Tag Archives: the Constitution

Why the 9th Circuit Panel of Political Judges Is Wrong


Yesterday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal upheld a lower court’s suspension of President Donald Trump’s travel ban on people from seven Middle Eastern and African countries. I have been contending, as have others, that under the Constitution the appeal court had no business interfering with the executive functions of the presidency. The appeal court’s motivations were political. Is that true or just partisan bluster?

Here are some resources for readers to use to confirm my position, which I believe reflects our Constitution.

1. The Constitution invests the president with the power to execute the laws and the acts of the Congress (Article II, Sec. 1; Article II, Sec. 3).

2. The Constitution names the president Commander in Chief and invests him with the power over our armed forces (Article II, Sec. 2), i.e., our common defence (our Founding Fathers used the British spelling). The president’s role as Commander in Chief bears the burden of the work of those armed services and the diplomatic efforts (Article II, Sec. 2) to “execute” (i.e., to pursue or perform to completion) the overarching purposes of the Constitution: a. “form a more perfect union”, b. “establish Justice”, c. “insure domestic Tranquility”, d. “provide for the common defence”, e. “promote the general Welfare”, f. “and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and to our Posterity… (Preamble).”

To whom do those overarching purposes apply? The Preamble answers that those purposes apply to “We the People of the United States”, who gave their consent to be governed thusly. Does the Constitution mandate that people who are not citizens of the United States be covered by those purposes? No, it does not. If the federal branches of government were to operate in such a manner as to treat foreigners as if those overarching purposes applied to them, such operation would contravene the specific definition made by the Constitution.

Constitutional rights can be implied by virtue of the language, tenor, and pattern of thought transmitted by the Constitution. We know the Founding Fathers did not want to enumerate every right of a citizen for fear that the absence of mention would be taken to mean a right did not exist. However, the possessors of those rights cannot be implied. The possessors are “we the people of the United States”, i.e., citizens. Slaves cannot. Foreigners cannot. When slaves were liberated and confirmed liberated by amendments XIII, XIV, and XV, the Constitution was changed and blacks became citizens, as they should have been from the start. The Constitution only makes citizens of those born and naturalized into the United States, ergo, Constitutional rights only pertain to them. Analysis by a writer on redstate.com not only misses this key point, but is faulty. The writer desired to justify the reasoning of the 9th Circuit so he could lay the blame on Trump’s administration.

Not all criticism of Trump is anti-Trumping, but the redstate.com writer needed to blur who enjoys the rights of citizenship and misplace the weight and application of due process so he could blast the administration. He completely ignored the statutory powers duly legislated by Congress that authorize both the power and purview of the president and others in respect to inadmissible aliens, the exceptions, and the methods for dealing with those exceptions. He did not have a feel for the facts and the law, but he did have a feel for the way the 9th Circuit thinks, or misthinks, so he was correct on how they would come down.

Below I provide some resources, including my own analysis.

Did the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal render a sound decision? According to Harvard Law Professor and Democrat Alan Dershowitz, no. Here is the video link to an interview he gave to MSNBC:


Did the 9th Circuit basically overstep its bounds and make up new law? Here is a report on Fox News and commentary from that network’s Judicial Analyst, former federal judge Andrew Napolitano:


Finally, allow me to deal with the notion that the 9th Circuit stands on firm ground anyway because of its demand for due process for those whose visit or return trip to the United States was blocked by the president’s travel ban.

In addition to the Constitutional mandate and powers invested in the president, Mr. Trump owns authority conferred on the office by Congress and its statutory law, Title 8 U.S. Code Section 1182(f). Paragraph “(f)” comes after a ton of inadmissibility situations and rules, including exceptions, to state flatly that:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

Congress, a bunch of lawyers, aided and abetted by tons of legal counsel, enacted into law this policy that grants the president authority to “suspend” or “impose restrictions” “he may deem to be appropriate” on entry to “any aliens”, “all aliens”, or “any class of aliens” when “the president finds” their entry “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States”.

