Art of Conservatism---What Was He Thinking?

So the FBI spent literally months and megabucks of taxpayer loot, pursuing an investigation of Hillary Clinton, including all of her 'business' deals, her so-called 'charitable' organization, her use of unsecured computer servers, and on and on. We The People have had to endure endless instances of what we all know is bald-faced lying on her part, and that of her husband, himself a person who is way too tawdry to even mention further. Except I have to.

And then the FBI investigation concluded. Then there's the spectacle of that husband of hers, caught in a supposedly legal, not sexual for once, tryst with the Attorney General (herself a terribly doctrinaire and corrupted person) on an airplane on the tarmac of an airport in a place where only hell is hotter (and I say that advisedly).

And after all that, Jim Comey, the current FBI Director, announced his conclusions of the investigation: What Hillary did, though certainly tawdry enough, was not up to the level which deserves any indictment. Really??!!?? The reaction was immediate, uniform and expected, something along the lines of “Gag me with a spoon!!”

And then, in the next breath, Mr. Comey did something which has never been done before in the annals of the FBI in any similar circumstance: After exonerating her, he began a quarter-hour-long litany of the things the Agency's investigation found. And it was damning. It was jaw-dropping. And the immediate question was, “How could Hillary Clinton not be indicted for doing what Jim Comey had described for doing all that ? Where's the justice in all of this? Is this more proof that the world has gone to hell in a hand basket, and a dirty hand basket at that?”

Well, hold the phone. Let's look a little closer at this, and see if we can discern what Comey's intent was. There are several possible scenarios in play here:

First, suppose that an indictment had been called for at that news conference. Such a recommendation would mean that the Justice Department would be left with the decision on whether to indict, or not. There are two possible directions that can take.

What if Justice decided to not indict? Most like, that would let Hillary off the hook, perhaps forever. Under that scenario, at least in the short term, it would mean No Hillary in prison, most likely. That's what has happened.....thus far.

But what if Justice decided to indict? In that case Hillary would most likely be forced to end her run for the Presidency before, or maybe just after the Democrat National Convention, leaving a gaping political hole to be filled. Who would fill it? Well, who has the phone and the pen around here? Why, it's Barack the Magnificent, who would be all too ready and able to Do The Right Thing, and anoint a certain Special Someone to fill that vacancy! And, who is now emotionally ready and waiting in the wings for a 'draft', a request, a plea, an entreaty, a phone call, to please take that job? Why, of course, Joe Biden! And would he accept? What do you think? And would he win? He'd have a better chance at that, even with all of his mental gaffes and foibles, than would Hillary. Bet the rent on that horse.

And, what if Hillary, indicted and thus politically wounded as she would be in this case, were to face trial during election season? That would be a Gross Divisive Distraction at a time when We The People would least need such a G.D.D. What would be the chances of her being convicted in such a trial to follow? Given that the entire jury pool (comprised of that pesky We The People, again) has been tainted by the revelations brought to light by Jim Comey, and thereafter screamed to the skies by every Republican who isn't a RINO, the chances are high that she would be convicted----only to be pardoned for all of her crimes in a heartbeat by Barack of Pen and Phone (just ask him!), who by that time would be either welcoming his veep of eight years to the throne, or in the case of a dreaded Republican victory, supervising the implementation of martial law over the entire country.

But, I believe Jim Comey has intentionally planted a seed. Maybe enough of one to make a difference on Election Day. That is key. Of course the Trump campaign will take full advantage of the ammunition it's been given. But, can it, will it, translate into a Trump win, which would almost certainly mean a forthcoming Hillary indictment? Remember, double jeopardy applies only to convictions. Jim Comey knows that, of course---that's what he's betting on. And if it's not the way to bet, it is indeed the way to pray. And should all of this come to pass, then Comey's move to forego recommending the indictment of Hillary Clinton now will not be a capitulation. It will be a strategy. As Paul Harvey said many times, “Evil is its own undoing”. Pray for that to be the case this time. Jim Comey is.

Then think, “national hero”. Please. But only if it works. And that's up to us.

For Art of Conservatism, I'm Art Reis.

Art of Conservatism---Pre-Requisites for Governing? Why not?

March 29, 2016

Here's a Universal Truth that maybe you readers haven't seen put into words before: The more responsible a job position is, the more training that it requires in order for the holder to be effective at holding it. Most everyone who has held a job within the private sector will understand this, and most will agree. What executive worth his salt doesn't know his company's business inside out, or at least how to lead it?

 

That belief is not nearly so universally held in the area of government. And that, I believe, is how and why this country has been going wrong.

Outside of age, what are the qualifications to become a United States President? Congressman? Senator? State Legislator? A governor? A judge? Not much. Hardly any, actually. 

Of all those representatives of the three branches of government at the two levels of government in this country, only the judiciary has a tacit requirement that those who sit as judges have a goodly knowledge of the Constitution and/or laws with which they are to render their judgments. That's because almost all of them come to the bench as member of the Bar.

The only eligibility requirement to hold office in the other two branches of government at either the Federal or State level, is that candidates for those offices must convince the majority of voters that they have the competency to do it. When the electorate often doesn't know what it takes to be a competent legislator, governor, or President, it comes across to the above-average observer like a recipe for disaster.

There, that should pretty well explain it.

So, how does one train to be 'one of the above'? For quite a few years, many thought that being a lawyer was an adequate prerequisite for the job of governing. But being a lawyer is a career in itself, with many specialties, and not necessarily adequate training to govern. Besides, We The People have had to learn the hard way that the most often-seen outcome of lawyers in charge, is the creation of legislation favoring lawyers. In Illinois, for instance, lawyers who are headed to court are absolved of all speeding tickets.

For extra credit, see what other instances of such laws you can find for your state.

