ensure success, but rather by far more nefarious means. It has gotten to this point by subtly and quietly changing small things within the United States: Language, Identity, and Perception. 

No one should be so gullible as to assume that globalists are behind every subtle change in our society. It should still be noted that as people came forward with ideas that fit the globalist agenda, these found immediate funding and support from very powerful folk. For instance, in 1970, the term "politically correct" was used in an essay by Toni Cade Bambara in reference to her concept of proper masculine behavior.  This phrase was then slowly introduced into society over the next twenty years. By 1991, even the New York Times recognized a cultural revolution of sorts was taking place in regards to the phrase. Nowadays, it is unlikely that one can tell a joke without being labeled "politically incorrect" and "insensitive." (The likelihood of this leading to the death of stand-up comedy ought to be another article entirely... Hmm...)

The result of subtle changes within society has been the acceptance of Globalism as a viable possibility, rather than its reality of being a Utopian pipe dream. The truth is that it is a grand scale delusion, much the same as the philosophy of Socialism. That philosophy when implemented as a governing political system has led to destruction in every nation in which it was attempted. Globalism, if implemented, would go much farther: It would lead to global destruction. 

To be clear, the term "global destruction" should not be understood as being the same as apocalypse, wherein the world has come to an end and is unable to sustain life on the whole. Rather, it means that everything which allows this planet to function as habitable for human life in modern times would cease to exist through systematic elimination and unanticipated consequences. That statement may seem heavy-handed, but it is not made without serious consideration and thought. 

In the next two article, Globalism as a whole will be examined, as will the Open Borders philosophy. It is the hope of this writer that there are enough genuinely free-thinking people left in the world to combat this myth. Otherwise, we may be thrust back to the Dark Ages as early as 2020.

History Calling

Art by Andrew James Unlimited

Hello? Hello? Hello!

Hi! Glad to finally connect with you! So I know we never really met in school, but I saw you an awful lot in passing. Never really saw you in the halls, but sometimes I saw you in the classroom and every now and again I saw you in the library.

I guess I should introduce myself. My name's American History, and I guess the reason I wanted to have a chat with you today is really to kind of clear the air.

You know, there have been a lot of things said about me over the years. A lot of people have been really cruel in the way they've dealt with me, and yeah, I could sing songs about the troubles I've gone through. But I thought that instead of making a big scene, I'd just try and have a conversation with you. Like adults.

The first thing I want you to know is that I don't blame you at all. I was already being done wrong by your teachers long before you grew up. You're not the problem; you're the solution. I'll tell you what I mean in a moment.

You should also know that I'm not in nearly as bad of shape as a lot of people have said. Sure, I've seen my share of bad times, but so has everyone. For example, you've been told that I'm a mess and that I need to get clean. Well truth be told, there's very little about me that isn't pretty straight forward. I don't need to be clean, because the things I've seen were not clean.

Oh! No, I'm not talking about being on drugs! Sorry to have given you that impression. I just mean that facts are facts. What happened in the past can't be changed by reinterpretation, retelling or ignorance. No matter how many times someone tries to change the story, the reality of past events stays the same.

I guess I should tell you that I understand how confused you and a lot of your peers are right now. Your parents are good with celebrating national holidays like Columbus Day and Presidents Day, but you're not sure you can because of issues like slavery and human rights. Your parents are concerned with young politicians wanting socialism in the United States, and all you can see is how bad things are getting around you. I understand that things like socialism and open borders and world peace are appealing. In fact, you and your folks probably argue about it from time to time.

I have to be honest with you about this. Socialism has never worked on a national scale. My family can tell you that first hand. Ask Russian, or Polish, or German. They'll all tell you that every time its been tried, something's gone wrong. The people in power then had to figure out how to fix what went wrong, and sooner or later it became war or oppression. That's not to say there aren't some good things socialism tries to do. The United Kingdom has some socialist elements and they work. Public transportation, for instance. But they can support the programs they have put into place, and not simply because the government printed new money. Does that make sense?

World peace would certainly be nice also. I would love it if I never saw another war. But until that happens, open borders don't make sense because there will always be enemies. They don't disappear simply because you decide there shouldn't be war. The same goes for slavery. What happened prior to the American Civil War was horrific, and that war was even worse. But look around. Slavery didn't disappear, it just became less obvious. There are still slaves, right here in the United States. Why isn't that more important than a politician's haircut?

Look, I'm not trying to argue with you. I just want you to know that these days, you can't really trust what a lot of people are saying. You really do have to look into things for yourself. Search engines and internet encyclopedias are great, but they can't substitute personal research.

