Back in the day when the networks actually aired some intelligent, entertaining fare, there was a show called Northern Exposure, by which I not only was entertained, but from which I gleaned some enlightenment. There was an episode in which Maurice, the millionaire was all distraught over the fact that the new lessees of one of his real estate properties turned out to be homosexual. And more distressing than that, one of the men was, like Maurice, an ex Marine. In lamenting his case to Ruth Anne, the wise, old storekeep, he said he was thinking of burning the building down to keep the homos from inhabiting it. To this, wizened Ruth Anne replied, "Maurice, it's just sex, and it just doesn't matter!" She's right.
Whether it's a bunch of San Franfreako freaks on Folsom Street, or Alabama women seeking some sexual gratification from an adult toy, it just doesn't matter. The freaks might come close to overstepping the bounds of propriety in their very public display of debauchery, but from the pictures that I've seen and reports that I've read, it doesn't appear that they caused anyone else demonstrable loss or harm through force or fraud. They're simply a bunch of freaks having their brand of fun. They are no longer allowed , for reasons of sensitivity and political correctness to earn a living by being part of the freak shows in the back tents of the traveling carnivals and fairs. So, what can we expect? They have to get it out of their systems somehow.
As for the oppressed, suppressed women of Alabama, there is nothing to do but apologize. Apologize for a Supreme Court with no courage or common sense. And apologize for the misogynistic men and thin lipped, dry lipped women of the Alabama state legislature. These are the pin headed, paunch bellied, bald pated, pencil-penised putzes and jowly jerks who have never orgasmed a woman in their pathetic lives and the cold fish females who, from the point of puberty were indoctrinated with the dogma that sex is a dirty, defiled, and devil inspired evil that is to be performed only for the purposes of propagating the species and for fulfilling their wifely duties to their horribly horrendous, hedonistic, heathen husbands, who just can't save themselves from their illicit, libidinous lust.
People, it's just sex. As long as it's not explicitly performed in the public square or doesn't violate the rules of consensual, contractual interaction, it just doesn't matter. Even if it is performed in public, there is no real crime, as long as force or fraud is not involved. The puritanical moralists should see such an event, not as a terror, but as a teaching opportunity...an opportunity to evangelically espouse their point of view without invoking the police power of government at the point of a loaded gun. Or better yet, they could take notes.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Friday, March 23, 2012
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Should the Constitution Be Updated?
There are considerations to be considered in considering such a question, before answering. If the answer is "no", it would be so for the sole possibility of fear of the weakening, rather than the strengthening of the document's principles. As the quintessential, near perfect guide for societal governance, any edit or addendum would have to be penned sparingly and precisely. The few mistakes of which I wrote in "The Framers Made a Few Mistakes" were mistakes that were more of a matter of semantics than of principles. As time tells, there are mistakes of omission, primarily due to history's technological advances, particularly in the fields of transportation and communication and weaponry, rather than to the Framers' shortcomings or short-sightedness. They were, undoubtedly, the wisest, most far seeing men in history up to that time. But even they could not have ever foreseen or imagined America and the world as they are now.
At the top of that list of considerations for me, as a 21st century Son of the American Revolution, is the concept of states' rights. From colonial times well into the nineteenth century, travel and communication between states were slow, arduous processes, dependent on walking, horseback riding, man and animal powered boats and sailing ships. Under such limiting circumstances, the states must have seemed like distant, disparate foreign countries to one another. Such circumstances would make it plausible for peoples in different states to want to have governing rules specific to themselves and their specific mores of conduct and behavior.
With the invention, advent and improvement of fuel fired vehicles from steam ships, boats and locomotives to petroleum powered cars, trucks, train engines and jet airplanes and to nuclear aircraft carriers and submarines, along with the correlative advances from smoke signals and loud yelling to telegraph, telephone, radio, television and satellites, distances have metaphorically shrunk to insignificance, making all Americans instantaneously interconnected with one another. As an interconnected, unified country, I wonder if the concept of states' rights is one of obsolescence. Aren't rights unalienable constructs to be enjoyed by persons, rather than political entities? Should not all law be uniform throughout a country, regardless of geo-political boundaries and borders within that sovereign nation? Aren't the "full faith and credit" and "equal protection" clauses sort of precursor to such? Of course, with totally centralized law making and enforcement, more specificity is necessary to distinctly define the limitations and restraints of that government's power and influence over its people to that of protecting individuals and entities from loss or harm through force or fraud committed by another, especially if committed by that government itself or committed as the ultimate use of force and fraud; war, using any tactic. Having moved from flintlock muskets and black powder cannon to automatic hand guns and assault rifles to carrier groups, ICBMs and nuclear, biological and chemical threats, the Constitution's foremost directive for government has to be, as it has been, protecting America against war and domestic violence. Geo-political divisions within a country should be for hierarchical and functional organization only.
Without states' rights and with a federal Constitution truly being the supreme law of the land, representation in a federal legislature could and should be unicameral. Especially since the ratification of the seventeenth amendment, the Senate has outlived its usefulness. Conceived as a compromise to appease and unify the various disparate states, the Senate was basically designed to represent the rich, while the House of Representatives was meant to serve the masses, much like the British Parliament's House of Lords and House of Commons. It also created a reality of some areas being overly represented at the federal level. As for the presently specified duties of the Senate to have advice and consent constraints on the President, those duties could be served by a Board of Governors, consisting of the elected executive authority of each State, District, Commonwealth, Territory, etc., and by what I call the Native Nations...you know, the "Indians". There's a group of Americans worthy of and lacking in federal representation.
Federal representation should not be a set number of representatives to be divided among geographical locales. The number should be fluid, so that representatives represent an approximately equal number of constituents, say, 500,000. That would presently be about 600 members in one chamber, as opposed to 541 members of the present two chamber system. That six hundred number would rise and fall with national population. They would be elected by geographically proximate populations of voters within each of the several states and so forth, with each such geo-political area having at least one elected representative. Exception to the geographic proximity rule would be made for the widely dispersed peoples of the Native Nations and their number in each state would be subtracted from that state's population to be represented separately in the federal legislature. A system to specifically represent residents of cross border metropolitan areas with municipal commonalities irrelevant of a state line dividing the metro would probably be logical, but too logistically improbable to implement. The model of Virginia's Independent Cities could be utilized to overcome that.
Perhaps the most radically advanced update would be converting the basic form of governance from democratic republicanism to republican democracy. Because of communications technology, true democracy is possible for the first time in history. As the founders knew, democracy can quickly and easily turn to mob rule and tyranny of the majority over the minority, if not Constitutionally tempered by rule of law. Legislation and Proclamation could be affirmed or denied by a vote of the electorate using contemporary communicative devices...you know, really smart smart phones that would have little printers to produce a hard copy of each vote. Again, guards and guidelines of Constitutionality protecting against mob mentality overwhelming rationality would have to be in place to ensure all individuals' rights to life, liberty and property in their private and public pursuits of happiness.
In any new Constitution, the amendments, as applicable, would be written into the body of the document. The "cruel and unusual punishment" clause should be more specifically defined, so as to include exile to The Rat Islands in Alaska's Aleutians for the most heinous and horrendous offenders, including those government officers and employees convicted of Breach of the Public Trust. The fourteenth amendment's wording would need rewriting, so as to forever end the forever on-going, verb tense grammatical misinterpretation.
Any other thoughts? Please, comment. And see my blog article "The Framers Made a Few Mistakes" originally posted March 3rd, with edits and addenda of this date.
At the top of that list of considerations for me, as a 21st century Son of the American Revolution, is the concept of states' rights. From colonial times well into the nineteenth century, travel and communication between states were slow, arduous processes, dependent on walking, horseback riding, man and animal powered boats and sailing ships. Under such limiting circumstances, the states must have seemed like distant, disparate foreign countries to one another. Such circumstances would make it plausible for peoples in different states to want to have governing rules specific to themselves and their specific mores of conduct and behavior.
