Category Archives: Constitution

Campaign to Kill Good

The Campaign to Kill Good

We have become a nation ruled by an oligarchy. Oligarchy is defined as “a political system governed by a few people”. Usually the rich. Now an oligarchy does not care very much for the common people. They do pay lip service to them. They continue to promise that group that they are the ones that will improve their lot. Any one opposing them is demeaned and slandered into oblivion, while they just keep promising the masses that they will improve their life if only they will wait just a little while longer while they, the elite rulers, solve just a couple more problems. The oligarchy makes use of the “big lie”.
The big lie was brought forcefully to the forefront of national politics by Hitler. He knew that any lie repeated often enough is taken for absolute truth and he gained total control of the government with this tactic.
Today we have a movement that is called liberal, but the proper term is progressive. These are two different views of how a government, our government, should work. The liberal works in small steps to advance their agenda. First they take over the education system starting with the colleges and universities. If they can control what the future teachers are taught they will control what the children are taught by those future teachers. Then they co-opt the mass media using these liberal educated student journalists so they are able to spread the word in any way they want. They can use the “big lie” much more effectively.
Enter Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Barack Obama and today’s pretender to the throne, Hillary Clinton. Each were or are convinced they can rule because they have convinced the greater mass of people that individual liberty is a fallacy. They shout that this should never have been a republic, but rather a democracy. In a democracy the voice of the people are heard and that voice is personified in the person that collects the votes required to sit in the Oval office. That one person has a ‘mandate’, evidenced by the mere fact that he or she won the election, to speak for all the people. They have their pen and phone. Any separation of powers is nothing more than a hindrance to their governing.
Enter on to our stage one Hillary Clinton. A proven liar, who actually said that it was her “turn” to rule America. She of the “big lie”.
We cannot forget the other facet of today’s American political scene, the republican party. Supposedly the ‘loyal opposition’. They would much rather have a Clinton presidency that will continue to grant politicians surcease for their greed and power hungry appetites than support the person that won their party’s nomination. They have not so much as run one TV ad for ‘their’ nominee. Their fear of losing their gravy train and the power they wield in government is tantamount to treason. No, it does not meet the legal definition of that heinous crime, but it does meet the social definition. They apparently are so concerned about protecting their position that they would rather see this country go completely social democrat than defend the constitution and the republic.
This country led the world in military might, economic stability and social justice for over one hundred fifty years. Today we are a third world power militarily, the world banks are leaving the dollar behind as the benchmark and moving to the Chinese Yuan or Renminbi and social justice has been replaced with the devaluation of the Judeo-Christian ethic to the point that a person can now be sued into financial ruin for adhering to their Christian beliefs. Freedom OF religion has been replaced by the credo of freedom FROM religion.
This is the destruction of good in the name of greed and power.
It seems that we no longer have a two party system in this country. We have on party called Democrat that is focused on the destruction of the Constitution because it is “outdated” and no longer applies to modern society, though they have never satisfactorily explained how that is so, and another party called Republican that are anything but. They are perhaps even more greedy than their cohorts in the other side of the aisle.
There has to be a political party that honestly desires to return this country to the land of the free. Libertarians? Nope. They do indeed want a smaller government, but the government they want is isolationist in this world of global economy and ISIS. The government they want is so small as to be next door neighbors to anarchy. Greens? Nah. Too narrow in focus and they want many of the same things the liberals want just for different reasons. There are many neophytes out there struggling to find the alternative to the present major parties. I have looked at many and spoken to most of the leaders. None seem to measure up to the founders ideals. I still believe in those ideals.
The only one that comes close, in my humble opinion, is the Constitution Party. I will have more to say on them another time
That leaves the main question. How do we stop the destruction of good?

Advertisements

Paul Ryan is NOT a RINO. I am.

