Is the Wuhan Coronavirus Dangerous Enough to Destroy our Economy?

C19 Deaths 4-4 wkApril 9: Added above data from CDC comparing Flu, Pneumonia and Coronavirus Deaths.


Are we facing a life ending pandemic, or a severe strain of pneumonia / flu? Many governors and those in the media are acting as if we are facing a new Black Death plague. The data does not support this.

Kevin Roche gives facts from the real-world experiment conducted on the Diamond Princess cruise ship. Its a worst case example, of the consequences of widespread prolonged exposure to the virus.

  • There were 3711 people on board. They all had constant, heavy exposure to the virus. The population skewed far older than the general population.
    • (But likely had few really sick people at the start of the cruise.)
  • Out of the 20% who got infected, only 1/2 had any symptoms
  • A very small percent were seriously ill.
  • 10 people died. (Only .27% of the population of the ship)

Wuhan Coronavirus seems similar to pneumonia. Pneumonia affects weaker, sicker people more seriously and can cause death even in healthier people without the use of antibiotics. Without antibiotics, there would be many more pneumonia deaths. Advanced cases of pneumonia would require ventilators to keep people alive, just like with Wuhan Coronavirus.

Antibiotics used to cure pneumonia do not seem to work on the Wuhan Coronavirus. But the malaria drug Chloroquine phosphate, seems able to take the place of antibiotics. It has shown success in treating Wuhan Cornovirus infections. Like any drug, the earlier it is applied the more effective it will be.

When the media reports deaths due to Wuhan Coronavirus and predicts high ventilator usage, are they factoring in any Chloroquine phosphate treatment? How many doctors are even prescribing it? In what seems to be a politically motivated move, Nevada’s Democrat governor has even banned the use of anti-malaria drugs for Wuhan Coronavirus patients.

Wouldn’t it be more prudent to isolate those people most vulnerable to Wuhan Coronavirus or pneumonia to protect them? While the rest of us practice good hygiene – washing hands often when out, and not touching our eyes, mouths and nose. Pretend the surfaces you touch with your hands are contaminated and react accordingly.

If a year from now, Wuhan Coronavirus infection rates and death rates are proven similar to pneumonia, and Chloroquine phosphate ends up being an effective early treatment drug, there will be a lot of politicians with a lot of explaining to do about why they shutdown the economy and destroyed so many jobs and businesses when better options were available.


Added  3/28 – More date on Chloroquine.  Study finds Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin Effective.  80 patients  – All showed improvement  except for a very sick 86-year-old with an advanced form of coronavirus infection.


Added 3/30 –  FDA Issues Emergency Authorization for the Use of Hydroxychloroquine to Combat Coronavirus 

Minnesota Persecutes Christian Couple


Carl and Angel Larsen live in St. Cloud, Minnesota. They are an openly Christian couple who operate Telescope Media Group, a video production company.

Their website proclaims: “Telescope Media Group exists to glorify God through top-quality media production. As much as it depends on us, we aim to make God look more like He really is through our lives, business, and actions. We want to magnify Christ like a telescope.”

They want to expand into making wedding videos and movies. In keeping with their mission statement, they want to glorify God by focusing only on God pleasing marriages. Since God defines homosexual acts as sinful in the Bible, these relationships cannot be God pleasing. The Larsens should have the freedom to choose their clients in a way that fulfills their business plan. (Note: The Larsens are making no attempts to get homosexual relationships banned, or force their religious views on others.)

Minnesota disagrees and is using the power of the state to persecute the Larsens and other Christians.

Minnesota’s Democrat Attorney General, Kieth Ellison, has interpreted the state’s Human Rights Act to mandate that the the Larsens must also make films celebrating homosexual same-sex marriages. Penalties include payment of a civil penalty to the state; triple compensatory damages; punitive damages of up to $25,000; a criminal penalty of up to $1,000; and even up to 90 days in jail. No exemptions for religious freedom.

The Larsen’s sued Minnesota in federal court for this violation of their constitutional rights. Minnesota eagerly accepted the legal challenge.

Court records reveal the zeal Minnesota has used to force homosexual weddings on the citizenry. Even setting up sting operations against Christians. “It has even employed “testers” to target noncompliant businesses, and it has already pursued a successful enforcement action against a wedding vendor who refused to rent a venue for a same-sex wedding.” (The large Somali Muslim community has not been targeted by Ellison to date. Ellison is a Muslim.)

