Grey Matters

I watched a PJTV video this morning, unfortunately a members-only type, so I cannot post a link that all can use, that had some interesting news on support of The Donald.

They said that Trump’s support among black people is 40% and that Democrats need at least 85% of the black vote to win. No idea where these numbers come from but I’m certain that black votes got Obama elected. The black support of Trump makes sense when you consider who is hurt most by low-wage foreigners taking their jobs.

Secondly, Trump’s most vociferous supporters are what we called, in another era, Reagan Democrats. Blue collar Democrats that are not the likeliest of voters but who will turn out if you get their dander up. It’s up. (Incidentally, these are the part of Trump’s support that Sanders is going after.)

The Donald’s support seems to be growing even as he continues to confound the Talking Heads who are accustomed to having their way with more timid candidates.

With Hillary’s indictment just around the corner, Trump might just actually be the next POTUS.

When Mikey, a West Highland White Terrier came to us, he was eight years old. He came from a family who were at the time living in a motel but who were preparing to move into a NO PETS apartment. Someone from Wifey’s church asked if we wanted to adopt and I caved. I had previously said that the previous Westie would be our last dog.

We think he was a performing dog as he skipped his hind legs when walking at a fast pace. The people from whom we got him once mentioned “the carneys we got him from” or something like that. His tail never went above horizontal, indicating to me that it had probably been broken, so he was probably put out to pasture. The skipping gait faded over the years and I regret never having recorded it to video.

Mikey has not been well of late. His vision began failing him some years ago. I noticed when walking him around the golf course. On more than one occasion, a rabbit would cross our path within 15-20 feet and Mikey failed to notice. A few years back, he became unable to jump up onto his couch so we bought a set of stairs for him. As he declined with age, we had to start assisting him up the steps holding his back end because his hind legs would no longer propel him adequately. Eventually, we would have to place him on the couch. Then we stopped putting him at “his place” on the couch altogether since he would invariably fall when he tried to use the stairs to get down. I feared for his fragile bones.

It’s been months since he lost bladder and bowel control. He wears diapers and we have many opportunities to clean up. He developed a series of open sores all over his body and the vet says that the best he can do is make Mikey “comfortable” with pain pills. In the last year he’s gone from his normal 24 pounds to a paltry 14 but is currently back up to 15.

He cannot rise from lying down to a standing position on his own. It takes several tries assisting him before he gets his footing. Then he wanders around, seemingly confused, stopping every few steps to look around.

I have been gently suggesting that it is past time to have Mikey euthanized. My wife and our daughter (who has shared custody) have been keeping him alive, I think, for selfish reasons. Mikey himself has no quality of life. He’s just a peeing, pooping skin and bones stuffed animal that has to be moved from place to place and cleaned up after.

They made their decision this evening. Now, at fifteen plus years old, Mikey will be EOL’d tomorrow afternoon. I have a hole to dig in the yard so that Mikey can join his predecessors.

On a discussion email list to which I subscribe, it was stated, facetiously, of course: “Warren thinks he’s the foremost Constitutional expert in the US.”

About which I’d like to say a few things.

There are many people who know more about the Constitution than I do.

There are many, many people who know less about the Constitution than I do.

There are a great many very learned people whose knowledge of the Constitution is rooted in the fiction that the founders, brilliant as they obviously were, nonetheless gave FedGov the power to determine the length and strength of the chains binding it. Everything they know about “constitutional law” is premised on the (mistaken) belief that SCOTUS is the sole and final arbiter of what is and is not constitutional.

The entire foundation of “Constitutional Law”, as we know it, is a lie.

Yogi Berra was quoted as having once said: “You can observe a lot by just watching.” Indeed. So too can you learn a lot about the Constitution just by reading it. It’s there for all to see. What I know about the Constitution, I “got” primarily by just reading it and pondering.

For example, wherein is the power to regulate education granted by the states to FedGov? Wherein is the power to own land for national parks, forests, recreation areas and such granted by the states to FedGov? Please point out the Article and section.

