Solving America’s Problems Requires Clear Thinking

Yesterday I stumbled across a rather insightful editorial by Bart Hinkle at the Richmond Times.  He demonstrated such clear thinking that I wrote the author a letter, presented here with minor corrections for spelling, punctuation, and grammar:

I found your recent article to be very insightful.  It is a fascinating look at what ails America today. It boils down to dereliction of duty to “support and defend the Constitution” at ALL levels of government.

I concur with you that Congress has failed to do its duty to “support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic,” almost certainly because the loyalty of many Congressman to their party or various idealistic excursions has increasingly eclipsed their loyalty to the proven reality of the Constitution.  Sadly, we see the same thing in the Supreme Court, which should never be the case.  With respect to the points you made in your article, I believe additional factors have come into play, including the increasing fear of being labeled politically incorrect, and the corresponding unwillingness to take necessary and more permanent actions against elected officials who refuse to abide by “the supreme Law of the Land.”

Shortly after retiring from my career as an Air Force officer, I began working to educate people on the dangers facing our nation, particularly from the erosion of the absolute moral base our Founding Fathers cautioned was essential to the long-term health of our nation.  With such a moral base, even an imperfect Constitution and its resulting society would survive, as leaders would retain the same principles, precepts, and moral values held by the framers.  The resolution of unanticipated issues would naturally incline towards the time-tested precepts which have served our nation so well for so long.  Without such a moral base, even a perfect Constitution would eventually fail.  A nation lacking proper morals would be increasingly opposed to Constitutional principles and values, until its leaders began ignoring increasingly larger portions of the Constitution, eventually leaving it behind altogether.

Our Founding Fathers did a miraculous job crafting our Constitution.  It is extremely difficult, however, if not impossible, to create a legal foundation capable of fighting the erosion of society when that society’s elected and appointed leaders, either out of ignorance or willful malice, fail to follow the written legal foundation.

In light of this perspective, I submit to you three additional avenues of failure, along with some proposals for amendments that might be able to stem the flow of our nation’s life-blood, even restore proper function in the presence of decreasing loyalty to the Constitution:

Failure 1:  Education of the people:  Sadly, too many Americans are voting for government officials at all levels not because of what a candidate can do for their country, but because of what a candidate can do for them.  This self-seeking behavior and failure to delay gratification ultimately results in poorer results.  Candidates are rarely able to deliver on their campaign promises.  When a person believes rhetoric promising him or her a better life, and votes for that candidate, they wind up doing little to work hard and secure that life for themselves.  Instead, they wait around for the candidate to make their lives better.  When that fails, they become embittered at the “other guy” their candidate blames as the problem, or they become embittered with the system itself.

The Department of Education and liberal school systems has been largely complicit in this area of demise by lowering and even eliminating the bar in vital areas like civics and history while cluttering the educational landscape with requirements that eclipse a child’s opportunity to obtain a full, well-rounded education suitable for understanding how human society really works.  This is really the root problem of what’s going on in America.  If the people stopped electing those who are undermining our Republic, the problem would largely disappear.  Our Republic would be preserved.  Sadly, many people are no longer capable of correctly assessing the worth of a candidate, or envisioning the long-term effects of electing a candidate.

Possible solutions:  Eliminate the Department of Education and use those funds at the state level to provide for a more graduated pay scale for teachers instead of the current rise and cap pay curves; raise standards required of teachers; ensure those standards reflect the requirements addressed as outlined above.

Failure 2:  Personification of the corporate:  No serious student of the Constitution would ever conclude that our Founding Fathers meant to give business the same access to our government as We the People, much less a 1000% greater influence over Congressional decision-making.  The fallout from this decision has lead to increasingly darker decisions being made by Congress, ones that treat citizens as cattle to be mined for their ability to be skimmed for a fat, corporate/federal profit, instead of the rightful rulers of our once-great nation.

