Category Archives: Education

One Reason Liberty is Dying in America

There was a time in this country when personal liberty was the key to the entire philosophy of the United States of America. That philosophy no longer pertains. I think I have found the major reason for that and I would like you to begin consider the ramifications as well as the cause.

It is reasonable to state that it really began to take hold in this country with Teddy Roosevelt, who told the nation during a July Fourth speech that we should ignore the preamble to the Declaration of Independence the very thing the Fourth of July, Independence Day as it used to be called, was celebrating. He was followed in the presidency by one Woodrow Wilson. Now he went a little further by declaring that the president had a “mandate” by virtue of the fact that he won the election, to be the “Leader and sole representative of the people.” In other words, he believed the President should be acknowledged as the Sovereign of the government. This has reached its ultimate goal in Barack H. Obama, our Sovereign.

OK, that is how it all started. How did we let it happen? Ahh, to paraphrase Shakespeare, there’s the rub.

This country was founded upon the principle of freedom that comes from the acceptance of responsibility. This thought is found in many forms in the founders explanation of the constitution, the Patriot Papers. Just what is this “acceptance of responsibility” that I find so important and why is it important?

The founders truly believed that freedom, while granted by God, would never be easy to maintain. There would be a cost and that cost would be the responsibility to work to keep it. How, you might well ask? It is very simple to put into words and, for some, so difficult to do. You must accept the responsibility for yourself. And and all of your actions. You must never allow others to absolve you of that responsibility. If you want material wealth, go out and earn it. If you want political freedom, fight to protect it even when your neighbor tells you that the government will do all of that for you. They won’t and never can.

The premier promulgator of “progressive philosophy” was a man named John Dewey, 1859-1952. Dr. Dewey published many things from books to scholarly papers espousing his philosophy. He believed that no person was ‘born free’. He had to be made that way and protected in that condition by government. The government must begin this process in a person’s very earliest stages of life with an education system that taught him how to think of government and his/her own position in the scheme of things. The must be taught that it is the government’s responsibility to assure that your “freedoms and equality” are protected. Does your neighbor have more land than you? The government is required to take some of that land and give it to you, his less fortunate (Read lazier) neighbor. The government must create equality since it does not exist in any natural state as the Declaration of Independence so beautifully states. It was his teachings that led to Teddy Roosevelt to tell the American people in an Independence Day, now simply the fourth of July, speech that we should just ignore the preamble to that seminal document of our nation.

Please don’t get the idea that progressive philosophy began with Dr. Dewey. That has been around for a long, long time. It has failed every time it has been tried, from late Rome to England prior to the Magna Carta in 1215. His educational philosophy was formulated while studying for his PhD at Johns Hopkins University, the original progressive University in this country.
So now we have intelligent, but under educated children and University Chancellors both decrying the first amendment and denying its practice on their campuses. We have a federal government attempting to criminalize dissent as in the scientific thought on the bogus climate change agenda of the current administration.

The reason Liberty is dying in America? Because the liberals and the progressives say that it must. For our own protection. I say to them … Please don’t protect me from myself! Please don’t protect me from my natural equality and require me to have your version of equality.


Why Liberals Want to Destroy the Middle Class

Why would the liberals in government want to destroy the middle class in America? At first glance that seems just plain stupid and without reason. However, at second glance it actually makes sense from their perspective. What happens when you destroy the middle class in a modern society? You end up with a small, but extremely wealthy elite and a massive, dependent lower class.

That Lower class is dependent because you have destroyed all or most of the jobs with decent wages by sending them over seas or importing workers that can be trained to do them for less money. A lot less. That lower class is now dependent on the government to provide. That means PROVIDE. Food, clothing, shelter and the occasional ‘luxury’ item. By luxury, in this context, I mean a movie or a couple extra cases of beer. And of course drugs, like marijuana, to keep the masses content.

