Category Archives: politics

Dem Leaders Hate the People

Here is my take on this shutdown and the President opening government. Yes It is yet another opinion piece more than likely badly written.

What I saw was the President asking for a pittance.  The democratic leadership in their hate for him decided they were not going to give him anything he asked for, especially anything from his campaign promises. We have seen this time and time again, The President issues an EO, Dems immediately go to court to block. In comparison under Obama as far as I know NO EO was ever blocked.

Now today we have seen how much the Democratic leaders hate the “little people”. During the 35 day shutdown we consistently saw the President and the republicans try to make a deal. From the democratic side it was all no deal, we won’t even talk. Speaker Pelosi’s own words when asked if he opened it up would they deal? her answer a big fat – NO!!!!.

Yes we have seen all the planned releases from the left on how it is hurting people and all the sad and crying eyes on the news. We saw how TSA was starting to have issues with people not able to go to work.  We saw air traffic controllers starting to call out. We saw reports that the FBI was unable to do it’s job (but was able to get a swat team to arrest Mr Stone). We heard all about how people were suffering due to missed paychecks. We saw federal employees going to the food banks. (the left media made sure we, the public saw all this). BUT, did the left even attempt to deal? Nope. It was their way or the highway. they didn’t care how much everyone suffered. You see, this was Trumps shutdown after all. They had no hand in it at all.

The President saw all this too. He saw that we were getting to a tipping point where national security and safety was being impacted, and he made a decision.  He decided  that the people were more important than a political power play. He decided that the safety of the nation was more important. He saw that the left had no interest in the nation and didn’t care.  What is a President, who has more than just his political aspirations to do? Play a little poker and turn the story around. open it up,  show that the left doesn’t care and wait. Once the Democratic leadership shows that they are not even interested in coming to the table he will be able to pull out his ace in the hole. Yes we might see one or two meetings with low level democrats that are not even allowed to make any real deals show up to these meetings.  However you will not see the people from the left that can actually do something. At that point we will be back to where we were and it will all be on the left.

And why are we to be punished in this way by the left? Because they thought Hillary should have won and they hate Trump. And now they are looking to 2020 elections and thinking this will win them the day and the election. People have short memories as a whole, but after this game of cards, I think they will remember how bad the left tried to screw America.  I expect very little out of this lame duck congress for the next 2 years other than they will show us all how much they hate the people and the constitution.

Trump never wanted to be President, it is actually a step down for him. He only ran because he saw how bad the country was getting and wanted to fix it. He has always said “America First”. So, let’s see where this goes from here.  We will definitely see a lot of crowing from the left, and disappointment from the right. But I am of the camp, let’s wait and see and verify what you are actually seeing.

Here is the Presidents tweet on this –

I wish people would read or listen to my words on the Border Wall. This was in no way a concession. It was taking care of millions of people who were getting badly hurt by the Shutdown with the understanding that in 21 days, if no deal is done, it’s off to the races!

Democratic buzzwords on the wall

So, let me get this straight. These are the current Democratic buzzwords or buzz terms being used against the barrier?

We should not endanger 800,000 people with a shut down over legislation that has not been put together yet on a vanity project that will not work and is not needed.

Did I miss anything?

So the Democrats are actually forgetting that they shut down the government and endangered 1 million people or so over there vanity project,   that project,  Obama care.  yes folks the Democrats did that back with Obama.  and now they are saying that we should not fight for something that would secure the borders better, that the experts at the border are asking for, that is only part of border security, and is only part of what is being asked for. yup more of the do as I say not as I do, from the Democrats. You have to give them credit they are really trying to back their lunatic leader Nancy Pelosi .

