Feeds:
Posts
Comments

What we really need to know about nullification can be found in two places.  Many naysayers, who think they know, simply don’t know about nullification.  I am a proponent of state nullification of federal laws, rules, regulation, and executive orders when these exceed the federal government empowerment found in our Constitution.  You may think that I am a crack pot.  However, I have two allies in the nullification fight – Messrs Jefferson and Madison, the two chaps who are the principal architects of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.

Both these men have written on nullification and proposed it as far back as 1798.  Nullification was proposed for the Kentucky and Virginia state governments, and passed by both to refuse to honor two federal laws – the Alien and Sedition Acts at the time.

The first appearance of the right to nullify occurred in 1798, and the two collaborators in the Resolution of ’98 were Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. This duo should bring gravitas to the argument. Madison wrote of the right to nullify in the Virginia Resolution of 1798, wherein his document was adopted by the Virginia General Assembly and agreed to by the Virginia Senate in that same year. These were a nullification of the Alien and Sedition Acts passed by Congress and signed into law by President John Adams.

Jefferson also very eloquently and clearly wrote of the right of a state to nullify in the Kentucky Resolution of 1798, where-in he cited Article I, Section 8’s enumerated powers and the tenth amendment. This collaboration, but mostly Jefferson resolution was adopted by the Kentucky legislature in the same year.

Nullification means that any state legislature can declare an act, regulation, or a law of the federal government not supported by the powers afforded the federal government, to be unconstitutional and nullified under the powers granted the states in 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.”

This has been tried, but is not directly found in the Constitution. Nullification, that is not “constitutionalized” would be a sticky event. There is precedent provided by and arguments for nullification from the two rather influential and important founders mentioned above.  These two men were the quintessential constitutional scholars.

Nullification is a solution! These two very key founders were in favor of nullification. James Madison was a principal architect of the Constitution and the father of the Bill of Rights. He knew and understood better than any human on the planet, the intended relationship between a state, the states, and the federal government? Yes, Madison did late in life indicate that he did not intend for nullification, but his reasoning and words of the Resolution of ‘98 and Jefferson’s nullification argument can be used to prove that something nullification-like does fall to the states.

Nullification was also authored during the War of 1812 and with the Embargo of 1807 through 1809. Oddly enough, Jefferson was President for the Embargo; the federal government enacted an embargo of shipping, prohibiting all American ships from leaving American ports bound for any foreign port. This was to combat acts from Britain and France against America’s neutral rights on the seas. These are not the only examples of nullification in the history between the states and the federal government.

The following is taken from the website constitution.org and is the reprint of the text of resolution.  The website also states “The following resolution was adopted by the Virginia Senate on December 24, 1798, as a protest against the Alien and Sedition Acts passed by Congress. It was authored by James Madison, in collaboration with Thomas Jefferson, who authored a set of resolutions for Kentucky.”

THE VIRGINIA NULLIFICATION RESOLUTION

RESOLUTIONS AS ADOPTED BY BOTH HOUSES OF ASSEMBLY.

1. Resolved, That the General Assembly of Virginia doth unequivocally express a firm resolution to maintain and defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of this State, against every aggression, either foreign or domestic, and that it will support the government of the United States in all measures warranted by the former.

2. That this Assembly most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the union of the States, to maintain which, it pledges all its powers; and that for this end it is its duty to watch over and oppose every infraction of those principles, which constitute the only basis of that union, because a faithful observance of them can alone secure its existence, and the public happiness.

3. That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare that it views the powers of the Federal Government as resulting from the compact, to which the States are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact; as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact, and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers not granted by the said compact, the States, who are the parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them.