Minnesota won the first round. Minneapolis U.S. District Judge John Tunheim (appointed by Clinton) ruled against the Larsens.

The Larsens won round two. On appeal a three judge panel on the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the Larsens. Judges David Stras (Trump appointee) and Bobby E. Shepherd (W. Bush appointee) ruled for the Larsens; Judge Jane Kelly (Obama appointee) ruled against the Larsens

Rather than accept this loss, or appealing to the Supreme Court, AG Kieth Ellison has filed a new case in federal court against the Larsens. This begins to look like lawfare, with Ellison using the massive resources of a state government to force a small business to either surrender or be bankrupted with legal costs. Alliance Defending Freedom is representing the Larsens to help reduce the massive legal costs.

Current Minnesota government is hostile to religious freedom for Christians and freedom in general.

The Larsen’s case offers insight with respect to the positions taken by the national political parties:

– Notice how every Democrat appointed judge ruled to create a constitutional right for homosexuality (The Constitution is silent on sexual orientation), while every Republican appointed judge ruled in favor of religious freedom in the 1st Amendment.

– Numerous Republican led states filed court briefs in support of the Larsens. Numerous states with Democrat governments filed court briefs supporting Minnesota.

In closing:

Did Minnesotans realize they were electing an Attorney General who would spend tax dollars seeking out and targeting Christian businesses who did not want to participate in homosexual weddings?

If Minnesota’s government can force a Christian couple to participate in homosexual ceremonies against their will, can they force pastors to perform the homosexual weddings? This is a grave danger to religious freedom.

Scot Wolf is the author of The Bible and Constitution Made America Great By Providing Freedom and Liberty to Citizens, available in hardcover at, or at, or as a Nook or Kindle eBook.

Return Congress to their Home Districts

America’s elected leaders in Congress have become a ruling class in many ways. Congress was originally intended to be the branch of government most closely tied to the people. That tie has been greatly weakened as citizen legislators have given way to permanent legislators that hold their seats for many terms. These members of Congress spend decades living in DC and can easily loose touch with their constituents. Sometimes members of Congress do not even maintain a home with the people they are supposed to represent. It can be argued that a representative living and working in Washington DC, represents Washington DC rather that their former areas.

Let’s take a look at a representative (Maxine Waters) and two senators (Pat Roberts and Mary Landrieu) as examples.

Waters District

California representative Maxine Waters (CA-43) lives outside of her district in a 6,000-square foot, $4 million mansion in one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in Los Angeles. Her neighborhood is just 6% black.

She has little in common with the people in her district. CA-43 is 24% black, full of gangs and poverty. Maybe the district would get a few of its problems addressed if their congressperson lived there!

If Waters wants to remain in Congress, she should move into CA-43 or run in the wealthy district where she resides.

Like Waters, around 20 members of The House did not reside in their districts in the last election. Usually they lived nearby, and in some cases their district had been redrawn after the member was first elected. Shouldn’t representatives be required to live in their districts? Being elected to Congress is a privilege, not a right.

In 2014, it was exposed that Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) no longer had a “home” in Kansas. Roberts owns a house, but has rented it out for years despite using it as his “voting address”. He stays at a donor’s house when he comes to visit Kansas. Seriously? How many days was Roberts in Kansas during his 6-year term? More than one or two days a year? His favorite donor does not run a bed-and-breakfast after all. Shouldn’t Roberts have to be a resident of Kansas to represent it?

It also came to light that Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) did not have a home in her state of Louisiana. Landrieu listed her parents house in New Orleans as her Louisiana domicile. The Senator, her eight siblings and mother own the New Orleans house together. Landrieu lived in her home in Washington D.C with her husband. (I’m sure Mary and her husband spent many days in Louisiana visiting with her mom and siblings together in their crowded house.)

Working at Home

In addition to living in their states and districts, wouldn’t it be better for representatives to work in their districts too? Instead of constituents being limited to the occasional town hall with a visiting representative, how about having their rep frequently working at their district office?

Senators should be working from the capitol of their states – near the state legislatures. Senators were originally intended to represent the states. After multiple terms in office, many senators like Robert and Landrieu, become enamored with the DC lifestyle. They don’t want to work in places like Topeka, KS, or Baton Rouge, LA. They need to spend more time working among the country class rather than the ruling class.