Please note that Section 1182 deals with “Inadmissible Aliens”, and the other paragraphs in the section provide the exceptions to their provisions under the inadmissibility law. Paragraph (f) contains no exceptions. None. Zero. Zilch. It is intended to be that way and is written that way. The president finds what is detrimental to the interests of the United States (interestingly, take note, 9th Circuit, no mention is made of a requirement for a level of exigency, though the circumstances listed are exigent), and he suspends or restricts accordingly for a period of time.

In short, the federal statute gives the president broad power and discretion; the 9th Circuit doesn’t want the president to have it. The 9th Circuit thinks IT should have that power.

Constitutionally and statutorily, the 9th Circuit has abused and misplaced the question of due process, first, because the travel ban does not affect citizens of the United States, and second, because the nature of a suspension or restriction, including as described in paragraph (f), is its atypical, abnormal, nonstandard employment to meet an exigent situation, one that is determined by the president and for which there is no review by any court. In other words, any court would be out of bounds second-guessing the president on whether or not what he found was really detrimental to the interests of the country. That is not the purview of the judicial branch, Constitutionally or statutorily.

Third, if we were to assume for the sake of argument that noncitizens enjoyed the right of due process in respect to entry into these United States, that due process would be applied after the effect of the ban, not before it, otherwise what would be the point? If a person with a deadly, contagious disease challenges a ban on his entry into the country, we’re not going to suspend the ban so he can come into the country, contaminate us, then determine at a due process hearing that he didn’t have justification to enter! That’s neither Constitutional nor rational. It certainly isn’t safe.

The ban is temporary, not permanent. It’s not a penalty or punishment; it’s a security measure. It isn’t intended to last forever, only as long as the situation that generated it persists. We make our own citizens undergo searches and seizures at airport checkpoints without due process because they are a security measure. If we held due process for every citizen before they entered the walkways to airport gates, we would have to kiss security measures goodbye. We often do the same at stadiums and concerts and, get this 9th Circuit, courthouses!

That’s right. We don’t hold due process hearings before someone enters your 9th Circuit stenchhouse of extremism and judicial tyranny. You search ’em and seize ’em without any hint of wrongdoing or suspicion and ask questions later. Ain’t any due process about it. Hypocrites! You don’t even live up to your own standards. You protect yourselves but spit on the president’s efforts to protect common American citizens.

Not a surprise, really. The 9th Circuit’s extremism, politics, partiality, and plain old discombobulation have led them to ignore or even reject their own precedents, such as in the restaurant tipping cases (http://www.restaurant.org/News-Research/News/U-S-court-of-appeals-for-the-ninth-circuit-overtur). A man dressed up as a woman – painted face and lips, stockings and heels and all – is still a man. A wolf in sheep’s clothing is still a wolf. And a politically, ideologically motivated ruling is just that no matter the “legal questions” and legalese with which a panel of “judges” dresses it up.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeal is a bench of usurpers and tyrants burglarizing the executive branch because they want to obstruct the implementation of the president’s policies, policies that would increase American safety. They have violated the checks and balances of the Constitution so that they could impose their globalist will. The holy 9th Circuit’s will be done, and they say, “To hell with law and order, and checks and balances, and judicial restraint, and America first!”

Thank God Jeff Sessions was finally confirmed as attorney general in spite of delaying tactics by the obstructionist Democrats who want the country to fail and their defeated ideology to be made mandatory. He’ll help save the day. 



Toxic Judge Makes Up Law


This post has been updated to correct an error about which court Judge Robart sits on.

History is being made in America. The citizens of this country have rarely seen anything like it. The establishment elites, and a portion of the millions of American minds they have embalmed with their toxic philosophy and worldview, are engineering a draconian backlash against the man Americans elected their president.

Don’t be misled by the rhetoric that Hillary Clinton won three million more votes than Donald Trump. That is only one fact of many electoral facts. Mr. Trump pummeled Mrs. Clinton across our land, winning the majority of votes in more than 4,000 counties while she won only 467 counties. Mr. Trump thumped Mrs. Clinton by states also, winning 31 to her 19. Finally, he whipped her electorally, 306 to 232.

