The Hills (And The Nazis) Are Alive…

21 December 2018

“I firmly believe the [Constitution] permits indicting a sitting president, but if DOJ disagrees, indicting his children, the Trump Org & Foundation for their roles in wrongdoing is a great alternative — or addition.” —Watergate prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks

I see SOMEONE was paying attention to how the Nazis controlled their officers!


The right of the people… are at the whim of the president.

21 December 2018

I have a question for all those constitutional lawyers wandering the country: how is it that the federal government has been able to modify the 2nd amendment through executive and legislative fiat? Since it is a constitutional amendment, aren’t the same hurdles to amendment in place for the second amendment as for all others?

Article. V of the constitution says

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

Show me in Article V where any tie-in to taxation gives the federal government authority to modify parts of the constitution (the mode by which the NFA of 1934 was made “law”)? Do you see some mention of interstate commerce giving the federal government the power modify the constitution (the vehicle by which the GCA of 1968 was foisted on we, the people)? How about executive fiat (the methods for the “Assault” Weapon Ban of 1994 and Trump’s new Bump Stock Ban)? Doesn’t the second amendment very succinctly state that the right of the people to keep and bear arms will not be infringed? Seems to be a whole lot of extra-constitutional infringement going on.

I, for one, am sick and tired of these creative abuses of law. I’m sick and tired of elected REPRESENTATIVES believing they are our RULERS. Any true constitutional scholar would see through these acts on their face – but the government, instead, looks to other facets of the constitution to justify their acts, and wrap the state’s tentacles over ever more of your life while further limiting any ability to defend yourself against it. Remember all the warnings from our forefathers regarding standing armies. Who has and controls those armies now?

I fear for future generations, especially since they have been molded by the apparatchik of the public schools. We’re already seeing the fruits of their labors in today’s young adults – second or third generation products of the modern public schools system.

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.

So much for well-meaning intentions vs. the machinations of a body addicted to power and bent on dominating others…


Where not to go for legal advice…

18 December 2018

“To all the trump supporters who follow me who I have no desire to spend my time blocking, indictments are not fake news. They are proof of criminal activity. These are facts. Everyone is the presidents circle is a criminal because they all work for one.” —Chelsea Handler

Origin: North America
formally accuse of or charge with a serious crime.

They’re not proof, genius. They’re accusations.


Bigots? BIGOTS?

2 November 2018

“[Democrats] are working to make certain that the agenda of the most racist, sexist, homophobic, bigoted president in history will go nowhere because Democrats will control the House and the Senate.” —Sen. Bernie Sanders

Wait, what? Lyndon Johnson has been out of office for 50 years! His agenda is loooooong past! Oh, wait! Maybe you meant that he won’t be voting Democrat this year…


Yeah, right…

29 October 2018

“There were armed guards at Columbine, Virginia Tech, Pulse, the high schools in Parkland and Santa Fe, and on and on. A deranged civilian with an AR-15 and a death wish will always overpower security guards. The @NRA wants us to continue escalating this arms race.” —Moms Demand Action founder Shannon Watts

Wait, what?! There were no armed guards at ANY of those! Had there been armed guards, it is doubtful there would have been so much carnage. But, no: organizations like “Mom’s Demand Action” PRECLUDE having armed guards in schools! “Seeing guns in school will traumatize the children!” Oh? More than being shot to death by some looney would?

You people are PATHETIC. You feign concern over children – our children – MY children! -while your very position on the issues preclude their safety. Your desire, for whatever reason, is the elimination of the right to keep and bear arms. And you don’t care how many are killed – children, adults: it makes no difference to you – until you achieve your goal. The ends justify the means, hey, Shannon?

You’re wrong. Your grasp of history is wrong. And your politics are wrong.

Oh, and Piers Morgan? You’re right. You are an ignorant foreigner. Please shut up and go home. I’m sure your opinion is valued in your home. Here? You’re an obviously ignorant foreigner.


Whatcha got, there, Scoob?!

26 October 2018


I’ll just leave this right here…



The Miracle Worker SPEAKS!

23 October 2018

“So when you hear all this talk about economic miracles right now, remember who started it.” —Barack Obama

You’re right, Hussein. We’re sorry. Without your help, we wouldn’t have needed the economic miracles we’re now experiencing.

