Author: Joshua Lively

Joshua Lively is a contributing writer on Leavenworth St.

Ben Sasse vs. “Pajama-Boy Nazi”

I wanted to give this time to simmer over the weekend before making any comment, but now that it has, let’s look at the statement of Sen. Ben Sasse with regard to how some people, “don’t get America[1]“. 

On both the far-left side and the far-right of the argument, you have the guardians of thought. A minority of social justice warriors who see people as groups rather than individuals. To them, they use schemas of near-sighted reasoning to categorize everyone in accordance with prejudicial notions that are compounded by congenital ignorance. The Haves and the Have-nots, this race or that race, this religion or that religion, et cetera. They use identity politics and emotionally charged rhetoric as a means to garner support for (and justify) their absolute bigotry (e.g. neo-Nazis, ANTIFA, BLM, CAIR, KKK).

Sen. Sasse hit the nail on the head when he referred to universal dignity as being the fundamental principle and keystone component that made America the greatest nation history has ever known. Our tolerance and acceptance are what makes us exceptional. While revisionist historians knit-pick and try to deracinate “American Exceptionalism”, or race-baiting activists spew forth their vile divisive propaganda, our senator aptly labels it for what it is… “un-American poison”.

As Midwesterners, we place a lot of value on integrity, humility, honesty, tradition, and general courtesy towards everyone we meet. Perhaps that is because we live in the sparsely populated hinterland of the United States far from the megaregions, or perhaps it is rooted in our general non-secularism. Whatever the reason, I think it is safe to say that Midwestern values illustrate an example of what it means to be American. While we may not always agree with one another, and while we are far from perfect, I think Sen. Sasse makes a compelling argument that we will not be dragged down by benighted ne’er-do-wells who know absolutely nothing about “western heritage.”

[1] Hart, J. (2017, September 30). Ben Sasse’s Brilliant Takedown of “Pajama-Boy Nazi” White Nationalism. Retrieved October 02, 2017, from

2018 Bellevue Mayoral Race

Let me dial down the national, polarized political brouhaha for a moment and focus on a small-town mayoral race[1] here in the Omaha Metro. Bellevue Mayor Rita Sanders has confirmed that she will not be seeking re-election in 2018[2]. For those that live in Bellevue, there is a certain anticipation as to what that means for the future.

The Candidates

Bellevue City Councilman, Pat Shannon, has announced his candidacy[3], which carries with it worries of whether or not he will even be eligible to run considering he has an outstanding fine of just under $17,000 to the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission[4]. For most Nebraskans, we clearly understand the shortfalls when it comes to “State Integrity Investigations[5]” – vis-à-vis Ethics Enforcement and Executive Accountability – so is it a wonder why some in the Bellevue community might be worried about continuing status quo[6] with regard to their elected officials[7]? Anyone who reads my social media posts or this blog know that I am a huge proponent of “due process” under the law, but the fact remains that this mayoral candidate has some questionable baggage that Bellevue citizens will have to weigh and measure before casting their votes next year. While it may be difficult to control the integrity of elected officials at the national or even state levels, Mr. Shannon has a lot to overcome as he vies for a mayoral position.

Next, we have Rusty Hike, a small business owner who has long and well-established roots in the community and is recently known for his tenacity when it comes to holding Bellevue Public Schools accountable[8] for their less-than-transparent, unilateral decision-making. Whether at city council meetings or working hard with the Chamber of Commerce to attract businesses to the Bellevue Community, he is most widely known for his commitment to small-town values and always having a “buy local first” mentality.

Importance of This Election

So why should this race matter?  The answer is quite simple. Bellevue, when compared to other communities within the Omaha Metro, has become sort of “the land that time forgot.” Most passersby see the strip malls and town centers along Cornhusker and HWY 370, and think Bellevue is doing just fine. But to locals, that is a different story altogether. They are continuously reminded of just how aggressive the local government has not been when they look at the lack of progress on Fort Crook Road and throughout Olde Towne Bellevue. Those two areas have been quite stagnant in terms of attracting new businesses and young entrepreneurs, and local elected officials seem to have all but given up on trying to transform them into areas that can compete with other burgeoning communities throughout the metro.

This 2018 Mayoral Race comes down to two options: 1). maintaining status quo, or 2). looking at the future for growth and opportunity. I, for one, am tired of seeing varying echelons of feckless local governments maintain status quo at the expense of the taxpayers. Too many are rooted in, “well, that’s just how it’s always been”, rather than looking at new and creative ways to bolster their local economies that don’t revolve around increasing their already overtaxed constituents.

