What do the terms ‘arms’, ‘well regulated’, and ‘militia’ mean in the Second Amendment?

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/04/the-second-amendment-and-the-inalienable-right-to-self-defense

David Franklin Hammack, Student of the Constitution, and Essayist Discussing Constitutional Principles

Updated Oct 20 2018

“A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” [Amendment II, Constitution of the United States, as ratified by the several States]

The Constitution as a whole, including the amendments, must be viewed through the lens of the time to be understood. This is not as easy as it might sound, because even if you know the right words, you have to understand the context of the time. The Second Amendment is a real beast, because it has been interpreted by the courts, even the Supreme Court, for the most egregious of political reasons, to distort the meaning. I am not a Supreme Court Justice, nor even an attorney, and it is not my intent to refute Cruikshank, but to offer a fresh historical perspective on the meaning of the Second Amendment

The Militia – What “They” Said…

• James Madison: “The ultimate authority … resides in the people alone. … The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation … forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.” Federalist 46
• James Madison: “A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” 1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789
• Rep. Tenche Coxe of Pennsylvania: “The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American … the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
• Patrick Henry: “Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” 3 Elliot Debates 168-169.
• Patrick Henry: “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.
• Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: “Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” (spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789)
• Thomas Jefferson: “And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms… The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”, letter to William S. Smith, 1787, in S. Padover (Ed.), Jefferson, On Democracy
• Thomas Jefferson: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”, Proposal for a Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)
• George Mason: “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.” (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)
• Richard Henry Lee: “To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…” Richard Henry (LIGHT HORSE HARRY) Lee, writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788)
• Thomas Paine: “The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside… Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them…” I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 (1894)
• Justice Joseph Story: “The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace both from the enormous expenses with which they are attended and the facile means which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers to subvert the government or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers and will generally even if these are successful the first instance enable the people to resist and triumph over them…” Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 3 vols. Boston, 1833.

Well Regulated?

The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.[1]

So, if something is “well regulated”, it is “regular” (a well regulated clock; regular as clockwork).

In the 18th century, a “regular” army meant an army that had standard military equipment. So a “well regulated” army was simply one that was “well equipped” and organized. It does not refer to a professional army. The 17th century folks used the term “standing army” or “regulars” to describe a professional army. Therefore, “a well regulated militia” only means a well equipped militia that was organized and maintained internal discipline. It does not imply the modern meaning of “regulated,” which means controlled or administered by some superior entity. [2] [emphasis added]

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”

1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”

1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”

1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”

1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”

1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulatedAmerican embryo city.”

Finally, in the words of Alexander Hamilton, from The Federalist Papers, #29,

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

From this quote we can deduce two things:

1. If the Founders meant for government to control the militia, they would have used the verb “to discipline”, as in “a well disciplined militia” (an objective Hamilton described as “futile” and “injurious”).
2. As Hamilton observes, well regulated meant the people were responsible for training themselves to arms, as well as supplying and equipping themselves. Though Hamilton thought this onerous, by demanding the Second Amendment, the States devolved this responsibility to the People.

Arms – weapons considered collectively

There is a lot of misunderstanding of this term, even among the gun community. If you just read the 2nd Amendment by itself, it is easily (and often) misinterpreted. If you study the the supporting documents and the ratification debates, it becomes much clearer. Nonetheless, the keys are in the text of the amendment itself. A couple of definitions first to promote understanding…

implements of war, munition, weaponry, weapons system

ammo, ammunition – projectiles to be fired from a gun

armament – weaponry used by military or naval force

bomb – an explosive device fused to explode under specific conditions

Usage – A couple of famous quotes…

1. Niccolò Machiavelli: The main foundations of every state, new states as well as ancient or composite ones, are good laws and good arms. You cannot have good laws without good arms, and where there are good arms, good laws inevitably follow.
2. Adolf Hitler: The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.

Actually, the modern definition still applies, as the Founders were well aware that military science was rapidly evolving, particularly in the field of arms. They specified arms to leave interpretation as broad as possible, but there are caveats. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… [emp. added][Tenche Coxe]

Mr. Coxe was a Congressman from Pennsylvania. Clearly their intent was that citizens be armed with military grade weapons.

It seems pretty clear cut, but in analysis, there are inherent limitations, on both government, and the People. The prefatory clause, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”, is a justification clause, and defines a limit on what type of arms. It does not say, “Because the People need to hunt for food, and slaughter live stock” or “As the People must be secure in their person and home”. Though these are good and sensible reasons, and while they were certainly considerations… It specifies the militia as defined above, so clearly all arms, up to and including military grade weapons.

The operative clause: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Again, note the wording – keep AND bear arms. These two terms are inextricably linked. It inherently limits the arms you may keep, to the arms you can bear. In other words, such arms as an infantryman or “soldier” carries; at the time, a musket or rifle (with bayonet), with sword, and or pistol. Today, common, infantry type weapons include (but are not limited to) pistols, semi-automatic rifles, burst fire rifles, and fully automatic rifles of a caliber used by the individual infantryman.

This specifically excludes crew-served weapons such as heavy machine guns, mortars, artillery, tanks, anti-aircraft guns, missiles (other than man-portable), fighter jets, etc. because a single militiaman cannot bear them by himself. Just as the Federal government can commission privately owned ships, by a Letter of Marque and Reprisal, as ships of war (privateers), the governors of the States can commission officers to establish, and equip a militia unit, with the crew served arms needed to wage war.

What to Conclude?

Having properly defined “militia” as used in the vernacular of the Founders, and establishing the meaning of the phrase “well regulated” as it was used at the time the Second Amendment was written, it seems the “well regulated militia” was meant to be “the whole people”, all citizens, who, at need, could work together, and as effectively as a professional army, with the armament they provide themselves. In order to do that the arms and equipment in their possession, part of their “regulation”, would be arms and equipment equal to that of any army they may face. None of this seems to support the interpretation that the Second Amendment applies only to the National Guard, or a state sponsored, organized militia.

As to what constitutes arms… This analysis must conclude that the government shall not infringe (in any way limit) the right of the citizen to own any weapon they can use effectively by themselves, as individuals, or carry them, as is fit. While the prefatory clause is a justification clause, it is not the only justification found in the supporting documents, but one of several. It was seen as the most important, and justified the broadest possible latitude in the types of arms the People could own. A hunting or slaughter weapon might or might not be effective for personal or home defense. A weapon suitable for home defense can also be used to hunt, and slaughter livestock, but not optimal in armed conflict. A weapon suitable for military use can be used for all of the above. This does not limit one to “military grade” weapons only. Any weapon can be used effectively in combat. It may not be a “first choice” weapon, but it can certainly be used effectively if it is all you have; certainly more effectively than nothing at all.

Even if the Constitution were amended to preclude government access to the militia, this would not affect the Second Amendment. The “militia clause” of the Second Amendment was not the “reason” for the amendment. It simply represented what the Founders saw as the most important of many reasons. Actually, the Second Amendment could be seen as guaranteeing The People the right to form militias, irrespective of government control.

The Second Amendment was founded on this principle, “Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law”; from the Declaration of Right, commonly known as the English Bill of Rights. Notice there is no mention of the militia, but this guarantees the right of the English people to have “arms for their defence”. Explicit with the “right to have”, is the right to use in your defence, therefore to carry with you if you felt you may be threatened.

Since the right to own and carry firearms was already commonly understood, but the British Governors had elected to deprive them, in some very important cases, of the means to equip their militia, the Founders saw this as the most likely abuse of power regarding firearms, since the right to own and carry arms had been undisputed for 100 years. It did not deny the ownership and use of arms for defense, and in fact states that the right to own and carry arms, even for use as a militia, shall not be infringed. Note another difference to the clause from the Declaration of Right… “and as allowed by law” was specifically addressed by, “shall not be infringed”. While the King could make laws regarding ownership and use of arms, Congress could not.

What Does It Mean… Today?

Modern language only vaguely resembles the language of a couple of centuries ago. This is “linguistic drift”. As society changes, so does language. Words take on new meanings, or even express different ideas. The Heller decision was the first SCOTUS decision that actually took a look at the basis of the 2nd Amendment, that actually parsed the arguments of the authors, and the delegates to the ratifying conventions. The Court’s conclusion was inescapable. The only reason the opinion didn’t go any further than it did, was because the question before the court was very narrow.

You see, actually, the words in the Constitution define the concepts at that time. That specific concept was agreed to by all parties to the document. This was a contract agreed to on behalf of the representative’s constituents. While the meaning of the words may change over time, that concept remains the same. The concept, described by what the words meant at that time, is the law.