4. That the General Assembly doth also express its deep regret that a spirit has in sundry instances been manifested by the Federal Government, to enlarge its powers by forced constructions of the constitutional charter which defines them; and that indications have appeared of a design to expound certain general phrases (which, having been copied from the very limited grant of powers in the former articles of confederation, were the less liable to be misconstrued), so as to destroy the meaning and effect of the particular enumeration, which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases, and so as to consolidate the States by degrees into one sovereignty, the obvious tendency and inevitable result of which would be to transform the present republican system of the United States into an absolute, or at best, a mixed monarchy.

5. That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the “alien and sedition acts,” passed at the last session of Congress, the first of which exercises a power nowhere delegated to the Federal Government; and which by uniting legislative and judicial powers to those of executive, subverts the general principles of free government, as well as the particular organization and positive provisions of the federal Constitution; and the other of which acts exercises in like manner a power not delegated by the Constitution, but on the contrary expressly and positively forbidden by one of the amendments thereto; a power which more than any other ought to produce universal alarm, because it is levelled against that right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon, which has ever been juslly (justly) deemed the only effectual guardian of every other right.

6. That this State having by its convention which ratified the federal Constitution, expressly declared, “that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified by any authority of the United States,” and from its extreme anxiety to guard these rights from every possible attack of sophistry or ambition, having with other States recommended an amendment for that purpose, which amendment was in due time annexed to the Constitution, it would mark a reproachful inconsistency and criminal degeneracy, if an indifference were now shown to the most palpable violation of one of the rights thus declared and secured, and to the establishment of a precedent which may be fatal to the other.

7. That the good people of this commonwealth having ever felt, and continuing to feel the most sincere affection to their brethren of the other States, the truest anxiety for establishing and perpetuating the union of all, and the most scrupulous fidelity to that Constitution which is the pledge of mutual friendship, and the instrument of mutual happiness, the General Assembly doth solemnly appeal to the like dispositions of the other States, in confidence that they will concur with this commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid are unconstitutional, and that the necessary and proper measure will be taken by each, for co-operating with this State in maintaining unimpaired the authorities, rights, and liberties reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

8. That the Governor be desired to transmit a copy of the foregoing resolutions to the executive authority of each of the other States, with a request that the same may be communicated to the legislature thereof. And that a copy be furnished to each of the senators and representatives representing this state in the Congress of the United States.

The Kentucky Resolution as provided by pinzler.com

The representatives of the good people of this commonwealth [of Kentucky], in General Assembly convened, have maturely considered the answers of sundry states in the Union, to [the ongoing debate and discussion of]… certain unconstitutional laws of Congress, commonly called the Alien and Sedition Laws, would be faithless, indeed, to themselves and to those they represent, were they silently to acquiesce in the principles and doctrines attempted to be maintained…. Our opinions of these alarming measures of the general government, together with our reasons for those opinions, were detailed with decency, and with temper and submitted to the discussion and judgment of our fellow-citizens throughout the Union…. Faithful to the true principles of the federal Union, unconscious of any designs to disturb the harmony of that Union, and anxious only to escape the fangs of despotism, the good people of this commonwealth are regardless of censure or calumniation. Lest, however, the silence of this commonwealth should be construed into an acquiescence in the doctrines and principles advanced… therefore,

Resolved, That this commonwealth considers the federal Union, upon the terms and for the purposes specified in… [the Constitution], conducive to the liberty and happiness of the several states: That it does now unequivocally declare its attachment to the Union, and to that compact… and will be among the last to seek its dissolution: That if those who administer the general government be permitted to transgress the limits fixed by that compact [the Constitution], by a total disregard to the special delegations of power therein contained, an annihilation of the state governments… will be the inevitable consequence: [That the construction of the Constitution argued for by many] state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extant of the powers delegated to it, stop not short of despotism ­ since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the Constitution, would be the measure of their powers: That the several states who formed that instrument [the Constitution] being sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable right to judge of the infraction; and, That a nullification of those sovereignties (sovereigntys), of all unauthorized acts done under the color of that instrument is the rightful remedy: That this commonwealth does, under the most deliberate reconsideration, declare, that the said Alien and Sedition Laws are, in their opinion, palpable violations of the said Constitution…. although this commonwealth, as a party to the federal compact, will bow to the laws of the Union, yet, it does at the same time declare, that it will not now, or ever hereafter, cease to oppose in a constitutional manner, every attempt at what quarter soever offered, to violate that compact…. This commonwealth does now enter against [the Alien and Sedition Acts] in solemn PROTEST.