But the Biggee is this: Where in the Constitution did the states grant to FedGov the power to decide what is and is not constitutional? My detractor quoted one line of Article III to me but apparently didn’t read it first as it nowhere mentions, much less conveys such a power to the federal judiciary. Like others, he’s been hoodwinked by SCOTUS.

Everything that we as a country know about the constitution is based on the fallacy that the FedGov judiciary was granted this power by the states. Yet is it nowhere in evidence within the Constitution. This is a power invented by SCOTUS and, as explained in Marbury, is not actually in the Constitution but is to be found in the “phraseology” of that document; they read between the lines and decided, “Yeah, we have that power.” And having situated themselves to rubber stamp vast expansions of FedGov power, have been approving an unending list of new powers found between the lines for more than two centuries. SCOTUS has erected myriad barriers to challenging laws in the way they invented and tipped the rules in favor of FedGov with bias built into the federal judiciary itself.

I posit that this is wrong. I have several web sites, with which readers here are likely familiar: Constitutionality.us and TakeBackThePower.us, where I make my case that The States, as FedGov’s boss, are the rightful arbiters of what is and is not constitutional. I welcome my detractor and others to point out any inaccurate statements made on my sites. (FYI, there have been some, which I caught myself and corrected.) I welcome criticism and correction of inaccuracies because correcting errors makes my sites that much better. I would especially appreciate my detractor pointing out inaccuracies because he would have to read my sites to find the errors, if any. In reading, he may just learn a thing or two. Will he refute any statement I’ve made? Not likely.

But I very much would like to address any issues others have with my sites. Note to my detractor: You needn’t mention what Google analytics has to say about visits to my sites. I have my own counters and I have feedback from others who, once or twice a week, stumble across one or another of my sites and write to urge me on. I’ve never had one person comment that I’m wrong. There are Tea Party folks in two states (of which I’m aware) that use my sites in their teaching and presentations. He may opine that my sites are inconsequential or ignored but, as usual, he is wrong. I am reaching more people than Google analytics can possibly know. Would I like to be on Google’s first page for “Constitutional Law” queries? Of course. But I’m not losing sleep because I’m harder to find.

The biggest problem is getting people to understand. With more than 200 years of SCOTUS deciding what is and is not constitutional, we believe that that’s how it should be. We believe that FedGov may own vast stretches of the western states even though that power is nowhere granted to FedGov within the Constitution. We believe these things because that is what we have been taught. We have been taught these things because law schools teach “what the law is” (as defined by SCOTUS). The game is rigged.

I concern myself not with what the law “is” but with what the law should be and what it could be if people just understood.

SCOTUS may have decreed that constitutional challenges must be via means of lawsuits in federal court, but that is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. SCOTUS came up with that.

These are the facts. (Feel free to correct me if I make a misstatement.)

1) The States created FedGov to serve them; the States are FedGov’s “boss”.

2) As the boss of FedGov, the States have a duty to hold FedGov to its constitutionally enumerated powers. (“Leash your dog!” “Control your child!”)

3) The power to be the sole or final arbiter concerning which FedGov acts are and are not constitutional is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution itself.

4) Number (3) above means that: The power to determine which FedGov acts are and are not constitutional is not a power granted to FedGov by the States nor is it a power denied by the Constitution to the States.

5) The Constitution says of this situation: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

So, the power to determine which FedGov acts are and are not constitutional is, per the Constitution itself, a power “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The five facts above lead inexorably to this conclusion. The only way the logic breaks down is if one or more facts are wrong. So let’s examine any about which you have doubts.

The fact that the States have been derelict in their duty for two centuries does not excuse FedGov’s action (or the States’ inaction). Unconstitutional acts do not get grandfathered in just because we’ve been lax and haven’t actually enforced the Constitution.

So, it’s not that I’m some kind of Brainiac where the Constitution is concerned, it’s that I am not handicapped by a formal education in Constitutional law. Like another Yogi, I’m “smarter than the average bear” but it doesn’t require a Juris Doctor to understand the five simple, easily verifiable facts above. An education in law may even be a handicap.

It isn’t that I have such a great understanding of the Constitution, it’s that others have such a flawed understanding. And that is the work of the federal judiciary, work that began even before Marbury and has been on-going ever since.