Why?

Well, because when you are the one doing the research for yourself, the opinions you draw are formed organically. They grow and change naturally. When you listen to the news, the anchor tells you a story based upon the network's opinion. Online resources are often written from someone else's point of view also. So when you rely on those and don't do any digging of your own, you don't have an opinion of your own. You become a clone of someone else.

I'm not trying to be insulting. I will admit that when it comes right down to it, I really don't have a lot of tact or diplomacy. I've never really had the ability to be concerned with feelings. I don't understand emotions so I don't really understand why there's more value placed on them than on facts. I'm also more of an introvert so I don't generally reach out to people. I figure if they want to know something, they'll ask.

But I can promise you that I'll always tell you the truth. Just keep digging. Keep asking. I've got nothing to gain by leaning to any direction. That's how you're the solution.

So, anyway. I guess that's all for now. I hope we'll meet again.

What Is The United States Declaration Of Independence?

The United States Declaration of Independence is a document written in 1776. The writer of the document was Thomas Jefferson. It was written to King George of England. It gave the reasons for why the people in the thirteen colonies wanted independence.

The United States Declaration of Independence was signed by fifty-six people. The oldest person signing it was Benjamin Franklin. The youngest to sign was Edward Rutledge. The largest signature on the document belongs to John Hancock who was acting as president of Congress. It is said that he wanted to make sure that King George could read it without his glasses.

The Five Parts of the Document

The United States Declaration of Independence is taught in five parts.

The first part is called the Introduction. In this part, the full date is given, which was July 4, 1776. It states that all thirteen colonies stood together in the writing and sending of it. It also says that it is their belief that history calls for events like the one they were about to do. They were going to declare freedom. They knew King George would not give them freedom. So they were declaring their own freedom and expecting war as a result.

The second part is called the Preamble. This word simply means introduction. Here it is used as a place to give an outline. The writer outlines what the colonies believed was proper government. They wanted a government that allowed for people to have a say in laws. They wanted people to have a say in taxes. when people don't have the chance to take part in government the colonies believed they had a right to declare war on the government. This is called revolution.

The third part is called the Indictment. This is where the writer and colonies with him listed all of the things that King George did wrong. It was a list of bad things King George had demanded. It also tells King George that the colonies tried to talk to him about these bad things. It says that the king didn't listen.

The fourth part is called the Denunciation. This word means that the colonies were accusing people. They accused King George. They also accused the people in England for not helping them. They say in this section that because of these problems they had to go to war.

The fifth part is called the Conclusion. Here the colonies finished their document. They said that because of all the things that England had done, they were choosing to be free of England's government. They said that they no longer saw King George as their ruler. They would rule themselves.

After these parts, the people that the colonies had sent to represent them in Congress signed their names. They wanted King George to see that everyone agreed.

What the Declaration of Independence Means 

What the Declaration of Independence means to the United States today is debated. Some say that it is just an old document. They think that the document has no value except as a piece of history. Other people think that it is important to teach. But they don't think that it is important enough to talk about. There are still a lot of people who think that it is important to talk about. They believe that forgetting the document and what it says could lead to people forgetting about what freedom really is. They think that if people forget about what King George did in the past they might allow our government now to get just as bad.

What do you think? Is the Declaration of Independence important today? Why is it important? Why isn't it important?

What Happened 

Because of this document the colonies went to war with England. King George sent many soldiers to force the colonies to obey. But the colonies didn't want to obey King George anymore. So they fought against the soldiers that King George sent. This war is called the American Revolutionary War. Many things happened in the war. Bad things were done. Good things were done. Many people died. Many more lived. In the end, the colonies became the United States of America.

But that is another story for a different time.

Killing Children

This is the text of the "Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act." The bill, sponsored by Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse, is intended to provide protection for those infants who, in spite of abortive measures, are born alive. It protects the now born alive infant from further action to terminate its life.

This, the protection of human life, should be without question something which our lawmakers agree on. Regardless of political affiliation. Regardless of what they think of our current President. Regardless of all other views held on foreign policy, immigration, the United States Constitution, traffic laws or whether the sky is pink - Our lawmakers should desire above all else to protect human life. They all say that they do on the campaign trail. They choose to demonstrate that they do in various ways, at least during election cycles.

So with all of this said, I am naturally here to give you the rare "good news" story. The story that happens once or twice a year where politicians put aside their partisan differences for the sake of something that truly matters on a grand scale. I am here to tell you that achieved cloture on the bill, which is a fancy way of saying that they agreed there was nothing to debate and the bill must be voted on.