You read that title correctly. Paul Ryan is NOT a RINO. Neither is McConnell. Nope, Sessions isn’t either. But it would appear that I am.
How can I say things like that with a straight face and be deadly serious? Just consider the facts.
Most of the republican members of congress were considered RINOs. The Republican party officially supports them. They have become the republican party. For some reason they decided to leave me behind, to completely ignore me and my kind.
We have become pariahs.
In today’s world, the right wing, patriotic, constitution loving American is being left out of the political process and without a voice. We have become the true Republicans In Name Only.
Since I do not enjoy not having a voice in the affairs of my country, I decided to do something about that. But what can a person do. I can not take on the sins of the Democrats and most other parties out there don’t seem to have much of a voice. Only thing to do is more research.
Let’s see. There is the Green party. Definitely not for me. Appears to be an off shoot of the democrats and their goals are really unreasonable. How about the Libertarians. Again, not to my liking. They are the next thing to anarchy. And, particularly here in West Virginia, they used subterfuge, and out right dishonesty to obtain their goals. Their ‘guiding light’, one Chris Anders, uses an auto dialer to spread his message (Hate those things with a passion) and frequently spreads misinformation, if not outright untruths. Case in point: He told anyone that would listen the the Jefferson County Commissioners voted themselves a pay raise. They didn’t, That came out of the state capital. There is one other point about Mr. Anders that disturbs me. He lives in Virginia! He does not live in WEST Virginia yet he is spearheading a move to take control of the Jefferson county republican party.
Then there is the fact that they are avowed isolationists wanting no involvement in world affairs. I have a friend that tells me that I am just too forthright. OK, the term he means is blunt. I guess I am at times, but I am not a politician. There are times when being blunt is necessary.
Oh well. Keep looking.
How about the Constitution party? Good name, but do they mean it. Have they got a chance of ever winning anything? Probably not this election cycle, but they are the third largest political party in this country. Do they mean it? I read their platform. They seem to be dedicated to returning this country to the constitutional republic the democrats have spent the last 50 years doing everything in their power to destroy. They make no bones about their belief that this country should be run by the president. Period. Separation of powers is to them a fallacy. And old idea that we should just ignore.
Not my cup of tea. I actually like the constitution.
Hmm bit of a rant there, but every word the truth. Back to the Constitution party.
They are on the ballot in 25 states this cycle, which is a huge improvement or the last one. They have achieved major party status in Wyoming . Their donations have more than doubled in the last few months and just keep growing. There is a large contingent of Cruz supporters that have joined and other disillusioned republicans are joining up every day. I can easily envision them being a major force in the next election cycle. Why? Because they listen. Because they are sincere in wanting to return us. Because this country is looking for some honesty in Politics! It is my belief that this party offers just that and wouldn’t that confuse the politicians of today! Because conservatives all over this country are fed up with a republican party that refuses to adhere to their conservative roots and instead just want the power and money that currently goes with an elected office in D.C.
Personally, I am fed up with being a RINO. I do believe that explains why I am now a registered member of the Constitution party of the United States.

The Serious Ongoing Issues From This Campaign

That this has been a tempestuous campaign season is the one thing all agree upon. On the democratic side we have an avowed socialist with some pretty outlandish ideas about how this country should move forward. Just give everybody what they want and worry about paying for it at some later time. And then there is the now presumptive democrat nominee. The recently released report from Gowdy’s committee investigating the Benghazi Terrorist attack virtually accuses both Hillary Clinton and B. Obama of being complicit in the murder of four men in that town in Libya including the United States Ambassador. She has been shown to be a consistent, no make that constant, liar. Not even her lies are consistent. The democratic presumptive nominee has stated many things that show her contempt for the constitution. She s a self proclaimed “progressive” and denies being a liberal. The progressives believe that only professional politicians should have a voice in how we run our government. The people should vote and then shut up and let them handle everything. The vote is viewed as being a mandate to do so.

On the other side of the fence we have a rich business man that says what ever comes to mind at the moment then, likely as not reverses himself the next day that has become the Republican presumptive nominee. This man has never puled more than roughly 35% of the vote in his primaries. If all of the primaries had been awarding delegates on a proportional basis instead of the all or nothing rule of so many, he would not even be that. And now we have many that have decided to attempt to nullify even the primaries decision.

Carroll Boston “Beau” Correll, a district-level delegate to the 2016 Republican National Convention, filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all the 49 Republican district delegates as well as the 110 Democrat delegates of Virginia. Correll firmly believes that Donald Trump is “unfit to serve” as President of the United States, and cannot bring himself to vote for Trump on the first ballot, or any subsequent ballots.  Correll filed the lawsuit in order to gain protection from any criminal charges since by not voting for Trump he will be in violation of Virginia state law, Section 545(D). Should this suit prevale, it would effectively nullify the Virginia primary results and give us 49 unbound delegates. That would also allow any other state’s delegates to file the same suit and prevail due to precedent law. Now there is a can of worms I am not sure we want to open.

Next we look at the divisiveness of the campaigns themselves. We had many factions at work this time. There were the populists supporting Trump- the constitutional conservatives supporting Cruz- the republican establishment supporting first Bush then Rubio- libertarians supporting Paul- a fraction of the conservatives behind Kasich- Social democrats following Sanders- the mainstream democrats pushing the Clinton campaign.

It has been a divisive and dirty campaign from day one. It has gotten even more so now that we have these “presumptive” winners. There was only one person that did not engage in the mud slinging- Senator Cruz. Even he got a little harsh when they attacked his wife. I, personally, can’t blame him for that.