Possible solution:  Check Citizens United with an amendment that declares corporate anthropomorphization to be verboten.  Ensure it reaffirms the Constitution’s focus on We the People under sovereign States as the rightful owners of our own country.

Failure 3:  Senators and Representatives are too similar.  This arose as a result of the 17th Amendment.  Article I, Section 3, which used to read:  “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof…”  The Amendment now reads:  “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof…”  While I understand this was an attempt to solve problems involving legislative corruption and deadlocks, I do not agree it was the best solution.  For all intents and purposes, what we now have are a House and a Senate that look very similar.  Even dividing Congress into two houses makes little sense when the people elect one Representative from their district and two more to represent the State as a whole.  Why not instead simply elect “general Congressmen,” and scrap the two-house system?

Possible solution:  Repeal the 17th Amendment.  The original issue is that “There was a sense that senatorial elections were ‘bought and sold’, changing hands for favors and sums of money rather than because of the competence of the candidate.”  That sounds the same as it is today, so what problem was actually solved?  If none, then that’s strike one against the 17th Amendment.  As far as electoral deadlocks, the solution is simple:  Require states to provide for a tiebreaker, much as we have for the Supreme Court and the Senate.  An example might be, “In case of tie, the Assistant Governor will cast the tie-breaking vote.”  They could also flip a coin, roll die, or spin a wheel.  States could choose whatever method they want, so long as it’s expedient.  To help deter delays in breaking such ties, simply stipulate that if the states fail to provide two Senators, those positions will simply remain unfilled and the State will be underrepresented in Congress, something no State wants to face.  Our Constitution set the precedence for that by requiring percentage votes of “members present” for many things, including very important things, such as treaties and impeachment.

Bart, I thoroughly enjoyed your article and have bookmarked you in the hopes of reading many more to come!

Sincerely…

Here is Bart’s response:

Thank you for the note. You raise some very interesting points.

All the best,
B.

It was my pleasure.  

Is Hillary Planning a Political Assassination?

In 2008, Hillary Clinton let slip a very serious line of thought with respect to the potential political assassination of then Senator Barack Obama:
political assassination
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton delivers remarks at the State Department in Washington on the deaths of U.S. embassy staff in Benghazi in this September 12, 2012 file photo. Clinton said December 19, 2012, she accepted the findings of an independent panel that faulted the State Department over the deadly September attack. REUTERS/Gary Cameron/Files (UNITED STATES – Tags: POLITICS CIVIL UNREST)

“My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right?  We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don’t understand it.” – Hillary R. Clinton.  (May 23, 2008).  Argus Leader editorial board interview.

Did Hillary really mention the possibility of Senator Obama being assassinated as was Senator Robert Kennedy in 1968?  It appears so.  Was she really hoping for Obama’s assassination as a means of accessing the top spot in the Democrat primaries?  Well, we know for a fact that Bobby Kennedy’s assassination ended his presidential candidacy:
 
“The assassination of Robert Francis “Bobby” Kennedy, a United States Senator and brother of assassinated President John F. Kennedy, took place shortly after midnight on June 5, 1968, in Los Angeles, California, during the campaign season for the United States Presidential election, 1968.” – Wikipedia. (February 29, 2016).  “The assassination of Robert F. Kennedy
 
If you think we’re making this up, think again.  Here’s the video:

Fast-forward to 2016, and ask yourself, “Who is on Hillery’s hit list now?”
 
As the 2008 article mentions:
“It’s all about her path to the nomination. A possible assassination of Senator Obama. Yep. This is what it’s come down to.” – Bob Cesca.  (May 31, 2008; updated May 25, 2011).  Worst Person in the World.  Huffington Post.
 