As language changes, so does society, but, the law does not. That is why it is the duty of Congress to write laws pursuant to the Constitution, and as society grows, and the people, in great enough numbers, feel the Constitution no longer addresses the needs of society, to amend the Constitution. Until that happens, regardless of what the words may mean today as opposed to the time when they were written, those concepts, agreed to by all signatories, shape the law.

The Constitution is a legal document; a land survey plat is a legal document. Both are defining legal constructs. A piece of real estate is defined by boundaries. You will never see a parcel of land defined with a stream or river as a boundary. A stream may run congruent with the boundary, but markers are set to establish the boundary. Over time, a stream may change course. If your boundary is on a stream, when it moves, do you suddenly have less land than you paid for? Of course not, your land still extends to the markers set at the time of the survey. This is why the concepts of the Constitution, not modern definitions of the words, define the law.

Understanding the history of the Second Amendment, if it were written in today’s style, it might be written as…

• The right the people to own and carry arms, even for use as a military comparable militia, shall not be infringed.

Footnotes

[1] Meaning of the phrase

[2] What the Founding Fathers Meant by “Militia”

Footnotes

[1] Meaning of the phrase

Events that led up to Russia annexing the Crimea

Just a reminder of the events that led up to Russia annexing the Crimea. The threat of war in Ukraine was growing. As the unelected government in Kiev declares itself unable to control the rebellion in the country’s east, John Kerry brands Russia a rogue state. The US and the European Union step up sanctions against the Kremlin, accusing it of destabilizing Ukraine. The White House is reported to be set on a new cold war policy with the aim of turning Russia into a “pariah state”.

That might be more explicable if what is going on in eastern Ukraine now were not the mirror image of what took place in Kiev a couple of months ago. Then, it was armed protesters in Maidan Square seizing government buildings and demanding a change of government and constitution. US and European leaders championed the “masked militants” and denounced the elected government for its crackdown, just as they now back the unelected government’s use of force against rebels occupying police stations and town halls in cities such as Slavyansk and Donetsk.

Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate – sent directly to you “America is with you,” Senator John McCain told demonstrators then, standing shoulder to shoulder with the leader of the far-right Svoboda party as the US ambassador haggled with the state department over who would make up the new Ukrainian government.

When the Ukrainian president was replaced by a US-selected administration, in an entirely unconstitutional takeover, politicians such as William Hague brazenly misled parliament about the legality of what had taken place: the imposition of a pro-western government on Russia’s most neuralgic and politically divided neighbor.

Putin bit back, taking a leaf out of the US street-protest playbook – even though, as in Kiev, the protests that spread from Crimea to eastern Ukraine evidently have mass support. But what had been a glorious cry for freedom in Kiev became infiltration and insatiable aggression in Sevastopol and Luhansk.

After Crimeans voted overwhelmingly to join Russia, the bulk of the western media abandoned any hint of even-handed coverage. So Putin is now routinely compared to Hitler, while the role of the fascistic right on the streets and in the new Ukrainian regime has been airbrushed out of most reporting as Putinist propaganda.

So you don’t hear much about the Ukrainian government’s veneration of wartime Nazi collaborators and pogromists, or the arson attacks on the homes and offices of elected communist leaders, or the integration of the extreme Right Sector into the national guard, while the anti-semitism and white supremacism of the government’s ultra-nationalists is assiduously played down, and false identifications of Russian special forces are relayed as fact.

The reality is that, after two decades of eastward Nato expansion, this crisis was triggered by the West’s attempt to pull Ukraine decisively into its orbit and defense structure, via an explicitly anti-Moscow EU association agreement. Its rejection led to the Maidan protests and the installation of an anti-Russian administration – rejected by half the country – that went on to sign the EU and International Monetary Fund agreements regardless.

No Russian government could have acquiesced in such a threat from territory that was at the heart of both Russia and the Soviet Union. Putin’s absorption of Crimea and support for the rebellion in eastern Ukraine is clearly defensive, and the red line was drawn: the east of Ukraine, at least, is not going to be swallowed up by Nato or the EU.

But the dangers are also multiplying. Ukraine has shown itself to be barely a functioning state: the former government was unable to clear Maidan, and the Western-backed regime is “helpless” against the protests in the Soviet-nostalgic industrial east. For all the talk about the paramilitary “green men” (who turn out to be overwhelmingly Ukrainian), the rebellion also has strong social and democratic demands: who would argue against a referendum on autonomy and elected governors?

Meanwhile, the US and its European allies impose sanctions and dictate terms to Russia and its proteges in Kiev, encouraging the military crackdown on protesters after visits from Joe Biden and the CIA director, John Brennan. But by what right is the US involved at all, incorporating under its strategic umbrella a state that has never been a member of Nato, and whose last elected government came to power on a platform of explicit neutrality? It has none, of course – which is why the Ukraine crisis is seen in such a different light across most of the world. There may be few global takers for Putin’s oligarchic conservatism and nationalism, but Russia’s counterweight to US imperial expansion is welcomed, from China to Brazil.

In fact, one outcome of the crisis is likely to be a closer alliance between China and Russia, as the US continues its anti-Chinese “pivot” to Asia. And despite growing violence, the cost in lives of Russia’s arms-length involvement in Ukraine has so far been minimal compared with any significant western intervention you care to think of for decades.

The risk of civil war is nevertheless growing and with it the chances of outside powers being drawn into the conflict. Barack Obama has already sent token forces to eastern Europe and is under pressure, both from Republicans and Nato hawks such as Poland, to send many more. Both US and British troops are due to take part in Nato military exercises in Ukraine this summer.

The US and EU have already overplayed their hand in Ukraine. Neither Russia nor the western powers may want to intervene directly, and the Ukrainian prime minister’s conjuring up of a third world war presumably isn’t authorized by his Washington sponsors. But a century after 1914, the risk of unintended consequences should be obvious enough – as the threat of a return of big-power conflict grows. Pressure for a negotiated end to the crisis is essential.

By Seumas Milne.

So, for our politician to stand up and boldface lie about us having no role in Putin taking the Crimea is downright laughable, they depend upon your not remembering. Remeber this picture from the Orange Revolution.

The point of the above post is not to say Russia is a great place or that Putin is a good man, rather to point out that Russia was pushed by the West, EU, and NATO to take the Crimea if they wanted to keep their only deepwater port. The Crimea was a part of Russia until I think it was Boris Nikolayevich Chernousov under the USSR, decided to put it under Ukraine authority, it did not matter much then, but when the USSR broke up the port, Russia’s only deep water port, the Crimea became very important to Russa.

Things do not happen in a vacuum, all event have precursors that led to what happened, and these events will lead to other events, and I am hoping that an atomic war is not one of them. For now, that is between Trump and Putin.

 

May God Bless Us All.

A response to “THE PSYCHOLOGY BEHIND THE TRUMP CULT”

by Rick Shenkman

THE PSYCHOLOGY BEHIND THE TRUMP CULT

Rick Shenkman is the publisher of the History News Network and the author of Political Animals:  How Our Stone-Age Brain Gets in the Way of Smart Politics (Basic Books, January 2016), from which this article is adapted. You can follow him on Twitter. He blogs at stoneagebrain.

A psychological mechanism inclines us toward consistency, especially when our beliefs and behavior are in conflict. While we often hold contradictory views, obvious contradictions make us feel uncomfortable. By nature we aren’t Walt Whitmans. “Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes,” Whitman says in his poem “Song of Myself.” But that’s not how the brain operates. The human brain does not like cognitive dissonance—as social psychologist Leon Festinger dubbed the phenomenon in the 1950s. Rather than live with contradiction, we figure out a way to reduce it. How far are we willing to go to do this? Pretty far.

In his landmark study of cognitive dissonance, When Prophecy Fails, Festinger tells the remarkable story of a Chicago housewife turned mystic who became convinced that the world was coming to an end. A great flood, she predicted, would envelop the globe, ending humanity. She learned this, she claimed, via a message from another planet. All but she and her followers would be lost, she said. They would be saved after being flown in a flying saucer to another planet, Clarion. In anticipation of the end of the world her followers sold their belongings: houses, furniture—they sold it all. Then the date of apocalypse arrived.

It was December 21, 1954. She and her followers dutifully gathered to await their deliverance from the hell that earth was about to become. They expected it to happen as the clock struck midnight. But nothing happened. Perhaps God wasn’t on Central Standard Time. So they waited. Minutes passed, then hours. Still nothing. But this did not shake their belief in the prophecy. Once they realized that no flying saucer was whisking them away and that no great flood was coming, they concluded that they had saved the world from destruction. Their example of faith had so moved God that he had decided to spare humanity. They saved us all.

It is easy for us, from our vantage point, to think of these folks as ridiculous believers in magical thinking. But what they fell victim to was a form of thinking to which we are all highly susceptible. We all want to believe what we believe is true. That’s the Perseverance Bias in action. Once we settle on a view of the world, we are inclined to persist in it. If forced to confront inconvenient facts—as the Chicago cultists were forced when life on earth didn’t come to an end—we are capable of going to great lengths to explain them away. That’s because we absolutely hate cognitive dissonance.

Whether something in our culture and history leads Americans to succumb to magical thinking more than people in other countries, as Edward Simon claims in another article on HNN, it’s characteristic of humans in some form all around the world. That in certain times and under certain circumstances more people fall for it is undeniable. It is beyond certain that we are in one such period now.

Rexx Vernon Shelton • 3 days ago

I am a Trump supporter and voter, not a cultist. I became a Trump supporter because, like him, I believe that we had let America slide way too far down into the Globalist’s dream. He did not tell me about the spread of the U.N.’s Agenda 21 Sustained Development, I saw it myself. I already believed that Global Warming was a hoax being perpetrated to generate taxes to give to the rest of the world and control our energy choices. I was not at all happy with Obama’s “Fundamental Changes” being one of that that believed in the Bible and the 2nd Amendment.

In my 75 years as an American Trump is the first politician that actually went to work keeping the promises, he made while running for office. If it makes you feel better to call me a cultist go right ahead, you are still going to be stuck with Trump for another six and a half years.

When all of Obama’s supporters were calling him the Messiah did you put them in the category of cultists?

Trump and accomplished more of what he said he would do as President in my lifetime.

Arnold Shcherban  Rexx Vernon Shelton • 3 days ago

“…being one of that that believed in the Bible…”, which is the core belief of any Cult. Thanks for confirming the article’s main premise.

• 

  Rexx Vernon Shelton  Arnold Shcherban • 3 days ago

  You are as sick as the author if you believe that, a cult is not built up around the Bible, rather is is built around a personality.

  Heaven’s Gate was an American UFO religious millenarian cult and had nothing to do with the Bible.

  918 Americans died in Peoples Temple-related incidents, including 909 members of the Temple, led by Jim Jones, in Jonestown, Guyana. Jim Jones was a Communist, not a Christian.

  Joseph Di Mambro Solar Temple cult was not based upon the Bible rather upon the ideals of the Knights Templar they said.

  When on March 26, 1997, 39 followers of Heaven’s Gate died in a mass suicide in Rancho Santa Fe, California, which borders San Diego to the north. These people believed, according to the teachings of their cult, that through their suicides they were “exiting their human vessels” so that their souls could go on a journey aboard a spaceship they believed to be following comet Hale-Bopp it had nothing to do with the Bible.

  I suggest that you get educated on just what cult is before you start spouting off. Members of the Catholic and Protestants Churches are not cultist as they follow doctoring, not personalities. The people in America who support Trump are no more cultist than the people who supported Hillary. Although Hillary supporter comes much closer to the definition than do Trump supporters.

  https://cdn.embedly.com/widgets/media.html?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2FjknxLDKi_80%3Ffeature%3Doembed&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DjknxLDKi_80&image=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FjknxLDKi_80%2Fhqdefault.jpg&key=21d07d84db7f4d66a55297735025d6d1&type=text%2Fhtml&schema=youtube
• Arnold Shcherban  Rexx Vernon Shelton • 3 days ago

  Of course, a cult is built around personality, as Christian cult is build around legendary personality of Jesus Christ… Take away, Jesus Christ story and Christian faith would not exist as an independent religion; it would remain Judaism, no more no less.
  Thus, Christian faith, in general, is a Cult.
  Secondly, you claim: “Jim Jones was a Communist, not a Christian. It’s half crude distortion, half a lie.
  From Wikipedia:
  “James Warren Jones (May 13, 1931 – November 18, 1978) was an American religious cult leader who initiated and was responsible for a mass suicide and mass murder in Jonestown, Guyana. He considered Jesus Christ as being in compliance with an overarching belief in socialism as the correct social order.[1][2] Jones was ordained as a Disciples of Christ pastor, and he achieved notoriety as the founder and leader of the Peoples Temple cult.”
  That why U’re the one who is sick and deranged liar, like cultivated by the ones like yourself US president…

  Rexx Vernon Shelton  Arnold Shcherban • 3 days ago

  From reading this response I must confess that you are so locked into your POV that any time I spent correcting your distortion would be a wasted effort so I will leave it at that. Think of us Trump supporters as you will, but you will, nevertheless, have Trump to deal with for another six and a half years, and his V.P. after that, so get used to crying you have a long cry ahead of you.

  Arnold Shcherban  Rexx Vernon Shelton • 3 days ago

  I’m not happy with my intellectual and factual victory over U, ‘course I have beaten to the ground many dishonest ideologues that way on HNN site and beyond, so this a casual event to me…

  Rexx Vernon Shelton  Arnold Shcherban • 3 days ago

  You have no victory over me other in your mind, and further comments will be to yourself as I will no longer respond. Enjoy your delusion, and try and explain to yourself just why Trump will win another term if you are so right.

  Arnold Shcherban  Rexx Vernon Shelton • 2 days ago

  First, any unbiased witness of our exchange will tell U that I did win by rebutting your distortions and lies with undeniable facts and iron-clad logic, and not just because you believe in supernatural creatures and things, while purporting to judge on purely earthly matters.
  Second, I never suggested that Trump will or won’t win another term, the issue that has little, if anything, to do with our argument.
  BTW, your repeated attempts to switch our debate to completely different issue is one more indication that U lost the initial argument.
  Bye, loser.

  Rexx Vernon Shelton  Arnold Shcherban • 2 days ago

  Be that as it may, Trump will still win a second term regardless of if you think I am a looser or not

  NellCote71  Rexx Vernon Shelton • 20 hours ago

  Illiteracy is also a trait of Trump cultists.

  kbrown2225  Rexx Vernon Shelton • 3 days ago

  Spoken like a true cult member. You are as deranged as Trump is, you deserve each other.

  Rexx Vernon Shelton  kbrown2225 • 3 days ago

  Yep, a real deplorable, and America does deserve Trump after 8 years of Obama running it to the ground for the last 8 years. You are just going to have to grit your teeth and bare Trump’s 8 years like I did Obama’s.

  kbrown2225  Rexx Vernon Shelton • 3 days ago

  “8 Years of Obama running it to the ground”? What sort of alternate fantasy world do you live in, Rexx?

  Obama rescued this nation from the greatest financial disaster since the Great Depression and gave us 8 years of financial prosperity and excellent leadership. He was a moderate centrist who left the nation far better at the end of his term. I guess by “running it to the ground” you must mean “having a black man as president”, right?

  Oh and your Cheeto Fuhrer couldn’t even win the popular vote and only took the electoral college by a freak accident, a plague of racism, hate, & lies, and Russian interference. He is the most hated president in history and will probably be forced to resign when his full crimes are uncovered.

  But, hey, you can still worship at the feet of your “Supreme Leader”, grovel before the reality show con-man as he lies to you every single day. Like I said, you deserve Trump, fortunately the rest of the nation does not.

  duxfrancorum  kbrown2225 • 2 days ago

  Aside from your childish labels (Cheeto Fuhrer, is both inane and a mixed metaphor) the statement that Trump was elected even though he couldn’t “win the popular vote and only took the Electoral College” is foolish and disingenuous; it’s like saying that a baseball team won the game even though the opposing team had more hits. If you don’t understand how baseball works (or Presidential elections for that matter), ask someone.

  kbrown2225  duxfrancorum • 2 days ago

  Aw, I am sorry you don’t understand metaphors or the electoral college. The electoral college is a dinosaur that cannot even due the job it was intended to, which was to stop irresponsible and unqualified people from becoming president (read The Federalist #68). Instead, it is now a tool that undermines the will of the people. And no, the proper metaphor would be Trump winning the ball game because he was ahead more innings, despite the fact that he scored less runs than his opponent. Do yourself a favor, stop commenting on things you know nothing about!

  duxfrancorum  kbrown2225 • 2 days ago

  The reality is that the states decide who will be president, it has always been that way. Also, I like my baseball metaphor better than yours, it’s more apropos. Why would you think that he was ahead more innings, what does that even mean? Hits lead to runs, but are pointless unless you score. Trump scored more runs, he won more states, that is the way the game is played. Your rationale in quoting Federalist 68 is pedantic, it has nothing to do with how the system operates. You should take your own advice, trying to discredit another opinion as ignorant is a fool’s gambit.

  Rexx Vernon Shelton  kbrown2225 • 3 days ago

  Yep, “the greatest financial disaster since the Great Depression” brought on by the Democrats Community Reinvestment Act that forced banks to sell subprime mortgages Which Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bought and sliced them with prim mortgages and sold them through out the world as a guaranteed revenue stream backed by the US Government. Then when the subprime mortgages holders started defaulting on loans that they never should have been given the whole house of cards fell down into the Great Recession.

  His “8 years of financial prosperity” was funded by 6 trillion dollars of deficit spending, and one Quantitative easement after another.

  Go back to your dream world, you’ll be much happier there. Obama’s new normal GDP growth rate of 2% will be blown to hell soon as Trumps GDP passes 4%.

  Frometoday press:

  Economic growth for second quarter is on track to double 2017’s full-year pace

  The Atlanta Fed is forecasting 4.6 percent GDP growth for the second quarter.
  If the outlook is correct, that would be exactly double the full-year 2017 rate and well ahead of the 3.1 percent increase for the same period a year ago.

  President Donald Trump while campaigning pledged growth that would rise as high as 6 percent.

  kbrown2225  Rexx Vernon Shelton • 3 days ago

  Oh my god, you have to be about the most misinformed person I have ever seen. You are walking talking proof of the Dunning-Kruger Effect. Look, buddy, turn off the fox news, it is rotting your brain.

  Arnold Shcherban  kbrown2225 • 2 days ago

  Turning off Fox News won’t help a person who believes some man was walking on water and rose from the dead to… nowhere.

  Rexx Vernon Shelton  kbrown2225 • 2 days ago

  “Dunning-Kruger Effect”, no that is you projecting your disorder upon people you disagree with. But your disillusion does demonstrate a strong example of the Mandela Effect.

  kbrown2225  Rexx Vernon Shelton • 2 days ago

  Sorry, done with you, I don’t talk to mentally ill cultists. I live in the real world, not your right wing fantasyland devoid of facts and reality. Continue to fall to your knees and grovel to your reality show con-man, you deserve him.

  Rexx Vernon Shelton  kbrown2225 • 2 days ago

  Yep, we deserve him, and you got him too. And I am so happy for you.

  kbrown2225  Rexx Vernon Shelton • 2 days ago

  Sorry, don’t talk to insane cult members!

  Rexx Vernon Shelton  kbrown2225 • 2 days ago

  That’s good, snuggle up with your like-minded POV bubble and be absolutely flabbergasted again when Trump wins by an even bigger landslide for his next term. In the meanwhile watch your Blue Wave peter out into a Red Tide.

  kbrown2225  Rexx Vernon Shelton • 2 days ago

  Sorry, don’t talk to insane evil cult members!

  Rexx Vernon Shelton  kbrown2225 • 2 days ago

  It obvious that you do not, as you keep talking to me.

  Nanouli Person  kbrown2225 • a day ago

  Brown, still spewing your hate on the internet? Time to sit down Brown.

  Tom Rossman  Rexx Vernon Shelton • 2 days ago

  As per your statement, “Trump and accomplished more of what he said he would do as President in my lifetime.” Since the only way to make this statement intelligently would be to compile a list of all of his promises and compare that against his accomplishments, then do that same for the other 10 or so Presidents of your lifetime, I would be very eager to see your analysis. Would you be so kind as to forward?

  That is there for even the most causal observer to see, if you are to blind to see it I will gladly leave you in your ignorance. As a horse trainer I know full well that I can take a horse to water but cannot make it drink. I do not have to justify my observations, I just report them as I see it. Take it or leave it. You will be putting up with Trump for another 6 1/2 years.

  There is nothing I could say to change your mind so why should I take the time?

  Tom Rossman  Rexx Vernon Shelton • 2 days ago

  As you can see, I did not attack you, but merely asked for the evidence underpinning your assertion. Asking people to produce evdience to support their assertions is a useful tool to expose who has truly thought about their assertions and who is just in an emotional state of frenzy.

  If you feel comfortable in relying completely on your unfounded beliefs while ignoring empirical facts, then you have fulfilled the textbook definition of a cultist. And one bonus contribution for you to chew on while your feeding the stock, the idea that Obama was or was not a cult figure has no bearing on whether Trump is or is not.

  Rexx Vernon Shelton  Tom Rossman • 2 days ago

  Ignorance is a lack of knowledge, not a derision upon the one needing educated. I do not believe that there is anything I can say to change your mind, and what you are asking me to do would take a hell of a lot more time than I care to put in this discussion with a person I believe locked into a point of view so tightly that there is no chance that any of my words would change you mind if I was to take the time to do as you ask.

  “…the idea that Obama was or was not a cult figure has no bearing on whether Trump is or is not.” True enough, but was not the point of that comment, the point was that the author would never dream of calling Obama supporters what he was accusing Trumps supporters of, when they gave so much more example of the attitude than any Trump supporter ever did. I just had to go back to my records for these examples:

  Ezra Klein said in January 2008 in The American Prospect. “He is not the Word made flesh, but the triumph of word over flesh, over color, over despair. The other great leaders I’ve heard guide us towards a better politics, but Obama is, at his best, able to call us back to our highest selves, to the place where America exists as a glittering ideal, and where we, its honored inhabitants, seem capable of achieving it, and thus of sharing in its meaning and transcendence.”

  Oprah Winfrey. Both spoke like preachers on the old-time gospel hour — about Obama. “I give all praise and honor to God,” Obama said, according to Politico. “Look at the day the Lord has made.” Meanwhile, Winfrey spoke about a quasi-holy man. “We need a leader who’s going to touch our souls. Who’s going to make us feel differently about one another. Who’s going to remind us that we are one another’s keepers. That we are only as strong as the weakest among us.” The once-popular daytime talk show host also spoke about “The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman,” a novel and movie from the 1970s. This old woman would ask all children, “Are you the one? Are you the one?” “Today we have the answer to Miss Pittman’s question,” Winfrey confidently predicted. “South Carolina: I do believe he’s the one.”

  Toni Morrison, the person who once called Bill Clinton America’s first black president, in January of 2008, she wrote a letter praising Obama for possessing “a creative imagination which coupled with brilliance equals wisdom.” He had an “un-embargoed” “moral center,” she gushed, according to the New York Observer. He had “courage instead of mere ambition.” Indeed, the novelist most famous for being forced upon a generation of American high schoolers babbled: “There have been a few prescient leaders in our past, but you are the man for this time.”

  San Francisco columnist Mark Morford frothed in June 2008 that Obama “isn’t really one of us.” “Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul.”

  Eve Konstantine, some leadership coach and Huffington Post blogger. “He represents our diverse whole: he’s brown, book and street smart, somewhat androgynous, strong while adaptive, and, above all, purposeful,” Konstantine wrote of Obama in February 2008. “He’s an amalgam of all that we are. He knows where he’s going, he understands what’s possible, he sees the current imperative, and he’s voicing it for all of us. He is a necessary response to the current zeitgeist. He’s our representation of who we might be as caretakers of the planet. He comes at the hour of our greatest darkness, after we’ve hit a national bottom on the world stage. He’s Everyman, in a way a that [sic] fine white male, brimming with integrity, or a competent white female simply can’t be.”

  Democratic politician Gary Hart identified Obama as “a leader” for a “transcendent moment” at HuffPo. “He is in fact an agent of transformation,” Hart explained. “He is not operating on the same plane as ordinary politicians, and this makes him seem elusive to the conventional press and the traditional politicians. His instinct for the moment and the times is orders of magnitude more powerful than the experience claimed by others. Experience in the old ways is irrelevant experience. ”

  In February 2008, Politico, a suburban Virginia blog, noted the messianic effect Obama was having on many Democrats — including celebrities. Take George Clooney, for example. “He walks into a room and you want to follow him somewhere, anywhere,” the hunky college dropout said. Another celeb, Halle Berry, indicated her own cultish devotion to Obama. “I’ll do whatever he says to do,” she swore. “I’ll collect paper cups off the ground to make his pathway clear.” The Politico story also has this interesting tidbit about Obama’s shtick. “The campaign works hard to cultivate the rock star image,” it said. “After he’s introduced, Obama routinely waits about 30 seconds to enter the arena.”

  In June 2009, then-Newsweek editor Evan Thomas called Obama “sort of God,” according to the Media Research Center. “We’re not just parochial, we’re not just chauvinistic, we’re not just provincial,” Thomas told MSNBC host Chris Matthews. (Thomas was talking about the Middle East, not defending his cocktail-circuit friends.) “We stand for something – I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God.” Ever the powerhouse intellectual, Matthews responded, “Yeah.”

  In December 2009 that Politiken, a leading Danish newspaper, proclaimed to the world that Obama is far greater than Jesus Christ because Obamacare had “passed through the American Senate” but all Jesus did was offer up some miracles “which only benefitted a few.” “Obama is, of course, greater than Jesus – if we have to play that absurd Christmas game,” the newspaper instructed. “But it is probably more meaningful to insist that with today’s domestic triumph, that he has already assuAred himself a place in the history books – a space he has good chances of expanding considerably in coming years.”

  I’ll stop with Michelle Obama’s “We have an amazing story to tell, This president has brought us out of the dark and into the light.”

  As Stephen Hawking was fond of saying, “The greatest enemy of knowledge isn’t ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.” This isn’t about my beliefs or even your beliefs, it is about you making a rather sweeping assertion about President Trump that you have not a single shred of actual evidence to support. If you were able to conclusively demonstrate you are correct, I would widely proclaim your findings. Moreover, if you wish to be considered an intellectually honest person, you should stop repeating your baseless claim. Until you can demonstrate your assertion, it is merely an Illusion of Knowledge.

  The fault dear Brutus lies not in our stars, but in ourselves…

  Rexx Vernon Shelton  Tom Rossman • 2 days ago

  My dear sir, I am under no obligation to prove anything to you, that I see it and understand it as I do is plenty good enough for me. I assert equivalently that Trump will win another term for the reasons I have asserted. I am not the only person who see Trump as a promise keeper, promise made, promise kept is a common refrain in reports of what he has done and is doing.

  Time will tell that tale, and when it is told I am sure that you will be very sad.

  By the way, it was Daniel J. Boorstin who coined “The greatest enemy of knowledge isn’t ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.” not Stephen Hawking, did he give credit when he quoted him? As to your “This isn’t about my beliefs or even your beliefs,,,”, I beg to differ, we act upon what we believe, it is our beliefs that guide up in the path that we walk both in the world and in our philosophies.

  Tom Rossman  Rexx Vernon Shelton • 2 days ago

  You seem to be extremely confused about the point I’m making which is unfortunate because it is exceedingly simple:

  If you care about intellectual integrity and intelligent debate, then you won’t make wild, unsubstantiated claims, when the outcome you assert is actually falsifiable. Again, the fact that others agree with you has no relevance to whether or not what you stated is true.

  On the quote issue, again you are incorrect. Boorstin’s quote was : “The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance – it is the illusion of knowledge.” I corresponded with Hawking’s assistant at Cambridge few years before his passing to confirm the quote which he did directly from Dr. Hawking. You need better sources.

  People have different ways of looking at the world, no argument. At the same time, there is a big difference between facts, ideas, false statements and irresponsible speculation. The problem I’ve observed with dogmatists and Trumpists is that they don’t understand the distinction between those different concepts.

  “Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true.” Francis Bacon.

  Rexx Vernon Shelton  Tom Rossman • 2 days ago

  1- Daniel J. Boorstin quotes (showing 1-30 of 68)

  “The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.”
  ― Daniel J. Boorstin

  tags: ignorance, knowledge, misattributed-stephen-hawking 2735 likes Like
  “No agnostic ever burned anyone at the stake or tortured a pagan, a heretic, or an unbeliever.”
  ― Daniel J. Boorstin

  45 likes Like
  “A wonderful thing about a book, in contrast to a computer screen, is that you can take it to bed with you.”
  ― Daniel J. Boorstin

  https://www.goodreads.com/a…

  2- You do not get it, I don’r care what you think of me or any other “Trumpists”. We will put him into office for another term, and there is nothing you can do about it.

  “…a big difference between facts, ideas, false statements and irresponsible speculation.” I have not uttered a false statement, I have offered my opinion, and my own personal observations, i.e. Trump has delivered on more promises than any other president in my lifetime. And there is nothing irresponsible about speculation regarding the midterm elections and the 2020 Presidential election.

  Now as to facts, they are a different kettle of fish. As Nietzsche said, “There are no facts, only interpretations” just as the interpretation of a book is up to the reader, so too is the interpretation of our world is up to the person(s) observing the facts. Facts do not explain themselves, they must be explained by an observer. Facts can be explained to tell many different stories, as any courtroom drama will point out. I hold a Bachelor of Science in Electronic Engineering, another in Computer Information Systems, these required I pass courses in physics up to and including wave theory. I also earned an MBA with an emphasis on management which means, among other things, a lot of studying of statistics and forecasting. I have well demonstrated my ability to understand the distinction between those different concepts you point to. This is the problem all you Trump haters have, you vastly underestimate his supporters. I am a Marine active in the Marine Corps League for the last 30 years. You would be hard put to find a Veteran that thinks the way you do, out of the hundreds I currently know only two that look at Trump the way you do.

  We are not going to come to a meeting of the mind, you will not convince single Trumpists to change who they will vote for, you are just going to have to grit your teeth and bear it. I am retired some time back and now train horses for a living. I am a Marine active in the Marine Corps League for the last 30 years.

  This is me in the middle. Bty, those two Marines beside me see Trump the say way I do

  

Tom Rossman  Rexx Vernon Shelton • a day ago

First of all, I do not hate, nor dislike Trumpists, and I am very, very proud of our military. Your need to paint this as an “us vs them” issue is not scientific, nor statistically relevant. My only point, which you have chosen to completely ignore, is that you initial statement that “Trump and accomplished more of what he said he would do as President in my lifetime” is not a fact, however, it could be verified, if you were truly concerned about having an intelligent debate, based on facts and evidence.

Objective truth is not relative, no matter how casually you treat it, it is a process of discovery, as great thinkers have pointed out for over 2400 years. And the only way mankind has discovered to move intelligent debate forward is by systematically removing error, bias and falsehood from our discourse. This is and has been my only point. If you were to agree to embark on that intellectually honest and essential journey with me, then I would recognize you as a brother in arms and welcome your input, despite the fact that we view the world in different ways.

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts,” Bertrand Russell

“When a man finds a conclusion agreeable, he accepts it without argument, but when he finds it disagreeable,he will bring against it all the forces of logic and reason.” Thucydides

Rexx Vernon Shelton  Tom Rossman • a day ago

Whether you hate Trump or not, you come across like a Never Trumper.

You said, “My only point, which you have chosen to completely ignore, is that you initial statement that “Trump and accomplished more of what he said he would do as President in my lifetime” is not a fact, however, it could be verified, if you were truly concerned about having an intelligent debate, based on facts and evidence.”

I have no desire to debate you about my assertion, I can gratuitously assert anything I may wish and you can just as gratuitously deny it, which you did without proof of any kind. This is a “us vs them” with the Progressives on the one side and MAGA on the other, there can be no compromise for the two sides are diametrically opposed and cannot meet in the middle. You are going to lose the election, both the midterm and the Presidential in 2020. That is the issue you do not wish to debate as it will be decided at the polls. Either you are right or I am right, there is no middle ground.

Tom Rossman  Rexx Vernon Shelton • a day ago

It’s not about compromise or ‘meeting in the middle’, it is about having an intelligent productive debate that can yield real solutions. Jefferson referred to America on several occasions as “The Great Experiment” and one cannot conduct a useful experiment if facts, evidence and truth are casually disregarded.

Rexx Vernon Shelton  Tom Rossman • 21 hours ago

You are the one that wanted this discussion. I have responded logically intelligently, and with courtesy in all of my replies. The upcoming elections are a continuation of the American Experiment, its outcome will be the proof of the pudding. I have ignored no evidence, in fact from my point of view you have absorbed a lot of propaganda about Trump supported. Which blind you to what we really are, and what we are rally doing.

Obama, with his “Fundamentally Changing” of America, was the greatest attempt yet to move us from Jefferson vision for America. Then came the choice between Hillary and Trump. Hillary mote the same of what Obama had laid the path for or Trump’s MAGA. Trump won and the Progressives cannot stop crying about it, and the reasons for their appointed heir to Obama was first the Russians did it. But that has about blown its course and petering out with the arrest soon of the FBI agents who cleared Hillary and trumped up the Trump Russian Collusion fiction to get him impeached.

Now the whole emphasis is on the way he is handling the illegal aliens crossing the border. That won’t help their cause, as we are not cultists, but people whose eyes have been opened.

I can carry this as long as you, for I am not going to let you have the last word.

Tom Rossman  Rexx Vernon Shelton • 21 hours ago

With all due respect, you have not responded intelligently and logically. By making unsubstantiated claims that you assert are truth, without evidence, you have actually systematically undermined the seriousness and credibility of your argument. Your statement: “I can gratuitously assert anything I may wish” is not a logical or intelligent argument.

In fact, your endorsement of gratuitous assertions is eerily reminiscent of the example that Dr Shenkman used in the original article. You can say as often as loudly as you would like that the world will end tomorrow, but that certainly doesn’t make it logical, intelligent or true.

Rexx Vernon Shelton  Tom Rossman • 20 hours ago

You appear to have no respect for me or any Trump Supporter, “you have not responded intelligently and logically” is your opinion not a fact.

As I said way above I am under no obligation to you to do anything.

I assert that Trump has kept more campaign promises than any other president in my lifetime than any other president elected to office. You asked for proof of that assertion, and I am under no obligation to give it to you. Your assertion “‘I can gratuitously assert anything I may wish’ is not a logical or intelligent argument.” No, it is a premise, not an argument, the argument is: A gratuitous assertion simply means that no proof was offered to prove the assertion, it does not prove that the assertion is untrue. If I come into the house and say it is raining outside, that is a gratuitous assertion, showing my wet hat would be evidence of that assertion, but not proof as the hat could have gotten wet in another way, such as a sprinkler system.

Tom Rossman  Rexx Vernon Shelton • 19 hours ago

If you want to engage in an intelligent, logical discussion, as you claim, then proof is absolutely necessary, otherwise the discourse cannot move forward and the conversation is not bound by intelligence or logic and you fall into the category of the cult leader described above.

Your example is proof of your confusion and complete lack of understanding of what intelligent and logical actually mean. It is either raining outside or it is not and the statement is either true or not true and can be falsified. Your assertion has no bearing on whether it is, in fact, raining or not.

As an aside, it fascinating how closely you subscribe to the excruciating relativism of the post modernists. Even though today we mostly think of it as a left-wing movement, it did have its origin in right-wing ideology.

Rexx Vernon Shelton  Tom Rossman • 19 hours ago

“If you want to engage in an intelligent, logical discussion, as you claim…”

I told you before I have no desire to have this discussing with you, you are the one driving it. And as I said above I will not let you have the last word. You have proved nothing beyond that you do not like Trump and his supporters. And that you have dome abundantly well.

My mane thesis through all of this discussion has been and will continue to be, that Trump will win a second term, and the Republicans will increase their seats in both Houses in the upcoming election. Everything else that you through at me about engage in an intelligent and logical discussion is bull crap. My assertion will be proved or disproved in the coming elections this year, and again in 2020. If I am wrong bookmark this discussion and rub it in and I will eat humble pie, if I am right I expect the same from you.

BTY: Trump’s approval on 20-Jun-18 is at 48%, that is the general population, he is about 85% among Republicans. I an Independent and not associated with the GOP in any way.

Tom Rossman  Rexx Vernon Shelton • 18 hours ago

Since you clearly have no idea what I am talking about, allow me to explain in simple terms. In logic, if a=b and b=c, then you can logically deduce that a=c. According to your examples, a= capricious assertion that has no bearing on reality, truth or evidence. Can you understand how that cannot possibly lead to intelligent, logical discourse?

As an aside, I’m just curious, is it the official policy of people who think like you to lie down like a doormat when someone utterly destroys their arguments? Sad!

Rexx Vernon Shelton  Tom Rossman • 2 hours ago

You destroyed nothing; you just went off on a tangent rant that has nothing to do with what I have been saying. You are right; you present your case so poorly that it would be difficult for anyone to follow beyond your main point of hatred of Trump and his supporters.

How are my assertions “subject to, led by, or indicative of a sudden, odd notion or unpredictable change; erratic”? Your saying my assertions are capricious does not make them so other than in your own mind.

You have a very sad 6 1/2 years ahead of you, for many more Americans agree with me then they do you. Yes, that is an assertion, but the proof will be forthcoming in the elections. I enjoy the thought of your exasperation when Trump wins his second term, and how disappointing you are going to be when the lauded Blue Wave gets inundated in a Red Tide to die into a dashed hope.

If you were not so mean spirited I might feel sorry for you.

RoloTomassi  Rexx Vernon Shelton • 18 hours ago

That approval rating in purely in your sick mind; current polls show that his approval has dropped by over 5% in a single month. YOU lack any credibility whatsoever…which is typical for rightwing hardcore idiots, who are ALL blatant liars.

RoloTomassi  Rexx Vernon Shelton • 18 hours ago

Judging by your irrational and wholly illogical commentary, no one with a functioning brain should have any respect for you. You are a TRUMPKIN, a mindless supporter of the TRUMPKINHEAD, and a delusional rightwing fool with no real understanding of any of the subject matter that you invoke in defense of your ridiculous views or attempts at dismissing far stronger, more rational arguments from far saner minds.

YOU are a 75-year old, racist, regressive fool who lives in a Fox News bubble of blatant idiocy. A SLUG deserves more respect than you do.

Oh, and your assertion that this orange-haired buffoon will win re-election is merely the delusional icing on your YUGE turd-cake of foul-minded beliefs.

Rexx Vernon Shelton  RoloTomassi • 17 hours ago

If you feel that way why do you prolong this discussion so long. Calling someone a racist is a conversation like this is tantamount to asking them if they have stopped beating their spouse yet. Any answere will be offered as proof of the accused racist. I was waiting for you to get to the ad hominem part, that is where all Progressives go when they cannot win an argument.

Here is your written proof that you hate Trump:

“Oh, and your assertion that this orange-haired buffoon will win re-election is merely the delusional icing on your YUGE turd-cake of foul-minded beliefs.”

And you will have a very long time to wallow in that hatred, for he is going to be your president for another 6 1/2 years. I look forward to your distress.

All cattle and no hat

Sen. Chuck Schumer says the Trump-Kim summit produced nothing and it was “all cattle and no hat”! New Yorkers city slickers should not try to be cowboys. All hat and no cattle can be translated into “You talk the talk but don’t walk the walk!” So, “all cattle and no hat” can be translated into “you are all action with no bullshit.”

Two Views of the Constitution: Originalism vs. Non-Originalism

I am a Libertarian, not a conservative, and I am in the originalist school of interpreting the Constitution. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia defined “originalism” this way:

“The Constitution that I interpret and apply is not living but dead, or as I prefer to call it, enduring. It means today not what current society, much less the court, thinks it ought to mean, but what it meant when it was adopted.” This applies to each and every one of the Amendments.

That means to understand what the Constitution means you have to understand how the writers understood the words they used to write the Constitution. That is in opposed to the Progressive’s Living Document way of applying the Constitution. The originalist doesn’t look to give the Constitution meaning, they look to understand what the original writers meant when they wrote it, and then apply that meaning to today’s issues. How judges line up on this divide is decided by the election of the President, and the justices he appoints to the bench. This is why election matter so much, and one of the consequences if elections.

It is the Living Document school of interpreting the Constitution that bends the meaning of the Constitution to fit how they wish to shape the law of the land. This article demonstrates how the two sides of this divide see how things that come before the Court should be decided.

This, by Katie Vloet, explains the divide very well:

 

Two Views of the Constitution: Originalism vs. Non-Originalism By Katie Vloet September 22, 2015

This year’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, regarding the fundamental right to marry, provides a useful lens through which to view the differences between originalist and non-originalist views of the U.S. Constitution, the U-M Constitution Day speaker said.

“It’s really a microcosm of the legal debate about how we interpret the Constitution,” John Bursch said on September 17 at Michigan Law. Bursch argued Obergefell on behalf of Michigan, Tennessee, and Kentucky earlier this year (listen to oral arguments).

Bursch presented benefits and challenges of both interpretations of the Constitution: originalism, in which the meaning of the Constitution is interpreted as fixed as of the time it was enacted, and non-originalism, in which the meaning of the Constitution is viewed as evolving with changes in society and culture.

“Non-originalists would say that the same-sex marriage decision is the perfect example of why courts need some flexibility to depart from the text, structure, and original intent,” Bursch said, and that, although changes were already happening in state laws about same-sex marriage, they were happening “at a snail’s pace.” A non-originalist, he said, would argue “that this case was decided correctly because it focused on the liberty and personal dignity that were the animating principles of the Constitution.”

The originalists—including the four dissenters in the Obergefell opinion—would say that the justices in the majority “used substantive due process to amend the Constitution by judicial fiat,” Bursch said. An originalist also would say that this is a “classic instance of the justices imposing their own personal values about the way that they thought the country should be going rather than an application of simple, neutral, objective criteria. The dissenters pointed out that the democratic process was working; laws were changing. … By taking this issue away from the people who passed [marriage] referendums in all of these states, the majority hurt democracy.”

Fight the good fight.

 

The Three-Fifths Compromise And Roland Martin

Tuesday on MSNBC “Velshi & Ruhle,” discussing White House chief of staff John Kelly’s comments on Fox News about Confederate monuments, host of “News One Now” Roland Martin said “too many people in this country who are white” didn’t know history and wanted to “somehow glorify these Confederate leaders.” Martin said, “I’m not going to allow four stars stuck on stupid to simply go on. Here’s a man who’s utterly clueless. For him to say, ‘Well, we could have compromised’—really? We did compromise. It was a thing called United States Constitution, and you know what that said? If you’re a black, you’re three-fifths of a human.” He continued, ”I need John Kelly to actually go back and read a history book that my 12-year-old nieces are reading right now, because clearly, he fell asleep in history.” Source.

