What would the world be like without The United States of America?

Imagine if you will, a world without The United States of America.

awash 14

The world would definitely be quite different today without The United States of America.

Who knows how Britain, France, Spain, and then Mexico would have carved up North America.

Would Hitler have ever been stopped?

Would the Jewish people have been completely exterminated?

Would anyone have gotten in the way of Soviet Union, spreading communism around the world?

Would Christianity have been squashed?

It’s definitely very interesting to ponder what our world would be like if The United States had never come into existence.

And there would not have been a United States, as we have come to know it, without one man.

George Washington.

awash 9

As President’s Day and George Washington’s Birthday approaches, I would like to give George Washington his due.

George Washington has been called “the father of our nation.”

That is definitely true…, but he was much, much, much, more.

George Washington was an AMAZING man.

awash 1

He deserves our attention and our admiration, without a doubt.

George Washington had a strong moral character and he was considered a person of impeccable character.

“He is polite with dignity, affable without formality, distant without haughtiness, grave without austerity; modest, wise and good,” observed Abigail Adams, the wife of Washington’s vice president, John Adams.

Washington’s lofty reputation was upheld by his actions. He refused to be paid for commanding the Continental Army, only requesting to be reimbursed for expenses, and he resigned his military commission after his popularity surged at the close of The Revolution, putting his allegiance to the republic ahead of a desire for personal gain.

Washington was impressive in stature and in presence, as well.

awash 10

As befitting a military hero, and make no mistake he was a hero in every sense of the word, Washington cut a formidable presence. A contemporary in the 1750s described him as “measuring six feet two inches in his stockings and weighing 175 pounds.  His frame is padded with well-developed muscles, indicating great strength.” The admirer also praised Washington’s “commanding countenance,” as well as his “graceful” and “majestic” movements.

By the time he became president, the 57-year-old Washington was certainly less agile but even more imposing at upwards of 200 pounds.

Let’s take a closer look at George Washington.

George Washington was born at his father’s plantation on Popes Creek in Westmoreland County, Virginia, on February 22, 1732.

To put this into perspective, The Mayflower first arrived with the Pilgrims in 1620…, so George Washington was born about a hundred years or so after that.

His father’s name was Augustine and he ran a very successful plantation in the area.

George’s mother was his father’s second wife.  Her name was Mary.

George had two older half-brothers, three younger brothers and two younger sisters.

Growing up, George Washington’s family owned a lot of property, but they were still not considered “rich” for the times.

When George was eleven years old, his father died, leaving most of his property to George’s older half-brothers. The income from what remained was just enough to maintain Mary Washington and her children. As the oldest child remaining at home, George undoubtedly helped his mother manage the Rappahannock River plantation where they lived. There he learned the importance of working hard and working smart.

Unlike many of his contemporaries, George never attended college or received a formal education. To augment his studies, George taught himself through reading and experimentation.

Sounds a lot like Abraham Lincoln, doesn’t it?

Arguably, the two most important men in American history never even went to school, much less college.

Again…, amazing.

Before the age of sixteen, George Washington copied out the 110 rules covered in “The Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior.” This exercise, now regarded as a formative influence in the development of his character, included guidelines for behavior and general courtesies.

Eager for adventure, George wanted to join the British Navy, but his mother refused to let him. Instead, he accompanied a man named Fairfax as a surveyor to the unexplored wilderness of the Virginia frontier.

Had George been allowed to join the British Navy, there probably would not have been a United States of America. Thank you for that Mrs. Washington, and it’s a good thing George listened to his mother!

At seventeen years of age and largely through the Fairfax influence that he had cultivated, George secured an appointment as county surveyor for the newly created Virginia frontier county of Culpeper.

In the fall of 1753, the Governor of Virginia, Robert Dinwiddie sent 21-year-old Major George Washington to deliver a message to the French, who were creeping South and encroaching on Virginia’s territory, demanding they leave the area. With the help of a frontier guide and local Indians, Washington reached the French fort, Le Boeuf, with Dinwiddie’s message. The return trip tested Washington’s endurance. He hiked for days through snowy woods, fell off a raft into the ice-choked Allegheny River, nearly drowned, and was forced to spend a freezing night on an island without shelter. His guide, an experienced backwoodsman, suffered frostbite; but Washington suffered no ill effects. Washington’s account of the arduous 900-mile journey was published by Governor Dinwiddie in both Williamsburg and London, establishing an international reputation for George Washington by the time he was 22.

awash 2

Washington was next given command of Virginia’s entire military force. With a few hundred men he was ordered to protect a frontier some 350 miles long. Although this was a frustrating assignment, it provided him with experience in commanding troops through an arduous campaign. In 1758 the British finally took the forks of the Ohio. Peace returned to Virginia, and Washington resigned his commission to return to Mount Vernon, his duty faithfully performed.

On January 6th, 1759, Washington married Martha Dandridge Custis, a charming and vivacious young woman.

Martha Washington joined her husband in his winter quarters every year of the war. Together they entertained his officers and guests. A patriot in her own right, Mrs. Washington made it her war too, nursing sick and wounded soldiers and raising money for the troops.

The first time George Washington ran for public office, he lost.

Who’d he lose to would be my question?!  That must have been one hell of a guy!

However, he won his second race and served in the Virginia House of Burgesses (Representatives) from 1758 until 1776.