Hillary has said so much that is simply and provably erroneous that she has lost much support due to that duplicity. Trump keeps changing his position on almost everything he has said The latest seems to be his backtracking on the exclusion of Muslim immigration. It now appears that he really didn’t mean ALL Muslims, just those that cannot be properly “vetted”. Who makes the call on what that word means he has not indicated. He has insulted Women, native Americans, blacks, Chinese, English and of course Muslims. OH. And anybody that disagrees with him. Going so far as to ask followers to “punch” one protester, offering to pay all legal fees for anyone that did.

OK you get the point. This campaign season has actually created a very large chasm in the body politic of our nation. It has gone a long way toward dividing our house against itself. Is there a solution that would work and is feasible? Many have been offered, but if you take a close look at them they each push a personal agenda also except for the “Can’t we all just get along?” crowd. Remember that word feasible? We have the “lets just follow the constitution” people. Probably the best one, yet it will never resonate with the “progressives”. They simply will not do that.

I do not have the answer. The only one that will work, I guess, is the Convention of States idea that terrifies the left so badly. The left calls it a “con-con. A Constitutional Convention to rewrite the constitution. It is not and never could be. Who actually believes that any state legislature would send commissioners to such a convention that would violate many laws passed by those same legislatures stating plainly that proposing amendments contrary to the topic of the convention would be a criminal or civil act and could land them in jail at worst, simply recalled and fired with prejudice at best. The main reason so many on the left fear this one is it proposes term limits which would fire all of the professionals in Government. Of Course there is also those amendments that would limit federal spending and limit the power of the federal government.

If you have a better solution to closing this chasm, please comment.

Just What is a Convention of States​?

There has been a lot of talk these last few years regarding a Convention of States. Many people have no idea what it is nor how it came to be about., so let’s talk about it. Let’s see if we can dispel the mists of ignorance surrounding this issue and discover the What, the Why and the How.
What is a Convention of States (COS) and how did it come into being?
The “Father of the Bill of Rights, one George Mason, a member of the Constitutional Convention, was the man that insisted that the mechanism for this right to amend the constitution be incorporated into the Constitution. He wrote Article V of that document and after much debate and some minor alteration, it was included in the final draft. Article V provides for the amending of the Constitution in two ways: 1. Congress can call for a convention to amend the constitution and this has been done several times including during the very first session of the American Congress: 2. the people, through their state legislatures, have the same right. The states may call for a convention to amend the constitution because Mason believed that the federal government would never act to curb its own power. It turns out he was both a fortuneteller and he was right.
Mason was also the instigator of the bill of rights movement. He had insisted that the brand new Constitution needed amending to include a Bill of Rights to protect the citizens.
James Madison obliged by writing those ten amendments we call our Bil of Rights. The senate called the convention during its very first session, as Article V specifies, and 75 % or more of the states ratified those ten to give us our codified rights. But, as is said, I digress.
Please note that there is no provision anywhere in the Constitution to call a CONSTITUTIONAL convention and none has been called since the one in 1787. That includes the one currently under discussion. It is called as a convention to amend not re-write.
How then, do the states go about calling for a COS? Here we get just a tad complicated. A convention of states requires that 2/3rds of the states make the call. In other words, of our 50 states 34 of them must agree to call a convention or it will not happen. Period. If they do agree to call a convention into being, the U.S. senate MUST set a time and place for the convention to be held. Note. The senate has no choice in the matter and they may not intervene nor interfere with the convention and they must set that time and place in a timely manner. The president nor any governor has any say what so ever. Not veto power here. There is only one small catch in this process. Every state must present the petition for a convention in exactly the same way with exactly the same wording. IF and when such a convention is called and any amendments are formulated and passed by that group there is one more major hurdle to be overcome before the amendments are actually added to the law of this land. The legislatures of ¾ or thirty eight of the states must ratify each one. The Founders of our nation endeavored to insure that any such a major undertaking be the actual will of the vast majority of the people. The current call for a convention of states could become the only one ever to take advantage of George Mason’s brain child so just what is its stated purpose? The convention the originators of this convention call intend that it be tightly focused on three compelling issues before our nation. Those three are:
1. To limit the power and authority of the federal government
2. To place fiscal restraints on the federal government
3. To limit the terms of government officials.
What do those actually imean? Could the convention call for an amendment that would require women to register for the draft? No. That would expand government power, not limit it. Keep in mind that any amendment proposed that does not follow the three intentions are not allowed and the states that have already passed this resolution have also enacted laws that would make even the attempt to do so a criminal act as well as the recall of the delegate (more properly called a Commissioner) and his/her replacement. OK how about limiting the authority of the regulatory agencies such as the IRS, the Department of Education and the Environment Protection agency, among so many more. The constitution clearly states in the very first line that Congress shall make all laws, yet that self same body has abrogated that responsibility to people that never have to answer to the people. These agencies have become the makers of their own laws , the enforcers of those laws and the executioners of those unconstitutional laws.
Number two is essentially intended to limit the ability to spend us into the poor house as so many liberal thinkers seem to demand and is actually happening this very minute. This could be done in a few ways such as enforcing a balanced budget and/or limiting increased spending. Perhaps putting a absolute cap on the amount of debt allowed by tying it to well defined percentage of the GNP. Better minds than mine will figure all of the details.
The third goal is a bold statement to return the federal government to the people by eliminating the career politician. Those people that spend more of their time getting re-elected than they do on fulfilling the promises they made and making sure any laws they pass are in strict accordance with the constitution. This is intended to place term limits on those nine unelected people in black robes so we can have some sanity in the judiciary. The constitutional limitation “upon good behavior” is not working because those professional politicians will not and do not use that to remove judges that go against the very wording in the constitution. In today’s world they even change the wording of any law they choose to make it fit what they, those nine unelected judges, desire. Note the ruling on the Affordable Care Act, commonly called Obamacare.
What are the arguments against? No one seems to disagree with the aims set forth, but they do have concerns and objections. Among them is the fear that the convention will become a constitutional convention, a so called con con. This one is fallacious on the face of it if you actually know the rules set up and the manner that the prevention of that very thing has been addressed. There are rules in place and more being studied that would make this impossible. Think about it. Just the fact that 38 states have to ratify each amendment makes this one so unlikely as to be ludicrous. Then there are the criminal penalties any commissioner would face just for advancing the idea. You might even want to consider the thought processes of people attending such an event. These people are , by definition, patriots. Then there are the “It would be a runaway convention! There would be amendments proposed that would be outside the stated scope ”. These same facts are there to prevent that one.
Yes, I believe that this country is in trouble and that the ONLY way we can fix it is to call this convention. I even go so far as to state that those who oppose it are one of two types: they are either liberals who want to see much more government control of our lives or they are ignorant of the fail safes both inherent and incorporated.