With the invention, advent and improvement of fuel fired vehicles from steam ships, boats and locomotives to petroleum powered cars, trucks, train engines and jet airplanes and to nuclear aircraft carriers and submarines, along with the correlative advances from smoke signals and loud yelling to telegraph, telephone, radio, television and satellites, distances have metaphorically shrunk to insignificance, making all Americans instantaneously interconnected with one another. As an interconnected, unified country, I wonder if the concept of states' rights is one of obsolescence. Aren't rights unalienable constructs to be enjoyed by persons, rather than political entities? Should not all law be uniform throughout a country, regardless of geo-political boundaries and borders within that sovereign nation? Aren't the "full faith and credit" and "equal protection" clauses sort of precursor to such? Of course, with totally centralized law making and enforcement, more specificity is necessary to distinctly define the limitations and restraints of that government's power and influence over its people to that of protecting individuals and entities from loss or harm through force or fraud committed by another, especially if committed by that government itself or committed as the ultimate use of force and fraud; war, using any tactic. Having moved from flintlock muskets and black powder cannon to automatic hand guns and assault rifles to carrier groups, ICBMs and nuclear, biological and chemical threats, the Constitution's foremost directive for government has to be, as it has been, protecting America against war and domestic violence. Geo-political divisions within a country should be for hierarchical and functional organization only.
Without states' rights and with a federal Constitution truly being the supreme law of the land, representation in a federal legislature could and should be unicameral. Especially since the ratification of the seventeenth amendment, the Senate has outlived its usefulness. Conceived as a compromise to appease and unify the various disparate states, the Senate was basically designed to represent the rich, while the House of Representatives was meant to serve the masses, much like the British Parliament's House of Lords and House of Commons. It also created a reality of some areas being overly represented at the federal level. As for the presently specified duties of the Senate to have advice and consent constraints on the President, those duties could be served by a Board of Governors, consisting of the elected executive authority of each State, District, Commonwealth, Territory, etc., and by what I call the Native Nations...you know, the "Indians". There's a group of Americans worthy of and lacking in federal representation.
Federal representation should not be a set number of representatives to be divided among geographical locales. The number should be fluid, so that representatives represent an approximately equal number of constituents, say, 500,000. That would presently be about 600 members in one chamber, as opposed to 541 members of the present two chamber system. That six hundred number would rise and fall with national population. They would be elected by geographically proximate populations of voters within each of the several states and so forth, with each such geo-political area having at least one elected representative. Exception to the geographic proximity rule would be made for the widely dispersed peoples of the Native Nations and their number in each state would be subtracted from that state's population to be represented separately in the federal legislature. A system to specifically represent residents of cross border metropolitan areas with municipal commonalities irrelevant of a state line dividing the metro would probably be logical, but too logistically improbable to implement. The model of Virginia's Independent Cities could be utilized to overcome that.
Perhaps the most radically advanced update would be converting the basic form of governance from democratic republicanism to republican democracy. Because of communications technology, true democracy is possible for the first time in history. As the founders knew, democracy can quickly and easily turn to mob rule and tyranny of the majority over the minority, if not Constitutionally tempered by rule of law. Legislation and Proclamation could be affirmed or denied by a vote of the electorate using contemporary communicative devices...you know, really smart smart phones that would have little printers to produce a hard copy of each vote. Again, guards and guidelines of Constitutionality protecting against mob mentality overwhelming rationality would have to be in place to ensure all individuals' rights to life, liberty and property in their private and public pursuits of happiness.
In any new Constitution, the amendments, as applicable, would be written into the body of the document. The "cruel and unusual punishment" clause should be more specifically defined, so as to include exile to The Rat Islands in Alaska's Aleutians for the most heinous and horrendous offenders, including those government officers and employees convicted of Breach of the Public Trust. The fourteenth amendment's wording would need rewriting, so as to forever end the forever on-going, verb tense grammatical misinterpretation.
Any other thoughts? Please, comment. And see my blog article "The Framers Made a Few Mistakes" originally posted March 3rd, with edits and addenda of this date.
There Are Rules to Disc Golf Course Design
I remember a story about a real estate developer who planned to design and build a PGA championship calibre golf course...ball golf course, so as not to be confused with a PDGA championship calibre disc golf course. Anyway, to quell local concerns, he publicly pledged that not a single tree would be cut down without his personal, on-site approval. For weeks after that, he was constantly out of his office, as he was at the golf course site, running through the forest, pointing frantically, saying, "Cut that one, cut that one, cut that one, those over there, and that one and cut that one...."
The first rule of golf course design, be it ball or disc, is that it can't be done on a piece of paper with an aerial photo or some facsimile of the land to be used. That's sort of an unspoken rule, like the first, unspoken rule of the sport is to play it quietly...except in cases of aces. The designer must actually, physically traverse the land, reveling in the variety and versatility of the terrain. It is the first and most important principle of disc golf course design that the specific flora, topography, geology, geography and general lay of the land, which includes other activity areas dictate design, with an ever present eye to aesthetics and to proximity of other activity areas. And that design shall have absolute minimal negative impact on the ecosystem found on the affected property. For example, no living, healthy old growth tree of height taller than the tallest human can reach and/or of circumference around which the longest fingers cannot reach, should ever be cut down, just for the sake of the course. If such trees are harvestable for use, felling may be tolerable.
Following rules include making every hole as long as possible within the constraints and restraints of the first two rules and PDGA design guidelines and parameters, while maintaining a followable flow to the course. The design should flow, one hole following another, with no long, intrepid distances between green and next tee, with a minimum distance greater than that governed by the rules of putting between any basket and tee, or between any two baskets. Ideally, design should be so that number one and ten tees and number nine and eighteen greens are in proximity to one another. Above that, first tee and final basket must be in proximity to one another, as well as to parking and other available amenities, such as rest rooms. Golf courses, whether they be for ball golf, disc golf, or miniature golf should be eighteen holes...nine, if there are insurmountable physical or fiscal limitations. Why did the Scots invent golf as an eighteen hole sport, rather than six, ten, nineteen, twenty, twenty-two, twenty-four, or fifty, or any other number? Because there's eighteen shots in a fifth of whiskey. Of course, that's a myth, but it sounds sound, considering the Scots.
Other rules include: No basket should be within a distance inside of which the rules of putting apply, to a body of water into which, if thrown, a disc disappears and is lost to the water; No hole should intersect, or cross over any other hole, or other area of other activity within the facility of the course's location. Mandatory points should never be arbitrarily established within the natural lay-out of a course, violating the first rule of design, but they can be established to help facilitate the rule of non-intersection, or to define specifically designed fairways that are within the scope of the first rule.
Lesser rules, that are necessary to flawless design include each hole having the same number of PDGA color coded, specific skill level tees of green (novice), red (recreational), white (intermediate amateur), blue (advanced am or pro), and gold (top rated advanced or pro). Black tees for tournament play may be included within a layout for a specific competitive event. Differing skill levels should never play the same layout, of individual holes, or of the course without a set par for each level in line with the PDGA par guidelines chart. Par on each hole with differing skill level layouts should be set as same for each level, with the rare exception of tremendous difference of distance or difficulty between the skill level layouts. Par for any hole's layout should be set in accordance with that which is customary play for average players of that skill level playing well and in line with the PDGA par guidelines chart. By tradition, no hole should have par set as less than two or greater than six, as those are the limits found in other forms of golf, but non-traditional par can be applied, so long as it is realistically relative to a hole's distance and/or difficulty. There's probably others, of which I'll think and add later.
My credentials consist of being a lead co-designer of Johnson Street in High Point, a contributor for Burlington's Cedarock Alternate, now designated as White/Gold, and Wellspring, and their interconnected eighteen hole layouts of CedarSpring and WellRock, and as primary designer and builder of The Springwood Players' Course, in Burlington. And of course, creator of the long extinct Pinewood Acres that the neighborhood kids and I played with our Wham-O's back in the sixties.
Wish I had had the foresight of potential back then.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
What Are You Getting, Don Curtis?
I have long known that North Carolina will be key in this year’s Presidential election. A well known North Carolina businessman/broadcaster has done his part to help Obama win our fifteen electoral votes again.
