.

                     

'17 BLOG March

earlier entries, in chronological order, the way most people read English...

This effort has been going on longer than we care to admit.
This page last updated March 9, 2017

+≠&

 

 
 

January 3, 2017

 

 

A few more items for the discussion about The Second Amendment:

 

 https://www.firearmspolicy.org/alerts/10-things-every-california-gun-owner-needs-to-know-january-1-2017/ 

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/10/31/nullification-a-natural-right-not-a-mere-constitutional-right/

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/01/now-in-effect-california-law-reins-in-asset-forfeiture-takes-on-federal-equitable-sharing-program/

 

…so we’ve again left the previous entry in place.

 

January 2, 2017
 
 
 
We're going to leave this years' opener in place an extra day: we think it's a winner despite being a bit long, even worthy, perhaps, of a second read.
 
 
 
January 1, 2017

 
  

As of midnight, a whole new bunch of statutes went into effect.  Not a lot of new laws, but a lot of statutes.  Those are things generally presumed to be and acted on as if they were law, generally intended as law, but are not and cannot be law because they are unconstitutional.

A lot of such silly stuff has to do with firearms.  Seems a lot of people seem to think they have to control what others may and/or may not do with and/or regarding firearms.  Those people who insist on controlling others are not authorized to do so; in fact they are forbidden to do so regarding arms by The Second Amendment…which arguably cannot be modified, let alone repealed.

Many of the control folks, so very confused just in the concept that they believe they are capable and reasonable in demanding that they can and even should control others who are, it is alleged, neither capable nor reasonable in demanding they be left to control themselves and that even the control folks should be controlling themselves rather than themselves and others, will not like the position of PLUSdoesNOTequalAND Publishing and OEuclidean on this issue: The Second Amendment is the only legitimate “gun law” in the nation and precludes any and all other attempts to the question.

The control folks tend to hem and hah a lot, bobbing and weaving in trying to avoid the basics and pretend that one excuse or another or one side-issue or another is more important.  Often the discussion will turn to “but they meant” or the even more far-fetched “but they must have meant”, or “times have changed” and/or technology has changed, and the even more arrogant “but the Court has ruled”.  Well, setting a compound fracture may seem a highest priority, but maybe not if the patient will bleed out while that is being done.  What was actually meant is almost beyond question in the actual language, and certainly clarified in The Federalist Papers [who would know better what was meant than those who wrote the stuff?  Who could have a better claim to authority than those who acted on the arguments presented regarding each point in the founding documents by their ratification of them?].  And in those same Federalist Papers, it is made abundantly clear that the judiciary was intended to be the weakest branch; that it would provide “opinion” not “rulings”; and that the Court would not be the final arbiter of meaning or intent or practice, but that the final arbiter of such things is in fact “the people”…a substantive argument that the language is not to be toyed with by “professionals” but is in fact exactly what it is intended to be, in plain language to plain people using plain reasoning.

All that being said, we believe it is important to once again explain a little bit about our understanding of The Second Amendment by taking a somewhat unusual approach; we look particularly to what is not said in that remarkably brief and exceedingly powerful statement.

 

What follows is a mix: what the amendment does say, in a standard font; and, what it does not say, in italics.

A well regulated

which, despite clearly meaning “well trained” when written, shall now and forevermore mean operating under as much regulation of statute from every jurisdiction as said jurisdiction(s) may choose to impose

Militia,

which meant at the time virtually all able bodied individuals but shall now and forevermore mean only the National Guard

being necessary to the security of a free State,

which at the time the reference was made spoke to the status of being Free and shall now and forevermore be seen only as pertaining to a government

the right

which will now and forevermore not be inalienable and inherent in being human but a privilege subject to restriction(s) and even revocation by any and all jurisdiction(s) and/or other “authorities” who might claim such ability

of the people

but only as a collective and not of any individual or even any portion of but not the whole body of the population

to keep

in accord with all of whatever statutes and/or regulation(s) might be imposed by any and all jurisdiction(s) and/or other “authorities” that might claim ability to impose such

and bear

also in accord with all of whatever statutes and/or regulation(s) might be imposed by any and all jurisdiction(s) and/or other “authorities” that might claim ability to impose such statutes and/or regulation(s)

Arms,

again in accord with all of whatever statutes and/or regulation(s) might be imposed by any and all jurisdiction(s) and/or other “authorities” that might claim ability to impose such statutes and/or regulation(s)

 

shall not be infringed

by Congress, following the pattern of the specification of limitations on government in the First Amendment despite similar language not being used here, while any and/or all jurisdiction(s) or authority other than Congress, both inside and outside of the federal government, may “infringe” in any and all manner it/they may deem, in whatever fashion and by whatever means, suits that jurisdiction or authority.

 

We disagree with the expanded "position" that is essentially controlled through the italicized phrasing that simply does not exist in the original, on a number of points, the first being that there is much call for “interpretation” at all.

“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.”

Seems pretty clear to us.  And seems to preclude such things as the herd of new “statutes” that went into effect with the stroke of the New Year.
 
 
                                                                            +≠&

 

 
 

January 6, 2017
 
 
 
"Truckload" of stuff for delivery but the vehicle just ain't movin'.  And "for want of a nail...."
 
 
 
January
5, 2017
 
 
 
"Out of gas" we must pass...leaving the previous entry in place.
 
 
 
January
4, 2017

 

 

New petition windows…despite our being soooooo bored with endlessly providing opportunity for people to actually do something about an issue they profess to care about, at the cost of literally just a few minutes, only to again be delivered proof that people would much rather complain than lift a finger toward remedy of the focus of their complaint.

 

Congress is now back.  Does not look promising.  But then, the electorate that returned most of the incumbents to these jobs that pay 3.5 times the national average knew, or at least had reason to know, that they could not or would not perform well, or even responsibly.  In fact, despite all the noises about what is to be first on the agenda, we suspect that our choice, the budget for the fiscal year that began 5 weeks before the election and now is put off until the third quarter of the fiscal year, will likely get little mention or attention…until a week or two before the current Continuing Resolution is due to expire.

 

As for the discourse: shameful.  Both sides.  Wonder if any of these folk ever review what they’ve presented to the public.
 