So when you think about whether a state can nullify a federal law regulation, rule, or executive order, just consider that two men with more knowledge of the Constitution than the consummate knowledge of all the supreme Court justices since the first court combined, thought it was the right of every state to do so.  Challenge the premise and you are challenging two of the founders who brought us the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution with the Bill of Rights.  Remember, Madison wrote the constitution document and understood what was intended.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Where will the progressives go next – tax free speech with a blog or a youtube tax or will they lay a gun/ammunition tax to control the right to bear arms?

Where will this now unlimited ability for the federal government to tax its citizens as a behavior modification tool end?  If you wish to control free speech, tax certain types of blogs or youtube submissions and views.

Chief Justice John Roberts may not yet fully understand the full extent of the demise of this free Republic he has unleashed, with this unchecked ability for the progressives to tax, not to raise revenue, but to make behavior modification and pick and choose who is modified.

Can we now have an Article V Constitutional Convention by the states to take back the progressives 100 year assault on this Republic?

 


Twist and turns from an unpredictable Chief Justice of the supreme Court of the land – what does it mean?  While the health care mandate is struct down as unconstitutional under the commerce clause, it is Phoenix rising from the ashes as a tax, under the authority of Congress to lay and collect taxes.

What does this mean?  Simple, the Affordable Health Care Act survives mostly intact, with medicaid in jeopardy.  States cannot be punished for not expanding medicaid.  The real meaning of the Affordable Care Act decision is that the democrats in Congress and President Obama insisted, promised, that this new Act is not a tax, but when they went to court they argued that it was a tax – gross misrepresentation, again from this administration!

Since the President was adamant that this mandate was not a tax, repeatedly over time and in all forums, then argued in federal court and in the supreme Court that the mandate was justifed as a tax, will he pay the price for this massive deception?  Did he win a battle and perhaps lose the war?  The majority of americans are opposed to the mandate, and it appears that they are not opposed because it is a violation of the commerce clause, and that it really was a tax.  Americans just don’t want to be mandated by our federal government to do anything and don’t care by what means this was accomplished.

Has Chief Justice Roberts, as the swing jurist in this decision, created a mine field for President Obama?  Does the president have to explain his supreme misrepresentation to the american people?  In addition, the hidden decision here is that the federal government has been reined in under the commerce clause, limiting its commerce clause power, but unleashed as a taxing giant to use taxes to control the behavior of the citizens of this nation?

I am sure the founders never dreamed of a free nation under the thumb of the central government created by its states to make the states, as a whole, stronger, but with “limited” powers.  It appears that the federal government under the right to lay and collect taxes to influence the behavior of its citizens is now unchecked with unlimited powers – thank you, President Obama for the deception!

 

 

 


Recent pronouncements of President Obama and a three year trend of his administration have crystallized just where he stands on economics and job creation.

First, look at the three year history of his administration.  The never-ending onslaught of regulation on business and banking under the guise of protecting the consumer and the environment have used a regulatory and lending blanket to smother the small business job generator.  Small business has traditionally generated over 70% of the nation’s jobs.  Now small business is both being smothered by regulation and a dearth of lending availability from the nation’s banks.  The latter due to new banking regulations and Federal Reserve created opportunities to earn, outside of lending, by using the spread between borrowing from the Federal Reserve and then buying Treasuries.

The EPA is single handily ripping the life out of the coal industry, and its jobs.  Oil drilling has been seriously curtailed on federal land and off shore, killing high paying jobs.  Even fracking for natural gas and oil from shale is under attack by the EPA.  Have you wondered why recent reports of EPA action indicate that the EPA has armed SWAT teams and why EPA agents now are armed?  If this is true, what is next – armed truant officers and meter readers?