Shortly after I proudly joined the staff at FM Talk 101.1 WZTK in Burlington, from its first day on the air, I was surprised to hear that company owner Don Curtis was liberal, as the station’s premiere programs of Boortz and Savage are undeniably conservative. Regardless, I was thrilled to be a dedicated employee of and a loyal listener to a strategically located, 100,00 watt FM station airing two of the most important voices in American discourse, broadcasting to millions of North Carolinians and some southern Virginians, as well. Now, eight years later, WZTK has been taken off of the air and replaced with a hip hop/pop/rap crap format, which boasts of playing fewer commercials. I’d imagine that is so, as I imagine that they can’t sell many, if any. As a daily listener to WZTK, I know that that station never missed a legally allowable commercial break, and that none of those breaks had to be filled with unpaid promos or PSA’s.
***UPDATE!!! UPDATE!!! UPDATE!!!*** In another programming alteration, Curtis Media has moved to prove that I was correct in the previous paragraph. 101.1 on the FM dial is now airing a Spanish speaking Mexican music format. I can actually enjoy listening to this 101.1 in short doses....as long as there's music. But when the commercials come, they come right at you, generally in screaming Spanish and it's time to change the channel. I can't imagine that CMG is getting all that much for them, as they are SO totally targeted to one specific niche of the North Carolina population. I DO wish that I had paid better attention to teacher Temple in high school. It would be nice to know what these foreign language talkers in our homeland are saying on our "public airwaves". I'd imagine that among all of those commercials are political ads in Enspanol. I wonder what, if anything, the station broadcasts as news, religion, or the "public interest". And I wonder if my interest would make some equate me with Maj. Hoffstedder?
The stated reason for taking WZTK off of the air is that they could no longer sustain the station because of low revenues. I don’t believe for a moment that Curtis Media Group was losing money airing Boortz, Clark Howard and even Dr. Savage. I can imagine that they might have been going in the hole with their local origination programs of Brad and Britt in the morning and Alan Handleman in the afternoon. In the beginning, Krantz did offer at least some common sense conservatism to balance Whitmire’s life long liberalism. I told Brad early on that he needed to convert Britt, but it went the other direction, with Krantz turning into as much of an Obamabot as Whitmire. New competition in the market was cited as a reason for dropping the format. I can well imagine that KC and Carmen on Rush Radio in the Triangle and Triad did take a number of Brad and Britt listeners away, as Air America proved that people don’t listen to liberal radio. Though Alan’s afternoon shows were largely apolitical, when politics was the subject, Handleman was always and obviously a good time, left leaning rock and roller.
He can say what he wants about lost revenues and poor profitability, but I just KNOW that Don Curtis did what he did primarily to take the vehemently anti-Obama Boortz and Savage away from much of their regular audience in the top 50 markets of the Triangle and Triad. CMG will tell you that they still air Boortz, but here in the Triad, only two-thirds of his show is buried on a cruddy litle, no signal AM station at 10 pm, twelve hours after he’s live on the air. They might as well have kept their live 10 pm broadcast of uber liberal Alan Colmes. I am truly amazed that they didn't, as they did keep Brad and Britt broadcasting their junk journalism, though in the afternoon now. I do understand that they do broadcast Boortz live on their cruddy little AM station in the Triangle, but that's no consolation to the thousands upon thousands of Triad area Boortz daily devotees. And what Curtis has done to the North Carolinian part of the Savage Nation is unconscionable, at least from a conservative, common sense point of view.
My only question is, “Don, how much money or what ambassadorship did Obama promise you if he somehow manages to take our fifteen votes and win reelection?" My only other question is, "Are these rantings and ravings totally out of the realm of possible reality?" Maybe. I'd love to see ZTK's P&L.
Shortly after I proudly joined the staff at FM Talk 101.1 WZTK in Burlington, from its first day on the air, I was surprised to hear that company owner Don Curtis was liberal, as the station’s premiere programs of Boortz and Savage are undeniably conservative. Regardless, I was thrilled to be a dedicated employee of and a loyal listener to a strategically located, 100,00 watt FM station airing two of the most important voices in American discourse, broadcasting to millions of North Carolinians and some southern Virginians, as well. Now, eight years later, WZTK has been taken off of the air and replaced with a hip hop/pop/rap crap format, which boasts of playing fewer commercials. I’d imagine that is so, as I imagine that they can’t sell many, if any. As a daily listener to WZTK, I know that that station never missed a legally allowable commercial break, and that none of those breaks had to be filled with unpaid promos or PSA’s.
***UPDATE!!! UPDATE!!! UPDATE!!!*** In another programming alteration, Curtis Media has moved to prove that I was correct in the previous paragraph. 101.1 on the FM dial is now airing a Spanish speaking Mexican music format. I can actually enjoy listening to this 101.1 in short doses....as long as there's music. But when the commercials come, they come right at you, generally in screaming Spanish and it's time to change the channel. I can't imagine that CMG is getting all that much for them, as they are SO totally targeted to one specific niche of the North Carolina population. I DO wish that I had paid better attention to teacher Temple in high school. It would be nice to know what these foreign language talkers in our homeland are saying on our "public airwaves". I'd imagine that among all of those commercials are political ads in Enspanol. I wonder what, if anything, the station broadcasts as news, religion, or the "public interest". And I wonder if my interest would make some equate me with Maj. Hoffstedder?
The stated reason for taking WZTK off of the air is that they could no longer sustain the station because of low revenues. I don’t believe for a moment that Curtis Media Group was losing money airing Boortz, Clark Howard and even Dr. Savage. I can imagine that they might have been going in the hole with their local origination programs of Brad and Britt in the morning and Alan Handleman in the afternoon. In the beginning, Krantz did offer at least some common sense conservatism to balance Whitmire’s life long liberalism. I told Brad early on that he needed to convert Britt, but it went the other direction, with Krantz turning into as much of an Obamabot as Whitmire. New competition in the market was cited as a reason for dropping the format. I can well imagine that KC and Carmen on Rush Radio in the Triangle and Triad did take a number of Brad and Britt listeners away, as Air America proved that people don’t listen to liberal radio. Though Alan’s afternoon shows were largely apolitical, when politics was the subject, Handleman was always and obviously a good time, left leaning rock and roller.
He can say what he wants about lost revenues and poor profitability, but I just KNOW that Don Curtis did what he did primarily to take the vehemently anti-Obama Boortz and Savage away from much of their regular audience in the top 50 markets of the Triangle and Triad. CMG will tell you that they still air Boortz, but here in the Triad, only two-thirds of his show is buried on a cruddy litle, no signal AM station at 10 pm, twelve hours after he’s live on the air. They might as well have kept their live 10 pm broadcast of uber liberal Alan Colmes. I am truly amazed that they didn't, as they did keep Brad and Britt broadcasting their junk journalism, though in the afternoon now. I do understand that they do broadcast Boortz live on their cruddy little AM station in the Triangle, but that's no consolation to the thousands upon thousands of Triad area Boortz daily devotees. And what Curtis has done to the North Carolinian part of the Savage Nation is unconscionable, at least from a conservative, common sense point of view.
My only question is, “Don, how much money or what ambassadorship did Obama promise you if he somehow manages to take our fifteen votes and win reelection?" My only other question is, "Are these rantings and ravings totally out of the realm of possible reality?" Maybe. I'd love to see ZTK's P&L.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Herman, PLEASE Come Back!!!!
Herman Cain was (is?) the only politician in my lifetime who gave me true hope for real change. Primarily because he isn't a politician, which is a job title not to be found anywhere in our Constitution and which would have been a concept that the Founders and Framers would have completely anathematized.
Herman is the epitome of the great American dream success story. As an American Negroid born and raised in the South during a time when being such in such a place had definite detriments, Herman Cain relied on his faith and family, his intelligence and integrity and his honor and honesty to recognize and embrace the greatness of America, rather than recoiling with rancor, as so many of his race and station did. Thus, he was able to rise to the level of his own greatness through educational matriculation and vocational maturation. Through personal merit, rather than with affirmative action, he took affirmative action for himself, rather than from the government to rise to executive levels of corporate America, creating a lifelong resume of achievement and accomplishment in managing private sector business.