George Washington spent the years between 1759 and 1775 farming at Mount Vernon.  By the time he died in 1799, he had expanded the plantation from 2,000 to 8,000 acres consisting of five farms, with more than 3,000 acres under cultivation.

In June of 1775, Congress commissioned George Washington to take command of the Continental Army.  He wrote home to Martha that he expected to return safely to her in the fall. This command eventually kept him away from Mount Vernon for more than 8 years!

awash 12

I think most people have the impression that The Revolution was won by 1776…, but that’s not the case.  The American Revolution from Britain was not decided for 8 years…, not until 1783.

It was a command for which his military background, although greater than that of any of the other available candidates, hardly prepared him. His knowledge lay in frontier warfare, involving relatively small numbers of soldiers. He had no practical experience maneuvering large formations, handling cavalry or artillery, or maintaining supply lines adequate to support thousands of men in the field. He learned on the job; and although his army reeled from one misfortune to another, he had the courage, determination, and mental agility to keep the American cause one step ahead of complete disintegration until he figured out how to win the unprecedented revolutionary struggle he was leading.

His task was not overwhelming at first. The British position in Boston was indefensible, and in March 1776 they withdrew from the city. But it was only a temporary respite.

In June a new bigger and badder British army, under the command of Sir William Howe, arrived in the colonies with orders to take New York City. Howe commanded the largest expeditionary force Britain had ever sent overseas.

Defending New York was almost impossible. An island city, New York is surrounded by a maze of waterways that gave a substantial advantage to an attacker with naval superiority. Howe’s army was larger, better equipped, and far better trained than Washington’s. They defeated Washington’s army at Long Island in August and routed the Americans a few weeks later at Kip’s Bay, resulting in the loss of the city. Forced to retreat northward, Washington was defeated again at White Plains. The American defense of New York City came to a humiliating conclusion on November 16, 1776, with the surrender of Fort Washington and some 2,800 men. Washington ordered his army to retreat across New Jersey. The remains of his forces, mud-soaked and exhausted, crossed the Delaware River into Pennsylvania on December 7.

It was not looking good, to say the least, for Washington and the dying dream of a free country.

Washington and his rag-tag bunch of upstarts were facing, unquestionably, the best military there was in the world.

awash 4

Let’s also not forget that many of Washington’s own countrymen were British loyalists as well.  This revolution against Britain was definitely not a unanimous effort.

No one at the time could have seriously thought Washington and his army had any real chance at all of defeating the British…, except Washington himself.

The British had good reason to believe that the American rebellion would be over in a few months and that Congress would seek peace rather than face complete subjugation of the colonies. The enlistments of most of Washington’s army were due to expire at the end of December. However, instead of crushing the remains of Washington’s army, Howe went into winter quarters, with advanced garrisons at Trenton and Princeton, leaving Washington open to execute one of the most daring military operations in American history.

awash 5

On Christmas night Washington’s troops crossed the Delaware and attacked the unsuspecting British garrison at Trenton, forcing it to surrender. A few days later Washington again crossed the Delaware, outmaneuvered the force sent to crush him, and fell on the enemy at Princeton, inflicting a humiliating loss on the British.

Next…, General Washington and his newfound French allies decided to strike at the British army under Cornwallis, which was camped at Yorktown, Virginia. Washington’s planning for the Battle of Yorktown was as bold as it had been for Trenton and Princeton but on a much larger scale. On October 19, 1781, he accepted the surrender of Cornwallis’ army. Although two more years passed before a peace treaty was completed, the victory at Yorktown effectively brought the Revolutionary War to an end.

To the world’s amazement (I told you he was amazing!), Washington had prevailed over the bigger, better supplied, and more experienced British army.

The truly “underdog” Americans had defeated the mighty British Empire.

On December 23, 1783, General Washington presented himself before Congress in Annapolis, Maryland, and resigned his commission. Like Cincinnatus, the hero of Classical Rome, whose conduct he most admired, Washington had the integrity and character to relinquish his power when he could have been crowned a king. He left Annapolis and went home to Mount Vernon with the intention of never again serving in public life.

This single act, without precedent in modern history, made him an international hero.

How many men would turn down an offer to be king?

Would you turn down an offer to be king or queen?

This goes to show you how revered and respected George Washington was.  The colonies had just got done fighting a war to gain their freedom from a king…, and now they were willing to entrust Washington completely with their future and install him as their new king.

Amazing.

Although Washington longed for a peaceful life at Mount Vernon, the affairs of the nation continued to command his attention. He watched with mounting dismay as this new “union” stumbled ahead.  By 1785 Washington had concluded that change was essential. What was needed, he wrote to James Madison, was an energetic Constitution.

In 1787, Washington ended his self-imposed retirement and traveled to Philadelphia to attend a convention assembled to recommend changes to the Articles of Confederation. He was unanimously chosen (you’ll hear this term again and again) to preside over the Constitutional Convention, a job that took four months. He spoke very little at the convention, but few delegates were more determined to devise a government endowed with real energy and authority.

“My wish,” he wrote, “is that the convention may adopt no temporizing expedients but probe the defects of the Constitution to the bottom and provide a radical cure.”

After the convention adjourned, Washington’s reputation and support were essential to overcome opposition to the ratification of the proposed Constitution. He worked for months to rally support for the new instrument of government. It was a difficult struggle. Even in Washington’s native Virginia, the Constitution was ratified by a majority of only one vote.

Once the Constitution was approved, Washington hoped to retire again to private life. But when the first presidential election was held, he received a vote from every elector.

