A FOOLISH NOTION

If the GOP gentry seriously want Jeb Bush to become president, they're beguiling themselves. While he'd be an enormous improvement over the incumbent, that alone says little; most any Republican would be. Two terms of Obama's "left-bent" tumult requires far more of a conservative remedy than will be found in Jeb Bush. Also, cultivating in the minds of voters acceptance of high elected offices becoming routinely rotated within certain families goes counter-wise to our founding concepts. The dynastic Kennedy permeation ought to have taught that lesson. Also, both Bush presidents allowed political opponents --including "left-bent" media--to endlessly slander them with despicably outrageous accusations, without response. Congressman Barney Frank (who once accused G.W. of plotting genocide: "ethnic cleansing by hurricane") once said (September, 2010): "if you blame or accuse someone over and over of something bad and the accusation is never responded to, the accusation becomes believed". Against the Bush presidents, Frank--and his "left-bent" cohorts in government and media--were committed, prolific, practitioners of that doctrine. Jeb Bush would be just as susceptible to likewise attack--as had been his brother and dad--and for the same reason: not responding, believing it beneath the office of president to defend themselves. Regarding President G.W. Bush, he was not our greatest president--but hardly had he been our worst; nothing justifies the cascade of hatred dealt him by the "left-bent". Unfortunately, his choice to not respond, was contributory to the unfairness that victimized him. The GOP nominating Jeb Bush would be terribly bad strategy.

Column Right: A BAD INFLUENCE

Column Right: A BAD INFLUENCE: America has become too celebrity-obsessed. That obsession is reflecting in ways, detrimentally, out-of-whack with what the nation was founde...

A BAD INFLUENCE

America has become too celebrity-obsessed. That obsession is reflecting in ways, detrimentally, out-of-whack with what the nation was founded on; was intended and expected to, become. The entertainment industry has so bedazzled much of the nation, in an influential way it might near be considered a branch of government. The most ill-informed of celebrities are--as a matter of routine--given platforms from which they, publicly, make incredibly ill-reasoned, narrow-minded, and stupid pronouncements. Owing to the broad influence they command, because of popularity, their remarks--no matter how ignorant--are enthusiastically given unquestioned credence by their most ardent, fanatic-like, devotees. This becomes, extraordinarily, dangerous to a society, whose citizens have constitutionally guaranteed them, the right to vote. To a great degree, this explains how it so happens we find many bizarre, nondescript, characters holding local, state, and federal elected offices. It too explains how habits and practices, decades ago thought too outrageous for even consideration, are now commonplace.

THE TRUE AND PHONY ATHEIST

Political pundit George Will is obviously a well-educated intellectual, as was the late Christopher Hitchens; both, able to reason on levels reflective of their education and intellect. Both men made their atheism, publicly, known. Education and intellect, however, do not indemnify from wrong reasoning. In Hitchens' case, he acknowledged it a possibility that God exists; but atheism leaves "no room" for that possibility. Admitting there can be "any chance" that God exists, is to blow the doors off atheistic convictions. For that reason, Hitchens was an enigma. You can't play it from both sides: claiming to be atheist, while acknowledging it possible that God, is. Reckon how many atheists will declare that, if lucid, their dying words will be: "there is no God"? Hitchens came quite close to making that declaration. Even after having acknowledged that God might exist, nonetheless, coming within weeks of the end, Hitchens made clear that, if ever he began to speak of his conversion from atheism, he would not be speaking in his, sane mind; rather, it would be "lunatic" ravings caused by his terminal illness. If, regarding God Almighty, your position is one of ambiguity, it might be more wise to claim agnosticism, rather than declaring atheism. Since George Will made public his atheism, it would be interesting to know whether he, too, concedes there can be "any possibility" that, God exists. I maintain that, no matter how lofty the education, or however haughty the intellect, an atheist...true or phony is, "a fool".

THE CONSTITUTION / THE PRESS

Freedom of opinion is, and has always been, backed-up by law in America since the founding of our republic. That freedom had been placed into state constitutions and, most particularly, into the federal Constitution. Freedom of speech, a free press--and the right of peaceable assembly--are enunciated distinctly in the Constitution. The first ten amendments, especially, addressed personal liberties; it denied the Congress from enacting any law that did abridgment of speech freedom, of press freedom, and the public's right to petition the government through peaceful assembly. The Constitutionally guaranteed right enjoyed by America's press corps was granted in order that a free people could be kept more fully informed by a free press that would, in the aggregate, inform without bias. When the main-media-aggregation combines in connivance to slant news--so as, to disadvantage that free-flow public reception of information--they injure and undermine the spirit of that constitutional protection; thus they, thereby, are practicing defacto censorship by methods of slant, omission, and deception. The American people become inexcusably hindered in making wise determinations, in analyzing competently--such as,in evaluating the merits and qualifications of candidates seeking political office. The people become impeded, or obstructed, in their need to be kept abreast to, and apprised of, the facts of current events. The term: "journalistic malpractice", needs to be more seriously taken by both the public and, members of the "free press".