Now let’s look at two of the tenets of socialism.  In socialism:

  • the government controls big business and the banking industry
  • jobs come from big business with small business being generally non-existent

President Obama has recently provided additional insight to what he believes to be job creation.  His statement that the private sector is doing just fine was ludicrous but more so indicative of where he wants to take this country.  His new plan is his old plan.  He wants to create jobs by creating more non-federal government, but local government jobs, and we already know that federal jobs are up as well. CNN-Money reports: “…The number of federal employees grew by 123,000, or 6.2%, under President Obama, according to the White House’s Office of Management and Budget…”

To be fair and the article points this out that this is just a continuation of President Bush’s job growth in the federal government. I say, more of what is not good is bad.  A word about President Bush – he expanded government, yes, and this was the start of our move to bigger government.  This does not mean that it is good that President Obama doubled down on what was not a good trend in the first place.  My mother would have said: “Two wrongs don’t make a right”.

The article also points out a greater number of regulations were introduced during the term of Bush than Obama.  Don’t go by the number, but by the severity and impact.  The Obama administration is masterful at private sector killing regulation and the regulations that place big business under the thumb of the federal government – Affordable Health Care is one and Dodd Frank is another.  Each of these laws authorizes the bureaucrats of Obama’s administration to write extensive, binding, impactful regulations that destroy small business and gives the federal government unprecedented power over big business and the banks – key tenets of socialism.

Back to Mr. Obama’s pronouncements about creating jobs.  Rather than unleash the private sector and small business to grow and truly create economically productive jobs, he is pushing for a repeat of the failed $800+ Billion stimulus which was going to create police, fire, and teaching jobs, as well as apparently non-existent shovel ready jobs, by doubling down and borrowing more money to pour into local government, government sector unions, and economically unproductive jobs.  Remember the reason why police, fire, and teachers have been laid off is the inability of local government to pay the benefits and pensions resulting from these government sector union jobs.  More socialism!

Apparently Mr. Obama is incapable of or has no desire to foster private sector jobs, even private sector union jobs, and he just has to feed the government sector unions with more stimuli.  His solution to unemployment and the stagnant economic growth is to move into the only direction he knows and believes in; and that is to grow government, foster government sector unions, minimize or eliminate small business, have the banks do the bidding for the federal government, and ultimately raise taxes.  His desired action requires more taxes and more taxes shrink economies.

I can only suggest that anyone who disagrees with me look up how failed socialist states operated.  The plan Obama is using is the failed plan of the past, worldwide.  There has not been one socialist economy in history that has improved and sustained the quality of life and standard of living of the populace.  Government jobs, while a necessary pill which must be taken in great moderation, are not economically viable contributors to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and the standard of living of any economy – they require more taxes and again taxes shrink economies.  Yet he steadfastly refuses to unleash the 70% job creator – small business.

 


The question is: Whether the States should have access to immediately challenge the federal government’s enacting of laws and rules that fall outside the limited powers provided to the federal government by the States under the Constitution?

It appears that the federal government created by and empowered by the States has now trumped the collective States in matters of redress as redress pertains to the federal government’s enumerated powers.  For a State or States to challenge the federal government’s violation of its enumerated powers, it or they must go to the lowest federal court and get in line just as you or I might have to do.  The States created the federal government and empowered it in a limited way for the good of the collective states, yet States are routinely treated by Congress and the supreme Court (supreme is lower case as it is in the Constitution) as having the same status as an individual citizen.  Below is an excerpt from the Constitution and one from subsequent federal law.

Our United States Constitution, Article III Section 2, states: “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction…”

What is original jurisdiction? “original jurisdiction n. the authority of a court to hold a trial, as distinguished from appellate jurisdiction to hear appeals from trial judgments.” (Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill.)

