Tag Archives: Congress

A Dream Job

How would you like to have this job?

The particulars are these: Full time pay, but part time work and you are not even required to show up for much of that part time bit; you get to set your own pay; you cannot be fired until your contract runs out and even then, since you held the job, that contract has an excellent chance of being renewed indefinitely; you can lie about your qualifications and what you would accomplish during your tenure and nobody will hold you accountable for your lies; you will be able to foist the the most onerous parts of your job onto others; you will have a virtually unlimited expense account; your insurance will be the best, even better than most of the people you work for could obtain.
Sound good to you? You can have that job simply by getting elected to congress. Let’s take a look at those points.

Once elected you will have the privilege of having at approximately one half of each year as paid time off so you can campaign for re-election. You can even attend a few fund raisers to help out. If you listen to older and more experienced capital hill denizens, you can even figure out how to pocket some of that. Even during the time the congress is in session you will not be required to actually be on Capital Hill. Go to lunch, play golf or whatever rather than deal with the humdrum parts of the job like listening to what other are saying about the issues before your particular body instead of them listening to your much more cogent utterances.

Think you are not being paid enough for the job? Just vote for another pay raise for yourself. Get caught in a lie or other minor faux pas? Don’t worry, you cannot be fired unless you are proven guilty of actually committing a crime.

One of the big perks is not having to actually having to do the job your friends elected you to do. Want to avoid a controversy? Just fob of the onerous stuff on the regulatory agencies. Sure they violate the constitution, but that is just a few words on an old piece of paper that few pay any attention to anymore. So technically it makes you a law breaker, a criminal, but no one is going to say a word. If you ever do get round to passing a law that you would not like to follow, no problem. You just make it a law you are exempt from. It is done all of the time.

Get caught speeding or DUI or even assaulting another citizen while congress is in session? Again, no problem. You cannot be charged or arrested for such minor trivialities while the congress is in session and you are in D.C.

Would you like to see gay Paris or visit Rio during Carnival? Take an all expense paid “junket”. Your friends an neighbors will pay for it out of the taxes you forced on them. You may have to spend a few hours of your all expense paid vacation in meetings, but then there has to be some reason for that trip.
I guess we should let you in on the pay for this part time job. As of 2015, the base salary for all rank-and-file members of the U.S. House and Senate is $174,000 per year, plus benefits.  Now if you are lucky enough to voted in as a leader you salary goes up.

SENATE LEADERSHIP – Majority Party Leader – $193,400, Minority Party Leader – $193,400

HOUSE LEADERSHIP – Speaker of the House – $223,500, Majority Leader – $193,400, Minority Leader – $193,400

There are some popular, but false myths about congressional remuneration:
1.) They do indeed pay into social security.
2.) They must serve a minimum of three years to be eligible for their pensions and then it goes on a sliding scale determined by the number of years served. It is not an automatic 100% of their salaries at retirement.
3.) They don’t begin collecting until age 62 or 65.
4.) They do not necessarily vote for a pay increase every year. They haven’t done that since 2008. They do receive a “cost of living” increase on January 1 of each year. Some members do refuse this. Not many, but some.

Care to learn more about this? Try this link: Congressional Salaries

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.

Reply to a naysayer

I received an email from a gentleman that was against an Article V Convention that demonstrated to me just how confused and wrong some people can be about a major issue in this country.  This is my response.

At the end of this post I will give you a link that will allow you to help with this cause if you so desire.

1. The Constitution is not the problem.
I submit that the constitution is the problem for one major reason, it was written by very brilliant men that were trapped by their own culture. The culture of the time could never envision a person making a career out of being a politician. In their culture, a person would stand for election similar to serving in the military. They would do their patriotic duty, serve a term or two and go back to their farms or businesses with a sigh of relief that their duty was done. That mind set could never envision politicians becoming very wealthy while feeding at the public tough and gaining enormous power while they were at it. BUT! Culture evolves, and massive changes occur. Changes the founders had no way of anticipating. Solution? Limit the amount of time that aby politician can serve and then put someone else in their place.. An informed electorate? While it is true we do need that, it probably can never happen in THIS culture. Why? Partly because of the enormous number of factions trying to do the educating and the wide variety of proposed methods to be used. What we end up with is either a confused electorate with a few wild eyed radicals insisting they know the answer. Plus how do you educate a populous that has chronic attention deficit?