Pelosi shut’s down SOTU

I was thinking(never a good thing). did you know that the date of the 29th is not Trump picking a date, it is by constitutional and congressional law. You see the constitution MANDATES that congress assembles once a year on a certain date unless congress changes the law. congress has set the 29th as the date to meet.
so since congress HAS to meet on that date the president is helping them fulfill their constitutional duty. How is that for irony. apparently Nancy hasn’t looked at the constitution in so long she forgot that one.
ohhh this also means that according to law Speaker Pelosi can not change the date arbitraily. she has to get congress to change the date.
did you also know the President can convene congress if he wants? He can call them into session and give his address. While this power under article 2 section 3 may not have been used since Pearl Harbor, it is in fact a tool the President could use.
20th amendment section 2 –
. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.
article 2 section 3 –
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Trump’s oval office address

Like so many others, I watched the president address the nation on the border  wall problem. Then I also watched the Democratic response.  then I watched all the news channels  and their attempt at fact checking. I have also been following like most,  a all the drama that has been going.  I come away with the following observations ;

after the president’s speech I have seen from most of the mainstream media  an attempt  to fact check and put down  what he has said ,but all their efforts show that his data was accurate . the best that they could do was to try and qualify the data  to show  his error  if any .

One of their biggest attempts was to say that  the drug seizures were all at border checkpoints .  well , DUHHHH.  Tat is where most of the enforcement is concentrated . there is no way of telling how many cross the border in unprotected areas  and the counts are only from those areas that are protected .

Then in their after the address speech Chuck and Nancy  could only come up with their same old tired talking points .  orange man bad, orange man lie,  wall immoral,  wall ineffective , just the same old same old. they attempted to convince the American public  that Mr. Trump had provided him with no details .  when  in actuality  had provided them with a complete  plan ,  drawn up incooperation with  the people involved ,  law enforcement,  DHS ,. .. .

So what did we see last night?  we saw from the president  a request  to protect the border  and open up the government .we saw the president  saythat the wall is only part of the  solution.  this solution includes  more of everything.  more technology ,more border patrol  personnel, more facilities. Everything the Democrats want.  we also saw , from the Democratic leadership the constant  resist  and we will not do anything you want  even though it helps the nation , routine.

Do not be surprised if all you see today for the news stations  is an attempt  tear down  anything Mr. trump  had said . you’ll also see lots of stories  of how it is affecting  the workers , avoiding any  mention  of  the issues attempting to be  dealt with .  with Chuckies call  for the president to  open up the government and we will  take care of border security later ,  we see that  if that course is taken , border security will never get taken care.  it will just be shoved off to the side  and never  acted on .

census and the 19th and 26th amendments

Good Day;

There have been questions about putting a citizenship question on the census. After a lot of reading in the constitution, as a constitutional novice, I have come up with a better question that is in accord with the constitution. This question is a simple one that abridges no rights to any group. The question would be, are you allowed to vote in a federal election. This question is actually required by the constitution.

With that being said, I have a question. Did the 19th and 26th  amendments change the 14th amendment? I ask this as with the census fast approaching it is needed to find out the actual enumeration in respect to representation.  I will post the section of which I speak  to help.

2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

The section in bold is the section in question. As you can see it specifies male citizens of the age of 21.  With the 19th saying women have all the rights  as men, do they not then bear all the responsibilities?  Thus if you loose your right to vote in a federal election, you would then loose the right to have the representation in such an election? Similarly those that are 18 having received the right to vote for their choice of representatives would also loose that right?

My research thus far has alluded no answers to this important question. any help would be appreciated.

Thank you


Unconstitutional taking . New mag ban


Hello all:

I have been thinking here and may have stumbled upon a thought. I will let you decide if I am right or wrong in it.

This thought goes that any law that makes that lawfully bought gun magazine unlawful, is in itself an unconstitutional law. Let me show you the 5th amendment to the US constitution and we can go from there.

Amendment 5 – Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Now I will go with just 1 part of that amendment. it goes like this – nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Since the law now mandates you get rid of any non complying device or render harmless, the state has now taken your private property. now how to fulfill the rest of the sentence? the state has declared that that property is dangerous to the public and is therefore to be outlawed and taken. so for the public use it is now unsafe to have them. And since the state is not paying you to replace such items it is unconstitutional. Now since this is unconstitutional you are required to not follow this law.

This may be a stretch, but I have seen rulings that have been way worse than this. What say you?

Comments as always welcome.