It is possible for Congress to productively work from many home offices spread throughout the nation. In this day of internet and mass connectivity, members of Congress should be able to vote from their home offices in a secure manner. Likewise congressional committee meetings can be held via video conference from the home offices. Watch cable TV news shows, and you will see many interviews or panels conducted with the parties in different locations/states. It works just fine.

To return Congress to their homes, here is a proposed constitutional amendment. The objective is to make sure elected representatives and their staffs spend more time among their constituents than Washington DC elites. Representatives and staff will better understand constituent needs and concerns by living and working among them.

Congressional Residence Amendment to Constitution

    • Members of Congress must have primary residence in their state or district
    • Each senator must establish a home office in the state capitol of their state. Each senator must work from this office 180 days per year.
    • Each representative must establish a home office in their congressional district. Each representative must work from this office a minimum of 180 days per year.
    • Each member must make public the days spent in their home office. Failure to spend 180 days in their home office will make them ineligible to run for the office in the next election.
    • All congressional staff must have primary residence in the home state or district of their congressman.
    • All congressional staff must work primarily from the home office of their congressman.

Congress could do this without an amendment, but they won’t. Many of them have no desire to spend time in their districts outside of campaigning before election time. They prefer the wining and dining lifestyle of lobbyist-rich DC. Likewise Congress will not pass this amendment on its own. Passage will need a constitutional Convention of States, where 34 state delegations agree to the amendment, followed by ratification of 38 state legislatures.

The DC Congress has spawned scores of lobbyists living in DC (many on K Street). Lobbyists will strongly oppose this amendment. They love being able to influence Congress from their DC offices. Lobbyists have no desire to be forced travel the nation trying to meet with congressmen!

Can Congress function away from DC?

Recent Congresses in DC have set the bar for functionality very low. The Senate has allowed itself to be tied up in knots with a 60 vote rule to pass any legislation. Since the two parties are usually diametrically opposed, and neither has 60 votes, nothing passes. So why are the Senators sitting in DC when they are not voting. Placing members and staff away from the DC culture might actually introduce more common sense into legislation.

Congressional Time in Session

The congressional legislative bodies spend a very limited time actually in session. The House of Representatives has averaged 138 legislative days a year; The Senate was in session an average of 162 days a year. (From 2001-2016 according to the Library of Congress) This averages about one day of work every three days, or fewer than three days a week.

If there are 260 working days per year, 180 days at the home office still leaves about 80 days for members to be in Washington DC at their capitol offices. (More if weekends are worked) Congress could be in session many more days if its members could be “in session” from their home offices.

Congressional Oversight

Congress has the responsibility to oversee the entire federal government and approve spending to fund it. Honestly, both Republican and Democrat controlled Congresses have failed spectacularly in their oversight. Can anyone recall one event in either the Obama or Trump presidencies where a congressional oversight committee accomplished anything? But there will still be 80 working days in DC for oversight committees to do their work. Weekends can be worked in more time is needed.

Congressional Budgeting

For the last decade-plus Congress hasn’t even bothered with budgets or specific spending bills. They just wait till a week before the new fiscal year begins, then create a “must-pass” omnibus bill to fund the entire government. It doesn’t take many days in DC to do this! The budget process clearly seems to be broken, and moving the process into districts will not make it any worse.

When representatives and staff go to Washington DC to work, it should be like a business trip for them. Reversing the current mindset of working from DC and “visiting” their voters. This amendment will go along way toward making Congress more in tune with the citizens than the governing class.


Scot Wolf is the author of The Bible and Constitution Made America Great By Providing Freedom and Liberty to Citizens, available at, or at, or as a Nook or Kindle eBook.

The GOP Congress has Lost its Way

LeadershipRemember the 80’s and 90’s when the Republican Party under the Leadership of Reagan and Gingrich stood for limited government, less spending, and was Pro-Life? No longer. The McConnell – Ryan led GOP Congress seems to stand for more spending and abortion.

The latest example is an Amendment by Senator Rand Paul to stop sending taxpayer dollars to abortion provider Planned Parenthood. It failed as several GOP Senators want to fund the killing of babies in the womb.

Sadly this is consistent with GOP Establishment Leadership. Every year the GOP has held the House and Senate this decade, they have FUNDED PLANNED PARENTHOOD.

With this act current GOP Congressional Leaders have abandoned two major planks that made the GOP Great:

  1. They support abortion on demand with each annual budget vote.
  2. They cannot even stop funding an activity that their core voters find immoral and repugnant.

If the GOP does lose Congress in the midterms, it will be because they spit in the face of their base.