 
                                                                            +≠&

 

 

January 7, 2017

 

 

Trump & Co really are experienced enough and smart enough to know that an individual can turn pretty close to on the proverbial dime but that it takes a good deal more time, space, and energy, to turn an aircraft carrier.  All the wonderful plans for immediate gratification of so many people so unhappy with so much!  And much of the work to be accomplished in exactly the same wrong fashion through which the problems were created.

Bad moves.

Most of the course corrections need to come through Court challenges, and/or legislation, rather than pretended Power of The Executive.  Or is The Donald seeking a title as a Pope might, generally to “honor” a predecessor?  Would that, in this case, be “Barack the Second”?
 
 
                                                                            +≠&

 

 

January 8, 2017

 

 

For all the politicians and [other] assorted talking heads: Newsflash; as far-fetched as it might seem to some people, one nation might in fact actually attempt to influence the government of another.  As a matter of fact, this sort of thing has been going on for some time.  Like, since there have been nations.  Even before there were nations.  It follows on before anybody kept note of history more formally than holding a personal grudge.  It might even be considered a natural extension if not an essential part of the basics of human nature.

Much as we dislike the phrase, and even the concepts that might bring it to usage, we find ourselves thinking the bulk of the population needs to hear and heed this: “Oh, grow up”!
 
 
                                                                              +≠&


 

 

January 9, 2017

 

 

Comforting that Gregg Jarrett discussed with Jon Scott on Happening Now the expense and other impracticalities of the version of Kate’s Law now being floated in Congress; things like prison capacity for an estimated 50K people that might well be imprisoned in the federal system through enforcement of that law if enacted.

 

https://video.foxnews.com/v/5275801546001/?playlist_id=2114913880001#sp=show-clips         

 

The numbers used in the clip seem about right, based on our assessments after some 40 years of familiarity with the issues:  50K individuals @ about $40K incarceration costs per would work out to some $2B…per year.  On the other hand, there are virtually no additional costs at all involved in our approach, though it would likely have as strong an effect, perhaps a stronger effect, on the problems involved.  It might not significantly reduce the numbers of persons illegally in the country…but it would almost assuredly and fairly quickly turn those persons into some of the best behaved  -- other than regarding illegally entering and/or residing in the country and while having technically violated law in everything they do --  individuals that could be imagined.

[BTW, we’ve been suggesting locking up mayors and the like rather than playing with “federal” money  -- which would almost assuredly become an “attorney’s full employment act” as the years rolled along as the questions then wound through the Courts --  for some time.]

Gee, let’s think about that for a moment: an additional $2B per year doing it one way, virtually nothing to get as good or better a result doing it another way.  OK: GO SIGN THE PETITION…and encourage others to do likewise…and burn up phones to Congress.
 
 
                                                                             +≠&

 

 

 

January 10, 2017

 

 

Well, we’ve finally been able to prevail on the author in our efforts to reduce the price on “A 25th Amendment Revolution” on Amazon -- by 40%! --  though it may not be reflected at checkout right away…but the free sample is still available.

We were also able to convince OEuclidean that there would be no time for a new edition with some material that will have a short “shelf life”…and got the new material for our site here.

We’ve broken it up a little because we think it too long to put in the blog in a single chunk.  Here’s how it starts:

 

Loose Cannon Firing Faster: Obama and Trump

Trump can still save Obama…if they both hurry.

 

Hunh?

Yeah, that opening remark may lead to as many or more questions than it might answer.  [As a side-bar: is that necessarily a bad thing?]

The premise here is that the election of Trump is, as has been suggested by any number of individuals in any number of venues, something of a bloodless revolution; things, they are a-changin’.

One of the first things to be changing once Trump takes office is scheduled to be an end to ObamaCare.  The flagship legislation Obama reasonably sees as his legacy  --  though he sees it as laudable and a goodly number of others find it detestable at best --  is scheduled to go down to a shameful end; a failed experiment that should never have been attempted and was only given light of day by way of some of the most egregious examples of the worst of forms and tactics of politics. 

Not likely a terrific legacy for history books; Obama is thus likely to be granted little more than a hardly complimentary acknowledgement in a footnote in most future histories.

That offers Trump an opportunity to secure his own legacy at the outset of his administration, if he can stay away from mimicking Obama’s first days for a bit, by saving Obama from his current fate.  Trump can repeal the shameful place Obama has built for himself in history and replace it with something really wonderful, just as Trump is scheduled to be repealing and replacing that ghastly legislation.

Why would Trump want to do that?  Why would anybody care?  Because it is not about Obama, or Trump, or ObamaCare, but about this nation, this Great Experiment.

Trump and Obama would have to work together, along with a number of others of note, quickly and intensely.  But it could be done.

 

And here is how it ends:


This would be the key: recognition by all concerned but particularly those most immediately concerned  -- Obama, Trump, the legislative leadership of both parties --  of how rare an opportunity is at hand, and how important, even critical, it is to make the very best  -- not just for the individual, or party, but for the very continuation of The Great Experiment, the nation --  of the opportunity; the opportunity to resolve a number of Constitutional questions and mechanisms likely to otherwise have to be resolved hurriedly in the middle of crisis that threatens perhaps the world.

It is up to the rest of us to ensure that those most immediately concerned, are well aware of how much and in what way(s?) we are concerned.

The cooperation generated in such an effort could lead to a spirit of cooperation as great as the divisiveness and rancor that has marked the last too-many years.

Just for a moment, try to imagine what progress might be forged from a spirit of cooperation in addressing problems, rather than each side presuming that the real problems aren’t the actual issues but the other party?

 

Please recommend this read to others…ASAP: it is not expected to be available beyond a few days.
 
 
                                                                             +≠&

 

 

 
 

January 11, 2017

 

 

Trump rescuing Obama’s legacy, to mutual advantage and disadvantage, now has its own page with its own place on the tab bar: make this go viral.  We want this read by literally 100K or more in the next 72 hours.  Sounds like a lot of people, but pretty much everybody has a fair understanding of just how powerful the web can be.  This is not about or for conservatives; it is not about or for liberals; it is about and for concerned citizens of whatever stripe who believe they love The Great Experiment.  There is no advertising on the site; nothing for sale; no email list.  Sure, there are other actions we’d like readers to take [like signing the petitions through our “Action Items” page] but even that is secondary at the moment.  Please, read the piece  -- right now --  and “let your conscience be your guide”, even about contacting others and encouraging them to read this thing as well…but timing is paramount.
 
