Things That Amaze Me: Constitutional Ignorance, Part 2

 

If you've been keeping up with current events, then you probably could have predicted what today's blog topic was going to be.  Considering how much the ignoramuses on the libtard left have been screaming after President Trump revoked access to the White House for CNN, Politico, and MS Now, it kinda figures that would be my next topic in the "Things That Amaze Me" series.

Once again, the people on the libtard left are making claims about Constitutional rights, and are doing nothing but proving two things:  how much they hate ANYTHING that Trump does, and just how much they DON'T know about the United States Constitution.  The left is now screaming that Trump violated the Constitutional rights of those three news agencies, and that they have a Constitutional right to have access to the White House.  

Of course those of us with common sense and a minimum understanding of how the Constitution works knows that they're 100% wrong, as usual.

So let's take a look at exactly what the First Amendment says, shall we?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Somebody please show me where access to the White House is mentioned in those words.  

Those on the left will tell you that Trump violated the Constitution  because he's 'abridging the freedom of the press,' and they are 100% wrong.  If Trump had come out and told them that they couldn't print something or couldn't report on something at all, THEN he would be in violation of the First Amendment.  But he hasn't done that.  He simply denied them access to the White House, which means they can't attend press briefings.

So if they can't attend the press briefings, then how are they supposed to report on what was said?  Simple - they use the White House Press Release that every news agency in the United States and several overseas agencies are sent after every single press conference.  After all, where do you think the smaller news agencies who don't have a representative at the White House get their information from?  Why, from the press release, of course.

No, the left is bitching because Trump did to those agencies what the Biden administration did when they barred a particular reporter from attending the briefings because he was asking questions that made Biden look bad (which wasn't hard to do).  After all, it's OK when a libtard does it, but when a conservative does it the world is coming to an end.  They're bitching because now those fake news agencies don't have a platform from which to spout their nonsensical questions which are intended not to get an answer or learn the truth but to make a veiled accusation against Trump.   

I learned a very long time ago that NO liberal news agency is the least bit concerned with getting at the truth.  All they want is something that they can twist and shape into something that fits their agenda, and if they can't make it fit then they'll just lie about it.  They do this safe in the knowledge that no one will do anything about it because, well, the First Amendment, you know.

Until Trump came along and said, "Nope, that bullshit ain't gonna fly!"  He has never been shy about calling out the fake news agencies, and now that he's in his second term and isn't eligible to run for a third, he can say or do almost anything he wants because he doesn't have to worry about alienating voters.  He knows this and man, is he taking advantage of it!

Do I support Trump's actions in this?  Not that it matters in the grand scheme of things, but yeah, I do - 100%.  If I were President I'd kick all of the libtard news agencies out on their asses and let them get their news from the press releases just like everyone else.

Guess it's a good thing I'm not President, huh?

Deo Vindice

IHC

 

  

Things That Amaze Me: Constitutional Ignorance, Part 1

 

Thought I'd start a new feature on my blog, "Things That Amaze Me," and I can't think of a better topic to start off with than just how ignorant the average American citizen is of the United States Constitution.

This got started with a post I saw on Facebook which asked the question, "Which of these men is ineligible to become President?" and listed NObama, Trump, Clinton, and GW Bush as the choices.  Seems like a simple question, right?  

Uh-uh, it's not, and the people who responded to the question immediately showed just how ignorant of the US Constitution they truly are.  Some people said all of the, some said none of them, some said that they could serve 10 years as President, and other ignorant shit like that.  (I almost said 'stupid,' but that word doesn't fit.  Ignorance is not having the knowledge or experience, while stupid is just not having the brains.  Well, maybe it fits, you tell me.)

And the correct answer?  None of them, and here's why.

A direct quote from Article 22, Section 1of the US Constitution:  

"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term."

The key word here is "ELECTED."  A man cannot be ELECTED to the office of President more than twice, and if he's served two years of a term as President upon the departure of the previous President, then he can only be elected ONCE.   

What it does not address is a former President who has served two terms getting elected as Vice President and then succeeding to the office of President when the elected President leaves office before his term is over.  

Interesting, huh?  So what that means - and this is every liberal's nightmare - that Trump could run with Vance in 2028 as the Vice Presidential candidate, and after they win (which they would) Vance could resign and let Trump take over as President.

Sounds kinda far out there, doesn't it?  Well, it is in a way, but the truth is that there's absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits this.  But to be reasonable (a word unknown to the liberal left) and realistic (another word unknown to the liberal left) something like this would never happen.  I don't think Trump would ever run for VP, and when Vance runs - and he most assuredly will - after he wins (which he will) he won't leave office until his term is over or unless he dies before then, God forbid.

But the point here is that a vast majority of the people had no idea what the Constitution says about this, and they showed their ignorance on Facebook.

So be honest - did YOU know this?  If you did, good on ya!  If you didn't, now you do.

And if you didn't, then maybe it's time you read the Constitution, huh?  And when it gets to the part about line of succession for the office of President, pay attention.

