Help Us Keep The Page Running!

We have teamed up with a designer to offer some awesome swag!  Follow the link below and purchase this particular design to help support us and keep our mission going! We would really appreciate it!

Lots of options to chose from with our design! T-shirts, mugs, stickers and many more!!

https://www.redbubble.com/people/patriot76/works/30268822-3-percent-patriots?p=sticker

#PleaseStand, Or Don’t!

An entire season of the “scandal” plagued National Football League has finally come to an end, save for the omega game, Super Bowl LII. As you may recall, the 2017 season was surrounded by controversy that started in the pre-season and blossomed its ugly head for the better part of the rest of the season. Players took a knee, sat, raised fists and/or linked arms during the playing of the Star-Spangled Banner.

President Trump took up the issue on Twitter several times, first condemning the actions, then praising coaches and owners who made policies to support standing during the national anthem.

All the controversy caused NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell to respond several times to the issue. Goodell largely stood behind the players and silently supported their protests. He did finally address it with a letter to the NFL owners and teams, but strayed from taking any sort of a stance on the issue.

ESPN obtained following letter that Roger Goodell sent to NFL teams within past 30 minutes: To: Chief Executives/ Club…

Posted by Adam Schefter on Tuesday, October 10, 2017

The media had a hay day with the protests and covered the pre-game festivities more than they covered actual in-game highlights. The hype finally died down and nary a word was heard about it for almost all of the playoffs in January… but that all would soon change.

NBC will be broadcasting Super Bowl LII this year and on January 9th, NBC Super Bowl Executive Fred Gaudelli made it clear that they would be covering any pre-game protests that occur. The NFL has made no official statements regarding any potential protests in the big game, but their actions spoke louder than words with the most recent decision.

The organization “American Veterans” was invited to place an ad in the official Super Bowl LII program, but when the organization submitted their proposal, the NFL took a proverbial knee. See the ad for yourself:

The NFL largely turned their backs to the controversy all season, but now as a veterans organization wants to ask fans to stand up for their country and their veterans, the NFL rings the bell loud and clear. Brian McCarthy, NFL spokesman, said that the Super Bowl program has “never been a place for advertising that could be considered by some as a political statement.”

This statement is interesting because the NFL had a dress code and behavior policy that prohibited players from promoting or advertising one’s own personal views and opinions, but apparently protesting the national anthem isn’t included. These rules prohibited players like Tim Tebow from placing scripture verses on his eye black, but didn’t cover other expressions of speech such as taking a knee. Players are given hefty fines for using the wrong shoes, or writing on their shoes, but sitting during the Star-Spangled Banner is entirely fine.

It is unfortunate that politics and political statements have inserted itself in the middle of a game that so many love, no matter their race, religion, political viewpoints, etc. Football brought people together under one team; democrats joined with republicans to cheer on their teams, but sadly the comradery is at risk of falling apart as more players push a narrative that alienates many of their fans. In fact, over the past 2 years, NFL viewership has declined by several million views when compared to the previous year. Will Super Bowl Sunday bring back the lost viewers?

Because of the NBC statement, players know that they will be given a huge platform on February 4th. What will the players do while Pink sings the national anthem prior to Super Bowl LII? The NFL has already taken away a platform for the Veterans, so only time will tell. NBC stands to lose a good chunk of viewers if they politicize the game on Super Bowl Sunday.

Why The Shutdown?

It seems as if everyone in Washington, as well as the media, is playing the pointing game since Friday. What is the pointing game? The Democrats are pointing their fingers at the Republicans for blame on the government shutdown. The Republicans are pointing their fingers at the Democrats. You can read all about the blame game on Twitter with the trending hastags: #SchumerShutdown #TrumpShutdown

No matter who is running the better blame game, we need to figure out why each side is stonewalling and what the issues are about. In short, Democrats want amnesty, Republicans want a wall. But if it were only so simple, the solution would be easy.

President Trump ended the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) with a 6 month waiting period to allow Congress to do their job and legislate. President Obama had previously implemented DACA by executive order because he didn’t want to wait for Congress. And as discussed previously, executive orders can be repealed by the next president. This move is what the Democrats are using as their “must have” in the negotiations on the government shutdown.

