MOVE OVER, ROMAN EMPIRE

Can America withstand the unrelenting onslaught--against, all things, Americana--that began taking SERIOUS root in this country, from the birth of the HIPPIE era, forward? Though there had been a brief resistance AGAINST the trend toward national devastation during the Nixon years; the calamity of Watergate regenerated those who would, whether wittingly or unwittingly, facilitate an eventual, internal, destruction of America. Though, during the impotent era of Jimmy Carter, that cultural contamination raged; it would be kept in check during the days of Ronald Reagan. Then, came the ignominy that was the election of Bill Clinton. Thereafter--thanks to the Left-Bent of media AND the entertainment industry--the, virtual, unthreading of the American flag became a fashionable exercise. Those banes of the HIPPIE era--that had, under Clinton, been reinvigorated--under Barack Obama became refined, and quite possibly, eternalized.

The "UNITED STATES" has DANGEROUSLY reduced FROM a united nation, into a divided one. VICIOUSLY squabbling factions of, this or that, ethnic group--or of gender or of the...genders RECLASSIFIED--are, ALL, competing and contending AGAINST the others. And; undoubtedly, this is BOUND to culminate into the destruction of a, previously, GREAT nation. The predictable, inevitable, portending outcome...requires no MASTERMIND to recognize. But, however, it DOES require a NARROWMIND to...NOT heed.        

THE MYOPIC LEFT-BENT

The political brinksmanship Left-Bent politicians are obsessed to practice is in disregard of every external threat...against the United States. Their solitary focus is in doing absolute destruction to...the presidency of Donald Trump. It is entirely perplexing; completely incomprehensible that so many of the, otherwise, well educated of that Democrat Party can be, unfortunately, so extremely ill-reasoning. They labor, exhaustively--for motives, inexplicably, bizarre--to render this president impotent before the entire world. Their endless caterwauling; their atrocious accusations and...toddler-type temper tantrums--which they will fabricate from irrelevant minutiae--would seem far more expected coming from the mouths of that coldblooded thug: Vladimir Putin or, that North Korean, lunatic, dictator: Kim Jong-un, than from American law makers of our federal government. Democrats are, unashamedly, resolved to be saboteurs to Trump's presidency, by whatever methods, accessible; no matter if the effect does sabotage to, the United States. And if you doubt that, in the least, take note of the incendiary, foul, rhetoric blast-mouthing from...Congresswoman Maxine Waters; or the cunning deception-mastery of Senator Chuck Schumer; or the, defacto, traitorous blathering of Congressman Keith Ellison; or the hyperbolic and deceit-wizardry constantly emanating from the mouth of Congressman Adam Schiff; or the stiff-neck persistence to do obstruction, on the part of Congressman John Lewis. Your labors would be in vain, if you sought to find rhetoric as blisteringly hateful from any of the aforementioned, targeted toward a foreign enemy of America, that was match-worthy to any of that these Left-Bent gasconades, on daily basis, fling ruthlessly at this American president. And so; the complexity of it all presents the question: "WHOSE SIDE, ARE THEY ON"?

Column Right: X X X = EXTRACT, EXPEL, EXILE

Column Right: X X X = EXTRACT, EXPEL, EXILE: There's an old English adage: "Desperate cures must be to desperate ills applied." For what seems ages America has, strictly a...

INCOMPATIBILITY ?

The United States--though, predominantly Christian--is a nation that spans the religious spectrum; even, some Americans are faithless or, atheistic. In America,unlike many other nations,the rights of women are equal to those of men. Included in the population are homosexuals; among them are transsexuals, transvestites; their civil rights are the equivalent of all other Americans. Recently, same-sex-marriage became legalized. Many Americans are lovers of dogs; dogs are common in near all areas of American society. With these, and a myriad of other realities, all being concomitant to America, it does seem incomprehensible that--except those who are, already, patriotic American citizens--a practicing or devout Muslim, who is a current citizen of a Muslim nation, could find America the least appealing. Why would a devout Muslim, of a Muslim nation, extend to extremes to migrate into American society, where a multitude of indications appear conclusive that, the American's way of living, their values--their habits and practices--seem not embraceable to a Muslim, dedicated to the tenets of Islam?

ATHEISM IS..."IGNORANCE"

The atheist is, a fool--and particularly, the "intellectual atheist"; they come to atheism by way of their "exceptional intelligence"--and if you doubt that, just ask them. Aside from that "brilliance of intellect", they can offer "no reference"; "no blatant or obvious proof" to which they can point, that disproves the existence of, God Almighty. Now, on the other hand, proof of God is the universe and all that is contained within it; grasping that conclusion requires no mastermind. The haughty intellectual atheist believes all that is, has "no origin"--while the believer considers all that is, and concludes, God exists. Put plainly: "God is", because "nothing else...makes sense". The atheist is--whether highly intellectual or, imbecilic--a "FOOL" (Psalms 14-1 & 53-1).

X X X = EXTRACT, EXPEL, EXILE

There's an old English adage: "Desperate cures must be to desperate ills applied." For what seems ages America has, strictly and obligatorily, charged society with the responsibility of reforming, rehabilitating, or otherwise correcting violent, felonious, offenders--to include even those who have been, recidivist violent felons. People have been made to believe that the concept of incarceration, as "punishment", is somehow "inhumane". Society has become persuaded that dangerous, recidivist, felons had gone wayward owing to some circumstance of societal lack of compassion, negligence, or merciless disregard; which seems to fault the law abiding, for the felonious violent crimes committed by, lawbreakers. The nation has nearly two million incarcerated in the federal prison system, reportedly, at an annual cost to taxpayers of from $20,000 to $28,000, per inmate.