Ah, as the fictional narrator of a popular children's series might say, how I wish I could tell you that this is exactly what happened. How I wish I could write that the sun shone bright on the United States Senate, as it were, and that the Senators joined hands across the aisles to stand as one. I would like nothing more, in fact, to pen a sonnet about the day when a human being's right to live after drawing air for the first time was codified and made law. Perhaps one day I will do just that, but alas, today is not that day.

I cannot write these things, for at 5:42 yesterday evening, as the sun set on the Eastern seaboard of the United States of America, it set also on the hopes and dreams and battles of any newborn survivors of abortion attempts. And as the sun set on these things, so too did it set on these very lives; lives of infants who, against all odds and circumstance and technology and oppression, had fought hard enough to take that first breath... Only to have it stolen. The ember of their lives quenched without mercy or care or concern or goodness or any other human decency.

The human race, at least that which calls the United States home, denied the very promise of the nation that it so hypocritically fights for on the part of any other human. If the human is a rapist, they deserve mercy. If the human is a trafficker, they deserve leniency. If the human is a murderer, they still deserve their life.

But if the human is mere seconds old; if the human has drawn its first or perhaps its second breath; if that human has survived a saline wash, or an acid bath, or a toxic shock, or a drug overdose, or repeated stabbings, or anything else of that sort; survived these things and fought through to come into the land of the living? Well, that human is not worthy of being called a human. Apparently. Born innocent, that human is still guilty of the most heinous of crimes: Inconveniencing a society set on that humans death.

I am not being alarmist. I am not exaggerating facts, nor am I conflating any issues. I fully understand that there are women out there who are faced with horrors that should never be wished upon a human being. I realize that there are consequences for these horrors, and that one of those is pregnancy. I do not suggest that a woman in such a position be not only forced to carry such a pregnancy to term but also care for that child as well. My personal beliefs are not a part of this article, and to the best of my abilities I am trying to remain as civil as possible. I am also attempting to remain as non-judgmental as possible. If it strikes you differently, dear reader, I beg your forgiveness.

To that end, I have called several hospitals around the nation. Seventy-eight, to be exact. I have called them to inquire about specific policy completely unrelated to the abortion issue. Only six returned my calls or deigned to speak to me, and all requested anonymity. From this small sampling, I can say that at least with these hospitals, the policy for an unwanted live birth is to turn that child over for care by the state or by private organizations. In all cases, the mother's name is left off of the public record, and in many cases she is given a pseudonym. The mother need not be concerned with being tracked down in later years to be asked uncomfortable questions.

Yet it seems that many people are under the impression that a woman who chooses not to have an abortion; or a woman who has had a failed abortion; will be forced to care for the child. It seems that the going understanding is that she will be made, whether by coercion or some other means, to raise it and be reminded every hour of every day of a failing or of a horror.

This is the text of the "Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act." One Senator who voted against this bill decried its language as impeding a woman's right to choose. Please read the text. There is no such language.

Another Senator who voted against human life stated that it would send women to prison for exercising their rights to choose. This is the text of the "Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act." There is no such language; in fact, steps were taken within it to assure the exact opposite.

Still another Senator suggested that it would completely reverse the right for women to obtain an abortion. There is no such language. This is the text of the "Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act." Read it for yourself, and tell me if I am wrong.

I have said before that I don't care for the way in which our current President speaks. He is brash. He is rash. He is impulsive and contrary and seemingly set on making enemies wherever he goes. He was also one hundred percent right on this observation, and I leave it with you as an apt summary of my feelings on the injustice which every Democrat hoping for the presidency embarked upon last night.

Where Is The Outcry Now?

This will not be a long article. I intend to say what I have to say, and be done with it. Comment however you like, though be aware that I will delete those that do not add to the discussion in any constructive way. Fair warning has been given.

Here are a few scenarios to consider.

Egypt discovers tunnels under its borders and under Cairo around the same time the country comes under attack by targeted missile strikes, mortar fire, and suicide bombers. They discover it to be the work of one specific group, and bring a resolution to the United Nations to denounce the group as radical and terrorist.

China discovers that it also has tunnels under its borders, and under Beijing, around the time that it also comes under similar attack. It is discovered to be the work of the same group as Egypt, and they also move to have the UN declare this group radical and terrorist.

Kuwait also comes under attack by the same group attacking the other two countries, and finds the same form of entry points. They join the call for the UN to condemn the group's actions.


It is documented that this group fires indiscriminately with their mortars, targets intentionally civilian transport with their guided missiles, and intentionally sends suicide bombers into densely populated civilian areas for maximum death counts.