What is a Conservative?

What Is a Conservative?

The first task we face when discussing Conservatism is the definition of terms. What defines a conservative? It seems this definition is rapidly changing with time. Way back when Reagan was a democrat, conservatism was defined as the strict adherence to the words and ideals of the constitution. The liberal was one who believed in the constitution, but felt that it should be interpreted to fit the modern cultural values.

The democrats (liberals from here on) have taken the stance that the constitution is just an old document with a lot of meaningless words. The tenth amendment, for one instance, should never be a blockade to giving the people all the free stuff they want. The second amendment does really say that citizens have a right to their guns. Well, maybe a musket or two. They hold these truths to be self evident, that bigger government is better government. That the government’s purpose is to perpetuate their power and to serve the interests of big business.

So what does being “conservative” mean? That word has a lot of definitions these days. If you are a Libertarian, it means very small government as it does to most traditional conservatives, but it also means isolationism. They believe we should not be involved anywhere in the world except here at home.

To the mainstream Republican it appears to mean if you are a registered Republican you are, by definition, conservative regardless of what government you have or vote for. Government sponsored health care is OK even though it is in violation of both the commerce clause in the constitution and the tenth Amendment. It has come to mean that government sponsored abortion is OK in some few special cases. As I write this, the Republican presumptive nominee for president believes that a person’s self determination of gender is paramount, regardless of what God has given them and the rest of us must conform to that minuscule minority’s beliefs.The liberals seem to feel that the founders oft stated belief in God and the freedom of religion actually means the freedom From religion and the rest of us should just keep our religious beliefs to ourselves. God help the idiot that actually speaks in public about freedom >b>of religion.

Our founding fathers wrote some immortal words in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” I will discuss only one of those “self evident truths,” Liberty. Liberty is defined by Merriam-Webster as “1 : the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice.” They went on to codify that in the constitution they wrote in 1779.

To tea party members, for the most part, it means adherence to the constitution and keeping the federal government out of our lives and businesses. That means, among many other things, the tenth amendment, the second amendment both mean exactly what they say.

The above paragraph uses the comma phrase ‘for the most part’ when discussing the tea party philosophy. There was a time when that caveat would not have been necessary. Today, however, the Tea Party is an idea that has spawned many tea party offshoots with little or no bond to that original intent. Notice I use Caps to discuss the original Tea Party. That will be my method of delineating those groups actually affiliated and adherents to the original Tea Party national organization. That concept has become multiple fractured

Conservative is defined in so many ways today it is impossible to define except in terms of a person’s own ideology. My definition holds for me. That definition is simple. The constitution is the supreme law of the land and any who seek to destroy it are, by definition, criminals.