He wasn’t even trying to get elected and he got elected…, by every elector!

He remains the only President in American history to be elected by the unanimous voice of the people.

George Washington was unanimously elected President of the United States…, twice.

Unanimously elected!

Like I said…, amazing.

awash 6

Washington served two terms as President. His first term (1789-1793) was occupied primarily with organizing the executive branch of the new government and establishing administrative procedures that would make it possible for the government to operate with the energy and efficiency he believed were essential to the republic’s future. An astute judge of talent, he surrounded himself with the most able men in the new nation. He appointed his former aide, Alexander Hamilton, as Secretary of the Treasury; Thomas Jefferson as Secretary of State; and his former artillery chief, Henry Knox, as Secretary of War.  James Madison was also one of his principal advisors.

In his First Inaugural Address, Washington confessed that he was unpracticed in the duties of civil administration; however, he was one of the most able administrators ever to serve as President. He administered the government with fairness and integrity, assuring Americans that the President could exercise extensive executive authority without corruption. Further, he executed the laws with restraint, establishing precedents for broad-ranging presidential authority. His integrity was without question.  Thomas Jefferson wrote, “His justice is the most inflexible I have ever known, no motive of interest or consanguinity [ancestry], friendship, or hatred, being able to bias his decision.” Washington set a standard for presidential integrity rarely met by his successors, although he established an ideal by which they all are judged.

Growing partisanship within the government also concerned Washington. Washington despised political partisanship but could do little to slow the development of political parties.

Again, he demonstrated his wisdom and his purity of intention.

George was Godly man.  He believed America existed because of God’s will, and that it could not survive without God’s continued influence.

awash 3

He wasn’t concerned with personal power or any other ulterior motives.  His only concern was doing what he felt was best for his country.  Other people recognized this, and his intentions could not be questioned.  That is why he commanded such respect.

During his first term Washington toured the northern and southern states and found that the new government enjoyed the general support of the American people. Convinced that the government could get along without him, he planned to step down at the end of his first term. But his cabinet members convinced him that he alone could command the respect of members of both burgeoning political parties. Thomas Jefferson visited Washington at Mount Vernon to urge him to accept a second term. Although longing to return home permanently, Washington reluctantly agreed.

Washington’s second term (1793-1797) was dominated by foreign affairs and marred by a deepening partisanship in his own administration. One of Washington’s most important accomplishments was keeping the United States out of war, giving the new nation an opportunity to grow in strength while establishing the principle of neutrality that shaped American foreign policy for more than a century.

Washington’s Farewell Address helped to summarize many of Washington’s strongest held beliefs about what it would take to sustain and grow the young nation that he helped found.

Finally retired from public service, George and Martha Washington returned to their beloved Mount Vernon. Unfortunately for Washington, his time at the estate would be short lived.

On Thursday, December 12, 1799, George recognized the onset of a sore throat and became increasingly hoarse. Only two days later, between ten and eleven at night on December 14, 1799, George Washington passed away from some sort of throat infection.  He was surrounded by people who were close to him including his wife who sat at the foot of his bed.

So there you have it…, the amazing life of an amazing man…, George Washington.

General George Washington.

President George Washington.

awash 7

Although I believe he would have just been happy to have been recognized as a gentleman and a loyal American citizen.

So, what do you think now?  Do you agree with me that there would not have been a United States, as we have come to know it, without George Washington?

I don’t think you can help but agree.

We were very blessed to have George on our team…, and God on our side!

awash 13

Thank you to mountvernon.org for contributing to this article.

 

I value your feedback and I’d love to hear from you!

If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the white “FOLLOW” button at the bottom of that page, which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

 

My reaction to some recent headlines about the Electoral College, AOC and the 22nd Amendment, DNC Chair calls Republican lawmakers “cowardly,” Joe Biden’s behavior with women, and did the NY Times and The Washington Post help elect President Trump!?

There are so many topics I’d like to offer my insight on, but so little time!

Welcome to my first crack at the “MrEricksonRules headline buffet line!”

Pick your favorite(s) or have some of each.  It’s totally up to you.

<<<<<<<*>>>>>>>

Senate democrats introduce measure to abolish Electoral College.

“Would election by popular vote be better than the Electoral College?”

“A group of Democratic senators on Tuesday introduced a measure to do away with the Electoral College, picking up on a talking point that has caught fire in the 2020 Democratic presidential field.”

“According to NBC News: ‘Leading Democratic senators are expected to introduce a constitutional amendment Tuesday to abolish the Electoral College, adding momentum to a long-shot idea that has been gaining steam among 2020 presidential candidates.’”

“…changing the Constitution is seen as virtually impossible today. A constitutional amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds supermajority in both the House (about 290 votes) and Senate (67 votes) and requires ratification by 38 states.”

As is usually the case with the democrat party, what we have here is either disingenuous political grandstanding, uninformed ignorance, or a combination of the two.  I’m going to give them some credit and say it’s disingenuous political grandstanding for the most part, since actually amending the Constitution would never happen, mostly due to the requirement of having 38 states go along with it.

So…, in the grand scheme of things, it’s kind of like “The Green New Deal,” a bunch of noise that ain’t never going to happen.

Andrew O’Reilly of Fox News contributed.

<<<<<<<*>>>>>>>

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Liz Cheney disagree over knowledge of 22nd Amendment, Constitution.