It is widely known political fact that if you want to affect change in the political direction of a nation, you start at the local level first. Based on the merits of his vision for economic growth, entrepreneurial tenacity, staunch business ethics, and integrity…


If you have any local elections you would like to see on this forum, or any political discussion for that matter, please email Joshua Lively at

[1] Curtin, E. (2017, September 20). Shannon, Hike say they want to be Bellevue’s next mayor. Bellevue Leader. Retrieved September 28, 2017, from

[2] Nitcher, E. (2017, September 26). Bellevue mayor says she will not seek re-election. Retrieved September 28, 2017, from

[3] Nitcher, E. (2017, September 26). Bellevue City Councilman Pat Shannon is running for mayor. Retrieved September 28, 2017, from

[4] Eugene Curtin / Leader Associate Editor. (2017, September 27). Fine could prevent Shannon mayoral run. Retrieved September 28, 2017, from

[5] Moser, D. (2015, December 01). Nebraska gets D grade in 2015 State Integrity Investigation. Retrieved September 28, 2017, from

[6] Nitcher, E. (2017, July 22). Pat Shannon tells fellow Bellevue officials car wash ‘is none of your business’. Retrieved September 28, 2017, from

[7] Nitcher, E. (2017, January 26). Bellevue Councilman Pat Shannon charged with a misdemeanor. Retrieved September 28, 2017, from

[8] Donley, L. S. (2016, February 29). 16-R-106; Bellevue Public Schools; Leo Rusty Hike, Petitioner [Letter written February 29, 2016 to Leo Rusty Hike]. Retrieved September 28, 2017, from

Due Process and the 4th Amendment

When a police officer shoots a suspect, that suspect is no longer afforded due process under the law.

First and foremost, I do not support “mob rule” or any other type of anarchist behavior under the guise of “first amendment rights”. Secondly, let me say, I simply do not have an adequate solution to the pandemic rise of the police state or the counter-movement against it. However, the first step to recovery is to at least admit there is a problem. Lastly, and most important, law enforcement officers often have thankless jobs and insurmountable tasks in front of them. The old catch 22, “damned if you do, and damned if you don’t”, but that does not negate their responsibility to the constitution and the people they “serve” – regardless of out-of-control courts.

My friends and family know that I am not an “activist”, I am a constitutionalist. From that perspective, which is purely constitutional, I can say these are dangerous times wherein law-abiding citizens have no reprieve or sanctuary – from criminals or police alike. I know that statement is not popular and will upset a lot of people, but I assure you, if you have an open mind, continue reading and you may see my point.  Please, read this in its entirety before going off half-cocked with “thin blue line” or “blue lives matter” rhetoric. I get that. In fact, I have met some great cops over the years, but there comes a point when the mounting evidence outweighs the possibility of mere coincidence or sporadic isolated incidents. When you finish reading this post, you will actually see that I am not attacking police officers, but rather the broken judiciary that has allowed them to overstep their Constitutional authority. Point blank, the rise of the “Police State” has caused irreparable collateral damage to our civil liberties – black, white, brown… it no longer matters, because we no longer matter in the mouth of the leviathan called the “Deep State”.

Now, I have stayed silent, more-or-less, about the Philando Castile case because I had hoped that the courts would have brought his killer to justice – it failed to do that. Sure, his grieving mother may have a huge settlement to “ease her pain and suffering”, but her son’s killer, Police Officer Jeronimo Yanez, walked out of court a free man. Where is the justice there? He murdered a civilian, there is no ambiguity there, and walked away free… but we still wonder why communities riot in the face of injustice like this. I’m sorry, but the official body cam footage, in my opinion, shows the only criminal in the case was the police officer, who incidentally brandished his weapon like a scared coward as far as I am concerned. At no point did Philando Castile make any sudden movements, and he even told the coward who shot him that he had a gun for which he also had a valid license. So, let’s fast forward a few months and our scene opens in St. Louis – a city enflamed in rage over the death of Anthony Lamar Smith and the acquittal of former police officer Jason Stockley. In this case, I see that Officer Stockley was more than justified in shooting the suspect given the circumstances and the fact that he reached for a weapon. So, the “mob rule” looting and attempts to burn the city in effigy, I will side with Law Enforcement. However, I do not agree with the police allegedly chanting, “whose streets, our streets” while arresting protesters[1].

I am citing these cases to emphatically show that I see both sides of the argument and that I take each incident on a case-by-case basis. But, when I see a pattern of behavior, on one side or the other, I cannot simply hold one side (Law Enforcement) faultless – especially when weighed against the constitutional parameters under which they should be operating. Is it the fault of Law Enforcement? No, not directly, they are simply “enforcers” of the constitutional failings of the Judiciary.

As I said before, we first need to admit to ourselves that there is a problem before we can find a solution, so take this as my intervention America. Point blank, there is a “law and order of the Judiciary” problem, which has been pulling at the very fabric of our Constitution for quite some time, and it is the direct cause of the problems we are seeing throughout the Law Enforcement community – as a whole. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas once said, “As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air – however slight – lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.”

Moreover, in 1949, George Orwell published a book entitled “Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984)” wherein there was a dystopian society oppressed underneath the iron fists of an oligarchical plutocracy (in summation). Now, before we go any further, let’s set the basic premise that we are in fact living in a post-constitutional United States, which is based on the corollary that our highest courts have become political mechanisms that no longer uphold our inalienable rights afforded by the constitution.

For example, let’s look at the 1st, 4th, and 5th amendments – really three of the most powerful that should, theoretically, hold our government within the confines of civility so much that we don’t even need to invoke the intent and parameters of the 2nd amendment. If you get my drift.

  1. 1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
  2. 4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
  3. 5th Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

So how have these amendments been eroded? In the police state being erected around us, the police and other government agents can probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts[2]. There have been well-documented instances of abuses, which are continually validated by a judicial system that kowtows to virtually every police demand, no matter how unjust, no matter how in opposition to the Constitution. In essence, we are treated like suspects and enemies rather than citizens. You know, the “bosses” of the people that are abusing our rights.

