In the Hour of the Wolf – Random Thoughts about Twitter

Another sleepless night and as I stumbled into the living room to turn on the T.V. before heading to kitchen to start the coffee. As the coffee brews, I light the first of what will become one of many cigarettes I will smoke today and half listen to the T.V.

Coffee is ready, I pour a cup wander into living room, I glance at the screen and some “talking heads” and some “personality” are talking about who’s going to win, who’s going to loose and why.

Will it be Hillary or Sanders? Will it be Cruz, Bush, Trump or another candidate? 

During this back and forth there is never any mention of the Constitution. 

I would half way expect one of these various media brain trusts to say something like candidate ________, will work within the confines of the Constitution and work to defund everything that is not constitutional.

Maybe if they did work to remove some of these redistribution of wealth programs, we wouldn't need a new tax plan accept to lower the tax rate?

Needless to say, most likely if they did that as POTUS, they would serve only one term.

Of course, for the Hillary and Sanders supporters, as well as Obozo, the Constitution is a hindrance and the working American taxpayer is just a piggy bank.

After getting another cup of coffee, I power up the computer and settle in to check email, glance at the news and as regular as clockwork end up on Twitter.

I scan the threads, see the great tweets, photos and of course, the usual back in forth on who would be a better candidate for conservatives.

A number of tweets catch my eye and I do what I feel is my duty as a Patriot and a Marine engaged in the fight to save America, ask the hard questions.

LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR HERE AND NOW, I HAVE CANDIDATES I’M EYEING, BUT HAVE YET TO MAKE A CHOICE.

One question that I asked,

“Why the “sudden” change in Trump’s support of Hillary and being strangely silent till last year about the Democrats.”

Needless to say, I opened the flood gates of insults and comments but no real answer. However there was one prominent answer among them, 

“Ronald Reagan was a life long Democrat and he switched.”

I reminded them, that yes he switched in 1962, and as he said, 

“I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. It left me.”

Now, I don’t nor will I claim to know exactly why Reagan left the Democrat party, but I venture to say that it may been something to do with what the poet and Lincoln biographer Carl Sandburg, who was a former socialist, but later went on to support Democrats such as Adlai Stevenson and even John Kennedy said about the 1960 Democratic platform:

“That’s a very good imitation of the national Socialist Party platform adopted in Chicago in 1908.” (Note: Not to be confused with the National Socialist Party of Germany, NAZI...OM)

Then there was my question about how Trump could support ethanol subsidies and government mandates that ethanol be blended with gasoline and how someone who claims to be fighting for the Constitution can support someone who believes in something not in the Constitution?

To which I got one the most intelligent and honest answer I’ve heard in a long time:

“Well, nobody is perfect. I just like him”

Eventually the subject of eminent domain raised its ugly head when a follower tweeted:

“The Bush family used eminent domain to build a stadium for “their” baseball team.”

Now I don’t claim to be a lawyer, nor do I play one on Twitter, BUT as Eric Bolling said and I paraphrase, too many people haven’t read the last line of 5th Amendment of the Constitution. Before everyone reaches for their copy of the Constitution or search the web:

“…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Key word is public use.

So what is public use:

“…relating to, or affecting all or most of the people of a country, state, etc.”

Let’s look at this meaning.

Does a parking lot for a privately own business really affect all or most people of country, state or even the city?

Maybe it may bring jobs to a few. Maybe it will bring tax money to a city BUT will it allow use by everyone or just a select few?

One argument Trump brought up, was the use of eminent domain by federal government for roads, bridges and even the XL pipeline. SPOILER ALERT! Project in work on federal use eminent domain and the takeover of state's property in order to have the:

Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

or maybe it is:

"The extension of the public domain to include mines, quarries, oil wells, forests and water power and the scientific reforestation of timber lands, and the reclamation of swamp lands. The land so reforested or reclaimed to be permanently retained as a part of the public domain."

