Dumb or Dumber?
Among the dumb ideas being talked about in this presidential election is that of the candidate's likeability. Likeability??? Who cares?
Imagine you wanted to hire a pilot to fly your new jet plane, Would you look for a person with training and experience? Or a likeable person.
Electing a president is hiring a CEO for the country; a Commander-In-Chief for all the military; someone to represent you on the world stage; someone to oversee the world's largest economy. Are you looking for someone with skills? Or a likeable person?
Personally, I would prefer a tough-as-nails guy who would put up with no nonsense! I wouldn't care if he was widely disliked, if he had the skills to do the job. I already have friends, I am not looking for a new buddy!
Let's consider recent experience in the world of CEOs. Steve Jobs was a co-founder at Apple. Steve built an amazing company - which subsequently fired him. Apple went into decline, until they persuaded Jobs to return. He did, and he re-built Apple into the richest company in the world.
Steve Jobs was reported to be an insensitive, unfriendly guy who belittled people. But, he knew how to make a better, more salable product; he knew how to market his products; he knew how to manage a company.
One story told about Jobs was what happened after his staff had just built a new I-phone or I-pad. Jobs was said to have looked at the shiny, new device and said it was too big. The engineers insisted it could not be made smaller. Jobs tossed the item into an aquarium - a fish tank. Aghast, his technical experts watched the device sink to the bottom. Immediately, bubbles started rising to the surface.
Jobs said, "See, there was air inside. Make it smaller!"
Speaking about likeability in a president is neither dumb or dumber. It is the dumbest!
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Assault On The Constitution
Part Three: The Right To Bear Arms
There is nothing unclear about the 25 words of the Second Amendment. It says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Pretty simple, "...shall not be infringed." Like all of The Constitution, written so the average U.S. citizen could read and understand it.
Because of gradual changes in the meaning of words, some now believe that the word "militia" applies only to an Army sustained by the government. Obviously that was not the definition on March 4, 1789, when the Bill of Rights was adopted. Americans had witnessed Washington's defeat of the British, by commanding a ragtag band of patriots with their own muskets, and volunteer soldiers formed into regiments in various states. Washington had to work tirelessly to get Congress to fund payment to his citizen soldiers.
Most anti-gun people somehow believe that if they legally banned all guns it would stop gun crimes. With an estimated 100 million privately owned guns in America, that would be impossible to achieve. Mad men shoot up college campuses, work places of every description, shopping malls, darkened theaters and on and on, The gun haters immediately call for an outright ban or stricter regulations on guns. But people who mean to do harm with their guns would never surrender their weapons.Why would criminals, or madmen, obey that law and no others?
The anti-gun crowd has not been successful at changing the Constitution, largely because it would require two-thirds of both houses of Congress or two thirds of all state legislatures calling for a Constitutional Convention. After proposing an amendment, three-fourths of all states must then ratify the amendment.
But the argument over the word 'militia' is now rarely held, There is another way to trump The Constitution and the gun grabbers have latched on. Article VI of The Constitution says "all treaties made or which shall be made, under the authority of the United states, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." Bingo! Adopt the UN Small Arms Treaty and the 2nd Amendment is gone.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama continue to work hand-in-glove with the UN to pass the "Programme of Action Against Small Arms" Treaty.
Patriotic Americans cannot permit the Administration to sneak this one by.
Senator Rand Paul (R., KY) is fighting it. Follow his efforts here
Native Americans here in the Western States used to call the coyote "the Trickster". We have coyotes in the White House. Watch them closely.
Part Three: The Right To Bear Arms
There is nothing unclear about the 25 words of the Second Amendment. It says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Pretty simple, "...shall not be infringed." Like all of The Constitution, written so the average U.S. citizen could read and understand it.
Because of gradual changes in the meaning of words, some now believe that the word "militia" applies only to an Army sustained by the government. Obviously that was not the definition on March 4, 1789, when the Bill of Rights was adopted. Americans had witnessed Washington's defeat of the British, by commanding a ragtag band of patriots with their own muskets, and volunteer soldiers formed into regiments in various states. Washington had to work tirelessly to get Congress to fund payment to his citizen soldiers.