Besides, it is my considered opinion that those who create the laws which we all must obey must be taken from many, many areas of expertise, so that the common sense situations which govern the various endeavors of life may have voice in the legislative process. Yes, there are always 'expert witnesses' testifying for and against particular points of view, but they don't get to vote on the legislation thus created.

Here's my point (aka idea): I believe that all candidates for public office at both the State and Federal levels, at minimum, must be adequately trained and tested in the 'ins and outs' of the State and the Federal Constitutions, not only as to what is written on the page, but also why these documents are written as they are. The purpose of this is not only to make sure that potential legislators and executives understand, but that they have an appreciation for the means by which the various Constitutions, state and Federal, are created, not only to provide support for it, but to see to proper Amendments. Such test scores would be made a part of the public record, and if the prospective candidate so desired, he or she could re-take the battery of tests to improve their scores.

Where would prospective legislators and executives go to learn the Constitution, and to be tested for their knowledge and skill in this area? 

At the Federal Level, the Heritage Foundation is the first obvious choice, since it is not politically active for or against candidates---it exists only to support the Federal Constitution, and the history and process of how it came to be. Other entities would be schools of higher learning such as Hillsdale College, or Grove City College. Other such schools exist, I'm sure, and would make good resources for such training. At the State Level, institutions of higher learning, both public and private, could be enlisted to provide resources for the various state Constitutions. A good learning experience would be to compare and contrast the various State Constitutions, to glean from all the best ideas.

Here's an example from my limited experience: Were I to become a member of the Illinois General Assembly, I would make it a priority to amend the Illinois Constitution in the area of pension protection for State workers. I wouldn't remove the provision---I'm married to a County Government employee, who is covered under that state constitutional provision---but I would change it to remove pensions from the collective bargaining process, and replace that with a provision giving individual employees the power to self-direct their pensions into IRA's, at their own risk, while prohibiting the legislative process from touching any funds associated with it. That's just one idea. 

 

Does this sound like a Conservative idea? Yes, since the entire thrust of this idea is to make the United States Constitution, and its state level counterparts, the core of the legislative and executive process at both of the higher levels of government. After all, the core belief of Conservatism is the adherence to the Constitution. And, the more you know about the Constitution and the (temporary) job of being a Legislator or Executive, the better Conservatism looks.

Requiring all State and Federal members of the Executive and Legislative Branches to know and understand those documents is the key to adhering to them in their work. Otherwise, what we get are a bunch of charlatans whose only credentials are how to make themselves rich at the public trough, and create laws from which they will be more than willing to exempt themselves.

We can do better.

For Art of Conservatism, I'm Art Reis.

Art of Conservatism---Micro-Aggression?

March 28, 2016

One of the problems which Conservatives deal with on an almost daily basis, is the left's virtually unstoppable zeal to shut them up. Rush and the other Conservative commentators are right when they state that the left certainly knows that it's ideas can't begin to compete with those of the Right, so they seek to stifle any opposing views through many methods aimed at controlling the flow of information, and as such, the dissemination of those Horribly Politically Correct ideas. One of these tactics is in use of 'weakness'. Perhaps we Conservatives should start cataloging and categorizing these methods, with the aim of creating effective antidotes to them---and I use that word, 'antidotes', advisedly.

While I'm sure you all can think of a lot of ways in which the left seeks to control information and minds in this world (and I've already mentioned the use, or rather the misuse, of the word 'racism' in an earlier blog) I'd like to start with the term 'micro-aggression'.

Imagine a child of, say seven or eight, who hears something that said little kid doesn't like. It matters not whether what the weak little tyke hears is the truth about him, her, or it---whatever. The point is that the first inclination of said little person is to suppress it. So, the little person runs to the 'safety' of someone in charge, or that failing, running to the safety of the herd, the crowd, mob, or sometimes the media, to scream to high heaven, or to the masses, whichever comes first, that “so-and-so abused me” even though that the nasty, mean 'beast over there' did nothing more than to tell the Poor Little Person something that said PLP didn't want to hear. Thus either the authority figure or the mob or the media cudgel is incited to take out revenge on that nasty micro-aggressor and figuratively, or sometimes literally, beat it into submission, even sometimes to death. Now imagine that same sort of thing happens but instead of a seven- or eight-year-old, it's a seven- or eight-year-old mind, within the body of an alleged adult, such as a young adult on a college campus.

That's the essence of the process of political correctness. It's right out of the 'Rules for Radicals' playbook, it's called 'marginalizing', and it's a form of tyranny. Thankfully, We The People are beginning to awaken to just what's going on with political correctness.

So.... let's see how to combat it.

First of all, there's the term 'micro-aggression' itself. Anyone who is supposedly 'intimidated' by anything 'mico' is a mental small-fry, and shouldn't be trusted with sharp objects or matches, let alone anything approaching anything having to do with leadership of anything. Such self-made 'victims' of 'micro-aggressions' conveniently forget that the operative part of the term is the 'micro' rather than the 'aggression'. By its very construction, a micro-anything can and should be ignored, but it's not. 

That the 'abused' have to run to the local authority figure, or the mob, to get proper 'justice' (read that, 'punishment) against the 'accused', is in itself far more aggression rather than micro, since often the alleged aggression is based on the truth rather than aggression, the truth is overwhelmed, and the result is abject tyranny against the alleged 'aggressor', who in truth becomes the actual victim---especially when the herd is brought to bear. It's all out of the 'Rules for Radicals' playbook, and there's a word for it---marginalization. The truth-teller or inadvertent 'micro-aggressor' is thrown out of the circle, society, or worse yet, imprisoned or made to pay a heavy financial penalty.