Without going into a long drawn out explanation and spoiling an ongoing project, let’s just say that the use of federal eminent domain is:

“The federal power of eminent domain is, of course, limited by the grants of power in the Constitution, so that property may only be taken for the effectuation of a granted power [1], but once this is conceded the ambit of national powers is so wideranging [sic] that vast numbers of objects may be effected.”[2]

Before getting off the subject of Trump, let me repeat what I said earlier:

I HAVE CANDIDATES I’M EYEING, BUT HAVE YET TO MAKE A CHOICE. I JUST ASK THE QUESTIONS.

NO, I’m not a Cruzbot as I have been accused of being. I attempt to look beyond the hype and ask questions and expect intelligent answers, preferably based on the Constitution and facts, feeling that maybe by asking these questions, people will stop, think (I realize that it hurts) and learn.

Speaking of which, it never ceases to amaze me how people can or will make statements without even reading or knowing the basic facts.

Case in point as a number of my great followers know, I do not believe in the use of tax money for government handouts including funding for schools and even refer to those who receive them as slaves to the government, I had one follower make the statement:

“Well you’re retired and you receive handouts from the federal government.”

Wrong, No where in my my profile does it say I’m a retired Marine. But, this follower ASSUMPED I was retired and doesn’t know, that short of being medically retired, a service person (I hate being politically correct) retires after twenty years of honorable service.

Wrong, because the benefits received by retired veteran are NOT “handouts” but they are or have been earned through 20 plus years of faithful service to the “company” called America. Yes, I used the term “company” because, just like in the civilian world, when they hire an employee, they usually have a contract or a promise that if you work “X” number of years, you will receive certain things.

The same is true with the armed forces, when a man or woman signs that contract, blank check if you will, that they are willing to defend America against all enemies foreign and domestic with their lives if required. In return, America made a contract, a promise, that laid out certain benefits, all of which can be traced back to the Article 1, Sections 12 thru 16. So for all of you who believe that veteran benefits are just handouts, think again.

To me, handouts are the redistribution of wealth using taxpayers’ money for various unconstitutional social programs, welfare or whatever PC name they call it, Medicaid, funding of schools, etc. Social Security and Medicare are NOT included.

WHY? Because the unconstitutional, in my opinion, BUT government programs REQUIRES working Americans to, by law, to fork over a portion of their money to a badly run federal retirement plan and medical plan and at a certain age, Americans get that money back.

This just goes to prove how lack of fore knowledge or the lack of comprehension has infested people.

Finally, for now, just as afterthought, I have often used the terms American Communism and American Communists to describe what others, including well known talking heads, use the softer terms such as: liberal, progressives, socialism, elites or big government and no one has said a word, BUT insist on still using the softer terms.

Why? Are they afraid to offend? Are they so brainwashed by “talking heads” and the lame stream media that even in the face of information from ORIGINAL sources they refuse to accept the fact that for over a century, America has been heading towards it unique form of government control of production, distribution and consumption or as early American socialists, Bliss and Berger defined as communism.

I believe people who use these softer terms do so as a self-denial that communism has taken hold of American life and this government control, big government if you will, because they realize that due to their inattention, taking freedom for granted and just plain assuming that most of what Washington does is, constitutional.

Or is it because they are getting free money for police, fire, schools and other unconstitutional items and their states, cities can use their local tax money for other things like planting trees or pushing the Sustainable Communities Initiative and further seeking enslaving the people with handouts?

So remember, when we get into discussions on Twitter or elsewhere, I'll ask the hard questions, not to insult you but by chance make you think and hopefully you can teach me something. So don't take it personal, it isn't.

Semper Fi!

[1] United States v. Gettysburg Electric Ry., 160 U.S. 668, 679 (1896)

[2] California v. Central Pacific Railroad, 127 U.S. 1, 39 (1888) (highways);

     Luxton v. North River Bridge Co., 153 U.S. 525 (1894) (interstate bridges);

     Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas Ry, 135 U.S. 641 (1890) (railroads);

     Albert Hanson Lumber Co. v. United States, 261 U.S. 581 (1923) (canal);

     Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288 (1936) (hydroelectric power).



“Once the object is within the authority of Congress, the right to realize it through the exercise of eminent domain is clear. For the power of eminent domain is merely the means to the end.” Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 33 (1954)