Point blank, the Fourth Amendment—which protects us from being bullied, badgered, beaten, broken and spied on by government agents—is being disemboweled. Take a look at these fifteen (15) court cases that prove my point to the letter.

  1. Police can stop, arrest and search citizens without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. (Utah v. Strieff)
  2. 2). Police officers can stop cars based on “anonymous” tips or for “suspicious” behavior such as having a “reclined car seat” or “driving too carefully”. (Navarette v. California)
  3. Police officers can use lethal force in car chases without fear of lawsuits. (Plumhoff v. Rickard)
  4. Police can “steal” from Americans who are innocent of any wrongdoing. (Texas’ asset forfeiture law)
  5. Americans have no protection against mandatory breathalyzer tests at a police checkpoint, although mandatory blood draws violate the Fourth Amendment (Birchfield v. North Dakota).
  6. Police can also conduct sobriety and “information-seeking” checkpoints (Illinois v. Lidster and Mich. Dep’t of State Police v. Sitz).
  7. Police can forcibly take your DNA, whether or not you’ve been convicted of a crime. (Maryland v. King)
  8. Police can use the “fear for my life” rationale as an excuse for shooting unarmed individuals. (Alabama Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
  9. Police have free reign to use drug-sniffing dogs as “search warrants on leashes.” (Florida v. Harris and Rodriguez v. United States).
  10. Police can subject Americans to strip searches, no matter the “offense.” (Florence v. Burlington)
  11. Police can break into homes without a warrant, even if it’s the wrong home. (Kentucky v. King)
  12. Police can interrogate minors without their parents being present. (Camreta v. Greene)
  13. It’s a crime to not identify yourself when a policeman asks your name. (Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada)
  14. Police can carry out no-knock raids if they believe announcing themselves would be dangerous. (Quinn v. Texas)
  15. The military can arrest and detain American citizens. (Hedges v. Obama)

When you look at these rulings, it is clear-as-day that the U.S. Constitution no longer matters. When the police can simply arrest people for exercising their rights, that is life in a post-constitutional era. When we are no longer protected from unwarranted searches and seizures, that is life in a post-constitutional era. When we are forced to incriminate ourselves without legal representation, even when we are innocent, that is life in a post-constitutional era. When we are arrested for “not answering questions” without legal representation, even when we are innocent, that is life in a post-constitutional era. When law enforcement can detain, arrest, and even kill us without fear of reprisal, that is life in a post-constitutional era. And this is not something that is happening in a large metropolitan city far away, this is happening in our local towns. Recently, the “Bellevue Police Officer’s Association said … it no longer has confidence in Police Chief Mark Elbert’s ability to lead the department.[3]” As Nebraskans, we need to pull our heads out of the sand and see the problems writ large across the nation.

Folks, tyranny has become the status quo, and due process has been replaced with the absolutism of the state (Deep or otherwise). So, when I read about the usurpation of “due process”. I become angry. When I hear that the judiciary upholds lawless acts of government agents at the expense of our constitutional civil liberties, I become angry. When I hear murderers and lawbreakers, with or without a badge, I become angry. And this my friends is precisely why we need the 2nd amendment. We need to protect ourselves from criminals, especially when those criminals are wolves dressed up in sheep’s clothing. When we become the prey of our protectors, and there is no justice to be had, that is the type of tyranny that eventually leads to an outburst of violence and civil unrest. I am in no way condoning the “war on police”, and I am certainly not condoning violence or destruction of public and private property; but, LAW AND ORDER must apply to the government (and its agents) as much as it does to citizens.

Overall, we need strong leadership in Congress that does not flip-flop or waffle when it comes to the constitution. But on the other side, we also need citizens to remain civil and lawful when exercising their first amendment rights. Once a protest turns violent or an uncontrollable mob that is destroying property, I firmly believe Law Enforcement should use all means necessary to protect life and property. And when I say, “all means”, there should be no ambiguity…that includes the use of deadly force as far as I am concerned.



[1] Hogan, S. (2017, September 18). St. Louis officers chant ‘whose streets, our streets’ while arresting protesters. Retrieved September 18, 2017, from

[2] Whitehead, J. W. (2017, June 05). Twilight of the Courts: The Elusive Search for Justice in the American Police State. Retrieved September 18, 2017, from

[3] Planos, J. (2017, September 14). Bellevue Police Chief responds to allegations. Retrieved September 18, 2017, from

Law and Order vs. Anarchy

They are not Illegal… but their actions are.

Unless you have been living off-grid in Antarctica for the last few years, it is safe to say you have heard about the immigration problems we are facing in this country. Now, for the sake of dialogue, I will take a neutral, middle-of-the-road perspective. Meaning, let us take all of the “build a wall” and “open borders” rhetoric and put it in our back pockets until we go into the streets to protest or flood social media with virtue-signaling memes. Bottom line, we need to look at this from a pure law-and-order point of reference.

