Our Founders Couldn't Be Elected Today

A TROUBLING THOUGHT: Isn't it more than ironic that today both the Right AND the Left routinely idolize, deify and politically invoke the virtues of Lincoln. Why?

This might surprise some of you, but like Lincoln, both the modern Left and Right subscribe to a consolidated, monopolistic central government model. (Yup, our hero was a big government, one-party rule kinda' guy. And in shaping such a top-heavy government, he played the game for keeps.)

In effect, we now have Left-wing totalitarians and Right-wing socialists (neo-Cons, RINOs). Exceptions like Paul, Lee, Gohmert, Blackburn etc. comprise but a tiny minority within the ruling class. Thus, our leaders' and our own faithfulness to the principles of limited, efficient government and dual federal-state sovereignty are, at the very best, tenuous and, most certainly, of scant constructive effect.

There are many, many years of bad governing habits to overcome if we are to once again return to our Founders' bedrock principles of government. And in this what's-in-it-for-me bread and circuses atmosphere, I'm no longer sure that most of us are any longer fully committed to returning to those principles.

In truth, given the severe foundational damage wrought by years of violations and neglect since the Constitutional Convention, my guess is that brilliant luminaries like Madison, Jefferson, Morris, Adams and Franklin wouldn't stand a chance in the once hallowed halls of Capitol Hill in 2017. Hell, they'd be lucky to even get elected.

Yup. We've come a long way--in the wrong direction.

Kneeling Football Players: Useful Idiots of the Left

So, the owner of the Houston Texans colloquially asserts the trusim that "we can't have the inmates running the prison", and the overly super-sensitive, indignant players take a knee in protest. Hmmm. Now, where have we seen this adolescent acting-out before?

Of course, the anti-American Dims, incorrigible race-baiters, dissemblers and dividers that they are, piled on by speciously claiming that the owner was thoughtlessly describing his players as "commodities", a deliberately incendiary and gratuitous reference to, what else, slavery. Oh my. So predictable. So shameless.

To be more accurate, perhaps the owner might have pointed out that OWNERS--NOT EMPLOYEES--are in charge. But even if he had said something like "we can't let the patients run the asylum", the players and their neo-Marxist puppeteers would still have taken umbrage because, to them, the owner would be either characterizing these misbehaving employees as criminals (not altogether inaccurate) or fruit cakes (also not altogether inaccurate). SO, the point is that no matter what the owner says in this regard will be viciously and mindlessly attacked and mischaractized by the Left.

Of course, the Dims' real goal in their self-serving criticism of the owner is to portray these poor set-upon football players as the victims of an evil, heartless, capitalist, whitey-dominated system of enslavement--and, unwittingly, these clueless players are submissively playing their roles perfectly. For the culture warriors on the Left, It's always about advancing their ideological goal of dividing, undermining, and destroying our system.

My advice to those who are still capable of fearless and honest opinionating: Don't play their game and don't surrender any room for them in which to play. Don't be cowed. Be honest and tell it like it is. And to the addicted football fans out there, don't continue to financially enable the players' childish victim fantasies by subsidizing their antics in any way.

MAKE NO MISTAKE, folks, these spoiled adolescent players/employees are unwitting high profile tools of the Leftist assault on our very way of life. The neo-Marxist puppeteers COULDN'T CARE LESS about the players. It's always about the Left's subversive ideological goals, and they will use anyone and any means to achieve that terrible aim. In other words, folks, our focus must be on saving the republic, not on short-sightedly enabling either the players or their political handlers.

America Ruled by Delphic Oracles

I BRIDLED AT THIS QUOTE appearing in one of today's conservative sites: "If President Trump is able to appoint even one more conservative replacement for one of the liberal Justices, conservatives across the nation will feel safe knowing that the constitution will be protected for many years to come." Wowee! Bottom line takeaway: even conservatives have been ensnared in the prevailing foolish notion that the Supreme Court alone is delegated the authority and power to protect our Constitution and our liberty. NOT SO! We the People are and have always been the final arbiters of what is and what is not constitutional. But, tragically, decades of ignorance and indoctrination have permitted even patriots to adopt this destructive, suicidal thinking. And we wonder why all the grotesque social engineering by the "Supreme" Court goes unchallenged.

That said, it appears that the judicial patron saint of liberalism, 84-yr old High Priestess Ginsburg of ACLU infamy, has decided to remain an oracle on America's Mt. Delphi. However, swing voter High Priest Kennedy and his fellow oracle, very liberal High Priestess Sotomayor have both expressed a desire to retire, the former owing to weariness, the latter owing to Type 1 Diabetes. So, looks like Trump will only be able to replace two more justices in the foreseeable future which, of course, would be a win for patriots. Of course, a bigger win would be when and if WE and our States understand our authority over our Mt. Delphi oracles.

Civil War History vs Race-Baiting in the Media

HISTORY IS NOT THE MEDIA'S FORTE. In response to Gen. Kelly's observation during a Fox interview with Laura Ingraham on Monday night that the "civil war" could have been avoided had there been a "willingness to compromise", some reporters (always the race-baiters) at the White House Press Conference today smugly inquired if Gen. Kelly may have been referring to compromising on slavery. (Oh, the humanity!!!) It was painfully obvious these PC ignoramuses hadn't a clue about "civil war" history. Sanders fielded the veiled attacks gracefully by alluding to the fact that "historians, both north and south" today agree that the war could have been prevented. (Perfectly stated and well-handled,)

Having read many politically INcorrect books about the so-called "civil war", aka the War of Northern Aggression, I could only have hoped that I had been present to take on those fools.

Prepared for their attacks, I would have quickly noted that the Confederates in 1861 dispatched delegates to DC to discuss peace, but that Lincoln flatly refused to meet or negotiate with them. (Not only was he unwilling to compromise, he outright rejected all southern attempts to negotiate.)

Though there are countless verifiable quotes attributable to Lincoln, I would have highlighted these two: In his 1862 letter to newspaper editor Horace Greeley he asserted that "My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery." And earlier in his political career during his 1858 debate with Stephen Douglas he said this: "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races." Also, shortly after his inauguration, he pledged his support for an amendment to the Constitution which forbade any amendment which would have permitted Congress to either abolish or interfere with the institution of slavery. Etc. Etc. Etc. And then I would have demanded the reporters prove me wrong, finishing up with "So, do you think Lincoln statues should come down too? Or do we learn from history and understand that historical figures are never, ever perfect?"

I would also have pointed out that most objective historians who haven't deified and mischaracterized Lincoln have clearly demonstrated that the paramount cause of the civil war was decades of oppressively unfair and intolerable tariffs imposed by the federal government on manufactured goods entering Southern ports, this to ensure that the South was compelled to purchase less expensive goods of lesser quality from northern manufacturers. (The tariff issue was seen as early as the 1830's as a lit match which could only lead to either peaceful secession of the south or needless and preventable bloodshed precipitated by industrial greed of the northern States.)

Three vital points: 1) the "civil war" was not, by definition, a civil war; it was an invasion of a sovereign, independent nation by the north; 2) it was fought over the issues of the right of a State to freely withdraw from a voluntary union (as contended by our Founders) and the grossly unfair and non-uniform imposition of federal tariffs on the southern States; 3) because the south was so dependent upon cotton, rice and indigo requiring intensive labor, from an economic standpoint, it was also fought over the issue of slavery.

So, Kelly and Sanders knew their history and, unsurprisingly, the indoctrinated ivy leaguers in the press room were clueless.