Of course you need to dumb down the people and put them in a position where they cannot compete in the world market any more. Institute things like control of school curriculum and being sure to teach those things that will make them even more non competitive. How about we change the way math is done? Change the actual working in math into a method that is incomprehensible to the rest of the world! That will work! Then we need to get rid of the arts. Remove band and choir from all secondary schools. See to it that the schools done have the finances to fund art and music. Be sure to change the way and the content of history classes. Divide the country into cultural divisions with their own language so they can’t communicate with each other. This will cut down on the possibility of beneficial cultural exchanges. Keep the people from realizing what is happening to their country.

The result is you have a wealthy class that pays all of the bills, and of course you borrow until no one will accept your credit any more. Now you have a mass of people so dumbed down and trained to be lazy so they continue to vote for the ones with the handouts. This way the liberals have a strangle hold on power AND wealth. What more could anyone ask for?

Now, how do you get all of this power? Well, you organize the votes. Now I didn’t say voters, because that just might not work. You have to have people vote using the names of dead people that haven’t been removed from the rolls. You use threats of violence to prevent people from voting so you have entire counties that don’t have any opposition votes to count. Yeah, I know this is already happening. Pennsylvania in the last election is but one shining example. There are many others from the last two elections. Of course you must demonize any thought of requiring proof of citizenship via honest voter identification. This is essential. If you can get this done then all of the people you allow to break the laws of the land and enter this country illegally vote, illegally, the way you tell or pay them.

The tyrannical leaders of the house and senate have the ability to prevent any bill from reaching the floor for open debate that they fear will or could limit the speed with which their goals are achieved. If they can do these things then they can shrug off an executive branch that ignores both the congress and the constitution. The can then break or create any laws they so desire and spend more days on the golf links than many professionals while doing it.

There is more to this such as the Muslim jihad, the roll of ISIS and sharia law, but we will discuss those in another blog.


Elected Official vs Citizen

Elected Official vs Citizen

There is a power struggle in this country and I believe the Conservatives are fighting the wrong battles. Let us look at the primary concern of the Conservative citizen. It can be stated in a simple phrase – Constitutional Freedom. Then there is the primary concern of the elected official. To be re-elected. To remain in power. We conservatives too often forget that in our strategies. One prevailing definition of the liberal philosophy can be concisely stated as “Moochers electing looters to steal from producers”. Now let’s think about the mind set of of the citizen liberals and how it came about. Those of you over forty or so can probably remember a time when the primary concern of everybody was providing for the family. Even beyond the family. We didn’t go around looking for people to help us, we went around looking for people to help. Being forced to take ‘charity’ was something to shame a family. Helping each other out in times of need was not charity. It was part of the ‘you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours’ philosophy.

I know this began to change when Woodrow Wilson was elected in 1938, but it hadn’t taken a firm hold on the most of the people for a couple of generations. By then we had the Roosevelts with the “New Deal” and so on. But the real rapid change came with the federal government intrusion into the local classroom. The beginning of the indoctrination of children into the idea that the government should provide more for the people. And we have the beginning of the welfare state, but more importantly, the start of the welfare mind set in the lazier of our citizens. This soon began to take over the mind set of many more than just the inherently lazy. The people that saw the government largess going to the undeserving decided they wanted in on the deal.

OK How does all of this tie into the elected official? Those stalwarts saw an opportunity to establish personal fortunes and more importantly grab huge amounts of power. They could assure themselves minimum work, high paying jobs for longer periods by taking from all the people and then giving it back to some of them. Obviously taxes and spending had to go up, but so what? We had the strongest, richest economy in the world! Never mind how we got there, surely it could withstand the federal onslaught of a few extra taxes and just a little more inflation. How about a minimum wage? That would help for a while. At least until the cost of goods rose so the country’s employers could recoup the extra burden placed upon them. Didn’t take all that long for that to happen so every few years the liberals ‘boost the economy with a new minimum wage law. Of course the people would only see that they were taking home more income thanks to those marvelous people they had elected. Why, of course they deserved to vote themselves a pay increase!

Now they (those elected officials) knew they were on to something. Shucks, they couldn’t even begin to understand the growing concern of those stupid Republicans who insisted they were not doing the right thing. Why care about the right thing when the elections were what really mattered. Get more power every time you got reelected! Committee chairmanships! Select committees that got the media’s attention thus got them free advertising. Circulation went up and the media moguls saw the bottom line go up when they supported this stupidity. Who cares about the Constitution when money and power are at stake?

