Trump on US Flag burning: 1 year in jail. Alleged Conservatives whine?

Of course some "conservatives" (including some I've never heard of... and those I have are avowed Never Trumper RINOs) are against this policy.

But what I'm against is legal hypocrisy. If, on one hand, you can burn the American flag without penalty, then it's just as much "freedom of speech" to burn ANY flag, including those commemorating gender butchery and gay rights generally, among others. We cannot, as a society, make the burning of the American flag sacrosanct, while the burning other symbols somehow becomes a criminal act. That someone might be "offended" or some such insanity by the burning of, for example, a palestinian flag or LGBTQXYZ flag or what have you CANNOT be more offensive than burning the flag I served under and bled under and as such, there's no excuse for the double standard. That math ain't mathing.

And you can't have it both ways.

I would remind everyone that abortion was also an allegedly "constitutionally protected" act... until it wasn't.

Free speech has one standard. And if you can go to jail for burning a gay rights flag, than stop whining about freedom of speech when it does not apply equally to ALL flags... including the American flag.

Memo to Clint Didier: You can't wave the Constitution around one second, and then pledge to violate it the next, farm subsidies aside.

.
Last night, Clint Didier was the US Senate candidate vetted by the We The People group at Harney Elementary.

There is no question that he is an imposing man. That said, I'm long since sick of his constant use of football as a campaign prop: That he played the game "and caught a touchdown pass in 22" in no way qualifies him to be a senator or, for that matter, to hold any other political office where knowledge of the issues, a grasp of the Constitution and a specific plan to make a difference is required.

While there was no mention of his apparently massive gun collection, where he has boasted that "if the ATF knew how many guns I had they'd raid my farm," he constantly hammered home themes about the Constitution, claiming at one point, that he wouldn't ever vote for a bill that didn't comply with that document (waving his omnipresent copy around... which is a good idea under most circumstances)... shortly before he pledged to violate the Constitution with legislation he, personally, would introduce.

The Constitution isn't necessarily what we would "like" it to be. It is precisely what it is. And we can't shove it aside for the moment or because we feel like we should.

Didier claimed that, during the 4 hour drive to Harney, he had once again read that document. Apparently, Article One, Section Nine escaped his attention:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

I wanted it in context, so I included the entire section. At issue is the bold faced line: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

While being questioned after he made his opening remarks, the subject of Senatorial retirement and health care came up.

Didier said that not only would he refuse such perks, limiting them to whatever "the people" received, he said that he would introduce legislation to strip past retirements and perks from those already receiving them, presumably in Congress.

He can't do that. And it troubles me to think he believes he can.

An "ex post facto law" is typically defined as a "retroactive law."

An ex post facto law (from the Latin for "from after the action") or retroactive law, is
a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions committed or relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law.

On the whole, this is a relatively minor issue. There is no question that Didier is passionate about the Constitution, as we all should be.

But the Constitution is clear: In the event Didier is elected, politics aside, he cannot do what he claims he will do.

It's not that we wouldn't LIKE to see fat retirements and benefit packages revisited; but that revisiting can only take place for future officials.

We cannot, as Didier apparently did, give in to the emotion of the moment, the anger of the moment, and shove the Constitution aside for a sound bite or to score political points.

Calm, cool, deliberate reflection is what's called for here. And all this is in addition to what will ultimately become Didier's biggest problem: his simultaneous condemnation and receipt of over a quarter of a million dollars in those same subsidies.

Like Blumenthal's claim to Vietnam veteran status will ultimately sink him, Didier's drum beat of condemning subsidies while taking them at the same time will ultimately cost him.
.

How much is enough?

.
I've been noticing an increasingly disturbing trend among the far right. The "R" word is being heard more and more, with greater frequency.

While I understand that many are disappointed, disillusioned and disgusted by a moronic, clueless government that seems to view the Constitution of the United States as just so much toilet paper, I would ask that those kinds of thoughts relating to the armed overthrow of our government be put away.

There is no question that this effort to socialize the United States is both unconstitutional and short-lived. The people are becoming increasingly angry at the fringe left government's decision making processes where the will of the people, along with democrat promises, are ignored (as, come to think of it, I've said they would be ignored, or "kicked to the curb," as it were) but all we must do is hang on for 11 more months.

Hang on, and we can put a stop to this utter nonsense the way The Founders intended.

When I enlisted, and 4 times after that, when I re-enlisted; as well as when I was commissioned as a Regular Army officer, I swore an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

For me, at least, the tenets of that oath remain in full force and effect.