All of this is because the left knows that, in the arena of ideas, their ideas cannot stand the scrutiny of those who know the truth, so those nasty old bullies must be driven out of existence by those who are themselves the true bullies. What the left tends to forget, however, is that the 'arena of ideas' implies an audience, a crowd looking on, a crowd which is likely to see the alleged micro-aggression and the reaction to it for what both are---and who are more and more likely to see the side of that alleged 'accused' more sympathetically than they are to the side of the 'abused'. That's starting to become apparent to We The People now. How better to explain the rise of Donald Trump than as a negative reaction to the ascendancy of political correctness in this country? I can't help but wonder if he saw 'paying to play' as a form of 'political correctness', and just got fed up with it. 

Even so, I believe that the shining of the hard light of The Truth on Political Correctness is how the concept is going to best be defeated. After all, the more exposed it becomes to enough people who are truly grown up, and who have been through the school of hard knocks, the more likely that it will become seen for what it is, and thus repugnant enough to fall out of the main stream of political thought. 

I realize that it will take a great deal of time to defeat the political correctness which has pervaded this country. After all, political correctness is a major component of that War by Other Means. The thing is, We The People are going to have to start to recognize that political correctness is far more pervasive than most of us believe, and that much of the power of political correctness revolves around the ability of the left to control the language, and thus our rhetoric. Once that is recognized, the next step is to call out any signs of political correctness for what it is, and attack them, just like would be the case with any other form of tyranny, or lies backed up by aggression. 

Political correctness can also be attacked by calling it a form of weakness, which it is. Make sure that that those who practice political correctness are made known to the community for what they are, so that they can be thwarted in their ability to gain or maintain any kind of political power. It means learning how to be educated consumers of information---including removing support from those members of the news media who practice political correctness. It will also mean getting more and more Conservatives elected to our state legislatures, with the aim of taking back control of our institutions of higher learning from those who are indoctrinating our children with Left Wing political correctness. Don't get rid of all of them. Just get control of the colleges and universities away from them. 

As I said, it will be a long, hard fight, but it is a major step which needs to be taken if Conservatism is going to win back this country from those who would destroy it.

For Art of Conservatism, I'm Art Reis

Art of Conservatism---A Choice, not an  echo, 2016
March 22, 2016

Take a look at who is left standing (as this is being written, in March, 2016) in the Presidential race. What an array of choices! Look at the four, just look at 'em! Think about it. The candidates left standing are as unalike as can be. Well, almost.

Let's see.... we have a communist who refuses to admit it, even though he spent his honeymoon with his second wife, in both Cuba and in Russia (read that, Moscow.... now there's you're romantic getaway spot, ummmm-ummm!) and his platform consists of how to steal from those who've earned wealth and give to those who haven't earned any of it, not with cash, mind you, but with free 'stuff'.

We have one (can you believe? One) Establishment candidate who is not a Republican, but who is a felon-in-waiting, assuming that someone (anyone!) has the courage, the cajonas, the unmitigated gall to indict her for violations involving money-laundering, and secrets security violations, and who knows what all, a candidate whose most attractive trait is that she's is a woman (that's why those in my circle who will admit it are voting for her), a trait which disguises to those who love her, her greed for wealth and lust for power. And a voice which..... but I digress.

Then there's the candidate who is, for lack of a better word, a chameleon, a populist who is pushing the right buttons on a huge amount of the population, a trait, the trait, which has propelled him to the top, and earned him the hatred of the Establishment of both major political parties.

And finally, we have a candidate, who believes in America and in the Constitution, and who has enraged the Establishment by fighting them tooth and nail for their playing fast and loose with said Constitution, when what they do flies in the face of said Constitution. And he is hated to the point where there are those who are willing to destroy him (and his same-party opponent) are willing to destroy the country as well.

There you have it: Sanders, Clinton, Trump, Cruz. A choice, not an echo, all the way around, just like in 1964. The memory of that, right there, should be enough to make you Establishment types absolutely cringe. I hope so. Cringe away, cowards. Cringe away, conspirators. Cringe away, you who have now revealed yourself as being into power for yourselves rather than for this country, rather than for We The People. A plague on all your Establishment houses! Yes, that includes all you Bushes out there in political land. Cringe!

 By this time you should have an idea of where I stand in the Presidential race. Well, mostly. Ted Cruz really is my number one. But make no mistake, if Trump is nominated, I'll support him, at the ballot box. He's made it plain that he doesn't need any more help from me. No problem. You who read this, if you care a whit about this country, would do well to do the same. Remember, it's as simple as “ABC”--Anybody But Clinton.

But Cruz is another story. Why do I support him? Why should you support him? Read above. The constitution is why. To swipe from an old James Carvelle quote, “It's The Constitution, stupid!” Well, it's the economy, too, stupid, But both Cruz' (and Trump's) have the platform planks needed to reduce the amount of Federal over-regulation which has been killing this country's economy (by design, I'd suggest) for the past eight years. Getting this country back to its Constitutional roots is, in my experience, the best way to get this country back to economic health, and all of the things it would bring to us, to our security, and our well-being. Proof: Remember Reagan?

My father had a saying which would apply here: “Nobody loves him except the people.” That could be said about Donald Trump. It can be said in spades about Ted Cruz. Who else has the better credentials to be President? The more you know about how all the candidates stand on the important matters affect this country, affecting We The People, the more you have to agree. Cruz. Trump a close second. Sanders, don't make us laugh. Clinton? Felon-in-waiting. Prison. Enough said.

 For Art of Conservatism, I'm Art Reis.