Deo Vindice

IHC

 

  

My Life's Defining Moment

 

Regardless of who you are, where you live, or what you do for a living, everyone has defining moments in their lives.  Moments in which a decision is made that will have a significant (if not downright life-changing) effect on them from that point forward.  We've all had them, some of us more than others, but the fact remains that we've all had them.

We've also had that one defining moment in our lives that changed the entire course of our lives from that moment forward, one that affected every single thing we would do from that moment forward.  Mine came in January of 1975.

I spent my entire life from birth up until March 2021 listening to my father tell sea stories about the 5 years he was in the US Navy.  He enlisted in the Reserves in 1947 and went on active duty the next year, serving until 1952.  He was stationed on the USS MISSISSIPPI, an old battleship that served in both World Wars and had been designated as an Experimental Auxiliary Gunship after WWII ended.  That changed her hull number from BB-41 to EAG-128, and her mission from being a ship of the line to a ship that tested all manners of new weapons that were in development.  The "Missy," as she was called, was the ship from which the first Terrier missile was fired in 1952, an event that took place after my father had left the Navy.

                       USS MISSISSIPPI BB-41shortly after the conclusion of WWII

 

                                      USS MISSISSIPPI EAG-128 in 1946

In any event, to say that my father loved the Navy would be the understatement of the millenium.  The only reason he left the Navy was that by 1952 he was married and had a new baby, and he knew the life of a sailor was no way to raise a family.  So he left the Navy but talked about it for literally the rest of his life.

So it was only natural that, given the circumstances under which I grew up, I should want to join the Navy when I graduated from high school.  I was actually looking forward to it, carrying on in my father's footsteps and wearing the uniform of the Navy as he had so many years before.  I had been to the recruiter's office and done all of the paperwork; the only thing left for me to do was raise my hand and say "I will," and I would be a sailor.

Then in January of 1975 I made a very significant discovery, one that would be the driving force that would cause me to make a decision that would be THE defining moment of my life.  My father and a friend of his went deep sea fishing in the Chesapeake Bay, and I went along.  I had never been deep sea fishing before, and besides, my father told me that it would be "a good way to see what I was in for when I joined the Navy."

More prophetic words were never spoken.

The day we went was cloudy, cold, and windy as hell, and there were 6-8 foot waves on the bay.  Once we got out of the harbor and out into the bay, it took about ten minutes for me to make my life-changing discovery.

I get seasick.  REALLY, REALLY seasick.  As in 'hang-your-head-over-the-rail-and-puke-your-guts-out' seasick.  When I finally finished heaving my father suggested I go below into the bow and lay down, but that only made it worse.  I spent the entire trip in the bathroom in the bow of the boat, puking into the toilet.

Somewhere along the way I decided that maybe the Navy wasn't for me.  I was already in the Civil Air Patrol and had been for almost 4 years, and if I decided to enlist in the Air Force instead that would give me a leg up because I would enlist as an E-2 instead of an E-1.  Besides, I had planned on going into the Navy as an Interior Communications Electrician so I could get a job with the phone company once I got out, but what I really wanted to do was Law Enforcement.  The Navy didn't have a specific LE program but the Air Force did.  So that's what I did - I joined the Air Force instead of the Navy.

And that one decision turned out to be THE defining moment of my life.

If I had enlisted in the Navy as I planned, EVERYTHING about my life would have changed.  That would have meant I never would have met and married my first wife Mary, that we never would have had any kids, that I never would have gone to the places I did and met the people that I did (including my current wife Gina) - none of that would have happened.   

Now I've always believed that everything that happens to us in our lives happens for a reason, and this is no different.  Things happened the way they did so I could end up right where I am at this moment in time, which I believe is right where The Big Biker wanted me to be.  So who am I to argue with Him?

But I have to admit that I sit back sometimes and think about how drastically different my life would have been if I had joined the Navy, what I would have experienced, who I would have met, and whether or not I would have gotten married (which I seriously doubt I would have).  And I always thought I looked absolutely fantastic in Navy blues.  When I was 18 I was the same size as my father was at that age, and his old blue "cracker jack" uniform fit me, so I put it on one day just to see how I'd look.  And man, I looked GOOD!

So do I regret my decision to join the Air Force instead of the Navy?  Hell, no, not for a minute.  I wouldn't change a thing, because that would mean I wouldn't be where I am now, and right now I'm as happy as I've ever been in my entire life.

Besides - seasick, you know.  REALLY, REALLY seasick!

Deo Vindice

IHC

 

  

 

Pandora's Box

 

So let's talk for a few minutes about what's going to happen if the feminists get their way and Clancy is acquitted of murdering her three children due to "hormones."  

If this happens, it will open a Pandora's Box of bad shit that I know the feminists haven't even considered yet.  99% of the feminists I've encountered in one way or another are very short-sighted, never stopping to look past the initial victory to the long-term effects.  Believe me, if there's a case where they seriously need to do this, the Clancy case is it.  Here's what I think is going to happen if they get their way and that Pandora's Box is opened should Clancy be acquitted.

