Subscribe: Tan Horizons
Added By: Feedage Forager Feedage Grade B rated
Language: English
born  constitution  court  equal protection  government  law  party  people  republican  state  states  united states  years 
Rate this Feed
Rate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feedRate this feed
Rate this feed 1 starRate this feed 2 starRate this feed 3 starRate this feed 4 starRate this feed 5 star

Comments (0)

Feed Details and Statistics Feed Statistics
Preview: Tan Horizons

Tan Horizons

Sometimes you can't see the smog for the haze.

Updated: 2018-03-05T07:36:15.199-08:00


When He's Right He's Right


I'm not with Trump on Russia. But he campaigned and won on mending ties with the Russians. He has a popular mandate to do so, and he can use whatever tools are in the toolbox to do it.

This is not so much an attack on Trump for being careless, as an attack on the President for implementing the foriegn policy he promised. If we are a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, the people get to blow off the consensus of Washington bureaucrats by subordinating them to a hostile Head of State. If they remain defiant, as a matter of principle, then the way is open for them t
o resign and go sell shoes. The way is not open to violate the Espionage Act.

Every bad consequence being listed from these leaks is due to the criminal leaks to the press and not Trump's statesmanship. ISIS is not learning it has been violated through Putin.

I disagree with being a warm pal of Putin. But I have sense enough to know that we must persuade the majority of America that we are right, instead of just frustrating them with underhanded leaks and slanders. A criminal conspiracy will not launch our views into the Oval Office.

Sometimes Trump


Have the NeverTrumpers gone crazy?  Only a crazy person thinks a President must keep an FBI director when the President and DOJ want him gone.

Trump won the White House.  I didn't vote for him, but we have this job called the Presidency and Trump won it.  And on top of that, he has a mandate to ignore the Beltway consensus.

I understand why the Democrats are piling on Trump, but these NeverTrumpers like National Review and Ben Shapiro aren't sensible.  It's not that they are articulating a conservative vision of good government that Trump is falling away from.  They are just NeverTrump.

Democrats are out to attack Trump from now until the next election.  Are NeverTrumpers on board with that mission?  Or are they just in denial about Trump exercising the powers of office?

"We have suffered a total, unmitigated defeat..."


Partisan hacks touting the "repeal" of Obamacare today.  This means we cannot expect the Republican party to dismantle Obamacare any further during their tenure.

We did not elect a Republican majority to manage the economy of the United States, but to free the economy from central planning.

This partisan majority must be destroyed. The way ahead of us is long.  Our challenges may seem overwhelming.  But one step at a time.

Sinking the Republicans comes first.

A New Home


I found a link to the Arizona Constitution Party.   It seems to have so much in common with what I want that I'm going to join it.

Christian Federalist


I intend sometime over the next year to register a party in Arizona called the Christian Federalist party. We reject the moral authority of the secular state. We reject the conflation of society and government. Government arises out of society and at best can reflect the morality of that society. We demand the right to develop a moral, ethical, Christian culture free of government restraint. We insist on government founded on the cardinal virtues of prudence, temperance, fortitude, and justice. We oppose fascism because it supplants God with the state. We oppose racism because it denies development of our full potential. We embrace American exceptionalism as the experimental country created for the purpose of preserving freedom. We call for national solutions without federal government expansion. We defy the Democrat party because it proclaims the socialist globalist state as the highest moral authority, in place of God. We denounce the Republican Party for its collusion with the Democrats. We are not Libertarian because we value chastity and sobriety as keys to individual development. 1. End unceasing war abroad -- either commit fully to victory, with congressional authorization, or withdraw the troops. 2. Passage of term limits for Congress and federal judges, including the Supreme Court. 3. Protection of human life from conception to brain death. 4. Devolution of the authority to define marriage to the states. 5. Guarantee of Social Security payments with automatic Cost of Living Adjustments annually. 6. No amnesty for illegal immigrants. 7. Creation of a commission to oversee the sale of federal lands to independent lessors - the West for Westerners. 8. Reform of the Veterans Administration into a humane and practicable service agency. 9. End Indian poverty with access to high-speed internet on every reservation. 10. Guarantee of spiritual and religious abstention from economic transactions -- only slaves serve absolutely!