In 2017, there were 800,000 individuals enrolled in the DACA program that keeps them from being deported because they were brought here illegally by their parents as a child. When the President rescinded the DACA executive order, he left it in place for a period of 6 months to allow Congress to debate it and decide on a new plan. The 6 month waiting period ends in March, so the Democrats have taken the DACA negotiations into the government funding debate as one of their tools.

Several Republicans support some sort of the proposed policies regarding the DACA recipients. But there aren’t enough that support the Democrat version of the bill as it stands. Republicans have stated that they will not vote to pass a bill on DACA without a bill that funds the construction of a barrier for the southern border of the US.

The demand by the Republicans for funding for the border wall was reportedly agreed to by Democrats on Friday, but only for a short 1-year period. Senator Schumer only proposed a 1-year appropriation, but President Trump rejected that offer because he needs a multi-year deal. This actually makes sense because we all know how quickly the government gets things done, a 1-year deal would likely barely break ground on a wall before the time and money would run out.

One could summarize the current fight like this: Democrats are fighting for the privileges of illegal immigrants. Republicans are fighting for the protection of US Citizens from illegal immigrants. And in the crosshairs as collateral damage are the men and women of the armed forces who are currently working for no pay. They will no doubt be paid for the work they do, but it won’t happen until Congress does its job and comes to a compromise on funding the government.

UPDATE: It appears that the Democrats have come to an agreement with the Republicans to fund the government for 2 ½ weeks under the assumption that they work on a bipartisan agreement to address the DACA issue. The wall funding was likely not involved in this agreement either. This does allow the government to run for the time being, but if we can’t get past this DACA issue, we could be right back in the same situation in February. Buckle up.

**Interesting to note, the current budget that they are operating on is a budget from President Obama, so one could argue that it is in the best interest of the Democrats to find a resolution soon to keep Obama’s budget allocations in place. President Trump has proposed his own budget that has big cuts to some of the Democrats pet projects, so there will no doubt be a fight over the Trump budget soon enough.

Tax Cuts And Spending Cuts

With the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, there is an addition $1 Trillion projected to be added to the deficit over the next 10 years.  However, this increase in the deficit should be offset some by a projected increase in economic growth due to the tax breaks.  So, now that the revenue side of the budget has an 8 to 10-year decrease because of the bill, any financial consultant with their head on straight would tell you that there needs to be an equal reduction on the expenses side.  This, however, isn’t how the government seems to work.  Every year since 1974, the budget deficit has averaged at a level of -3.1% according to the Congressional Budget Office.

To put this into perspective, let’s bring it down to a household level.  Let’s imagine that you bring home $50,000 per year (to use an even number).  If your household were using the US Government model, you would spend about $1,550 more each year than you actually bring home.  That is money going onto a credit card, a bank loan or some other form of consumer debt.  Extrapolating this over a period of 39 years (’74-’13), your household would have spent $60,430 more than it made in salary, and that isn’t including the interest that is being accrued on the balance every month.

So, what is the answer?  Cut spending, of course.  But that is where the problem comes in.  When the US Government spends money on something 1 time, the expectation is that they would spend money on that same line item indefinitely.  If you increase a handout to the citizens, it’s almost impossible to rollback those handouts because of the political fallout that would ensue.  Don’t believe me?  Go down to the Social Security office and tell everyone in line that their unemployment checks are about to be cut off and report back on how well that goes.

While cutting spending isn’t very popular, there are many areas that the US Government could cut or reduce spending where the people wouldn’t necessarily “feel” the cut, in fact, some of these cuts don’t even affect the American people at all.  Let’s look at a few areas that the US could reduce spending while continuing to help real people with real needs.

Tomato Research.

In 2017, the US government spent $1.5 Million to fund research on how to make the tomato taste better.  Now, don’t get me wrong here… who doesn’t want a better tasting tomato?  But to the tune of 1.5 million taxpayer funded dollars?  Someone call up John Kerry and see if his wife’s family would be willing to pitch in a couple mil to help their own cause.

Foreign Aid.