Some other changes that are necessary are things like the Welfare Clause. The loopholes in that alone allowed the SCOTUS to allow obamacare among other injustices. Just a few simple words would make a massive change. The SCOTUS has never yet struck down any part of the constitution if they couldn’t find a loophole to sneak through. I could go on, but it is time to move on.

2. All Article V conventions would have the inherent power to be runaway
conventions.
This time worn argument has been so thoroughly debunked I am surprised to see it here; however allow me to address it one more time.

Number one an Article V convention is NOT a Constitutional Convention and can never become one!

Thirty four state legislatures must pass a resolution that contains exactly the same wording. Oh the preamble may differ widely but the resolution itself must be the same. If any submitting state attempts to put in any wording which might allow a runaway it will not become part of the convention. Add to this the wording in this resolution which place very strict limits on what can be considered. Her is the pertinent wording: “… kimited to proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of office for its officials and for members of Congress.” Add to this the fact that most states have either proposed or enacted legal penalties for any delegate (properly called Commissioners) that include fines and jail time along with immediate removal form the convention and a runaway becomes virtually impossible. Delegate Overington has submitted such a bill to the WV legislature and many states have already passed such a bill prior to submitting the Convention resolution which allows the legislature to KNOW the convention will stick to the business it is convened to conduct. If this is not enough to allay any fears in this area please let me know as there are many other factors addressing this very issue.

3. An Article V convention would enable powerful special interests to
revise the Constitution in their favor.
This comment is well thought out and so very wrong. Let me quote one section: ”The power elites mentioned above have learned how to elect and influence large numbers of federal and state legislators a very long time ago.” What happened to that philosophy in the 2014 election? 2012?

Just prior to this you state and I quote: “Proponents of an Article V convention assure us that delegates appointed by state legislatures can propose amendments, the amendments can be ratified by
the states, and the resulting amendments will miraculously rein in our “out-of-control” federal government. This starry-eyed scenario is a major fairy tale. (Emphasis mine)
I guess that at this point I should ask you to point out just how influential these people are that can’t even put a stop to a proposal that could eliminate that so called power of that so called “power elite”.

You also state: “A good example of this influence is how hard it has been for grassroots activists to get state legislatures to reconsider their commitment to the special interests’ Common Core education standards.” Hard? I guess that depends upon your definition of the word. Many state legislatures, including WV have before the legislature bills to eradicate CC in their states. Chance of success? According to those polls you are so find of, better than 89%. Some things take time. People have to see the damage before they can act to correct it. Let’s get back on topic.

You stated that the Constitution is not the problem. I answered that rather conclusively.

You stated the Convention would be a runaway. I have shown you how that is a practical impossibility.

You stated that an Article V convention would enable powerful special interests to
revise the Constitution in their favor. I pretty well answered that when addressing the second point , but felt it necessary to expand on it with some specifics.

Any questions?

If your would like to join with this group I urge you to follow the link and at the very least take a few minutes to sign the petition.  Please remember to include your address as this is the only way they can determine which legislator you are petitioning.  Every time a constituent contacts an elected official at the state level it makes a difference.