So, is mine a hopeless cause? Possibly, but I’d like to stick to the facts (1-5) as enumerated above. I invite anyone to discuss any of (1-5) above with which they are not in full agreement. Let me hear your reasoning and I’ll provide mine.

Anyone take exception to any part of (1-5) above?

The anti-gun bigots have taken off their gloves. No more calls for “reasonable, common-sense” gun laws. Now they’re going for the brass ring — confiscation.

Huffpost ran an article to that effect and so did the paper of record.

The NTY editorialized, on the FRONT page:

“It is past time to stop talking about halting the spread of firearms, and instead to reduce their number drastically — eliminating some large categories of weapons and ammunition. It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.”

Saying that the needed legislation should not “grandfather” the 300,000,000 firearms currently in America, they went on to say:

“[I]t would require Americans who own these kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens.“

I fail to understand how violating the rights of citizens can possibly be good for the society made up of those citizens. Besides which, anyone thinking people would be better off disarmed need look no further than Paris to see how much good France’s stringent anti-gun laws were “good for their citizens.” Heck, the editor of that magazine whose offices were assaulted had his bodyguard with him but the bodyguard was disarmed for the good of his fellow citizens.

Backers of confiscation proposals are the first to decry any suggestion to treat Muslims differently based on who they are but have no problem at all treating gun owners differently based on who they are. And not just in a minor way, but to essentially deny a constitutionally-protected right completely.

And this is why I refer to the anti-gunners as bigots. They have singled out a group of people for discrimination based on who they are instead of what they have done.

“We shouldn’t paint all Muslims as terrorists just because a few are.” But it’s okay to assume that each and every gun owner is a mass murderer just awaiting his turn.

At least now those who claim that confiscation has not been the plan all along can no longer deny it.

There is no logic or reason among anti-gunners. They continue to believe that “The best defense is .. no defense.”

In response to this last statement, that leftists believe in no defense, one critic asked: “Are you saying that people would still be being shot if there were no guns?”

I answered:

No, of course not. I’m saying that people would still be getting shot if guns were prohibited.

• I’m saying that any country that cannot keep millions of people and hundreds of tons of illicit drugs from illegally entering the country cannot possibly prevent the entry of illegal guns.
• I’m saying that a complete prohibition is unenforceable.
• I’m saying that “if there were no guns” is fantasy.
• I’m saying that even if every law-abiding citizen willingly turned in his/her guns, the professional criminals would not.
• I’m saying the odds that each and every citizen would willingly turn in his/her guns is extremely low.
• I’m saying that a ban on firearms and confiscation thereof would necessarily destroy what little is left of the Bill Of Rights.
• I’m saying that taking away “everyone’s” guns will just embolden the strong to prey on the weak. Crime would skyrocket.
• I’m saying that taking away “everyone’s” guns would lead to a civilization where the most violent and ruthless would tyrannize their neighbors.
• I’m saying that people are obsessed with “gun violence” instead of violence. They ignore root causes and pick on the tools of the violent.
• I’m saying that violence will not go away just because you remove one tool of the violent.
• I’m saying that in disarming everyone, you remove the ability of the lame and the frail, the weak to defend themselves against the strong.
• I’m saying that, demonstrably, gun control does more harm than good.
• I’m saying that those espousing gun prohibitions and confiscation clearly have not thought the idea through.
• I’m saying that the problem is not that “guns are too easy to get”. Guns were far easier to get before 1968 when you could buy guns at the hardware store or Western Auto.
• I’m saying that the great vast majority of guns will never be used in crime, but certain people seem to have a phobia where guns are concerned.
• I’m saying that my rights should not be violated to assuage someone’s phobia.
• I’m saying that there’s a sound historical basis for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms being specifically protected in the Constitution.
• I’m saying that in the 20th century, more people were killed killed by their own governments than by all the wars, criminals and terrorists combined and that governments all over the world want a monopoly on power ostensibly to protect their citizens but actually to protect themselves.
• I’m saying that gun prohibitions are a necessary precursor to genocide.
• I’m saying that “gun control” is not about guns, it’s about control.

But I’m definitely not saying “that people would still be being shot if there were no guns”. That would be just silly.