IRRESPONSIBLE PARENTING

It's seldom that individuals who are upright, self-respecting, and well-mannered adults...became so, after having been raised in disorderly, unkempt, households...under vulgar, violent, and otherwise irresponsible parents. The odds are that, character-wise, people reflect their upbringing. It's uncommon that properly disciplined and well-raised children become undisciplined and ill-mannered adults. So; it makes sense that communities of responsible parents, who raise well-disciplined kids, would be pleasant places to live; just as...communities of irresponsible parents who are raising undisciplined brat-delinquents, would be unpleasant places to reside. It just seems--to me, at least--a commonsense conclusion that an orderly society COMPELS there be RESPONSIBLE PARENTING.

A "FACT" IN..."DEMOCRAT" HISTORY

Senator Stephen A. Douglas, "Democrat" Illinois,it might be said, was a man of conflicting convictions. He had, at first, given his endorsement to the 1857 "Dred Scott Decision"; but then, during his campaign for the Senate the following year, he had taken the position that the effect of the Act could be negated by popular sovereignty. He had opposed President Buchanan's attempt to effectuate onto Kansas a federal..."slave code", via a blatant injustice monstrosity, called the "Lecompton Constitution". But then, he also had said this: "I hold that the signers of the Declaration of Independence had no reference to Negroes at all when they declared that all men were created equal. They did not mean Negroes, nor savage Indians,nor Feejee Islanders, nor any other barbarous race. They were speaking of white men. They alluded to men of European birth and European descent--to white men, and to none others,when they declared that doctrine. So spoke Senator Stephen A. Douglas, "DEMOCRAT", Illinois, October 15, 1858.

JUST A BIT OF, DISMAL, RECOLLECTION

September 18, 1850, the (compromise) "Fugitive Slave Act" became law. It allowed that a "Special Federal Commissioner" could order assistance from "any bystander" in the apprehending of a runaway slave. The act also held that any citizen rendering assistance to a fugitive Negro would be subject to a fine of $1,000, a 6-month jail sentence, and $1,000 in damages, per fugitive slave. Now...this followed, exactly, two days later (September 20, 1850): "Be it enacted....That from and after January 1, 1851, it shall not be lawful to bring into the District of Columbia any slave whatever, for the purpose of being sold, or for the purpose of being placed in depot, to be subsequently transferred to any other State or place to be sold as merchandise. And if any slave shall be brought into the said District by its owner, or by the authority or consent of its owner, contrary to the provisions of this act, such slave shall thereupon become liberated and free."

NEGRO SOLDIERS SNAP TO ATTENTION

From the start of the Civil War, abolitionists of the North had enthusiastically urged President Lincoln to accept Negroes into the military forces of the Federal Government. One of Lincoln's main concerns had been that doing so might trigger the loss of border States, loyal to the Union, should they see such a move as a Republican attempt to gain equality for the black man. And so, throughout 1861 Lincoln resisted the inclination. He had, as President, the "legal discretion" to employ Negroes by the military; that became the ground upon which Negro troops could be activated. As, during that first year, it became apparent the war would not be short term, Lincoln acquiesced. "Legitimate" acceptance of Negroes, as soldiers into Union Forces, first, became underway in Louisiana (September 26, 1862). "The First Louisiana Native Guards" were mustered into service under General Benjamin Franklin Butler ("Spoons", they use to call him, for having seized a 38-piece set of silverware in New Orleans from a woman who tried crossing Union lines).

THE "CREEPING" ROT

"I therefore believe", the American Creed concludes,"it is my duty to love my country; to support its Constitution; to obey its laws; to respect its flag; and to defend it against all enemies". That "Creed", of course, is no law; merely, just a statement of, or belief in, a principle. Americans are at liberty to, publically--even, on enemy soil--express despicable tirades of condemnation against their own nation. Many seem acutely fond of the practice, even if they do it for no reason other than, the inimical pleasure they derive out of being, infuriating. It does seem that, during the era of "hippie", it became among many fancy to, publically foul-mouth America, and many aspects of what might be considered traditional, Americana. Even so, Americans have the Constitutional grant to despise and to transgress that..."Creed" and, to hate this very nation they dare not vacate. As to that..."flag", legally, people may in public either burn or do otherwise desecration to it. Instead of a nation, how would a household fare, if some of its members made sport of doing disesteem to the family name; if they defaced walls of the home, and, routinely cursed household traditions and practices--all this, while flat-out refusing, emphatically, to pack grip and...get out?

ZONED-OUT

There is an alarming level of enthusiastic ignorance on the part of too many young Americans. This applies even among college graduates. When asked to name America's first president, Abraham Lincoln or even,Franklin Roosevelt, might be the shocking response. What could explain a college graduate believing New Mexico to be a foreign nation? How is it possible that a high school, or college, graduate would be unable to answer exactly on the number of States there are in the Union? These are not exaggerated examples; this is reality.