It is that mindset to achieve and accomplish which he would bring to managing the affairs of state, to save our Republic from ruin. Unlike all of the other egomaniacal muckrakers running for the Oval Office, Herman Cain is a man of vision and action, more concerned for the glory of America, rather than the glory of self.
I could go on and on about why Herman Cain should be President and why I wrote him in for Vice-President in '08. But I could never say it better than it is said by the amazingly talented, America loving Patriots in the following videos.
As a side note, so to speak, let me say to Mrs. Gloria....I know that the lies put forth on your beloved husband by the mud slingers and mad dog media hurt you greatly. I ask you to please, please, please, study and consider all that Abigail Adams endured. Ma'am, your husband is the last, best hope for saving my country, for which my great, great, great, great, great grandfather died at Guilford Courthouse to help establish. I don't want to weep and cry for my lost country anymore. I've hardly been able to not do so during any given day, like this instance, as I write this, since he quit the race.
It looks more and more, as I hope more and more that none of the remaining rascals in the race are going to have delegates enough to take the nomination outright. If that does indeed miraculously come to pass, you've GOT to save us and serve as our most pride evoking President since George Washington and most favored First Lady since Abigail Adams.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/QGmVRZh0MYs?rel=0
http://www.youtube.com/embed/e1D0quttOeY?rel=0
http://www.youtube.com/embed/0obH91kklR8?rel=0
http://www.youtube.com/embed/BjVwFW-KW18?rel=0
Herman is the epitome of the great American dream success story. As an American Negroid born and raised in the South during a time when being such in such a place had definite detriments, Herman Cain relied on his faith and family, his intelligence and integrity and his honor and honesty to recognize and embrace the greatness of America, rather than recoiling with rancor, as so many of his race and station did. Thus, he was able to rise to the level of his own greatness through educational matriculation and vocational maturation. Through personal merit, rather than with affirmative action, he took affirmative action for himself, rather than from the government to rise to executive levels of corporate America, creating a lifelong resume of achievement and accomplishment in managing private sector business.
It is that mindset to achieve and accomplish which he would bring to managing the affairs of state, to save our Republic from ruin. Unlike all of the other egomaniacal muckrakers running for the Oval Office, Herman Cain is a man of vision and action, more concerned for the glory of America, rather than the glory of self.
I could go on and on about why Herman Cain should be President and why I wrote him in for Vice-President in '08. But I could never say it better than it is said by the amazingly talented, America loving Patriots in the following videos.
As a side note, so to speak, let me say to Mrs. Gloria....I know that the lies put forth on your beloved husband by the mud slingers and mad dog media hurt you greatly. I ask you to please, please, please, study and consider all that Abigail Adams endured. Ma'am, your husband is the last, best hope for saving my country, for which my great, great, great, great, great grandfather died at Guilford Courthouse to help establish. I don't want to weep and cry for my lost country anymore. I've hardly been able to not do so during any given day, like this instance, as I write this, since he quit the race.
It looks more and more, as I hope more and more that none of the remaining rascals in the race are going to have delegates enough to take the nomination outright. If that does indeed miraculously come to pass, you've GOT to save us and serve as our most pride evoking President since George Washington and most favored First Lady since Abigail Adams.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/QGmVRZh0MYs?rel=0
http://www.youtube.com/embed/e1D0quttOeY?rel=0
http://www.youtube.com/embed/0obH91kklR8?rel=0
http://www.youtube.com/embed/BjVwFW-KW18?rel=0
Oil Is the Fuel That the Planet Provides
And we are meant to use it to its fullest capacity. Oil is a naturally produced product of great versatility and therefore, value. Not only can it serve in some form or another as a myriad of fuels, it's the primary source of mechanical lubricants, and a major ingredient in plastics and building materials and an essential part of many manufacturing processes.
And contrary to popular belief, oil is a renewable quantity. Maybe not to the degree that we're using it in the 21st century, but the planet continues to create new oil, continuously, however slowly, even as you read this. The geological forces that have created the vast reservoirs of oil within the planet over the course of millions of years did not cease to function when man discovered its usefulness and began extracting it from the ground. Granted, we probably are depleting tapped fields immeasurably faster than the planet can replenish them. The good news is that there are fields that have never been tapped and others that were tapped, but capped long before they dried out. Many of those capped wells and virgin fields are right here in the U.S.A. Throughout the interior of the country, there are probably thousands of positively producing wells that have been capped by or on behalf of corrupt politicians and commercialists corrupting capitalism. Beware the government/industrial complex. There are the known, but presently forbidden fields off of various sections of US coastline, like the Carolinas, Florida, the Gulf coast, California, and of course Alaska. There's ANWR, which is temperately another planet to which no one goes and about which no one knows. Then there's the Rocky Mountains of Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah, which may hold the planet's largest oil depository. When shale oil was discussed in the seventies, it was not, at that time, economically feasible to try to bring it to market, as it would have had to be sold at about forty dollars a barrel in a market that had turned topsy turvy by the more than doubling of the per barrel price...from approximately nine dollars to nineteen dollars. Now, with OPEC oil at a minimum of a hundred dollars a barrel, Rocky Mountain shale oil has a whole new sheen to it, especially if it is true that with technological advancements over the past thirty years, it could be brought to market for perhaps twenty-five, or maybe even ten dollars a barrel. In all, all told, including the newly discovered and drilled repository in North Dakota that has led to the lowest unemployment rate in America, we have between 1.3 and 1.8 TRILLION barrels of oil here in America! And we haven't even mentioned our tremendous stores of natural gas. Even my home state's ditzy Dummycrap governor, Beverly "Dumpling" Perdue, has reversed her veto position to say that fracking is a good idea for the state and the nation. It's amazing how Demoncat and Dummycrap politicians will reverse themselves on stupid policy positions and practices when they're not seeking the votes of a bunch of demented Demoncat and Dummycrap, anti-capitalist environmental extremists and egg heads. .
The first and fastest step to energy independence is to immediately start to utilize the oil we have in America by uncapping those mid-western and western wells, drilling in all of those other aforementioned locales and building a new refinery or ten, perhaps on some of our abandoned military bases. After that, we can seriously pursue viable alternatives, like constructing some new nuclear power plants, building better batteries, and seeking the secrets of solar power.
Feel good, but brain dead ideas like ethynol, bio-diesel, switch grass and algae are nothing more than Ma Chalmers' soybean farm. Wind power is not viable in any real sense, in that the wind farm to power New York City would have to be the size of Connecticut. Of course, coal remains an important alternative to oil. But the anti-capitalist communists posing as environmentalists like coal less than they like oil as a source of American energy. Remember, Baracka pledged to bankrupt the coal industry. Both of those sources are fine for China and the like, all conveniently exempted from the great grand Kyoto Protocols. And though America does more than any nation on Earth to minimize pollution from the burning of such fossil fuels, we're the bad guys for opting out of that ridiculous renunciation of western civilization.
At this critical juncture in American and world history, to keep our and our allies' economies and societies safe, we must bust the trusts of the government/(oil) industrial complex to get existing wells flowing again and we must tell the anti-capitalist socialists posing as environmentalists that we are going to increase American refining capacity as much as necessary and extract as much American oil and gas as we need from new American sources and that they can all go to hell, or to China, or to Cuba, or to Venezuela, where I hope that Hugo Chavez drowns in his excess of unsellable supplies of Citgo that we won't need or want any longer.