Once the world realized that the San Bernardino terrorists were Muslim, the question was: did she radicalize him or did he radicalize her? More recently, we were told that both shooters had been radicalized for quite some time. Now we learn that both were “radicalized” when they met and married. The problem is, neither of these Muslims was radical. They were simply devout.

Would we call a Christian who followed the teachings of Jesus Christ and emulated his behavior a “radical” Christian? If someone loved his neighbors as himself, were charitable, loving, accepting of others and forgiving, turning the other cheek if someone assaults him over his beliefs, is that person a “radical” Christian? Hardly. We would likely call him or her a good Christian, a devout Christian, a Christian who walked the walk, not just talked the talk.

Then why do we brand Muslims who follow the teachings of and emulate the behavior of their spiritual leader “radicals”? Are they not simply devout?

The most important duty of any Muslim, after belief itself, is jihad — struggle. Against what is this struggle you ask? Infidels. Against any and every non-Muslim.

The duty of jihad exists until there is a world-wide caliphate, that is, until Islam dominates all. Either everyone must be Muslim or be living under the domination of Islam. So, every Muslim who follows the teachings of the prophet is engaged in jihad in one way or another.

“Jihad” does not mean, as many believe, “war”. Jihad is struggle, a struggle to advance Islam, to achieve a world-wide caliphate. Islam comes before family, before anything else. It is the most important duty of a Muslim. To not wage jihad is to be an apostate. This is the essence of Islam. This is what the Koran teaches. No fewer than 120 verses in the Koran exhort believers to jihad.

Some Muslims wage a scorched earth type of jihad, as does ISIS, as did the San Bernardino shooters, as did the Paris attackers.

Another way to overcome the infidels is to infiltrate an area and peaceably live among them, gathering strength until Muslims are numerous enough to exert force and dominate. Recent history seems to show that when Muslims reach 6-7% of a given population, they start agitating for Sharia and other “rights”. The vast majority of ordinary Muslims want the same thing Muslim terrorists want. They’re just going about getting it another way.

They are every bit as much a threat as is ISIS, perhaps more so because they disguise their true goals and we dismiss them as non-threatening because they appear to be non-violent. And we let them into our countries.

To say that most Muslims within the US are not “terrorists” or “radical” is to miss the point. The more important question is, do they share the terrorists’ goals? What percentage of any Muslim population wants to institute Sharia law? Which of them want a world-wide caliphate? The majority of Muslims do want these things, the same as ISIS and murderous (“radical”) Muslims. To be Muslim is to want Sharia and a world-wide caliphate. After all, it is a commandment from Allah.

The female San Bernardino shooter had pledged her allegiance to the leader of ISIS, “whose goals she shared“, the news media tell us. What they don’t tell us is that most Muslims share these goals. They may not be using the same methods as ISIS, but they share their goals.

Muslims may not take as friends any person who is an infidel, not even a family member. Islam comes first in a Muslim’s life, as commanded by Muhammad. “What of all the peaceful Muslims?”, you ask.

Muhammad also taught deception in the furtherance of Islam. If, as a Muslim, you fear persecution, you may claim that you are not Muslim as long as, in your heart, you remain a believer. You can even claim to be a Christian, attending Christian worship services as long as you are a true believer. Muslims can pledge allegiance to the American flag, take oaths of office swearing to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution. When finally it is safe to reveal their true faith, then they will do so.

Muhammad also taught that it is permissible, when in a position of weakness, to make treaties with the infidels to gain time and their trust and while they have their guard down, regroup and grow stronger. When the treaty no longer serves Islam’s purposes, break the treaty and once again use force to assert Islam’s goals. This is another aspect of Islam’s inherent deception.

Some people will tell you that Muslim deception, “taqiyya”, is limited to cases of religious persecution. This is further deception designed to hide their deception. To be deceptive in the furtherance of Islam is accepted, even encouraged.

Allah himself is often described in the Koran as the “best deceiver” or “schemer”. To be deceptive is to emulate God Himself.