Why?

Why?

I had an interesting question asked of me by a friend last night. Why am I so adamantly and passionately supporting Cruz and equally adamantly and passionately opposed to Trump and his political sister, Hillary?
A great part of the answer revolves around the country I grew up in. You see I grew up in a country that respected the rights of others. Where the phrase “my rights end at the start of your nose,” actually meant something. A country that respected the right of a person to run his or her own business and if he/she put in place a policy that I didn’t agree with, it as my right not to patronize him and urge others to do the same.
The country I grew up in had no tolerance for a supreme court that ignored the constitution and wrote their own laws. The constitution was the SUPREME law of the land, not groups of unelected bureaucrats and Judges that made it up as they went along. My country thought that the Declaration of Independence was almost sacred. When it said – “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR …” it meant something. I meant that this was a country founded on the rights of the individual as granted by God, not men.
I have lost my country. A country whose uniform I proudly wore and to whom I swore the oath to defend the constitution and my country against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. Nobody, including me, has ever said “that’s OK, Rick, you don’t have to hold to that oath anymore. Just forget it.”
Now I find that there is an election that has many people running that honestly believe that Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States are just old pieces of paper that need to be forgotten and ignored. That the reasons this country was founded on individual liberty and a trust in God is no longer pertinent to our lives and certainly not something our government should have any concern for. Mr. Trump has said the following and though I may paraphrase the concepts are identical:
1> I don’t think I have ever asked God for forgiveness. I trust in my own judgment about right and wrong.
2> If a man thinks he is a woman he should be allowed to be in the bathroom our wives and daughter’s use.
3> I don’t need to follow the rules. The rules aren’t always things I agree with.
4> Wrote an entire book about how to con people and then uses those tactics while campaigning to be MY president.
5> Promotes violence within his own organization and among his followers.
Promises that if he is not the nominee there will be riots in the streets across our land.
6> Cannot tolerate any form of disagreement.
7> Is afraid to meet his opponent in a head to head debate even when openly challenged to do so.
8> Believes the rules should be changed to fit his own personal definition of “fair” even though some of those rules have been in place long before he decided to run and all have been in place before this campaign began.
9> When asked about the Convention of States project he reportedly replied “What’s that?”

There is one person in this race that has a lifelong history of standing for the constitution and the people of this land. He has openly opposed those who would and do denigrate the supreme law of this country. He even had that constitution memorized before he graduated form high school. He has stood on the floor of he senate and correctly identified the leader of the senate of lying and took heat for it! He has proposed bill after bill that would curb the power of the very body he was elected to in the face of those who forgot their promises the second they were sworn into office.
He has repeatedly stated that he wants to give me my country back to me.
I ask you – How can I not support him?

Should Islam be Considered a Religion in America?

This is a question being pondered by many in our country today. The subject logically begins with the definition of the word religion. Then, if it should not be called a religion, why and how come into immediate play?
How does one define the word religion? Merriam Webster says this: “: the belief in a god or in a group of gods : an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods.“ That might be a little simplistic for our purposes. That definition allows any group, large or small, to declare that they are following a religion for for any sensical or nonsensical reason. Even the constitution or at least the patriot papers and the founding fathers put limits on religion and its practices. Using religion to justify human sacrifice and you still face the death penalty. Using religion to start riots used to be considered against the law though you have to wonder these days.
Let us then, look at a definition that the founding fathers might have had in mind when they wrote the first amendment granting that “Congress shall make no laws respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, …” (pardon the aside here, but notice that it is very specific in saying that Congress, shall pass no law establishing a religion. Doesn’t say a word about praying at a football game or before a government body conducts business.) That definition might well be considered in today’s world, as well as yesterdays, as one which accepts the precepts of the Judeo-Christian ethic. In other words the respecting of life. Human life most of all. The phrase ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ comes to mind. Though it is not in the Christian or Jewish holy scripture nor any religion’s defining document it is perceived as the fundamental law of ethical life.
Ethical. An interesting word. Also the word ethos fits here. Ethical is defined as ‘involving or expressing moral approval or disapproval conforming to accepted standards of conduct ‘ and ethos as ‘the distinguishing character, sentiment, moral nature, or guiding beliefs of a person, group, or institution.’ Somehow the philosophy of the so called Islamic faith just doesn’t seem to fit well.
I have trouble believing that they would find a “religion” that allows the killing of a woman for being raped or a person refusing to accept another religion, or made fun of your gods image as acceptable religious behavior.
Most, if not all, religions, with the exception of Islam, believe that life is sacred. Particularly human life. There are religions that take that reverence much further than we Christians do. The Hindus believe that even cows are sacred. The Shintu religion go so far as to actually have marriage ceremonies for rocks. They tie them together with ropes to signify that bond. Many religions ban the eating of meat. The point here is that all religions accept the fact that HUMAN life is sacred. It is not to be taken from anyone lightly. The first problem we face in this discussion therefore is the one of definition in the legal sense. I propose that a valid starting point would be: “Religion shall be defined by the United States of America as that purported religious believe(s) that holds life, particularly Human life, is a sacred thing and will not be taken without due process under American law. No other law of any nation or entity shall be entertained.” That should be easily understood by even those nine unelected people in black robes in D.C.
The next point is the how.
That one is easier said than done. Congress could and, indeed should, pass a law to this effect, but those nine unelected robed figures might strike it down. There is another sure way to do it. You need either congress to call a convention of the states and have 38 of them vote in favor of the amendment OR have 34 of the state legislatures call one with the 38 yea votes following. It then would become the undisputed law of this land. Enough said.
Comments of all kinds welcome and encouraged.

