Amber

This is a powerful story – and a needed one. You should read it. Too many Ambers exist, in America, and across the world. It is inexcusable.

While the #MeToo movement may cause some of these stories to see daylight, and a few others to result in the stern application of consequences, they are anecdotes. Until we begin to take seriously that Society ignoring the Rule of Law is WHY these happen, that oligarchies exist in communities, high schools, city councils, as well as nations, that too many on our side of the tracks just do not care about those on the other, these anecdotes will not be dealt with as they should. Predators will continue to prey, and none of our most vulnerable will be freed from that vulnerability to reach the heights their talents & determination – once – offered them.

For me the most disappointing part of the #MeToo movement is the political response. Correcting behavior that – only – can be described as “wrong” is the job of Society and, hence, of our politics. People often comment that my view of punishment is harsh: do this and die, whether a child rapist or a country.

Amber is why.

Had the previously described episode been dealt with as harshly as the law allowed, had the new School official been allowed to put the welfare of our most vulnerable kids first, would the attack on Amber have occurred? Probably not. Had Amber’s case been dealt with as harshly as the law allowed, would downstream assaults have occurred? Would they still be occurring? Certainly not in as great a number. And why was it not? The oligarchy implicitly and explicitly rejected the Rule of Law if the result of applying it would fall on them.

Society lost what Amber could have become because some are more equal than others, something that never should exist in America.

But it is the unalterable fact of women, and, perhaps, Society, putting their faith in fixing this problem of the unequal application of the law, in a political party unequivocally opposed to that Rule of Law I find most disturbing.

Anecdotes are unneeded in my argument but could begin with the unabashed worship of a president-rapist and his enabler wife by the same crowd hash-tagging the world with #MeToo. The entire anti-Kavanaugh atmosphere is based on the idea that he may – MAY – return Roe to law, rather than leave it where it began as extra-Constitutional policy specifically rejecting the same Rule of Law to which the #MeToo crowd now demands adherence.

Demanding the Rule of Law yet trusting Democrats to achieve it is monstrously naïve. One searches in vain for a Democrat demanding the equal application of law, indeed for the supremacy of law that is at the foundation of the only nation in which #MeToo possibly could have begun. Grooming gangs, anyone?

Are select targets being dropped? Maybe. Harvey & Les and other zillionaires are being removed from power, often with multi-million-dollar parachutes. What does anyone expect these men, now freed from any type of responsibility to a board, shareholders or community, to do with their lives? Stop preying? Seriously? Will any see prison time? Seriously? Will the lives they have damaged ever be repaired? Seriously? Will pols return their money and connections and networks? Seriously?

That the GOP, yet again, is too timid to say what must be said to effect the changes required surprises, unfortunately, not at all: “The #MeToo movement is trusting that those who reject the law suddenly will obey the law, which is an absurdity.” It is, again unfortunately, of a piece with the unwillingness of the GOP in any discussion on education to note, “Democrats have owned education for 80 years; if Democrats wanted better education, we’d have better education. Voting for Democrats to better education is absurd.” In all cultural issues one can say the same.

If women want the culture fixed, it seems odd to rely on those demanding its utter destruction to fix it. If moms and dads want their daughters safe, expecting that safety from the party of anti-law, of Antifa, of BLM, and the cultural Brownshirts now rising is ridiculous.

The most unfortunate part of the debate is that no one from the party that once stood for the Rule of Law (but stands now only for the establishment oligarchy) stands on this issue; that none are linking it to the Rule of Law, and whose daughters (uniquely as Democrats have few kids at all, and even fewer girls), are and will continue to be harmed most of all by their refusal.

But it is broader, far broader than #MeToo. We allow crap teachers rather than applying extant standards, so we won’t be “mean.” We send our kids off to die rather than using technology to annihilate the enemies killing – our own children – and causing our liberty to regress, in the name of “security,” … because we don’t want to be “mean.” We dilute our future by listening and thereby giving credence to the insanity of the LGBTQ crowd, now affecting even the objectivity of science that has provided all technological and hence physical progress for millennia… because we don’t want to be “mean.” Could our moral progress have occurred absent our physical progress? No.

