Rudolph the red nose reindeer

have just seen some posts that are so wrong they aren’t funny.

Seems the SJW’s Rudolph the red nose reindeer is a means to demean those that are different. What this play actually does is show from the point of view of the person that is different, some of the problems they face. And his constant struggle to fit in. Kids wont play with him because he is different, parents try to make him appear the same, bosses don’t want him because he is different. All the things that those of us that are special have seen all our lives.

In the end, it finally shows that he has proven he can add to the lives of the people around him, and they finally accept him for who he is.  What can be wrong with that message?

It shows bullying is wrong and the effects of it. how many other messages it shows I can not list.

So tell me, Why should we NOT show this play to our kids so they may learn from it?

(a note: the island of broken toys can be equated to special schools and or psychiatric hospitals).

Here is the story of how this story came to be  –

  As the holiday season of 1938 came to Chicago, Bob May wasn’t feeling much comfort or joy. A 34-year-old ad writer for Montgomery Ward, May was exhausted and nearly broke. His wife, Evelyn, was bedridden, on the losing end of a two-year battle with cancer. This left Bob to look after their four-year old-daughter, Barbara.

One night, Barbara asked her father, “Why isn’t my mommy like everybody else’s mommy?” As he struggled to answer his daughter’s question, Bob remembered the pain of his own childhood. A small, sickly boy, he was constantly picked on and called names. But he wanted to give his daughter hope, and show her that being different was nothing to be ashamed of. More than that, he wanted her to know that he loved her and would always take care of her. So he began to spin a tale about a reindeer with a bright red nose who found a special place on Santa’s team. Barbara loved the story so much that she made her father tell it every night before bedtime. As he did, it grew more elaborate. Because he couldn’t afford to buy his daughter a gift for Christmas, Bob decided to turn the story into a homemade picture book.

In early December, Bob’s wife died. Though he was heartbroken, he kept working on the book for his daughter. A few days before Christmas, he reluctantly attended a company party at Montgomery Ward. His co-workers encouraged him to share the story he’d written. After he read it, there was a standing ovation. Everyone wanted copies of their own.

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.


Outrage over Kashoggi, Why?

I have been reading a lot of stuff here, and one thing that I can not seem to get my mind around is why are we and the media so outraged over Mr Kashoggi’s killing? The MSM is trying to make it like he was a US citizen, from what I have seen, he at best had a visa for the US.

Next we have the fact that Turkey is the one that gave us the info. How much do we trust Turkey? They gave up audio recordings from inside the embassy? What country gives up the fact that they are bugging a foreign embassy? The Video shows him going in the embassy. ok that’s normal stuff, all countries monitor the outside of embassies. I mean how many cameras are out there anyway?.

Then they say they had proof that Kashoggi was murdered, dismembered, and disposed of?

Now we are to be all aghast and take measures that would bring us to war? Over a Non-citizen that the only proof is from Turkey? And to top it off there has been no real independent proof that I know of(ok cia had a report but can we trust them?).

So why do we need to be this outraged? That we would dump our relationship with a country and call for an overthrow of a foreign govt?
What is the end game here? What is the gain for Turkey by promoting this? I think it is time we take a minute, Think, stop reacting emotionally, and try to see the end game and maybe some truth?

Can anyone provide any proof, or truth as to why we need to be so outraged over this supposed action by the Saudi’s? This whole thing just doe not sound right.

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 –



On the message they think the Kavenaugh hearing is sending

 We have by now all seen this meme –

Posted by Jd Copeland on Tuesday, October 2, 2018


posters are getting the message all wrong. the message isn’t that if your are assaulted you have no recourse. its more a message that if you are assaulted report it immediatly, if not to the cops , to your parents. It may still be a he said / she said. but it will be much more credible. The message is not to wait 30 years to report what you can’t remember right, but to report it immediatly when you remember every detail.

If it is reported it they will  be able to collect evidence that is essential in this kind of case. DNA is very important if raped or assaulted. This is the positive message that needs to get out there. No one is subject to violating your body in this manner or any other.

Please ladies, Do not make an assault on your person to be an embarrassment or shame. You were attacked and did not deserve it. On the other hand, Please do not bear false witness to destroy a man, as it only does wrong to all the other women out there that have actually been harmed.


Dr Ford and her accusation

I have seen a lot of responses to Dr Fords accusations. here is my opinion (not a trained anything, just life)

I am seeing a lot of how there are no real details. my explanation is that, Yes, something may have happened to her in the past, but, it’s not the way she is testifying.  Some Psychobabble here.