Conservative vs Liberal Values

Notice that the title does not refer to ‘Republican vs Democrat’. I find that there are many republicans that fit more into the liberal scheme of government and even some democrats that find comfort in the conservative view on many issues. Then there are the so called ‘moderates’. I find most of those are simply people that don’t know where they stand or are liberal on one issue and conservative on another .
Let us discuss the voter ID an election fraud issue for a moment. That election fraud exists is not up for debate. It is a proven fact and involves both of the two main parties. True, the most egregious cases seem to be on the liberal front porch, For confirmation of that just look at Pa, Mich., CA, FL, etc. in the last election.
How do we correct this situation? It seems tome to be quite simple. First a totally bi-partisan commission that thoroughly tests and vets voting machines. These test would be run immediately prior to any company being allowed to ship their machines to any voting district. This would be done on a a totally random basis with the machines selected for the tests chosen by an independent auditing agency not affiliated with any government agency or political organization. And it would be done an a minimum of 33% of those machines. Second would be Voter ID!
The liberals would have you believe that this would disenfranchise many of the minority and poor. I agree. It would prevent many minority voters that are not citizens from voting. That would be a good thing. The poor? This one I don’t understand. I am among the poorest in this nation. I am a registered voter and help many other people register to vote and obtain official picture IDs. There is no problem there that I can see. It will also prevent the deceased, the ones who have moved out of a particular district from having their votes input by less than scrupulous people and voters that vote more than once for any candidate(s). Obtaining a birth certificate is simply a matter of paying a very small fee to the state of your birth and having one mailed to you. This would also assure us that people running for office are citizens. The constitution grants us the right to vote with only two qualifying factors: You must be of a stated legal age and YOU MUST BE A CITIZEN. Now what is wrong with proving that you fulfil both of those requirements? You are already required to prove that you are of legal age, by the way.
Liberals are espousing the philosophy that the federal government has the right to know everything about you and to regulate your lives down to the smallest detail contrary to our “Supreme Law of the Land” also known as the Constitution of the United States and its amendments. Liberals consider this document as a guideline at best and simply an outdated piece of paper with some fancy words written down for some unknown reason.
Conservatives hold that document as almost sacred and necessary to the ideals and purposes of this nation. The stated purpose of the constitution is stated, in plain language needing no interpretation, in the preamble to that instrument of laws. It states: “We the People  of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
That’s it folks. It basically permits the Federal government to protect us from each other and foreign intervention. Everything else is left to the states and the people. The will to power by those in the federal government was even recognized and a way to provide restraints on those elected and unelected officials of our Government in Article V. Both the government and We The People can amend the constitution whenever the cultural paradigm changes from the time of writing and ratification of the constitution. They recognized that there would be unforeseen cultural changes that might require the constitution to be brought up to date and plug any holes to insure the basic rights are in danger as they are today.
Liberals don’t think that way. Conservatives do.
Liberals believe they have the right and the power to tell you how to run your lives regardless of the actual wording of the constitution. They believe that if they, the politicians, don’t like the way you are running your own business they have the right to step in and mandate how you will run your business. The case in point here is the obvious one of a business refusing service to anyone they so choose. It is their money and their livelihood at stake. If they make bad decisions they will not be in business long. It is called free enterprise and it was the prime mover in making this a once great nation. You have the right to refuse to serve anyone with blond hair, if you are stupid enough to do that. Should a request for service violate your sense of moral or religious or cultural beliefs you have the right to say no. I have the right to shop some place else. Free enterprise.
Liberals don’t think that way. Conservatives do.
Next time I will take on the so called “Fair Tax” bill that is circulating.
Please like and or comment. I have had my say, now it is your turn to become involved and engaged.

