Simple Man Politics

The news politics today is President Obama and his town hall meeting yesterday and the political spin from both parties regarding the New Hampshire event. Normally I would be writing about that as well myself today, but I find myself a little more concerned with something that Nancy Pelosi mentioned. I am sure you are all aware that I am no fan of the house speaker, or the President, or their policies, but this is more important to me.

I am going to talk a little bit about hate and extremism today. The part of this post I am giving Pelosi credit for bringing up is only with regard to the symbol called a swastika, because Pelosi is right that the swastika is a symbol of hate. Other than that Nancy Pelosi is as usual a dumbass about her description of American citizens who oppose the Democrats healthcare reform bill.

I am a real big fan of the great melting pot of ethnic and cultural diversity in the United States, although I believe in the ideas put forth and expressed by the founding fathers in both the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I believe in the traditional, conservative, Christian values that our nation was founded on and that they should not be compromised. I also thoroughly despise extremist hatred in any way be it racial, religious, or political.

I have been a racist and a hater when I was growing up, which is something I am not proud of and over the last twenty five years or so I have done much in the way of educating myself and putting those things about myself behind me and learning tolerance and love for my fellow man. As a result of educating myself personally and learning to see every American as an equal I have a real problem with hate especially when it is in the form if sheer ignorance.

That is why I cannot tolerate people who think and believe that symbols such as the swastika are legitimate forms of representation in a democratic society. I would hope that anyone who is caught defacing someone else’s property or public property would be arrested, prosecuted, and convicted for committing a hate crime no matter what their reason is for applying this most hateful of symbols. I am not trying to censor free speech with this post, but I am trying to keep a uniquely un-American symbol out of the US.



I came across the picture in this blog while researching something else entirely different from this topic. Some ignorant, uneducated, extremist spray painted the swastika in the picture on a sign belonging to Congressman David Scott (D-GA) in Smyrna GA. While I believe he deserves to be confronted about his support for the healthcare reform bill and that he also deserves to be involved in a serious debate and discussion with is constituents I do not believe that he deserves to be a target of such hateful discrimination.

I would also say to all of you that you should in no way, shape, or form support any group or person who believes in what this symbol stands for. I am quite sure that none of my friends do support this symbol and its bearers, and that they would react quite violently against anybody who would attempt to display it in their presence. I also know that I personally would not stand idly by and allow someone to display it in my presence.

I hope you all have a wonderful day today, and I will be back again very soon my friends, CIAO4NOW!!!!!

Yesterday saw an extraordinary political event occur on the national stage and brought to all of us by our favorite news outlets. This extraordinary event that I am talking about is the back to back speeches made by President Barack Obama and former Vice President Dick Cheney both of which were on national defense and the war on terror. Both of these speeches were in stark contrast to each other as well and immediately sparked sharp debate from both sides of the argument.

I found both of these speeches to be very well thought out and written by and for their respective speech makers. What I mean to say is that if you support the Obama position on the war on terror, closing Gitmo, and national security then his speech was just what you wanted to hear, and if you support the Cheney position then likewise he said just what you wanted to hear. As I said both sides of this argument will be talking about the speeches for a couple of days at least.

I applaud Obama for his choice of venues for delivering his speech, which was the National Archives where the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights are enshrined, which are the three documents that he said in his speech he would defend. However I found the consensus that Obama was giving this speech from a position of weakness. On the other side Cheney chose to give his speech from the American Enterprise Institute and seemed anything other than weak from his position.

He also restated his intention to close down the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility stating that it was not only illegal but a sore point with our enemies and a recruitment tool for them also. He likewise stated his position on the Enhanced Interrogation Program and its termination saying that it was illegal, inhumane, and immoral. He also said that it was a recruitment tool for terrorists also. He further stated that bringing the Gitmo detainees to the US and trying them here with all of the rights of a criminal defendant was the right thing to do under the law.

On the other side of this argument Cheney said that the construction of Guantanamo was designed to house just these sorts of animals that attacked our homeland on September 11th, 2001 and was legally developed. He also staunchly defended the Enhanced Interrogation Program stating that it was not only extremely effective, but constitutionally legal as well. Cheney went on to say that Gitmo was there so that we wouldn’t have to bring these vermin onto US soil and implied that the detainees were not eligible for the rights our legal system affords its citizens.