Can society even have the Rule of Law without some seeing it as “mean?” No. The choice cannot be to overthrow Law.

We allow the adolescent, fully-clothed nonsense that – may – have happened to Ford to be equated with the utter destruction of Amber.

America was based on law. Democracy dies not in darkness, but in the rejection of law.

And neither party is pointing out this fact.

That is the shame of #MeToo.

That is why Amber will not be the last victim.

Posted in Domestic, Politics | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Limiting the Government; Re-Creating the Republic

Because the issue keeps arising and I tire of re-making the same arguments over and over, here’s a bit on my objection to an Art-5 Convention of States (“COS”).

The government we have now routinely ignores the Constitution. This includes all three federal branches and the governors of every state. We HAVE the Constitution (with one exception, below) that we need to ensure our personal freedom, liberty and prosperity. We have the laws we need, for the most part, to do so.

Neither the Constitution nor the laws are enforced.

Nothing about a COS will change this. The idea that the same voters will elect a set of legislators or a president or governors who will pay any more attention to a new Constitution, or a few new amendments, than they pay to the current Constitution is an absurdity; why would they? No reason on earth. The same voters will elect the same idiots. If this were not true, we’d not return the same congressmen cycle after cycle after cycle while rating the honesty of our government below that of a used car saleswoman.

While I applaud those working toward a COS as believing strongly in fixing our problems, the avenue being pursued, with the exception referenced above (described below), cannot work.

(At this point I get accused of call Mark Levin a “liar.” Levin’s an entertainer. Look up the SIC code for actors, radio hosts, or pro sports. They are entertainers. Their job is to sell soap. Levin’s a bright guy, but according him any more weight than Oprah only reveals one’s side in the debate.)

What examples can I provide to support the above? Here are a few:

  1. Article 1 leaves the entirety of the “times, manner and places of elections” to the States. Period. SCOTUS has exactly zero authority to reject VoterID. None. Any governor worthy of the office would tell SCOTUS in re: their rejection of VoterID, “that’s nice, but you lack that authority, so we’re going to ignore you.” The 14th Amendment weighs in on voter fraud and provides a single remedy (which is never used) for same – but it does NOT allow the federal government to define “the manner” of elections. Why would a new Art-5 Constitution, which defines only Federal powers and limits, create State governors who suddenly understand and act on their Constitutional authority? Who suddenly grasp the purpose and power of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments? No reason. No reason at all.
  2. The Enumerated Powers, Article 1, Section 8, defines the ONLY powers granted by the States to the Feds when the (superior) States created the (inferior) Fed by ratifying the Constitution. The following are not among those enumerated powers, so are none of the business of the feds. (And, OBTW, SCOTUS is part of the Federal Government, so is – designed to be – limited by the Constitution, as well.) Is Marriage among the enumerated powers? Nope. So when an idiot like Kasich (R), says that gay marriage is the law of the land due to a SCOTUS holding outside its authority, he’s wrong. Will a COS make him understand what is clearly in the Constitution today? Why? Same with bathrooms, schools, energy, abortion, etc. These are NONE of the business of the federal government. We don’t lack the right Amendment or law or Court or Constitution; we lack adults willing to abide by the Constitution we have NOW. Nothing about a COS will alter that; it only will give the same pols a new Constitution to ignore, and demoralize any citizen still believing in government of the people.
  3. In today’s environment, 2A is under assault. Any idea that a COS would preserve 2A is absurd. The Ruling Class lawyers who would run any COS would demand gun control. (No, no one is going to kick all the lawyers and current pols out of the room; if we were willing to reject them, we’d not be in the mess in which we find ourselves today…) And the Left would ensure a couple of school shootings during the Convention to push it over the top. “But we will limit the COS to ONLY these few things!” Cool. You are aware, are you not, that the original Constitutional Convention had limits placed on it – that were ignored? Why would this be different? But … 2A – as does the entirety of the Constitution, of which the Bill of Rights is a part – limits ONLY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. SCOTUS has invented out of whole cloth the idea of “incorporation,” through which they have decided they get to grab sovereignty from a State and tell State government what they can and cannot allow. This is nowhere in the Constitution. It is a blatant usurpation of State power by an out-of-control federal government. The federal government is INFERIOR to the State governments except under the specific grants of authority written-in to the Constitution. If a State wants to ban guns under the Constitution of that State, and if the voters of that State allow that via referendum or by voting anti-gun pols into office, that is entirely Constitutional. SCOTUS may, via incorporation, throw that out – but they have no Constitutional authority to do so. The same is true of abortion and gay marriage: Not in the enumerated powers, the feds have no authority over them. Period. This works both ways, but requires an intelligent and lawful government to accept: IF a new Constitution did NOT have a 2A, but STILL was designed to as to limit the Federal government, ANY STATE could prevent gun control simply because the States are Superior to the Feds. But if we don’t change the franchise, the voters will continue to elect morons, like Kasich, who don’t grasp the  most fundamental aspects of our Constitution. (However, it is far more likely that any new Constitutional authority on guns would be written to ensure guns are among the powers enumerated to the federal government.)