“[Liz] Cheney, R-WY, took issue with a comment [Alexandria] Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY, made during a recent MSNBC town hall event in which the freshman congresswoman talked about Democrats being in control of Congress in the 1930s and 1940s.”

‘“When our party was boldest, the time of the New Deal, the Great Society, the Civil Rights Act and so on, we had, and carried, supermajorities in the House, in the Senate. We carried the presidency,’ she told MSNBC’s Chris Hayes.”

‘“They had to amend the Constitution of the United States to make sure (President Franklin D.) Roosevelt did not get reelected,’ Ocasio-Cortez continued.”

“In response to Ocasio-Cortez’s remarks, Cheney tweeted: ‘We knew the Democrats let dead people vote. According to AOC, they can run for president too!’”

“The New Yorker then fired off her own response. ‘Hey Rep. Cheney, I see from your dead people comment that you get your news from Facebook memes, but the National Constitution Center + Newsweek are just two of many places where you can clarify your misunderstanding of the history of the 22nd Amendment,’ she wrote.”

“Roosevelt died while in office in 1945 and the 22nd Amendment was proposed by Congress in 1947.  The Amendment reads, “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 of other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.”

I think we can safely score this:

Representative Liz Cheney………..ONE

Representative Ocasio-Cortez…….ZERO

Kathleen Joyce of Fox News contributed.

<<<<<<<*>>>>>>>

DNC Chair Tom Perez calls Republican lawmakers “cowardly,” says they will be “judged harshly” by history

“Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez launched a stunning attack on Republican lawmakers, saying history will “judge” them for supporting President Trump.”

What’s so “stunning” about that?  I hear much worse on a daily basis directed at President Trump, republicans and various conservatives.

‘“The reason why we [Democrats] are winning, and we won at scale in 2018, is because our message is clear. Our message was: we are the ones who actually have your back on the issues that really matter. Healthcare, education. He said he had your back, but actually he had a knife in your back,’ Perez said.”

The truth is the democrats under performed in the 2018 midterms, and by any measure we can say the democrats do not “have our back.”  The democrats, most recently led by Barack Obama, sold America and Americans out.  They gave away our jobs, our wealth, our respect around the world, and our American soul.

“The DNC chair continued that President Trump found success in 2016 by putting ‘fear on the ballot,’ and that Republican lawmakers who have supported his policies over the last three years are ‘cowards’ who have allowed damage to be done to their part.”

That’s a good one Tom!  The democrats are historically the party of fear.  How many times have we heard “the republicans will gut social security,” due to the republicans, millions will die without healthcare, our children will starve and grandma will be left out on the street!?

We didn’t need President Trump to “put fear on the ballot” in 2016, we were all scared already that our country was going down the drain. And rightly so.

‘“I mean, history will not only judge Donald Trump harshly. It will judge Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan and all the other cowards who refused to stand up to this president and allowed the party of Lincoln to die. They will be judged harshly because whatever he says goes right now.’”

I feel more correctly, “history” will judge these times as the times of the great liberal lies.  The times of liberal propaganda and the times of the corrupt and biased media who backed them up rather than do their jobs as watchdogs for We the People.

Anna Hopkins of Fox News contributed.

<<<<<<<*>>>>>>>

Pelosi: Biden didn’t know “the world we’re in now.”

“House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi is the most high-profile Democrat to come to the defense of former Vice President Joe Biden’s ‘affectionate demeanor,’ Peter Doocy reports from Washington.”

Ha! “Affectionate demeanor!?”  Is that what we’re calling “Uncle Joe’s” creepy behavior now?

And according to Politico (a news journalism company), “Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday that she does not think the allegations against Joe Biden of unwelcome contact are disqualifying for a 2020 run, but that the former vice president should be more aware of others’ personal space. ‘I don’t think it’s disqualifying,’ Pelosi said… ‘He has to understand in the world that we’re in now that people’s space is important to them, and what’s important is how they receive it and not necessarily how you intended it.’ … Pelosi pushed back against the tone of former vice president’s apologies. ‘It is how it’s received, so to say, ‘I’m sorry that you were offended’ is not an apology,’ the California Democrat said. ‘‘I’m sorry I invaded your space,’ but not, ‘I’m sorry you were offended.’ What’s that? That’s not accepting the fact that people think differently about communication.’”

I’m a little confused.  Is she coming to Joe’s defense or is she scolding him?

National Public Radio (NPR) noted, “On the most obvious level, complaints of this kind renew the criticism of Biden’s past performance on issues affecting women and people of color, the two constituencies likely to matter most in choosing the next Democratic nominee.”

As usual with the democrats, us poor white guys are treated like second class citizens.

“Perceptions of Biden as ‘old school’ or ‘old fashioned’ are not just liabilities to be shed. They are also the basis of his appeal to many older, white, working-class Democrats and independents.”

The democrat party can say what they want about the new breed of democrat-socialists out there; Joe Biden leads in the polls for president, and he hasn’t even officially declared yet!

“Biden’s advisers believe coverage of allegations of inappropriate behavior is being stoked by rival Democrats…”

No kidding.

That basically leaves one guy…, and I can hear ‘em now, Bernie, Bernie, Bernie.

<<<<<<<*>>>>>>>

New York Post: How the New York Times, Washington Post helped get Trump elected.

“If either paper had done the sort of digging on Hillary Clinton that they did on Trump, then Clinton would never have been the presidential nominee for the Democratic Party.”

headlines 2

True.  And actually, “If either paper had done the sort of digging on Hillary Clinton that they did on Trump,” she would be in jail, along with a lot of her friends.