Will Northern California Counties Join Nevada?

While it is unlikely that California will pass all the legal barriers to split into multiple states, it could be much easier for counties to leave California and join Nevada.

New Nevada

The Bible and Constitution Made America Great: Appendix 4

Over the last several decades there has been an interesting division in America. It can best be seen by looking at a color-coded map showing the results of a presidential vote by county. There are dots of blue (Democrat) that represent large cities and metropolitan areas which are more liberal. Then there is a surrounding sea of red (Republican) representing rural counties which are more conservative.

Often cities and urban areas, with their higher populations, dominate state governments by electing a majority of the state legislators. There is nothing wrong with this, except there can be conflict when a majority imposes its view on the minority. In this case it is liberal cities imposing their political beliefs and agendas on conservative counties.

What are the issues? A few are:

  • Gun control laws that restrict ownership of guns or ammunition.
  • Green energy laws that mandate certain percentages of energy be produced from wind power or solar power.
  • Restrictions on oil or natural gas exploration and production.
  • Laws requiring homosexuality be taught in schools.
  • High income tax rates (that may be used to pay for programs primarily benefiting residents of cities).
  • Restrictions on agricultural activities on farm land.

In America today, there are major cultural and economic differences between liberals and conservatives. A number of conservative counties are growing tired of having liberal city politicians dictate and mandate their government policy. They feel they are being denied their right to self-government.

America has had settled state boundaries for well over a century. But as the power of state government has grown and become more invasive in the lives of citizens, there are some who resent it. Sometimes those resenting the state government intrusion form a majority vote of a county. What options do residents of the county have if their concerns are being ignored by their state government? They cannot easily secede to form a new state; the Constitution makes that difficult.

There may be another alternative for these counties. The key wording is: “no new State shall be formed… without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.” That language imposes a significant barrier, requiring both states and Congress to agree. This is most likely impossible, as the politicians of states like power and their power is greater with more constituents living under their jurisdiction.

In essence, since a new state will not be formed, groups of counties switching states have a much lower hurdle to clear. If a group of counties leaves state A to join state B, all that is required is an affirmative secession vote by the counties and acceptance by state B to let them join the state.

There is no question state A will sue to prevent the counties from leaving its jurisdiction, and the case will go to the Supreme Court, as it should. New law is being made. The author’s guess is that if the Court has a majority of originalist justices (Chapter 14), who interpret the Constitution as it was written, the ruling will confirm “a new state is not being formed” and the counties will be allowed to leave.

Shouldn’t counties have the right to choose the type of government that they desire? Isn’t this consistent with freedom?


Scot Wolf  has authored: The Bible and Constitution Made America Great available at, or by contacting Follow on Twitter: ScotWolf@RestorFoundaton or Facebook: Restore the Foundation @Constitution1788






What Catholic votes to spend taxpayer dollars to kill babies and sell their body parts?

Paul Ryan.

Every year Paul Ryan has been Speaker, he creates a single massive spending bill that Democrats love and support, then forces it through the House at the last second to “prevent a government shutdown.”

This latest bill was again Ryan’s doing. He chose to bypass his fellow GOP House members and write the bill with McConnell plus Democrats Pelosi & Schumer.

Conservative House Freedom Caucus member Mark Meadows summed up Ryan’s latest omnibus spending bill:

– Record spending levels

– No wall/border security

– ObamaCare intact

– Funds Planned Parenthood

– Sanctuary Cities funded

– Barely 24 hours to read a 2,300 page bill

This Omnibus is so far from what the forgotten men and women of America voted for. I will oppose it. — Mark Meadows (@RepMarkMeadows) March 22, 2018

Despite repeated promises from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan, that Planned Parenthood would be defunded of taxpayer money once Republicans were in charge, the funding remains. Planned Parenthood has received over $500,000,000 every year Paul Ryan has been Speaker. During the last six years, Planned Parenthood performed more than 1,000,000 abortions of unborn babies, on average around 325,000 per year.

No conservative Republican should ever vote for a bill that funds abortion. A conservative Speaker would never let a bill containing abortion funding to even reach the House floor. It should be a given that a GOP House will never fund abortion. If Democrats wish to shutdown the government to fund abortion, let them.

Beyond the critical abortion issue, there is limited government – a Reagan-conservative staple. Has the Ryan/McConnell controlled Congress, eliminated a single federal government agency or department? No. (Solutions – Chapter 20 has numerous proposals for eliminating non-constitutional federal agencies.)