This past year, the United States gave away $50.1 billion in aid to other countries.  Former presidents have tried to downplay this number as being “only 1% of our total budget”, but this argument falls short because that is more than 7.5% of the total budget deficit for 2017.  If we start dismissing the “smaller” parts of the budget, then it will never balance.  Anyone who has ever had to do a personal budget knows that when you find yourself $30 in the hole on your monthly budget, you usually chip away small amounts from several places, rather than a lump from one spot.  It hurts less that way.

Now, I know that we cannot eliminate all of that foreign aid for various reasons, but there are plenty of places we can cut back.  In the late 2000’s, we were sending $4.5 billion per year to Pakistan while they continued to mock us with their nuclear program.  We gave Iran $3.4 million this past year and look what they have been doing lately to their own people.

In the days of President Bill Clinton and a balanced budget, we were only spending around $20 Billion in foreign aid.  Those numbers grew quickly in the early 2000’s, due mostly to war, but then continued throughout the 2010’s.  Cutting back foreign aid would be a huge step to righting the sinking ship.

Big Sugar.

The US subsidizes the sugar system in the country to the tune of $1.2 billion dollars per year.  This subsidy actually costs you double because part of the subsidy is government regulations that set a minimum price for sugar in the US, which is about double the average price worldwide.

Improper spending in Medicare. 

The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) released a report in 2016 that showed 11 percent of payments made were incorrect or improper.  That comes out to $4.1 billion dollars in improper payments.

Social Security.

Hold on to your britches for just a second.  Not trying to eliminate it, but revise it.  The current system allows older adults to being drawing (reduced) social security checks at 62 under the early retirement program.  If you wait til 65, you can draw full social security (This will eventually become 67 years of age through a revamp of the system already in progress).  The problem with social security is that when it was implemented in 1935, the average life expectancy of a US adult was 59.1 years of age.  Today, it is 78.8 years of age.

Raising the age of social security eligibility to 70 would save $200 million over the first year and a whopping $7.6 billion over a 5-year period.  It’s time for American’s to work longer and be more responsible for their own retirement funds.

Afghanistan Highways.

Last year we spent $255 billion dollars on building highways in Afghanistan.  I get that they are a war tattered country, but $255 billion is more than 1/3 of the total budget deficit.

Sesame Street.

Yep, you read that right.  We spent $14.8 million to finance international versions of Sesame Street.  14.8 million isn’t that much though right?  Yes. It is way too much.

Walmart Cashiers… in Mexico.

We spent $15 million to train Walmart cashiers in Mexico.  I have 2 issues with this. First and foremost, it’s Mexico.  Second, it’s Walmart.  Isn’t everyone going to self-checkouts these days anyway?

Kenyan Farmers.

And finally, while small in decimal places, this one is a real doozie.  The US Government spent nearly $100,000 to teach Kenyan farmers how to use Facebook.  What the what?  My budget would have a great big ole’ “X” through that little program right there.

 

So, with these 9 examples from a little bit of digging, we have been able to successful eliminate about $290,531,400,000 or 290 Billion dollars in just 1 year.  Extrapolating that out to 10 years (including a greater savings in the Social Security field), we would save a total of $2.9 trillion. So, we just took a 1 trillion dollar addition to the deficit over 10 years due to the tax cuts and successfully turned it around to an extra 1.9 trillion dollar savings over the next 10 years.  And there is plenty more where that came from.

This isn’t rocket science, it’s just simple math.  But it means that some of the extra fat needs to be trimmed off.  None of the proposals above would put any American into poverty, nor would it wouldn’t keep a child in the slums of Detroit from eating dinner.  All it takes is some effort, bipartisanship discussions and hard work on the part of those we elected to run our country.  Rather than talk about who used foul language in a meeting, or who tried to mislead people with medical records, let’s put Washington to work to get rid of all this debt.  Because as you know, the borrower is slave to the lender.

The Cannabis News Network

On December 31, 2017, CNN provided its annual New Year’s Eve coverage from Times Square and around the country. Their coverage included Randi Kaye reporting from Colorado, but there was something different about her live on-site reports. Rather than showing people square dancing in Nashville, or in costume parties in New Orleans, or pool partying in Miami, we saw Randi riding on a “Cannibus” where participants ride around and smoke their joints. We saw her at a “Puff, Pass and Paint” event where, as the event name suggests, participants puff on a joint, pass it to their neighbor, all while painting on a canvas.

