Archive for September, 2019

When Things Go Wrong!

September 29, 2019

When Things Go Wrong!

There are days when all of us “get down”, “things go wrong”, we have a little “pity-party”, or we just “get our undies in a bundle” and feel upset, etc, etc. Normally, we find a way to snap-out-of these negative mental states and get back on a positive track.

However, some of us have learned to think that the past has always been bad, the present is bad and the future is certain to be bad. In the field of psychopathology “mind-set” is called the Depressive Triad. People with this level of negativity set up a self-fulfilling prophesy for them selves. As a result of their dark attitude, expectations, decisions and resulting choices things often turn out badly for them.

This of course confirms their world view and further strengthens their depressive mind. This vicious cycle can easily lead to a Major Depression  often accompanied by a Generalized Anxiety Disorder, perhaps including panic attacks. This level of severity should be treated by a psychologist or a credentialed professional psychotherapist.

But, whichever level of negative thinking that we might engage in, veteran Travis Mills has a message for us that just might transform our lives.

Please take time to view the following. This video was sent to me by Gordon Jones, an American veteran and patriot. 

V. Thomas Mawhinney, Ph.D., 9/29/19


My Lazy Glock .45!

September 26, 2019

My Lazy Glock .45!

My dear friend, Vic Palenske, (who is not a gun nut) sent this bit of internet flotsam to me. I have seen these data before in other contexts and from all that I can tell they are likely to be “in the ball-park” accurate.

I post this for your consideration. whether you are in favor of a strong Second Amendment right to own firearms or not. The message that follows is the truth about the harm that a gun can cause without someone present to make good or bad decisions about what to do with it. 

Guns will not harm anyone. It is the severely mentally ill or psychopathic deviants that will. 

Liberal values, beliefs and politics have replaced our formerly strong conservative ones and they have caused the explosion of horrific gun problems that certain areas of America have increasingly experienced.

Blaming the gun is a wonderful traditional socialist/communist strategy for pacifying and controlling populations around the world and it is now being more powerfully inflicted upon America than ever before.

I ask you to defend all of America’s Constitutional laws and values.

Sincerely, V. Thomas Mawhinney, 9/26/29



Today, I placed my Glock Model 21SF .45 cal. semi-automatic pistol with laser on the table right next to my kitchen door. I left its magazine beside it, then left it alone and went about my business.

While I was gone, the mailman delivered my mail, the next door neighbor mowed the yard, a girl walked her dog down the street, and quite a few cars stopped at the stop sign near the front of my house.

After about an hour, I checked on the gun. 

It was quietly sitting there, right where I had left it.

It had not moved itself outside. It had not killed anyone. Certainly, even with the numerous opportunities it had presented to do that. In fact, it had not even loaded itself.

 Well you can imagine my surprise, with all the hype by the Democrats and their propaganda media, about how dangerous guns are and how “they” kill people.

 So, either the media is wrong, or I’m in possession of the laziest gun in the world!

 The United States is 3rd in murders throughout the world. But if you take out just 5 ‘left-wing’ cities: Chicago, Detroit, Washington DC, St Louis and New Orleans — the United States is now 4th from the bottom, in the entire world, for murders.

 These 5 cities are controlled by…Democrats.

 They also have the toughest gun control laws in the USA.

 It would be absurd to draw any conclusions from this data, right?

 Well, now I’m off to check on my spoons. I hear they’re making people fat!

Federal Judge Over-Rules Government!

September 16, 2019

Federal Judge Overrules Government!
Perhaps you have wondered how it came to be that a single Federal Judge could overrule the will of the people, as expressed by the actions of their duly elected government. 
The following short article written by our Attorney General, William Barr, provides that answer.
I thank friend Bob Walck for sending me this important information.
V. Thomas Mawhinney, 9/16/9

“The Dreamers case shows how willful courts can ruin the chance for political compromise.”


William P. Barr

Sept. 5, 2019 6:37 pm ET


When a federal court issues an order against enforcement of a government policy, the ruling traditionally applies only to the plaintiff in that case. Over the past several decades, however, some lower court federal judges have increasingly resorted to a procedural device—the “nationwide injunction”—to prevent the government from enforcing a policy against anyone in the country. Shrewd lawyers have learned to “shop” for a sympathetic judge willing to issue such an injunction. These days, virtually every significant congressional or presidential initiative is enjoined—often within hours—threatening our democratic system and undermining the rule of law.

During the eight years of the Obama administration, 20 nationwide injunctions were issued while the Trump administration has already faced nearly 40. Partisans who cheer this trend should realize that someday the shoe will be on the other foot. One can easily imagine the signature policies of a future Democratic administration—say, on climate change, immigration or health care—being stymied by courts for years on end.

The best example of the harm done by these nationwide injunctions is the current litigation over the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. In 2012, after Congress repeatedly failed to grant legal status to so-called Dreamers, the Obama administration declined to enforce the immigration laws against them. Five years later, the Trump administration announced it would restore enforcement of federal law, prompting Democrats to negotiate in search of a broad solution. Just as a compromise appeared near, a district court judge in San Francisco entered a nationwide injunction prohibiting the Trump administration from ending DACA, thus awarding the Democrats by judicial fiat what they had been seeking through a political compromise.