“So, in a different scenario, if the Times and the Washington Post probe Clinton, alert the public to all of her ‘problems’ then the Democrats are forced to pick someone else as their candidate.  In that case, Trump might not have won.”

In reality, Mr. Crudele, anything “might” have happened.  It really annoys me these days when reporters say, “this might happen,” or that “could happen,” or this “may” happen.

Here’s some news for all of you journalism majors: ANYTHING “MIGHT,”  “COULD,” OR “MAY” HAPPEN!  THAT’S NOT NEWS!

John Crudele of The New York Post contribued.

headlines 1

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please “click” on the comment icon just to the right of the date at the bottom of this article.  From there you can let me know you “like” my blog, leave a comment or click the “Follow” button which will keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

 

“The state of our Union is…?”

The state of our Union is…, at a crossroads.

Not only is the state of our Union at a crossroads, The State of the Union address itself is at a crossroads.

Speaker of the House, California democrat, Nancy Pelosi, has chosen to throw all congressional tradition and decency to the wayside and disinvite President Trump to give his State of the Union address in the House of Representatives.

She weakly, and unsupported by the truth, suggested that, “it may be difficult to provide security for the event because of the partial government shutdown.”

“Sadly, given the security concerns and unless the government re-opens this week, I suggest that we work together to determine another suitable date after government has re-opened for this address or for you to consider delivering your State of the Union address in writing to Congress on January 29,” Pelosi wrote.

A senior Homeland Security official later told Fox News, however, that they have been preparing for months for the State of the Union event [and that they had no security concerns as referred to by Mrs. Pelosi].

“We are ready,” the official said. “Despite the fact members of the Secret Service are not being paid, the protective mission has not changed.”

According to Alex Pappas and John Roberts of Fox News, “White House Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley accused Pelosi of ‘trying to play politics with that venue.’ He also dinged the speaker for suggesting it may be difficult to provide security for the event because of the partial government shutdown.”

‘“If the Secret Service can protect the president of the United States on a trip to Iraq, chances are they can protect the American president in the halls of Congress,’ Gidley said.”

“A spokesman for Pelosi did not return a request for comment.  Neither did the House Sergeant at Arms office.”

According to History.House.gov:

“Including President Donald J. Trump’s 2018 address, there have been a total of 95 in-person Annual Messages/State of the Union Addresses.

“Since President Woodrow Wilson’s 1913 address, there have been a total of 83 in-person addresses.”

“The formal basis for the State of the Union Address is from the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 3, Clause 1, ‘The President shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.’”

sotu supremes w zzzzzs 2

Never one to let the Constitution get in her way, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has strongly urged the president to delay the speech or submit it in writing amid the government shutdown fight.

Be careful Nancy, you may get what you’re wishing for!

In my opinion, it seems like you are actually doing President Trump a big favor, Nancy.  Not only are you making yourself and your party look petty and foolish, you are providing President Trump with an excuse to give his State of the Union address somewhere other than the stodgy, old, predictable halls of Congress.

Wouldn’t it be awesome to see The President give his address to a crowd of 20-30 thousand supporters in a rally type of atmosphere in say Columbus, Ohio, or in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, or perhaps in Jacksonville, Florida?

Is that what you want Nancy?

Somehow I don’t think so.

But I sure would!

I can hear the standing room only crowd now, screaming, “BUILD THAT WALL! BUILD THAT WALL! BUILD THAT WALL!” “USA, USA, USA” “FOUR MORE YEARS!” “LOCK HER UP! and that “oldie but a goodie,”  “CNN SUCKS!”  Maybe we’ll even hear President Trump’s newest slogan, “BUILD A WALL & CRIME WILL FALL!”

It’s a beautiful thing.

Have you heard the old saying, “Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer,” Nancy?

Letting President Trump out of Washington D.C. would be doing him and all of his supporters a big favor.

It would nice a nice change of pace to watch The State of the Union address without having to see all of those grouchy democrats sitting on their hands, falling asleep, and just generally being disrespectful.

“At the moment, however, President Trump intends to be at the Capitol next Tuesday to deliver his speech as scheduled, sources said.  White House officials told Fox News they essentially are preparing for two tracks for next week’s speech. The preferred track is an address, as per custom, at the Capitol.  The second track is a backup plan for a speech outside of Washington, D.C.”

In the end, whether or not the speech is welcomed on the House floor is up to comrade Pelosi.

The way it stands now, welcome or not, President Trump has a “get out of jail free” card and he should take his “show” on the road!

Winning!

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of this site and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

trump state of the union

 

I’d love to be able to “regulate the content of speech.”  If it wasn’t for that darn Constitution!

The U.S. Representative for California’s 33rd congressional district (in the Los Angeles area), democrat, Ted Lieu, said he would “love to regulate the content of speech,” including that on Fox News, but he can’t do it because of the U.S. Constitution.

That darn old Constitution!

Lieu made the comments during an interview about the testimony of Google CEO Sundar Pichai at a House Judiciary Committee hearing during an interview with CNN host Brianna Keilar.

“… I would love to be able to regulate the content of speech.  The First Amendment prevents me from doing so, and that’s simply a function of the First Amendment, but I think over the long run it’s better the government does not regulate the content of speech,” Congressman Lieu continued.

