Trump will get 2nd supreme court pick

TRUMP LIKELY TO NAME SOLID QUALIFIED JUDGE

LEFT VOWS TO BLOCK

With the resignation of Supreme court justice Anthony Kennedy, Donald Trump will get to name his second Supreme Court pick in his first 2 years. If re-elected he could name as many as 2 more justices. This has caused a furor among those who do not believe in the relevance of the constitution or bill of rights. They fear anyone who will interpret the constitution as it was written. 

The constitution is the law for the government, it has been an enduring document that many have a displeasure with. Primarily the constitution and the bill of rights is a document that spells out the responsibilities and limits to the expansion of the Federal government. It is the law for the government. The only thing that the founders missed was they did not provide for specific penalties for those that sought to overstep or ignore the constitution or law for the government. Those powers not specifically granted to the Federal government were to remain the venue of the states and the citizens. The Supreme court has become the arbitrator of whether legislation or acts by the federal government are lawful. Sadly it has become an increasingly political body, attempting to judge by the social or economic climate of the day. 

A good Supreme Court Justice, like any other good judge, will be able to ignore the environment of the day and make judgments on the law as it is written. If the law becomes distasteful to a majority of the population there is process to change the law. It is slow, and a hard sell, but it is possible if it really is in need of change. There has not been a change in the constitution for many decades. The only lawful way to change the constitution is through the amendment process. 

Many will question a new judge on his opinion of enforcing and adhering to past rulings. This is called precedent. If a court has ruled one way in the past, they believe future judges should respect their opinion. This in effect allows the opinion of a court decision by 5 justices to change the meaning of the constitution. The constitution can only be changed by constitutional amendment. So, they believe if a bad ruling has been made in the past, that does not adhere to the constitution, it is above reproach. This is a false principle. All decisions should be made on the constitution as it was written. Past principles concerning matters up for review should be looked at, but not counted as the defining ruling.

Much of the division in the country has been created by a court that has bent the meaning of the law to find in favor a predetermined result. This has been how many have accomplished their goals by Supreme court decision. This has led to a decline for the respect for the court. The constitution is not that complicated, it is reinforced by much writing by the authors of the time. With a little research and a good sound judgement, most high school graduates could understand the meaning of the constitution. What is needed in a good judge is that he should be able to judge by objective reasoning and not be influenced by political or personal bias. 

Many of the divisive issued created by the court have failed miserably in state referendums across the country. This was followed by a Supreme court ruling that overturned the will of the people. This resulted in a lack of respect for the decisions of the court. Such issues should be left for the states to decide and when the majority of states have decided this is appropriate, then a constitutional amendment may be passed.

What is needed is judges who will decide with only the constitution as a guide. After some time maybe the court will be able to deserve respect and confidence of the people.

Court insures workers liberty

RULING IS NOT ANTI-UNION BUT IS LIBERTY FOR WORKERS 

LEGISLATION NEEDED TO PROTECT WORKERS FROM HARASSMENT AND VIOLENCE

The supreme court has ruled that public sector workers can no longer be forced to join or support a union. It does not enjoin unions from representing public sector workers but now makes it voluntary. Workers will now have to affirmatively choose to join the union, they will no longer be automatically a member.

Why it was ever considered Ok for people to be forced into a union against their will is hard to comprehend. That has been the case for near 40 years. Now unions may have to better represent all their members in matters of the workplace, rather than being a propaganda arm of the Democratic party. 

While this ruling is not anti-union, it is going change the relationship of government workers and their union. It may very well now require the union to be more responsive to their members and to represent the will of all their members.  They may be forced to restrain themselves on issues not related to the workplace. Unions may need to become less political to hold a large number of their potential members. If they choose to double down and become more political or harass and coerce workers to join the union they risk self destruction.

It is now imperative that congress now pass strong legislation to protect those who choose not to join the union. It has been the history of some union members to threaten, harass and even engage in violence against those workers who disagree with them. While this ruling does not limit a unions ability to encourage members to join, any attempt to force, coerce or threaten non-members may cost them dearly.

I expect this may roll over to the private sector in the future, but will be less of an issue. People in manufacturing, mining and other labor intensive jobs do need more representation to insure safety for their workers. I believe they will have an easier time maintaining their memberships if they focus on the workplace and not on social issues.