Most anti-gun people somehow believe that if they legally banned all guns it would stop gun crimes. With an estimated 100 million privately owned guns in America, that would be impossible to achieve. Mad men shoot up college campuses, work places of every description, shopping malls, darkened theaters and on and on, The gun haters immediately call for an outright ban or stricter regulations on guns. But people who mean to do harm with their guns would never surrender their weapons.Why would criminals, or madmen, obey that law and no others?
The anti-gun crowd has not been successful at changing the Constitution, largely because it would require two-thirds of both houses of Congress or two thirds of all state legislatures calling for a Constitutional Convention. After proposing an amendment, three-fourths of all states must then ratify the amendment.
But the argument over the word 'militia' is now rarely held, There is another way to trump The Constitution and the gun grabbers have latched on. Article VI of The Constitution says "all treaties made or which shall be made, under the authority of the United states, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding." Bingo! Adopt the UN Small Arms Treaty and the 2nd Amendment is gone.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama continue to work hand-in-glove with the UN to pass the "Programme of Action Against Small Arms" Treaty.
Patriotic Americans cannot permit the Administration to sneak this one by.
Senator Rand Paul (R., KY) is fighting it. Follow his efforts here
Native Americans here in the Western States used to call the coyote "the Trickster". We have coyotes in the White House. Watch them closely.
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Assault on The Constitution
Part Two: Freedom of Religion
If I said that "they" are re-writing The Constitution, you may say "No. It has to go through a long process before you can amend The Constitution." You would be wrong.
Consider the first amendment - the opening shot in the Bill of Rights. The first 16 words are: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Even President Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to a Baptist group in Danville, CT, responding to their complaint that Jefferson, unlike Presidents Washington and Adams, had failed to proclaim a national day of prayer and fasting.
Jefferson's letter, the source of the "Wall of Separation" nonsense, also said "I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an executive is the head of a national church, ..."
In 1777, Jefferson wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which established freedom of religion in the Commonwealth. Although the document was not adopted as Virginia state law for nearly a decade, it was one of Jefferson's proudest life accomplishments.
I don't know what Jefferson meant with his reference to "the head of a national church", But it is clear that the "Wall of Separation" was simply Jefferson's opinion.
In America, we have the practice of "common law" Not being a lawyer, I may not know the correct details, but my understanding is that Common Law means we reference decisions by previous courts when deciding cases with like circumstances.
Previous to Jefferson, Washington and Adams both felt it was proper to declare a day of prayer and fasting. None of these opinions were by a "court". But if the idea of Common Law is to apply, why does not the Washington and Adams practice take precedence?
But, all of this is moot because The Constitution simply says "Congress shall make no law..."
The "re-writers", however pounced on Jefferson's wall of separation - NOT a part of The Constitution - and proclaim it to mean there can be no reference to religion on any government property, city, county, state or federal.
If that is not amending The Constitution, what is?
Part Two: Freedom of Religion
If I said that "they" are re-writing The Constitution, you may say "No. It has to go through a long process before you can amend The Constitution." You would be wrong.
Consider the first amendment - the opening shot in the Bill of Rights. The first 16 words are: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Even President Thomas Jefferson's 1802 letter to a Baptist group in Danville, CT, responding to their complaint that Jefferson, unlike Presidents Washington and Adams, had failed to proclaim a national day of prayer and fasting.
Jefferson's letter, the source of the "Wall of Separation" nonsense, also said "I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an executive is the head of a national church, ..."
In 1777, Jefferson wrote the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which established freedom of religion in the Commonwealth. Although the document was not adopted as Virginia state law for nearly a decade, it was one of Jefferson's proudest life accomplishments.
I don't know what Jefferson meant with his reference to "the head of a national church", But it is clear that the "Wall of Separation" was simply Jefferson's opinion.
In America, we have the practice of "common law" Not being a lawyer, I may not know the correct details, but my understanding is that Common Law means we reference decisions by previous courts when deciding cases with like circumstances.
Previous to Jefferson, Washington and Adams both felt it was proper to declare a day of prayer and fasting. None of these opinions were by a "court". But if the idea of Common Law is to apply, why does not the Washington and Adams practice take precedence?