And contrary to popular belief, oil is a renewable quantity. Maybe not to the degree that we're using it in the 21st century, but the planet continues to create new oil, continuously, however slowly, even as you read this. The geological forces that have created the vast reservoirs of oil within the planet over the course of millions of years did not cease to function when man discovered its usefulness and began extracting it from the ground. Granted, we probably are depleting tapped fields immeasurably faster than the planet can replenish them. The good news is that there are fields that have never been tapped and others that were tapped, but capped long before they dried out. Many of those capped wells and virgin fields are right here in the U.S.A. Throughout the interior of the country, there are probably thousands of positively producing wells that have been capped by or on behalf of corrupt politicians and commercialists corrupting capitalism. Beware the government/industrial complex. There are the known, but presently forbidden fields off of various sections of US coastline, like the Carolinas, Florida, the Gulf coast, California, and of course Alaska. There's ANWR, which is temperately another planet to which no one goes and about which no one knows. Then there's the Rocky Mountains of Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah, which may hold the planet's largest oil depository. When shale oil was discussed in the seventies, it was not, at that time, economically feasible to try to bring it to market, as it would have had to be sold at about forty dollars a barrel in a market that had turned topsy turvy by the more than doubling of the per barrel price...from approximately nine dollars to nineteen dollars. Now, with OPEC oil at a minimum of a hundred dollars a barrel, Rocky Mountain shale oil has a whole new sheen to it, especially if it is true that with technological advancements over the past thirty years, it could be brought to market for perhaps twenty-five, or maybe even ten dollars a barrel. In all, all told, including the newly discovered and drilled repository in North Dakota that has led to the lowest unemployment rate in America, we have between 1.3 and 1.8 TRILLION barrels of oil here in America! And we haven't even mentioned our tremendous stores of natural gas. Even my home state's ditzy Dummycrap governor, Beverly "Dumpling" Perdue, has reversed her veto position to say that fracking is a good idea for the state and the nation. It's amazing how Demoncat and Dummycrap politicians will reverse themselves on stupid policy positions and practices when they're not seeking the votes of a bunch of demented Demoncat and Dummycrap, anti-capitalist environmental extremists and egg heads. .
The first and fastest step to energy independence is to immediately start to utilize the oil we have in America by uncapping those mid-western and western wells, drilling in all of those other aforementioned locales and building a new refinery or ten, perhaps on some of our abandoned military bases. After that, we can seriously pursue viable alternatives, like constructing some new nuclear power plants, building better batteries, and seeking the secrets of solar power.
Feel good, but brain dead ideas like ethynol, bio-diesel, switch grass and algae are nothing more than Ma Chalmers' soybean farm. Wind power is not viable in any real sense, in that the wind farm to power New York City would have to be the size of Connecticut. Of course, coal remains an important alternative to oil. But the anti-capitalist communists posing as environmentalists like coal less than they like oil as a source of American energy. Remember, Baracka pledged to bankrupt the coal industry. Both of those sources are fine for China and the like, all conveniently exempted from the great grand Kyoto Protocols. And though America does more than any nation on Earth to minimize pollution from the burning of such fossil fuels, we're the bad guys for opting out of that ridiculous renunciation of western civilization.
At this critical juncture in American and world history, to keep our and our allies' economies and societies safe, we must bust the trusts of the government/(oil) industrial complex to get existing wells flowing again and we must tell the anti-capitalist socialists posing as environmentalists that we are going to increase American refining capacity as much as necessary and extract as much American oil and gas as we need from new American sources and that they can all go to hell, or to China, or to Cuba, or to Venezuela, where I hope that Hugo Chavez drowns in his excess of unsellable supplies of Citgo that we won't need or want any longer.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
What Defines A Nation?
A sovereign nation is decidedly defined by three basic tenets. The first one is a rather abstract concept that can't be seen, felt, heard, smelled or tasted. It is quite often arbitrary and created by people who have, or should have, little or nothing to do with that nation. It can be visualized in a graphic representation of topographical and geographical actualities. In the case of the United States, it is easily recognized by anyone who has even the most basic, fundamental knowledge of geography. The "it" is a country's borders. Though we have little, or any problem with our nothern border, our southern border is a wide open no man's land over which is pouring an invasion force more insiduous than any uniformed, openly armed military force and is waging war on America in such a way that many Americans can't or won't recognize. In dealing with the on-going and ever increasing problem of illegal immigration, the first step has to be protecting our geographic sovereignty by truly guarding that border and halting the invasion NOW!
Forget and forego the easy sounding impractical idea of building a fence from Brownsville to San Diego. I once thought that was the answer. It's not, if for no other reason, it would interfere with wildlife and livestock and they are not the problem. We must militarize that border. Governor Rick Perry must fully activate, dispatch and deploy the Texas Navy to patrol the length and breadth of the Rio Grande that is the border between Texas and Mexico. To the west of Texas, fully armed National Guardsmen, Border Patrol Agents, state and local authorities, with the aid and assistance of military aviation units and the Civil Air Patrol must do all that is necessary and right to put a stop to this invasion of marauders, moochers and murderers.
These music videos will hopefully help the American blind to see what a problem this has become and what a death knell to the nation it will be if not promptly and properly addressed.
ht://www.youtube.com/embed/pM2XV3cf7p4?rel=0"
"http://www.youtube.com/embed/R2xa4qHCGKw?rel=0"
Our friends, allies and primary progenitors, the British are experiencing much the same dilemma. There is a distinct difference in America's and Britain's illegal immigrant problem. Our troubles of illegal alien, unlicensed drunk drivers killing the citizenry and moochers and grifters overburdening the health care and education system are being created by Spanish speaking Hispanic Mulattoids. Britain's are being caused by Arabic tongued Semitic Arab Mulattoid moochers and grifters. Either instance, if allowed to continue will decimate and destroy the two primary national pillars of western civilation, which is the civilation that has brought the entire planet to some level of civilized existance.
"http://www.youtube.com/embed/tb81K7ABkB4?rel=0"
The second defining factor of a sovereign nation is its language. I heard a joke once that would probably be a lot funnier if it weren't so true. "Someone who speaks two languages is bilingual. Someone who speaks three languages is trilingual. Someone who speaks several or many languages is multilingual. Someone who speaks one language is an American." Be it pomposity, arrogance, isolationism, jingoism, or just personal pride in being a linguist of the most eloquent, descriptive language ever devised by man, Americans should have the privilege of having the English language as the language of public discourse in this land and the sole language of governmental communication. After all, English is the international language of aviation, business, science and diplomacy. It is one of the two working languages among the U.N.'s six offical languages and is, in practicality, the working language at the U.N. It is also the most widely known language by the most people on the planet, as primary, secondary or acquired foreign language. It is the global lingua franca. So, it damned sure should be the only language used in public in America.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/sEJfS1v-fU0"
The third, and perhaps most important aspect of a sovereign nation's identity is its culture. This part of this piece and the accompanying video will be the most offensive to many. But f^(# you if you are. This country was founded on offending people. Some offenses were actual, causing loss or harm through force or fraud. By and large, these offenses were corrected, like slavery, which is, of course, still practiced in the modern world by many; mostly Muslims. Other offenses, which are, mainly imagined, as they only hurt somebody's feelings or singe their sensibilities are meaningless, having meaning for only the pusillanimous, politically correct portion of the population. You know; Dummycraps.
The culture of America is a Judeo Christian Caucasoid culture of individuality, independence, inventiveness and entrepreneurialism, self-reliance and responsibility. People of other religions and races are free and welcome to join themselves to that culture, as long as they adhere to those basic principles. If you are of another race or religion, you won't be persecuted or prosecuted for them, but don't expect America or Americans to kowtow to you with special privileges not practiced by the prevailing population.
"http://www.youtube.com/embed/GQOwXlSQsM8"
You know, I LOVE the song in this music video and I love the pictures and graphics that the video maker used as visual illustrations, except for the one he used for the lyric of "Slavery!". I think that the following art would have been a better choice, as it depicts the culmination of slavery in America.
Forget and forego the easy sounding impractical idea of building a fence from Brownsville to San Diego. I once thought that was the answer. It's not, if for no other reason, it would interfere with wildlife and livestock and they are not the problem. We must militarize that border. Governor Rick Perry must fully activate, dispatch and deploy the Texas Navy to patrol the length and breadth of the Rio Grande that is the border between Texas and Mexico. To the west of Texas, fully armed National Guardsmen, Border Patrol Agents, state and local authorities, with the aid and assistance of military aviation units and the Civil Air Patrol must do all that is necessary and right to put a stop to this invasion of marauders, moochers and murderers.