I'm gonna find 10 people who'll help me revive the Christian Falangist Party of America. Because if we're going to be ignored by Republicans, we might as well be notorious for it. I don't pretend we can win elections, yet. I still think McCain can be knocked off from the right, and in five years we might try it. But I notice this state has an initiative program, and it should be exploited. Our basic mission: to prevent Arizona from turning into California. I think that resonates. We should advocate for immediate reform of the VA, automatic COLA increases to Social Security, and free high-speed internet access for all Native American Reservations. End to endless wars abroad with a victory, end to abortion on demand, opposition to looser drug laws, opposed to illegal immigration and amnesty for illegal immigrants, competitive tax rates and American development over globalization. Democratic Party is dead wrong on culture, economy and government! Republican Party is lying about stopping the Democrats! More to come dot dot dot...



An interesting read by Andrew Sullivan on the "reactionary right." To be a Reagan Republican in 2017 is to be a reactionary, and to hold true to that ideology is to be no Republican.

I continue


Living in Arizona for the time being. Everything is 2/3 the cost of California, which makes little sense to me. Perhaps its something with California.



Senator Mitch McConnell announces probe of Russian hacking! Should be read as Democrats go on oath about their emails!!

Poetry Corner


Two of my friends are poets. One of my friends writes as Froya Montezino and purchase my friend's book here

Big Deal


The media wants to know where's the Republican outrage over Russian hacking of Democrat emails. It is back there a ways, where it came out that these leaks are accurate. Since when has the far right refused to consider evidence because it was obtained illegally?

Buy This Book!


My dad's cartoon book is up at Amazon!

Back with a touchscreen


Got new phone and exprimenting. Finding it hard to type with a thumb.

EU Ruling on Life Imprisonment Makes Death Penalty Moral.


The Catechism says:
2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68 Link.
This is no longer the case in the European Union:
Whole-life jail sentences without any prospect of release amount to inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners, the European court of human rights has ruled. The landmark judgment will set the ECHR on a fresh collision course with the UK government but does not mean that any of the applicants – the convicted murderers Jeremy Bamber, Peter Moore and Douglas Vinter – are likely to be released soon. In its decision, the Strasbourg court said there had been a violation of article 3 of the European convention on human rights, which prohibits inhuman and degrading treatment. The judgment said: "For a life sentence to remain compatible with article 3 there had to be both a possibility of release and a possibility of review." The court emphasised, however, that "the finding of a violation in the applicants' cases should not be understood as giving them any prospect of imminent release. Whether or not they should be released would depend, for example, on whether there were still legitimate penological grounds for their continued detention and whether they should continue to be detained on grounds of dangerousness. These questions were not in issue." Link
It makes no sense to declare a system which forbids the release of murderers is a violation of the rights of prisoners, but uphold a system that chooses not to release murderers as lawful. The EU expects the release of murderers back into society. That is not "rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm".



So... I began this blog in 2004 in the attempt to teach myself some html code while unemployed. I've let it fall by the wayside, obviously. Now, unemployed again (downsized) I return for a bit. It's interesting to think what has changed for me over 8 years. I started a new career as paralegal (ABA certificate through UCR extension) and will continue it as soon as possible. The last 4.25 years I spent commuting 110 miles per day to work, which I am not inclined to repeat and few employers seem willing to consider anyhow. Oh, and about 3 years ago I was invited to join the Knights of Columbus. For the past year and a month I've been Grand Knight of our Council (I sadly inherited the role in the middle of the late Grand Knight's term). I'm 4th Degree, which means we do work with vets through local bases and the Loma Linda VA Hospital.

Wong V Ark


From the majority in Wong“Again, in Levy v. McCartee (1832), 6 Pet. 102, 31 U. S. 112, 31 U. S. 113, 31 U. S. 115, which concerned a descent cast since the American Revolution, in the State of New York, where the statute of 11 & 12 Will. III had been repealed, this court, speaking by Mr. Justice Story, held that the case must rest for its decision exclusively upon the principles of the common law, and treated it as unquestionable that, by that law, a child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, quoting the statement of Lord Coke in Co.Lit. 8a, that,"if an alien cometh into England and hath issue two sons, these two sons are indigenae, subjects born, because they are born within the realm,"and saying that such a child "was a native-born subject, according to the principles of the common law stated by this court in McCreery v. Somervlle, 9 Wheat. 354."In Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, Mr. Justice Curtis said:"The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, 'a natural-born citizen.' It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth."19 How. 60 U. S. 576. And, to this extent, no different opinion was expressed or intimated by any of the other judges.In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:"All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."By which we see that the majority opinion in Wong did in fact bring up Article II section 1, and that 19th century judges tended to use “natural-born” and “native-born” interchangeably.Further we see that the dissent also brought up Article II section 1 and made a case very close to your own:“By the fifth clause of the first section of article two of the Constitution, it is provided that:"No person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."In the convention, it was, says Mr. Bancroft,"objected that no number of years could properly prepare a foreigner for that place; but as men of other lands had spilled their blood in the cause of the United States, and had assisted at every stage of the formation of their institutions, on the seventh of September, it was unanimously settled that foreign-born residents of fourteen years who should be citizens at the time of the formation of the Constitution are eligible to the office of President."2 Bancroft Hist. U.S. Const. 193.Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the chi[...]