But, all of this is moot because The Constitution simply says "Congress shall make no law..."
The "re-writers", however pounced on Jefferson's wall of separation - NOT a part of The Constitution - and proclaim it to mean there can be no reference to religion on any government property, city, county, state or federal.
If that is not amending The Constitution, what is?
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Assault On The Constitution
Part One: Freedom of Speech.
The following ad is all over our local newspaper's online edition.
So, what's this all about? Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association explained it clearly in a column which appeared in the August, 2012 issue of American Rifleman magazine. Plain and simple it is another attempt by Progressives/Liberals to revise, re-write and reject the U.S Constitution.
In 2010, the Federal Election Commission ruled that group speech by corporations is not protected as free speech by the first amendment. A group called Citizen's United sued the FEC and the case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court overruled the FEC. Chief Justice Roberts said "The First Amendment protects more than just the individual on a soapbox or the lonely pamphleteer" Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, "Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people"
Congressman Jim McGovern (D-Mass), then introduced House Joint Resolution 88, calling for a People's Rights Amendment to The Constitution. The text of the proposed amendment would say "people, person or persons as used in this Constitution does not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities."
Under this amendment, anyone who tried to exercise his or her constitutional rights collectively with other people would be "subject to such regulations as Congress deems reasonable."
Now the cause has been taken up in the U.S. Senate. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), said "I believe there ought to be limits because the First Amendment is not absolute. No amendment is absolute. You can’t scream ‘fire’ falsely in a crowded theater. We have libel laws. We have anti-pornography laws. All of those are limits on the First Amendment."
Think about that! Did the Founding Fathers draft the 1st Amendment to permit falsely yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, or print pornography?
Remember the wording of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech"! The prohibition is solely on Congress.
It is difficult to believe that this proposed amendment will ever meet the requirements for amendments as spelled out in Article 5 of the Constitution. Unless, of course, people who rarely pay attention to the Constitution allow it to be slipped through in the dark of night.
Watch for any news of attempts to "overturn Citizen's Rights". Then fight to preserve our constitution.
Part One: Freedom of Speech.
The following ad is all over our local newspaper's online edition.
So, what's this all about? Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association explained it clearly in a column which appeared in the August, 2012 issue of American Rifleman magazine. Plain and simple it is another attempt by Progressives/Liberals to revise, re-write and reject the U.S Constitution.
In 2010, the Federal Election Commission ruled that group speech by corporations is not protected as free speech by the first amendment. A group called Citizen's United sued the FEC and the case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court overruled the FEC. Chief Justice Roberts said "The First Amendment protects more than just the individual on a soapbox or the lonely pamphleteer" Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, "Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people"
Congressman Jim McGovern (D-Mass), then introduced House Joint Resolution 88, calling for a People's Rights Amendment to The Constitution. The text of the proposed amendment would say "people, person or persons as used in this Constitution does not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities."
Under this amendment, anyone who tried to exercise his or her constitutional rights collectively with other people would be "subject to such regulations as Congress deems reasonable."
Now the cause has been taken up in the U.S. Senate. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), said "I believe there ought to be limits because the First Amendment is not absolute. No amendment is absolute. You can’t scream ‘fire’ falsely in a crowded theater. We have libel laws. We have anti-pornography laws. All of those are limits on the First Amendment."
Think about that! Did the Founding Fathers draft the 1st Amendment to permit falsely yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater, or print pornography?
Remember the wording of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech"! The prohibition is solely on Congress.
It is difficult to believe that this proposed amendment will ever meet the requirements for amendments as spelled out in Article 5 of the Constitution. Unless, of course, people who rarely pay attention to the Constitution allow it to be slipped through in the dark of night.
Watch for any news of attempts to "overturn Citizen's Rights". Then fight to preserve our constitution.
Sunday, September 09, 2012
"2016" and a prediction
At the end of the film, the crowd broke into spontaneous applause. Is that common with movies today? I remember the old days at drive-ins when young couples despaired the end of the movie without caring much about its content.
I am glad the film was not blatantly partisan. We were able to recommend it to some of our Liberal leaning friends as being factual, informative - not hate-filled.