In Chicago, in 1924, two homosexuals in their twenties committed the "thrill-kill" murder of 14-year-old Robert Franks to demonstrate their intellectual superiority in being able to commit the "perfect crime". It was, then, called the "crime of the century". Ten years later(1934), yet another "crime of the century" would eclipse the Franks homicide; the toddler child of American aviator Charles Lindberg was kidnapped and murdered by Bruno Hauptman. Those two murders would be major topics in crime for more than thirty years;if committed today, within weeks if not days, both would have vanished from public recollection. Since the mid-1960's on, America has been increasingly compelled to experience horrors in the ways of murder by terror,senseless murder committed by serial killers, murderers who kill and cannibalize; killers who murder, then dismember their victims,scattering body parts across large areas. Society has reduced to becoming familiarized with the utter madness of contract-killing, thrill-killing, murder via so called: "gang-banging", multiple murders committed by cults; murders committed in mass in public schools, movie complexes, and a myriad of other diverse outrages. Heinous acts of murder now occur so frequently, that--whereas in times-past, Americans might have been aghast into disbelief--today, many such homicides seem so routine, they may not even reach the level of being considered national news. The wickedness in which the slaughter of human beings occur today, becomes forgotten, because of those worse heinous committed, tomorrow; and, so on.

I have believed, since the 1970's,that America needs to undertake a system of..."Criminal Exile". Recidivist, violent, felons--murderers sentenced to life, those currently on death row--ought to be given an option: they could continue on death row until executed; they could continue serving their life sentence: or, they could take the option of being exiled. Once banished, there could be "no appeal" thereafter; it would be "permanent". Exile could be imposed by the courts either at sentencing, or even afterward the convicted could, through the court, opt for exile. Those of society who oppose capital punishment, it would seem, ought to find banishment an acceptable alloy. In time--given the slaughter madness practiced by terrorist groups across the globe, against free societies--it would be more than reasonable if Western Democracies united in a common practice of permanently banishing uncivilized killers to a consolidated location on the planet, where there they would be compelled to coexist with those of their own ilk.

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.

IRRESPONSIBLE PARENTING, Part III

Any woman subjecting to becoming impregnated by a man--"she knows before hand", to be a deadbeat dad who has, unashamedly, fathered multiple children by multiple women and, has been negligent regarding all his responsibilities as a father--"extremely debases herself". She also risks that her child could suffer encumbrances of having to grow up without the advantages of a responsible father; and unless she is of financial means, there is, too, the likelihood that her thoughtlessness could result in the responsibilities for financial support of that child being dumped onto the shoulders of others (society) who bore, no responsibility or involvement in the conception of, that child. The number of fathers who commit this woeful evil, against their own children, seems infinite and society seems to have become accustom to this callous practice with a disposition of, near tolerance of it. There are men having the inglorious reputation of fathering beyond a score of children and, by multiple women. A certain level of the most grotesque character is prerequisite, on the part of men who can lie down at night with a full stomach and sleep in blissful oblivion, entirely unconcerned about the welfare of children "they" caused to be born and then, had coldbloodedly abandoned. Trifling, negligent men who try evading their "natural and moral" obligation to dutifully apply themselves to all aspects of responsible fatherhood are heartless hindrances to a well-comported society. They are impediment nuisances, burdensome drags, unprincipled and ignominious parasites, who turn their backs on reponsibilities to children "they" caused to be born. They take as weakness, and then exploit, the goodwill of others (society) who take up the slack to support "their" children. If an able-bodied man were to present himself at your doorstep, with his multiple offsring at his side (each of which born to a different mother) and said to you that he needed to get on with his life; that "his" children impeded that need and therefore, he was dumping into "your" lap, all of "his" parental responsibilities; how, would you respond? Father-creatures or, deadbeat dads,whose children are supported by public largess are doing, in tantamount, precisely that.

IRRESPONSIBLE PARENTING, Part II

The young Austrailian baseball athlete who was recently shot dead, "on a whim", by one of a trio of teen-aged monsters, had been victimized by both the three thugs and, their irresponsible parents. However; thus far, the uncivilized killing-trio only, will be held accountable for this utterly monstrous slaughter and not, as well, their apparently dangerously derelict parents. "Foolishness," it reads in Proverbs (22-15), "is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from them". Parents who raise their kids, deliberately, neglectful--not, dutifully, addressing socially unacceptable conduct that, if not corrected can, as the child matures, manifest in criminal ways, detrimental to the innocent public--are contributory to, responsible and "absolutely" blameworthy for, whatever feloniously violent acts their undisciplined offspring may come to commit against society. Quite often derelict parents, raising undisciplined children, explain their actions saying, kids have only one time to be a child and, because they so love them, they refuse to spoil their childhood by not allowing that they be free to to grow up without being constantly corrected, admonished or told, no. That kind of thinking is a seed that develops rotten character and, is threatening to peaceful society. As I get along, I will reference many examples of society having suffered, destructively, as a result of woefully irresponsible and even, stupid, parenting.

BLACK-LEADER-CLIQUE

There seems a presumption (on the part of a good many black Americans, apparently) that a "clique-cadre" of, self-appointed, blacks are somehow ordained to act and speak(and otherwise represent)on behalf of all black America. That concept ought to be extremely offensive to black people; definitely it acutely offends, "this black man". Here's a bright idea: Why shouldn't blacks do their own thinking and represent themselves,as individuals? Why must all blacks obediently acquiesce to opinions and pronouncements "assigned them" by that "clique-cadre"? One reason gullible blacks, in near reverence, act in "me-too" manner to those pronouncements and points of view "assigned them" by that "clique-cadre", is due to their morbid fear of being smeared an "uncle-Tom" if, they do not.