 
                                                                                        +≠&

 

 
 

January 12, 2017

 

 

There’s a lot of stuff we’d like to get to at the moment but there is a single focus that must take precedence.

Please, liberal or conservative, if you care about The Great Experiment, please read http://www.usann.us/Trump_rescues_Obama_.html   [no ads, no email lists] and encourage others to read as well.  If each of two get two more, in each case just once but happening every hour, the contagion goes to millions in less than 24…and that would result in a message to DC for both sides of the aisle that could hardly be mistaken.  You might even want to contact members of Congress and/or others in positions of Power to express your opinion in these regards.

 

While in a mode of expressing opinions, please consider signing the petitions linked from our “Action Items” page.  It will likely take only a very few minutes: two are pretty simple and straightforward, even “self-explanatory”; the one on “Hierarchy of Law” may call for a bit more reading, but we think we’ve got all the material anybody would need to make the decision regarding signing the petition right here on the site [but by all means feel free to do additional research].
 
 
                                                                             +≠&

 

 
 

January 13, 2017

 

 

Wow.  Just checked our petition pages and discovered a new wrinkle in The Obama Legacy of plotting against the next administration.  Really.  The “We the People” stuff is now led with “This is historical material, “frozen in time”.  The website is no longer updated and links to external websites and some internal pages may not work.”

The new petitions were placed on the 4th.  Since the scheduled date of inauguration of the next President would come during the signature-gathering period, acceptance of the petitions essentially constitutes a contract to keep the site up and running.  After all, it isn’t the property of Obama, but of the government of The United States of America.

Heard a talking head today say something along the line of Obama trying to leave as much trouble [“landmines” was a term used] as possible for the next administration.  This petty stuff, perfectly modeled on the ending of a foreign national registration system Trump would almost certainly want and will now almost certainly have to resurrect, seems to substantiate that position.

All this stuff of the last few weeks!  Another and perhaps greater betrayal of Israel?   Obama is proving himself as dangerous, and perhaps as demented, as some of us have long suggested.

That, in turn, is both the reason and the means to remove him, through Section 4 of the 25th Amendment.

To “play nice”, an exercise of cooperation in a first exercise of Section 4, is in order [of course, if “nice” fails, just do it anyway].  Please read the last few blog entries [now in “Recent”] and “Trump rescues Obama?”; encourage others to do so [each reader getting just 2 more, within an hour, and we run out of prospective readers in less than 30 hours].  It is a holiday weekend; let all those In Power discover even before returning to work, through osmosis [and personal contact], the message that can be sent by millions in this country reading the piece; those millions wouldn’t even have to phone or email the Powerful, as the undercurrent could become palpable.
 
 
                                                                             +≠&

 

 

January 14, 2017

 
 

Much noise about the “legitimacy” or lack thereof, in the Presidency of Donald Trump, from the left/Dems.  Hmmmm; seems a bit like noise of “legitimacy” or lack thereof, in the Presidency of Obama.

While each of these guys is a loose-cannon, there are conspicuous differences.  One had to do with Constitutional eligibility [do your own thorough and independent research and we suspect you will come to the same conclusion such activity brought us; the phrase “natural born citizen” as used by The Founders in the Constitution meant, and therefore still means, born on legitimately held territory of the given nation to parents each of whom is a citizen of that country at the time of the birth] and the one does not meet the standard.  One pretends that attempts by another nation to influence domestic experience is both novel and even if entirely futile is still sufficient to negate the experience.

Another difference is that in one case the concerns seem to be largely conjecture about what might come; in the other, the evidence is in and is thoroughly convincing.

In this last, do not think we are fond of Trump; he is still a loose cannon.  As we’ve noted before, Jefferson saw this coming and admonished that we “do not put your faith in men, but bind them in chains to the Constitution”.

Interestingly, these two individuals with feet of clay may actually be able to rescue each other and The Great Experiment…if they, and we, hurry.

Please read the last few entries of this blog [now in “Recent”] and the piece “Trump rescues Obama?”.  Then pass the word, encouraging others [in this country] to read also…ASAP; each reader getting just two more, in the following hour after they’ve read it, would become the classic of “going viral”, running completely out of prospective readers within 30 hours.  It just might send a message by a groundswell of public opinion that the DC politicians somehow did not receive on November 8 last.
 
 
                                                                             +≠&

 

 
 

January 15, 2017

 

 

In that we do no tracking on this site, we have no way of knowing how many people are actually reading what we provide.  All we can do is pay attention to the use or lack of it, of the Comments page, listen to the drumbeat at the watercooler…and keep trying to spread the word.

The word of the moment might be “spirit”, “Patriotism”, “cooperation”, “legacy”, or even “crisis”.  Each seems applicable to the essence of “Trump rescues Obama?”.  Please read it, and the last several entries to this blog [now in “Recent”].  Then make it “go viral”.
 
 
                                                                              +≠&

 

 

 

January 16, 2017

 

 

Much ado about inauguration scheduled for Friday.  Lots of noise, lots of prep.  Unbelievable running commentary on how this or that impacts or is impacted by what is endlessly characterized as an amazing and wondrous thing, the peaceful transfer of Power.

Here’s a thought: the loose cannon that has demonstrated an increasing proclivity to go off the rails  -- the usurper, not Trump –  long ago said he wanted a civilian Force of size and Power similar or greater to that of the military --  and will be in charge of what has been publicly estimated to be some 30K assorted but coordinated military and civilian personnel for “security” of this series of events that are in the aggregate termed inauguration.  Considering his recent actions, is it hard to conceive of a perhaps False-flag event, anything from major traffic disruptions by protesters to one or more assassination attempts [successful or not] to skirmishes with Russia to missile launches from North Korea, that might come just a few hours before the key transfer point, that might then be used as an excuse for a declaration of martial law and "postponement" of the transfer?  Just until the emergency has passed, of course; he’ll let us know later when that might be.

 

We do not broach this lightly.  Nor do we expect it.  It is just a possibility.