8 U.S. Code Chapter 12 – Immigration and Nationality[1] details the laws of the land with regard to immigration; the last time I checked, Congress, not the President through executive fiat, creates bills that the President signs into law. Executive Orders notwithstanding, Congress makes the laws by which we live. Stay with me for a moment. Now, there are 535 voting members of Congress (435 Representatives and 100 Senators)[2], they represent the views and opinions of their respective constituents. What this means is that our laws, statistically speaking, reflect the will of the people as represented by the folks they voted into office – so long as they are constitutional. Currently, both the Executive and Legislative branches of government are Republican, which means they are currently leaning towards the right (conservative) versus left (progressive). Conservatism does not equate to Naziism, Fascism, or any other type of oligarchical “-ism”. It simply means our values are rooted in the constitution and the founding principles of our nation. The is key to understanding my argument.

So why is this important to understand and what does it have to do with immigration? Over the last year, there has been a great deal of political bruhaha concerning “illegal immigrants”, specifically the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)[3] program. Essentially, this is program wherein illegal immigrants can petition the government for U.S. Citizenship if they can prove they were brought here as a child, against their own volition, and have been actively contributing to the betterment of our society. It sounds reasonable, so why has this become such a politically polarized issue? There are two main reasons. Progressive Democrats sincerely believe “No Human Being is Illegal[4]”, and they also believe in quasi human-gerrymandering as it pertains to bolstering the demographics of their political constituency. In a nutshell, Progressive Democrats believe they can gain more power by manipulating the playing field with non-US Citizen voters. Plain and simple.

They accomplish this through an emotional appeal to the human spirit wherein they use highly euphemistic politically correct language to refer to illegal immigrants as “dreamers.” When we remove all emotional language from the verbiage, we are left with two words from which we can establish a fundamental basis for an argument: 1). Illegal, and 2). Immigrant.

  1. Illegal[5]: contrary to or forbidden by law; and
  2. Immigrant[6]: a person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.

By definition alone, as taken from the Merriam-Webster dictionary, an illegal immigrant is a person who comes “illegally” to live permanently in a foreign country, such as the United States. Every country on the planet has strict rules as it relates to immigrants entering into their countries and becoming citizens. In fact, there are some countries that do not allow foreigners to become citizens, or they at least make it extremely difficult to be granted citizenship[7]. What this means, every sovereign nation has laws that delineate the process for emigrating from another country and “legally” immigrating into their respective “sovereign country”. I understand the “open borders” arguments wherein Progressive Democrats believe there should be no borders in the world and we should all live under the collective rule of a “One-World Government[8]”; however, even in that kind of communistic (read dystopian) global society, there would still be laws, statutes, rules, regulations, and procedures that would prevent complete and total anarchy, and there would still be classifications/categorizations of peoples in order to track human movement. In furtherance, one could argue that the mythical open borders dream would, in fact, be more restrictive in nature, or would simply fail once people begin to lose their national identities[9].

So now that we understand the actual definition of “illegal immigrant” and why it is important to have “laws” that prevent complete and utter anarchy, we can now discuss DACA.

While the merits of the DACA program can be argued in either direction, I am not interested in emotionally any appeal from the “left or the right”; I simply care about the current law and protecting the fundamental, constitutional architecture laid out by our founding fathers. Without their wisdom and foresight, we probably wouldn’t even be able to have this argument because we would probably be living under the control of a despotic regime that prohibits free speech and political discourse. Let that sink in for a minute. We enjoy our rights to complain about everything and petition for grievances under the law, yet the Progressive Left is continually trying to nullify the law in order to fit its political agenda. It is an obvious paradox of magnanimous self-contradictions to claim protection under the very constitution they are trying to usurp or nullify through the use of “social justice” snowflakes (*see ANTIFA[10]).

The point is, we are a nation of laws; ergo, non-U.S. citizens must apply for citizenship in accordance with our laws. There is nothing more to argue at this point. In furtherance, President Trump, nor any Congressman, has waffled on this issue as far as I am concerned. President Trump simply stated that Barack Obama’s rule by executive fiat[11] (2014 Executive Actions on Immigration[12]) was not within the “constitutional authority” of the Executive Branch and that Congress (the Legislative Branch) needed to pass legislation he could sign. I simply can see no viable argument, legal or emotional, to challenge the constitution or checks-and-balances structure of our government, in this regard.

Now, as a human being I can definitely understand the emotional appeal to not separate families, or send people back to a country with which they have no cultural or language ties, but that is an emotional argument. And, it is one with which I can empathize. Yes, empathize, not sympathize. Why? Because while serving my country in the military, I had to get visas for a myriad of countries in which I “worked” or “lived”. I understood the immigration laws and expectations of those nations, and I fully understood the consequences of violating those laws. So why should the United States be any different? If a law is broken, especially by a non-U.S. person, the individual should be subject to all punitive actions/measures within the confines of that specific law. When it comes to immigration, they should be deported back to their country of origin. This happens in other countries, so why can’t we enforce our own laws?

But that is not really the argument. The argument is what to do with minors born as U.S. citizens to immigrants who entered this country illegally, or minors that entered into this country illegally, with their parents, against their own volition. To that, I can simply revert back to my statement, “we are a nation of laws”, “the individual(s) should be subject to all punitive actions/measures within the confines of that specific law.” So, while I can agree, “no human being is illegal”, that does not negate the fact that their actions can be illegal, and they should be held accountable under the law.