The reason we have the electoral college is to prevent a candidate who has large but narrowly concentrated support from winning the presidency. The boast that she won a majority of the popular vote belies the fact that Mrs. Clinton could not find broad-based support, but instead relied on concentrated representation from only a few areas in her effort to win the presidency. Mr. Trump’s support derived from a much, much broader constituency.

Mr. Trump is not the first candidate to win the presidency without winning the popular vote or without winning a majority of the popular vote. He will likely not be the last.

Yet the unabashed effort to delegitimize his presidency, to destabilize it, to strip away the power of his victory, and to subvert the election results continues with malice aforethought and vehemence.

As is usual, the media creeps about complicitly with the establishment elites. Their world has been turned upside down, and Mr. Trump and his staff have exposed their dishonesty and dissembling. More vitally, their own power and role working with the elite in shaping American minds and lives to create the America they want – rather than simply reporting the facts – has been exposed and fractured. That means their power has diminished and could be so significantly reduced that they could slip into superannuation.

Be aware of what is going on and how the elites and the media are synthesizing their effort. They always use their frame of reference, often employing the establishment ethic or moral code to which they adhere to judge him, a code the American people voted to change. They contrive re-interpretations of what Mr. Trump says, explaining what he meant when he said this or that, rather than simply reporting what he said or offering a menu of explanations for what he meant. Additionally, you can bet the interpretation they provide will always be the worst one possible. They deny certain historical facts while affirming others to create a skewed, imbalanced, inaccurate – ergo, false – perspective for their audiences.

Here is an example of what I mean. The president issued an executive order banning visitors, migrants, and refugees from certain areas of the world known by our intelligence services, military men, and the media to be cauldrons of bloody terrorism, hatred, and gross intolerance. Mr. Trump issued a temporary ban of 120 days until such time as effective vetting procedures to weed out the bloody terrorists had been created, tested, and placed. The purpose of his order: protect Americans from mass shootings and explosions and knife attacks.

This past week Judge James Robart of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington State decided to insert himself into the political conversation. Robart issued a ban on Trump’s terrorism ban when the state of Washington complained Trump’s terrorism ban would interfere with its private companies seeking employees (i.e., not American workers but foreign workers!!!)!

Subsequently, Mr. Trump, in another one of those fits of honesty he expresses on Twitter, and which the media caustically detract because it bypasses them, criticized Robart for the bad decision.

So on Monday, what are establishment media outlets reporting? Take Morning Joe on MSNBC, for example. They are trying to pummel Mr. Trump, which is like me trying to pummel a polar bear. Trump’s criticism of Robart is “bone-chilling”, Joe Scarborough declared. The president was violating the sacred space between the executive and the judiciary, spoiling our system of checks and balances, and threatening, oh, hell, I don’t know, the Apocalypse? I kept waiting for the pale horse to appear and gallop over Joe’s thick head.

Joe desperately tried to draw a parallel with guilty Bill Clinton quietly accepting the Supreme Court’s disbarment of him (as if he could have done anything differently) and guilty Richard Nixon quietly accepting the Court’s order to hand over the missing audiotape.

Okay, those were criminal cases and matters of law. No, you can’t hide evidence. No, you can’t escape punishment for acting unlawyerly and unethically (but you still get to be president).

What’s the difference? Whoa! There are many. First of all, Washington – and any other state or commonwealth or county or municipality – has no standing, zero, absolutely none, to direct how immigration is enacted and enforced (i.e., executed by the chief executive, the president). If the terrorism ban inconveniences the employment practices of the selfish, greedy corporations that want to hire foreigners instead of fellow countrymen, TFB. The president acts on behalf of the entire country and all his fellow citizens, not a few warped special interests whose interests are secondary to the general welfare, common defense, and security of the people.

Second, the president has a Constitutional mandate to carry out the laws promulgated by Congress, including the immigration laws.

Third, the federal statutory law gives the president the authority and power to KEEP OUT of the country any individuals or class of individuals. Yes, the wording of the law says exactly that.

President Trump’s criticism of Robart at worst is a minor consideration. I like it because he is taking to task these activist judges who want the law to reflect their own political ideals rather than their jurisprudence reflecting the law. Mr. Trump is holding such jurists accountable.

What the media have been hiding or glossing over is that Robart overstepped his judicial boundaries to defy our checks and balances and to interfere with the president’s sphere of action just so the judge could force his extremist “progressive” philosophy on the American people. Now that’s chilling, maybe even to the bone.

It’s not going to stand. Sooner or later, President Trump’s ban will be upheld and resume. Rest assured that the establishment politicos and their media minions will not rest. Mr. Trump is too much of a threat to their power and dominion.

Drain the swamp!

Elites and Media Don’t Get It


A vital block of Americans cast off the chains of anti-Americanism, elitism, political correctness, and media dishonesty to drive 70-year-old Donald Trump to triumph in the 2016 presidential election Tuesday night.

With votes still being counted and confirmed, Trump had earned at least 276 electoral votes, six more than necessary, while Clinton was at 218. The popular vote was neck-and-neck, with both candidates earning over 59 million votes each so far.

Trump and his supporters swept aside the narrow-minded concerns of the political and media elites like a purifying white squall across the bloody deck of a slave freighter. Supporters refused to give answer to reporters and pollsters who sought a predetermined outcome. Instead, each took cover in his or her personal privacy, waiting for early voting or election day to pull the lever for Trump.

The Trumpers pulled it mightily again and again. Their votes tore down the so-called “Blue Wall” of the Democrats, the imaginary boundary Democrats believed protected them from defeat in those states.

The result bestowed an astonishing mantle of victory on the shoulders of Trump, the never-say-die candidate and accomplished billionaire who overcame the media’s monstrous partisanship and endless effluent of innuendo: the false or unsubstantiated accusations about his finances, businesses, taxes, campaign and debate statements, marriages, and sexual habits.

It seemed a mountain too high to climb, and the media, particularly national outlets like CNN (oft dubbed the “Clinton News Network”), MSNBC, CNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, network news, etc., doubled up on the shots they took at Trump by turning a blind eye to Hillary Clinton’s reckless, criminal email behavior, the sordid pay-to-play scheme of her Clinton Foundation, her pimping the media for debate questions against Sanders and Trump, and her salacious campaign operation designed to bring out the most sordid unsubstantiated details about Trump and present them even to the eyes and ears of children through their media minions.

Instead of journalistic investigative reporting into any of those aspects of Clinton’s character and practices, the major media rode the bench while Wikileaks and Russian hackers did the job the media should have done.

The media decided it had a more important job to do than communicate facts to voters. Their job was to assuage the “deplorables” with faux sympathy while paying no heed to what they were saying. Instead, the media portrayed voters’ support for Trump as at best a misdirected emotional venting of a barbarous and baleful national pride that led down a slippery slope of xenophobia, racism, and general hatred and national endangerment.

This distillation denied any value to what citizens – those drawn to Trump and his message – held in their hearts and in their minds: the policies of the last 25+ years had deprived them of jobs, income, opportunity, freedom, personal and national pride, and their sense of society and culture while bestowing all kinds of benefits and attentions on special interest groups and illegal immigrants and Middle Eastern refugees with no amity for the American political and religious culture.

Trump advocates were Americans unwelcome in their own country, Americans who could find no succor and respect in their country’s policies, Americans abandoned because they were deemed expendable by the elites and their minions, the collateral damage of today’s ineluctable global, social, economic, and technological evolution hailed as the natural progress of things.

So bad have circumstances become, and does the future look, that one columnist at The Washington Post has proposed the government provide a living wage to all Americans who are no longer needed in the workforce. 

Of course, the elites and their minions seem themselves to be immunized from the tumult of such evolution. 