 

PLEASE read “Trump rescues Obama?” and the last several entries to this blog [now in “Recent”].  It could be the last chance you get for such things…for some time to come.
 
 
                                                                             +≠&

 

 
 

January 17, 2017

 

 

We’d like to be saying “We told you so”…about the 25th Amendment, or any number of other things.  Unfortunately, about all we have at the moment about which we can say “We told you so” is…commutations and pardons…and the accelerating pace at which Obama is clearly demonstrating just about everything that can be unseemly and worse.

 

Think this latest raft of commutations and pardons will be the last?  We wouldn’t bet on that; not one lousy bit.

 

Paul Ryan is upset about Obama commuting the sentence of Bradley Manning?  We are upset that Paul Ryan has shirked his obligation to work with Orrin Hatch to peacefully and legally remove Obama through Section 4 of the 25th Amendment long before he managed to so damage this country.  [We won’t ask if Ryan thinks this stuff is over yet, let alone if the Bergdahl pardon is expected at 11:55a E on Friday.]

 

The good news is that the price of the ebook “A 25th Amendment Revolution” by our own OEuclidean has been dropped…and by 40%...still with a free sample [link to etailer on "Action Items" page].  And the related/off-shoot of “Trump rescues Obama?” is still available and free in its entirety.
 
 
                                                                              +≠&

 

 
 

January 18, 2017

 

 

Watched some of the televised coverage of some of the confirmation hearings.  Clearly reminded us of what we heard of the Spanish Inquisition.  For example, Patty Murray, never a favorite with us, appeared to have taken a leaf from the John Kerry book on politics: either she was essentially blowing smoke in an effort to make herself look “good”, or derelict in her duty when the incident she spoke of came to her attention.  Corey Booker, another one who has impressed us but not favorably, acted the part of a dog worrying a bone as he used a largely useless term endlessly as a club: a transcript might reveal how many times he used the word “asthma” in his speechifying (seemed like about every third word) but apparently without realization that the term, often if not generally, is loosely used to include everything that could relate to “trouble breathing”.  Pretty silly stuff.  Sanders got into it, too, and gave comic Franken a run for the money in the category of “greatest hilarity delivered in a pretense of seriousness”.
 

We think somebody might want to quietly explain to the members of Congress that are so publicly making such fools of themselves in this and such (mis)behaviors as making a point of not showing up for the inauguration; that they are setting the table at which Trump will be sitting as head.  Is it really in their best interests, or the best interests of their constituents, to make such a big show of their disrespect?  They may well have arranged to make themselves virtually irrelevant for the next 2 years; they may find themselves with effectively no say on anything and any attempt to say something anyway might just backfire.  They won’t even be able to be obstructionist if they push too hard.  Granted that puts the onus largely on the Rs for the next 2 years.  But it also offers political cover by reason of Ds having set themselves off to the side; hard to legitimately complain about the results of a job that is your responsibility and that you’ve abandoned.
 
 
                                                                              +≠&

 

 

 

January 19, 2017

 
 

 

Too late for what might have been?

Much as some believe that Obama is not and cannot be eligible to the Office of the President of The United States of America, and despite as many as 70K “voting irregularities” in a given election [the very small portion investigated did result in a few convictions], he has been acting in that capacity almost 8 years.  Much as some people may take exception to the results of the election of November 8, barring death or catastrophic disability to Trump and/or declaration of martial law by Obama, it is a near certainty that Trump will be inaugurated as the 45th President of The United States of America, on January 20, 2017.

So the answer to the above question is Yes and No.  Yes, because as a practicality there just is not time to jump through all the hoops.  No, because this clearly points to one of the first things Trump needs to address on taking office.

With all the noise about “The first 100 days” and the like, we’ve an idea or two of our own of what might be best for the nation.  First on our list is a short speech in which Trump notes to the public that he is still learning and that one of the things he’s already learned is that there are a lot of hoops to getting things done, even for a President; thus, the previous schedule has had to be modified and may have to be modified further…but the agenda remains the same.

Second on our list is whatever is left to formally put his team in place.  And third is assigning each member of that team a critical task: assessment of where we are at the moment within that purview, where we should be in 5 years, and specifics of the interim steps en route to those goals along with a schedule for accomplishment of those interim steps; due in the Oval Office in a week.  There will probably be need for a bit of one-on-one for some of the team for “guidance”, such as tasking the AG with seeking out cases for Court challenges on one subject or another, such as getting the federal government out of things it isn’t supposed to be into in the first place.

With the team in place and at work, nominate an individual to SCOTUS; and let Congress know that getting the jobs done, and well and in timely manner, including confirmations, is paramount and will be “transparent” to the greatest degree practical within constructs of personal privacy and [valid, v pretended] national security issues.

We’d also like to hear that an example of how re-examining questions with greater information and understanding as that comes available, is that Melania and Barron will be moving to Pennsylvania Avenue forthwith since keeping the family together is preferential to avoidance of relatively normal but relatively minor disruptions of life, and we have chosen this course of Presidency and accept it in its entirety; that all holdings have been effectively put in double-blind trust, save a single account that is sufficient to, on an annual basis, allow the family to maintain approximately the standard of living they’ve known for some time, which can be replenished annually from the trust.

[No, we are not lawyers and we don’t play them on TV, but a double-blind trust would pretty well assure an end to questions of conflict of interest.  Those actually in charge of the trust(s) would have an obligation to the trust(s) that would likely keep those currently in charge of the assets on the job…provided they’re doing a good job: the big difference is in whether The Donald would be aware of whether or not his actions would more or less directly influence the holdings…which he would not be able to know because he would not know what the holdings in the trust(s) would be literally from one day to the next.  The entire value of the portfolio could be taken from the Trump companies and put into auto stocks, or gold, or whatever, and again changed and again, with no notice to The Donald.]

Such a divorcement from his “previous life” and/or “business life” is not required by law.  It is only required by reasonable moral and ethical standards, and philosophical consistency with the concept of “draining the swamp”, in concert with a little sanity.  Then again, it has been so long since those things prevailed in DC it really may be too much to ask.

Oh bleeeeep!  We ask it anyway.
 