So, what’s the big deal? She was in a state where it is legal to possess, smoke and distribute the plant. Colorado joins 7 other states (Alaska, California, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon and Washington) that have legalized the recreational use of marijuana. Interestingly enough, marijuana is still classified as a Schedule 1 drug by the federal government.

Schedule 1 drugs are drugs that have been labeled as such by the US Controlled Substance Act from 1970. Along with marijuana, this includes heroin, LSD, ecstasy, bath salts, peyote and many others. To be classified as a schedule 1 drug, it must meet 3 different criteria:

1. The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
2. The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical treatment use in the U.S.
3. There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or substance under medical supervision.

It is definitely debatable as to whether marijuana should be included as a Schedule 1 drug because it has been found to have “medical treatment use in the U.S.”, but federal law still lists it under Schedule 1. The only way for it to be removed from the Schedule 1 listing, a petition must be filed with the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency). Many petitions have been filed since 1972, but as recently as August 2016, the DEA denied the petition to reclassify marijuana from the Schedule 1 list.

“Right now, the science doesn’t support it,” Chuck Rosenberg, acting administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, citing a lengthy analysis conducted by the Food and Drug Administration. He said the decision “is tethered to the science.”

There is currently no immediate end to the classification of marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug, therefore, it will still be an illegal substance according to federal law.

Interestingly enough, it has been reported yesterday that the Department of Justice will be modifying the current DOJ policy regarding marijuana. Currently, while it is an illegal substance, it has not been prosecuted by the federal government as such. It appears that with the coming ruling, the DOJ will let US Attorneys in each state make the determination if a federal suit will be filed against offenders.

So, it appears that the Cannabis News Network (CNN) may have started a little bit of controversy that goes all the way up to the top of government. Only time will tell what the fate of Cannabis will be, as more and more states move to a form of legalization, whether it is for medical or recreational use. One thing is for sure, the DEA doesn’t have any intention of reclassifying marijuana from the Schedule 1 designation anytime soon.

Separation of Church and State

“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

This is a direct quote from a letter that founding father Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut to assure them that the federal government would not interfere with their religion.  This was a worry of the early church in America because they had left the tyrannical rule of England where the Catholic church was the state sponsored church and there were no freedoms to one’s own religion.

You will not find the words “Separation of Church and State” anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, but you hear it often in regard to any religious issue in America.  There are, however, principles relating to this separation in the Constitution, and you will also find mention of it in court cases.

Constitutional Separation of Church and State

The founders of the Constitution were well aware of the tyrannical religion they had just escaped in England and didn’t want to repeat that in their newly founded country; therefore, the very first words of the first amendment contained a very important concept:

 “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

This was written to keep the federal government from interfering into your right to the religion of your choosing.  It doesn’t matter if you are Buddhist, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, or any other religion—the government cannot make laws that prohibit your exercise of religion.

You will notice that this is where the separation stops.  There are no further clauses or comments in the Bill of Rights, nor the Constitution, that refer to any power of the Church over the State.  Any idea otherwise is a misinterpretation of the First Amendment and its original intent.

Judicial Separation of Church and State

There have been a couple landmark Supreme Court cases that have dealt with this idea of a separation between the Church and the State.  The first big case was Everson v. Board of Education in 1947.  The 5-4 vote extended the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”) down to the State level of government.  Prior to this decision, states had been making laws that could benefit one religious organization over another.

In 1971, the 8-1 Lemon v. Kurtzman ruling set up the “Lemon Test” for state laws and whether they violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.  The threefold test reads:

  1. The statute must have a secular legislative purpose.
  2. The principal or primary effect of the statute must not advance nor inhibit religion.
  3. The statute must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion.

Once again, this ruling only affected the government supporting or advancing any particular religion.