Art of Conservatism---No Fair Peeking

As I write this, it's Monday, and I just sent an E-mail to my best friend, Len Watson, who writes his own blog here on Blogspot, called “DC to White Light”. Here it is:

“OK, buddy, here is a trivia question for you. No fair peeking at the source, but here it is:
“To whom is the book "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky dedicated?
“The answer is a stunner, rather creepy, and very indicative.
“And the other question, which is much easier to answer if you think about it, is, "to what other book can 'Rules for Radicals' be compared?
 “Once you have those answers, it will make you more interested in reading both. I mean that. And I'm going to let you guess why. BTW, that 'other' book was required reading in my senior year of high school. Yes, it was, and still is, creepy, too. Come to think, I'm really surprised that "Rules for Radicals" wasn't on our list.”

That's pretty much the E-mail. Now, since I'm really trying to make a point here, I won't make you my readers look all this up. Here are the answers, and the point:

Answer to first TQ: “Rules for Radicals” was dedicated to Satan. Yup, Beelzebub. The Devil. Really. No kidding. Kind of let's you know where Alinsky's mindset was, plus maybe a clue to the nature of his afterlife. No, not really a judgment, but an observation. There's a difference there.

Answer to second TQ: “The Prince”, by Machiavelli. At least for me, I can't think of either book without thinking of the other. You have to admit that, if you've read either one or both, the two books are at least diabolical. I had to read “The Prince” in high school. To say the book was creepy, especially to a little 17-year-old naïve Christian kid, was something of an understatement. What gets me is that the thing almost nobody remembers about “The Prince”, is that its author ended his days caught in the very traps he laid out within his own book, outflanked by his own enemies who had read it and who then applied the rules he devised on him. His last days were spent in prison. Fitting.

It is way too bad that a similar fate did not befall Alinsky. Today, decades after his death, in radical Leftist circles, Alinsky and his evil little book are lionized by the Left, and whole college courses are taught around it. We need look no further for proof than to the fact that our Leftist-in-Chief, one Barack Obama, himself taught such a college course for a few years.

Which brings me to my point. We who want to see this nation survive, recover and thrive after years of continuous abuse at the hands of the Left, need to read this book. All too often we forget the wise saying, “Know Thy Enemy”. Yes, we need to know the Left better, we need to get inside their heads, and in this instance, we're blessed, because what's inside their heads is all written down, the formula, the very recipe for turning America into something it was never intended to be. It's all in the pages of those two books: “Rules for Radicals”, and “The Prince”.

Don't get the notion that reading these two books will change us to the 'dark side'. Remember that we as Conservatives already know the truth. When you're in that position, that mind set, you read these things not for indoctrination, but for inoculation, as a means of arming yourself to fight the Left and what it stands for. In that sense, let not your heart be troubled. If anything, once you've read these, you'll want to fight all the more. Good .

The bottom line is this: if the Left is going to be defeated, We The People have to know it better. They certainly know us, and more important, how to manipulate us and thus, they think, defeat us. Remember, they consider us to be sheep. We don't have to be, but we can't fight back effectively unless we know the tactics of the Left, and thus how to defend against them.

To make a sports analogy: for a football team to even hope to win the next game, they have to learn and know the upcoming opponent better than that other team knows itself. Otherwise, why even have a film room? Payton Manning, in his retirement speech, said as much: “Yes, there are others who had more physical skills than I did, but no one could out-prepare me.” That same mindset applies here.

So it is with Politics, War by Other Means. Knowing what's in the heads of the statist radicals who would destroy America, we have to know them, out-prepare them. The good news is, learning them is as easy as reading two, not-very-long books. Want to see an example? OK. should Ted Cruz become the Republican  standard-bearer, see how much he out-prepares Hillary in the debates. Heh-heh.....

We should be so blessed. And, armed with the truth and the knowledge of what are the root of the lies of the Left, We The People are.

Now, hold your nose and start reading. And, believe that 'they' believe all of it. It's working for them, so far. It's time it stopped working for them. That's what we're for.

For Art of Conservatism, I'm Art Reis.

Art of Conservatism---Flint

This post was created March 17, 2016, as a answer to an E-mail from my best friend Len Watson,  who has his own blog on blogspot, "DC to White Light". Check it out at scopefocus.blogspot.com. 

Let me get this essay started by telling you why I'm rather emotionally attached to this story.
 
Flint, Michigan—I grew up rather close Flint. Well, down the road a piece in Pontiac, Michigan. As a teen-age member of the local YMCA's swim team, I visited Flint a bunch of times to compete with their local YMCA team, as well as other Y's in Saginaw, Bay City, Port Huron and Birmingham. All the towns were pretty much the same---one-industry cities, auto factories, not too much else. All these have suffered in the wake of the loss of auto industry jobs and of gross government mismanagement at the hands of the Left. No point in denying that. You can't blame Conservatism for the failure of this region if the Right was never allowed to take any part in running it.

Which brings us to the great Flint lead contamination caper. This is a slow developing disaster which could have been prevented, if anyone---anyone in the power structure of this country—had just picked up the ball and screamed for help to remedy this situation. But no one did. Yet, for that matter, if they had, would the drive-by media have let the world in on it before now?


Indeed, in the final analysis, in any analysis, there's plenty of blame to go around

I'd start with the local water utility. What's with the lead pipe STILL being there? And, Flint is not alone in this. The water mains are not leaded (usually) but if they are, they should have been replaced many years ago. And it's even worse on the individual house feeds. The replacement is expensive, but for every homeowner, I'd call it a necessity. I wouldn't mandate it via law, but an intensive, lengthy educational campaign, a la what was done with the smoking problem, would go a long way toward getting the lead out. And, much though I despise using the tax code to influence individual behavior, in this instance I wouldn't rule out tax incentives as a way to get individual homeowners to make a change which is otherwise in their best interest.

Continuing the blame game: What about the culpability of the bean-counter in Michigan state government who MANDATED that the city  turn to the Flint River for its drinking water, with NO study to determine the possible health risks.