Now I will give you my own thoughts on this subject. I agree with Obama that he has sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and likewise the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights and he should defend them. These documents are the very foundation, heart, and soul of our nation and its democracy, but there is little if anything else that he said yesterday, which I do agree with.

On the other hand I do agree with Cheney that 9/11 changed forever the way I look at our enemies and in particular those in the Middle East that support, harbor, fund, equip, train, or otherwise take part in terrorist activities against our country. I do not believe that they are eligible for Geneva Convention Protections because they are not a recognized national military. I will also tell you that I think we should leave them in Gitmo or put them in some more inhospitable environment where they could not survive without our assistance such as a place like ANWAR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or maybe Alcatraz Island, which is a federal military reserve.

As enemy combatants I also do not believe that they are eligible for habeas corpus rights or any rights afforded a simple criminal in our federal criminal court system including legal defense. I say a military tribunal is just what is needed for them. With regard to our Enhanced Interrogation Program and its apparent success in gaining intelligence from high value detainees I believe that it was not only a successful program, but legal as well and as far as water boarding in particular it was only used on three of those terrorists and with great effect. By the way their recruitment tools are nothing more than their hate of freedom and democracy.

I personally don’t care what we do to the detainees or what happens to them for that matter as long as it is extremely unpleasant. I don’t believe that animals and these animals in particular are deserving of the rights and protections of law abiding citizens of the world or of the United States in particular.

I would just as soon shoot them like rabid dogs myself personally and if I cannot then send them back to their countries of origin, but apparently we can’t do that because it would be a death sentence for most of them at least, but I don’t care if they are killed by us or their own kind. All I care about is that they never again have the ability to raise their hands against another citizen of the United States or any other democratic country.

Well that is my Friday rant for all of you to read and I hope it leaves no doubt where I stand on the issue of this nation’s defense and its enemies. I hope you all have an awesome weekend and I will be back again on Monday CIAO4NOW!!!!!

I hope you all had a wonderful weekend and welcome back to another installment of Simple Man Politics. Today’s topic is going to very interesting to you all especially if you happen to be parents. The topic for today is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is a threat to parental rights.

This UN convention is an attempt by the International community to gain some legal control of the US by having our country sign on and give control of our parental and children’s rights to UN, and circumventing the US legal system. Unfortunately this is not the UN’s first attempt to accomplish some sort of control over the US it is just the latest attempt. I am also sure it will not be the last either.

I first heard about this on a popular news program. The person speaking on the topic was the founder of parentalrights.org Michael Farris. He spoke at length about this UN convention and it’s potentially sinister agenda, and said that we need a Parental Rights Amendment using a Supreme Court decision in 1925 as the basis for his argument.

After I had read the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Supreme Court decision on Piece v. Society of Sisters I can only conclude that he is absolutely correct. There are two list you need to see, one is a list of 20 things you need to know about the structure of the CRC and the other is a list of 10 things you need to know about the substance of the CRC. Here are the lists in the order I mentioned them in straight from the website parentalrights.org.

Ten things you need to know about the structure of the CRC.
1. It is a treaty which creates binding rules of law. It is no mere statement of altruism.
2. Its effect would be binding on American families, courts, and policy-makers.
3. Children of other nations would not be impacted in any direct way by our ratification.
4. The CRC would automatically override almost all American laws on children and families because of our Supremacy Clause.
5. The CRC has some elements that are self-executing, while others would require implementing legislation. Federal courts would have the power to determine which provisions were self-executing.
6. The Courts would have the power to directly enforce the provisions that are self-executing.
7. Congress would have the power to directly legislate on all subjects necessary to comply with the treaty. This would constitute the most massive shift of power from the states to the federal government in American history.
8. A committee of 18 experts from other nations, sitting in Geneva, has the authority to issue official interpretations of the treaty which are entitled to binding weight in American courts and legislatures. This effectively transfers ultimate authority for all policies in this area to this foreign committee.
9. Under international law, the treaty overrides even our Constitution.
10. Reservations, declarations, or understandings intended to modify our duty to comply with this treaty will be void if they are determined to be inconsistent with the object and purpose of the treaty.