In short, the ivory tower, elitist, leftist media didn’t get it. They didn’t get it that citizens have not conceded that this evolution is natural. Rather, government policies have artificially induced these conditions. Further, those who made the choice to support Trump have adduced correctly and rightfully that the constitutional mandate that infuses the American government is to make laws and policies that promote the common welfare and defense of American citizens, not foreigners.

The American government was not established to promote globalism, open borders, big corporate tyranny and license, and immigration just for the sake of immigration. The purpose of American government has always been to promote liberty and justice for each and every one of its citizens through the common welfare and defense.

No person would know this by reading the election reporting, especially that perpetrated by the national media outlets. If one reads their journalism, one sees that Trump supporters are ignorant, emotional, and prone to grave biases and prejudices, all of which produced an irrational choice to vote for Trump, a man whose flaws, the media crowed, were too profound and essential to permit him to win the presidency. On top of that, Trump offended the media’s sense of good taste. 

No. While Trump supporters may have entertained distaste for some of Trump’s personal qualities, they greatly preferred his ideas and proposals to Hillary’s. They did not want terrorists to have an easy time entering their country, and Hillary stood for that. They did not want illegal aliens staying in America, and Hillary stood for that. They did want our existing laws enforced. They did want illegals to be held accountable to the law, just like everyone else is. They did not want free trade agreements that robbed them of their jobs and devalued their labor. They did want American companies to build and operate factories in America. They did want to be able to pay their bills and have some left over for fun with their families. They did want their kids to be proud of them. And we all have wanted to see more “Made in America” print on products. 

Furthermore, Hillary’s experience was contrived, and she herself was deeply flawed. Hillary’s handling of Benghazi was both a substantial and a public relations disaster. Americans, including our ambassador, paid for her blunder with their lives. Like Trump, she offended many Americans’ moral sensibilities. Beyond Trump, however, Hillary engaged in criminal email activity but got away with it because of who she was. The media will argue she has never been convicted of anything; but in the court of public opinion, many, if not most, believe she has flouted the law repeatedly over the years. As a member of the elite, she was inoculated from prosecution. The perceived stain of criminality, however, sullies her person.

Good sense, good ideas about policies, and different ideas about what it means to be American and what the purpose of American government is, propelled people to support and vote for Donald Trump. He was the one person, the one candidate, with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders, who heard them and who identified what the problem was: an elite, stuck-in-the-mud establishment used to running the show on its own and shaming those who dissented with labels of political incorrectness.

As of today, that time is over. The fight will continue, but that time is over for now. It is the elites who better get used to the natural order of things, and that means the adoption of a true civic spirit that includes their fellow citizens.

Conservative Newspapers Betray Themselves


Let’s examine the reasoning of conservative newspapers that have endorsed Hillary Clinton instead of Donald Trump the last week-and-a-half or so. The papers in question are the Dallas Morning News, the Cincinnati Enquirer, and the Arizona Republic. All three have a long history of endorsements for Republican presidential candidates. The Arizona Republic has never before endorsed a Democrat. This examination is based on a USA Today article that can be found at the web address below:


In the article, the newspapers, collectively, cited the following reasons for endorsing Hillary instead of Trump:

1. he is not conservative;

2. he has an “inability to control himself”;

3. he has a “long history of objectifying women”;

4. he lacks a presidential temperament;

5. he is “a clear and present danger to our country”;

6. he “plays on fear — exploiting base instincts of xenophobia, racism and misogyny — to bring out the worst in all of us, rather than the best.”