And so the great divide began. We had a division of power in the the very houses of government that were supposed to be unified in obeying the Law of the land, The Constitution of the United States. Now we didn’t just have the two party system we had a four or fice or six party system. There were the normal Democrats and Republicans with the conservatives in both and the liberals in both and now the Ultras on both sides that try to take everything to the extreme.

I began this blog with the suggestion that the conservatives were fighting the wrong battles. Now I that have attempted to explain how we got here let’s see if I can find a way back to fundamental freedom and self reliance that made us the richest most powerful country on this woebegone planet. That is, I admit, a tough job. First we have to understand how our freedoms are being usurped.

With the obvious exception of the pathological narcissist tyrant and his self admitted fascist agenda that sits in the Oval Office, the legislature and the Supreme Court have scrupulously avoided violating the Constitution. Don’t get me wrong there has been some creative interpretation of that sacred document, but no violation. Congress, for the most part, seems content to ignore the violent and constant violation of that tyrant I mentioned, but they have not done anything to violate the constitution. They have tried. I will mention the gun control attempts for example, but that didn’t get very far on the national level. So the Constitution seems to hold up, again for the most part. We do need to plug some holes. The welfare clause needs to be tightened up. Just adding a phrase similar to ‘if the states can do it the feds can’t’ would be sufficient. That would end obamacare, etc. Of course we need to educate the people. Now I mean educate, not rant! We have some very good minds in our midst that could suggest how we circumvent the lame stream media with success. Put ’em to use.

We already have a single payor insurance system that the government has been running for years. Ask any vet how he/she likes it. But be prepared for a long listening period. What in the hell would allow anyone that is familiar with that snafu to believe the government could run our entire health care system. BUT … the average citizen is not aware of that boondoggle. So educate them. Don’t rant. Raise he minimum wage? Educate about the inflationary costs of that stupidity. It would help the government collect more taxes from the poor.

There are many areas in which the conservative groups are stubbing their own toes. Don’t believe me? Look at the election results and a host of other indicators. I certainly don’t have all of the answers, but I can read critically and make a real try to understand my fellow man.

I try to keep these blogs around 1000 words because I know the attention span is limited for many in this day and I have now gone over that, so let me write a finis to this one. If I get any feed back indicating the desire for more on this subject I will continue with another post.


The Meaning of Freedom

For our purposes the word Freedom has three definitions according to Webster:

1. exemption from external control, interference, regulation, etc.

                2. the power to determine action without restraint.

   3. personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery: a slave who bought his freedom.

It quickly becomes apparent that the word freedom is often dependent upon the modifier attached. Our modifiers are the word personal and the word Constitutional.

Personal freedom. Personal freedom must be interpreted in the context of the society in which it is granted and assumed. Our personal freedom comes from God first and the Constitution second. We all know that Gods freedom encompasses many things, but that it includes some caveats. Those caveats are called the ten commandments. Have you ever noticed that the ten commandments are all about things God forbids? God tells us that our freedom is limited to ourselves. Our actions may not limit the actions of others or cause them harm or even discomfort. In other words, God’s freedom comes with obvious responsibilities and duties.

So does Constitutional freedom. The Constitutional freedoms come with their own set of caveats. It requires you to be a citizen for instance. It grants you the power of the vote which comes with its own little duty. Education. The implication is that each citizen will prepare to vote by educating his or her self on the person or issue to be voted upon. If you are a conservative and listen or read only the conservative side you are not an educated voter. The same goes for the liberal side. Both are very biased in this day. You need to listen to both Fox and ABC type of ‘news’ as each has a kernel of the truth in them (granted some times it is hard to find). I am obviously a conservative; however, I like to think that I have the ability to think and reason.