Exploring the Opposition to COS

(Convention of States)

There is growing opposition to the Convention of States project all across this land of ours. This project is one which deserves serious consideration as it has the potential to recreate the ‘Land of the Free” that has been eroded so severely in recent years. It is not a change, it is a buttress that plugs some rather large holes the original founders with all their genius simply could not foresee. So why the increasing opposition?

In the state of West Virginia passage of the resolution calling for an Article V convention was all but assured when it just fell apart. Senator Trump the Chair of the Judiciary committee in the senate that was the final step to having it presented to the floor for debate was one of the sponsors of the resolution. Then he suddenly decided to vote against it. Thus it failed in the senate after passing the house with a super majority.

I spoke with Senator Trump this morning on this issue. I identified myself as a blogger and asked the question concerning his reversal on the Article V. He told me that he became concerned with some of the things he had been told by the opponents and wanted further study of the issues involved. He also informed me that the passage of the Balanced Budget Amendment bill was a factor. He Informed me that he has received a large packet of information from Barbara Thomas, the current state director of the project for Convention of States and I sent him some other items. He stated that he was willing to be convinced. He even said that he did have some concerns about the federal overreach and ways to put an end to them. I was left with the definite impression that the issue will be revisited in the next session. I also got the impression that he is a concerned citizen and senator that has an open mind.

I would like to explore some of the reasons legislators have expressed to me in private conversations. As the state director of this organization, it was my job to get to know many of the legislators in our state. I took my volunteer job very seriously and was able to establish some good relationships. One of the concerns was the scope of the proposed convention. Even with the conscientious consideration given to that scope and the limiting of said scope it was felt to be too broad. The “runaway convention” kept showing up despite several factors that belied that possibility. I decided to look deeper. I learned, after the fact, that some legislators feared that amendments might come back to haunt them as state legislators. Term limits for one example.

Then there arose a suspicion that the national organization had a hidden agenda. This also might well be spurious, to be honest. What would any “hidden agenda” have to do with this project? The entire process is controlled by the state legislators. Once the resolution is presented to Congress, the national organization would have no say what-so-ever In the process. However, I had more than one legislator point to the somewhat Orwellian practices of that organization. They knew that the organization had taken over each states facebook pages to the point of refusing the state organization from even posting to that page. There is no law which even hints that private organizations must follow laws expressly intended for government. The 10th amendment. for instance does not and should not apply to private corporations. They must be allowed to operate in their own best interest, one thing the Article V convention seeks to reinforce.

Allow me to elaborate. When I resigned, I informed several legislators of my intention and that it was for reasons of health only. I attempted to keep them informed of our intention for a smooth transfer of that responsibility. Our state organization held conference calls each week to discuss our strategy and in one of those calls we discussed the person that would take the reigns. I personally asked our state Coalitions Director if she wanted the job and she said she didn’t think she would be the best choice and reiterated that during one of those calls for the entire team. One well qualified gentleman volunteered and was accepted by acclimation of the team. I asked him to apply and assumed it was a done deal. Then National stepped in and simply appointed the lady that didn’t want it. They went further and appointed a man that has proven to be extremely ineffective in the past. This man is an avowed republican that is not trusted even by the state party, according to a couple of county chairmen of my acquaintance and this is a non-partisan issue. This man was made the state legislative liaison supplanting the one we had who had become quite effective. He had not officially applied for that position, to my knowledge, any more than the new state director. This was seen as the national organization, that has no knowledge of our state’s body politic, declaring that “Big Brother knows best.” Some legislators felt this was ample reason for not trusting that organization. No, it doesn’t make sense to me, but that was and, perhaps, still is the perception.

Of course we must consider the strictly political opposition. Liberals simply don’t want the interference with their socialist ideals any such Article V convention would present. I must inform you that we had some Democrats support and even co-sponsor the resolution, but I am not sure they fit the mold of the modern day ‘liberal’.

Next is the passage of the resolution for a Balanced Budget Amendment Article V Convention by the legislature. This was a primary source of supporters in both houses which may well cost the COS project supporters in the next legislative session. We are in desperate need of a well thought out, effective educational plan and campaign for our legislators and the people of our state. This is something I have been developing for about a year now and am going to attempt to implement it in the near future with a few savvy acquaintances.

I am a staunch supporter and believer in the the crying need for a significant Article V convention; however, I fear that if there isn’t more recognition of each state’s Body Politic by both the national organization and their respective state organizations it will not happen soon.