This is America were people should have the right to join or not join whatever group they so desire.

Democratic immigration policy exposed

NO BORDERS, NO RULES FOR IMMIGRATION

DEMOCRATS FINALLY ADMIT REAL IMMIGRATION POLICY

While most Democrats have said that they support enforcing the border, while doing everything in their power to do just the opposite, they are finally beginning to be honest about their immigration policy. They want to have a policy of open borders, a border without restraint to anyone or anything. This is also the policy of some Republicans who have advocated an express highway to Kansas City without customs or border security that would allow the free flow of goods and people into the United States. It was even suggested at one time that their would be no rules for trucks or drivers from below the border.

It is about time that Democrats come clean on what platform they want to embrace for the country. It really is not fair to just tout what they are against, mostly Trump. It is time that they wholly reveal what they want to forge for the direction of the country. They really do oppose Trump for the policies that he has pursued. 

The Democratic immigration policy is a copy of the polices of the European union, that once in the country, you are free to travel anywhere without restraint. They envision a border less world with no special status for citizens of a nation. They have finally have begun to admit this is their dream for the future.

This idea is really rooted in world redistribution of wealth, were richer countries are restrained by regulation, trade barriers, and taxes and poorer countries are enriched by transferring wealth created to those who have less. Some, including Barack Obama, have even stated that it is not fair that some countries are exposed to cahous and disease and others are not. They seem to have the idea that these inequalities occur by bad luck or the result of being taken advantage of by richer nations.

This is similar to the policies that have been embraced for decades in the belief that people behave badly because they are poor. The real truth is that poverty is really the result of behaving badly and making poor decisions. Subsidizing poor behavior will not result in a more prosperous result. This is obvious by the results of 50 years of these experiments.

So now they would like to experiment with these policies on a worldwide scale. Has it ever been proved that a bigger scale experiment will produce better results.

I would have more respect for Democrats and socialist Republicans if they would just be honest about their intentions. Most do not advocate any clear and open vision for the future. It appears they may fear rejection. 

One thing about Trump, he has  been clear on his vision for the future. The left cannot accept that he is honest in his straightforward approach. They believe that like them, this cannot be his real intention, that all his policies are rooted in some other radical agenda. Many have found Trump's open policies refreshing, some have found it a complete rejection of their subtle policies. Most of the socialist policies can be summed up by the famous Marxist quote. " From each according to his ability to each according to his needs"  This philosophy has been proven a failure when actually put into practice. The result is we soon have a lot more people with needs and many fewer with any abilities.

Immigration wars continue.

DEMOCRATS AND MEDIA DEMAND OPEN BORDERS

EITHER FOLLOW TRUMP POLICY OR ELIMINATE IMMIGRATION CONTROL

The outcry against the separation of illegal immigrant children from their parents has become the outrage of the week. While this may be the emotional cause celeb of this week, there has not been an alternative offered other than just let the 3rd world overrun the border.

As usual,a federal judge has ruled that children cannot be confined with their parents when arrested for entering the country illegally. The practice to now has been to arraign the offenders and give them a court date to appear in the future. Very few of these offenders ever appear for their hearing.This has been called the "catch and release policy", which in effect is no control of the border at all.

Facing an escalating inflow of illegal immigrants accompanied with children, the Trump administration has begun confining the parents until they are processed to be either allowed to enter or be deported. Their children have been placed in custody and probably have much better conditions than they did before they came across the border.

This is crimping the democratic plan to overrun the country with prospective dependent voters in the future. Many Republican businessmen also would like to see a steady supply of cheap illegal labor. 

So the outcry has been raised of the cruel an inhuman conditions, and the separating of families. This is all to provoke an emotional response by those who have not idea what they are giving support to. The creating of a chaotic and dangerous situation for all involved in the quest to increase or recapture political power.

It looks Trump is willing to hold the fort and not be forced into surrender of our right to control our borders.

Possible Historic shift in North Korea

IS NORTH KOREA READY TO GIVE UP ON COMMUNISM?

DOES IT HAVE TO TAKE 70 YEARS TO ADMIT FAILURE?