The Constitution gives us the basic law of the land in simple, though antiquated language. What can be more simple than things like the Second Amendment with its 27 words in plain English. Each article and the Bill of Rights amendments takes less words than any law enacted by Congress because there are no ‘caveats’ in most cases. There are implied caveats. You are supposed to have freedom of speech, but hot the freedom to shout fire in a crowed building. You have the right to own things, but not the right to steal property of others. You have the right to own a gun, but not the right to use it against your neighbor unless your own or your family’s life is in mortal danger. You have the right to travel, but you need another country’s permission to transgress on their soil. You have the right to believe as you see fit, but not to force your belief system on others. You have the right to criticize, but others have the same unfettered right to criticize your words and actions. You have the right to date whom you chose, but God says you do not have the right to date your another’s spouse. The list goes on. For each right there is a concomitant responsibility.

Here is what our government and many of the people of this land now ignore. The responsibility that goes with freedom. The government has no right to impose upon you and restrictions other than those the Constitution assigns them. They actually have no ‘right’ to allow people into this country without following the process set down by law. They have no ‘right’ limit your choice of personal defense weapons. WMDs? Of course you can’t own those. Semi-automatic rifles with 30 round clips? It is your implied and stated right to own any reasonable self defense weapon. Thomas Jefferson said this of the second amendment: “The beauty of the second amendment is that it won’t be needed until they try to take it.”


SCOUS Justice Scalia said it best. The Constitution is not a “living” document. It is the law and means just what it meant when it was enacted.

It comes down to this: Both God and man grant you rights and both God and man delineate the limits to those rights. They are not unfettered. You have responsibilities. Now get off your duff and exercise the only option you have to keep and/or restore those rights. Vote with intelligence. In every election.


Why I am a strict constructionist

Why I Am A Strict Constructionist

Chapter One

A strict constructionist of the constitution is one that holds the Constitution of the land to be the law. Speaking at the University of Tennessee College of Law, the longest-serving justice currently on the bench SCOTUS Justice Scalia observed, “The Constitution is not a living organism for Pete’s sake, it’s a law. It means what it meant when it was adopted.” Since Article V of that document gives us two ways to amend the constitution, one by the people and one by the congress, congress has used that power many times and some of those time it was to serve their own ends. They have used it as a means to increase their power. And they have couched those moves in popularly acceptable terms. Let’s take a look at one of those power grabs as an example, the 17th amendment. That amendment is:

AMENDMENT XVII Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.

Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

Article I. Section 3, paragraph 1 states 1:  The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof,3  for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

OK that’s it for preamble except to say that it becomes apparent the way this campaign was set up. The congress simply wanted the people at large to popularly vote for their senators. Why wasn’t the Constitution set up this way in the beginning. Trust me the founding fathers were very intelligent and used this as one method of their ‘checks and balances’ government. I asked Barbara Thomas, a very intelligent lady, that has worked with me on projects of a political and semi political nature before, to write an essay for this blog. Her research is valid and her comments are cogent. I offer her comments without edits.

Three branches of government were established, executive, legislative and judicial. All have designated powers to check the powers of the others. Article One of the US Constitution established the legislative branch, or Congress. This branch of government contains the Senate and the House of Representatives. This is the largest and originally the most important branch of government. Here was the first lines of defense against majority tyranny, an overaggressive government and factions, “a number of citizens… who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion or interest adverse to the rights of other citizens or to the permanent and aggregate interest of the community” as defined in Federalist Paper 10 by James Madison. The 17th Amendment completely amended the balance established and intent of the US Constitution.

The nature of man and the laws of nature and of nature’s God were very apparent to our founding fathers and the general public. They knew man could be selfish and self centered, his very nature compelled him to this. They had faith man could be selfless and compassionate, through the exercise of free religion and the study of moral teachings.

A Republic, if we can keep it.” Benjamin Franklin, 1787, after the Constitutional Convention

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton 1887

These two simple statements give us insight into the wisdom and knowledge of human frailties acknowledged by our forefathers.

Every branch of our Republic is a delicate balance between nationalism and federalism. In Congress, The House of Representatives would receive its power from the people (national). The Senate would derive its power from the States as political and coequal societies (federal). In the executive branch, the popular vote every fourth November is nationalism, and the Electoral College is federalism. Even Article V of the US Constitution is a combination of nationalism and federalism.