 
                                                                             +≠&

 

 
 

January 20, 2017

 
 

 

Looks like we made it?  We’d rather the process had been without quite so much showing of Peacock feathers.

Over-doing the celebration is as much nose-rubbed in it for the other side, as the other side is pretending Power that will prevent confirmation of one or more parts of the team Trump has chosen.

But the nation made it through to the official “transfer of Power”.

We would rather the last loose cannon hadn’t accelerated his destructive acts going into the end of his time at the helm.  We’d rather he hadn’t done so much damage in the preceding 94 months.  We’d rather he’d been peacefully and legally removed through Section 4 of the 25th Amendment…long ago.  We’d have liked for him to never have usurped the job in the first place, and for those complicit with him in his efforts to long since have been serving prison terms.

What will come of us with the new loose cannon?  Looks like we may not have to wait long to get at least an inkling; he was already signing Executive Orders shortly after the parade…complete with the dog and pony show using multiple pens.  There was even a show over which mucky-muck was to get which pen in what order.  To that we must ask: That’s draining the swamp?

We are, however, most favorably impressed with the new First Lady; she has “presence”.  If we are not careful, she, assisted by the rest of the [extended] family, may just drag us back into a time of “class acts”.

 

For some time now we have worked pretty hard at trying to get those who could do something about the stuff that is so very wrong, to do what they could do.  The last several months we’ve been trying to draw attention to the fact that the nation has apparently chosen a new loose cannon to replace the loose cannon usurper…and that Jefferson had seen Trump [both loose cannon?] coming.

“Put not your faith in men, but bind them in chains to the Constitution”.

We [as a society] had best be forging new chains.  It is rumored that Trump may be signing as many as 200 Executive Orders on Monday…wielding a pen in exactly the same manner as the usurper has done so often for so long.  The results might seem different but the acting without authority is exactly the same wrong.
 
 
Wonder if time, energy, and expertise can be found to essentially reset the WeThePeople features that included hosting petitions; the whole thing is gone now.  Do we thank Obama, Trump, or both?
 
 
                                                                             +≠&

 

 

 
 

January 21, 2017

 

 

The Womens’ March.  We suspect that most if not all involved are being used, another of the rings in the main arena of the current circus, of Bread and Circuses fame.  Looking this Women’s March up on the web brought…little…and less that seemed particularly laudable.  Example: non-violence.  Great idea…until somebody else decides to not abide by it.

We may look at this further at some point but for now relegate it to the heap of intentional distractions and likely stemming from less than laudable motivations.

 

 

The inauguration address has been focus of a bit of comment.

We think that it would be nice if Trump can meet the concepts he put forth, but recognize that he is prone to over-stating his case as a part of negotiating, so that his “fall back” position actually gets him where he really wanted to be in the first place.

We think the one thing that could be learned from that speech is…that Trump needs better writers.  Perhaps much of what we characterize as “errors” are resulting from inexperience, and the stuff will get better in time, perhaps very soon.  In any event, Trump needs better writers.

 

Things will likely be relatively quiet until about noon on Monday, maybe Tuesday morning.
 
 
                                                                             +≠&

 

 

 

January 23, 2017
 
 
 
Taking the day away; leaving the previous entry in place.
 
 
 
January 2
2, 2017

 

 

Wow.  “We the People” petition site has been reconstituted.  We had to open a new account, and apparently our history is “gone”, but at least we could re-start.  So, new petition windows are up and running, available through our “Action Items” page.

 

 

Rumor has it that Trump may be signing as many as 200 or more Executive Orders on Monday.  Most, so the rumor mongers assert, are to be reversing EOs of Obama.

We think that would be a lot of things other than good.  See, so much of what Obama did was done without authority: he just took it upon himself.  If that is the wrong way to do things [it is], then it is just as wrong for Trump to take that same approach.  It is in fact more wrong than even most of those who think ill of it might imagine; it refutes the concept and practice of The Rule of Law, in favor of Might-makes-right Divine Right of Kings and to the victor go the spoils.  Not good.   The Courts and Legislation are the appropriate remedies.  Might take a little longer, but doing the right thing in the right fashion, and from the get-go, could go a long way to righting the ship of state, to keep The Great Experiment afloat…arguably even a good deal more than more quickly achieved reversals made through and perpetuating the same wrong practice.
 
 
                                                                              +≠&

 

 

 

January 24, 2017

 
 

 

Well, he’s on a roll.  Not without a glitch or two, but on a roll.

Those who are now upset with Trump for his EOs need to consider how the “phone and pen” guy was misbehaving in the last administration, and how those who disagreed with those positions and actions felt.  [Think long-time Senator and now Minority Leader Chuck Schumer trying to dress down first-term Senator Tom Cotton; oops.]

Wake up, people.  The problem then was at least as much with the abuse as with the specifics; it still is.

We have long said that Jefferson saw Trump coming.  It could probably be said that Jefferson saw both Trump and Obama coming…but we think it a stretch even for Jefferson to have seen Obama and as far afield as he became.  Ultimately, however, Jefferson apparently not only understood the failings of men and of governments, but provided us a warning and even a strong suggestion about what to do when the time came: “put not your trust in men, but bind them in chains to the Constitution”.

To the forge.  Anybody else want on board?  [Or should we all go play dress-up(?) so we can pretend we look like a lady's private parts as an argument supporting how concerned and rational we are?]
 
 
                                                                             +≠&

 

 

 

January 25, 2017

 
 

 

Kates’ Law.  Still wrong as currently proposed.  But it gets headlines for pols who are pushing their own agenda, sometimes including disinformation, or just for the notoriety.

Most of what is needed/called for to deal with the kind of situation that led to the tragic death of Kate Steinle [and so much other ghastly crime], can be more effectively achieved.  Please; check out and then sign our petition regarding Illegal Alien Felons [link here goes to our "Action Items" page: text is available without having to go to another site; link there to specific part of WhiteHouse.gov for signing].
 