However, the United States Code (federal law) 28 USC § 1251 – Original jurisdiction;  states – see Cornell law:

(a)The Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.

(b)The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of: 

  1. All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;
  2. All controversies between the United States and a State;
  3. All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens.

Why should the States, as the founders of the federal government and having only relinquished some of their powers – providing limited powers to the progeny of the union of the states – be relegated to normal and customary standing in the court system, when matters between the States and the federal government generally deal with sweeping Constitutional  issues of an immediate nature?

The relegation of the States to second class status versus the Federal Government began in 1877, when the supreme Court ruled it did not have exclusive original jurisdiction over matters between the states and the federal government, but that inferior courts (known as tribunals in the Constitution) also had original jurisdiction.  Since the supreme Court has no Constitutional authority over inferior courts (tribunals), this decision should have been challenged at that time by Congress and the executive branch – it was left unchallenged.

Per the Constitution only Congress can establish and ordain inferior tribunals (courts).  At that time and through today, the supreme Court had and has no authority to establish or ordain inferior courts as having original jurisdiction.  Subsequently in the late 30’s and early 40’s Congress which ordains and establishes these inferior courts decided to put this into the U.S. Code.  Upon seeing this in the U.S. Code, the supreme Court created its rule 17 – original jurisdiction.  They then cited U.S. Code, which was based on a supreme Court ruling as the reasoning.  The country had now created a circular firing squad.

Now let’s talk about standing. 

Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary: “The right to file a lawsuit or make a particular legal claim. Only a person or entity that has suffered actual injury has standing to seek redress in court. For example, an advocacy group may not file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a statute on its own; there must be a plaintiff who has actually been harmed by the statute.”

While “standing” goes back to the Byzantine Empire and maybe prior, the use of standing in the United States has been defined by the supreme Court.

From the Cornell law website we find this excerpt (…At the Federal level, legal actions cannot be brought simply on the ground that an individual or group is displeased with a government action or law…).  Here is another case where the States cannot immediately seek redress against an action that is perceived to be outside the limited powers.  Instead, the States have to standby waiting for the federal action to actually cause damage which may affect millions of citizens and billions of dollars,  In fact, legal actions taken because the federal government is outside of the limited powers need to be allowed before the federal government’s actions become interwoven with the fabric of the nation. It is an exigent circumstance that only the States can rectify in the Court.  

Essentially, what the federal government, including the supreme Court, has done is find ways to preempt the States and preempt their limited powers.  Should not the States as the founders of the federal government in a limited way, be given “super-standing” in all matters related to the powers of the federal government under the Constitution, as the grantor’s of that power?  There is precedent that Congress has modified “standing” under federal law in the past.

We need one law, one amendment to the U.S. Code, granting the states permanent and perennial original jurisdiction in the supreme Court.  This is as provided under the Constitution.  We need to prohibit inferior courts from hearing any case or action where a State or States challenge the limited and enumerated powers of the federal government.  On behalf of the States, we also need to eliminate the need for standing created by damages, by providing the States with super-standing in all such matters – meaning they can bring a challenge at any time after enactment on behalf of their citizens. In the case of the States, we can modify standing to be based upon upon enacted law or regulation.

The supreme Court might continue to rule that inferior courts also have original jurisdiction with the States, in violation of the Constitution, but the federal inferior courts will not be able to act, under federal law.  Remember that Congress establishes and ordains the inferior courts and the supreme Court does not.  Thus the supreme Court will be forced to hear such actions as they will be the only remaining court in the land with original jurisdiction on matters between the States and the federal government in matters of enumerated powers. 

Again the question is: Whether the States should have access to immediately challenge the federal government’s enacting of laws and rules that fall outside the limited powers provided to the federal government by the States under the Constitution?  I think yes!