Our Congress was established to serve a large and growing nation, a delicate balance of power between the states and the people, between federalism and nationalism. Our Founders realizing issues of great magnitude would need to be decided by future generations of states and citizens. A balance of power between the two was necessary.

The House of Representatives is to represent the populace’s interests. The mood of the people is fickle and emotional, human nature dictates and our forefathers knew this. So, it was decided members of the House would serve two-year terms to represent the constantly changing moods of the people. It would be the originators of all revenue raising bills. So, if the peoples’ representatives did not want to raise taxes, they would not be raised, helping to limit the size of government.

The Senate is to represent the interest of the states. The needs of the states are more business driven. The states have short and long term budgets. They have their state constitutions and state mandates to consider. Their goals are budgetary and financially driven, therefore the states would appoint for six-year terms, senators to represent their interests. Most people do not know or remember all of the bad votes a senator can cast in a six-year period. Elected state officials would follow the voting record of senators and would hold them accountable. Senators who vote for legislation that effects the states’ bottom lines could loose their appointment.

This balance of power in the Congress would keep the legislation passed from this branch more focused and less intrusive, since the process would be very slow and arduous, legal issues would be more readily challenged as the Senate fought with the House each to protect their constituents’ interests. The House focused on the mood of the people and individual rights and the Senate on the budgets and long term goals of the states.

Our states are small laboratories in our great republic. Our states are also granted every power not specifically granted to the federal government by our US Constitution, 10th Amendment. Our states are closer and hence more accountable to the citizens. We have many options available to effect change in our state governments, from ‘voting with our feet’ to loving our state so much we effectively change it through elections and legislation. This point is mute to Article One of the US Constitution, but made relevant by the progressive argument that follows.

In 1912, a progressive movement convinced the public to upset the balance in the Congress, by changing the appointment of senators by the state governments into a popularity vote similar to the elections of the representatives in the House. They argued that corrupt state governments would keep the people from being aptly represented in Congress by appointing senators that the people did not like nor actively elect. When in fact, the progressives knew that the delicate balance of power in Congress would collapse with the deletion of the federal check in the Congress. The nationalism would slowly turn our Republic; our US Constitution would slowly begin to fail. They used the emotional public to turn the vision of our forefathers against us. They knew the general populace would be engaged in their day to day lives and they would not follow the state and national issues; they would not have time. The progressive movement convinced humanity we had moved beyond human nature and people could control their base desires and drives so balance in Congress was not necessary. The people could get what they want faster if all of Congress was held to the whims of the people. The people foolishly believed them. This process opened the door for majority tyrannies and factions into our Republic.

Fortunately, our forefathers also gave us the route to change our minds. We can repeal the 17th Amendment and reverse course. It can read as simply as ‘Repeal the 17th Amendment’. No further guidance would be necessary. The next time a senator came to the end of his term, he would either be re-appointed or replaced by his/her state.

Our federal government was designed to be a slow moving almost stagnant governing body. It should not be involved in our day to day lives. The natural checks and balances have been severely diminished by the passage of the 17th Amendment, a majority tyranny has been established while factions have been invading our country. Too many laws have been passed in the last 100 years by the federal government that could not have been imagined by our forefathers, and I feel would not have been passed had the balance of powers in Congress not been changed by the 17th Amendment over 100 years ago.




The Purpose of Government

The Purpose of Government

I had promised you that my next blog would be about the democrat ‘White Paper’ defending that abomination called the Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare.

That isn’t going to happen. I will post that blog, but at a later date.

Today I want to briefly discuss the purpose of Government as our founding fathers and many of our current citizens intend it should be. The first point is the purpose of the constitution.

When you read the constitution, really read it, it is easy to see that our government was intended to serve its citizens. It was never intended that the citizens should serve the government. So, the Constitution was not written to reign in the behavior of the people, but rather to restrain the behavior of their government. The proof of this is rampant in every article of the constitution and in the Bill of Rights. There are so many examples I don’t really know where to start much less where to stop. The Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” Our politicians have either forgotten that or are so enamoured with their own power they just don’t care.