The bottom line us that the nice, peaceful, cooperative Muslim that you know may actually be a nice, peaceful, cooperative Muslim or he might actually be hiding his true allegiance, the better to infiltrate the structures he considers enemies — jihad by other than violent means.

But you don’t need to take my word for it, or that of Muslims. Look at what they do. Look at history. Get to know the Koran. Learn about the life of Muhammad, read his words, study what he did. Decide for yourself whether Muslims can be trusted.

Personally, I’m coming around to the belief that Islam is not a religion at all. It is a murderous cult in a religious guise that was created by a conquering warlord during the Dark Ages.

If a right-wing militia in the USA, The Holy Warriors, invoked God’s name each time they attacked, if they said they were just following His orders in striking at the secular government, if they prayed regularly, would we call them a religion? Heck, their leader, the High Poobah, has God’s ear and talks to God regularly. He told us so. Must be a religion. Right?

What, really, makes Islam a religion? If it is a religion, it is not just a religion or even primarily a religion.

In addition to religious aspects Islam has military, legal, economic, political and social components. It’s a totalitarian system of government. Mix in some praying and invoking of God’s name and you have a religion? I don’t think so. It is more like a cult.

If Islam is a religion, it is not a peaceful one as Muslims would have you believe. Yes, they seek peace, the peace of a world-wide caliphate. And some of them are willing to kill those who stand in the way of achieving this goal. But all share that goal. It is part of what it means to be Muslim.

And, how “peaceful”, really, can a religion be if its adherents will kill someone for merely penning a drawing of their spiritual leader?

So, how “radicalized” a Muslim may appear outwardly doesn’t matter. What counts is where their sympathies lie.

When the fighting starts, on whose side will that nice, peaceful, non-terrorist, non-radical Muslim family next door be? Do you seriously believe that they will stand against their Muslim brethren and defend their infidel neighbors (in defiance of the Prophet’s commandments)? We have seen what happens as ISIS advances into areas where Muslims and infidels have been living “in peace”. The peaceful Muslims are quick to point out their Christian or infidel neighbors to ISIS troops.

You don’t have to be a “radical”, murderous Muslim to be Bad For America. Sure, there are Muslims who will casually lop off someone’s head to instill fear in others, or engage in mass shootings, but we err in ignoring the ostensibly peaceful Muslims, for they are the infiltrators.

Europe is lost. I don’t think they can stop a Muslim takeover. England may be as well. But it’s not too late for America. We just have to stop importing people who want to impose a totalitarian regime from the Dark Ages.

Donald Trump has caught flack aplenty for saying that we should not allow Muslims into the USA. Many have opined that to prevent people from entering on the basis of religion would be unconstitutional. Nonsense. President Trump could simply issue an executive order barring Muslims. That is, use the Obama method to get around that dusty old Constitution.

Personally, I think the federal government should issue a ruling that Islam is not a religion at all but a cult. Declare Islam a terrorist organization.

No country should be willing to take in those whose cultures are anathema to their own. Not in the name of tolerance, not in the name of multiculturalism. Certainly there is no obligation to host people who wish you ill. To aid your enemy is folly. And make no mistake: Islam is the enemy of every other religion, of every other culture.

It is national suicide to invite Muslims into a non-Muslim country. But religion is not the issue; culture is.

Culture is everything. People coming from countries where Islam predominates are more likely than other immigrants to have cultural values that are destructive to America. I’m a very tolerant person, but we should not tolerate everything. We should not be allowing in people who believe that stoning is the appropriate punishment for a woman who commits adultery. We should not accept people whose culture endorses “honor killing”.

America is simply committing national suicide by importing defective immigrants who do not share American values and have nothing positive to offer. We should not be importing misogynists who want to impose a 7th century theocracy. Such are not compatible with American values.

We err when we say that ISIS is a “radical” element of Islam or that terrorists are “radicalized”. No, they aren’t radicalized, they are the true believers. They are the ones actually following Muhammed’s instructions, emulating his actions when he lived: conquer and subjugate.

There are no “radical” Muslims. There are just Muslims, most of whom want Islam to rule the world. “Peaceful” Muslims are either apostate or waging jihad by other means. A world-wide caliphate is the goal. We trust them at our peril.