However, I do see merit in offering, on a limited and case-by-case basis, an opportunity to have a pathway to obtain U.S. Citizenship. Of course, my support comes with stipulations.

  1. The individual must not have a criminal record of any kind;
  2. The individual must not have prior deportations;
  3. The individual must pay a fine for breaking the law;
  4. The individual must submit retrograded tax forms for the previous five (5) years and pay all back taxes owed;
  5. The individual must enter into military service, civil service, or conduct a minimum of 1500 hours of community service over a five-year period.

So how would this solve the problem with illegal immigrant minors? Easy, the aforementioned stipulations apply to the parents of the minors. As the minors came here against their own volition, the parents should be subject to the punitive actions/measures outlined above. If the parents cannot, or will not, adhere to these stipulations, then my humanity ends there. Follow the law, and deport them back to their countries of origin. There is no argument to be had.

But, that is not for the average citizen to decide; it is not even for the President to decide, immigration law is the responsibility of Congress, and they, as dully representatives of their constituents, bear the sole responsibility of fixing this problem. President Trump made a wise decision to operate within his Constitutional authority and not operate through executive fiat like former U.S. Presidents[13].

As for whether or not a person can be, “illegal”. No, they cannot. But when they break the law, no matter how minor or slight, they have committed a crime, which makes them a criminal in the eyes of the court. We are not saying “illegal immigrants” do not have the same inalienable rights as everyone else, we are simply saying that the U.S. Constitution applies to U.S. Citizens, so, if an immigrant does not have the proper documentation to be in this country, the U.S. Constitution does not apply to them. They need to return to their country and institute constitutional changes within their own government. Or, if that is too difficult, they can at least apply for U.S. Citizenship just like every other law-abiding immigrant. But they cannot break into our country and expect not to be treated like a criminal that broke the law. If that is the case, it would set a slippery slope in terms of precedence with regard to other criminals not wanting to be held accountable for breaking other U.S. laws, codes, or statutes.

I will end this with two salient points. 1). Congress, you have been weighed and measured, and you have been found wanting. Please do the job for which you were elected. 2). For all of the fair-weather MAGA supporters out there, we need “winter soldiers”, not “sunshine patriots”. Either support the rule of law or get out of the way for the constitutional conservatives that do not want to live under the reign of an oligarchical plutocracy.

For all that know me, I love my country and I am generally very understanding from a classic liberal perspective when it comes to any issue, which is why I understand the need for law-and-order if we are to maintain a society – and hopefully our national identity as well. Bottom line, if we cannot enforce the laws of our nation, then what is the point of being a free people or even having sovereignty for that matter?


[1] 8 U.S. Code Chapter 12 – IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY. (n.d.). Retrieved September 18, 2017, from

[2] United States Congress. (2017, September 12). Retrieved September 18, 2017, from

[3] Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). (n.d.). Retrieved September 18, 2017, from

[4] Haque-Hausrath, S. (n.d.). No Human Being is Illegal. Retrieved September 18, 2017, from

[5] Illegal. (n.d.). Retrieved September 18, 2017, from

[6] Immigrant. (n.d.). Retrieved September 18, 2017, from

[7] Countries that Do Not Allow Citizenship. (n.d.) Retrieved September 18, 2017, from

[8] One world government. (n.d.). Retrieved September 18, 2017, from

[9] Hanson, V. D. (2016, July 31). Why borders matter — and a borderless world is a fantasy. Retrieved September 18, 2017, from

[10] Beinart, P. (2017, August 06). The Rise of the Violent Left. Retrieved September 18, 2017, from

[11] Masters, J. (2016, June 23). The U.S. Supreme Court and Obama’s Immigration Actions. Retrieved September 18, 2017, from

[12] 2014 Executive Actions on Immigration. (n.d.). Retrieved September 18, 2017, from

[13] Slattery, E. (2014, February 12). An Executive Unbound: The Obama Administration’s Unilateral Actions. Retrieved September 18, 2017, from


Free Speech is Under Attack

Free Speech is not free if it can be censored.

There is a lot of talk about introducing “hate crime” legislation with regard “acceptable” language on college campuses in America. Obviously, we’ve all seen the news regarding Courtney Lawton and her temper tantrum fit at UNL, but do we really want to jeopardize the 1st Amendment by starting to define what constitutes acceptable free speech? Is that a Pandora’s Box we’re willing to open for the perceived illusion of a “safe space”, which incidentally does not exist in the real world.

For rational adults, when it comes to someone voicing an opinion opposite of our own, it is quite simple. We listen or don’t listen. We comment or don’t comment. However, we respect the free speech of others. Their language may contain defamatory and explicit remarks, but who has the right to say what is morally acceptable language and what is not? Our founders understood that “inalienable rights” were granted by our creator and could not be subject to the restrictions of man. So why now, all of the sudden, do we want to limit the rights to free speech just because it doesn’t align with differing perspectives or hurts someone’s delicate feelings?

You see, in America – the land of the free and home of the brave, as it were, we hold dearly that Freedom of speech is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and it is our right to communicate our opinions and ideas to anyone, regardless of polarized differences. However, progressives try to restrict free speech by limiting it from: libel, slander, obscenity, sedition, hate speech, incitement, fighting words, right to privacy, public security, public order, public nuisance, and any other restrictive form they feel deracinates the institutional control they have infesting the natural order of human interaction. These limitations harm the principles of FREE SPEECH and we SHOULD NOT SUBSCRIBE to any actions that restrict a soul’s right to be heard – whether popular or unpopular, scorned or revered, everyone has the right to express the deepest and most heartfelt level of discourse that can be found in their souls – even if their souls are black and twisted.

The government has adopted the “offense principle” to expand the range of free speech and to prohibit forms of expression wherein they are considered offensive to society, special interest groups or individuals vis-à-vis religious offense, incitement to ethnic or racial groups, and any party claiming abuse, harm, or damage by the free words of others. IN ORDER TO PRESERVE OUR PRECIOUS INALIENABLE RIGHTS, WE CANNOT ACCEPT THESE LIMITATIONS, NO MATTER HOW MANY PEOPLE RECOIL OR FEEL OFFENDED.

You see, Universal law dictates that everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference and that everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

But, if I have to explain any of the aforementioned principles or patriotic subscriptions against the hindrance of liberty, then you are already too blind and cannot be saved; please move to North Korea because that form of tyranny better aligns with your values.

For the rest of America that hasn’t forgotten our fundamental principles, we negate and nullify any attempts to restrict our God-given rights defined within the document that formed our great nation and society… you know, the constitution!

Oligarchs and Sycophants

We the People, Still Matter

I am a US Navy Veteran with six tours to Afghanistan under his belt (1997-2007). I love God, my family, my country, my constitution, and my individual liberty – I am neither morally flexible nor willing to compromise on things I love.

In 2007, when I left active duty and settled down in Nebraska to be with my wife who was stationed at Offutt AFB, I started to become worried about the rise of absolute progressivism throughout the country, but I felt as if the Heartland was immune because of its constant allure of Americana.  However, by 2012, I knew that no one was safe from the constitutional apostasy and radical ideologies of the progressives, so I started to become politically involved.

Up front, I am an independent and constitutional conservative, which means I hold all political leaders accountable regardless of their political affiliation. If a political leader is grounded in the constitution, I will take no issue with their governance; however, if they usurp the constitution and the principles on which our nation was founded, I will find every occasion to publically scorn them.

Generally, I cover points and principles of the constitution and the correspondences between our founding fathers, and I explain the similarities between their struggles and our own at present time. Today, however, I want to include a little more substance given the literal deluge of scandals pouring out of the Democratic Party[1]. Remember, the Democrats gave us slavery, Jim Crow laws, and the impoverishment of minority urbanites through programs like Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and other socialist welfare programs. I mean, if you want to enslave a people, give them free money and services so long as they stay at or below the poverty level, and then you can maintain control with threats to remove the crutch that is actually impoverishing them. This is the maxim of progressive Democrats like Hillary Clinton and other politicians of the same ilk.

The game is up. We have let morally-bankrupt corporations rape our planet of its natural resources, pollute our environment, rob us of our money, and control the very people we put in office to represent us – you know, the “D.C. Swamp”, as it were. Our response? Blind apathy. Our penance, a soon to be dystopian society of magnanimous proportions so far beyond our comprehension that to speak of the impending doom simply gets you labeled as an “Orwellian, neo-con nut-job”.

We sit back in apathy and play with our cheap, distracting technology as our government forces oppression down our throats that is disguised as “modified” freedom. The main corrupt politicians, operating within the fractured central-government of this great nation, have no regard for the people from which they have derived their just powers (which is solely from the consent of the governed who have put them in office), and as they have seemingly become destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness. Any of this sound familiar?

I continue…

Having suffered a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce us under absolute despotism, it is our right, it is our duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for our future security.

You see, I am part of a small, marginalized group of constitutional conservatives that are not blinded by all usurpations teeming from the crock-pot that has become the Washington DC political apparatus. I could give a laundry list of reasons how our government has failed us, but drink in this fun fact. There are myriad of reasons for our declaration of independence; however, in the words of Benjamin Franklin, “The refusal of King George III to allow the colonies to operate an honest money system, which freed the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, was probably the prime cause of the revolution.”

The crux of our current economic plight is very similar to that of our founding fathers, wherein our “central authority” refuses to produce its own interest-free currency, and forces Americans to borrow money from a private, central banking system (the Federal Reserve), thus hurling our great nation into a perpetual state of debt from whence there is no recovery or respite. Moreover, this system, which is controlled by elite plutocrats, has corrupted a majority of Republican and Democratic leaders alike – so I say, “a plague on both your houses.”

“We the people”, for no apparent reason, allow 535 elected officials to continue to draft legislation that is detrimental to the livelihood of hard-working Americans, which also stands to bankrupt our future and push us further towards complete socialism and economic impoverishment.