Far from solving the problem, the DACA injunction proved catastrophic. The program’s recipients remain in legal limbo after nearly two years of bitter political division over immigration, including a government shutdown. A humanitarian crisis—including a surge of unaccompanied children—swells at the southern border, while legislative efforts remain frozen pending Supreme Court resolution of the DACA case.

Under Article III of the Constitution, courts are supposed to apply the law to the parties before them—not to thousands or millions of third parties. The Framers rejected the idea that the courts should act as a “council of revision” with sweeping authority to reach beyond concrete controversies and rule on the legality of actions taken by the political branches. Moreover, the power of federal courts to issue injunctions derives from English practice, which allowed courts to restrain a defendant to the extent necessary to protect the rights of the plaintiffs in the case. Nationwide injunctions are a modern invention with no basis in the Constitution or common law.

Nationwide injunctions are also inconsistent with the mechanism the law recognizes to provide relief to nonparties: a class action, in which class members are bound by the result, win or lose, unless they opt out. Nationwide injunctions, by contrast, create an unfair, one-way system in which the democratically accountable government must fend off case after case to put its policy into effect, while those challenging the policy need only find a single sympathetic judge.

Proponents of nationwide injunctions argue that they are necessary to ensure that the law is uniform throughout the country. But the federal judiciary wasn’t made to produce instant legal uniformity. To the contrary, the system—in which local district courts are supervised by regional courts of appeal—was constructed to allow a diversity of initial rulings until a single, national rule could be decided by the Supreme Court.

This system has many virtues. It prevents a solitary, unelected, life-tenured judge from overriding the political branches and imposing on the nation potentially idiosyncratic or mistaken views of the law. A Supreme Court justice must convince at least four colleagues to bind the federal government nationwide, whereas a district court judge issuing a nationwide injunction needn’t convince anyone.

When the system works as it should, it encourages what one leading jurist has called “percolation”—the salutary process by which many lower federal courts offer competing and increasingly refined views on a legal issue before higher courts definitively resolve it. Allowing a single district court judge to issue a nationwide injunction against the government short-circuits this process. The first judge to issue an injunction effectively nullifies the decisions of all other courts that have already been issued—not only other courts’ decisions, but even those of higher appellate courts in other circuits.

For example, even though the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia—often called the second-highest court in the land—vacated an injunction against the Trump administration’s policy on transgender military service, that decision had no practical effect. Two district judges had enjoined the policy nationwide. The Supreme Court’s intervention was necessary to fix this backward state of affairs.

By short-circuiting the process of percolation, nationwide injunctions cause critical policies to be litigated through a truncated, emergency process. When an important statute or policy is enjoined, the Justice Department must seek emergency relief from higher courts. The alternative is for the government to wait years for an appeals court to overturn the injunction before implementing a statute or policy. As a result, nationwide injunctions threaten to turn every case into an emergency for the executive and judicial branches.

Nationwide injunctions “are legally and historically dubious,” noted Justice Clarence Thomas, concurring in Trump v. Hawaii (2018). “If federal courts continue to issue them, this Court is dutybound to adjudicate their authority to do so.” It is indeed well past time for our judiciary to re-examine a practice that embitters the political life of the nation, flouts constitutional principles, and stultifies sound judicial administration, all at the cost of public confidence in our institutions.

Mr. Barr is U.S. attorney general.

Climate Change & Impeach Trump: Mooha, Ha, Ha!

September 11, 2019

Climate Change & Impeach Trump: Mooha, Ha, Ha!





Revive The Pledge of Allegiance!

September 8, 2019

Revive The Pledge of Allegiance!

It is so strange.

I woke up at 6:30 AM with the words “One Nation under God, with Liberty and Justice for All”, running through my mind…over and over again.

I haven’t said that pledge since I was a kid, maybe in school, Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, or perhaps while a young man in the U.S. Navy. It is possible that my beloved grandmother, a true patriot, taught me to say it when I was a very young child. 

I simply cannot recall when I learned America’s Pledge of Allegiance and said it often. Yet in this time of a nascent, but growing, American socialist revolution, I awakened from sleep with its words compelling me to write this blog.

I enjoin all Americans to teach this pledge to their children and grandchildren. I also urge all American’s to petition their school systems to incorporate, or continue to incorporate, America’s Pledge of Allegiance into their school day; and, there are other venues that could be used to bring this precious American tradition back into our lives.

Of course the political action groups seeking to “transform America” into a Godless socialist state will howl in protest.

However American Patriots still outnumber these radical leftists and our desires to sustain America’s traditional values can win this struggle for our survival.

But, we cannot win this great political battle without our “silent majority” joining the fight. So do it now or loose America: “One Nation under God, with Liberty and Justice for All”!

P.S., Respecting Liberty for all, the Pledge of Allegiance should only be taught and encouraged. No one should ever to be forced to join-in the Pledge under threat of social censure or any form of punishment.

For a historical review of the origins and conflict over the Pledge, please see the following:

V. Thomas Mawhinney, 9/8/19









Laughter Not Best Medicine…Try Conservatism!!

September 2, 2019

Laughter Not Best Medicine…Try Conservatism!!


Cartoons: Michael Ramirez for August 30, 2019





%d bloggers like this: