Anyone else getting more and more puzzled with Bernie Sander's rhetoric?  Has the guy forgotten he's supposed to be the "honest and sane" one?  After getting trounced in the New York Primary by Clinton, what does Bernie do?  He complains that the Closed Primary in New York is "Undemocratic" and was designed (somehow) to hurt his chances of winning the Democratic nomination - except the State of New York was determined to be a Closed Primary State long before yesterday's election.  The Supreme Court long ago ruled that Political Parties have a Constitutional Right to "freely Associated" with Party controlled Primaries (See:
California Democratic Party v. Jones).   So what gives?  Followers of Bernie Sanders had to registere as Democrats in order to vote for him.  Why?  Because it's the Democrats' primary - not Bernie's.  You see, everyone knows Sanders entered into the Democratic race not because he could win as an independent but because he could NOT win as an independent.  Sanders has never been a member of the Democratic Party, so why does he expect the Party to alter its rules for him?  More importantly, Bernie knows this and knows it well. So why all the bitching and moaning about NY being a Closed Primary State?  I live in Florida.  I am not registered to any Party.  I am also not eligible to vote in either Party's primary.  Did they create these rules just to punish me?  Bernie would want you to think that, but he knows better.  And THAT is just another reason Sanders is beginning to bother me.  
        Instead of being the impetus for his "Revolution," it's somehow becoming all about Bernie, making him just as bad as every other politician.  Closed Primaries serve a purpose to the Parties.  Want to vote, join one or start one.  If Bernie had started a new political party, then I would give him that, but he did not.  He chose to "carpetbag" the Democratic Party.   And why does he think he would get 100% of those unaffiliated voters?  
         So get ready folks, it looks more and more like Trump v. Clinton for the White House.  Is this the best we can do?   As President Harry Truman once wrote; "Men make history and not the other way around. In periods where there is no leadership, society stands still. Progress occurs when courageous, skillful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better."  And where may we find such leaders?  Have a great week!

        Due to preparations to head to New York for the Passover holiday, I am unable to post much today.  I do hope that after Tuesday's primaries to add my two cents on the then current state of the nomination process for both political parties.  Until then, please be patient as I am traveling.  As a reminder, next Sunday I will be unable to post due to Passover.  So until the next time, have a great and safe week.  Be well all!

       Now that the GOP has latched onto its third candidate to support in their "Anti-Trump" movement, how many voters know much about Raphael Edward "Ted" Cruz? Seems Mr. Cruz likes to run a PR Campaign of running against the Washington Establishment as an "Outsider" - seemingly on a crusade to reform Washington so we can get back to working together as a "United" States.  Except Cruz is hardly the man or the image his spin machine spits out for public consumption.  Ask any Republican that hates Trump what Cruz stands for and all you get is he's a "Constitutional Conservative" that deserves your vote.  But what the hell is a "Constitutional Conservative?" Can you tell me?  All I can do is try to understand where Cruz stands on the Constitution, and it is certainly not in the traditional sense conservative!
       As recently as last summer (2015), Mr. Cruz let it be known his style of "Constitutional Conservatism" is more radical than conservative.  Seems Mr. Cruz believes he knows better than the geniuses that designed our Constitution, readily substituting his beliefs for those of Madison, Hamilton and other Framers.  But how?  Take a look at his position as it relates to the Supreme Court.  Instead of embracing the true conservative notion that the Constitution must be looked upon as a "static" document only to be interpreted in accordance with its original intent, Cruz maintains that as times change, so should the authority of the High Court.  Not exactly what the Media has been telling us?  The guy supports Congress altering the Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court whenever he sees it worthy - in other words - when the Court rules in any way that may upset his sense of democracy.  Proof Rubin, we want proof!
      Well, as we all know, the Framers intentionally established the High Court wherein Justices held their positions for life tenure.  It was the intent of the Framers that such long tenure would lift them from the sway of political movements and temporary attempts by politicos to influence the "mob" against the Civil Liberties and Civil Rights of the minority (See Hamilton's Federalist #78).   But what does Cruz advocate? Remove this protection from "mob influences" by asserting the High Court's justices face "retention elections" in order to keep their positions.  Why?  Because political influences can shape the decisions of the Court, just as they currently do at the State level.  Instead of having justices ruling on matters strictly based upon their judicial temperament and philosophy, Cruz would rather see them acting in accordance with the wishes of the electorate. How can I make this claim?  According to The Hill; "Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) wants to amend the Constitution to subject Supreme Court justices to periodic public retention elections.  
   “Much to my great disappointment, this past term the court crossed a line and continued its long dissent
     into lawlessness to a level I believe demands action,” he said during a Senate committee hearing on          
    Wednesday.  “The court today is not a body of jurists. It is not a body of judges following the law, but
     rather it has declared itself in effect a super legislature.”  Cruz, who chairs the Judiciary subcommittee
     on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts, called the hearing to discuss what
     options the American people have to “rein in judicial tyranny,” following the court’s recent decision
     this past term. (See: http://thehill.com/regulation/248872-cruz-calls-for-retention-elections-for-supreme-court-justices).   How many Americans actually would describe the Supreme Court as "Lawless?" Do Americans want a president who considers the High Court "Tyrants" whenever they rule in any way that he personally disagrees? Could "President Cruz" then simply ignore SCOTUS rulings he disagrees with?  Now that the High Court has received its first lawsuit challenging Mr. Cruz's eligibility to even be president (born in Canada), would Cruz as president demand the decision - if against his interest - be tossed out or the High Court's jurisdiction be altered?  
​         Most folks are unaware that Article III of the Constitution allows Congress to control the Supreme Court's Appellate Jurisdiction - but what if the Court considers a question of his eligibility to be president under their "Original Jurisdiction" which would make it outside Congress' purview?  Would Cruz demand a Constitutional Amendment to alter Article III to suit his personal agenda?  Do Americans agree that the Supreme Court's Constitutional authority be diminished?  
         Cruz certainly would when it comes to rulings that affect his religious beliefs - despite the fact that the First Amendment protects those of all religions from the beliefs of one religion (see Establishment Clause) - Cruz thinks his religion is supreme and that this Country must adhere to his beliefs - while forcing others to comply. How does he get folks to believe he means no others harm?  By claiming America is a Christian country founded on Judeo-Christian morality and beliefs.  Except once elected, his position is more closer aligned to the evangelical beliefs of his father - to the exclusion of ALL other religions (including Judaism as well as those that freely choose not to believe in any religion).  In an article in the Religious News Service ("RNS") Cruz proclaimed “...we’ll turn this country around. We can turn our country around, but only if the body of Christ rises up.” (See http://www.religionnews.com/2016/01/31/cruz-religion-evangelical-religious-liberty/).  And what part of our country does he refer to that needs "turning around" and how does he propose to do this in accordance with the First Amendment?  Does he plan to push to amend it too?  Cruz believes we need a "Balanced Budget Amendment", but has he proposed one yet while serving in the Senate?  He certainly has pushed to shut down the government on more than one occasion (the last one costing the US Taxpayer $Billions, (See http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fiscal-shutdown-costs-idUSKCN0RT1U320150929). 
          He also wants to Amend the Constitution to impose term limits for Congress.  Not a bad idea - but shouldn't we tackle campaign finance reform before we allow interest groups to fund a flurry of potential new candidates inexperienced in the ways of Washington? Congress is already engaged in a constant campaign to win re-election. What would it be like to have new candidates for Congress jockeying for financial support and at the same time Cruz's blessing?  Again, let's tackle campaign finance before we address Article III, The First Amendment, Term Limits for Congress or the Court and a balanced budget.  Perhaps we should insist that all politicians be immediately terminated if caught in a lie - now that's an Amendment I would support!
          Just because Cruz is not Trump certainly should not be a reason to vote for the guy.  Personally, I view Cruz as much more dangerous to America than Trump - despite all of Trump's cynical political rhetoric.  Anyone that has been caught lying in his campaign should be given extra scrutiny.  Isn't this what Republicans have been demanding all along when it comes to Hillary Clinton?  If it's good for the goose, it must be good for the gander!
As President Andrew Jackson once wrote; "All the rights secured to the citizens under the Constitution are worth nothing, and a mere bubble, except guaranteed to them by an independent and virtuous Judiciary."  Let's keep our Judiciary independent as the Framers intended.  Have a great week!   

          While I was away, I was exposed to a variety of theories as they relate to our current political morass.  In an effort to interject some levity (since the past couple of weeks have not been very fun for me), please allow me to outline the Top Ten things I was "informed" of while recently speaking with people.  
           1.  We are now, more than ever, experiencing a War on Christianity!  Same Sex Marriage is a concerted effort by Liberals to destroy America because Jesus would personally have directed the stoning deaths of all sinners engaged in "Gay Sex."
           2.  As a direct result of the sins of our Federal Government, Man will soon be having free sex with animals and will soon be allowed to marry them - and Christian Churches will be burned if they do not comply with the Federal Law.
           3.  Thomas Jefferson alone saved America when he insisted the Constitution limit the Federal Government's authority by granting unlimited power to the States in the Tenth Amendment.
           4.  Bill Clinton murdered Vince Foster and Hillary covered it up.  
           5.  Hillary Clinton is a felon and should be in prison and disqualified from the presidency because she commanded the Armed Forces to isolate Benghazi and to "Stand Down" so four Americans could be sacrificed for the Obama campaign.  
          6.  Donald Trump is a genius and knows how to get things done.  And when he is done making American great again, we will have better jobs, better lives and America will pull out of the real depression we are in.  Just think Tony The Tiger with a hairdo.  "Theeeere GREAT!"
          7.  A vote for Bernie Sanders is a vote for Stalin.
          8.  A vote for Cruz is okay, but he would be a better Vice President under Trump because Cruz knows how to "control Congress."
          9.  Supporting Israel is supporting ISIS - since they along with Hillary Clinton created the group to distract the World from their efforts to establish a One World Order.
        10.  Recess Appointments are Unconstitutional but Obama will try it, since everything he has done in over the past 7 years is Unconstitutional.
         Now these are just the top ten things I was "told" while I was away.  If you too believe them, then I guess you too will be voting for Trump.  Me?  I'm still waiting for the actual nominees to be selected by the political parties. Until then, I think I will be ordering nose pinchers (the kind swimmers use to keep water out of their noses). Because no matter whom the nominees are, voting for either of them will "stink."
         As President George Washington once wrote; "There is nothing which can better deserve your patronage, than the promotion of science and literature. Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."  With the advent of the Internet, instead of spreading actual knowledge, we have instead promoted the extension of ignorance and outright insanity.  Knowledge is powerful, may we all learn real facts and return this great nation of ours to one of steady guidance and happiness.  Have a great week!

Many thanks to those that have extended their condolences on the passing of my father.  I great appreciate all of you! 

     * 1. The Fourteenth Amendment provided for Equal Protection of all persons.  That issues was first resolved in Yick Wo v. Hopkins in 1886 (hardly an "Obama" court.
       2. Even I have no response to this allegation.
       3. Thomas Jefferson was not a Framer - he was in France during the entire Constitutional Convention period.  The 10th Amendment does not limit the "federal government" as alleged (see McCulloch v, Maryland, 1819 and Gibbons v. Ogden 1824 to name just a couple). 
       4. The first time the notion that Bill Clinton murdered Foster was in a joke posted on the Internet.  Right Wing media repeated the claim and somehow the joke became reality to many seeking anything they could believe in as long as it was against Clinton.  This myth still permeates the media today. Hillary's role in Forster's death is a relative new take.  The fact that Bill Clinton had many affairs pales in comparison to other politicians having similar affairs - and even more since former Speaker of the House Hastert's pedophilia has been exposed. 
       5. Secretaries of State have no authority over any branch of the US Military.  None.  As far as the use of her emails, we shall see - but she will be guilty of something no matter what - she MUST be!
       6.  Blah, blah, blah. 
       7. Socialism is not Communism.  A vote for Bernie though is a wasted vote - he can never win.  Besides that, his voice (like Cruz's) makes me cringe.
      8.  Cruz is dangerous.  He is willing to shut down the government if he does not get his way.  He also slams Executive Orders by claiming he'll us them to undo Obama's.  Hypocrisy anyone?
      9.  One World Order - another in a long line of Anti-Semitic nonsense.   I remember being asked in College which bank my father owned.  When I told him of this question, he laughed and laughed - despite how truly sad and ignorant the comment was.
     10. Recess appointments are not "Unconstitutional."   The timing- only - of the appointment is subject to review by the Courts.  When I pointed that out, I was told my "education far exceeded my intelligence."