I’m glad you feel that way congressman; since that is what allows you and your liberal friends to say the stupid things you do, not to mention you took an oath to uphold and protect The Constitution as an elected representative of the people.

Lieu added that, “Private companies should self-regulate their platforms and the government shouldn’t interfere.”

Stop the presses!  This would be the first thing that a democrat felt the government shouldn’t interfere with!  Although this statement does not seem consistent with his prior statements.

I think what he means is private companies, run by liberals, should be able to self-regulate their own platforms, as long as they are attacking conservatives.

Yes…, I’m sure that’s it.

After his remarks aired, Lieu came under fire on social media, prompting him to go on a Twitter spree to clarify his views, including that he would like to regulate Fox News.

One Twitter user had accused him of being “a poster child for tyranny.”

Lieu, of course, then had to tell us what we should have understood him to say, as he insisted that he was actually defending the First Amendment rather than showing his desire to regulate speech.

Oh I get it!  So it was like “opposite day” or something!

Maybe we should have interpreters standing alongside these liberals, translating what they really mean, like we have people translating their words into sign language for those who are hearing impaired!

“My whole point is that government officials always want to regulate speech,” Lieu added.

I really haven’t heard about any government officials wanting to regulate speech other than you, Mr. Lieu, and of course former President Obama regarding Fox News!

According to Lukas Mikelionis of Fox News, “Lieu has become somewhat of a foe of President Trump following his election, often taking to social media to throw jabs at the president.”

“He’s among the Democrats who’s been flirting with the idea of impeaching Trump over the perceived collusion between Russia and the campaign.  He also tried to kick-start earlier this year the impeachment process of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.”

Ok.  Well, that paints a clearer picture of Congressman Lieu now.

So what we have here is your typically confused and inept, liberal politician.

A year and a half ago, Lieu tweeted at President Trump, saying: “President” @realDonaldTrump: You truly are an evil man. Your job is to help Americans. Not intentionally try to destroy their lives. https://t.co/2M94E1g39b — Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) March 25, 2017

This was in response to President Trump’s tweet about Obamacare which said:

ObamaCare will explode and we will all get together and piece together a great healthcare plan for THE PEOPLE. Do not worry!  — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 25, 2017

There we go again.  When liberals can’t win an argument intellectually, they resort to name calling and labeling.  Who the “evil one” is and who was trying to “destroy lives,” is definitely a matter of opinion.

Congressman Lieu then tweeted:

Mr. “President”: Art II of Constitution requires you to faithfully execute laws passed by Congress. Subverting #Obamacare violates your Oath https://t.co/2M94E1g39b — Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) March 25, 2017

Excuse me Congressman Lieu, but wasn’t it President Obama who chose to ignore our immigration laws, and change the Obamacare law as he saw fit on the run?

I don’t recall you pointing out Article II of The Constitution to President Obama, or did I just miss that?

“Even earlier this year, Lieu started printing asterisks next to Trump’s name in his official press releases, leading to a footnote that reminds readers of his failure to capture the popular vote and of allegations of Russian influence,” the Los Angeles Times reported.

Fox News Insider pointed out that, “Lieu also started a “Cloud of Illegitimacy Clock,” which counts the days, hours and minutes that Trump has allegedly been in conflict with a section of the Constitution that governs the likelihood of interference by foreign business interests.”

“Trump is not making America first, he’s making America second,” Lieu said.

It’s not that hard Mr. Lieu.  Really.

Repeat after me, President is “making America great again” by “putting America first.”

I would really like to see a study about the IQ scores for people in your district, Mr. Lieu.  Something tells me the average score would be somewhere south of barely functional.

Is your district anywhere near Maxine Waters’ district?  I’m gonna go way out on a limb here and guess the answer is “yes.”

 

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of the page and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on all of my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

freedom of speech

 

What the heck are these “Federalist Papers” I’ve been hearing about, and why do they seem so important when we talk about “interpreting” The Constitution?

“I think the first duty of society is justice.” – Alexander Hamilton

The Federalist Papers are a collection of 85 newspaper articles and essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, under the pen name “Publius,” to promote the ratification of the United States Constitution.

The first 77 of these essays were published, in a series, in three different New York newspapers, between October of 1787 and April of 1788.  A two-volume compilation of these 77 essays and eight others was later published as “The Federalist: A Collection of Essays, Written in Favor of the New Constitution, as Agreed upon by the Federal Convention, September 17, 1787,” in March and May of 1788.

The authors of The Federalist Papers intended to influence the voters to ratify the Constitution.  In “Federalist No. 1,” Alexander Hamilton set that argument in motion:

“It has been frequently remarked, that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not, of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend, for their political constitutions, on accident and force.”

“Federalist No. 10” is generally regarded as the most important of the 85 articles from a philosophical standpoint.  In it, James Madison discusses the destructive role of a faction in breaking apart the republic. The question Madison answers, then, is how to eliminate the negative effects of factions.  Madison defines a faction as “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”

According to historian Richard B. Morris, the essays that make up The Federalist Papers are an “incomparable exposition of The Constitution, a classic in political science unsurpassed in both breadth and depth by the product of any later American writer.”

At the time of publication, the authors of The Federalist Papers attempted to hide their identities for fear of prosecution.  The authorship of the papers breaks down like this:

Alexander Hamilton (51 articles: No. 1, 6–9, 11–13, 15–17, 21–36, 59–61, and 65–85)

James Madison (29 articles: No. 10, 14, 18–20, 37–58 and 62–63)

John Jay (5 articles: No. 2–5 and 64)

Hamilton represented New York at the Constitutional Convention, and in 1789 became the first Secretary of the Treasury, until he resigned in 1795.