The More Things Change


‎"This is the generation of that great LEVIATHAN, or rather, to speak more reverently, of that mortal god to which we owe, under the immortal God, our peace and defence. For by this authority, given him by every particular man in the Commonwealth, he hath the use of so much power and strength conferred on him that, by terror thereof, he is enabled to form the wills of them all, to peace at home, and mutual aid against their enemies abroad. And in him consisteth the essence of the Commonwealth; which, to define it, is: one person, of whose acts a great multitude, by mutual covenants one with another, have made themselves every one the author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all as he shall think expedient for their peace and common defence.

And he that carryeth this person is called sovereign, and said to have sovereign power; and every one besides, his subject." -Thomas Hobbes, "Leviathan" 1651

"If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers. -- Calvin Coolidge, 1926

"With or without this Congress, I will keep taking actions that help the economy grow. But I can do a whole lot more with your help." Barack Obama 2012

And I For One, Welcome the New God-King


The American worker, the American employer, the American investor and the American family own nothing. They earn nothing. They do not grow the economy. They merely take from others. Your own personal efforts to educate yourself, train yourself to better job performance, new products, more sales, that's just other people giving to you. You didn't do it. They did it for you. You can't claim to own what other people did for you. You can't keep everything other people give to you.

And when the government does not get its full share, when each keeps more than they need to keep, that's a taking from others because government will just have to take more from others to get its need. Abraham Lincoln was right: Government should not do more than what people can't do by themselves. And it turns out what America can't do for itself will cost about $2 trillion a year. Government needs the money to prop up the economy by investing in experiments that won't work. Government needs to create penalties and rewards for "market-based" programs that move us in the direction government wants to go. Solyndra was GOOD. FannieMae/FreddieMac is GOOD. We need more of it.

You punch the clock every day to support government, and through government, the economy. You don't get to have an economy without government. Government knows that and won't forget it. Government can tell what you need and what you don't need. Government can give you what you need and don't have. Government can tell what jobs and companies need to die, and government can tell what jobs and companies need to be invented. Government can tell what jobs should be available to citizens and what jobs need to be assigned to illegal aliens.

And when we say "government" we mean Barack Hussein Obama. His personal preferences have the authority of God. No man, no company, no industry, no state, no Congress has any right to tell Barack Hussein Obama he can't spend money where it needs to be spent, or can't kill an industry whose time is over. Barack Obama's favor shall raise shining cities from bare ground and his wrath shall make blighted wilderness of orchards and factories. Thronging multitudes shall move or stay at his gesture. His wisdom is greater, his will is grander than all the three hundred millions scurrying at his feet. Cause they're so stupid they think they did it for themselves.

But let's not get ideological. It bothers the moderates.

State of the Onion!


We'll restore our economy by backing losers and failed experiments.
None of us has anything except we taxed your parents and grandparents.
I agree with Abraham Lincoln when he said letting millionaires keep their own money is taking it from old ladies.
That's why tonight I've ordered the Navy to hire illegal aliens.
I've put more tundra up for drilling permits I won't grant.
Our troops are coming home and tonight I call dibs on the savings.
Honda, Ford and Toyota are hiring: I did that!
America works better when Congress gives the President permission, but when you won't I will act.
What happened in Detroit can happen everywhere!!!

Oh THIS blog!


Well! It let me back in instead of telling me the site was for sale!

Will have to cram this full of thoughts.