A Little Common Sense

For the first time I will be posting the same commentaries to two of my own Blogs.

I am going to answer a recurring and spurious objection to the Article V convention and attempt to explain the necessity.

The objection usually points out that the federal government doesn’t follow the constitution now, why should they follow it after the convention? The misconception here is that we believe we can stop Obama. We don’t. I doubt that anyone can at this point when you consider the RINO support he is seeing. The whole point of the Article V is prevent future Obamas. How, you ask?

The answer to that is actually simple. We remove the factors that make it possible in the way the wording of the constitution currently exists. The answer lies in bringing the wording into the modern cultural paradigm as opposed to the one in which the founders worked. You see the founders could not envision that “politics” would become a path to immense wealth and power. Hamilton alludes to this in his Patriot Papers. They knew from their experience that people would seek election out of a sense of duty, fulfill that duty and go back to their private lives and more profitable jobs. They saw no need for term limits and probably never even considered such a measure. In their world it simply wasn’t necessary.

Today, in our culture, we have politicians winning elections based almost solely on their ability to raise money and/or from ineligible voters. Most, if not all spend many times the annual salary of the position they seek. Oh, it isn’t their money they spend. Heavens no. The money comes from special interest groups that have an agenda that may or may not be similar to what the people actually want. But then who cares about what the people want. It makes it impossible for the honest, hard working person to win an election. They just can’t afford to run. So we have the professional, career politician representing a few of the people. They can and do say anything they think you want to hear to get your vote knowing that they can ‘change their minds’ once in office and that the incumbent is the highly favored one in any race to election. I know. I know. That isn’t always true. On very rare occasions the people get mad and vote out incumbents.

Now we come to the crux of the amendment drive. Term limits. Voter ID. Limited government. Fiscal responsibility. Term limits would rid us of those self same professional politicians. If you aren’t able to make a career out of being a politician you move on to something a little more useful. And here I am talking not just of the elected ones, but the appointed ones also. Like the Supreme Court. Put in office by a bunch of self serving professional politicians For Life? Sorry, in todays world that just doesn’t make any sense.

The Constitution makes it plain that voters must be citizens it just doesn’t provide for making the voter prove that they are, in fact, citizens. It not only wasn’t necessary when the document was written. It was unnecessary. If you lived here in those days you were a citizen. If you were a black or a native or a woman you could not vote. We finally made some changes via the amendment process that changed that part. However back in the founders day there were no driver’s licenses or birth certificates or even government issued ID cards.

We have all heard the horror stories about voter fraud, Most recently in the presidential election of 2012. The main stream media would not even discuss the fact that there were entire counties across the nation that had no opposition parties that voted. Every single voter cast their ballot for B.O.H. 100% Now that is not only improbable, it is flat out impossible. Then you have politicians like Harry Reid. He has gone into election day behind in the poles for all but for his first election and goes on to win by a substantial margin. It is speculated that he receives more votes from dead people than live ones! I have no way of confirming that, but it wouldn’t surprise me. Democrats would have you believe that voter IDs would be discriminatory. It would disenfranchise many people. I spend a lot of my time each election cycle registering voters. That concept is just plain phony. There are dozes of ways to make sure every one that is a citizen and wants to vote are able to do so. But then if you invoke the law about only citizens voting you lose all of the illegal immigrants and the dead and the multiple voter from voting so in that area it certainly is discriminatory.

Fiscal responsibility is another bugaboo. We now have a national debt that consumes forty eight percent of the national income from our taxes just to pay the interest. Then there is social security. The money that the working stiff pays into that fund doesn’t go to pay for social security. It is ‘borrowed’ by congress and the loan has never been paid. This one is NOT an entitlement, folks. I was told when very young that my payment of that particular tax would guarantee me a certain amount of income upon reaching a certain age. In other words my money would be returned at least in part. Because of that borrowing the social Security Administration has to then borrow from other countries to make good on their word. That means we have to pay more interest on the new loan. A vicious circle. This one a simple balanced budget amendment may not be equal to solving.

Last and far from least is limiting government. The Preamble to the Constitution makes it quite plain that the federal government is actually quite limited. “ … establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity …” They are empowered to regulate actions between states, but not within any state border. Things like interstate commerce. That word interstate means between states. If a state can handle it the feds can’t. A little tweak to the welfare clause of the Constitution would eliminate things like denying mining permits and Obamacare to name only two. A cultural updating, not a rewrite. In simple language, if a state can do it, the feds can’t.

The Federal government is limited to providing for the establishment of the judicial system, provide the military for common defense, promote the general welfare and above all secure the liberty of the people.

I have reached my self imposed 1000 word limit. More next time. If you read it please comment.