Madison, who is now acknowledged as the father of the Constitution, became a leading member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Virginia (1789–1797), Secretary of State (1801–1809), and ultimately the fourth President of the United States.

Jay, became the first Chief Justice of the United States in 1789, until stepping down in 1795 to accept his election as the governor of New York.

The Federal Convention sent the proposed Constitution to the Confederation Congress, which in turn submitted it to the states for ratification at the end of September 1787.  On September 27, 1787, an article by an author known only as “Cato” first appeared in the New York press criticizing the proposition.  Soon after, an article by an author known as “Brutus” followed on October 18, 1787, also criticizing the newly proposed constitution.  These and other articles and public letters critical of the new Constitution would become known as the “Anti-Federalist Papers.”  These articles were the impetus for Alexander Hamilton’s response, as he decided to launch his defense and explanation of the proposed Constitution to the people of the state of New York.  He wrote in “Federalist No. 1” that the series would “endeavor to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, that may seem to have any claim to your attention.”

Alexander Hamilton chose the pen name “Publius.” While many other pieces representing both sides of the constitutional debate were written under Roman pen names such as “Publius,” “Caesar,” “Brutus” and “Cato.”  In ancient Rome, Publius Valerius helped found the ancient republic of Rome.  He was also known as Publicola, which meant “friend of the people.”

Although written and published relatively quickly, “The Federalist articles” were widely read and greatly influenced the shape of America, politically.  Hamilton, Madison and Jay published the essays at a rapid pace.  At times, three to four new essays appeared in the papers in a single week.  Hamilton also encouraged the reprinting of the essays in newspapers outside of New York State.

In Federalist No. 1, Hamilton listed six topics to be covered in the subsequent articles:

“The utility of the UNION to your political prosperity” – covered in No. 2 through No. 14

“The insufficiency of the present Confederation to preserve that Union” –covered in No. 15 through No. 22

“The necessity of a government at least equally energetic with the one proposed to the attainment of this object” – covered in No. 23 through No. 36

“The conformity of the proposed constitution to the true principles of republican government” – covered in No. 37 through No. 84

“Its analogy to your own state constitution” – covered in No. 85

“The additional security which its adoption will afford to the preservation of that species of government, to liberty and to prosperity” – covered in No. 85.

Here is a list of The Federalist Papers in order:

#       Date, Title, Author

1       October 27, 1787, General Introduction, Alexander Hamilton

2       October 31, 1787, Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, John Jay

3       November 3, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, John Jay

4       November 7, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, John Jay

5       November 10, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence, John Jay

6       November 14, 1787, Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States, Alexander Hamilton

7       November 15, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers from Dissensions Between the States, Alexander Hamilton

8       November 20, 1787, The Consequences of Hostilities Between the States, Alexander Hamilton

9       November 21, 1787, The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and  Insurrection, Alexander Hamilton

10     November 22, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection, James Madison

11     November 24, 1787 The Utility of the Union in Respect to Commercial Relations and a Navy, Alexander Hamilton

12     November 27, 1787, The Utility of the Union In Respect to Revenue, Alexander Hamilton

13     November 28, 1787, Advantage of the Union in Respect to Economy in Government, Alexander Hamilton

14     November 30, 1787, Objections to the Proposed Constitution From Extent of Territory Answered, James Madison

15     December 1, 1787, The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union, Alexander Hamilton

16     December 4, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union, Alexander Hamilton

17     December 5, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union, Alexander Hamilton

18     December 7, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union, James Madison

19     December 8, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union, James Madison

20     December 11, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union, James Madison

21     December 12, 1787, Other Defects of the Present Confederation, Alexander Hamilton

22     December 14, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: Other Defects of the Present Confederation, Alexander Hamilton

23     December 18, 1787, The Necessity of a Government as Energetic as the One Proposed to the Preservation of the Union, Alexander Hamilton

24     December 19, 1787, The Powers Necessary to the Common Defense Further Considered, Alexander Hamilton

25     December 21, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: The Powers Necessary to the Common Defense Further Considered, Alexander Hamilton

26     December 22, 1787, The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered, Alexander Hamilton

27     December 25, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered, Alexander Hamilton

28     December 26, 1787, The Same Subject Continued: The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to the Common Defense Considered, Alexander Hamilton

29     January 9, 1788, Concerning the Militia, Alexander Hamilton

30     December 28, 1787, Concerning the General Power of Taxation, Alexander Hamilton

31     January 1, 1788, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the General Power of Taxation, Alexander Hamilton

32     January 2, 1788, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the General Power of Taxation, Alexander Hamilton

33     January 2, 1788, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the General Power of Taxation, Alexander Hamilton

34     January 5, 1788, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the General Power of Taxation, Alexander Hamilton

35     January 5, 1788, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the General Power of Taxation, Alexander Hamilton

36     January 8, 1788, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the General Power of Taxation, Alexander Hamilton

37     January 11, 1788, Concerning the Difficulties of the Convention in Devising a Proper Form of Government, James Madison

38     January 12, 1788, The Same Subject Continued, and the Incoherence of the Objections to the New Plan Exposed, James Madison