Let’s take the first point and ask which of the two candidates is more conservative, and please remember that I am not agreeing with the Donald on all his positions, nor with any particular “conservative” position but only seeing whether the newspapers’ explanations make sense

Donald Trump wants to lower taxes; Hillary wants to raise them. Trump wants to build a stronger military; Hillary doesn’t. Trump wants immigrants and American citizens to abide by our country’s immigration laws and to suffer the consequences if they do not; Hillary wants to violate our immigration laws, probably with executive orders like her potential predecessor, and she doesn’t want illegals to suffer any consequences for breaking our immigration laws. Trump wants to improve the care for our veterans; Hillary does, too. Trump supports the development of new energy technologies but wants to use the existing resources we have to create or maintain jobs and establish energy independence; Hillary wants to get rid of existing energy resources, even if it means job losses and withdrawal from energy independence. Trump rejects climate change caused by man; Hillary accepts climate change caused by man. Trump wants to keep and secure citizens’ Second Amendment rights; Hillary wants to begin to modify those rights, if not ultimately remove most of them. Trump supports the right to life; Hillary fights for the right to slaughter babies, including the right to crush their skulls after they are partially born. Trump wants our military to be able to stand up to and defend against enemy acts, including firing at our boys and girls, playing chicken with them, boarding their vessels, and humiliating them by making them kneel in front of enemy soldiers. Hillary laughs and scoffs at that, claiming it would cause another war: Our weakness and humiliation are okay to her.

More could be said, but you get the point. Trump is, at the least, more conservative than Hillary and, conversely, Hillary is more liberal than Trump. On that basis, the newspapers should have endorsed Trump, not Hillary.

Let me skip to No. 3 and I’ll return to No. 2. Number 3 is the claim that Trump objectifies women. For some, an important proof of that is Hillary’s recent assertion that Trump told Alicia Machado of Venezuela that she was fat prior to her winning the 1996 Miss Universe pageant, it appears. Some accounts detailed the fat remark as specifically being “Miss Piggy” and “Miss Housekeeping”. In an interview on Inside Edition in May, Machado herself said that Trump called her an “eating machine” and told her to lose weight before her win.

If Trump walks up to just any woman who happens to be overweight, and he begins to make remarks like that, then, yes, he is being intrusive and rude. However, Machado entered into a beauty contest in which looking your best is the goal. Coaches tell football players their playing weight is excessive or insufficient, that their playing habits stink or get the job done. It’s a coach’s responsibility to communicate those negatives, even harshly or angrily, to the players so the players will improve or lose their jobs. It was Trump’s responsibility to tell Machado what she looked like and how she could correct it. Seems like it worked. Machado won the 1996 crown.

Yet Hillary herself damned the women who claimed her husband had harassed or molested them. Hillary tried to destroy their lives, creating the so-called “War Room” to crush them. She or her mercenaries frequently intimidated, threatened, or possibly attacked those who accused or who aired their accusations. Here are a couple of articles to reference:



So much for standing up for women, eh, Crooked Hillary!?

Presidential temperament is so vague, but if I take a stab at it, I’ll approach it from this direction: I appreciate Trump’s blunt honesty. I don’t care for Hillary’s well-oiled pretenses. It has been well-documented by former secret service agents, former military men, and former White House or other staffers what Hillary really behaves like where and when American citizens cannot see her. She is nothing short of haughty, arrogant, and vicious, but she hides that lack of presidential temperament. If you are cool with that, I can’t help you. If you’re a newspaper reporter, editor, or columnist, how can you accept that? Why would you take greater umbrage at a propensity for casual, off-the-cuff remarks, usually directed at people Trump believes have attacked or offended him, and which have little to no impact on governance, than Hillary’s angry venom towards those who work for her, towards those women whom her husband has sexually harassed and abused, and towards the people she hates and about whom she keeps a list of in her little black book?

Hillary has never demonstrated a presidential temperament but a mask. What we know about Hillary is that in the pressure cooker of the White House, her insecurities and latent anger undermine her equanimity and leave her seething, imbalanced, and often out-of-control.

Presumably, the high-sounding notion that Trump presents a “clear and present danger” is based upon his temperament, and that’s been answered. I’ll just add that if Trump’s temperament was out of whack, he could not have built the multi-billion dollar business he had.

Ask yourself, “Whose temperament has led to criminal behavior, has exposed our country to cyberhacking and loss of secrets, and has led to the unnecessary deaths of four Americans in Benghazi and the subsequent lies about what happened to their survivors?”