Reasons to object to a COS can be listed for days; I’ve chosen these three. Many will object to the statement that the Bill of Rights applies only to the Feds. They are mistaken. The entire Constitutional construct was to both create, and to limit, a federal government. It is not about the States. Through the Constitution, the States created the Federal government; they didn’t create themselves.

So what is a reason to support a COS? I have one. An amendment. One amendment that can change just about everything back to the design of the Constitution. COS or not (other avenues to amend the Constitution exist), this will go farther than anything else in fixing the destruction the Ruling Class (let’s not pretend it’s one party) has done.

The problems we face today are the result of empathy. Government is force, not empathy.

  • Foreign Aid? Empathy
  • Mass immigration? Empathy
  • Out-of-control entitlements? Empathy
  • Welfare? Empathy – remember, welfare has managed to do something not even slavery accomplished: Destroy the Black family. It’s also caused the skyrocketing of out of wedlock births & single-parent households – across all races.
  • Disruptive schools, including shootings? Empathy.
  • Wilsonian democracy export and the pointless wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan? Empathy.
  • The LACK of punishment for laws, including gun laws, already on the books? Empathy.
  • Lowering teacher standards because they fail these standards? Empathy.

And the ONLY way to rid the government of overindulgence in empathy, which also is the exception noted at the top, is to return to the original franchise, absent the abomination of racism. CAN women be tough disciplinarians? Vanishingly few. CAN men be empathy-driven? Vanishingly few. Are adults more objective about government than kids? Yes.

If we want to force the government into the limits created by the Founders – and ratified by the States, if we want the government they created, the only way to do that is to return to the franchise the Founders created to sustain it: Adult, male, property owners. (As a fall-back, at least enfranchise only payers of income tax; why should those not contributing to the pot get to vote on how the pot is split (today’s pot and tomorrow’s pot as pols seem intent on intergenerational theft to buy votes today)?

A COS will not – repeat, NOT – attempt to reduce the franchise, which is the only way to achieve their stated goal.

The Founders did everything they could think of NOT to make the nation a democracy. The extension of the franchise to near-universal is THE problem America faces, and ONLY a restriction of the franchise back to the original intent can cause a return to a democratic Republic that is NOT a democracy, and so does not devolve, as America is devolving today, into a dictatorship.

Unless a COS spends its time and energy on, and only on, altering the franchise, it only will waste time and raise expectations that cannot, and will not be met.

Oh – it will do one other thing: The COS will be created and exist on the premise that more government is better, for what is a new Constitution, particularly if including Levin’s so-called “Liberty Amendments,” But more government?

The entire purpose of the Constitution was to LIMIT, not to expand, government.

 

Posted in Domestic, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Dems: Power not Policy.

POWER: it’s what identity politics CAN ONLY BE, and IS ONLY, about. If Dems cared about policy, they’d argue policy.