These music videos will hopefully help the American blind to see what a problem this has become and what a death knell to the nation it will be if not promptly and properly addressed.
ht://www.youtube.com/embed/pM2XV3cf7p4?rel=0"
"http://www.youtube.com/embed/R2xa4qHCGKw?rel=0"
Our friends, allies and primary progenitors, the British are experiencing much the same dilemma. There is a distinct difference in America's and Britain's illegal immigrant problem. Our troubles of illegal alien, unlicensed drunk drivers killing the citizenry and moochers and grifters overburdening the health care and education system are being created by Spanish speaking Hispanic Mulattoids. Britain's are being caused by Arabic tongued Semitic Arab Mulattoid moochers and grifters. Either instance, if allowed to continue will decimate and destroy the two primary national pillars of western civilation, which is the civilation that has brought the entire planet to some level of civilized existance.
"http://www.youtube.com/embed/tb81K7ABkB4?rel=0"
The second defining factor of a sovereign nation is its language. I heard a joke once that would probably be a lot funnier if it weren't so true. "Someone who speaks two languages is bilingual. Someone who speaks three languages is trilingual. Someone who speaks several or many languages is multilingual. Someone who speaks one language is an American." Be it pomposity, arrogance, isolationism, jingoism, or just personal pride in being a linguist of the most eloquent, descriptive language ever devised by man, Americans should have the privilege of having the English language as the language of public discourse in this land and the sole language of governmental communication. After all, English is the international language of aviation, business, science and diplomacy. It is one of the two working languages among the U.N.'s six offical languages and is, in practicality, the working language at the U.N. It is also the most widely known language by the most people on the planet, as primary, secondary or acquired foreign language. It is the global lingua franca. So, it damned sure should be the only language used in public in America.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/sEJfS1v-fU0"
The third, and perhaps most important aspect of a sovereign nation's identity is its culture. This part of this piece and the accompanying video will be the most offensive to many. But f^(# you if you are. This country was founded on offending people. Some offenses were actual, causing loss or harm through force or fraud. By and large, these offenses were corrected, like slavery, which is, of course, still practiced in the modern world by many; mostly Muslims. Other offenses, which are, mainly imagined, as they only hurt somebody's feelings or singe their sensibilities are meaningless, having meaning for only the pusillanimous, politically correct portion of the population. You know; Dummycraps.
The culture of America is a Judeo Christian Caucasoid culture of individuality, independence, inventiveness and entrepreneurialism, self-reliance and responsibility. People of other religions and races are free and welcome to join themselves to that culture, as long as they adhere to those basic principles. If you are of another race or religion, you won't be persecuted or prosecuted for them, but don't expect America or Americans to kowtow to you with special privileges not practiced by the prevailing population.
"http://www.youtube.com/embed/GQOwXlSQsM8"
You know, I LOVE the song in this music video and I love the pictures and graphics that the video maker used as visual illustrations, except for the one he used for the lyric of "Slavery!". I think that the following art would have been a better choice, as it depicts the culmination of slavery in America.
Monday, March 12, 2012
What I Know and Believe About Mitt Romney
I discovered Mitt Romney back in 2005, when I was channel surfing one day and my local PBS affiliate was showing a handsome, well dressed fellow making a speech to a large group. To my surprise, it was the REPUBLICAN governor of Massachusetts addressing the state legislature! Flabbergasted that a Republican had managed to become the governor of that Commonwealth of Kennedy's and other Communists, I had to watch and listen. I don't really remember any of the details of what he said, but I do recall being fairly impressed by the person and the policies. At the conclusion of his talk, I distinctly remember saying, "Well, there's the Repulsicans' Presidential nominee for '08." If he had been, he would probably be the President presently.
I know that Romney is fond of saying that he's not a life long professional politician. I believe that he would have been if he could have ever won an election, other than that one 2002 gubernatorial race. After all, he is just another connected counsellor with a law degree. I believe that he would have beaten Obama like the baseborn stepchild of America that Baracka is. Unlike John McCain't, Romney has a Presidential look and feel about him that should have been enough for enough Americans to cast their ballots for Moderate Mitt, rather than for the equally unknown at the time Bolshevik Barry.
I know that Romney loves to tout his position of being the only Repulsican candidate with a lifetime of experience in private sector business. I believe he was the bankroll who paid Ginger White to tell the lies she told on Herman Cain, in order to rid the race of the one, real non-politician businessman, just as I believe it was Baracka who financed Sharon Bialek and her Bolshevik Barrister, Gloria All-Red, so that he wouldn't lose his advantage of being able to play his ever present ace in the hole race card, which would have become moot and useless if his opponent were another Negroid.
I know that Romney would be a better President than Obama. I believe that he's primarily just another lackey lawyer turned political pro who is too narcissistic, self-absorbed and egomaniacal to make any real, discernible difference. I believe that he, like the OVERWHELMING majority of putrid politicians, is more enamored with his own personal place in history than concerned with America's survival in history. And I believe that he's too much of a pusillanimous pussy to say what needs to be said to beat Obama now in 2012. After all, he is basically just another Michigan/Massachusetts 'guilty white liberal' Caucasoid who could or would never say anything negative about any Negroid, even that bastard half-breed Bolshevik who is bastardizng the White House on a daily plus basis.
I know that Romney is fond of saying that he's not a life long professional politician. I believe that he would have been if he could have ever won an election, other than that one 2002 gubernatorial race. After all, he is just another connected counsellor with a law degree. I believe that he would have beaten Obama like the baseborn stepchild of America that Baracka is. Unlike John McCain't, Romney has a Presidential look and feel about him that should have been enough for enough Americans to cast their ballots for Moderate Mitt, rather than for the equally unknown at the time Bolshevik Barry.
I know that Romney loves to tout his position of being the only Repulsican candidate with a lifetime of experience in private sector business. I believe he was the bankroll who paid Ginger White to tell the lies she told on Herman Cain, in order to rid the race of the one, real non-politician businessman, just as I believe it was Baracka who financed Sharon Bialek and her Bolshevik Barrister, Gloria All-Red, so that he wouldn't lose his advantage of being able to play his ever present ace in the hole race card, which would have become moot and useless if his opponent were another Negroid.
I know that Romney would be a better President than Obama. I believe that he's primarily just another lackey lawyer turned political pro who is too narcissistic, self-absorbed and egomaniacal to make any real, discernible difference. I believe that he, like the OVERWHELMING majority of putrid politicians, is more enamored with his own personal place in history than concerned with America's survival in history. And I believe that he's too much of a pusillanimous pussy to say what needs to be said to beat Obama now in 2012. After all, he is basically just another Michigan/Massachusetts 'guilty white liberal' Caucasoid who could or would never say anything negative about any Negroid, even that bastard half-breed Bolshevik who is bastardizng the White House on a daily plus basis.
Every Repulsican & Republican Candidate Should Use This
At every rally and event from now until November! But I'm afraid too many of them, if not all of them will be too much of a bunch of pusillanimous poltroons to dare to proclaim these truths, which are self evident. If we are to rid ourselves of the rule of baseborn Bolshevik Baracka and his Demoncat/Dummycrap cronies, we are going to have to voraciously verbalize what he and they are.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8n8K5b3gFvI?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8n8K5b3gFvI?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Saturday, March 3, 2012
The Framers Made a Few Mistakes
The United States Constitution is the greatest document of governance ever written. It was created by the wisest, most brilliant men in mankind's history. But they, like all humans, were flawed and thus created a flawed framework of government. Some of the errors were grammatical, some were political and some were due to living in the eighteenth century without the ability to foresee the far future.
Right from the top, in the Preamble, the word "welfare" should have been "prosperity. But how could these responsible, self-reliant men ever dream that that one word would be so badly bastardized, so as to help create the needy, greedy welfare state that America has become.
Of course, the biggest, baddest blunder they made was allowing the continuation and perpetration of slavery in a land where personal liberty and individual rights were supposed to be paramount. Negroid and other slaves should have been freed by the establishment of the country in 1787, rather than the execution of perhaps the most horrible war in history in 1865. The Negroid slaves should have been given the free man's options of using their abilities and ambitions to succeed in this new country, or to repatriate to their ancestral lands in Africa.