Even more on the hook is the jerkweed witch in the Chicago EPA office who saw the problem early on and did nothing about it for eleven months. Yes, this is an indictment of the EPA and a good reason to downsize, if not eliminate it. When a government agency terrorizes local businesses and individuals as the EPA has, while neglecting a vital part of its reason to exist, then it should undergo a massive house-cleaning, just like the VA and the IRS. And the Department of Education (Indoctrination) while we're at it. But I digress.

Governor Snyder also deserves a portion of the blame for this. Again, he should have acted in a far more responsible manner in dealing with this. It was his action in rescuing Flint from its own fiscal irresponsibility which caused an even bigger irresponsibility toward the citizens of Flint. Sad to say, their only culpability was in continuing to elect and re-elect Democrats to mid- and high political office.

Remember this: It is a little-known fact, but one that should be much better known, that a major reason for Rome's decline and fall was that for generations, both the drinking water and the wine drunk by all of the population had been transported and stored in lead vessels, which just HAD to have addled the minds of everyone who used them, from the slaves to those at the top. What kind of decision-making can anyone do when their minds have been so affected by lead contamination?

And no, I'm not digressing. Remember: The Democrat/Socialist/Statists among us blame we of the Right, and falsely, for that which THEY do. Another sign of where they stand with God's will.

As I said---don't get me really going on this. A disaster could have been prevented. Now, a lot of young lives have been unalterably damaged. Changed. Disaster. Shame. Culpability. If justice is to be served, a lot of heads should roll for this. It's enough to drive any thinking person nuts. Ugh. 

Last thought: pray for Flint. And especially for the kids who have to drink that 'water'.

For Art of Conservatism, I'm Art Reis

Art of Conservatism---Apple Vs. the Federal Government: Weighing In

All right, already! Enough on the Apple vs. the Federal Government! C'mon, kids---this is not rocket science!

First, let's get the prelims out of the way. I am a geek. I've known tech stuff all my life. And, not only am I the proud owner of both an iPhone and an iPad, I was able to gift my lovely Kathy with an iPhone 5S to match mine, and she is a happy camper for it. So, we as a couple are solid Apple customers. However, back when we purchased the iPhones and iPad last year, our choice didn't revolve around the product security. Sure, it played a role, but it with the incredible plethora of apps available for both these products which sold me on the product. Well, mostly. The iPad was a gift from said lovely Kathy, and she is as impressed with the iPhone and iPad as am I. 

 

But, as I said, at least at the outset, the security features of the Apple products were of lesser importance at the time. I'm sure the same was true for most other iPhone/iPad owners as well. I'll bet that that's not so true anymore. Given this brew-ha-ha going on today with Apple and the DOJ, I have even more of a reason to love my iThings than before.

Having said all that, let's cut to the chase. We all know the story: The FBI has an iPhone which was seized from the effects of a dead terrorist, Sayed What's-His-Name. W-H-N didn't own that phone; it belonged, and still belongs to, his now-former employer, the County of San Bernadino, California. The FBI wants to know what information is in that iPhone. They need it for intelligence-gathering. To do that, they need to get past the iPhone 5C's security setup, so they can learn from the phone what the evil ones are/were up to. I get that. I'm in favor of them getting that intelligence, from that phone.

As to Apple, the phone is of their design, obviously. The thing is a computer that thinks it's a phone. It's totally software dependent. And the Rule of Software is, you can do anything as long as you do it in software. That includes bypassing the iPhone's meticulously-developed security system.

The problem is that Apple wants to do it in-house---their house. They want to install an alternate operating system (in the version 9.0 iOS area) which allows the phone to be unlocked by software which will try each four- or six-digit code combination, one at a time, but very fast. 10,000 of those codes for a 4-digit code. That way, that phone and only that phone will be accessible to the Feds. Apple would simply dig out the right security code to unlock the phone, revert it back to the current iOS, hand the phone back to the FBI and say, “Here, go play”.

For their part, the FBI wants to do it on their own, in their house. They are demanding that Apple hand to them the software to unlock the phone, and keep it in their house. They're now in Federal court seeking for force Apple to comply.

Now, which entity would you trust to have the keys to every iPhone ever made?? Well???? Why, Apple, of course!! The Cupertino Crew prides itself on keeping its products ultimately secure. In normal circumstances, they can't unlock your phone or pad to get at the informational goodies inside, either. They have to invent this key from the ground up. And this is not software that should get into the wrong hands..... any hands! Would you trust the government with this sort of power (and that's exactly what it is!) over your personal lives or information?? Apple prides itself on maintaining its customers privacy rights (which its competitors also are, or should be doing). The incident has become a legal, but not a public relations, nightmare for them. I believe that their stand on this issue is the proper one, and (obviously) I side with them.

The government, for its part, is treating this situation as if they were a bunch of petulant, tantrum-throwing three-year-olds, which, in my view, they are. Their demand for the private property of Apple (which their security system is--intellectual properly) when there is an alternate solution to their problem, one which works for all concerned—Apple, the government, and Apple's customers---and should be implemented in the Apple has offered, not the way the government demands. By now, it should be clear to anyone who cares that the government has no clue as to what the safeguarding of secrets, or that matter, information of any kind, is about. One more point: This is the living epitome of the saying, “I love my Country: I fear my government.” With the government that's in power at the time I write this, I can't help but hope that the it gets a good smack-down from the Federal judge who hears this case.

As I've said before, if it's not the way to bet, it certainly is the way to pray.

Before we leave the subject, there is one thing to add regarding Apple. As I mentioned earlier, the iPhone which was in the hand of the terrorist, who likely used it, at least in part, for evil purposes. But it was owned by his employer, San Bernardino Country, California. The iPhone's iOS is a vast thing, and for industrial owners who buy them for use by employees on business, there are safeguards built-in, available to the phone owner, which will allow the implementing a number of restrictions to the user as well as access 'doors' for the owner. For one thing, the owner has the ability to make sure that the password for the phone or pad cannot be changed, no matter what. The ability to change the access code by the user would be deleted.