How about a Fourth Party


Senate Republicans are growing impatient with the stalemate over 2011 funding levels and want to save their political capital for a debate on the debt limit and entitlement reform.But they must contend with a bloc of House conservatives who want an unqualified budget victory over President Obama. For these die-hard conservatives, anything less than slashing $61 billion in spending and cutting funds for Planned Parenthood, the EPA and NPR would be a capitulation.Senior Republican lawmakers, however, say they need to preserve their political juice for the fight over the debt limit and entitlement reform, which is more important.They note that discretionary spending accounts for only 12 percent of the federal budget and that Congress needs to address the explosive issue of entitlement reform to achieve meaningful deficit reduction.“There’s a sense that we don’t want to use too much of our political capital on last year’s budget battle,” said a senior Republican senator. “We just introduced our balanced budget amendment and we want to focus on that, the debt limit and the budget for 2012.“People want to move on,” said the lawmaker.“All of us want to make real reductions over the next six months, but we’re much more concerned about real reductions in the debt over the next 60 years,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Republican conference. There’s a growing sense among Senate Republicans that their leaders won’t be able to win much more in concessions from the Obama administration in talks over a funding measure covering only the remainder of the fiscal year.“Now we’re talking about some billions of dollars, our major goal is to deal with saving trillions of dollars over the next 60 years,” Alexander said. “We care about the next six months, we’re most interested in the next 60 years when it comes to debt reduction.”President Obama’s team has already agreed to cut $33 billion from the 2011 budget, setting spending levels for the year at $74 billion less than what the administration initially proposed.“I would like to see us cut more out, but it’s very hard to find it without causing cardiac arrest in a lot of people,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).“I do agree the debt ceiling is the more important battle at this point,” said Hatch.Some Republicans wonder whether it’s worth the political price to insist on the full $61 billion in cuts when that’s only a small fraction of the $1.6 trillion deficit projected for this year.“I don’t think the administration will do much better than it’s done,” Hatch said of concessions from the White House.He said the administration and Democrats will “blow whatever reduction we have out of proportion,” costing the GOP political energy that can be used to slow the soaring rate of entitlement spending.Entitlement spending makes up the bulk of the federal budget.About 20 percent of the federal budget in 2010, or $708 billion, paid for Social Security, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.Medicare, Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program accounted for 21 percent of $753 billion of last year’s budget. Safety-net programs such as the refundable portion of the earned-income tax and child tax credits comprised another 14 percent, or $482 billion. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a founding member of the Senate Tea Party Caucus, said $33 billion in cuts would have little impact on the deficit.“If we were going to have a $1.65 trillion deficit this ye[...]

En Passant


The melody and the chords were worked up in a November 1983 War Tour sound check in Hawaii and completed in Windmill Lane Studios during The Unforgettable Fire recording sessions.[1][2] The guitar part is subtly varied through each verse, chorus, and melody, such that no riff is exactly repeated.[2]

The song had been intended to be about Ronald Reagan's pride in America's military power but after the lyricist Bono had been influenced by Stephen B. Oates's book Let The Trumpet Sound: A Life of Martin Luther King, Jr. and a biography of Malcolm X. these caused him to ponder the different sides of the civil rights campaigns, the violent and the non-violent.[1] In subsequent years, Bono has expressed his dissatisfaction with the lyrics, which he describes, along with another Unforgettable Fire song "Bad", as being "left as simple sketches". He says he was swayed by The Edge and producers Brian Eno and Daniel Lanois, who played down the need to develop the lyrics as they thought their impressionistic nature would give added forcefulness to the song's feeling, particularly when heard by non-English speakers.[3]

"I looked at how glorious that song was and thought: 'What the fuck is that all about?' It's just a load of vowel sounds ganging up on a great man. It is emotionally very articulate - if you didn't speak English."
—Bono , U2 by U2[4]

Somehow, I don't think the author of

Rah rah ah ah ah
Roma roma ma
Gaga ooh la la
Want your bad romance

has that level of introspection.