Where is the border wall funding in the bill? This was arguably the biggest promise candidate Trump made. Yet the Ryan/McConnell GOP Establishment continue to try their best to block Trump’s Wall. I do not recall ever seeing a party in power fighting against its own president!

Conservatives gave the GOP control of the House, the Senate, and the White House. Yet, Speaker Ryan and Majority Leader McConnell give Democrats most of what the Dems want. Maybe because they all want big government. The GOP leaders have shown themselves to be swamp creatures that need to be left high and dry.

“The American people didn’t elect Democrats to control the United States Congress. They elected Republicans.”@Jim_Jordan (Freedom Caucus).

As tempting as it would be to throw out all 145 House Republicans who voted for this disgusting omnibus spending bill, this would just put Nancy Pelosi in charge of the House as Speaker.

Yes the Democrats would be even worse! That is why the Establishment doesn’t fear or respect conservatives. They think we have no other options but to keep voting for them. But we do have a way to hold party leaders accountable.

If party leaders, fail to deliver on their promises, make them pay the price at the next election. Make Paul Ryan lose his election. Losing one seat will have no effect on GOP control and will not hurt the conservative cause. (It will likely help it!) But, defeating Ryan will send shock waves through DC and make the GOP establishment pay attention! #NEVERRYAN.

#NEVERRYAN in 2018

Paul Nehlen is challenging Paul Ryan in the GOP Primary. Conservatives and Christians should flock to his campaign to send Ryan packing. But the Establishment is strong. They often spend millions of dollars lying about their primary opponents. Often accusing them of not being “true conservatives”. What hypocrisy and chutzpah!

If RYAN wins the primary using all the benefits of an establishment incumbent, a solid conservative strategy is to continue to vote #NEVERRYAN. Christians and Conservatives need to vote for the Democrat in Wisconsin’s 1st Congressional District to defeat Ryan.

The GOP Establishment never shows any loyalty to conservative non-establishment candidates.

I am not going to defend Donald Trump—not now, not in the future,” Ryan says in a Oct. 10, 2016 conference call with House Republican members. House Speaker Paul Ryan abandoned GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump right before the 2016 election.

Time for conservatives to return the favor! If Ryan can be a NEVERTRUMP’er why can’t conservatives be #NEVERRYAN‘ers ?

Only 40,000 Conservatives Needed!

In 2014, the last non presidential election year, Ryan won over his challenger (Democrat Rob Zerban) 182,316 to 105,552. That’s ONLY a 76,764 vote margin. Half of those voters switching will defeat Ryan.

It takes 40,000 GOP conservative voters to vote for the Democrat and against Paul Ryan for the upset to occur. NO MORE SPEAKER RYAN working against conservative policies. End Ryan’s RINO reign as Speaker.

Calling for 40,000 #NEVERRYAN Conservatives in Wisconsin Congressional District 1

Ryan WI CD1

Mitch McConnell’s reckoning will come in 2020 when he is next up for reelection in the Senate.

Caveat: Ryan has one more chance – another government funding bill will be needed in October 2018 – right before the election. If Ryan finally produces a conservative bill (Fully funding Trump’s border wall, defunding Planned Parenthood and Sanctuary Cities, ….), then we should stop #NEVERRYAN. The choice is up to him, and us.

Scot Wolf is the author of: The Bible and Constitution Made America Great available at, or by contacting . Follow on Twitter: ScotWolf@RestorFoundaton

Health Care Cost Crisis and Solution

Health Care Cost Crisis and Solution

Let the States Show it Works

America became an economic superpower because of freedom – specifically free markets. American citizens are able to provide and purchase products and services that they and their fellow citizens desire at very low prices thanks free markets. Free markets work throughout America, and will for health insurance if allowed to.

ObamaCare is the exact opposite of free markets. Government bureaucrats mandated the types of health insurance policies that could be sold, then mandated that citizens buy the policies under threats of jail time courtesy of the IRS. With no freedom on either the buy or sell side, ObamaCare forced government control onto our insurance system. The old Soviet Union aparatchiks would be proud.

As long as there is heavy handed government control, the health care insurance system is likely to remain largely dysfunctional and very expensive. That is the reason ObamaCare should be repealed.