It is also documented that this group launches their missiles from civilian populated areas in its own country. Furthermore, they launch mortars from atop civilian homes, hospitals, orphanages and schools.

All of these actions by this group are designated as war crimes when in a state of war. When not in an officially declared war, these actions are recognized as being acts of terror and crimes against humanity.


Even with the brand new requirement for two-thirds majority adopted by the UN on December 6, 2018, the three countries above would likely see their resolution pass, right?

Of course they would. Anyone with half a brain could look at the group's actions and say "That is not right. That is not acceptable. That is an attack on a sovereign country, and it all amounts to acts of terror."


Now, let us further understand that it is also documented fact that this same group has declared that they wish to set up their own caliphate. They wish to see all Arab countries under their rule, and then subjugate the rest of the world.

In this case, it is natural to assume that since these attacks were carried out against two Arab countries and another recognized world power, that their resolution would receive overwhelming support from other world powers and the Arab world as a whole, right?

Again, no sane person could claim that this could be in any way wrong.


But what happened on December 6, 2018, just twenty minutes after the vote requiring a two-thirds majority to pass any resolution within the United Nations?

The nation of Israel, itself a target of indiscriminate mortar fire, targeted missile attacks, and suicide bombers, failed to see its resolution pass. This resolution would have recognized the group known as Hamas as a terrorist organization.

Hamas. The group that has sent suicide bombers into Israeli marketplaces. The group that has fired mortars into empty fields and crowded city streets alike. The group that has recently acquired guided missiles from an officially unknown source and used them to target transit. The group that has gone on record in the past as denouncing various Arab countries such as Egypt and Kuwait as being too immoral and therefore worthy of being labeled enemies.

That Hamas.

The resolution failed to achieve two thirds majority because every Arab country in the region; each one having been threatened by Hamas in past statements; voted against declaring them a terrorist organization.

It failed to achieve two thirds majority because countries such as China and Russia; two countries who have seen their interests in the region threatened by the group's activities; still refused to denounce Hamas as a terrorist organization.

The resolution failed because every Arab nation in the region has already stated; whether recently or in times past; that they desire to see the only Jewish sovereign state on the planet wiped from the face of the Earth.

The resolution failed because China and Russia, along with several other Communist and Socialist states, have certain interests within the Arabian and African regions. Though this is currently mere conjecture, it is likely that the missiles Hamas now possesses originated from one or both of these countries.


Had Hamas taken these actions against any other Arab state; or against any other world power (barring perhaps the US and the UK); they would have been denounced.

Their actions would have sparked a cry of outrage from the world at large, and certainly from the world's social justice warriors.

Their actions would have placed the group upon a pyre built by public outcry, and lit aflame by the United Nations.


So I ask you...

Where is the outcry now?

News Commentary Break: Lorde, The UN, And Israel

Bullspit Of Epic Proportions

Truth be told, I like some Lorde songs. I think she's got a unique voice and a very different ear for music. I also can't say that I am upset with her for canceling her show: It's her show, and what she does with her business is her business. It's no skin off my nose if she chooses to respect her Israeli fans, or respect her Palestinian fans, or disrespect most of her fans to please a portion of them. It really is none of my concern.

What is my concern; what does have me ready to unload on someone; is the level of misinformation being spread around. What does have me pissed off is the pure and unadulterated stupidity seen in the United Nations today. What does have me angry is the relative ease with which a whining, vocal few can sway public opinion. 

Case in point: Lorde. I don't know the young lady, but I'm guessing she's very busy being a singer and performer. I'm guessing that between performances, publicity appearances, release parties, studio work and interviews, she has precious little time for herself. I'm guessing that much of her quality alone time outside of the public's eye is spent doing things she enjoys- And unless she enjoys researching international politics; the history of Israel and the Palestinian people; the creation, governance and activities of Hamas and Hezbollah; and the recognition policies of the United Nations, she probably doesn't know as much as she should to make a truly informed decision. However, introduce a whining, sniveling, simpering, sob-story toting duo of millennial/hippy hybrids writing a letter full of historical inaccuracies and factually flawed reasoning, and this incredibly influential pop star makes a decision which in turn sways public opinion. 

"A Difficult Time"

I'm sure that Palestinians throughout the region were suffering terribly, wondering if she was going to come or not. I can almost guarantee that no Muslim woman would be at the concert anyway; at least, not in any visible way. You see, such Western entertainment is considered to be corrupting to a Muslim; but especially to a woman. To see Lorde on stage showing skin not normally seen in a strict Islamic society could potentially cause women to think they were empowered, valuable or worse, (gasp) even human. If given the chance, I'd like to ask Ms. Abu-Shanab why she does not attempt to teach under Hamas or Hezbollah rule. I'd also like to ask Ms. Sachs why she thinks it's possible that she could return to Israel while still heading up her Deyanu organization. 