It was the first time I had been in a movie theater for at least 15 years. Movies are so full of whispers and explosions that my hearing aids nearly self-destruct - never mind that the subject matter has no appeal.
Earlier in the week, we had seen numerous TV spots for "Last Ounce of Courage" and I had told Joanna I also wanted to see that film. Then, my astute little wife made a brilliant observation... "Hollywood has figured out how to get the Conservative dollar." Wow!
And what a good thing that will be. In fact, it could save our nation!
Consider talk radio. I did talk radio before Rush Limbaugh or the other current stars were born. We talked about the city not mowing the weeds on city owned property. We talked about potholes, the weather, and whatever other mundane local subject we stumbled upon. And we faded into oblivion.
Then came the Conservative talkers. Suddenly they were syndicated on hundreds of stations. Suddenly millions of people were hanging on their every word. What role did their considerable power of persuasion play in the generation of the Tea Party Movement, in which millions of Americans seemed to suddenly realize they had been electing and trusting politicians who betrayed them?
I remember 1941 through 1945, my early teens. America entered World War Two just after my 13th birthday. The first movies I saw were war action movies. They so filled me with patriotic fervor that the first thing I did after my 17th birthday was to enlist in the Army. And guess what... 67 years later that patriotic fire has not cooled one degree.
For generations, our youth has been fed Liberal pap by all of the entertainment industry. Look at the Viet Nam era. Unlike 1945, when a 17-year-old's only wish was to qualify for the U.S. military, America's young men fled to Canada to avoid that honor.
So, while Hollywood's only real interest may well be the dollar, if that drives them to produce honest films with conservative principles, I hope they make lots of them! Then perhaps young Americans will again be inspired by America, as were The Greatest Generation.
"2016 The Movie" opened in Las Cruces theaters Friday and Joanna and
I went to the 2:30 p.m. showing. It was not a huge theater, still nearly every
seat was filled. Lots of seniors, but at 2:30 on a Friday afternoon, all schools
are in session, many working folks are still working, and I doubt the choice of
the film had all that much to do with the age of the crowd.
At the end of the film, the crowd broke into spontaneous applause. Is that common with movies today? I remember the old days at drive-ins when young couples despaired the end of the movie without caring much about its content.
I am glad the film was not blatantly partisan. We were able to recommend it to some of our Liberal leaning friends as being factual, informative - not hate-filled.
It was the first time I had been in a movie theater for at least 15 years. Movies are so full of whispers and explosions that my hearing aids nearly self-destruct - never mind that the subject matter has no appeal.
Earlier in the week, we had seen numerous TV spots for "Last Ounce of Courage" and I had told Joanna I also wanted to see that film. Then, my astute little wife made a brilliant observation... "Hollywood has figured out how to get the Conservative dollar." Wow!
And what a good thing that will be. In fact, it could save our nation!
Consider talk radio. I did talk radio before Rush Limbaugh or the other current stars were born. We talked about the city not mowing the weeds on city owned property. We talked about potholes, the weather, and whatever other mundane local subject we stumbled upon. And we faded into oblivion.
Then came the Conservative talkers. Suddenly they were syndicated on hundreds of stations. Suddenly millions of people were hanging on their every word. What role did their considerable power of persuasion play in the generation of the Tea Party Movement, in which millions of Americans seemed to suddenly realize they had been electing and trusting politicians who betrayed them?
I remember 1941 through 1945, my early teens. America entered World War Two just after my 13th birthday. The first movies I saw were war action movies. They so filled me with patriotic fervor that the first thing I did after my 17th birthday was to enlist in the Army. And guess what... 67 years later that patriotic fire has not cooled one degree.
For generations, our youth has been fed Liberal pap by all of the entertainment industry. Look at the Viet Nam era. Unlike 1945, when a 17-year-old's only wish was to qualify for the U.S. military, America's young men fled to Canada to avoid that honor.
So, while Hollywood's only real interest may well be the dollar, if that drives them to produce honest films with conservative principles, I hope they make lots of them! Then perhaps young Americans will again be inspired by America, as were The Greatest Generation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)