If our elected officials refuse to acknowledge the will of the people, then it is the will of the people that will soon refuse to acknowledge its central government’s authority to rule. Serving America is a privilege, not a means to make money and serve lobbyists from special interest groups or multi-national corporations that rape, pillage, and plunder our rights to life – liberty – and the pursuit of happiness. So “what happened” Hilary Clinton? Ma’am, you happened. Americans have grown tired of the condescending lordship of career politicians, and they can no longer stomach the vilification by leftist progressives who reject the principles and moral behavior that made this country the greatest nation history has ever know. So, no “madam president”, you lost because good, hard-working Americans are tired of the blatant corruption by oligarchs, like yourself, who are served by an entourage of sycophantic and obsequious politicians like Brad Ashford. We’ve all heard, “the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree”, but in politics… the sycophants don’t stray far from the oligarchs. We’ve all seen just how corrupt the Clinton machine can be, so what does that say about their political cronies suckling at the power teet? Either they are ignorant or apathetic, but in either case, neither of the choices are characteristics of a good leader. But, I digress…

Baffling and absurd, these are the two words that incessantly reverberate in my mind as I watch my fellow countrymen offer up their freedom and liberties for the illusion of security. Our founding fathers committed high treason so that we might be free, but in just over two centuries, we have besmirched that gift and embraced the very type of tyranny they fought to end. Is it not our dutiful obligation to remove from power any government that has become destructive to its own end? This Washington-based government now sits in a position of absolute authority; any act of defiance against the reign of its plutocratic body is labeled as “rightwing or leftwing” extremism. In essence, the very same patriotic acts our forefathers executed while laying the foundation of our nation and a government – of the people, for the people, and by the people – is held in the same regard as the acts of Osama Bin Laden and Al Qa’eda. This new ruling class of plutocrats aims to deracinate the fabric of our society and crush our lives with insurmountable debt and complete, unquestionable allegiance to their metaphorical crown.

I say it is about time we end the reign of these absolutists and take back our nation. I say we can no longer sit in apathy and watch our ideals and liberties be trampled upon by those whom we have entrusted to preserve our birthright of true, unadulterated freedom. We, as a collective body of patriotic heretics much like our founding fathers, must unite and defy the career politicians in the Washington-based government, and we must not let the fear of tyrannical recourse outweigh the need for a radical change in this country. We must fight with the same moral arguments our founding fathers used, and we must rebuild a nation in which everyone contributes equally to the betterment of the union rather than feeding off the hard work of others like a parasitic plague. We must fight so that the future of our nation does not continue to be outsourced and sold to other nations for the sake of corporate campaign funding under this the pandemic plague known as career politicians. We must fight to retrieve and preserve the rights our ruling class has stolen from us. And when I say fight, I am not talking about violence of any kind. I am talking about holding our elected officials accountable, and, at the very least, shaming them into doing a better job for their constituents.

The meaning behind the words “we the people” have been lost in a sea of complacent apathy. We are the protectors of freedom in the military, we are the preservers of justice in the police force, we are the farmers that feed the whole, we are the merchants who provide commerce, WE ARE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and WE are tired of this trodden state of existence. We the people will never give blind allegiance to career politicians that try to destroy our nation and framework of liberty. We the people choose to ignore the authority of absolutists we did not put into power.

In all of this, which is in plain sight everywhere I look, the plutocratic oligarchy of Washington DC has the audacity to label me a “domestic terrorist[2]”. Why, because I fought for 6-years in Afghanistan to come home to see our liberties stripped away, our economy in shambles, and the citizens I fought to protect in dire need of metaphorical Robin Hood? If I am a terrorist for using harsh language against the politicians in our failing government, then so be it! My morals, ethics, values, and pursuit of happiness are not dictated by the criminals who seek to ruin the nation and constitution I fought to serve and protect. If you have to petition, apply for approval, or get permission to exercise a right, regardless of which right that may be, then is not a right… it is a privilege that is given at the discretion of someone else and it can be taken away just as fast as it is given. So pay attention Brad Ashford… you just may learn a thing or two.

On November 20, 1772, Samuel Adams drafted Correspondence entitled “The Rights of the Colonists”. I will keep this as close to the original as possible, but I will substitute words like “colonists and crown” for words like “citizens and government”.

Among the natural rights of citizens are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature. All men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they please; and in case of intolerable oppression, whether civil or religious, to leave the society they belong to, and enter into another. When men enter into society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions and previous limitations as form an equitable original compact.

The point here is that you choose to coexist with other human beings in a society, but you DO NOT GIVE UP YOUR NATURAL RIGHTS – ESPECIALLY NOT TO A CENTRAL GOVERNMENT!

Every natural right not expressly given up, or, from the nature of a social compact, necessarily ceded, remains. [You keep your rights unless YOU EXPRESSLY GIVE THEM UP.] All positive and civil laws should conform, as far as possible, to the law of natural reason and equity. The natural liberty of man, by entering into society, is abridged or restrained, so far only as is necessary for the great end of society, the best good of the whole. In the state of nature every man is, under God, judge and sole judge of his own rights and of the injuries done him. By entering into society, he agrees to an arbiter or indifferent judge between him and his neighbors; but he no more renounces his original right than by taking a cause out of the ordinary course of law, and leaving the decision to referees or indifferent arbitrators. [YOU HAVE YOUR RIGHTS; THEY CAN ONLY BE GIVEN AWAY BY YOU!] The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule. In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.