In 2017, the Supreme Court issued a 7-2 ruling in the Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer case which seemed to apply the principles set forth by Lemon v. Kurtzman.  They ruled that the Church could not be exempted from a public benefit or grant strictly because of its religious status.  It was determined that the grant they had requested would have been used for a secular purpose (playground) and did not advance religion, nor did it result in excessive government entanglement with religion.

Role of the Church in the State

The Courts and the Constitution are clear that the State should not be involved in advancing the affairs of the Church, but what about the Church being involved in the State affairs?  It is common to hear the phrase “Separation of Church and State” used when arguing that members of the clergy cannot endorse any political candidate or party from the pulpit.  This issue, however, has no Constitutional or Court basis.

However, there is a separation that has been established for the Church between it and the State.  This separation was put in place by the IRS in its tax-exemption regulations.  Most churches fall under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) for their tax-exempt status.  This code specifies that churches “are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.”

This means that pastors and other members of the clergy cannot speak from the pulpit and endorse a political candidate because he/she would be speaking for the church in his/her endorsement.  The IRC prohibits the Church from endorsing a candidate, but it does not prohibit the member of the clergy from endorsing as a member of the general public.  If a church officially endorses a candidate for political office, they risk losing their tax-exempt status with the IRS, which would be detrimental to their existence.  (Individual pastors are allowed to endorse any political candidate as long as they are not representing their organization.)

So What?

 

The original idea for this article spawned from a daytime TV show in which a well-known New York City pastor, Carl Lentz of Hillsong Church, discussed his approach to politics as a pastor of a church.

In the video above, Joy Behar mentions the “Separation of Church and State law.”  She later tries to walk it back a little by mentioning the tax-exempt status, but she still gets it wrong.  This is not a law; it is a code that prohibits tax-exempt organizations from endorsing a particular candidate from the pulpit.  The first amendment’s Establishment Clause and Free Exercise clause do not restrict a pastor or a church or any religious organization from endorsing anything in politics.  Congress has not passed any laws regarding this issue because that law would not stand up to the scrutiny of the Supreme Court.

In summary, Congress cannot advance any religion with laws that would benefit a religious organization.  Pastors can endorse any political candidate they want from any location that they want, without breaking the law.  Those same pastors, however, could put their church’s tax-exempt status in jeopardy.  There are many, many other examples of religious symbols that the Court has allowed (Ten Commandments) and disallowed (Cross) on public property, with each having its own reason for being allowed or rejected.  Overall, many issues that aren’t cut and dry will likely be subject to judicial review from the highest court of the land.

~Jason – Three Patriots

NYC Terror – The Heart Of The Matter

With the Las Vegas attack still fresh on our minds, the homeland was attacked by a terrorist on the final day of October. In the heart of New York City, a man plowed down the sidewalk in a rented truck and killed 8, injuring many more. The man ran his truck into the side of a short bus and then exited his vehicle yelling “Allahu Akbar”, which is literally translated from Arabic to English as “God is greater”. He was shot by police, but has survived the injury and now has been in police custody. He has claimed ties to ISIS and radical Islamic terror.

This is another example of pure evil in this world… plain and simple. This man was on a mission to bring death to “the enemy”. This was his jihad. No law, no sound bite, no constitutional amendment would have been able to stop him from carrying out the evil plans he had in his heart. He didn’t need a gun in his pocket, he had keys.

Someone can take almost any item that we use for good and turn it into a tool for evil. A gun for shooting, hunting and self-defense can become a tool for mass murder. A truck for hauling and transporting can be used for mass murder. A knife for cutting food or camping can be used for mass murder. Fertilizer used to make the grass grow green can be used for mass murder. The tool isn’t the problem, it’s a heart problem.

You can’t regulate evil. You can’t kill evil. Evil doesn’t exist inside an inanimate object; it exists in the hearts and minds of people willing to destroy everything with it.  Evil is the absence of good. We have had evil in this world since the first family when Cain killed Able and it will continue until Christ returns.