Finally, let’s address the claim that Trump plays on fear, using racism, xenophobia, and misogyny to exploit an electoral advantage.

Trump wants to deport illegal aliens, prevent the flow of illegal aliens and illegal drugs across our borders by building a wall, and end the drain of our public treasury to give benefits to illegals. Are any of those goals illegal? In fact, don’t Trump’s proposals merely enforce our existing laws and provide the means to accomplish that, regardless of where the illegals are from? Every country in the world has immigration laws, and most have barbed wire fences or walls and checkpoints along their borders. So how can proponents of border control be racist, xenophobic, or misogynistic in any way? Aren’t Republicans and conservatives the upholders of the Constitution, in whose Article 1, Section 8 lies the genesis of immigration law and the enforcement of it?

Trump’s comments on a few, particular women may have been out of bounds or over the top, but his family and professional history exhibit a strong appreciation of and for women: he employs more women in the upper echelon of his companies than men, he pays women in his company as much as or more than men (perhaps because of better performance?); thus, women enjoy the same opportunities for advancement as men in a Trump company; he has provided a safe, pleasant, stimulating environment for his employees, and his female employees in particular view him as their champion; he deeply cares about his wife and his daughters.

Trump routinely values women highly, and he owns a long, long track record that manifests he has treated them with respect and has honored their meritorious business accomplishments. That’s not a misogynist.

On the other hand, it can easily be argued that Hillary married a misogynist, that she aided and abetted his acts of misogyny, and that she engaged in misogyny when she tried to crush her husband’s accusers, her fellow women.

Look, each citizen has to vote his or her conscience. If you prefer one candidate’s resumé over another’s, one’s ideas over another’s, or just like one candidate more than another, that’s fine.

News organs, however, claim to have examined the facts and to have made sense of them and then held them up to a standard they claimed guided them to their conclusion. In that light, the newspapers cited above erred and failed.

Which of the candidates is more conservative? Trump.

Though each of their arenas of development has differed, which of the candidates has demonstrated greater success and efficiency? Trump.

Which of the two candidates has actually been a chief executive? Trump.

Which candidate brings business and financial expertise to the table? Trump.

Which candidate brings the most experience in successful negotiations? To be fair, we must break this down. Trump earns the most consideration for experience in successful negotiations; Hillary’s experiences in negotiation are much closer to what a president ‘s would be, and that gives her the edge there.

Who has the more presidential temperament and ability to control himself/herself? Trump. The behind the scenes accounts of Trump’s behavior are vastly more favorable, even if his public persona appears a bit harsh or jagged: calm, patient, listening, learning, a quick study – all adjectives used to describe the Donald.

The under-the-mask descriptions of Hillary are much less than flattering, and they paint a picture of an anxious, insecure, volatile, secretive, take-no-prisoners person immersed in self-absorption and enrichment and willing to punish anyone she perceives crosses her.

Your choice, but let’s not pretend that Hillary is the “better” or “more “qualified” or “conservative” candidate.

Shame on the shameless conservative newspapers! They’d rather have an establishment candidate than one that represents American people and puts America first.

British Boobs, and Pics of Angry Muslims!


The United Kingdom once stood as a noble, righteous nation – flawed, granted – but always striving for excellence. The expansion of the English culture and language owes to the English spirit: tough, never-say-die, idealistic, inquiring, seeking the good of the Crown and its peoples, noble yet democratic, industrious, and profitable. From England’s womb emerged the greatest, freest countries on Earth: the United States, the Dominion of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

Now we see the decadence of the once proud empire and its prime nation. Certainly, it could be expected that such a limited number of people would not secure primacy forever. Yet it is not England’s martial primacy that we miss, but the dissolution and disintegration of its spirit, the utter effeminization of its character!

Angry Muslims 01

Yesterday, on Monday, January 18th, A.D. 2016, the British Parliament debated whether to ban Donald Trump from entry into its country. Trump is the leading Republican candidate for the presidency of the United States. The request for the ban derived from a petition seeking it and signed by over half a million people (that isn’t even a fifth of Britain’s 2.7 million Muslims, a 2011 census figure from its Office for National Statistics).