They don’t.

Discussion by Democrats is not about the working man & woman or economic mobility. It’s not about the Middle Class or economic policy & results. Dems don’t campaign on increasing, but on decreasing Americans’ security in our homes, neighborhoods, communities, schools, our borders and across our nation. The Left doesn’t campaign on the results of education policy they have owned since FDR.

They can campaign on none of these honestly. It’s why lying that “you can keep your doctor” while destroying the world’s best healthcare system bothers them not at all.

It’s not they they don’t care about our ability to achieve a growing part of the growing economic pie. They don’t believe that a growing pie can exist; economics for them is zero-sum, regardless of centuries of capitalism doing exactly that while freeing billions of humans from feudalism and totalitarianism

The Left cares only about the redistribution to their voters of the results of a free economy they demand the power to strangle. The poor are a feature, not a bug, for the Left, as they ALWAYS will vote for more redistribution, for more theft from the producers

It’s not that the Left doesn’t care about our childrens’ free and progressing future; it’s that they demand we – like them – stop HAVING children. At all.

It’s not even about the Rule of Law they ignore in cities and states.

Why do they ignore the law? Because they don’t value the RULE of Law.

Identity politics IS only, and CAN ONLY BE about one thing: totalitarianism: Vote for US because we aren’t THEM. Vote for US because THEY  are your enemy. Vote for US because WE will destroy THEM. Vote for US because THEY created the modern world, all progress, individual liberty and the Rule of Law that prevents US from TAKING from THEM to GIVE to YOU.

Give US the power…and all will be fine. We’ll just kill all those opposing us. Antifa & BLM will help us.

It’s been the mantra of the Left since Lenin & Stalin (30MM executed by the Leftist State), since Hitler (12M executed by the Leftist State), since Mao (80MM executed by the Leftist State), since Pol Pot (2MM executed by the Leftist State), since the Leftist mass-murderer hero of so many Lefties: Che.

Kill enough of your political opponents and the rest stop opposing you. This is indistinguishable from war

Dems don’t pretenhd their policy is better; provably none of their policies achieve results bettering living standards or future options. All of their policies are AGAINST your free future. Any freshman economics student can tell you why. Any History Major can tell you what happens next: and it is NOT GOOD.

Dems demand the vote only to gain power. Power is what BLM, Antifa, NOW, Planned Parenthood, CAIR, NAACP, the DNC, CBC… are about. Power is the ONLY thing they are about. NONE of them are about policy.

If the #StupidParty disagreed… they’d campaign on it. Or they are too unremittingly stupid to even be CONSIDERED for power or authority.

They don’t. And they are.

UNLESS THIS CHANGES, liberty & law WILL lose.

Posted in Domestic, Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Guess I’m a ‘Hater’

Getting tired of ‘adults’ supporting these idiot kids protesting guns. So what if they are ‘passionate?’ What’s that got to do with policy?

If the grasp of history by these idiot kids is so faulty that they push policy onto a society that ought to know better, and if some ‘adults’ believe in supporting them out of some absurd need to applaud idiocy just because they are passionate kids (by definition not intellectually complete), regardless of the harm to society in which these policies ALWAYS result, then any intelligent & educated adult would oppose them.

Just because they are young & passionate doesn’t alter the fact that what they are pushing is the destruction of our society, the Rule of Law, & the Bil of Rights, does it?

If they really were passionate AND respected the law, they’d be door-to-door getting an amendment going to repeal 2A.. they aren’t. Because they put their feelingz over the Rule of Law.

Does that make me a “hater” as these passion-worshiping ‘adults’ insist?

Bet your ass. I hate ANYTHING that tries to tear-down the Constitution, Western Civilization, America & the Rule of Law.

Posted in Domestic, Guns, Miscellaneous | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Feminism – Present at the Creation

If you read one article on modern feminism this is the one. It’s a short interview with the sister of Kate Millett, one of the founders of modern feminism.

 

 

Posted in Domestic, Miscellaneous | Tagged , , | 1 Comment