Cohen sentencing memo

I like others, sat and read the Cohen sentencing memo searching it and came up with this. not much in it. there were lengthy paragraphs about how he defrauded the banks, and the IRS, using his taxi medalians. then they had a section that the only way I could see the President implicated, 1 sentence. that sentence basically meant that the President said can you fix this, or fix this. and cohen, wanting to prove himself more than he was, said ok. cohen then “fixed”it (he thought of himself as a fixer). it does not mention that Trump had any knowledge of where the funds came from. it did say that Cohen was paid about a 1/2 million out of the campaign funds for legal services. and they tried to link the payments to the the legal service payments. They really played up the part of interfering with an election by not letting the public see something.(over played IMO). All in all it looked to me to be written by someone that was pissed they didnt get their way.


I am going to add this thought that I had today –

do you realize what else the Cohen memo showed? It showed a prosecutor that is hell bent on proving something no matter the facts. How? Look at the charges that have been filed so far. Cohen mostly charged with irs and bank fraud. why did the Mueller team look at these kind of things? they did a big dig to find other chargable actions to make cohen testify the way they wanted, and when he didnt or couldnt, they threw him to the wolves and told them, he didnt work out fry him up. This kind of prosecution leads one to think if anything they actually do get on Trump can not be suspect. that the means and methods used to bully the witnesses to testify the way they want are akin to water boarding.This makes the Mueller prosecution illegit.

Go ahead and try to change my mind.

New Jersey and gun rights

Just for fun, I was going through the New Jersey State Constitution and comparing it to the United States Constitution, and found an interesting item. In the New Jersey State Constitution there is no mention of guns. There is mention of the militia and how it is formed. But no mention of guns. Then going to the United States Constitution we find that nobody shall be refused the ability to own a weapon. Also in the United States Constitution we find that there is an article that states that anything in the United States Constitution is reserved for the feds anything that is not is reserved to the states and the people respectively.

Now going by that we find that any law that is created by the state on guns is unconstitutional. The state by United States Constitution can not regulate guns. As a matter of fact in the New Jersey Constitution we go to section 1 article 1 rights and privileges, and we read this
-all persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.-

So by all this reading on the constitutions, what have I come up with?  In my opinion the law  in New Jersey that says may issue is unconstitutional .the only permit you need is the Second Amendment.  And the only qualifications are that you are a citizen and not a felon .what will this little missive do ,nothing.  I know some fancy lawyer would put my argument to bed  and provided a  legal argument that would say that everything I’ve just stated is wrong .but that is okay, this was just an exercise in futility  and an exercise for the mind .

As always your comments are welcome.  and this may have seemed rambling , but , I am no lawyer.


On Acosta’s removal from the White House

We all know that Mr Acosta is a jerk. But this recent lawsuit is kinda worry some. What CNN has done is put in question everyone’s rights. They are suing on the grounds that due process was not used to remove his hard pass. let’s talk about the hard pass first. This is an instrument meant to facilitate entry into the White House. It allows the person to enter with out having to go thru normal entry procedures. (like the pass you use to get into your workplace.) And like the pass you use at work, It remains the property of the White House. The White House did not deny him the ability to enter the grounds using the normal visitor routine.

Ok, so now to the ruling. They said his due process rights were denied. ok. Let’s look at the amendment they are using –

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

First let us actually read it with punctuation. I will attempt to break it down in sections. This is the first part of it, showing all that is included in the thought.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger

now the next ,AFTER the semi-colon.

; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.

then the next after the semi-colon.

; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

This is the line they are using to promote this case. First, was his life deprived? or his liberty? or his property? nope. (the hard pass remains the property of the White House).  Next we get into what this statement is talking about. If you notice it says in a criminal case. Was there a criminal case here? Not that I heard. no police or law enforcement were called on him. So, according to this part there is no due process expected, is there? This case is equivalent to this:
I rent a house, I invite you in, we have a fight, I ask you to leave. Now according to this, my asking you to leave is now against due process.  Now think of it. Since courts use precedents to decide law,  we now have a decision that says you are within your rights to sue me because I asked you to leave my residence.