In this spiel, Roland Martin demonstrated his own lack of understanding of history. The three-fifths compromise did not make a slave three-fifths of a human; it diluted the South’s power in the House of Representatives by not allowing slaves to count as a whole person when determining how many representatives each state could send to Congress. Had they been counted as whole persons, which is what the South wanted, the South would have many more representatives. The Northen states did not want the slaves to count as persons when determining how many representatives each state could send to Congress. The three-fifths of a person was the compromise made between the Southern and Northen states to get the Constitution ratified by both the Northern and Southern states.

So, Roland Martin, go back and study a little more history, and what the meaning and conditions that brought these events into existence. And, consider that no black slave came to North America that was not sold into slavery by other blacks.

“Be careful … at some point, I fight back.”

Martin Bailes wrote in medium.com:

“Be careful … at some point I fight back.”

You all do know McCains story right? Prisoner of War in 1967 with fractured arms & legs then beaten & tortured …

put in solitary … refused preferential early release & came home with permanent life-long disabilities, It was of course to McCain Trump was referring in his vacuous bitter put-down “He’s not a war hero … I like people who weren’t captured.” And it is to this man, this now dying man, that bone-spur draft dodging New York building playboy now threatens to “fight back” McCain’s politics may trouble me but he’s a man worthy of decent treatment & more than a little respect … & I can only echo the words of another veteran on the TV talking of (sic) Trump “this man has the empathy of a cockroach.”
*********************************************************************************************************

“McCain’s politics may trouble me, but he’s a man worthy of decent treatment & more than a little respect …”

Did you ever wonder why the Veterans did not get pissed off at Trump for saying that about McCain? I am a U. S. Marine, active duty 1960–63 and an active member of the Marine Corps League for 30 years, and I do not hold a single Marine who holds any respect for old Songbird McCain. He broke his arms & legs because he did not tuck them in when he ejected from his jet, and he was never beaten. He says that he refused preferential early release, let me ask you, what powers did he have to refuse his captures anything?

I have spoken with POW who was at the Hanoi Hilton with him, they all called him Songbird he told them all he knew without being tortured.

The Republican US presidential candidate John McCain was not tortured during his captivity in North Vietnam, the chief prison guard of the jail in which he was held has claimed.

In an interview with the Italian daily Corriere della Sera, Nguyen Tien Tran acknowledged that conditions in the prison were “tough, though not inhuman”. But, he added: “We never tortured McCain. On the contrary, we saved his life, curing him with extremely valuable medicines that at times were not available to our own wounded.” Source:

Here is the profile of John McCain noting he is the only American in history who could defect to a Communist country and there be declared an Air Ace for their side as he has personally destroyed five of our fighter aircraft. We also note that he received too much room service at the Hanoi Hilton.

USS Forrestal fire: Factcheck.org / Godlikeproductions.com

The 1967 USS Forrestal fire was a devastating event with series of chain-reaction explosions on 29 July 1967 killing 134 sailors and injuring 161 persons on the USS Forrestal (CVA-59), after an electrical anomaly discharged a “Zuni” rocket on the flight deck. Forrestal was in combat operations in the Gulf of Tonkin during the Vietnam War at the time. Damage exceeded $72 million (equivalent to $502 million today) including damage to aircraft.

The claim has been made:

”Surviving crewmen and those who investigated the Forrestal fire case reported that John McCain deliberately ‘wet-started’ his A-4E Skyhawk as a prank on the F-4 Phantom behind his A-4. “Wet-starts,” may be done deliberately, by pumping kerosene fuel into the engine without ignition, then lighting it to shoot a large flame from the tail of the aircraft. It was concluded by investigators that John McCain deliberately “wet-fired” his A-4E. In McCain’s case, the ‘wet-start’ launched a Zuni rocket from the F-4 behind them.”

Daredevil Piloting:

During the course of his flying career in the U.S. Navy, John McCain was involved in five major mishaps or crashes with his aircraft. The most dramatic incidents occurred in 1967. He barely escaped with his life after the missile exploded aboard an aircraft carrier, the USS Forrestal, in July of that year, but killing 134 of his fellow crew members. In October, McCain was shot down over Vietnam by a surface-to-air missile.

The official Navy report into the Corpus Christi accident on March 12, 1960, concludes that the AD-6 Skyraider trainer crashed because McCain failed to “maintain an airspeed above stall speed.” It attributed the accident to “the preoccupation of the pilot with a power setting too low to maintain level flight.” The single-engine prop plane sank in Corpus Christi Bay. McCain was rescued by a helicopter after swimming to the surface. The accident report excluded a series of other factors, including engine failure and disorientation of the pilot due to vertigo. But, it concluded pilot error was “the sole contributing factor” to the accident.

A copy of the report was obtained by The Washington Post from the Democratic National Committee, which conducted research at the Naval Historical Center in Washington. McCain had another accident with a T-2 trainer jet in November 1965, while flying between New York City and Norfolk, Va. The Naval Aviation Safety Center was unable to determine the precise cause of the accident or the degree of pilot error.

McCain wrote later that his engine “flamed out” and he had to eject. In his autobiography, McCain recalls another mishap around December 1961 when “I knocked down some power lines while flying too low over southern Spain. My daredevil clowning cut off electricity to a great many Spanish homes and created a small international incident.”

He landed his Skyraider back on the USS Intrepid after the incident, which does not appear to have triggered a safety investigation, but then John McCain’s father and grandfather were both high ranking Admirals in the US Navy.

Some of those who were on the Forrestal and other persons familiar with the ordnance told me that because the rocket did not hit McCain’s craft, only actions by the pilot could have caused any bomb to fall from McCain’s Skyhawk. These sources — who spoke under the condition that they not be publicly identified — agree with each other that, if any bomb fell from the McCain airplane, it was because of actions that he took either in error or panic upon seeing the fire on the deck or in his hasty exit from the plane. Two switches in the cockpit of a Skyhawk need to be thrown to drop such a bomb, according to the sources.

Whatever the circumstances of the fire’s origins, McCain did not stay on deck to help fight the blaze as the men around him did. With the firefighting crew virtually wiped out, men untrained in fighting fires had to pick up the fire hoses, rescue the wounded or frantically throw bombs and even planes over the ship’s side to prevent further tragedy. McCain left them behind and went down to the hangar-bay level, where he briefly helped crew members heave some bombs overboard. After that, he went to the pilot’s ready room and watched the fire on a television monitor hooked to a camera trained on the deck. From Investigating John McCain’s Tragedy at Sea.

Senator John McCain The Traitor — Audio Proof

McCain worked hard to normalize US/Vietnam relation without an accounting of all POWs, KIA, and MIA:

John McCain, who has risen to political prominence on his image as a Vietnam POW war hero, has, inexplicably, worked very hard to hide from the public stunning information about American prisoners in Vietnam who, unlike him, didn’t return home. Throughout his Senate career, McCain has quietly sponsored and pushed into federal law a set of prohibitions that keep the most revealing information about these men buried as classified documents. Thus the war hero people would logically imagine to be a determined crusader for the interests of POWs and their families became instead the strange champion of hiding the evidence and closing the books.

Almost as striking is the manner in which the mainstream press has shied from reporting the POW story and McCain’s role in it, even as McCain has made his military service and POW history the focus of his presidential campaign. Reporters who had covered the Vietnam War have also turned their heads and walked in other directions. McCain doesn’t talk about the missing men, and the press never asks him about them.

You can knock Trump all you want for being a draft dodger, but he did not burn his draft card and run off to Canada like so many, he took the same risk of being called up as everyone who got a college deferment. Did it piss you off that Bill Clinton dodged the draft?

Why do you think Trump won the Veteran and active military vote by far?

ISIS is Going to Hell

 

Story from today’s headlines:

The Islamic State group once drew recruits from near and far with promises of paradise but now bodies of jihadists lie in mass graves or at the mercy of wild dogs as its “caliphate” collapses.

Flies buzz around human remains poking through the dusty earth in the Iraqi town of Dhuluiyah, 90 kilometres (55 miles) north of Baghdad, at a hastily-dug pit containing the bodies of dozens of IS fighters killed in 2015.

“They should have ended up in the stomachs of stray dogs,” local police officer Mohammed al-Juburi told AFP.

“We buried them here not out of love but because we wanted to avoid diseases.”

At one stage, IS ruthlessly wielded power over a vast swathe of territory straddling Iraq and Syria, but a military onslaught on multiple fronts has seen its fiefdom shrink to a last few pockets.

Since the launch in 2014 of air strikes in Iraq and Syria against the group, a US-led coalition says around 80,000 jihadists have been killed.

The overall number of dead is higher if you include those targeted by Russian and Syrian strikes.

