Showing posts from January, 2019


Most people do not understand the term impeachment. At least that has been my experience over the years. I learned what the term impeachment meant when I had civics in junior high school, along with the fact that our Federal government had three branches of government. Beyond that I didn't learn much. The rest of my education about government was attained at Middle Tennessee State University when I minored in political science and all the reading I have done over the years. Merriam - Webster dictionary defines the word impeach like this. To charge with a crime or misdemeanor specifically : to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office. The following is what the Constitution says about impeachment.
The Constitution, Article II, Section 4:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The Co…


There is a PSA on television which shows well known actors repeating the line " Boys will be boys" over and over until at the end of the commercial it reads in big letters "ENOUGH". It is obvious what the commercial is referring to. That bad behavior from men has has been ignored or trivialized by a male patriarchal society for years. I have seen this boys will be boys attitude firsthand. I didn't like it when I was young and I don't like it now. For example, in my youth it was expected by many people, including many females, that a boy was expected to cheat on his girlfriend, or wife, because boys will be boys. If women cheated, however; they were considered to be a slut and a whore. This is why John Kennedy got a pass from the media and most political figures of his day because of this boys will be boys attitude. Today, only Democrats and leftists get away with this behavior. The modern feminist movement has a much more sinister motive than just trying…


Recently I was watching a Youtube historian comparing Lincoln and Obama to illustrate the point that the South felt that their right to own slaves was threatened by Lincoln in much the same way as gun owners felt threatened by Obama. In other words that the slave owners had no valid reason to fear Lincoln and the gun owners had no valid reason to fear Obama. To me this argument is comparing apples to oranges. Like many historians he was guilty of using Lincoln's famous quote in August of 1862 to prove his argument. Lincoln stated: "If I could save the union without freeing any slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." The historian is right in his point that Lincoln was no threat to slavery when he was elected president in 1860. Lincoln was a political genius but he was also a great pragmatist and a great lawyer. He knew that he had no con…