Oddly, the reason for the request was the irritation of some petitioners over Trump’s proposed temporary ban on Muslims entering the U.S. Trump wants to establish an effective vetting procedure first to make sure Muslim terrorists do not slaughter American citizens by getting lost in a crowd of students or refugees or by stealth when they enter the country.

So some Brits proposed a ban because a ban was proposed. The difference is that Trump’s ban would keep out bloody murderers; the British ban strangles free speech and political action. No less a person than Prime Minister David Cameron called Trump’s remarks, “divisive, stupid, and wrong.”

Others said even worse things, such as the Labour Party’s candidate for mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, who misfired rhetorically when he said that he hoped Mr. Trump’s “campaign dies a death.”

Some Brits spewed vitriol over Trump’s additional comments that some sections of London were so radicalized that the police did not want to enter them. One can only wonder what Londoners really think, those who have to go about their lives day-to-day, as opposed to the rosy picture England’s politicos want to present, like it has always been safe for people and police to go into ethnically or racially unique neighborhoods! There’s an investigative piece for the British press.

The real problem that exists is a philosophical fascism in England and in these United States that chokes off ideas and expression unless it conforms to some 1984ish standard of tolerance and diversity. Say something the government doesn’t like, or some misfit doesn’t like, and they’ll clap the hate speech label on you like flypaper and prosecute your ass!

I’m Hispanic, but you know what? I’m proud of America’s white Anglo-Saxon and Christian heritage. It may be far from perfect, but an inspection of the rest of the world reveals it is a lot better than most, if not all.

This is the movement we are seeing in the United States: people vomiting on the proliferation of political correctness tyrannizing the country and overthrowing it. Citizens have had their fill of the spoiled, sissified diversity-thumpers calling the shots with their hissy fits, wrecking our culture, and promoting godlessness and corruption while allowing a ghetto mentality to fester and spread like a virus. We are tired of having our values pissed on and told its wrong to bring them to the public marketplace, even as the diversity thumpers demand the acceptance of theirs. We hate to see excellence dropped as a standard and mere participation made the rule. Down with the notion that an idea is the best not because it is the best, but because it represents “the marginalized” or because it includes everybody or makes everything “accessible.”

What all those words are is code, code for “we are going to gut your Christianity and your political liberty and your Constitution to make our foolproof world where nobody gets hurt and the consideration of the offended is primary, except if you adhere to the white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture from which you emerged. That must be disintegrated and a new, exotic culture established.”

No More!

Angry-Muslims-1024x536 Crop

We have had it with your phony tolerance, which is actually quite intolerant. We are sick of your imposed understanding of diversity, which is another word for a mess. And if you don’t like the fact that the United States is going to take measures to protect itself, including banning murderous Muslims, who should be required to reject the verses of violence in the Quran anyway, give us a call when you experience the next Muslim mass murder.

It is you, David Cameron, who are stupid and wrong, and you lie to paper over the ills brought on by the migration of Muslim hordes to your country. You were elected to represent and serve your people, but instead you think it is your job to engineer them socially. Reports of unrest and danger from Muslim residents in London surfaced long before Trump’s comments. Divisiveness in and of itself is not wrong. Citizens – in your case, subjects – have a right and a responsibility to debate the merits of the people whose faith intrinsically advocates violence against “infidels”, i.e., anyone who is not Muslim. How stupid of you to reject a temporary ban on Muslim entry to secure the well-being of your subjects but to denounce free speech and legitimate policy proposals.


By the way, Jeb Bush speaks for hardly anyone. He is at or below 5% in the polls.

It is you Brits who have spawned this whole political correctness tyranny, this philosophical fascism that is strangling our countries like a plumber from Boston. May you find your mojo again. Meanwhile, we are going to do what we think is right and safe for our country. If you don’t like it, too bad!