The recent agreement between the United States and North Korea is possibly the beginning of a historic process similar to the disbandment of the Soviet Union. Like the Soviet Union, North Korea has had 70 years to experiment with a total Socialist government. It seems reform is not possible until the generation of revolutionary true believers have all passed on. 

Kim Jong Un is 35 years old, he may very well be questioning the economic wisdom of his ancestors. While he seems to have followed their lead in continuing a brutal dictatorship which he inherited, it is possible that he sees a better way to lead his country. Moving his country from a totalitarian communist dictatorship to any reform will be a monumental task. He may very well be in extreme danger from within his own country. There is no doubt that reform for those who are true believers will be difficult. Educated in Switzerland, a fan of western basketball and cinema, he may have a sincere desire to make reforms that would move the country to a freer more market based economy.

In comparison to the Soviet Union, which began reforms after the death of Stalin in 1953, it took another 36 years to come to fruition. Nikita Khrushchev was in fact a reformer, but it was a hard fight to give up old ways. He was a early revolutionary and could not really move the country quickly, both from his own convictions and his countryman. It took Michael Gorbachev and a politburo that was born after the revolution to be able to make the really hard reforms that are still in the process. In all fairness this was a country that stretches across 9 time zones and made up of many ethnic groups.

While North Korea is much smaller, with a market based economic model to its south, it may be more ideologically rigid than the Soviet Union. Even if Kim's intentions are sincere, which is still in doubt, it will be a difficult and painful and long transition for the people of North Korea. It will also usher in a new and dangerous era. The possibility of a coup by the possible hardliners in the government. The disillusion of the people who have been committed to the present course.  

Like the Soviet Union, Kim is not operating on his own complete control, his politburo, like that of the Soviet Union must be on board to make reforms. Many of these decisions may already have been made. I suspect that Secretary of State Pompeo and Trump have had some indication as to where and to what extent reform is possible. They seem to have an optimistic view as to the possibilities.

As for the United States, this is not a time for either gloating on success or for back biting and division at home. A freer and more peaceful North Korea is in everyone's best interest. While we need to be firm, we also need to be patient and understanding of the dangerous and monumental task ahead for all concerned.  North Korea may need to be guided by those countries in their neighborhood, by giving them assurance that they can be accepted into the world community. The best scenario would be a quick elimination of the nuclear threat and then an open hand to allow the people of North Korea to feel the benefits of prosperity and a better life.

Trade war unlikely

TARIFFS ARE A TOOL, NOT A GOAL

NOT ALL PROTECTIONISM IS BY TARIFF

Much anxiety has been created by the Trump administration by the imposing of and the threat of tariffs on imported goods. The imposing of tariffs is to draw the attention and to bring about the reduction of tariffs and restrictions on trade by our trading partners. It seems we do now have their attention. 

There are lots of ways to protect domestic producers other than tariffs. Many of these nations place restrictions on imported beef and poultry by placing unrealistic regulations that would be hard to overcome. It is protectionism without a tariff.

Most claim that any problems could be accomplished by negotiation with the World Trade organization. These often drag on for years without any resolution. The threat of tariffs get things moving much more quickly.

The motto of the Trump trade policy is reciprocity. If you have restrictions and tariffs, we will add restrictions and tariffs on your most profitable industries. The idea is to reduce tariffs and regulations for everyone. 

As for national security, our allies claim we are insulting them by taxing their steel and aluminum imports into our country. They claim they would never curtail our supply from them. What most don't understand is that there are fewer and fewer actual producers of steel and aluminum, most plants are now re fabricators who purchase bulk steel and aluminum from China and other oversees countries and then reform the metals into sheet, tubing or whatever is needed.All of these material are transported by ship and in the event of war could be made unavailable.

We have few actual producers of steel and aluminum from basic ores. We need to keep a strong and vibrant domestic steel, aluminum, and other basic industries to be independent from foreign  manipulation.

The United States is the largest market in the world. We are the market that everyone wants to sell to. At an average of 3 1/2% we have the lowest tariffs in the world. Many countries exclude our products or make the restrictions and regulations impossible to overcome. This has been a problem for decades and now it is being addressed. 

So, lets chill out, give the administration support for a policy of fair trade. We do hold the best cards. Our country will be made more prosperous, which will benefit everyone.