The State Healthcare Challenge

Many Americans have been duped into believing that government control makes our healthcare system work better. So I have a challenge for you: Transfer all government involvement in healthcare to the state governments (Except Medicare, a specific national promise made to senior citizens). All healthcare regulations, mandates, taxes, and subsidies move to the state level of government. States want expanded Medicaid programs? No problem. Just raise the state payroll tax to pay for the increased Medicaid costs in the state.

If government makes it better, a state government can show us how. State governments should have the freedom to design their health systems ranging from full government control (single payer) to little government involvement, or anywhere in between. Let Texas, California, and the other states show us what really works.

ObamaCare is a one size fits all force-fit federal government program. It is constitutionally dubious given the Tenth Amendment limits on federal power. However the Tenth Amendment does not limit state governments. There is nothing stopping a state from instituting its own state-care system. As divided as America is today, states need flexibility to draft the best health care system for themselves.

Why is food cheap, but health care expensive? For an excellent summary of government interference in the health care system, and free market solutions, read or download the Free Chapter: Health Care Cost Crisis and Solution in The Bible and Constitution Made America Great by Providing Freedom and Liberty to Citizens.

 Book Cover 4 1000sq Links to receive:

PDF Chapter

Nook Book

Nook Chapter

Kindle Book

Kindle Chapter


State control also rebuts the typical Democrat talking points: Health Care is a right, and politicians are heartless for not providing it. For Example: Take Democrat leaders Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York and Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California. When they begin ranting about heartless Republicans, ask them: Why won’t NY Gov. Coumo provide healthcare to New Yorkers? Why won’t CA Gov. Brown mandate single payer for Californians? Why are they letting their citizens and your constituents go without healthcare? Do they not care enough about their people? Are they heartless?

Maybe the only way to fully repeal Obamacare, while blocking the liberal attacks that GOP Representatives fear, is to transfer ObamaCare’s taxes, regulation and mandates to the states. Then let each state adapt it to its needs.

Scot Wolf

Scot Wolf has B.S. in Chemical Engineering, graduating Magna Cum Laude with Honors, and an MBA. He is a lifelong Christian who believes science and faith should be integrated in forming a worldview. He has authored: The Bible and Constitution Made America Great available at, or by contacting Follow on Twitter: ScotWolf@RestorFoundaton or Facebook: Restore the Foundation @Constitution1788

Stalling a Rogue Court


With the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court has become a critical issue in the 2016 presidential election. The next president will replace Scalia. It is documented and discussed in Chapter 14 of The Bible and Constitution Made America Great, how the philosophy of the judicial nominees has differed greatly, depending on the nominating party. There are currently four liberal-activist justices on the Supreme Court (one short of a majority). These judges usually vote as a block on issues favored by the political left. Issues such as ObamaCare, abortion “rights”, the “right” for homosexual marriage and removing religious acts/symbols from the public square.

The activist justices are rogue. Rogue justices ignore constitutional clauses that they dislike and create law to support their rulings. Courts are to enforce law, not create it. Their rulings are in fact illegal, violating the Constitution, the ultimate law of the nation. The next president will nominate at least one justice. Hillary has promised a liberal-activist. Trump has promised a constitutionalist.

The judicial philosophy of the current Supreme Court is dominated by liberal-activism. The justices by their philosophy:

4 Liberal-Activist: Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. These justices (all appointed by Democrat presidents) consistently rule in the liberal politically preferred way regardless of the constitutional text.

2 Swing: John G. Roberts, Anthony Kennedy. These justices move back and forth between constitutional and activist rulings. My opinion is that Roberts rules in a constitutional manner about 75% of the time, while Kennedy does so about 50% of the time.

2 Constitutional: Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito. These justices consistently rule according to the Constitution. The deceased Antonin Scalia was also a constitutionalist.

These latter four justices were all appointed by Republican presidents.

Three Supreme Court rulings illustrate the judicial activist philosophy in action. In each case the liberal-activists vote as a block for a political objective that a straightforward reading of the Constitution would not allow.

ObamaCare: In 2012, the four liberal-activist justices ruled to give Congress the power to control healthcare. They were joined by swing-justice Roberts to get the needed 5th vote. The ruling ignored the 10th Amendment.

Amendment X:  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The 10th Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights, limits what Congress can do. A constitutionalist would rule that managing a national healthcare program is not a federal power/responsibility according to this amendment, therefore is illegal. It can be made constitutional by passing an amendment, as was done with Prohibition, where the 18th Amendment granted the federal government the power to ban alcohol.