 
                                                                              +≠&

 

 

 

January 26, 2017

 
 

 

So now the Mexican President doesn’t want to meet with Trump because of/about the proposed Wall.  [It should be noted that Mexico has a Wall on its southern border, is harsh on persons entering Mexico illegally generally (try saying “Tahmooressi”), and is complicit in the invasion of The USA by persons from south of Mexico.]  That he says he cancelled and Trump says they agreed to cancel, suggests that each is playing to their own political ends; does not bode well for anybody.  On the particular; the Wall?  So what?  Does The USA need permission, let alone approval, to take control of its borders?  No.  And, though entirely unnecessarily, Mexico has long ago and formally agreed to that: read the Treaty of Hidalgo.

BTW, this dovetails to any investigation of voter fraud.  Trump has said that he believes millions of persons voted illegally, despite protestations by many that “there is no evidence” of such.  [We always have trouble with that “no evidence” claim; there may be no known or widely publicized evidence sufficient to support a particular line of thought, at a given moment; but determinations as if from a tablet of stone from On High, and prior to investigation?].

It appears there will in fact be something of an investigation.  We suspect that there may be a big surprise.  Mexico recognizes “dual citizenship” [think about it] and encourages its citizens to vote, not only in Mexico but wherever they live.  But to gain citizenship in The USA, one must relinquish (political) ties to other nations.  Logic insists then that a person from Mexico, who becomes a citizen of The USA, yet votes in Mexican elections or even just continues to claim Mexican citizenship, commits fraud and forfeits citizenship in The USA.  That would then make a vote in The USA invalid…and, “voter fraud”.
 
 
                                                                             +≠&

 

 
 

January 27, 2017

 

 

Goin’ light.  Just consider this with the entries at the first of the month [still in “Recent”: we’re way behind on a lot of stuff].

 

http://thefederalistpapers.org/second-amendment-2/federal-court-issues-terrifying-2nd-amendment-ruling-but-thats-not-the-worst-part                            


                                                                             +≠&

 

 

 

January 29, 2017
 
 
 
Taking the day off, we leave the previous entry in place.
 
 
 
 
January 2
8, 2017

 
 

 

God save us from the other side of the Obamite coin, just as he might save us from the results of all such coinage!

Here’s an “expert” clearly demonstrating a distinct lack of professionalism.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/01/27/dr-keith-ablow-whats-really-going-on-in-trumps-mind-hint-its-not-what-think.html

 
                                                                             +≠&

 

 

 
 

January 30, 2017

 

 

 

To all & sundry

That you do not agree with something does not make it “un-American” [Sen. Schumer: are you listening?]: that each of us has our own perspective on exactly what “America” is, that doesn’t make that perspective more valid than any other for the rest of the population; and, success in a given field, such as entertainment [think Hollywood and NFL], does not in and of itself, suddenly endow one with great expertise in any other field, such as logic and/or philosophy.  PLEASE, since there is precious little about Usanns that is monolithic, stop with the “what we are” garbage/misinformation: shut up about “my” “America”; stop pretending when reality is called for.

 

 

How much of the noise about the exercise of specified Presidential authority to limit access to the country by persons he sees as potential threats, is actually about refuting the Constitution?  See, the argument tends to be that persons outside this country have a right to come here.  But they don’t.  Another argument is that persons from other countries have rights in this one.  Not true.  Any kindnesses extended to persons who are not citizens are exactly that; privilege and kindness.  To argue otherwise is to deny the reality of the US Constitution.

The Constitution is essentially the contract between government and the governed.  But who is party to the contract?  Can it cover persons, or organizations, not party to it?  Say, natives of China in China?  Of course not.  What about citizens of the US in China?  To only a limited degree, and that by the grace of China. [ Think not?  Go to China and press the point.]  To citizens of China in The USA?  Logically, the reciprocal applies: only to limited extent, by the grace of The USA.  The contract of the US Constitution is between the government of the country and the citizens of the country.

But if the nonsense about the rights of non-citizens within the country and/or attempting to gain entry, is permitted to prevail, then the entire document becomes essentially nonsense and moot.

Is that the goal?
 
 
                                                                              +≠&

 

 

 

January 31, 2017

 

 
 

Trump has nominated to SCOTUS.  An entire new ring has been constructed under the big top for the spectacle.

Just yesterday Trump made his first big “you’re fired” [and another?] since his inauguration.  We think it appropriate and find it may be a precursor to one or more parts of what can be found in “A 25th Amendment Revolution” by our own O Euclidean [see “Action Items” page].

Somebody needs to get something across to Trump: slow down.  There comes a point at which speed kills…and it will kill the viability of a Trump Presidency if he keeps his eye on speed with little consideration to skill and accuracy and effectiveness in dealing with the problems of the nation.
 
 
                                                                             +≠&


 

 
 

February 1, 2017

 

 

Tillerson is Secretary of State.

Berzerkly goes berserk again…or is that just a “norm” there that is only particularly noticed from time to time?

 

Hogwash continues over EO travel order.  More hogwash continues over nominee to SCOTUS.

 
 

Wake up and smell coffee, folk.  We may not have passed the precipice leading to…pitchforks.
 
 
                                                                             +≠&

 

 

 

February 4, 2017
 
 
 
Distracted, tired, just checking in, leaving previous entry in place.
 
 
 
 
February
3, 2017

 

 

Despite all that’s going on, including what might be a prelude to WWIII, we take the day away from the blog, leaving the previous entry in place.

 

 
 

February 2, 2017

 
 
 

Trump continues at a frenetic pace to incompetently address concerns large and small.  That begs a question: is that a good thing or a bad thing?

 

It is our understanding that tomorrow Congress, perhaps in concert with The White House, will become far more serious about the pretense of “tax reform” that is largely just one more lighted ring under the Big Top; a circus act, for focus at a given moment...and of little real import to the life of the spectators.

One noise is almost assuredly to be about the number of income tax brackets: another is a break on corporate income tax to encourage “repatriation” of profits now held overseas; still another is “the death tax”.  It seems a safe bet that the “border tax” recently suggested will be knit into the fold somewhere.

Be careful what you wish for: you might get it.

“Reform”.  Yeah.  Another populist hot-button that speaks only to “change”; a different “form”.  Many if not most people will respond to the buzzword without thinking, pretending that whatever is offered under such a label must be a “good”.  One need not look very hard at the last 8 years, let alone further, to find that to be a dangerous assumption.

As is noted on this site in a number of places: “Change is not sufficient: we need improvement”.
 
