Tag Archives: The Constitution

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.

The Stupidity of the Impeach Now Movement

The Stupidity of the Impeach Now Movement

Why I have maintained that attempting to impeach the man in the White House is down right stupid is really simple; however, the explanation takes a little time as it involves education. Try to remember that a failure to convict on the articles of impeachment will render it impossible to do so at a later date., for any reason.

Impeachment is not a finding, it is an indictment. After the indictment comes the trail. Impeaching BOH would be easy. The house presents a Articles of Impeachemnt, the votes are counted and he is impeached. Then comes the problem. The trial. That is conducted in the Senate only and the judge is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court as mandated in our constitution. Even Dirty Harry cannot refuse to hold that trial and the president can’t use an executive order to make it go away. He must be tried if the house impeaches, BUT, and it is a big but, as things stand now the senate would never vote to convict. So we wait. Thank goodness some of the politicians are being smart. Not too many I agree, but there are some.

If we can take control of the senate with just a few votes over a simple majority there MIGHT be a chance. Here is the full process and some comments on that process:

In the Senate

  • The Articles of Impeachment are received from the House.

  • The Senate formulates rules and procedures for holding a trial.

  • A trial will be held. The President will be represented by his lawyers. A select group of House members will serve as “prosecutors.” The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (currently John G. Roberts) will preside with all 100 Senators acting as the jury.

  • The Senate will meet in private session to debate a verdict.

  • The Senate, in open session, will vote on a verdict. A 2/3 vote of the Senate will result in a conviction. (note: 67 senators have to vote for conviction)

  • The Senate will vote to remove the President from office.

  • The Senate may also vote (by a simple majority) to prohibit the President from holding any public office in the future.

Impeachable Offenses

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution says, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” In his report, Independent Counsel, Starr accuses President Clinton of committing eleven acts for which he could be removed from office by impeachment. Are any of those acts “Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors?” Well, that’s up to the members of the House of Representatives. According to constitutional lawyers, “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” are (1) real criminality — breaking a law; (2) abuses of power; (3) “violation of public trust” as defined by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. In 1970, then Representative Gerald R. Ford defined impeachable offenses as “whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.” An excellent definition, Mr. Former President. In the past, Congress has issued Articles of Impeachment for acts in three general categories:

  • Behavior grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office.

  • Employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.

There are obvious land mines in this process. One of those is when the senate retires to consider it’s verdict. The prosecuting attorneys are excluded because they are not senators. How about the defense attorneys? Any defense attorney, selected by the president remember, that is a member of the senate is going to be part of that closed session. Just one reason it has never resulted in conviction. Then there is the seeming fact that one of the things a person serving a full term in the senate seems to misplace is his, or her, conscience. It just seems to get lost, somehow.

So what do we need to impeach and convict this usurper? It appears that we need about 56 conservatives to be elected to the senate. I don’t see that happening, do you? However let is be positive. The next session of congress is convened and Dirty Harry is relegated to senate minority leader. The conservatives and the swell of grass roots conservatism convinces a few more liberals that their interest in power is best served by getting BOH out of the White House. Just might happen. Sure can’t happen as things stand now.

 

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.

 

Legislator lack of comon sense

Short sighted State legislators are the bane of both freedom and common sense. There is an honest, workable, safe proposal out there to bring the power of government back into their hands and they don’t seem to want it. I can understand the Federal legislators fighting to keep the power in their grimy greedy little hands as well as the DNC, but state legislators refusing it? WOW. I have never known a politician to refuse power and I have been involved in politics almost from birth.

Ok, so what is the proposal?

The Convention of States (COS) project is designed to return the power of governance to the state legislators where it was intended to be and was until the 14th and 17th amendments were passed. It is a project to implement an Article V convention of states. Notice! This is not a Constitutional Convention. That would be called to scrap the existing one and write a new one and as much as the George Soros ilk would love to see that, I doubt it has a chance.

This project is unlike anything ever that has occurred before before in that it makes use one of the two methods of calling a COS. The first is the Congress of the United States calling a convention to propose an amendment as was the case in the 21rst to repeal prohibition. The second method of calling an Article V COS is for the state legislators to call one. It is my understanding that there has been over 500 attempts to do this since the original constitution was ratified. None have succeeded due to the strict procedure that must be followed. The state legislators in 34 states must propose the same continuing resolution or bill, depending on the state, containing the same language, before it can become fact.

In the past this has never happened because the states didn’t get together on the wording.

The current project eliminates that by submitting a resolution to every state legislature containing the same language. The REALLY unique thing about this project is the concept. It is proposing a COS to address a topic not a single amendment. It will consider ONLY those amendments that limit the power of the federal government, reign in spending on the federal level and impose term limits on congress. Nothing else can even be considered. Each state attending a COS has one vote. Be it California or be it Rhode Island; one vote.

Then 38 states must ratify it for any or all to become law. These three things effectively prevent a runaway convention. Can you imagine 38 states passing some wild, inane amendment?

I really have to wonder if those state legislators that oppose this have any concept of the representational part of their job. It seems that the ones I have talked to that opose this idea are much more interested in serving their national party line than they are with representing their constituents.

You might want to ask your state legislators where they stand and WHY?

For that matter, now that you know more about the facts, where do you stand and why?

For more information on this project drop by their web site. I found some very interesting reading on it. Click here: Convention Of States

Who is the American Anarchist

 

Who is the American Anarchist

Let’s take a look at the left side of the aisle with some hard facts.

Janet “Big Sister” Napolitano testified before the people that make the laws for our nation that she has the right to choose which laws to enforce and which to ignore. She has unilaterally declared that the first and fourth amendments are null and void within one hundred miles of any border of the United States.  And she brags about it.  She has purchased enough ammunition to wage a war for twenty years and supply her agents with one thousand times the ammunition allocated to soldiers in a combat zone.  She has purchased armored vehicles to be used on American soil.  She has declared to congress that she will not answer any question she doesn’t want to answer about the operation of her department nor give any reason for her actions even to the senate oversight committee to which she is supposed to be answerable.

Barack H. Obama, Harry Reid , Nancy Pelosi, et al have stated that the government determining which, if any, arms the people may bear is not an ‘infringement’ of our second amendment rights.  West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin has gone against his own position, stated repeatedly during his campaign, and actually sponsored a bill that would drastically reduce the power and effectiveness of the second amendment.  B. Obama demands that each person that owns or purchases or even borrows a gun of any nature submit to a background check to which he refuses to submit himself.

The Left has stated that they know a gun control law would not reduce crime, but they want the law abiding citizens disarmed anyway.  Of course the criminals will still ignore such a law leaving the law abiding citizens at their mercy.  One criminal called the police to complain that he was afraid the owner of the house he had broken into was armed with a gun!  It made the news folks.

Harry Reid has stated publicly that an organization that has the stated purpose of defending and protecting the constitution of our country, The Tea Party, are a bunch of anarchists.

The only really amazing thing about all of these truths is the number of voters that still support these power hungry, constitutions destroying people.

It is my belief that we are headed for a bloody and life destroying civil war.  Well, If it must come I know which side I will avail myself of my second amendment right to support.  I once took an oath to uphold that constitution and I will until the day I die of am killed doing just that.