Meaning, even if the government tricks you into giving up your rights; only God can take them away, so it doesn’t matter what “laws” a government makes to strip you of your rights, it still cannot take them away. Now, they can trick you into thinking they have the power “by law” to strip you of your rights, but that is the beautiful thing about natural rights. You are born with them and you shall die with them; NO MAN or GOVERNMENT OF MEN can take them away.

A commonwealth or state is a body politic, or civil society of men, united together to promote their mutual safety and prosperity by means of their union. The absolute rights of all freemen, in or out of civil society, are principally: personal security, personal liberty, and private property. All persons are, by the laws of God and nature, well entitled to all natural, essential, inherent, and inseparable rights, liberties, and privileges. Among those rights are the following, which no man, or body of men, consistently with their own rights as men and citizens, or members of society, can for themselves give up or take away from others.

First, “The first fundamental, positive law of all common wealths or states is the establishing the legislative power. As the first fundamental natural law, also, which is to govern even the legislative power itself, is the preservation of the society.” A governing body is established to preserve and protect a society – arbitrate when necessary – but otherwise not interfere unless it pertains to preservation and security, as it were.

Secondly, The Legislative has no right to absolute, arbitrary power over the lives and fortunes of the people. [RIGHT HERE, THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE NO RIGHT TO TAKE YOUR MONEY!]

Thirdly, The supreme power cannot justly take from any man any part of his property, without his consent in person or by his representative.

These are some of the first principles of natural law and justice. It is utterly irreconcilable to these principles and to many other fundamental maxims of the common law, common sense, and reason that a [[government]] should have a right at pleasure to give and grant the property of the [[citizens]].


Ladies and gentlemen, these are but a small portion of the profound words that helped shape our country into a FREE NATION. We cannot concede to the bullies of the government. This is our land. This is our liberty. This is our freedom. Don’t stand by in apathy and just give it away to a bunch of rapacious and predatory vultures.

You see, a statesman is a diplomat or other notable public figure who has had a long and respected career at the national or international level. Generally, they act in a capacity that is for the greater good of the nation and their respective common concerns and interests. We used to have statesmen in this country, in fact, they founded our nation, but statesmen have become a dying breed and are all but extinct; they have been replaced by an alpha predictor species known as “the politician”.

Politicians are hollow shells – puppets if you will. They are whores-for-hire that hate freedom and get intoxicated by power. They use race and religious divisiveness as a means to strip us of our rights and send us to our homes like whipped dogs. They feed off of our apathy and loathe our attempts to exercise the freedoms bestowed upon us by our creator that were ratified by the constitutionalists who found our national identity of liberty. They use the media to spread their lies and propaganda while dumbing-down the population with cheap technology and shiny objects. The worst part about politicians is that they have fed us their garbage for so long that we actually standby – albeit seething – completely enamored by the circus that has become our ruling oligarchical plutocracy.

If you need clarification, U.S. Representative Don Bacon is a statesman. Why? Because he served his nation with honor and integrity for 30-years while in the U.S. Air Force; he wants to represent Nebraska’s values and help affect change in Washington DC. Brad Ashford, on the other hand, is a career politician who has done nothing significant other than to isolate and serve himself. One is a statesman, the other is a politician… and Nebraskans, much like a majority of Americans, have had enough of politicians.

On March 5th, 1772… Joseph Warren drafted correspondence entitled “Constitutional Liberty and Arbitrary Power.” In an excerpt, he said:

“When we turn over the historic page, and trace the rise and fall of states and empires, the mighty revolutions which have so often varied the face of the world strike our minds with solemn surprise, and we are naturally led to endeavor to search out the cause of such astonishing changes. It was this noble attachment to a free Constitution which raised ancient Rome, from the smallest beginnings to that bright summit of happiness and glory to which she arrived, and it was the loss of this which plunged her from that summit into the black gulf of infamy and slavery. It was this attachment which inspired her Senators with Wisdom; it was this which glowed in the breast of her heroes; it was this which guarded her liberties and extended her dominions, gave peace at home, and commanded the respect abroad, and when this decayed, her magistrates lost their reverence for justice and the laws, and degenerated into tyrants and oppressors; her Senators, forgetful of their dignity, and seduced by base corruption, betrayed their country…

What can be proposed by the repeated attacks made upon our freedom, I cannot surmise, even leaving justice and humanity out of the question. We are governed by the absolute command of others; our property is to be taken away without our consent; if we complain, our complaints are treated with contempt; if we assert our rights, that assertion is deemed as insolence; if we humbly offer to submit the matter to the impartial decision of reason, the sword is judged the most proper argument to silence our murmurs!”

These aforementioned words ring as true as they did nearly 250 years ago. We need to demand a need for change, and we cannot accept anything less than the liberty and freedom granted to us by God at the time of our births. We cannot allow the DC elite to continue to act like third-world, banana-republic despots. And we certainly cannot allow feckless career politicians, like Brad Ashford, to continue to propagate this nonsense because they cannot serve anyone but themselves.



[1] Sainato, M. (2017, July 27). Corruption Scandals Are Piling Up for Democrats. Retrieved September 18, 2017, from

[2] Lake, E., & Hudson, A. (2009, April 16). Napolitano stands by the controversial report. Retrieved September 18, 2017, from