The simple truth is that Ms. Abu-Shanab would face persecution and possible death under Hamas and Hezbollah for being a woman teaching- Whether she is Muslim or not. Meanwhile, Ms. Sachs would be allowed to continue her involvement with an organization aimed at lambasting Israel for its supposed occupation of Palestinian land while living in Israel because they maintain much the same individual freedoms as the United States. The worst Ms. Sachs might experience are some harsh words from people who don't approve; far easier to deal with than the literal stones which might be thrown at Ms. Abu-Shanab. 

The reality is that no Palestinian dwelling in regions around Israel were having a difficult time due to Lorde; nor would they have any additional difficulty if she had chosen to keep her concert. No, the reality is that the difficulties these Palestinians face come directly from their coalition government: Hamas and Hezbollah. These two groups, still listed as international terrorist organizations, are the entities throwing fits about Jerusalem's recognition as Israel's capital. To stay alive and semi-cared for, the people barely surviving under this joke of a government merely repeat the party line.

The Sins Of America

According to dimwitted and well-intentioned people alike, the move by President Trump to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital was "shortsighted," "piggish," and "the actions of a Zionist bully," to use just a few of the descriptions I've heard. These individuals seem to forget the requirements for admission into the United Nations, to say nothing of simple history.

President Trump did nothing unusual: He recognized a city as the capital of a country that has had that city as its capital since inception. Would we be claiming issues if the U.S. recognized London as the capital of the United Kingdom, Paris as the capital of France, or Ottawa as the capital of Canada would there be an issue? Of course not. Yet these three countries have the largest Jewish populations in the world apart from Israel and the United States. 

The issue is not that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The issue is that Israel even exists, and I absolutely dare anyone to try proving me wrong on that statement. The sins of America in relation to Israel are many: We did not step into World War II soon enough; we did not treat them properly under many presidential administrations since their sovereign national identity was established; and we have not done enough to help their neighbors rid themselves of Hamas and Hezbollah. With the absence of these organizations, and a genuine democratic republic in place, the Palestinian peoples would actually be capable of speaking for themselves. 

The Treason Of The United Nations

In order to be admitted to the United Nations, an application must first receive a minimum of nine out of fifteen votes from the Security Council. Then it must receive a two-thirds majority vote from the General Assembly. In 1949, the nation of Israel was accepted into the United Nations with a better than minimal vote. 

In the speeches accompanying their admission, the Jewish people were hailed for their contributions to humanity. Phrases such as "advancement of progressive thought" and "Useful member of the family of nations" were used in these final discussions and statements. El Salvadore stated that it had watched the process "with the warmest desire to promote its admission." These are just some of the glowing terms used during these final speeches. 

Naturally, there were those opposed. It should come as no surprise that these were almost exclusively Arab, and almost entirely Muslim. It should come as no surprise that the anti-Israel initiative began even as they were admitted to the United Nations. Iraq called Israel's admission "another nail in the coffin of the United Nations." Egypt implied that admitting Israel would bring "everlasting shame and humiliation" to the United Nations. Syria accused the United Nations, stating they had "rewarded violence with praise." Nevertheless, Israel was admitted.

Ironically, the United Nations is now doing exactly that: Rewarding violence with praise and condoning terrorism with a smirk and a shadowy hand-off. The Arab states surrounding the nation of Israel have, from 1949, continually attempted to wipe Israel from the map. This is incontrovertible fact, and it cannot be excused. 

So this brings us to the latest treason against Israel perpetrated by the United Nations; this in addition to them funneling money to Hamas and Hezbollah in spite of the fact that they are recognized terrorist organizations; this in addition to supplying the coalition government formed by these two organizations with finances to bring legal action against Israel- This in spite of said coalition government not being a member state. 

This is the latest:

This Is Not The End

One of the most contentious and vicious presidential election years is now officially behind us.

The President-Elect is Donald J. Trump.

The House of Representatives is under Republican Control.

The U.S. Senate is under Republican Control.

Presidential hopeful Hillary R. Clinton gave a very nice concession speech.

Current President Barack Obama stated that he has accepted the results.

So naturally, it's all over, right?

Sadly, for many people, this is not the end of the season of fear they walked into when Trump became the Republican nominee. These folks are focused upon the rhetoric that came out of Trump's campaign, and the horrible things stated in Clinton's campaign advertisements. They are looking at Trump's running mate, Mike Pence, and his alleged affiliation with various groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. They are replaying in their minds the things stated about Muslims, homosexuals, lesbians, Hispanics, and certain women during the campaign.

For these people, this is the end of the world- Or their world, at least.

Friends, I would like to bring to you today some very good news: This Is Not The End.

President-Elect Donald Trump

Yes, Donald Trump ran a nasty, spiteful and inflammatory campaign. He managed to anger nearly every societal and cultural group in the nation. He exhibited some of the worst behavior ever seen in a presidential candidate in the history of the nation.

I will say that at least he didn't challenge his opponent to a duel as happened a couple times in the late 1700's, but that's not really saying anything, is it?

Nevertheless, let us be encouraged by the fact that our government is structured in such a way as to prevent Trump from being able to enact or implement much of what he said he wanted to do. Moreover, those things he spoke of which would be beneficial for the U.S. economy, tax code, and more- These things will be examined and scrutinized. The checks and balances of this country are in place for just this sort of event, and as such, I look forward with a great deal of hope.

More on why this is a little later.

Hillary Clinton

While Clinton began her concession speech saying that the results were "...painful, and will be for a long time," she also went on to say that the citizens of the United States "...owe him an open mind and the chance to lead." She went on to encourage her supporters to remain involved with the political process, stating "...let’s do all we can to keep advancing the causes and values we all hold dear. Making our economy work for everyone, not just those at the top, protecting our country and protecting our planet. And breaking down all the barriers that hold any American back from achieving their dreams. ...our responsibility as citizens is to keep doing our part to build that better, stronger, fairer America we seek. "

Clinton ran a campaign that was, in many respects, as dirty and nasty as Trump's. If you are a regular reader, you know that I supported neither major candidate; I always vote my conscience, and I always will. With that being said, much of what Clinton had to say Wednesday morning was excellent; it was encouraging; and though she did talk about the pain of losing, she also spoke a great deal about hope.

Once more, I find myself agreeing with Clinton; moreover, I applaud her intestinal fortitude and her refusal to sink to the lows that supporters from both sides have seen and surpassed.

President Barack Obama 

"I had a chance to talk to President-elect Trump last night -- about 3:30 in the morning, I think it was -- to congratulate him on winning the election. And I had a chance to invite him to come to the White House tomorrow to talk about making sure that there is a successful transition between our presidencies.

"Now, it is no secret that the President-elect and I have some pretty significant differences. But remember, eight years ago, President Bush and I had some pretty significant differences. But President Bush’s team could not have been more professional or more gracious in making sure we had a smooth transition so that we could hit the ground running. And one thing you realize quickly in this job is that the presidency, and the vice presidency, is bigger than any of us.

"So I have instructed my team to follow the example that President Bush’s team set eight years ago, and work as hard as we can to make sure that this is a successful transition for the President-elect -- because we are now all rooting for his success in uniting and leading the country. The peaceful transition of power is one of the hallmarks of our democracy. And over the next few months, we are going to show that to the world.

"...I'm confident that this incredible journey that we're on as Americans will go on. And I am looking forward to doing everything that I can to make sure that the next President is successful in that. I have said before, I think of this job as being a relay runner -- you take the baton, you run your best race, and hopefully, by the time you hand it off you're a little further ahead, you've made a little progress. And I can say that we've done that, and I want to make sure that handoff is well-executed, because ultimately we're all on the same team."

Genuinely speaking, this is the proudest I have ever been of our current president. All that I can say is well done, Mr. President. Well said, and well done.

The U.S. Senate

The Senate of the United States had 36 seats open to change this past election cycle, and though largely eclipsed by the presidential election, the race for Senate was just as contentious in some places. In the end, the Republican party maintained control of the Senate, which was a joy for some, and a painful defeat for others.

Republican control of the Senate has had many people concerned over the direction the nation could turn, given the election of Donald Trump. With one party holding control of Senate and the White House, there has been speculation that the United States is about to undergo tremendous change; and potentially not the sort that they'd want to see. Verbalized fears of border walls, banned homosexuality, criminalized abortion, and deported Muslims have been the most common that I have overheard.

However, there is reason for hope, my friends. I'll get into why before too much longer, but believe me when I say that things are not as bleak as they may appear.

The House of Representatives

Not many networks talked about this much, and mainly due to the fact that they were too busy covering the antics of the presidential candidates. Nevertheless, all 435 seats in the House were open to change in this past election. Just as with the Senate race, the competition between Representative hopefuls was quite a spectacle in its own right.