http://www.cosaction.com/?recruiter_id=239046

The Stupidity of the Racist Tag

The Democrats have been using the ‘Racist’ tag to demonize conservatives for several years. If you don’t like something Obama does or says, they call you a racist. None, or I should say very few of you know me personally so you don’t know the color of my skin and I am going to make a few statements. You decide if I am a racist.
There are some people I don’t like and actually hate their politics and policies. I can say without equivocation that I don’t like these things about: Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, B. H. Obama, Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, Barbara Boxer, Al Franken and the list goes on. And on.
So. Am I a racist based on just that statement? The Democrats, and yes some Republicans, would have you believe that disagreement with any person of a different skin tone than my own is racist. I say that is just plain stupidity. It is impossible to judge a person’s racial bias based on any one factor. Racism is a learned mind set. To quote a song lyric …You have to be carefully taught…” to hate someone because of the chance color of their skin. Trust me, if I believe that someone is going to do me severe bodily harm and perhaps take my life, I will shoot and look at the color of their skin later and, at that point, it won’t matter one little bit to me.
Using the racist epithet to brand people that disagree with your view point is imbecilic. It is an attempt to stir an emotional response to any ones contrary ideas. Emotional. That is quite a word and a very effective political tool. Emotion is used by most professional politicians. It is used by Eric Holder andmany in the Obama administration. Yeah, it is used by many others too, but we are discussing politics here. The Liberty Alliance, for instance would have you believe that if ANY politician is not in lock step with their view of how this country should be governed, they are evil. They may well be a new type of racist. The political racist. The “it has to be our way or not at all’ people. They would have you believe that selecting the “lesser of two evils” at the ballot is in and of itself, evil. They would have you believe that voting for a person that is basically conservative, but bends to the realities of political necessity while in office is EVIL.
In my own state there is a race for the U. S. Senate that is really important to the nation. On the Republican side is Mz. Capito. Now I don’t agree with everything she does in the House where she currently serves, BUT to my way of thinking she is much more acceptable than her opponent, Mz. Tennant. Yep, the lesser of two evils. The Liberty Alliance would have you vote for a candidate that has absolutely no chance of winning election rather than vote for the more conservative Shelly Moore Capito simply because she has not voted in the manner they think she should on 100% of the issues she faces. In other words throw the election to the Democrat and very liberal Natalie Tennant. Shame on them. So does that make me a racist? Not according to any dictionary I have consulted. They universally refer to a person’s actual race bias. The Natzis were and are racists. They believed in the ‘uberman’, the super race. The KKK is a very racist group. Each of those aforementioned definitions also refer to “… unreasoned hatred of any person or group due to the ethnic race …”. I on the other hand am expounding on political demagoguery. Usually used by political extremists and I don’t like extremism on either end of the spectrum.

Why I Believe in the Convention of States and Limited Government

People often ask me why I am so passionate about returning this country to a strict construction way of running the government. Well, I’ll tell you. We are breeding a race of takers. We are raising children that believe the government’s purpose is to take care of them, regardless of the cost. Shucks, they don’t even consider the cost. A very large part of that cost is our freedom. Freedom from tyranny. Freedom to think and act as we each deem best. Freedom to be positive that our vote is counted in every election and that there are no illegitimate votes cast. The freedom to express an opinion or condem the government on our cell phones without fear of reprisals. That only United States citizens elect the people in our government. Live ones. This takes a limited government. President Ronald Reagan said it best, “I hope we have once again reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited.”

Our government picks and chooses the laws they want to enforce. A great case in point might be Eric Holder, the erstwhile Attorney General, while speaking to a NAACP forum stated that “… requiring voter IDs would disenfranchise American minorities.” I’ve never understood that argument. The only people I know of that can’t get an identification showing they are citizens are people that are not citizens. I have assisted many infirm and minority people obtain an ID that shows they are citizens. It’s not difficult. Takes about an hour here. Even the laws of our states require people to have picture IDs and be able to produce them for officers of the law, upon request. So what minorities are affected? The Illegals and those with work or student visas? Perhaps,but then who cares except corrupt politicians.

We have professional politicians. It is a career path. It is a path to wealth. I know of one politician that began as a community organizer then went into politics and recently purchased a multi-million dollar home. Harry Reid is so intent to continue his career that I, personally, am of the opinion he violates the laws of the land every election. He has entered the final day of each of his elections to the senate several points behind in the polls and comes out the winner by a substantial margin. I have often wished I had the power to examine the voter roles and the number of registered votes that have been deceased for years or moved out of state long before the polls opened. But that is just my opinion. Well, mine a few others. Quite a few, actually. Requiring voter IDs seems more and more a great idea.

Now understand that this is not currently a Constitutional issue, but Eric Holder believes that it is a holy cause whereas the Constitution is just a piece of ancient writing. The Second Amendment doesn’t need to be enforced by his office. As a matter of public record it is something he believes should be ignored by the government and all manner of infringements should be imposed by the liberal government he serves. So voter IDs are wrong and the states have no power to enact their requirement, even though the tenth amendment, among others, clearly gives them the right to enact those laws in their own state. BUT, the Constitution is should not be enforced. Yeah, I want to limit his power and every other politician that thinks they way he does. I honestly believe that our once great nation can only strive to be the shining example of personal liberty and individual responsibility by plugging the holes in our constitution that our current culture see fit to exploit.

Would you believe that there is no such thing as a “separation of church and state” in the constitution? None. The only statement made is in the first amendment, part of the “Bill of Rights” no less, is this one: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…” The emphasis I mine obviously. Saying a prayer at a high school football game is not “establishing a religion” Having the ten commandments on a public building in not enacting a law.