The thing is, it is highly unlikely that the customer, in this case a local governmental entity, even knew that such controls and safeguards existed. The IT department at San Bernadino County certainly didn't. My point is that, to prevent this situation from happening in the future, every customer who orders and distributes multiple phones to their employees should know about those features and controls which are available to them. If necessary, any industrial/governmental mass user of phones should be brought in to the Mother Ship for such courses in phone security features and tips. Had this happened with San Bernardino County, nobody would be having this horrendous conversation now. Just sayin'....

 For Art of Conservatism, I'm Art Reis.

Art of Conservatism--The Presidential Race 2016--On the Dem side

Art of Conservatism---On the Democrat side......

My, what a difference eight years makes.

In 2008, no Republican stood out as Presidential material, and The GOP had to cobble up a really poor candidate named McCain to even get a candidate at all---while on the Democrat side, a candidate who had only charisma going for him swept to the White House in a breeze, and thus began the downward slide of These United States on the World Stage. The abominations since that time are legion. Many books (like unto the length and breadth of the “Left Behind” series, even) will be written in future years, about these last eight.

So, as this is being written, it is the last year of that eight-year nightmare (at least, for most of us, hopefully it is) and oh, how events have turned 180°! It is the Democrat party that is having trouble fielding a truly viable candidate. Do you really think they have, with Hillary and Bernie? Oh, come, now!

My lovely wife Kathy was raised as a Chicago Machine Democrat and is proud of it, but even she is having serious reservations herself about Hillary. In her own words, “She has an incredible amount of political baggage”.

Indeed. Most of Hillary's issues are by now well-known: that private server thing, with the resulting damage to our nation's security, just for starters. Then there are the FBI investigations which, to hear tell of that, are so overwhelmingly conclusive that, if an indictment, or more factually, a series of indictments, are not forthcoming, there will be leaks to the press (which, in case nobody's noticing, have already started; check out Katherine Herridge at Fox News). Then there's all the other 'stuff': The Clinton Foundation, Bill and his, uh, improprieties, which, far as most of us are concerned, need no further enumeration, and now, increasingly, questions surrounding Hillary's health. This is not robust Presidential material here. Add to that the possible scandal, just emerging, about Hillary 'rigging' the Dem Convention with all those 'super delegates' already in her hip pocket? Sounds like a serious problem with We The People, just looking at it. Think that Hillary is into it just for the power and her greed for cash? Well, maybe.

Anecdote: An long-ago friend of mine, who shall remain anonymous, once told me about working in the State Department back in the 90's. This person mentioned to me about how Hillary would come down to the files section and, by 'pulling rank', if you will, demand to go through the dossiers of folks she considered to be 'political enemies'. I didn't know that the DOS even had such a 'files unit', but there, allegedly, was Hillary, rummaging through them, apparently looking for 'ammunition'. The description I got of the Clintons back then from those who knew them was succinct: “Bill's a bubba and Hillary's a bitch”. Oooooooooh.....?

And then, I give you Bernie Sanders....please. Do you want to see an American Flag with its field of stars replaced by a hammer and sickle? (or some such which?) Would you like to have a President who spent his honeymoon with his second wife in the Soviet Union, and Cuba? A President who never had a paying job until he was almost 40, and then it was a government job? A president who would nationalize (i.e., steal) many of our major industries, as he has promised he would do? A President who would mandate free college education (of the indoctrinational type) for anyone who'd want it, without caring who gets to foot the bill? Then there you go, Bernie's your guy. 

 

In short, either candidate now running for to the job of Democrat Standard Bearer would continue this country's slow descent in to the abyss. Just what we need.

I have a question: Are you all better off now than you were eight years ago? I doubt it, unless you're a crony capitalist. You know, the ones who give capitalism a bad name. Oh, I shouldn't have said that. Right.

But wait, there's more: Joe Biden. The one who could save the Democrat Party this time around, and chose not to. Well, Joe, it's getting to be pretty late to get into the game now. Most of the states have Presidential candidate filing windows, the closing of which are coming up pretty fast, and a couple of which have already passed. Joe, if you're not in the game by, say, end of March, it ain't gonna happen for you, and the Democrat Party will be left with.... uh, them.

Then what? Let's say Hillary is indicted before the Dem Convention, virtually eliminating her as a candidate for the highest office in the Land, the most power position on the planet. That leaves just Bernie as your candidate. If that happens, expect a withering campaign from the Republican nominee and an energized party, and possibly a Republican victory in the fall.

Even worse: Let's say that Hillary is nominated at the Dem Convention, and then she's indicted. Then what? The only saving grace for the Dems at that point, would be if she would choose Joe Biden as a running mate. That would do it. But that's only if he's chosen to be Veep. Does the Constitution prohibit a Vice President from running for a third term? If so, than it's anyone's guess as to what would happen. 

The bottom line is, that with the Democrat Party in such disarray, and the Republicans energized, and gathering support nationwide, things aren't looking good for the party of Jefferson, Jackson, or Barack Obama this time around. Or, if I may be so bold to say, for those politicos on the Republican side who've been into office for themselves all these years. If that's not the way to bet, it's certainly the way to pray.

What a difference eight years makes, indeed.

For Art of Conservatism, I'm Art Reis

Art of Conservatism--Trump Revisited

Art of Conservatism--Trump Re-visited

It's been a long time since I've heard this saying, but maybe it's time to dust it off: “Time heals all wounds, and wounds all heels.” And, as I think about it, time has not dulled the veracity of that saying one bit.

Which brings me again to Donald Trump. The political pundits are watching, some with wonder, some aghast, that no matter what Trump says, no matter what he threatens to do to his rivals in the Republican side of the contest for President, nothing seems to turn off the voters who are so enamored with him. It's the darnedest thing, they say. In the face of that, what can we do to trip him up? 

 

My response is, you may not have to.

Mr. Trump has been making a lot of noises, not just noise, lately, about suing to get Ted Cruz thrown off the Republican ballot(s) because he was born outside of the United States to an American Citizen and a Naturalized American Citizen. Many of us are already aware that this issue was settled, in the courts, quite a number of years ago, that Ted Cruz is a bona fide Native-born Citizen of the United States, his physical birth in Canada notwithstanding. End of story, except to Trump. Trump continues to threaten that lawsuit, and now legal scholar after legal authority after legal expert has come on the record stating that any such lawsuit against Cruz has no merit, to the point where it descends to the level of frivolity.

It matters not whether The Donald gets the message. That won't stop him from doing it. As a matter of fact, he's stated his conditions for not filing said suit---that Ted Cruz must be 'nice' to him, and stop 'lying' about him. In other words, “Capitulate to my will, or I'll sue to get you thrown out of the race”. Oh, really.

One of my opinion leaders when it comes to the law is the national talk show host, Mark Levin. Mark was very succinct on this point: “Go ahead, Mr. Trump. Bring your damned lawsuit. Don't threaten to do it anymore, just do it.” Mr. Levin knows exactly what will happen if he does. If the judge hearing the case doesn't laugh it out of the courtroom, he'll yell it out of the courtroom. Heck, just for good measure, he may compel that Mr. Trump has to pay for the costs of Mr. Cruz' defense against that lawsuit. On top of that, he may also have a reprimand in store for Mr. Trumps lawyers as well. Who knows? But I wouldn't bet against that.

The spectacle of that court case may just be the straw that breaks the camel's back with the public, and may provoke the public to take a second look at Mr. Trumps bombastic ways and temperament. While indeed that may not be the way to bet, for a lot of us, it just may be the way to pray. And, if that example doesn't make folks sit up and take notice, some other incident or Trumpism, down the road, just may.

The American people are waking up to a lot of realities which they had ignored in a kind of mass stupor across the few decades. A lot has been taken for granted, and now more and more people are realizing that the country is at stake here. The mistrust of the news media has been gaining more and more credence, for one thing, but now the realization that the two major political parties are more into government for themselves than they are for We The People is also taking hold. People are more skeptical now than they've been in years, and while they see Donald Trump as a breath of the fresh air of candor on the one hand, they are now becoming more nervous with the notion that maybe he, too, is into it more for himself than for the country. Conservatism is starting to become more in vogue, and The Donald is smelling less and less like one. Meantime, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz are becoming more and more attractive, and I suspect that one of them, not The Donald, will be the Republican Standard Bearer this fall. What chance would any of them have against the likes of the two candidates on the Democrat side? That will be the subject of a forthcoming Art of Conservatism.

For Art of Conservatism, I'm Art Reis

Art of Conservatism---Antonin Scalia: The aftermath (updated)

I was having lunch with my lovely wife Kathy in a local restaurant that Saturday afternoon, when my phone erupted with the Fox News App sounder. There it was: “Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Dead at 79.” Now, that was an OMG moment!

Instantly crossing my mind was a word my mother used that I've never heard anywhere else: Thunderation! No need to guess at the meaning of that. Within a few minutes my reagan.com E-mail in-box had two messages in it, both from Conservative friends, both saying roughly the same thing: “The country is lost. It's a sad day.”

Antonin Scalia was one of the two staunchest Conservatives on the Supreme Court. He was the point/counterpoint to the other Conservative Justice, Clarence Thomas. Scalia was far and away the more loquacious of the two, always with his rapier wit at the ready, his disdain for those who exuded any disrespect for The Constitution always on display. He was in striking contrast to Justice Clarence Thomas, the Silent Conservative on The Bench. President Obama, on hearing the news, commented that Scalia was “a larger than life presence on the bench” and a deeply influential “brilliant legal mind” with an “incisive wit.” True as his words were (for once), Mr. Obama just has to be licking his lips at this turn of events, for now he has the chance to make permanent the change that he has struggled to make in this country, from a bastian of self-reliance to a third-world entity. For him, this is a true legacy moment.

The Liberal/'progressive'/statist wing of politics in this country believes in the Constitution as a 'living, breathing, changeable document'. It is their way of transforming it from the bulwork for We The People against a rapacious, over-bearing and over-reaching government that it is becoming, to a mere footnote of 'a piece of paper', as Mr. Obama calls it. For his part, Antonin Scalia had nothing but scorn for that concept. “If that is what they want, a 'living, breathing Constitution'”, he once stated, “then I much prefer the dead one.”

We The People, whom that Constitution was and is supposed to protect, are going to miss Justice Scalia a lot. Too many of us just don't know it.... yet.

But, can anything be done to make up for this loss? Is a Supreme Court that won't aid and abet the driving of America straight into the ground even possible? Well, it is, but I don't have to tell you that achieving it isn't going to be easy. Bottom line is that, now, We The People are going to have to get directly involved, to give a damn about whether we really want to keep this country as it should be, or to throw it all away.

Yes, I mean the Senate. That's it---the bulwark, the firewall, the last bastion. Now think of the all those RINO's in there. Is there a chance for us at all? Now, since the first edition of this AOC essay was written (this is the second), many of the Republicans in leadership of the Senate are saying that there is no way that any of B. Hussein O's nominees (any of them, they say) will see as much as a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee, let alone see the light of the Senate floor. Umm, sure, we've all heard this before, haven't we?

Look, anyone who believes that Barack Obama is going to nominate a really ethnically attractive someone to the Supreme Court who also believes in the Second Amendment, the First Amendment, or any other safeguards of liberties or the rights of the Individual to be free of Government Intrusion into our lives, has another thing coming. Read that, temptation. Obama will have a whole host of these surface-attractive Statists ready to parade before the Senate. One of them of my knowledge believes that the establishment of property rights constitutes racism. And that's just one! Given such a lineup of suspects, there's little or no reason to believe that any of His nominees should ever be allowed to be fitted for a black robe. That means that the Senate is going to have to be persuaded, or shall we say super-encouraged, and in a loud voice, from We The People, to stick to their promise, and to their guns (figuratively, of course) and refuse to act on any and all of Mr. Obama's recommendations, right up to next January 21. Keep the Senate in session to avoid recess appointments. Use all the tricks that the Left uses. Hey, this is politics—war by other means!

Thus, the effort to ignore all of Mr. Obama's nominees has to start now, and must continue without letup until the beginning of the next Congress. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. We The People, for our part, need to have the ammunition, the facts on all these SCOTUS nominees, to reinforce our opposition. That means that every candidate must be vetted by us, as soon as they are announced, or before if possible. And we must to be ready to do this over and over again. We must maintain the energy we need to keep on keeping on, until the next Inaugural Day, when, if prayerfully a Republican/Conservative is elected President, we can get the kind of Supreme Court Justice, indeed, the kind of Supreme Court that this country needs. That's a lot of energy, but this is the future of the country we're talking about here.

Now, you non-believers who are reading this can go read something else, since what I'm going to say is antithetical to your sensitivities, but here's my take on this: God has just thrown us the ultimate challenge, in the form of a question: “How much do you care to keep the country that the Founders, with my help, gave you?” We The People must rise up, not in revolution, but in solidarity with the Founders, to make sure that the Supreme Court, which has the most lasting influence on where America is going, to re-establish the concept which is in line with the Freedom which God has given us, and to reverse some of the anti-Freedom laws, regulations and rulings which have come down on our heads across the last 100+ years.

Are we up for the battle?? For Art of Conservatism, I'm Art Reis

Art of Conservatism---Martin Luther King Day, 2016

Mid-January marked the 39th annual commemoration called Dr. Martin Luther King Day. In 2007, as a contributor to Crawford Broadcasting Company's “The Stand”, their editorial program, I wrote and broadcast the following. To this day, the message hasn't changed, and, for that matter, may never. But here it is.

Since I haven't heard anyone else talk about this subject, I decided to bring it up, with a question: How would things be different today if Dr. King had lived well past 1968? How would this society, both black and white, be different? Of course, one can only speculate on the answer, but based both on what I observed Dr. King trying to do during his lifetime, and from the content of his speeches, I find these questions to be fascinating ones, and I wonder how others, including you the readers, would answer those questions. We are, after all, only dealing in speculation here, so all ideas are fair game. And you, the reader, certainly have the right to respond. I'll tell you how at the end of this essay.

For one thing, I believe that, if King had continued to live to the present day, the rise of the Black middle class would have been much greater. That's because King understood that the way to success came from two things: A better self image and a greater sense of self reliance and self-discipline. More importantly, both come from education, good education. King realized that there's a difference between gaining admittance into the economic and cultural mainstream of success in America, and staying there, and I believe that he was prepared to show blacks as well as whites that the keys to success are, well, education and discipline. Not co-incidentally, these two concepts are the basis of the type of society that made this nation the power house of this planet. That kind of leadership, as displayed by King, is rare on both sides of the color line these days, and to have lost Dr. King that early on, if only for that reason, gives further meaning to the tragedy of that loss.

With such a new-found sense of discipline and purpose, the black community and other minorities as might well have enjoyed better economic prosperity than has even been the case to this point. With that would have come better sense of self esteem. Had all that happened, I suggest that there would have come a greater sense of acceptance by, and a belonging to, the community at large, and that would have created another desirable outcome, the prevention of the rise of the desirability of gang membership, and the rise of the anger-filled hip-hop culture, particularly with its attitudes toward women and drugs. King, I suspect, would have deplored, and preached against, and maybe even attacked in other ways, the triple threat to the black community, and other minorities: drugs, gangs, and anti-social rap music lyrics. As a moral compass of his time, he would have known where all three were leading, and subduing them might have been his greatest contribution to all of society---had he been allowed to live long enough to do it. And dare I say it?: I doubt that a lot of the demagoguery that is so showcased in the news media these days would be happening were King still alive today.

Another possibility that might have occurred had King lived longer, may have been to reduce the rush to the welfare state by families, both black and white. King above all, but even Jesse Jackson, for some time after King's death, understood what welfare was doing to the family structure in both white and black America, and King, given enough time, would likely have gotten fed up enough with the welfare 'status quo' and its negative effects on all whom it touched, to have stepped in and worked tirelessly to deal with it. Would he have become a conservative on that issue? Possibly. Remember, I'm merely speculating here, but I have King's accomplishments and a glimpse at his dreams here as a pretty firm basis for that speculation.

In summation, it is my point that the loss of Dr. King to that assassin's bullet in 1968 was not just a loss to the black community, but to the American society as a whole. All Americans could certainly have used the minds which never flourished in the years since 1968 to solve many of the problems of the world. Even so, a goodly number of great minds have come out of the black community to provide leadership in so many ways in these intervening years, and I believe that we have Dr. King's legacy in part to thank for that. But America could have had of even more. And there would have been many more of those great minds, in my view, if Dr. King had been allowed to live his life to its fullest extent. That would have been his greatest legacy, and ours.

Responses are happily received at radioart@sbcglobal.net

For Art of Conservatism, I'm Art Reis.