39     January 18, 1788, The Conformity of the Plan to Republican Principles, James Madison

40     January 18, 1788, The Powers of the Convention to Form a Mixed Government Examined and Sustained, James Madison

41     January 19, 1788, General View of the Powers Conferred by the Constitution, James Madison

42     January 22, 1788, The Powers Conferred by the Constitution Further Considered, James Madison

43     January 23, 1788, The Same Subject Continued: The Powers Conferred by the Constitution Further Considered, James Madison

44     January 25, 1788, Restrictions on the Authority of the Several States, James Madison

45     January 26, 1788, The Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered, James Madison

46     January 29, 1788, The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared, James Madison

47     January 30, 1788, The Particular Structure of the New Government and the Distribution of Power Among Its Different Parts, James Madison

48     February 1, 1788, These Departments Should Not Be So Far Separated as to Have No Constitutional Control Over Each Other, James Madison

49     February 2, 1788, Method of Guarding Against the Encroachments of Any One Department of Government, James Madison

50     February 5, 1788, Periodic Appeals to the People Considered, James Madison

51     February 6, 1788, The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments, James Madison

52     February 8, 1788, The House of Representatives, James Madison

53     February 9, 1788, The Same Subject Continued: The House of Representatives, James Madison

54     February 12, 1788, The Apportionment of Members Among the States, James Madison

55     February 13, 1788, The Total Number of the House of Representatives, James Madison

56     February 16, 1788, The Same Subject Continued: The Total Number of the House of Representatives, James Madison

57     February 19, 1788, The Alleged Tendency of the New Plan to Elevate the Few at the Expense of the Many, James Madison

58     February 20, 1788, Objection That The Number of Members Will Not Be Augmented as the Progress of Population Demands Considered, James Madison

59     February 22, 1788, Concerning the Power of Congress to Regulate the Election of Members, Alexander Hamilton

60     February 23, 1788, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the Power of Congress to Regulate the Election of Members, Alexander Hamilton

61     February 26, 1788, The Same Subject Continued: Concerning the Power of Congress to Regulate the Election of Members, Alexander Hamilton

62     February 27, 1788, The Senate, James Madison

63     March 1, 1788, The Senate Continued, James Madison

64     March 5, 1788, The Powers of the Senate, John Jay

65     March 7, 1788, The Powers of the Senate Continued, Alexander Hamilton

66     March 8, 1788, Objections to the Power of the Senate To Set as a Court for Impeachments Further Considered, Alexander Hamilton

67     March 11, 1788, The Executive Department, Alexander Hamilton

68     March 12, 1788, The Mode of Electing the President, Alexander Hamilton

69     March 14, 1788, The Real Character of the Executive, Alexander Hamilton

70     March 15, 1788, The Executive Department Further Considered, Alexander Hamilton

71     March 18, 1788, The Duration in Office of the Executive, Alexander Hamilton

72     March 19, 1788, The Same Subject Continued, and Re-Eligibility of the Executive Considered, Alexander Hamilton

73     March 21, 1788, The Provision For The Support of the Executive, and the Veto Power, Alexander Hamilton

74     March 25, 1788, The Command of the Military and Naval Forces, and the Pardoning Power of the Executive, Alexander Hamilton

75     March 26, 1788, The Treaty Making Power of the Executive, Alexander Hamilton

76     April 1, 1788, The Appointing Power of the Executive, Alexander Hamilton

77     April 2, 1788, The Appointing Power Continued and Other Powers of the Executive Considered, Alexander Hamilton

78     May 28, 1788 (book) June 14, 1788 (newspaper), The Judiciary Department, Alexander Hamilton

79     May 28, 1788 (book) June 18, 1788 (newspaper), The Judiciary Continued, Alexander Hamilton

80     June 21, 1788, The Powers of the Judiciary, Alexander Hamilton

81     June 25, 1788 and June 28, 1788, The Judiciary Continued, and the Distribution of the Judicial Authority, Alexander Hamilton

82     July 2, 1788, The Judiciary Continued, Alexander Hamilton

83     July 5, 1788, July 9, 1788 and July 12, 1788, The Judiciary Continued in Relation to Trial by Jury, Alexander Hamilton

84     July 16, 1788, July 26, 1788 and August 9, 1788, Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered, Alexander Hamilton

85     August 13, 1788 and August 16, 1788, Concluding Remarks, Alexander Hamilton

As you can see, the list of constitutional topics covered in “The Papers” is quite extensive and very encompassing.  “The Papers” can sometimes help us when interpreting The Constitution by providing the original intentions of the framers and by giving us a little extra insight.

By 2000, The Federalist Papers had been quoted 291 times in Supreme Court decisions.

If you had any questions about The Federalist Papers…, hopefully they’ve now been answered.

Stay thirsty my friends!  It’s always better to be more knowledgeable than not.

“The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted.” – James Madison, 4th President of The Unites States

“The loss of liberty to a generous mind is worse than death.” – Alexander Hamilton, First Secretary of the Treasury under George Washington

“America belongs to ‘We the People.’  It does not belong to The Congress.  It does not belong to special interest groups.  It does not belong to The Courts.   It belongs to ‘We the People.'” – John Jay, First Chief Justice of The United States Supreme Court

NOTE:  If you’re not already “following” me and you liked my blog(s) today, please scroll down to the bottom of the page and click the “Follow” button.  That’ll keep you up to date on my latest posts.

Thank you, MrEricksonRules.

federalist papers

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