Skip to main content

 

I was watching a recorded interview of a guy talking in the lobby of the Trump International Hotel In Washington DC on Jan 5th. He was stating that tomorrow, Jan 6th there was going to be fighting for the Constitution. Now, I don’t want to get into all the garbage about it being preplanned because that may be for another blog. What I want to discuss is where in the hell is this insurrection stuff in the Constitution? I have looked and I don’t see it. I am not a Constitutional lawyer like Ted Cruz but I looked anyway. That Ted Cruz bit is sarcasm by the way.

I know there are people who think the Second Amendment was put there for the people to rebel against the government. I believe such great Constitutional defenders like Rand Paul and Matt Geatz have stated that much. More sarcasm. I don’t see where that wording is. Now it does talk about the Security of a free State. It does not talk about the rebellion anywhere. People will say that you have to read between the lines. I am sorry; the Second Amendment is just one line. No lines to read between. Being just one sentence I have to believe the writers knew what they were writing about. It was put there for defense and it says so. Nowhere does in say anything about a group of people rebelling against the government. It was put there for the security of that government. It was put there to protect us from the very insurrectionists that wanted to use it to destroy our democracy.

What would they have done if they were successful? What would they have done is they succeeded to put Trump up on his throne? I would think that the Supreme court would have something to say about that because that is not in the Constitution. There is no way that it says that a person can be reinstated to the Presidency or any other office. For that to happen, the whole Constitution would have to be thrown out the window along with the Supreme Court. At that point the United States that we knew ceases to exists. The great experiment is over. Is that what the money people want? I know that this is what Putin wants. Is this what the majority of Americans want?

As I have stated many times the freedom that our forefathers fought for was the opportunity to form their own representative government. They fought for the ability to write that Constitution that so many today would just as soon throw out the window. They claim to be patriots but it was patriots that wrote that document and I am pretty sure they would not be in favor of you just destroying their vision. I know I wouldn’t be if I was one of them. They wrote it in a way so it could keep on evolving with the times. I think that when they wrote they knew that someday slavery would be no more and the country would have to evolve with the times. I really think that those guys were smart and had a real vision of the future for their new country.

Now there are ways to change the Constitution but armed insurrection is not one of them, that is the way to destroy it. The way is called Amendments to the Constitution. That is the only way that I can see that it can be changed short of a Constitutional Convention and I think that two thirds of the states would have to request it. I could be wrong. You know I am not a constitutional expert like Josh Hawley. More sarcasm.

An armed insurrection is how our Constitution and our Democracy dies, not how it is preserved.  That is not what our forefathers had in mind. What they had in mind is a government of the people, by the people, for the people. This is not just white people or brown people, All people. The lying and the misinformation have to stop. It only weakens us and strengthens our enemies. Why would one side or the other want to weaken America? Who benefits from a weakened America? Those are the questions that the whole nation should be asking. That is the question that I am asking you. Who benefits? I think if you really think about it you will realize that it isn’t you that benefits.

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

  There’s a simple way to judge a country: look at whose lives it protects, and whose lives it’s willing to forget. For years now, we’ve heard the phrase “All Lives Matter.” It sounds fair. It sounds equal. It sounds like common sense. But a country doesn’t reveal its values through slogans. It reveals them through actions, through the lives it defends, the lives it ignores, and the lives it quietly pushes out of sight. And lately, America has been doing a whole lot of looking away. When Black Americans said they were being killed during traffic stops and routine encounters, the response from many leaders wasn’t concern; it was irritation. Instead of saying, “Let’s fix the problem so fewer people die,” we heard “Blue Lives Matter,” “Stop resisting,” and “BLM is a terrorist group.” A man died in a chokehold on camera. We all saw, from the beginning to the end. It was like a modern-day lynching. Millions marched peacefully. The answer from those in power was “law and order,” and “...
1 comment
Read more
  On Saturday, I was looking at Facebook and a person I was friends with, in fact, someone I went to High School with, posted something I knew was wrong. The post claimed that four lawmakers in Colorado decided jail time shouldn’t be mandatory for people who committed sexual assault of children. She claimed they were pedophile protectors. I opened up Perplexity and asked about the situation, and this is the reply I got back: You’re referring to a recent controversy in Colorado over a proposed bill that would change sentencing rules for certain sex crimes. Here are the verified facts to clarify what’s actually happening: • In early 2026, the Colorado House Judiciary Committee held a vote on a sentencing reform bill that aimed to give judges more discretion in certain felony cases. • Some lawmakers voted against an amendment that would have made mandatory prison sentences apply to all sex crimes, including child sexual assault, preferring instead to let judges determine sentences...
4 comments
Read more
  Dove or hawk? Donald Trump ran for President promising to end “endless wars”, avoid new ones, and put American families first. He cast himself as an outsider who would bring peace – the only candidate who wouldn’t drag America into another conflict. The message worked because let's face it, after so many years in Iraq and Afghanistan, America was tired of war. As a country, we were all tired of War. The country wanted stability, not another generation of men and women sent into danger. But once in office, he governed very differently. He governed like a Hawk, quick to threaten, quick to escalate, and willing to use both bombs and tariffs as weapons. What was missing wasn’t just consistency. It was an honor: the sense of responsibility and restraint that should come with the power to risk other people's sons and daughters. This isn’t about ideology. It's about whether someone who promised peace, but repeatedly chooses confrontation, can still claim to be a “dove”. A core...
2 comments
Read more