Does this sound right? Not to me.

In this case I would ask that the President follow thru on this lawsuit to ensure the protections that the rest us would enjoy.

To go further, we will stipulate that yes the White House is the peoples house. But for either you or I to go in it takes a number of things to happen. we must have an invite, be on a tour, all after a security check normally.  Has that right been taken from him? No. all that happened was his quick pass that allows him easy entry, was taken. He could still go thru the normal procedures to get in.

Your comments as always are welcome


on the 14th amendment

I am going to copy an article here as a start to the facts. then I will delve into the language and stuff.

From the website the daily signal, authored by hans von spakovsky. titled birthright citizenship: a fundamental misunderstanding of the 14th amendment.

  • What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to such children.

    Critics claim that anyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen, even if their parents are here illegally. But that ignores the text and legislative history of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to extend citizenship to freed slaves and their children.

    The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.

    Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.

    But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.

    The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

    This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

    Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.

    As John Eastman, former dean of the Chapman School of Law, has said, many do not seem to understand “the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction, which subjects all who are present within the territory of a sovereign to the jurisdiction of that sovereign’s laws, and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the sovereign as well.”

    In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.

    American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are.

    Even in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case most often cited by “birthright” supporters due to its overbroad language, the court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen. That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally must be considered a U.S. citizen.

    Of course, the judges in that case were strongly influenced by the fact that there were discriminatory laws in place at that time that restricted Chinese immigration, a situation that does not exist today.

    The court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment as extending to the children of legal, noncitizens was incorrect, according to the text and legislative history of the amendment. But even under that holding, citizenship was not extended to the children of illegal aliens—only permanent, legal residents.

    It is just plain wrong to claim that the children born of parents temporarily in the country as students or tourists are automatically U.S. citizens: They do not meet the 14th Amendment’s jurisdictional allegiance obligations. They are, in fact, subject to the political jurisdiction (and allegiance) of the country of their parents. The same applies to the children of illegal aliens because children born in the United States to foreign citizens are citizens of their parents’ home country.

    Federal law offers them no help either. U.S. immigration law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) simply repeats the language of the 14th Amendment, including the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

    The State Department has erroneously interpreted that statute to provide passports to anyone born in the United States, regardless of whether their parents are here illegally and regardless of whether the applicant meets the requirement of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. Accordingly, birthright citizenship has been implemented by executive fiat, not because it is required by federal law or the Constitution.

    We are only one of a very small number of countries that provides birthright citizenship, and we do so based not upon the requirements of federal law or the Constitution, but based upon an erroneous executive interpretation. Congress should clarify the law according to the original meaning of the 14th Amendment and reverse this practice.

    Originally published by Fox News in 2011

  • Now to read the actual text (not the text they show you in the school books) –
  • 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Let’s break it down. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. What does this mean according to the original framers? the main word to concentrate on is under the JURISDICTION.  Those are the key words. you see to be under the jurisdiction in this case means that you have no allegiance to a foreign land. If you come in to our country and have not declared your citizenship then you are not under our jurisdiction.

The principal authors of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment — Senators Lyman Trumbull of Illinois and Jacob Howard of Ohio — elucidated the meaning of jurisdiction in those provisions. The point was to stress “complete” jurisdiction, as in “not owing allegiance to anybody else.”

When the original framer of this amendment created it, he said it was not for any foreigner, thus the word jurisdiction.(paraphrased) this amendment was originally created to give slaves official citizenship. It was never meant to create what the recent courts have done. Since the recent courts have gone well past the original framers intentions, a new court can over turn.

Now for a little sideways look at the rest of section 1. (going out on a limb in logic here).

According to this…. nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. a foreigner is not entitled to any of the protections of our laws or the protection of life, liberty and happiness. because as you see we have that pesky phrase again.  Or do we? well it might be interpreted like that, but the qualifier ,within it’s, so that means? in the country or territory? I can leave that one up to the lawyers. So you see it is all in the words and their meaning at the time as explained by the people that wrote them.

I am including a link to another article that helps understanding –