You have a traumatic event happen early in your life. you pretty much block it in your conscious mind. Later in life as you “remember” the details of what happened, your mind tries to fill in the blanks. the mind does not like disorder and holes. So it reaches out for any clue as to what it needs to fill in the details. 30 years later, your talking about the incident, you cant recall enough detail to make it right in your mind so you take and fill in the blanks with any clues you can get. you had a date that you got drunk with and he groped you, and you didn’t want to go that far, but because you liked that guy, your mind says no it wasn’t him. at this point you reach out in your subconscious to make it someone you don’t like. then because you can’t remember some other details your mind makes up a story based on your life experiences. You have gone to a lot of parties, and have fantasized about certain things. the mind says,ok, lets use all that to fill in the missing pieces.

So now you have gone from a date grope, to an assault at a party from a figure you would love to destroy. Don’t you love how the mind works? Is this scenario any less plausible than what you have heard from all the testimony and document releases?

Comments as always welcome.

Trump Stops Hurricane

Here is one for all you guys just for fun. While scanning around the net I’ve read a bunch of weird stuff. Putting it all together it gets fun, and makes me think are we at war? Let me walk you through some of the different items I’ve seen.

Approximately two weeks ago  I saw on the net where the CIA and NSA  satellites were taken off-line .okay that’s nothing in unto itself.

Next event,  five hurricanes develop  off the African coast.  Oe of these develops into a category four  hurricane that is named Florance.

Then about a week ago  there was an apparent takeover of  six or seven solar observatories .this was done by the federal Bureau of investigation .there was talk of them  reworking the  antenna.

Meanwhile,  flo is still coming across as a cat for  in very warm water the water any Atlantic is  at approximately 85° which is  great for keeping hurricanes going and making them more.

Now sometime during this period there was a reported let’s call it a heartbeat signal  detected that was abnormal  for the normal signals in the earth.

Well, long about Wednesday ,the weatherman said something strange,.  Tey said the eye wall  was reforming.  This is something strange,  I’ve never heard of it before.  Watching all the winds aloft and the ocean temperatures and everything else  I didn’t notice anything strange.  But all of a sudden a category four  hurricane is Daniel category two .strange.  Did our president make a call over to the CIA  and tell them to stop this hurricane ?we may never know.  Just one of the strangeness.

Could we be at war and not know it ?

And as a postscript,  what happened up in Massachusetts?   Was that a hack attack?  reminds me of scenes of Bruce Willis and Die hard 2.

Oh well like I said Mrs. Busby Funk piece putting stuff together  that  on its own means nothing  and put together  means  what ? have fun and enjoy.


Religious Freedom

I was having a discussion in one of the groups today, and the question of the First Amendment came up. This was after we were talking about how SCOTUS created an unconstitutional law. I was asked how can Scotus create a law. I answered back by ruling on a subject that there are no real current laws on. He asked me how that can be. I brought up the religious freedom stuff. And that by making the ruling they did, they created a precedent that other courts have to follow.

He asked me for specifics, so I gave him the 1948 case of McCollum versus board of ed. and then I explained on how three more cases were based on McCollum. I explained to him, in my opinion, Scotus had overextended the First Amendment and created a law that wasn’t there. The First Amendment is very clear in its language it specifies exactly who it’s talking about. It says Congress shall not, not to state, not the people. I also brought up how the 10th amendment gives the power to the states and the people for anything that is not in the Constitution. There was the usual back-and-forth of very serious discussion, and thankfully none of the two-year-old acting out stuff.

I don’t think he got it, but, that’s okay. It will give him something to think about later.

What about you, what do you think about how the Supreme Court created a law that wasn’t even there, unconstitutionally? This is a serious question and would appreciate serious responses. Thank you.


so, I have been reading a lot of posts from a lot of people responding to my posts and others. I have noticed something. It’s a little something, but something that irks my craw. It seems like the left finds it perfectly ok to break any and all laws and rules, just so long as they can say it’s “for the good of the people”. Isn’t that lovely.

Yup, that’s right, they don’t care about the law. It’s ok If I break in to your store to feed my family. It’s ok to tell a state secret if it shows that you are going against my views. This is the thinking of the left. Lawlessness as long as it benefits them. This saddens me that in this day and age we can have adults displaying this attitude that is seen by our youth and emulated. Where did we go wrong? Was it the participation trophies? I wish I knew. But it is obvious that we can not let it go on. but how to stop it before our society and country goes to hell?

My Thoughts and News that no one cares about