Ten things you need to know about the substance of the CRC.
1. Parents would no longer be able to administer reasonable spankings to their children.
2. A murderer aged 17 years, 11 months and 29 days at the time of his crime could no longer be sentenced to life in prison.
3. Children would have the ability to choose their own religion while parents would only have the authority to give their children advice about religion.
4. The best interest of the child principle would give the government the ability to override every decision made by every parent if a government worker disagreed with the parent’s decision.
5. A child’s “right to be heard” would allow him (or her) to seek governmental review of every parental decision with which the child disagreed.
6. According to existing interpretation, it would be illegal for a nation to spend more on national defense than it does on children’s welfare.
7. Children would acquire a legally enforceable right to leisure.
8. Christian schools that refuse to teach "alternative worldviews" and teach that Christianity is the only true religion "fly in the face of article 29" of the treaty.
9. Allowing parents to opt their children out of sex education has been held to be out of compliance with the CRC.
10. Children would have the right to reproductive health information and services, including abortions, without parental knowledge or consent.

As a parent I am going to tell you that the last thing I want or need is some International politician or political body trying to tell me the best way to raise my children. If you look at most nations track records for maintaining law, order, and discipline with their younger generations or citizens they are not very successful, and I know I can do a much better job than 99.998% of anyone else on the planet because Poppi knows all and they are my kids.

The other problem that I have with this unveiled attempt by the UN to usurp our own authority on our own soil is that our nation’s laws are founded within our own US Constitution and Bill of Rights. I am of the belief that our laws need to be written by our own lawmakers and our Constitution strictly interpreted by the US Supreme Court, which fortunately for us has at least four Constitutionalist justices maybe even five. Unfortunately we may have a President who will sign this damned treaty.

There is definitely no good reason why we should be governed by an International body, which if I may remind them and you that without us most of them would either be speaking German or Japanese. As a result I don’t think that they are on an equal footing with us, but that may be the reason they are so hot to try to get this done, because they are not on an equal footing with us and as second class societies they never will be.

That is all I have for you today, but I am sure it is quite enough for now. I will be back again tomorrow my friends, CIAO4NOW!!!!!

There is a lot of things going on right now in the arena of politics that I could write about, which is as usual I expect, but today I am going to talk about a states right to secede from the union. As you all can imagine since Texas Governor Rick Perry made his little gaffe about the sovereignty of Texas, although he never actually advocated secession in his speech.

A states right to secede has been hotly debated ever since the War Between the States. Many northern news publications as well as residents in the north actually did advocate the southern states right to secede from the union, even though the government did not.

There is no law, constitutional amendment, or anything in the Bill of Rights that guarantees a states right to secede from the union of the United States of America including Texas.

Under the Texas agreement to join the union Texas was granted the right to split into four separate states if it wanted to at a later date, but did not have the right to secede. However Texas did secede in 1861, but the Yankee victory put an end to that secession.

What amazes me most about this whole Texas secession thing is not the fact that approximately 75% of Texans would wish to remain a state within the United States, but that approximately 31% of Texans would actually vote in favor of secession from the United States.

This amazing statistic makes me wonder what percentages of other states would vote for their states right to secede from the union also. It also makes me wonder what states would actually take that path to free itself from our current government and the damage it is doing to the fabric of our society.

I think that the states most likely to want or attempt to secede from the US would be states whose residents fell into certain categories I am going to list here. I also think these people would show a clearly definitive difference between their own ideology and the prevailing ideology that is currently infecting our government. The beliefs listed will be the very same ones that DHS has assessed belong to right wing extremists and potential terrorists.

1) Conservative
2) Low taxes
3) Small government
4) Pro life
5) Pro gun rights
6) Anti illegal immigration
7) Pro death penalty
8) Pro constitution
9) Pro democracy

Now I will tell you that I personally do not think the secession of any state from the United States is a very good idea. I that I personally subscribe to all of those beliefs shown above, but I also know that united we stand divided we fall.

I only hope that my personal belief in the unity of the United States is the right one, because I am not willing to spill the blood of another American simply because of the ineptitude and idiocy of ideology that the current reigning political party subscribes to.

That is all I have to say for today and I hope you all have an awesome day. I will be back again tomorrow, CIAO4NOW!!!!!