Women should have been enfranchised from the beginning, rather than 130 or so years later through Constitutional amendment in the early 20th century. Much like slaves, women were not much more than chattel to be used for specific purposes. If they had been given the responsibility of the vote from the beginning, maybe they would have learned from the beginning to vote for principles like economic independence and liberty, rather than fiscal dependence and self security.
Other, more specific errors and oversights include the electoral college. Popular election of the President should be the way the country's chief representative is selected. Elected and appointed officers, as well as all civil employees should be held to the highest and most detailed standards of conduct, subject to the harshest penalties for the commission of any crime and the conviction thereof, which would automatically infer a conviction of breach of the public trust, resulting in the most horrendous punishments for this most heinous crime. Officers and officials should have been specifically limited to the number and types of employers that they could employ at the government's expense. More specificity in the way political electees and appointees are compensated is needed, to be based on their individual positive accomplishments rather than simply stating that a salary would be paid. The Constitution should have mandated that all business of Congress is to be performed by the individual and by the committee of the whole. Political parties should have been disallowed. Crime should have been distinctly defined as an act of force or fraud by one party that causes demonstrable loss or harm to another party. The freedom of religion clause of the first amendment should have been written more for the individual religious practicioner, rather than for the Church.
Those are just a few that jump to mind without so much as a glance at any of my copies of the document. I shall add to the list as I ponder and reread. I encourage any who read this to offer ideas on the subject.
We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote thegeneral welfare overall prosperity and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Congress shall make no lawrespecting an establish of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof restricting an individual from the personal and peaceable practice of any religious belief system...
A well regulated militia and a law defending citizenry being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Right from the top, in the Preamble, the word "welfare" should have been "prosperity. But how could these responsible, self-reliant men ever dream that that one word would be so badly bastardized, so as to help create the needy, greedy welfare state that America has become.
Of course, the biggest, baddest blunder they made was allowing the continuation and perpetration of slavery in a land where personal liberty and individual rights were supposed to be paramount. Negroid and other slaves should have been freed by the establishment of the country in 1787, rather than the execution of perhaps the most horrible war in history in 1865. The Negroid slaves should have been given the free man's options of using their abilities and ambitions to succeed in this new country, or to repatriate to their ancestral lands in Africa.
Women should have been enfranchised from the beginning, rather than 130 or so years later through Constitutional amendment in the early 20th century. Much like slaves, women were not much more than chattel to be used for specific purposes. If they had been given the responsibility of the vote from the beginning, maybe they would have learned from the beginning to vote for principles like economic independence and liberty, rather than fiscal dependence and self security.
Other, more specific errors and oversights include the electoral college. Popular election of the President should be the way the country's chief representative is selected. Elected and appointed officers, as well as all civil employees should be held to the highest and most detailed standards of conduct, subject to the harshest penalties for the commission of any crime and the conviction thereof, which would automatically infer a conviction of breach of the public trust, resulting in the most horrendous punishments for this most heinous crime. Officers and officials should have been specifically limited to the number and types of employers that they could employ at the government's expense. More specificity in the way political electees and appointees are compensated is needed, to be based on their individual positive accomplishments rather than simply stating that a salary would be paid. The Constitution should have mandated that all business of Congress is to be performed by the individual and by the committee of the whole. Political parties should have been disallowed. Crime should have been distinctly defined as an act of force or fraud by one party that causes demonstrable loss or harm to another party. The freedom of religion clause of the first amendment should have been written more for the individual religious practicioner, rather than for the Church.
Those are just a few that jump to mind without so much as a glance at any of my copies of the document. I shall add to the list as I ponder and reread. I encourage any who read this to offer ideas on the subject.
We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the
Congress shall make no law
A well regulated militia and a law defending citizenry being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
I Need to Change My Vice-Presidential Pick
Some blogs back, I proposed how each of the Republican and Repulsican candidates for President could best be utilized in and in conjunction with a Herman Cain administration. Despite many misgivings about him, I suggested Rick Santorum for Vice-President, based on his experience, especially his leadership experience in the Senate. After all, the primary function of the Vice-President is to preside over the Senate. It makes sense to have someone well familiar with that body, particularly managerially experienced, to be in charge of it. It occurs to me, however, that in putting together a committedly conservative administration, there are at least two current Senators who would be better than former Senator Santorum.
In announcing his pending retirement from the Senate and stating that he has no ambition for or design on any other political post, unless offered the opportunity to run for Vice-President, Jon Kyl of Arizona could be an excellent choice. Having spent a long time, but not a lifetime in the Senate, including presently serving as Party Whip, Kyl would not be just another narcissistic one term Senator wanting to be famous and powerful, like Obama or Edwards. That is primarily why I have so much trouble with the much ballyhooed possible and potential Vice-Presidential nomination of Marco Rubio. Despite his conservative credentials and his representation of the important state of Florida and the important group of Hispanics, he is still but a rookie Senator. Senator Kyl has consistently been recognized and ranked as one of the Senate's most, most, most conservative. He has been selected to ever higher levels of party leadership in the Senate, rising to second in command, so to speak. My only problem with Senator Kyl as Vice-President is his age. He turns 70 this Spring and is beginning to look his age.
Another, much younger Senator, who ran for but didn't win one of Kyl's previous leadership positions and who plans to seek his present position of Whip when Kyl retires after this year, could be an excellent candidate for Vice-President, especially on a ticket with Herman Cain. My own senior Senator, Richard Burr has long been an advocate for and supporter of the Fair Tax, veterans, the military and other constitutionally conservative causes. And like Cain, he is not a lifelong politician, having spent nearly two decades in private sector business as a corporate sales manager. And as a sidenote, he is distantly related to a former Vice-President. Popular in his and my politically important state of North Carolina, he has a graciousness and gravitas that would make him a positive plus to Cain's campaign.
Either of these men would serve well as a running mate to any of the Presidential candidates and as the person a heartbeat away. Burr would probably be better, if only for the age thing. Though considered by some to be unremarkable as a Senator, he is well regarded and respected by his Senate peers as a principled representative of his state and his constituents.
As for Santorum, I think that it would be better to have him several heartbeats further away. As it has recently come to brighter light what a supporter of big union labor he is, make him the last Secretary of Labor, overseeing the downsized, streamlined reorganization of that department into a less bureaucratic division of Mitt Romney's Department of Commerce.
In announcing his pending retirement from the Senate and stating that he has no ambition for or design on any other political post, unless offered the opportunity to run for Vice-President, Jon Kyl of Arizona could be an excellent choice. Having spent a long time, but not a lifetime in the Senate, including presently serving as Party Whip, Kyl would not be just another narcissistic one term Senator wanting to be famous and powerful, like Obama or Edwards. That is primarily why I have so much trouble with the much ballyhooed possible and potential Vice-Presidential nomination of Marco Rubio. Despite his conservative credentials and his representation of the important state of Florida and the important group of Hispanics, he is still but a rookie Senator. Senator Kyl has consistently been recognized and ranked as one of the Senate's most, most, most conservative. He has been selected to ever higher levels of party leadership in the Senate, rising to second in command, so to speak. My only problem with Senator Kyl as Vice-President is his age. He turns 70 this Spring and is beginning to look his age.
Another, much younger Senator, who ran for but didn't win one of Kyl's previous leadership positions and who plans to seek his present position of Whip when Kyl retires after this year, could be an excellent candidate for Vice-President, especially on a ticket with Herman Cain. My own senior Senator, Richard Burr has long been an advocate for and supporter of the Fair Tax, veterans, the military and other constitutionally conservative causes. And like Cain, he is not a lifelong politician, having spent nearly two decades in private sector business as a corporate sales manager. And as a sidenote, he is distantly related to a former Vice-President. Popular in his and my politically important state of North Carolina, he has a graciousness and gravitas that would make him a positive plus to Cain's campaign.
Either of these men would serve well as a running mate to any of the Presidential candidates and as the person a heartbeat away. Burr would probably be better, if only for the age thing. Though considered by some to be unremarkable as a Senator, he is well regarded and respected by his Senate peers as a principled representative of his state and his constituents.