The very first article of the that great document, The Constitution of the United States of America, specifically grant the Houses of Congress the sole power to enact laws, yet the government has seen fit to give that power to its ‘regulatory agencies’. The EPA has usurped the power of the states by denying the coal industry new permits and setup regulations that will close hundreds of power generating stations in our country. They haven’t given any plan for replacing that power. It is very possible with todays technology, to limit and even eliminate the so called green house emissions if that is their goal. That alone would save thousands of jobs.

The IRS was formed to collect taxes. Suddenly that ‘regulatory agency’ has the power to target groups in any manner they choose and to create laws that have the power to imprison people for a diverse set of circumstances. The law to enact the collections of taxes and form the IRS is a few pages in length. The regulations that agency has created in response is many THOUSANDS of pages. One pundit said that stacked one on the other those individual pieces of paper making up those unenacted laws stands higher than he does. Not even the agents of the IRS have any idea what is in them. I once asked one of their agents for an opinion on my taxes and was given very specific instructions on how to handle my problem so I would not be in violation. I called every day for four days and asked the same question worded the same way (I wrote out a script) and received four different opinions, each citing specific regulations. I got audited.
I am a believer in limited government.

We can all cite examples of the federal government using the power of the purse to intimidate state governments to enact laws the legislators would rather not have on the books and the people of those states really don’t agree. But, when the federal government says it will deny money for roads or other infrastructure projects, what are the poor states to do. The knuckle under and it has become so common that I don’t they even consider the situation twice. This is a sneaky way to ‘get around’ the tenth amendment.

I’ve said it before. I am in favour of LIMITED government and power to the people.

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.

Comments?

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.

 

IS OBAMA IMPEACHABLE?

 

Is Obama Impeachable?

 

Just what makes a president impeachable?  The Constitution states very plainly that a president may be impeached for “… high crimes and misdemeanors…”.  Can he be impeached for lying about the Bengazi attack?  Nope.  If Lying were an impeachable offense every president since at LEAST Buchannan should have been impeached.  Lying is immoral, but it is not a crime.  Now if that lie obstructed justice in some way that would be a crime; however I have no idea how we could prove that one unless we could come up with something in writing.  We certainly can’t expect either Hilary or Holter to fill us in.  They have both been caught lying to congress.

Did the President authorize the stand down o our forces when the diplomatic mission in Bengazi asked for help or did some ground commander accept Hilary’s orders.

I recently read a blog on a Tea Party site that listed 100 reasons he is impeachable.  Guess what?   Maybe three of those one hundred reasons are actually impeachable offenses!

How about Fast and Furious?  Sorry you can’t impeach for the actions of a subordinate.  Now if there is PROOF that he personally authorized that then just maybe that is a crime.  But first you have to prove that the law was in fact violated and that the whole thing wasn’t a case of really bad judgment.  If the goal was to put guns in the hands of known criminals, then yes that is a felony.  I believe Holter did do that, but who is going to prosecute him.  He is the nation’s chief prosecutor!  Is there anyway to prove to the senate that Obama did in fact have prior knowledge that this crime was to be committed and either overtly or tacitly authorized it?  I doubt it.  Once again we know Holter isn’t afraid of congress or of blatantly lying to them.  He was convicted of contempt of congress for that and just laughed it off.  Again who is going to prosecute?

Spying in many ways with many of the agencies he controls on average American Citizens without due process?  Impeachable and we can prove it.  He has admitted it openly.

Ignoring the Constitution by consistently violating the second, fourth, fifth tenth and fourteenth amendments?  Impeachable because it violates his sacred oath.  Violation of a sworn oath is a misdemeanor and in this case, probably a felony.

He has disclosed secret grand jury material by exposing the existence of a sealed indictment of one of the Benghazi attackers in violation of Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure that clearly states: “… no person may disclose the indictment’s existence except as necessary to issue or execute a warrant or summons.’’

It is said that he has thwarted Congress by (1) failing to enforce all or parts of laws duly enacted by Congress, including the Defense of Marriage Act, the No Child Left Behind Act, and the Affordable Care Act; and (2) after Congress refused to pass his Dream Act, unilaterally issuing an executive order directing immigration officers to no longer deport an entire class of illegal immigrants who came here as children, regardless of individual circumstances, and to give them work-authorization permits.  Impeachable.  No President is above the law.  But that one is on very shaky ground.  Law enforcement agencies have use their own discretion when enforcing laws for literally centuries in this country.  Otherwise you should be arrested in South Dakota for drinking a malt on Sunday or taking a drink of alcohol on Sunday in some southern states.