When the dust cleared, the Democrats had won 192 seats in the House. The Republicans took 239 seats, holding onto their majority control. Again, this has caused a great deal of fear in the hearts and minds of many people, for the same reasons as the Republican controlled Senate raises.

What is important to note in the wake of this Republican "sweep" (as some have called it), is that many of these Representatives have a track record. Why is that important, you may ask; it is important for the same reasons as the track record of Senators and Presidential candidates: The track record tells the story that people and various media sources will try to hide.

Where's The Good News?

If you are a Democrat, a Liberal, or like me are simply fed up with both major parties, you may be asking exactly where the good news in all of this resides. Where is it? More importantly: What is it?

To begin with we live in the United States of America, which is perhaps the best place that an election result such as this one could possibly happen. I'm not promoting some hyper-exceptionalism or ultra-nationalistic pride when I write this. What I am saying is that our government is set up in such a way as to almost perfectly handle such events. Look at this diagram with me.

According to some folks I have spoken with, their children's schools are not teaching the structure of the United States government. (I have heard from some teachers that this is not taught until high school, but I'm sure it depends upon districts and school systems.) So whether you never learned this; or if you are like a few friends of mine who actually requested I include this section as a refresher; here is a simplified layout of how our government's branches work.

This is called the system of checks and balances, and this is what keeps everyone playing by the rules, more or less. A President does have the ability to introduce legislation to be made law; but Congress must approve that legislation both in the House and in the Senate. Congress can introduce and pass legislation with the intent of making it law, but the President must first sign it before it actually becomes law. The court system, specifically the Supreme Court, can declare laws unconstitutional; and contrary to popular opinion, they can do so without a case coming before them. A President can utilize Executive Orders, (and these are among the "presidential acts" in the diagram), but the Supreme Court can render them invalid by declaring them unconstitutional.

So let's look at a few of the scenarios that people are most concerned about under a Trump administration:

• Trump Introduces Legislation To Build A Wall - Many lawmakers from both sides of the aisle agree that this country has an immigration issue. Many also agree that part of that issue is illegal immigration, or people crossing into the United States without proper documentation. Much of that illegal immigration does come from Mexico, though there are illegal immigrants in the United States from all over the world. However, most lawmakers do not support the building of a wall along the Mexican-U.S. border. As President, Trump could introduce legislation providing for the building of a wall, but based upon the track records of those in Congress, it would never become law; they would instead debate, argue and haggle for some other method of immigration control, and we would likely see the issue die on the House floor, never making it to Senate. 

• Trump Issues An Executive Order Banning Homosexuality - Due to the nature of his campaign, many people are concerned about the issue of homosexuality and the free practice thereof. (For the sake of this illustration, I am addressing homosexual practices only, and will explain why shortly.) Let us say that as President, Trump issues an Executive Order that bans homosexuality. It would certainly create a public outcry, but it would have no effect- Why? Because the Supreme Court has already ruled in a number of cases involving homosexuality, homosexual practices, and the rights of homosexual men and women. As a result, the moment that the Order is issued, the Supreme Court would immediately declare it unconstitutional and render it void. This also applies to any attempt by Trump to criminalize abortion.

• Trump Demands Congress Deport All Muslims - Let us imagine that out of all the vitriol that came from the Trump campaign, the expressed desire to deport Muslims actually materializes in the form of a President Trump ordering Congress to find a way  to do just that. At this point, Congress will almost unanimously laugh at him. The orders of a President are not the same as those from a King or Emperor: In short, they do not have to be followed in the same manner. Could Congress work something out that Trump would sign into law, such as a national registry, a public identifier or a special tax? They most certainly could, but in that unlikely event the Supreme Court would step in declaring the law unconstitutional.

As we look forward in time to the administration of Donald J. Trump, I urge everyone to remember something important: The President of the United States has very little absolute power. The only absolute power that a President does have is his/her ability to pardon, and to a lesser extent, initiate foreign policy.

President Obama was able to accomplish what he did in his eight years because he had like-minded people in control of Congress; he didn't do it on his own. His Executive Orders crossed lines of propriety in many respects, but the large majority of them stopped just shy of snubbing the Constitution of the United States.

Trump does have a Republican controlled Congress, but he does not have a Congress controlled by like-minded people. Unless he proves himself a much more capable leader than he presented during his run, it unlikely that he will ever get such a Congress, let alone a second term.