One of the beauties of the constitution and the bill of rights is their simplicity. Short and to the point.  Many of the amendments are one simple sentence just like the Tenth. Try the Second Amendment: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”. Take a look at that second comma phrase – “… being necessary to the security of a free state, …”. Not much ambiguity there.

I often quote Thomas Jefferson as he said so much that reflected the purpose and vision of his contemporaries regarding that amazing document – our constitution. Here are two things he said; “When Government fears the people there is liberty.  When the people fear the government there is tyranny.”

Thomas Jefferson

And “What Country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance.”

Thomas Jefferson

Those quotes might be better served if they were carved in stone and irrevocably attached to each legislators desk. Then there was Noah Webster saying “If the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted … If a republican government fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the citizens neglect the Divine commands and elect bad men to make and administer the laws.”  Kind of sounds like todays government, doesn’t?

I refer you to the Federalist Papers number one page one written by Alexander Hamilton (No, T Jefferson didn’t write any of them) when he begins by defining the purpose of the then proposed constitution.

At the risk of repeating myself – the Constitution was not written to reign in the behavior of the people, but rather to restrain the behavior of their government.


The Convention of States project

      You know that I am deeply involved in the non-partisan Convention of States projects from my other posts.  Today I would like to re post a blog written by Bob Menges.  I  Strongly suggest you read his blog and tour his site for even more information.  The link to his site:


The 226 Year Old Message From Col. George Mason

Permit me to share a very Important Constitutional history lesson with you. The delegates to the Constitutional Convention had been going over every section of every article in the final months of the Convention in 1787. 226 years ago, on a Saturday, just two days before the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia completed its work, we find a gem in the notes of James Madison, who took extensive notes just about every day of the convention. This item that I refer to as a “gem” is little known and hardly talked about today. On September 15, 1787, George Mason of Virginia (referred to in Madison’s notes as Col Mason), was alarmed that in the text of Article V (the provision for making Amendments to the Constitution), Congress would have sole power to propose amendments; Mason insisted, as he did earlier in June, that the states have authority to call for conventions. Mason explained that an oppressive Congress would never agree to propose amendments necessary to restrain a rogue, tyrannical legislature. “Col: MASON thought the plan of amending the Constitution exceptionable & dangerous. As the proposing of amendments is in both the modes to depend, in the first immediately, in the second, ultimately, on Congress, no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive, as he verily believed would be the case.” (See Madison’s notes 15 Sep 1787).

To make sense of that, you must understand that earlier in the summer when the issue of even having an Amendment process was first brought up as a provision in the Constitution, many of the delegates thought it unnecessary. Madison’s notes record the following on June 11th: “Col. MASON urged the necessity of such a provision [Amendments]. The plan now to be formed will certainly be defective, as the Confederation has been found on trial to be. Amendments therefore will be necessary, and it will be better to provide for them, in an easy, regular and Constitutional way than to trust to chance and violence. It would be improper to require the consent of the Natl. Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent on that very account…”.

By the time the convention reached its final days in mid September, the Amendment provision had been added as Article V, and the provision had two methods; the national legislature (Congress) could propose Amendments and Congress could call for a Convention of States for the purpose of proposing amendments. However, both methods were left in the hands (power) of the national legislature, that’s what Mason meant when he referred in the first quote above as “both the modes to depend, in the first immediately, in the second, ultimately, on Congress”. Mason had objected to this back in June and now as the convention drew to a close, he rose to his feet to forcefully object with his reasons stated above (“It would be improper to require the consent of the Natl. Legislature, because they may abuse their power, and refuse their consent on that very account”). Madison’s notes of 15 Sept tell us that Mason’s motion was accepted and the language was changed in order to require [mandate] Congress to call a convention upon application of 2/3 of the states.

It is noteworthy to point out that this process does not call for a Constitutional Convention; the language specifies calling a convention for the purpose of “proposing amendments”…to the existing Constitution…it would still require 3/4ths of the states (38) to ratify any amendment proposed in this convention.