Homosexual Marriage: In 2015 the Court decided in Obergefell v. Hodges, that the right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples. The four liberal-activist justices were this time joined by swing-justice Kennedy as the 5th deciding vote. The activist justices misused the 14th Amendment in their ruling. This amendment granted rights to newly freed black citizens after the Civil War. It did not mention sex or gender. The ruling also violated the 10th Amendment which leaves marriage law at the state level (where it resided for the first 225 years of America).

Liberal logic has already forced Christian bakers, photographers, restaurants, and florists to either participate in homosexual weddings, or close their businesses. It is very likely that a block of five liberal-activist Supreme Court justices will one day mandate churches either perform homosexual weddings or cease performing weddings. No one should be shocked if justices who make a practice of ignoring constitutional amendments they disagree with, will also ignore the 1st Amendment’s religious protections.

Mojave War Memorial Cross Case: In 2010 four liberal-activist justices ruled that a cross must be removed from a memorial on federal land. The cross had stood for 75 years, being erected after World War I by The Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW). In this case the two swing justices both went with the constitutionalists, foiling the liberal-activist block. The federal courts have no right to ban any cross or any religious symbol according to the 1st Amendment (free exercise of religion cannot be prohibited). The owners of the land can decide whether a cross can be displayed (discussed in the book). In this case the landowner was the federal government, so decisions should have fallen to the President and/or Congress as the managers of the federal land. Both approved of the cross memorial. Our elected representatives decide what can be displayed or constructed on the land.

It is disturbing that Democrat presidents have been committed to placing liberal-activist justices on the Supreme Court. Our Constitution was designed to be changed by amendment (requiring a super-majority of the nation), not through the vote of five unelected justices. In essence, the Supreme Court has been acting as an illegal ongoing constitutional convention that requires 5 votes for ratification. constitutionalist justices remove this power from the court.

The practical implications of presidential voting are easily deduced. Had Obama lost the election in 2008 (McCain won), two of the liberal activist Obama appointees would almost assuredly be constitutional or swing justices. If Hillary becomes President this year, there will most assuredly be a liberal-activist justice replacing Scalia.

The Supreme Court philosophy and power is indeed a major factor in the 2016 presidential election.

What Will Liberals Do Now That Muslims Are Targeting Homosexuals?

1465845942599This time Muslims targeted homosexuals.

First, my sincere condolences to those killed and hurt in the latest terror attack, and especially to their grieving families. It has become way too common in America for citizens to grieve after loved ones are killed by Muslims. How many Muslim attacks do we need in America before we deal with the problem? Fort Hood Texas, Boston Marathon Bombing, Chattanooga TN, San Bernardino CA, … The lengthy list continues to grow.

In the latest attack, Omar Mateen opened fire early Sunday morning in Pulse, “the hottest gay bar” in Orlando, killing 50 people and wounding at least 53 more. Omar was a Muslim U.S. citizen, born in New York to Afghan parents. Mateen lived in Florida. Omar’s Muslim parents immigrated to America and gave us a faith-based radical terrorist.

Omar’s attack illustrates the differences between Christianity and Islam. Jesus clearly teaches His followers to not go around wantonly killing sinners in His name. What did Mohamed teach? A sizable number of Muslims believe he taught killing infidels pleases Allah. And they act on it. Not all Muslims of course, but if it only 1 in 1000 are killers, and you bring in 1000, the odds are you are going to get a Muslim terrorist killer among them.

The tragic attack of Omar tells us that radical Muslims do not assimilate into American culture with time. Omar was born here, yet he was still following the radical Muslim teaching of killing homosexuals. What mosque did Omar study at? Who taught him his radical Islam? Did he listen to this Muslim cleric in Orlando who advocated a “death sentence for homosexuals” as being “compassionate” earlier this year? A government serious about protecting its citizens would investigate and find out. In America, freedom of religion does not include the right to kill or terrorize others.

To protect law-abiding citizens, the federal government should immediately:

  1. Stop the importation of Muslims (immigration and refugee)
  2. De-radicalize Islamic teaching on American soil

A great place to start the de-radicalization would be mandatory “sensitivity” classes for Muslims where they are taught about the Constitution’s 1st Amendment, and respecting the right of every citizen to follow their own religion of choice, including atheism.

Supposedly, affluent homosexuals are big supporters of, and donors to, Democrats. After the Pulse Massacre, maybe it is time for them to have a talk with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton about homosexual hate crimes, radical Islam, and the importation of more Muslims into America.