More recently, examination of the e-mails she illegally kept on her server appear to indicate she discussed murder for hire aka assassination hits against more than a half a dozen individuals who have historically proven to be the greatest thorn in her side with respect to her political career, including Stew Webb and his attorney, Thomas Heneghan, and Mary Schneider.
Is it Bernie Sanders? Is it Donald Trump?” Perhaps she’s thinking about taking them both out at once, “somehow,” and blaming it on Islamic political assassinationactivity. Better yet, figuring out a way to get some Muslim to push the button.  Perhaps she’s in league with Obama, but almost assuredly she remains fully in league with the Democrat Party.  Obama’s draconian and blatantly un-Constitutional “executive orders” that give him near totalitarian authority over every aspect of American business, economic, commerce, law enforcement, and military operations in times of “national crisis” appears to pave the way for a 2016 takeover of the entire federal government, thereby establishing a permanent situation of “national crisis” that amounts to a de-facto dictatorship with him at the top.  Could an assassination build the case for Obama seizing such control?
 
Hey, folks – this is NOT anywhere close to being out of the realm of possibility:
 
1. Political assassinations have been happening since Ug ran against Og for Oog and the biggest cave around, beating Og with his club to secure the election with Oog at his side.
 
2. Four U.S. Presidents have been assassinated in our nation’s history; two in the 19th Century, and two in the 20th Century.
 
3. A whopping fourteen members of Congress (both House and Senate) have been assassinated while in office, and nine others suffered serious injuries during assassination attempts.
 
4. As for the Clintons, just Google “Hillary Clinton death trail” or “Clinton body count” to see various lists, including one with more than 90 such political assassination“persons who have died in suspicious circumstances who
had connection to the Clintons or the Clinton’s dealings. The length and breadth of this list is disconcerting.  It is beyond credibility that very many of these cases are coincidences.”
 
So, the bottom line question of the day is: “Is Hillary Clinton and/or the Clinton regime and/or the Democrat Party and/or any other regimes that back any of the above planning to assassinate Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump this summer?”
Hmm…
 
Given some forty years of accumulated statistics surrounding the Clintons, along with her bizarre comments during her 2008 campaign, I think at least some of these events are entirely possible, particularly when you compare the Clinton’s very long list of unacceptable behavior to the minimal and even nonexistent lists of other members of Congress and even U.S. Presidents.

Susan Rice as a Classic Example of Liberalism as a Delusional Disorder

Liberalism requires its own distinct sub-class under Delusional Disorders
 
This is how delusions are described in the DSM-5 (Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorders), interspersed with my comments:DSM
 
“Delusions are fixed beliefs that are not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence. Their content may include a variety of themes (e.g. persecutory, referential, somatic, religious, grandiose).[…]”
 
For at least two and a half years, beginning with Benghazi, but possibly going back much further, Susan Rice has held the belief that whatever her party/administration feeds her must be the truth. Despite the overwhelming abundance of evidence to the contrary, she has been unwilling to change her beliefs.
 
Thus, the first two criteria have been met: “fixed beliefs” and “not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence.”
 
“Delusions are deemed bizarre if they are clearly implausible and not understandable to same-culture peers and do not derive from ordinary life experiences. […]”
 
Her delusions are not necessarily bizarre, as she is surrounded by a large group of people known as “liberals” who hold similar beliefs. While this third criteria has not been met, it raises the issue that the delusion is reinforced by means of group psychosis. This opens the door to classifying the entire liberal movement as part of the delusional problem, and therefore part of the disease.
 
“The distinction between a delusion and a strongly held idea is sometimes difficult to make and depends in part on the degree of conviction with which the belief is held despite clear or reasonable contradictory evidence regarding its veracity.”
 
When Susan Rise is willing to stand in front of an entire nation, risking ridicule and her reputation and spout out junk that every one of the millions of boots that have been on the ground know to be junk, her degree of conviction has to be very strong.
 
Either that, or she believes two-thirds of Americans are delusional, and I’m sorry, but that’s not going to hold up under scrutiny, either.
Her only alibi against delusion is that she knew she’d been lying through her teeth to the American public all along.  The DSM has a diagnosis for that aberrant and abhorrent behavior, as well:  “pathological liar.”