We owe George Mason and the other framers a huge debt for this…they had the foresight to understand first of all, that we needed an orderly process in which to amend our Constitution (“regular and Constitutional way than to trust to chance and violence” – Mason 11 June). Secondly we owe them a huge debt for recognizing and understanding the depravity of man and the extremely intoxicating effects of years of power in the hands of the same people (hence a need for term limits) and that these power intoxicated occupants of the United States Congress would “abuse their power, and refuse their consent” (Mason 11 June) to any amendments that would “injure” themselves and return powers never intended for the national legislature or any of the other branches for that matter, they would never take steps to return that power on their own to the rightful owner, the states/people (“no amendments of the proper kind would ever be obtained by the people, if the Government should become oppressive” – Mason 15 Sep).

The least we can do as citizens of this great nation today, citizens that do not seem to want to be bothered with taking the time to understand the underpinnings of their liberty, the least we can do is take the time to understand what the framers of this amazing document did for us. When the framers agreed on September 15th, 1787 to change the text in Article V, they in effect were telegraphing a message to us in 2013, a message to us showing us the way back inside the fence of the Constitution, a way back to what Thomas Jefferson called the “chains of the Constitution”.

What Can You Do?

Educating the Uneducated

Educating the Uneducated


Obamacare is revealing just how unaffordable the ‘Affordable Care Act’ is and the Democrats are STILL not willing to negotiate.  Obama knows the midterm election hangs on this one issue.  The people are learning that this abomination is going to cost them much more than most can afford and he remains intransigent.  The question is why?

It all goes back to the man’s personality profile.  He is a pathological narcissist as declared by a minimum of four world class psychologists and psychiatrists of which I am aware.  So just what is a pathological narcissist?  The best definition I have found reads: Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder in which the individual is described as being excessively preoccupied with issues of personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity. This condition affects one percent of the population. First formulated in 1968, it was historically called megalomania, and is severe egocentrism.

You see he actually believes, like Stalin and Hitler, that he cannot be wrong and there is no amount of evidence that can change that.

The undereducated voter is now learning what that means to their personal financial well being.  One lady on the government’s face book page had this to say and I quote from a Tea Party news post: A single mother of two said she is in school and working full-time while living “75% below the poverty level.” She said she was shocked to learn she did not qualify for a healthcare subsidy. “Are you F’ing kidding me????” she wrote on the government’s Obamacare Facebook page. “Where the HELL am I supposed to get $3,000 more a year to pay for this ‘bronze’ health insurance plan!?!??? And I DO NOT EVEN WANT INSURANCE to begin with!! This is frightening,” she wrote. End quote.

My research, which is far from complete shows that there are now more than 3 million people in this country that have had their work hours reduced in direct response to the coming of this law.  Several companies have closed their doors and I have read the comments of five business owners that were in the process of expanding their businesses who actually cut back and is today even smaller, not larger.  Why?  They found out the cost of the insurance they would be forced to buy would be prohibitive.  One of these is a lady in SC that had dug herself out of poverty and off the welfare roles with a small business that had grown to the point of providing incomes for her own and fifty one other families.  She was elated to learn that she had been approved for a loan to expand and located a new location so that she could double her employees and probably her own income.  Then she found out the cost of The Affordable Care Act and its effect on her plans.  She was forced to not only forgo her expansion, but actually to reduce her work force by two to get under the act’s trigger point and save her existing business. Gee, thanks all you democrats.

I took a look at the Facebook page mentioned above and the reviews are somewhat more mixed than that one, but the trend seems to be those who can afford their health care now will be getting a better deal while those that are at poverty level or below will be slammed very hard.  If they don’t sign up they will be charged a tax they can’t afford to pay.  If they don’t pay they can be subject to fines, interest, penalties and fees plus, after three years of this increasing debt they can’t afford, they could see a tax lien on their house, bank accounts, saving including, but not limited to their retirement accounts.

Last week a poll was released that stated the majority of Americans were opposed to “Obamacare”, but were in favor of “the Affordable Care Act!”  Wait a minute … They are one and the same thing!  But NOW they are learning.  We need to keep up the tutoring.