 He has violated the Constitution when, on January 4, 2012, (1) he bypassed the U. S. Senate to appoint three members of the National Labor Relations Board, actions that were ruled unconstitutional by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit which affirmed previous decisions by the Court of Appeal for the D.C. Circuit and the Third Circuit; and (2) he bypassed the U. S. Senate to appoint Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

These last three are direct quotes from the articles of impeachment offered to the house by The Black Republicans Association.  These articles are well thought out and I recommend reading all of their Articles of Impeachment at
http://godfatherpolitics.com/12154/blacks-file-articles-of-impeachment-against-president-obama/#CYGEY4TrqmQ5cLaU.99

So OK, he is indeed impeachable and the House of Representatives can do that with a clear conscience; however, once impeached by the House he must be tried by the Senate.  The Senate is controlled by the democrats and led by a fervently anti-constitutionalist senior senator from Nevada known as Harry Reid.  Just how far do you think that trial would go?  Even as far as Slick Willy’s?  Probably not.

 

 

 

Government Corruption

Government Corruption

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.  Yeah, it is an old adage; that doesn’t make it any less true.  Webster defines corruption as: a : impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle :depravity  b : decaydecomposition  c : inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (as bribery)  d : a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct.

All of these seem to fit our present day politicians.  Is it possible that ‘C’ might be the case when it comes to winning elections?  Is it really possible that Harry Reid wins his elections “properly and lawfully” when he has go into the polling booth behind by several points including the exit poles in each of his elections except his first one without several questionable votes being cast?  The walking dead maybe?  There are several examples of this, including Barack Obama himself. 

It would seem to me that the act of enforcing your will on an unsuspecting public at the expense of the constitution and the moral principles of that self same electorate simply because you can is a pretty good definition of corruption.

Let us look at some of the nonsensical laws they propose.

The so called Amnesty Bill:  There have been two separate polls conducted among Latinos by two diverse pollsters in two different states and in each case they said no to the amnesty bill.  THEY DON”T WANT IT PASSED! 

Gun Control:  The second amendment, as we all know by now says, “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.  Now they want to tell us that allowing people to own guns IF they pass a background check is not an infringement.  I sure wish I could get a hold of their dictionary.  It must have some really good flexible definitions.  The senator from my own state is hawking this bill.  Joe Manchin.  He absolutely refuses to represent his own electorate in the hope of gaining enough powerful friends to have the dead rise up and vote for him too!  If he doesn’t he will be retired and he knows it.  It’s not the paycheck folks.  He now gets that for life.

The DHS:  This little infringement on our security and freedom now targets more Americans than foreigners.  It defines its own limitations to the extent of defining what part of the constitution applies to their department.  For instance: The first and fourth amendments do not apply within one hundred miles of any US border, be it land or sea border. It also defines what laws it will enforce and which it will not. Janet Napolitano, the Secretary of the DHS testified before congress that because of the large scope of that departments responsibilities it had to be able to pick and choose which laws to “concentrate on” and it would do so.  By the way, the DOH is now the second largest police force on the planet.  The largest?  The NSA.  It’s true and you can look it up.

The DOJ:   Eric Holder was confirmed to office by the Senate on February 2, 2009 and has since then been on a rampage attempting to negate the constitution as well as the moral fiber of our country.  He found it necessary to openly state that the right to own guns is NOT guaranteed by the constitution.  He found it necessary to aver that the right of the people to use the word ‘God’ is illegal and withdrew funds from a law enforcement agency that hold meetings for a U.S. Marine group that invokes God in their meeting saying to them – “Remove the word God from your meetings and the money will be restored”.  One of his U.S. Attorneys, in Kentucky, stated blatantly that speaking against Muslims is a prosecutable violation of the law.  He gave a ‘legal’ opinion that the use of drones to spy on the American public is legal.  He has been cited for contempt of Congress.  Unfortunately to press those charges, which carry a jail term, would mean that he would be prosecuting himself.  Somehow I don’t think that will happen.  He has removed the right of several states to have all voters vetted as Citizens of the U.S. Yeah, that was a goody!  You don’t need to be a citizen to vote.

Should I go on?  I think you get the idea.  Corruption is rampant in our Government and I believe it is obvious to everyone that follows any reliable news service.  What can we do about it?  It is my opinion that the first step is to insist upon Voter IDs for ALL voters.  State issued voter IDs showing the citizenship status of every voter. I will post another blog regarding other remedies in the near future.  This one is long enough.