Buried with bulldozers

In agricultural Dhuluiyah on the banks of the Tigris river, residents faced a common dilemma over what to do with the corpses of IS fighters after local Sunni militiamen beat back the jihadists in fierce clashes.

“We could have thrown them into the water, but we love the river too much to pollute it,” said the local policeman, who lost his own brother in the violence.

“The people here as well as their animals drink from the Tigris.”

Local finally decided to dig a mass grave for the fighters — but they said they refused to honor them with Islamic rites.

Back about 3 years ago I wrote this essay:

|Back then I said “who the hell know what Obama will do, but now we have Trump, and we know what he will do, “Bomb the Hell out of them”.

These two pictures invoked outcry from every Progressive and Liberal leaning mind in America and were used as propaganda to kill American’s support for the Vietnam War.

Gen. Nguyen Ngoc Loan, South Vietnamese chief of the national police, fires his pistol into the head of suspected Viet Cong official Nguyen Van Lem on a Saigon street early in the Tet Offensive, February 1, 1968. Photographer Eddie Adams reported that after the shooting, Loan approached him and said, “They killed many of my people, and yours too,” then walked away. (AP Photo/Eddie Adams) 1969 Pulitzer Prize winner for Spot News Photography.

Bang, followed by soldiers of the South Vietnamese army’s 25th Division, June 8, 1972. A South Vietnamese plane seeking Viet Cong hiding places accidentally dropped its flaming napalm on civilians and government troops instead. Nine-year-old Kim Phuc (center) had ripped off her burning clothes while fleeing. The other children (from left) are her brothers Phan Thanh Tam, who lost an eye, and Phan Thanh Phouc, and her cousins Ho Van Bon and Ho Thi Ting.

https://thecarolinacowboy.blogspot.com/2014/07/the-caliphate-is-heading-for-hell.html

No, There Is No Precedent for Donald Trump

In response to Sean Wilentz a professor of history at Princeton who wrote this opinion about our President:

In it he says, “Coming to terms with this requires, in part, finally admitting to ourselves that, although the constitutional trappings were respected, the events of 2016 resembled a foreign-abetted coup d’état more than they did an American presidential election.” and I respond:

I am a Trump supporter, the Russian did not influence my vote as I was a supporter from the day he came down the escalators. I believe that Trump would do all the things he said he would do, and he is. He dumped the Paris Accord like he said he would. He dropped us out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership like he said he would. He is renegotiating NAFTA like he said he would. He is ending the war on Christianity like he said he would. He is ending Obama Care like he said he would. He is making NATO members pick up the cost of there membership like he said he would. He is taking the EPA out of the ditch in my backyard like he said he would. He let the Keystone Pipeline be built like he said he would. He ended the war on coal like he said he would. He opened federal lands to fracking like he said he would. He is appointing they type of judges he said he would. He is cutting back federal regulation like he said he would. He is going to reform our immigration system like he said he would. He has changed the vetting procedures for immigrating and refuge-seekers like he said he would.

These are just to mention a few of him doing what he said he would do. You are right “Trump represents a sharp break in our national political history” he is actually doing all the things he said that he would do when he ran for office. The wall will be built, and as much at the Progressive hate him he will win another term. And if you think that the Democrats will be picking up seats in the midterm election, you are wrong, Trump supporter will be out RINO hunting in the primary, and put people in who will support the Trump agenda, which is our agenda.

Who am I, I am nobody, I am the forgotten man, the man that Trump speaks for like no other politician in the 75 years I have been on this earth. And if you think that Trump is just willing the hearts and minds of old codgers like me you are wrong. I may be old, but I am not a fuddy-duddy, nor am I uneducated like so many Progressives like to paint Trump supporters. I hold two undergraduates degrees and an MBA. I have been reading history for many a long years, and it appears to me that you have let your biases direct your opinion about Trump. When you say, “Never before has an American Administration lied as continuously and as brazenly as Trump and his minions have, not simply as self-protection but as calculated insults to reason, gaslighting not just the nation but the entire world.” you are painting me as a minion because of my steadfast support of Trump. Gaslighting, interesting misuse of the meaning of the expression which came from the movie “Gaslight” an American 1944 mystery-thriller film, adapted from Patrick Hamilton’s 1938 play Gas Light, about a woman whose husband slowly manipulates her into believing that she is going insane.

Wikipedia says, “Gaslighting is a form of manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, hoping to make them question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, it attempts to destabilize the target and delegitimize the target’s belief.” If there is any Gaslighting going on here it is coming from the likes of you and your fellow travelers who completely supported Obama’s drastic moves to fundamentally change America into European style Socialist style of government, which Trump is completely, or as complete as he can, dismantle.

But is anyone afraid of President Donald Trump

Susan Milligan a Senior Writer at us news says, “Trump puts the bully into bully pulpit – but experts say his approach has problems.”

Here is a little history lesson for her which she could have easily known. The meaning of words and phrases change over time. When President Theodore Roosevelt, who referred to his office as a “bully pulpit”, by which he meant a terrific platform from which to advocate an agenda, the word bully meant good. It referred more to the “outstanding” bully-for-you sense of “bully” than for any aggressiveness on Roosevelt’s part, and this describes Trumps use of the “bully pulpit” as well. One might say Trump has mastered a “bully tweet” to make his agenda know and propagated; that is, a damn good way to get the word out.

She goes on to say, “He talks tough, and tweets tougher. He makes demands on Congress and state governments, needles foreign nations and launches broad attacks on the press. But is anyone afraid of President Donald Trump?”

Which leads me to ask, if they are not afraid of him why are they so hell-bent on impeaching him? He has upturned their apple cart, cutting the government work force starting with the White House staff, EPA, State Department, but to name a few. Slashing regulations off the books at a rate unknown in my lifetime.

Then she quotes,”‘That’s going to be a problem with Congress [and] the G-20,” the group of world leaders Trump is meeting with in Germany this week. “Already our allies are feeling pretty uncomfortable about his positions and approaches,’ Peterson says.”

Well hell yes, they are uncomfortable about his positions and approaches with the Trans-Pacific Partnership gone, and his dumping their beloved Paras Accord. They are just going to have to deal with it; he was not elected to be president of the world.

Then there is this lie, “The president’s voter fraud commission demanded that states turn over personal information on voters, including party ID and the last four digits of their Social Security numbers. States are rebelling, and not just the blue-tinted ones: so far, 44 states have refused to hand over all or some of the requested information.”

According to her, any state that will not provide sensitive, non-public voter data like social security numbers has refused the commission’s request. However, the panel only requested public voter information, and most states have not refused to provide this data. But even as some states will decline to provide non-public voter data, most acknowledge that voter rolls are available to the public for non-commercial purposes. As a result, even some states that oppose the request won’t refuse to give the commission public voter data.

“The decision by states not to provide sensitive information is not a refusal to comply as CNN claims because the commission never sought non-public information. “We’re not asking for it if it’s not publicly available,” Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who serves as the vice chair of the commission, told The Kansas City Star. CNN grossly inflates the number of states that have refused.”

So she lies by selecting which truths she will tell, and how she strings her words together. Progressives will see her words as gospel, and not bother to check into the fact the claims to present, but she is preaching to the choir as, I hazard, very few non Democrats read her propaganda.

Further she goes on, “Trump’s orientation is to bully – ‘I’m going to run somebody against you. I’m going to hurt you.’ That’s not where you lead from,” says Texas A&M University political science professor George C. Edwards III, author of “On Deaf Ears: The Limits of the Bully Pulpit” (Yale University Press). But bullying does not translate into an effective bully pulpit once someone is in the Oval Office, Edwards says. “Presidents rarely move public opinion in their direction. That’s fundamental,” Edwards says. “You cannot govern based on the premise of expanding your coalition, but not everything presidents do lack public support. Turns out many things this president does lack public support.”

Milligan misstates Trump’s often claimed philosophy of “If I am hit, I hit back” into ‘I’m going to run somebody against you. I’m going to hurt you.’ This is a good example of twisting someone’s words into something they did not say, mean, or do. Why is it bulling to tel the never Trumper Republican that he will campaign against them in the primaries?

Then she goes back to this trope, “Not only did Trump lose the popular vote, Peterson notes, but he lost it by a bigger margin than anyone who has nonetheless won the presidency by securing the Electoral College majority. While his party hung onto majorities in the House and Senate, the GOP lost seats in both chambers in the 2016 elections. And his approval ratings are dismal, hitting the upper-middle 30s.”

They just cant get over loosing the election, undoubted she wants to scrap the Electoral College, but that would lead to a different type of campaigning, where only a few states with the biggest cities would be relevant to winning the office.

I would also point out that the ones doing the polls on Trump’s approval ratings are the same ones that had Hillary winning by a landslide.