~Jason – Three Patriots

The Worst Shooting in American History

3:00am October 2, 2017. I was awakened from my sleep by my 1 year old son wanting food. As I stumble across the living room into the kitchen, everything seems like a normal 3:00 in the morning dad task. As we sit in the recliner, I flip through Instagram and start seeing the news that another shooting has happened in Las Vegas, Nevada. Shocking myself, I was almost not even surprised that another shooting had taken place. It has almost become a normal every day event or newsfeed and we have almost become calloused to the events. Over the next couple of days the media will be littered with “facts” and opinions as well as in depth analysis of the motives of the shooter and an outcry by our friends on the left attacking 2nd amendment rights and blaming the weapon, not the shooter.

What do we know? As of the writing of this blog, we know that this was a well planned attack designed to inflict mass casualties leaving at least 50 deceased and hundreds taken to hospitals for injuries. That’s it. Does the rest really matter? Do we really need to know why this man did this? I argue no. The other facts (or opinions as we will most likely never know the facts since the shooter took his life) are irrelevant.

What do we do? Let’s take a look at some of the most recent events.

Boston Marathon – Bombing
San Bernardino, CA – Shooting
Orlando Nightclub – Shooting
Charlottesville, VA – Vehicle used as weapon
Las Vegas, NV – Shooting

What does this tell us? This tells us that we really can’t rule out any mode or method of attack as anything is really fair game. We must protect ourselves, stay alert, and hone our situational awareness. We Three Patriots, including our wives, are concealed handgun license holders and carry regularly to protect ourselves and our family members and I suggest you do the same.

If you are as upset and frustrated as we are, as Christians, all we can have is Hope and be reminded to “not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.” (Matthew 10:28; NIV) We can also stand together in support of one another and pray for the families affected by these tragedies.

 

~Joshua -Three Patriots

Control The Culture, Control The Nation

If you haven’t heard about the controversy surrounding the NFL and the National Anthem, then you must be living under a rock. This weekend, all forms of media and social networking were flooded with articles and opinions surrounding comments that the President made about standing for the National Anthem.

The President’s remarks came at a rally in Huntsville, Alabama on Friday night, where he addressed the topic of some NFL player’s National Anthem protests. “Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, ‘Get that *expletive* off the field right now. Out. He’s fired! He’s fired!'” This, of course, is in reference to the growing number of NFL players who have followed suit with QB Colin Kaepernick to kneel or sit during the National Anthem in protest of “police brutality and racial inequality.”

The President doubled down on his comments over the weekend and into this week with several tweets directed to certain teams, owners, and players who he feels disrespects the country, flag, and soldiers with their public protests during the National Anthem.

Ironically, the business mogul had this to say about the Office of the President meddling in the mascot issue of the Washington Redskins in 2013:

Everyone will have their own opinion on the President’s comments, but what I want to focus on here is more the reason behind the comments, rather than the content. Whether you agree or not, Donald Trump is a master at manipulating the media for his own accord and he has done it again here.

During his presidential campaign, then candidate Trump garnered more airtime devoted to himself by the media than any other candidate. While this was likely partially due to the mainstream media bias against him and for Hillary Clinton, he used it in his favor and fed the fire with comments and tweets that kept him front and center on the nightly news. The mainstream media’s dislike for President Trump actually plays into his hands and gets his name and message out to the public, veiled in a shroud of negative press.

Not only has the President gotten more press through these tactics, he has also controlled what the narrative is going to be. By bringing up the culture and controlling that discussion in the public realm, everyone has forgotten about the failed repeal of the Affordable Care Act. It went almost unnoticed that in the last 72 hours, 2 Republican Senators (Cruz and Collins) came out in opposition to the healthcare repeal bill.

This time last week, all you heard about was if another Senator dropped their support for the ACA repeal, then it would fail. Several Senators were in the spotlight, doing interviews left and right with media outlets about their wavering support for the GOP bill. On Friday, President Trump changed that conversation. For an entire weekend and well into this week, all you have heard about is kneeling, the National Anthem, and the NFL.

This isn’t the first time that this POTUS has done this and it certainly won’t be the last. Many people want to believe that these moves are another sign of the idiocy of the President, when in reality, those people are just another sheep, being herded along by the mainstream media’s selective flow of information. In all actuality, the President is controlling the national discourse to and from whatever he desires.