This Is Why I Will Not Be Casting a “Protest” Vote in November


Americans have always compromised when the issue is important.

The Presidency is such an issue.





Constitutional Convention and Slavery Compromise

When America formed her current government, they were facing an incredibly divisive issue: slavery. Slavery is an abomination. It takes away every aspect of freedom from a fellow human being. Northern states followed the teachings of the Declaration of Independence, and ended slavery. Yet a number of southern states depended on slavery to run their plantation agrarian economies. They refused to join a nation that would not allow slavery, and their current economic system, to continue. Finally, a compromise was reached. The new national government would be allowed to stop the importation of new slaves, but slavery was to be allowed to continue if a state wanted it. (Read more about slavery in America in Chapter 17.) Compromise was used to achieve the greater good of forming the nation, even if an evil was allowed to continue.

My Perspective: Immigration Dominates in GOP Nomination

Every voter has the free will and the right to use their personal criteria in selecting a candidate. In my view, immigration is the most important issue facing the nation today. We have at least 45 millionpeople (14% of the population) in our nation that were not born here. NOT including 10-30 million illegals in America that most politicians dream of granting amnesty too. If we continue to import this number of poor 3rd world people, having no knowledge of self-government under a representative Republic, our Constitution is doomed. America will become a 3rd world nation just like those nations the masses she has imported came from.

In light of this, there were only two candidates I could support. Ted Cruz , who fought the DC “Gang of 8” amnesty effort in 2013, and Donald Trump, who promises to build a wall to stop illegal immigration, and to halt Muslim refugees. I viewed Cruz as more reliable and trustworthy, with Trump being more likely to crush Hillary and win the general election. (This is my perspective. You may disagree.)

However, if needed, I would have compromised my beliefs for a greater good. I would have voted for Jeb or Marco Rubio had they won the GOP nomination rather than protest vote. Even with the knowledge that conservatives would likely have to fight either of them on amnesty just as we fought G. W. Bush during his presidency. Sometimes compromise is needed to achieve a greater good. In this case keeping the entire executive branch, and the judicial branch (through appointment) out of the control of liberal activists.

Note: I personally AM willing to strategically protest vote for less important races like Congress. A Congressional seat’s power pales in comparison to the presidency. A representative should earn your support with their actions in my opinion.

The Cost of President Hillary (or Bernie, or Biden)

Anyone wishing to protest vote should consider the harm that a Democrat will do to the nation. Hillary Clinton will fill the federal bureaucracy with the same type of people as Obama – dedicated big government liberals. Do you like the recent trans-bathroom edicts from the feds? Expect more. Hillary will replace recently deceased Justice Scalia with a dedicated liberal-activist judge. Enjoy the “new” constitutional right for homosexuals to marry? Expect way more as a Hillary judge will give the activists a solid 5-judge majority to control the top-court in the land.

Note: Some argue that a Hillary justice will finally expose the corrupt activist courts. But does it really matter if every state governor accepts the ruling? Going to court to fight will NOT work, as the case is predetermined against you by the 5 activist judges. A governor must be willing to tell the courts to go pound-sand by ignoring the unconstitutional ruling. Not a single governor did this on homosexual-marriage. They bowed to the court’s decree. Why would you think governors will offer opposition to judicial tyranny in the future?

3rd Party vs 3rd Person

A third party is a legitimate party running candidates at every level of office. The last example of this was the Republican Party forming in the 1850’s and 60’s. It succeeded in replacing the Whig Party. A third party does not begin with the presidency; it should begin at the state or congressional level. A third person is someone (usually popular) running for president outside of the two main parties. Two examples of this are Teddy Roosevelt in 1912, and Ross Perot in 1992. Neither of these candidates had a broad slate behind them in the ticket. They were one man shows. Both 3rd person efforts resulted in the opposing party (Democrat) winning the presidency. This may or may not have been the intent of the third person, but it was the result.

A vote for a 3rd person presidential candidate is a protest vote. This will always be true unless there is polling data within a week of the election, showing a legitimate chance for the 3rd person to win. Protest votes for President carry enormous costs as detailed above.

Not voting is a protest vote where the voter sends the message that they do not care about the future of the nation at all. That is how a politician will read the inaction.

To conclude, every vote cast in America is a compromise. The only candidate who agrees with you 100% of the time is YOU. So unless you write in your own name (protest vote) you are compromising when voting.