 
                                                                              +≠&

 

 
 

February 5, 2017

 

 

Laughing our backsides off over

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/calexit-should-california-secede-can-it-be-legal     

in large part because of the use of the term “American” [see Watch Your Language].

 

BTW, ICYMI, much could be learned in The White House from the Super Bowl.  First, never quit.  Second, going too hard too fast can result in unnecessary mistakes that lead to inability to meet the objective.
 
 
                                                                              +≠&

 

 

 

February 6, 2017

 

 

Ever heard the expression “The inmates are running the asylum”?  Well…

http://ufpnews.com/watch-family-illegally-says-senator/           

Another phrase heard often these days: “You just can’t make this stuff up”.
 
 
                                                                             +≠&

 

 

 

February 7, 2017

 

 
 

OK, now that the VP has cast an historic vote breaking the tie over confirmation by The Senate of a nominee to the Cabinet, the Ds have a new choice: continue to waste time by being obviously intentionally futilely obstructionist over the rest, or get out of the way and get on with business [which would also provide said Dems the opportunity to finger-point anything that goes wrong as being all the fault of the Rs].

 

 

Waiting decision on the “immigration ban”…that does not exist.  The EO, as we understand it, isn’t even a “travel” ban, but actually a “travel restriction”.  The phrasing makes a huge difference.

Beyond that, there is the question of authority, and even Constitutionality.

To authority, there is a long standing statute which specifies authority to take such action.  But is that statute Constitutional?  There’s the rub.

It would be a bit late to take somebody to task over the question, since it has been used repeatedly for decades with little dissent, and the threat posed by not taking such action is hardly less than it has been to date.  It could conceivably be argued that the legislature erred significantly in the construction of the statute, perhaps having given power to the Administration that even it did not have in the first place, or in violation of the Separation of Powers [a doctrine, not a stipulation in the Constitution, as we understand it].  It might not be inaccurate to declare the statute in violation; but such a finding at this juncture would throw an awful lot of questions about why it wasn’t done in any of so many opportunities over the last several administrations…which in turn could spark more agitation over “originalist” or “living document” theories of the Constitution itself [likely coming in the not so distant future anyway, we think].

Will Trump win the day at Court?  Probably…not, at least at this level: it is, after all, the 9th…and permitting of the misleading phrasing at the start [oral argument was not exactly “stellar”, either].  In any event,  it is almost sure to go to a likely nonsensical exercise of SCOTUS; nonsensical because with the current 4 to 4 split likely to lead to that kind of split in the opinion, the lower Court finding would be left in place [thus making the exercise largely moot].  One more facet of the plethora of “Attorney’s Full Employment Acts”…all paid for, on both sides, by the taxpayer.
 
 
                                                                             +≠&

 

 

 

February 9, 2017
 
 
 
Life interrupts with a medical situation.  We leave the previous entry in place.
 
 
 
February
8, 2017

 
 

 

The “waiting with bated breath” for a decision from a most liberal panel of the most liberal Appeals Court in the nation seems an opportunity to post early and go hard at a [long overdue] rebuild on this site.

“That is all”.
 
 
                                                                              +≠&

 
 

 

February 10, 2017

 

 

Note to Trump:

Slow down;

Shut up;

Pick your targets very carefully;

Place your shots even more carefully.
 
 
 
                                                                             +≠&

 

 

 

February 12, 2017
 
 
 
Worked up what we thought was a good piece while on a long ride today.  Unfortunately, we didn't make notes, and it got lost in a fog.  The ride was to a difficulty, and we haven't the strength to rediscover it at the moment or even replace it.  We leave the previous entry in place.
 
 
 
February 1
1, 2017

 
 

 

We heard part of another public “performance” of The National Anthem today.  The performers were being highlighted as wonderful and talented.  They may be…or not.

What we know of the way in which that particular piece of music was performed is that the “performers”, as so many before them, made a point of inserting their own “styling” over the way the notes had been assembled in the original: they made the performance about them, rather than about the anthem, let alone the country.

We don’t sing, even in the shower.  We have only a nodding acquaintance with music.  But we have an idea of what The National Anthem is supposed to sound like; and an idea of what a National Anthem is theoretically “all about”…and what it is about is not how much or what kind of “styling” this individual or that group can “add”…that then subtracts from honoring the country and its peoples and the wonders of both, and more.

So, to all those folk who publicly “perform” The Star Spangled Banner: are you not good enough in your field  -- singing --  to do your part flawlessly within the constructs of the individual  -- the composer --  who did such an amazing job in delivering their expertise in that field?  Is public performance of The National Anthem more about the singer(s), or more about the nation?
 
 
                                                                              +≠&

 
 
 
 

February 15, 2017
 
 
 
We are recovering from several days distracted from our "obligation" [it isn't really obligation here, but privilege and dedication] to these pages; we again just check in, leaving the previous entry in place.
 
 
 
February 1
4, 2017
 
 
 
For a multitude of reasons, most of them personal, we pass today, just checking in long enough to note that and that we leave the previous entry in place.

 
 

February 13, 2017

 

 
 

Such a wealth of opportunity!  So little time, so little energy, so many targets!
 
 

We think that Oroville Dam coming apart may tie together a number of the oh-so-many dots that are begging to be connected.

Much of the water “shortage” in CA was a creation by humans…well, the subspecies that is bureaucrats.  Some years ago it was discovered that the folk who were doling out the water allotments were doling out authorizations to use something like ten times the amount of water available.  Then nature threw a curve and there was a real water shortage…aggravated by the fact that there’d been almost no additional storage set up for over 30 years, years in which the state population increased by something more than half [if memory serves].

Turns out that the problems at Oroville had been noted/reported roughly a dozen years ago.  And then there is the question of priorities that put the high-speed rail between nowhere and nowhere else not only higher on the list than Oroville but at least on it: yeah; Oroville didn’t even make the list.

So, while rumors flow and sentiment grows about a CA succession from the USA over “sanctuary” and USA trying to bully CA by way of “federal” funds, Moonbeam [the Gov] seeks aid from the federal government.  CA spends billions for the sake of some of those who want, even “demand” sanctuary, but couldn’t figure out cause or action to ensure stuff like Oroville were taken care of…despite knowing, or at least having cause to know, the damage likely to occur with a breach?