The Rot Spreads Outward


"[N]ow, “under heightened scrutiny” since the 2nd circuit court asked for the administration to defend its position given lack of precedent, Holder wrote, the government’s ability to defend the law can no longer be made by “advancing hypothetical rationales, independent of the legislative record, as it has done in circuits where precedent mandates application of rational basis review. Instead, the United States can defend Section 3 only by invoking Congress’ actual justifications for the law.”That legislative record, Holder wrote, “contains discussion and debate that undermines any defense under heightened scrutiny. The record contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships – precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against.” - Attorney General Eric HolderThis is entirely logical given the premises of what Justice Scalia calls "the homosexual agenda": the idea that the Constitution as written already guarantees the legitimacy and normalization of homosexuality, and the problem is just making everybody obey that without the hassle of winning elections. Of course, it would be news to the Radical Republicans that they legalized gay marriage in 1868 when they ratified the 14th Amendment and its Equal Protection Clause. It would be news to most Americans since then, too: on three separate occasions in the 20th century, 3/4ths of the states agreed the Equal Protection Clause was so narrow, it did not guarantee the vote to women, residents of the District of Columbia, and 18-year-olds. That's fact, because each time that percentage of the states ratified a specific, separate amendment to the Constitution to provide that guarantee. Somewhere since the Court has ignored the Law, and decided the Equal Protection Clause forbids any distinction, unless, the motives are sufficiently, uh, pure.Pure, meaning secular and not religious. "It must be acknowledged, of course, that the Court in Bowers was making the broader point that for centuries there have been powerful voices to condemn homosexual conduct as immoral. The condemnation has been shaped by religious beliefs, conceptions of right and acceptable behavior, and respect for the traditional family. For many persons these are not trivial concerns but profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles to which they aspire and which thus determine the course of their lives. These considerations do not answer the question before us, however. The issue is whether the majority may use the power of the State to enforce these views on the whole society through operation of the criminal law." LAWRENCE V. TEXAS (02-102) Can we dispense with the malarkey? This was not enacted in 1868, or 1919, or 1965, or 1973. It is a most recent misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, by unelected judges, and does not have the moral force of the 14th Amendment behind it. 3/4ths of the states did NOT legitimate homosexual behavior, now or ever.To demonstrate the insanity of our Law as it now stands: It would be impossible for Eric Holder to prosecute the members of Congress who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, on the theory that they were bribed by the Vatican to vote for the legislation. It would be impossible because the Supreme Court has held that a criminal court and jury cannot investigate the motives behind an in[...]

The Unremarked Revolution


When I read debates about GOProud and CPAC I get the idea centrists dont' realize what's going on in this country. I see a lot of Republican hostility towards social conservatives, as being an albatross around the necks of fiscal conservatives. Social conservatives cost elections! They should stop trying to make a national campaign and deal on a state by state level! They're trapped in "slippery-slope" fantasies about polygamy, bestiality and child marriage! Opposition to DADT repeal is bigotry, and nonsense about banning chaplains and churches is just hysterical rhetoric!In 1996 Colorado passed pre-emptive laws to preclude laws penalizing discrimination based on sexual orientation. The US Supreme Court struck that down in 1996 in Roemer v. Evans, saying it wasn't serving any rational basis but animus towards a specific group, and violated the equal protections clause because it forced the targeted group to go rally political support to change the law. Seven years later the US Supreme Court struck down all criminalization of sodomy in Lawrence v. Texas (2003). The majority held that, while homosexuality wasn't specifically guaranteed, there were liberty rights violated by a criminal ban on sodomy.Now Prop. 8, a California law passed to correct a state Supreme Court decision declaring gays had a right to marry, is being challenged under the doctrines advanced by Roemer and Lawrence. If the 9th Circuit upholds Perry v Schwarzenegger, all the centrist outrage at our "slippery slope fantasies" will be refuted. Justice Scalia, dissenting in Roemer, wrote:The central thesis of the Court's reasoning is that any group is denied equal protection when, to obtain advantage (or, presumably, to avoid disadvantage), it must have recourse to a more general and hence more difficult level of political decisionmaking than others. The world has never heard of such a principle, which is why the Court's opinion is so long on emotive utterance and so short on relevant legal citation. And it seems to me most unlikely that any multilevel democracy can function under such a principle. For whenever a disadvantage is imposed, or conferral of a benefit is prohibited, at one of the higher levels of democratic decisionmaking (i.e., by the state legislature rather than local government, or by the people at large in the state constitution rather than the legislature), the affected group has (under this theory) been denied equal protection. To take the simplest of examples, consider a state law prohibiting the award of municipal contracts to relatives of mayors or city councilmen. Once such a law is passed, the group composed of such relatives must, in order to get the benefit of city contracts, persuade the state legislature - unlike all other citizens, who need only persuade the municipality. It is ridiculous to consider this a denial of equal protection, which is why the Court's theory is unheard-of. 14 years later, Judge Walker wrote in Perry:An initiative measure adopted by the voters deserves great respect. The considered views and opinions of even the most highly qualified scholars and experts seldom outweigh the determinations of the voters. When challenged, however, the voters' determinations must find at least some support in evidence. This is especially so when those determinations enact into law classifications of persons. Conjecture, speculation, and fears are not enough. Still less will the moral disapprobation of [...]

I am a reactionary!!!


A reactionary is a conservative who isn't a libertarian or a liberal.