1.  No more female police officers.  If a woman can't be held accountable for her actions due to hormones and you never know when her hormones are going to go off-road, there's no way you can trust them with a firearm.  They would have the power to shoot anyone for anything at anytime and simply claim "my hormones made me do it!"

2.  No more females in the military.  For the same reasons listed above, only female soldiers have access to far deadlier weaponry than the average police officer.

3.  No more female judges.  If a woman's judgement is affected by her hormones and she can't be held accountable, then there's no way anyone could ever trust her judgement to be correct 100% of the time.  So erring on the side of caution, there's no way a female could ever be a judge.

4.  No more female elected officials.  And I mean at EVERY LEVEL of government.  Again, if a woman's judgement is affected by her hormones and she can't be held responsible, then she can't serve in an elected leadership position at any level of government.  Can you imagine - and I know this is way out there, but think about what we're talking about - if we had a female President and she hit the red button and launched a nuclear attack because her hormones were acting up?

5.  No more parental custody of children.  If you can't trust a woman's judgement because of her hormones, then how can you trust her to not murder her own children?  This means that in all divorce cases where children are involved, full custody would go to the father and there would be NO unsupervised visitation rights.

6.  Immediate loss of custody of children.  As soon as woman's hormones start acting up, the state needs to either lock the woman up until it's over or take her children from her because she can't be trusted.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea.

If Clancy gets off because of this bullshit 'my hormones made me do it' defense, that's going to do two things:  it's going to completely nullify the 19th Amendment, and it's going to set women's rights back at least 150 years.  The bottom line is this:  If you can't trust a woman due to her hormones, then you can't trust a woman with ANYTHING.

This is what's waiting for the women in this country if Clancy gets away with murder due to her bullshit defense.  And when it happens, the feminists are going to blame it on the men like they always do.

And don't even get me started on that asshole lawyer who dreamed up this bullshit defense.  I'll save that for another post in the very near future.

In the mean time, let's all pray for three things:  that the state of Massachusetts tries her again, that this time she's convicted, and most of all for the three little children she murdered.

Deo Vindice

IHC

 

  

Hormones, My Ass

 

Let me make one thing clear right off the bat, because I'm sure there are some folk out there that will hit this one point first off when they disagree with what I'm about to say.

I'm not a woman, therefore I have no idea just how powerful a woman's hormones can be.  But I have, however, lived with a woman through two pregnancies and then menopause, so yeah, I get it.  I've seen what hormones can do to a woman first hand, so I get it about as much as any man can.  But just to be on the safe side and to get a woman's opinion, I talked about the Lindsay Clancy case with my wife, and she gave me some first-hand insight on just how powerful a woman's hormones can be.

And I believe her, I really do.  But there's still no reason in my mind that you can blame this woman's heinous act on hormones.  What this bitch did was premeditated murder, plain and simple, and here's why.

First and foremost, she sent her husband out to run some bullshit errand to give her the opportunity to kill her kids.  If that isn't the textbook definition of 'premeditation,' I don't know what is. 

Second, death by strangulation is not the quick event as is depicted on TV and in the movies.  While there is no set standard of time that it takes to kill someone by strangulation, on average it takes three to four minutes for death to occur.  The victim can lose consciousness in less than a minute if the flow of blood to the brain is shut off, but death takes much longer than that.  And if the victim doesn't lose consciousness, the pain and suffering they must endure for that three to four minutes is indescribable.

That's what she put all three of her kids through, by the way. 

Third, she called her husband while he was out and told him not to hurry home.

Fourth, immediately after she killed her kids she attempted suicide by jumping out of a second story window of her home.  If that isn't guilt talking I don't know what is.  (She broke her back in the fall and is paralyzed from the chest down; that's why she's in a wheelchair.) 

Now, I don't give a rat's ass what kind of reasoning you can come up with, you are NOT - repeat, NOT - going to convince me that this woman killed her three kids in this brutal, horrific way while caught up in a rush of hormones.  EVER.  No, this was a planned, calculated act, nothing short of premeditated murder, and for the life of me I don't understand how ANY woman could possibly say it wasn't her fault because of 'hormones.'

In 1994 Susan Smith strapped her two kids into their child safety seats in her car and then drove the car into a lake, letting them drown.  When she came to trial the sidewalk leading up to the courthouse was lined with woman screaming "Murderer!" and "Baby killer!" and demanding the death penalty.  But when Clancy came to court, the sidewalks were lined with women supporting her and screaming for her release.

Is this how far our society has sunk?  I'm afraid to say that yes, it is - at least on the liberal side of the population, that is.  How ANY mother can support what Clancy did is beyond the scope of my comprehension.

It is my fervent hope that the state retries her on the murder charges, and this time I hope the attorney for the prosecution does a much better job of picking the jurors.  I also hope that this time around she's convicted and sent to prison - not to a mental facility, but PRISON. 

Do I think she was temporarily insane?  NO, I don't, because of the obvious planning that she had to accomplish in order to carry out her crimes.  She's as crazy as Susan Smith was, which is not crazy at all, and she deserves to spend the rest of her life in prison for what she did to those three poor children.

And when she dies, I hope she rots in hell.

Deo Vindice

IHC