Have any of these folk ever been exposed to the concept of cost/benefit analysis?  Even just the financial sort?
 
 
                                                                             +≠&

 
 

 

February 16, 2017

 
 

 

Of so many things available for notice, this one just “rose to the top”.

 

"To be honest, I inherited a mess." Trump.

Knock it off, stupid; or are you actually intentionally trying to be worse than Obama?

 

OK, that may be a little harsh.  But words matter.  “To be honest”?  What is he saying about his usual presentation: honest, or dishonest?  What should the public [and press] be expecting?  Was this something of a special case?

 

“I inherited a mess."  Stop, already.  This is akin to the individual facing charges of murdering their parents, looking for mercy from the Court because they’ve been orphaned.  You sought the Office knowing full well what was going on and that is exactly what got you elected.

 

We doubt that we are alone in wanting to never again hear, at least from Trump: “Believe me”; “unfair”; “that’s OK”.  There are a number of other phrases that have become, uhh, tiresome(?) at best.  Perhaps because he so often offers the same phrase twice, even thrice?  It seems he is his own echo chamber.

 

He may also, it seems, be his own worst enemy.  Sure wish he would read and heed our note in this blog dated February 10 [in "Recent" at this writing].
 
 
                                                                             +≠&

 

 

 

February 19, 2017
 
 
 
The day got away and so, conveniently to our attitude about the last entry of significance, we leave the previous entry in place; it is pretty rare that we leave one in place this long.
 
 
 
February 1
8, 2017
 
 
 
Leaving previous entry in place because we simply want it up front a bit longer.  Yeah, it's that important.
 
 
 
February 1
7, 2017

 
 

 

Having long been aware of the 25th Amendment, and its failings, in concert with “A 25th Amendment Revolution” by our own OEuclidean [free sample available: see our “Action Items” page], we are somewhat pleased to find that more and more people are also becoming at least somewhat aware [we think most are being trapped by their own preconceptions rather than being open to every possibility].

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-25th-amendment-chatter-dems-pundits-mull-ways-to-remove-trump/article/2615212?custom_click=rss             

We think it would be immensely ironic to have the 25th clarified in an exercise against Trump.  Particularly in light of what we had hoped could be a cooperation between Trump and Obama, to mutual benefit and that of the nation, before the inauguration: Trump rescues Obama?

Please do all the reading: the linked article, the free sample of the ebook, and the essay here on site.  It is a lot of reading for most folk and will take a few minutes; we guarantee that it took a lot longer to write than it does to read.  Then, within the dictates of conscience…spread the word about this material.
 
                       
                                                                             +≠&

 

 

 

February 20, 2017

 
 

 

While we strongly opposed Obama and advocated repair and exercise of Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to remove him, now it is Dems who want to alter the 25th and push for removal of the guy now in The White House.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/20/democrats-question-president-trumps-mental-health/               

We think those pushing now are more “out of their minds” than Trump.  But we also think this may be an opportunity to remedy the problems/failings/weaknesses of the 25th.

Please do the reading [see the entry for the 17th, in “Recent” at this writing] and let’s get this resolved while only about half the population thinks it is needed, as opposed to when there is little doubt anywhere that it is in fact needed.
 
 
                                                                           +≠&

                                                                                                

September 17, 2011, Constitution Day: we begin another effort at blogging. Previous efforts have ended unceremoniously for a variety of reasons; for the most part we simply have not found it appropriate to pretend that we had something of significance to say publicly each and every day, too easily then neglecting for too long, distracted by daily life rather than making such an effort a part of daily life.

This process may well be subjected to similar problems but should result in a different end: for this blogging has a new intent added to the old, one of being an exercise in and a marking of self discipline [do not expect perfection; we don't, though we will strive for minimal evidence of our imperfections]. A daily entry is a part of our objective: it may be as brief and seemingly dismissive as " Nothing today", "We, too, sometimes need a break: this is one of ours.", or " Have noted news; gathering thoughts", but we are committed to at least checking in each day, and ask readers consider doing likewise. [Entries may or may not be keyed to or even linked to other parts of the site, but we will endeavor to minimize choppiness.]

Too often, we may go on too long. We may try to cover too many bases, resulting momentarily in a light treatment of heavy material, but we believe longer treatments will be available elsewhere on or at least through this site.

One of our objectives is to not waste a visitors' time. We don't mind even offending folk, if it is all honest and above-board; but we would be disappointed if, having visited, somebody left feeling they'd wasted their time [much as we don't mind somebody leaving our table not being uncomfortably full, but would feel badly if they left hungry despite their efforts to become at least reasonably satisfied].

That will have to do for today: life interrupts.

                                                                                            +≠&

Addendum, October 4, 2011

Any post more than a week old will be subject to being moved from this page and archived. For the immediate future, the archive will be available on another page on the site.

Addendum, October 6, 2011

We will, from time to time, review and edit for typos et al, so that later readers may not be subjected to them.

Addendum, December 9, 2011

We have reorganized [again] so that the single most recent blog entry is readily available without having to mess with a slide bar much. Recent entries will go to another page, eventually to archives, though those pages will be as we read, oldest first. We hope this makes things easier for visitors.

+≠&

.


The
(general) PLAN

Exercise integrity, and encourage others to do so:
Support each other, and encourage others to do so;
Educate ourselves, and encourage others to do so;
Use the term Usann, and encourage others to do so;
Resist tyranny, and encourage others to do so;
Exercise authority over officials, and encourage others to do so;

And take the country back, one day, one moment, at a time.
 

Our goal is to follow the above plan in our lives and our business, thus being a part of returning our country, The United States of America, to the Republic it was envisioned and designed to be and The Great Experiment  -- the Rule of Law --  brought to the world by the Founding Fathers.

We ask readers  -- and others --  consider doing likewise.



Taking no ads, the only revenue to keep this site going is out of our own pockets and should arguably
be going to other things, from the few items sometimes in our store, and whatever
donations might be put in the tip jar on our Comment/Support page.


To the extent that you think reasonable

-- and please think for a moment about how long it would take you to put something like this together,
and what it would cost you, in energy and money, to then make it and keep it available on the web --

we ask you consider contributing to our delinquency.