While some might argue that the actions of the administration and of Congress qualify them as a "domestic enemy," I cannot, in good conscience, agree with the application of that definition here as yet.

We have a system of government that is based in large part on the concepts of democracy.

An unfortunate side-effect is that "stupidity" is not a disqualifier for participation in this system.

While researching communism in college, I concluded that the concept of communism's biggest failure was the failure to take into account human nature. For example, it goes against human nature to receive "X," whatever "X" may be, while those also working in, say, your factory producing tractor widgets who don't work as hard ALSO receive "X," for doing less of the same thing you are, even though they don't build as many tractor widgets as you do.

The fundamental problem with that is the message sent is the message that neither effort nor personal accountability are requirements to receive "X," So, why bother?

Human nature says that the harder you work, the more you should earn. Interfere with that equation... and you get the Soviet Union.

The communists recognized that to some extent: that's why they were very big on the "Five Year Plan." Their lie to the people was to tell them that they, effectively, only had to put human nature aside for 5 years to labor for the state. After that, things would change.

The problem was that there always seemed to be another 5 year plan. "Dialecticians" would come along and provide the reasons for these additional plans, but they never seemed to go away.

In agriculture, huge farm collectives were the order of the day, collectives that would sometimes see production targets met only to watch their produce rot because the government lacked the means to transport the produce grown and harvested.

But when human nature was allowed in... when small groups of people were allowed to keep what they earned from tiny plots of land, amazing things in both production and transportation took place, and huge amounts of produce came from very small areas of land, amounts sometimes exceeding that of the huge collectives.

In America today, we frequently seem to be heading back into the other direction. We seem to have become a society where personal accountability and responsibility are concepts to be laughed at. We grant special privileges to groups of people through the accidents of their genetics in race and color. We provide special classifications for people engaging in lifestyles. We institutionalize discrimination when the ends are just (Recently, R 71's passage institutionalized discrimination against anyone 61 or younger... but that discrimination is perfectly OK, because it helped, quite hypocritically it would seem, to reduce "discrimination" against those practicing a lifestyle.) and we increase dependence on government programs such as unemployment (which can now go on for 2 years) and welfare (where the socialist government of this country is looking at eliminating the limits of how long one can be on welfare) as the concept of meritocracy becomes something from a dark, distant and now quite dusty past. For the recipients of this largess, what do you suppose their voting emphasis might be?

We, as a society, put the value of packaging over the value of contents in everything from who we elect to the office of president, where assuredly, we elected an empty package, to a 5 oz can of tuna... oddly, the same size as the 6 oz can of tuna used to be, but an indicator of how we're played for suckers because even though the producers are providing less and charging more, we still think in many cases we're getting the same 6 ounces... not unlike our local paper, come to think of it.

So, people elected a president who built his campaign on lies. We've elected an entire government that's done the same. While that government seems to be out of any control, having forgotten their servant-master relationship, who really bears the blame?

Isn't it those of us who put them there?

Isn't it up to us to remove them at the polls?

Just because we've been stupid in the past doesn't mean we must continue in that regard in the future.

Next November will be our time. After the election, the changes we've made will enable us to restore this Nation, to right the ship of state and to undo the damage of the misguided, tyrannical few.

But not through violence. Not through misguided and extra-Constitutional measures.

The people were repeatedly warned. Unfortunately, the choices they had were a scam, a con and hopelessness. But as a people, we disdain the truth and frequently, particularly when it's difficult, don't want to hear it. As a result, frequently the telling of the truth will not get you elected. Obama, for example, talked down the economy so much that he seemed surprised his efforts succeeded so well. What was it the VP said (The same VP who, during the campaign, flatly stated that Obama wasn't qualified to be president?) wasn't it something like "we didn't know how bad it was?"

That's what led to a rank liar getting elected to the highest office in the land; a man who had achieved nothing but the rank of master manipulator prior to his ascension to the presidency.

We elected him essentially without knowing anything about him. And hopefully, we, as a nation have learned our lesson from that, and will be a little more picky... a little more demanding as a part of the job interview in the future, for we have HAD to learn SOMETHING from this debacle.

Meanwhile, no violence. No overthrows. Keep the focus on what they are doing; do not concern yourself with the "why" they are doing it, because, for example, burying this nation in debt has no justification.

As we gear up for the 2010's, implement critical thinking skills. Look through the filter of lies and broken promises. Make a decision based not on the way you wish things were, but on the way things are.

We have the opportunity to become the "change" the liar-in-chief promised to get the job. And if we blow it, then really, who do we have to blame?
.