Welcome To The Axis

  • Sanctuary Cities Explained

    Sanctuary Cities Explained

    Author Administrator

    This election cycle, we have heard a lot about "Sanctuary Cities" and their disregard for the law when it comes to illegal immigration. Donald Trump made dealing with these cities a campaign issue, promising to crack down on them and make them comply with federal immigration enforcement. This was a popular issue with many of his supporters, but in talking with them it became increasingly clear that many of them have no idea what a sanctuary city is, what they do, and how this relates to federal immigration law enforcement. Some of them think that these cities go so far as to harbor illegals and protect them from federal enforcement agents. I wanted to make an attempt at clearing the air on what it is exactly that these cities do.

  • Countering Disinformation And Propaganda

    Author Administrator

    Perhaps you may have seen this headline from InfoWars and wondered how much truth there was to it. It makes a bold and powerful claim about one of the last acts of the Obama Presidency. "Obama Quietly Signs The ‘Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act’ Into Law Just like that, the US Ministry of Truth is officially born", it reads. By searching the headline, you can find numerous instances of the article that are all copies and pastes of the original writing, so it is hard to definitively state who the original source of this article really is, but the larger question would be, simply put, is it true? Spoiler alert. The simple answer is "no". It is loosely based in fact then expanded upon with falsehoods. For starters though, let's look at the definition of the two words.

  • Darnold Trump

    Author Administrator

    Every now and again you bump into someone who had a great idea and really capitalized on it, delivering a quality performance to cap it all off. Darnold Trump over on instagram is one such individual. I have no idea who they are, but they had an idea and they played their hand well. As we all know, Donald Trump says plenty of really dumb and really controversial things. What if someone kept track of these gaffes in a funny and informative way? Well, that's what Darnold has done here, and done very well. Every picture is complete with a cartoonish graphic of Trump, with nothing more than a giant mouth on his face. Each image is "checked in" at the location where Trump made the corresponding statement.

  • Coast to Coast Christmas

    Author Administrator

    Generally speaking, I go home for Christmas. That's the one day of the year you can count on me being home. In 20 years of driving a truck, I had only missed one Christmas at home, and that was due to getting stuck in bad weather. This year, however, I decided to stay out on the road and collect that nice bonus that my company offers for those drivers who are willing to shred their last ties to humanity and go full blown vagabond for the holidays. My hand was up, count me in. And that is how I came to the realization that there literally nothing on the 200+ channels on SiriusXM radio on Xmas Eve, so if you'll humor me I wanted to take a minute to complain about the one refuge I found in this entertainment desert.

  • Is Trump Scary?

    Author Administrator

    Many Trump supporters have been having fun with the overreaction of some on the left to Donald Trump's victory. It seems the operative term for these folks is "snowflake" and their home base of operation is a location known as a "safe space". And while some have clearly taken it a bit far, being observed in the fetal position crying, or rescheduling exams to allow time for healing, perhaps some on the right aren't taking it quite far enough by not trying to understand some of the concerns of others that might be legitimate. I think the best way to come to some common ground is to look at a single issue that might illustrate the points on both sides.

Print

The King And I

Written by Administrator.

President ObamaWith President Obama declaring section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act to be un-constitutional, and having his justice department announce that they will no longer defend the law, my first thought was "who does this guy think he is". If you said "President of the United States", you would be wrong. A President in our Representative Republic knows that it is the job of the courts, not the President, to determine the constitutionality of laws. And few should know that better than this one. After all, he is at the same time declaring one law un-constitutional and refusing to defend it and pushing implementation of his own Health Care Reform law that a court has declared un-constitutional. My concern is not with the defense of marriage act here, because gay marriage is a total non-issue to me. My original concern was with the precedent that is being set here. My latest concern, however, is a bit different.

Let's just take Obama at his word here, and assume for a second that he and his Justice Department find the law to be discriminatory. Would it not then be the honorable thing to do to refuse to be a part of the process of enforcing that discrimination? We have the bad habit sometimes of being outraged at lawyers who defend some of the worst scum on the planet. Isn't it nice, for a change, to see a lawyer stand up and say "sorry, but I can't defend that"? Let me give you an example.

Remember when President Obama nominated Sotomayor to the Supreme Court and had Neal Katyal step in to fill her shoes at the Solicitor Generals office? This outraged the right, because Mr. Kaytyal had defended terrorists being detained at GITMO. The White House, and many on the left, offered a very reasonable explanation for his actions. He is, after all, an attorney. Hence, it is his job to represent some bad people. I pointed out at the time that it wasn't exactly like the guy was a public defender, and had to take the cases. He chose to take them, and thus I criticized his appointment. In the end, the White House caved, and President Obama nominated Donald Verrilli to take his place.

Thus, I feel that at this point I should give honorable mention to the Obama Administration for standing up and saying "some things are just to wrong to defend". However, this leaves me with a serious and troubling question. Why is the line drawn here? Why is it that the Justice Department can be staffed by those who defended terrorists, but it can't defend U.S. law? By all means, have a conscience. But here and now?

I want to believe that President Obama is doing what he feels is in the best interest of the Country, and until now I have felt that way. But when lawyers can't find enough scruples to walk away from a case that leaves them defending those who attacked us, I find it hard to take them seriously when their conscience suddenly kicks in when a gay marriage issue shows up. This law, after all, was signed by President Clinton. Not a fan of him either, but that having been said, I find him much easier to defend than Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Why doesn't President Obama?

If one has a problem with the Defense of Marriage Act, then let's get this thing into court and let it have its day. In the meantime, President Obama has taken an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. This Constitution lays out a process for making, challenging, and repealing law. While he may question the constitutionality of this law, the Justice Department has a duty to defend it so long as it exists. If one feels that it is acceptable to act outside of the Constitution to diminish the law, than does that same person really have the moral authority to grandstand on the constitutionality of said law?