Anytime you see something that is being waved in your face over and over again, try to look past that obvious distraction and see what is behind it. In this case, the NFL distraction was waved in front of our faces for 5+ days when the media took the bait and ran with it. President Trump controlled the culture discussion and in turn, he controlled the nation.

President Trump isn’t the first POTUS to use this tactic and certainly won’t be the last, but he is an expert at sleight of hand.

Just as a magician uses subtle distractions to divert your attention away from a trick, the POTUS is masterfully diverting your attention from something else by controlling the culture discussion. If you can control the culture, you can control the nation.

Special thanks for my good friend JP on his suggestion for this post.

~Jason – Three Patriots

Fascist States of America

Think back to a year ago today and follow the mainstream news narrative to present time. Then candidate Trump was the GOP nominee for President of the United States and was largely seen as the underdog, a position he would continue to hold through the November 8th elections. The public narrative on candidate Trump was that he would drag the United States down into a dictatorship and ruin it forever. That same narrative rings true today in some media outlets, as well as in many opposition groups like Antifa and others. But is this idea really a possibility?

Let’s first take a look at Antifa and what they believe that President Trump is on a path to do to America. Antifa is a very far-left leaning group that uses military action and tactics along with violence to push their anti-fascist (hence the name Antifa) agenda . Antifa is fighting hard in the streets against President Trump and many Right-Wing policies that they oppose. This group claims that President Trump is a fascist and will do whatever it takes to prevent him from implementing his fascist policies. (I’ll pass on discussing the irony of using violence to fight their perceived violence.)

First and foremost, let us address what a fascist is. Merriam-Webster defines fascism as “a political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.” While it is no secret that President Trump promotes a form of Nationalism with his “America First” policy, he is far cry from fitting the rest of the profile of a fascist.

But for the sake of arguing, let’s say that President Trump is a fascist and wants to implement his fascist policies to make America into his own authoritarian dictatorship. Is it possible for him to do this? The short answer is no and it is due to the checks and balances in the U.S. Constitution.

The Office of the President wields a vast amount of power, which has expanded greatly over the last half century, but that power isn’t unlimited or unchecked. The president’s powers reach from enforcing the laws, to being Commander-in-Chief of the military, to Executive Order powers, and many places in between. [See previous post “Constitutional Powers of Government (Part 3)”] While these powers are broad and have become more far-reaching, they are still put in check by other members of the U.S. Government.

If President Trump gives an order to the military, but that order doesn’t correspond to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, then the members of the military have the ability to not follow the orders, if they are illegal and against the Code. There is precedence here where members of the military were punished for following orders that violated the Uniform Code, so it’s not a far-fetched idea that the military can disobey direct orders from the president.

If the president signs an executive order that is illegal, it is not binding law. The court system is one set of checks and balances to the presidential powers. An executive order can easily be overruled by almost any federal court in the land if it is found to violate the ultimate law of the country. This has been seen during President Trump’s tenure, where the courts deemed the travel ban to be unconstitutional, until the Supreme Court ruled that it was in fact a power that the president was able to use.

The houses of Congress hold another card in the deck of checks and balances. They have the ability to pass laws and if the president vetoes the bill, they can overrule him with a 2/3 majority vote. They also carry the power to impeach the president if he violates his oath of office. Take Nixon as an example of this check and balance… He overreached his authority and fired a Special Prosecutor, which caused Congress to speed up the impeachment process, effectively ending Nixon’s presidency.

These examples as well as many others show how one person would not be able to set up his own aristocracy or dictatorship. There are thousands and thousands of high ranking officials that would have to all waive their power to allow any US President to gain full authoritarian power and frankly, that’s not going to happen. So, groups like Antifa who are stirring up violence and controversy over their fear of full blown fascism are way off base on their thinking, and only doing harm to the country that they claim they love so much. The media’s narratives of a King Trump are also wrong and show their implicit biases in their reporting.

With that being said, there has not been one single empire that has ruled forever. Every empire has fallen at one point or another and history shows that the United States of America will not last forever either. Some empires have ruled for thousands of years, others shorter. In the end, it appears that there are only 2 constants in this world: Death and Taxes.

Jason – Three Patriots