As for Santorum, I think that it would be better to have him several heartbeats further away. As it has recently come to brighter light what a supporter of big union labor he is, make him the last Secretary of Labor, overseeing the downsized, streamlined reorganization of that department into a less bureaucratic division of Mitt Romney's Department of Commerce.
It's Been Three Score and Four
1948 was the last time the Republicans nominated their Presidential candidate in a brokered convention. That's long before they became the Repulsicans and Rebooblicans and Republican'ts. Their nominee, of course, lost in the general election to the incumbent Democrat, who was, who is, probably the next to last member of that party to hold the office before they all became Demoncats and Dummycraps.
Now, in 2012, sixty-four years later, the sixty-four trillion dollar question, the sixty-four trillion dollar hope is: May we have another one? Please? It is the last, best hope for putting up a nominee who can debate Obama, and defeat Obama, and thereby, save my country. Through this entire debate after debate after debate debacle and the business as usual politics of personal destruction, there has been one, alright, two true Republicans of truly conservative convictions. One of them is best suited and situated to become second in line to the Presidency, a position perhaps more politically powerful than the President, and certainly more so than the first in line Vice-President. She would show Nancy Pelosi how a real American woman keeps a House and John Boehner how to speak for a conservative Congress.
Michele Bachman could have and would have debated circles around Obama, as many, if not most of the Repulsican candidates could and would have. But she, like the others, especially the four remaining contenders, five, if you count Buddy Roemer (WHO!?!), probably can't defeat Obama for one simple reason. That reason is that there are too many stupid people in America and they're allowed to vote. That is in no way saying that the vote should be taken away from these people. It is to say that these ignorami need to be educated and enlightened.
Any of the remaining Repulsican candidates who tries to accomplish such a feat is going to be liberally labeled. Romney as a Ritchie Rich rich Rockefeller Repulsican, a pale faced, dime's worth of difference from Obama, with a Wall Street background and a better suit. Gingrich is perhaps the smartest person to seek the Presidency in my lifetime, and undoubtedly the candidate who would best best Obama in one on one debates. But he wouldn't best Obama in those debates in the minds of the dumb masses who vote for Obama and his ilk, because there's a "D" after the name. They would and will see Newt as a know it all college professor turned fat, jowly, white haired blowhard politician, in the vein of John McCain't. Santorum has become Sanitorium and Sanctorum to too many of the stupid people and doesn't stand the proverbial snowball's chance in Hell of beating Obama, unless the stupid people were to stay home on election day, which they, and their illegal alien friends and dead relatives won't. God bless Ron Paul. He has been a GREAT Congressman from a GREAT state for a LONG time. He has announced his retirement from Congress. So, when he doesn't get the Repulsican nomination, we best hope that he doesn't run as Liebertarian or some kind of Idiotpendent. That would insure an Obama victory. Either, or any way, in running against Obama, he would be perceived as just an old, old man with as many nutty ideas as good ones. And in contemporary American politics, perception is everything. He would be a GREAT last Secretary of HHS and a GREAT first cabinet level Surgeon General, overseeing the new Department of Science & Medicine, including the USPHS, the CDC, the NIH, the FDA and the EPA.
None of these candidates can successfully debate AND defeat Obama. Because to defeat him in a debate, one has to defame, denigrate, and destroy him with the truth, much of that truth lying in the fact that much, and yes, even most of his support comes from the stupid people. If any of the remaining Repulsican candidates were to call him on that along with his past and his practices and policies, in last grasp, last gasp fashion, Obama would play his winning hand with the always wild, always ready race card, as he and his supporters did in '08.
That is the sad, sad fact of why Herman Cain has to be the Republican nominee. Beyond the fact that Herman had the only real and meaningful ideas among the candidates to save my country, he has the charm, the charisma, the universal amiability that would have moved him past the muckraking and mud slinging to the party nomination on first ballot at the convention, if only...if only. Those ideas and those attributes, along with his dark brown pigmentation would have beaten the breath out of Obama in a landslide. Many of the stupid people, who would not be able to call him racist for opposing Obama would have called him Uncle Tom and sellout and house ni&&er, as one Negroid co-worker of mine called him. But Herman Cain could, as no other candidate can, engage and enlighten and educate enough of the stupid people to win against Obama and whomever the Demoncats and Dummycraps run in '16, because of his sound, first term governance guided by his own experience, expertise, insight, intelligence and common sense conservatism.
Now, in 2012, sixty-four years later, the sixty-four trillion dollar question, the sixty-four trillion dollar hope is: May we have another one? Please? It is the last, best hope for putting up a nominee who can debate Obama, and defeat Obama, and thereby, save my country. Through this entire debate after debate after debate debacle and the business as usual politics of personal destruction, there has been one, alright, two true Republicans of truly conservative convictions. One of them is best suited and situated to become second in line to the Presidency, a position perhaps more politically powerful than the President, and certainly more so than the first in line Vice-President. She would show Nancy Pelosi how a real American woman keeps a House and John Boehner how to speak for a conservative Congress.
Michele Bachman could have and would have debated circles around Obama, as many, if not most of the Repulsican candidates could and would have. But she, like the others, especially the four remaining contenders, five, if you count Buddy Roemer (WHO!?!), probably can't defeat Obama for one simple reason. That reason is that there are too many stupid people in America and they're allowed to vote. That is in no way saying that the vote should be taken away from these people. It is to say that these ignorami need to be educated and enlightened.
Any of the remaining Repulsican candidates who tries to accomplish such a feat is going to be liberally labeled. Romney as a Ritchie Rich rich Rockefeller Repulsican, a pale faced, dime's worth of difference from Obama, with a Wall Street background and a better suit. Gingrich is perhaps the smartest person to seek the Presidency in my lifetime, and undoubtedly the candidate who would best best Obama in one on one debates. But he wouldn't best Obama in those debates in the minds of the dumb masses who vote for Obama and his ilk, because there's a "D" after the name. They would and will see Newt as a know it all college professor turned fat, jowly, white haired blowhard politician, in the vein of John McCain't. Santorum has become Sanitorium and Sanctorum to too many of the stupid people and doesn't stand the proverbial snowball's chance in Hell of beating Obama, unless the stupid people were to stay home on election day, which they, and their illegal alien friends and dead relatives won't. God bless Ron Paul. He has been a GREAT Congressman from a GREAT state for a LONG time. He has announced his retirement from Congress. So, when he doesn't get the Repulsican nomination, we best hope that he doesn't run as Liebertarian or some kind of Idiotpendent. That would insure an Obama victory. Either, or any way, in running against Obama, he would be perceived as just an old, old man with as many nutty ideas as good ones. And in contemporary American politics, perception is everything. He would be a GREAT last Secretary of HHS and a GREAT first cabinet level Surgeon General, overseeing the new Department of Science & Medicine, including the USPHS, the CDC, the NIH, the FDA and the EPA.
None of these candidates can successfully debate AND defeat Obama. Because to defeat him in a debate, one has to defame, denigrate, and destroy him with the truth, much of that truth lying in the fact that much, and yes, even most of his support comes from the stupid people. If any of the remaining Repulsican candidates were to call him on that along with his past and his practices and policies, in last grasp, last gasp fashion, Obama would play his winning hand with the always wild, always ready race card, as he and his supporters did in '08.
That is the sad, sad fact of why Herman Cain has to be the Republican nominee. Beyond the fact that Herman had the only real and meaningful ideas among the candidates to save my country, he has the charm, the charisma, the universal amiability that would have moved him past the muckraking and mud slinging to the party nomination on first ballot at the convention, if only...if only. Those ideas and those attributes, along with his dark brown pigmentation would have beaten the breath out of Obama in a landslide. Many of the stupid people, who would not be able to call him racist for opposing Obama would have called him Uncle Tom and sellout and house ni&&er, as one Negroid co-worker of mine called him. But Herman Cain could, as no other candidate can, engage and enlighten and educate enough of the stupid people to win against Obama and whomever the Demoncats and Dummycraps run in '16, because of his sound, first term governance guided by his own experience, expertise, insight, intelligence and common sense conservatism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)