Now, please: gather up that enormous ego, and those vats of hubris and go home to Kenya. You’ve served your purpose.


She Has Met The Enemy, And They Is Her

19 October 2018

Apparently, per a DNA test analyzed by one Carlos Bustamante of UC- Berkely (that absolute academic bastion of un-politically-biased science, mind you!) Elizabeth “Fauxcahontas” Warren is somewhere between 1/1024th  and 1/64th “native American”. This racial mixing occurred six to 10 generations ago.

Oh, can you hear the leftists crow! She DOES have native American in her blood line! Oh, Auntie Em! Auntie Em!

So, if we take a generation at its current definition of 30 years and apply that to, say, 1940? Fair enough? And then apply the definition of a generation for “primitive” culture prior to that, we come up with…. oh… between 226 and 146 years ago for this genetic mixing to have occurred. Definitely within the realm of possibility, depending on her lineage and how long her lineage has been in North America – it is highly unlikely such mixing occurred in Europe, where the vast – VAST – majority of her genetic lineage derives – during that period.

So, her claim of there having been an American Indian in her family tree may (I still say “may” because… UC-Berkely) be true, but any claim of being a native American is patently false: a white crayon likely has more native American DNA than she does.


No. That’s Not How It Is Supposed To Work.

9 October 2018

“…But in my conscience, because that’s how I have to vote — end of the day, is with my conscience…” – Alleged GOP Senator Lisa Murkowski

And that pretty much defines the problem with Congress today. Folks were intended to be chosen based on their relationship to, and ability to represent, their constituency. Never were they intended to be the arbiters of conscience for the country.

You see, Ms. Murkowski: you weren’t elected to vote your conscience; you were elected to vote in the best interests of those you represent in your state of Alaska: men as well as women. All races. All creeds. Your conscience is to be subjugated to the will of your constituency; not the converse.

Part of the (albeit: altruistic) genius of what the founding fathers put in place was the appointment of senators by state legislatures. The state legislators, being elected of the people by the people and, therefor, expected to be reflective of the will of the people of the people, would appoint those to serve in the US Senate. There was no money-ridden popularity contest – that was reserved for the House; the House being intended to represent the will of more finite divisions within the state. Unfortunately, human nature (greed) intervened, and positions on the senate were often sold or otherwise obtained via means unbecoming of the process intent.

In 1912, the same year that gave us the Father of the Bureaucratic State and Grand Champion of Progressivism, Woodrow Wilson, the House, with an eye on those abuses in selecting senators (those abuses resembling modern lobbying…) decided that having senators appointed by the state legislature was a bad idea, and the 17th Amendment to the Constitution was born, requiring senators to be elected by populist vote rather than by the state legislatures..

But nowhere in that amendment did it change a senator’s role from being representative of the people who elected them to being representative of their personal conscience and personal view of life and law.

Too many in Congress – in both the House and the Senate – believe their role is to “vote their conscience”.  And, unfortunately, for most: their conscience if formed by the ideology and objectives of their party; not by the best interests of their state or the country as a whole. Far, far too many vote their reelection chances rather than conscience, too – however, this is actually closer to voting the will of the people than is kowtowing to media opinion, and party ideology or other factions.

And it’s a damned shame. Though I never lived within them, I long for the days when those we elected did not become our “rulers”, but remained one of us, looking out for the good of the country as opposed to their personal gain and the good of their party. Much of the crap we see every day emanating from our capitol would not have occurred if those sitting in the seats were actually motivated by patriotism rather than by greed.

– Pateratic

Hey! AP! I Have A Question!

6 October 2018

The near party-line vote was 50-48″ – Associated Press “writers” Mary Clare Jalonick, Matthew Daly, Padmananda Rama, Ken Thomas and Catherine Lucey on the Kavanaugh confirmation vote

How come when the leftist crowd gets some RINO – like the late McCain, for instance – to “cross the aisle” on something, it is lauded as “bipartisanship”, but when one of your own does the same and votes with the Republicans, it is a “near party-line vote”?

If you’re looking for a reason, THIS is why you have no credibility. Your bias is on display like a Las Vegas casino sign: hard to miss and visible from a satellite…