If you still feel the need to take refuge in Canada, that is entirely your decision; I understand that there are a couple people I'm acquainted with who are planning that move now. I do not condone such action, as I personally see it as a type of cowardice; however, neither will I condemn it in such broad strokes as to suggest that everyone holds my view. If your last act as a U.S. citizen is to run, then my response is "May your legs not grow weary, may your heart never faint, and may you find what you seek." To further clarify: If I were to run, I would consider myself a coward, for that is my personal standard; if others choose to run, I wish them the best.

But make no mistake: This is not the end.



NOTE: If you are a Christian, the following section is especially important.

How Christians Should Respond

As believers in Christ, we know the Bible tells us that we have not been given a spirit of fear, but of peace, and of love, and of a sound mind (2 Timothy 1:7). We are told that perfect love casts out all fear (1 John 4:18). We know that we are also told not to worry about what is to come (Luke 12:25-31), and that God is ultimately in control (Psalm 27:1; Romans 8:38-39; John 16:33). Finally, by way of reassurance, we are told that God exerts authority over our rulers (Proverbs 21:1).

We are also told that we are to be lights in a dark world (Matthew 5:14-16). Paul encourages us to live at peace with one another (Romans 12:18) and not to be a stumbling block to our brethren (1 Corinthians 8:9) or to anyone else (1 Corinthians 10:32)! We are also told to share in another's joy and in their sorrow (Romans 12:15), not to treat anyone as beneath us (Romans 12:16), and not to repay evil for evil (Romans 12:17).

Bearing all of these things in mind; taking into account that we as followers of Christ are to be His reflections on earth; factoring in that we who believe are often the only Gospel that some people will ever read; I believe it is our solemn and sacred duty to look at this time in history not as a burden, but as a time to shoulder the burdens of others. We ought not look upon these coming four years with fear, but with hope in our God, who alone can change and turn the hearts of men. We should not gloat over the despair and despondency of those who mourn, but seek to comfort, encourage and uplift them.

Doing anything less than this is to misrepresent Christ and place ourselves as a stumbling block before a world seeking Him- Though they know not what they seek.

In conclusion, Christians: We must behave and respond as Christ. He exemplified Isaiah 61:1, and promoted justice as Isaiah 1:17 said- He stood for the oppressed, championed the widow and provided for the orphan (even if symbolically). Christ then told His disciples, and by extension all who believe: "These things and more shall you do." (John 14:12) He did not say that we would do things He did not do and not do things He did; or more clearly stated, "some of these things and less." We are to follow His example- Period.

So let's start today by bringing hope to those in despair.

Constitutionalist Commentary part 3

This is part three of a series I will be doing on why I identify myself as a Constitutionalist. I have been receiving questions lately on why I chose the Constitution Party over the Republicans, and I cannot explain the answer in any more brief a way than this: The Constitution Party represents my views more closely than any other party.

However, for those who are looking for more information, read on. This third part will cover the section titled “Bring Government Back Home.” You can find it HERE. I recommend reading it, because I will refer to it regularly throughout this post.

This section pretty much speaks to the issue of small government. The basic premise is that the Constitution granted certain powers to the federal government; but it also states that, where power is not granted to the federal level, it is either the state or personal level governing. A great deal of significance has been lost when it comes to this section.

Simply put, what is the federal’s, remains with the federal. What is the state’s belongs with the state. What is neither expressly given the federal or the state is strictly a personal responsibility. When the federal government legislates away personal responsibility, freedom begins to wane. Personal responsibility, you see, is where freedom truly starts.

For quite a while now, the government’s approach to power has been to grant it to itself when a lack of Constitutional power is discovered. The Environmental Protection Agency is a wonderful example of this, as is the National Education Administration. Decisions are being made on a daily basis by individuals who have not been elected, but rather hired by a bloated, out of control governmental effigy. Simply speaking, while the need for secretaries is a given for elected officials, unelected officials regulating use of land; crafting building codes; and demanding education be done exclusively within the public system, all point to the same issue. In short, we need a government that does its Constitutional job, rather than hand it over to be seen to by others unelected.

To bring the government back to its Constitutional boundaries, certain steps must be followed, and certain sacrifices must be made. The largest, of course, would the “easiest said”: The return from “giver-ment” to “government.” From there, a reduction of personal regulations, and so on.

Additionally, this would mean the return of power to the individual states. No longer will the federal government decide for them what they will spend on aid to destitute, for instance. Now, this may mean that some states will pull all funding, while others put more funding into the issue. However, if the citizens have an issue with any use of state power, the answer is not to cede it to the federal government; the answer is to change it from within.

Any candidate willing to do this, who stands behind this 100%, will get my vote- Pure and simple.

The next section speaks about Character and Moral Conduct. I’ve got more than a few things to say about that, so stick around.