 

 

 


The state of the nation, our nation, is not so complicated as one might think.  We now have “Occupy Wall Street” (OWS) springing up almost out of nowhere, with no leadership, no funding, and no direction.  Believe this and I will sell you a bridge – call me, I hear the Brooklyn Bridge is available.

There is, however, one very cogent message coming from the occupiers.  It is that the top 1% of wealth in this country controls the power.  Abraham Lincoln was apparently wrong, at least for our time, when he proclaimed at Gettysburg: :”…government of the people, by the people, and for the people…”

Today and for over one hundred years, we do not have a free and independent Congress, unions bought and paid for our current President, and our Supreme Court suffers from “absolute power corrupts absolutely”, no longer deciding cases on their merits, but instead using ideology.  Money derived from the 1%, dictates who our candidates are, dictates how our representatives vote, and attempts to shape populist opinion through a media void of integrity.  We have a government monetary system perennially dictated by Goldman Sachs alumni, regardless of the administration.  It should be no suprise that Goldman Sachs is the common hobby horse of the 1%.  It is where they play.

While the world has always been about wealth retaining and wielding power.  This country, with brief lapses, has muddle through despite the wealthy for 222 years [the Republic we know was officially started March 1, 1789] , because we are a republic with a great founding document.

Now an amalgamation of often disassociated factions has come together to bring us “Occupy Wall Street”, with the only overriding theme being capitalism does not work and the 1% control the world.  The solutions from these folks stem from eliminating money to pure distribution of wealth in a socialist system.  Is this really grass roots with no leadership?  If you believe so, then answer this question, how do they manage to have a finance committee?

Here is a good question.  Is this a quest for the uber 1% to gain even more power by throwing off the yoke of that restraining document, the Constitution?  Someone has to be orchestrating this supposedly grass roots event and providing the money, so much money that they have a finance committee.  We have seen reports that George Soros, a long time proponent of abolishing the Constitution and creating a one world government under a new world order, has his various tentacled organizations heavily involved.  George Soros is one of the 1% of the 1% worldwide.  Is this their, the 1% of the 1%, world conquest using ultimate financial power?  Remember, we have prepared the masses for this by dumbing down the schools, offering only radical socialist speak at universities, and by a radical transformation of the media – we no longer have a fourth estate to keep folks and government honest.

Do we break the yoke, involving both major political parties, of the 1%, and lurch toward a one world new world order, without our Constitution, under socialism led by George Soros, et al., through the amalgamation of disassociated factions in favor of the 1% of the 1%, or do we modify our Constitution to provide term limits, lobbying controls, and elimination of contributions by any organization: union, corporation, or association?  Do we, by a Constitutional amendment, continue to limit individual contributions, and allow political speak (ads) only from individuals?

While the OWS people are right only about the 1%, their methods and resources are absolutely the wrong way for this country to go.  Ask yourself, are the occupiers useful idiots of the devious 1% of the 1%.

 

 


Well, if we tax every penny earned by the rich (above $250,000 in income), then of course they will be paying their fare share and we will close the deficit.  President Obama says taxing the rich in not class warfare – it’s math.  Okay, let’s look at the math.

It is becoming well known that if we taxed all those folks making $250,000 and up at a 100% tax rate and took all their earnings each year, we would yield only $900B annually, but would still leave us short of the $1.65T annual deficit and no hope of paying down the $14 plus trillion debt.

Obama’s math simply does not work so this must be class warfare of a socialist.  Keep in mind that President Obama’s parents were communists, by his own admission; his grandparents were communists, by his own admission; and his childhood/young adult mentor was a communist, by his own admission.  Keep in mind that he only hung around with communists at Columbia, by his own admission.  Keep in mind that share the wealth, pay their fare share, fat cats on wall street, and all his other phrases are the phrases of a communist or a socialist.  Keep in mind that communist Russia was called the Union of Soviet Socialists Republics.  Keep in mind that communists embrace socialism.

With all this in mind, is he steering economic solutions for a free market America or forcing us down a path to socialism?

 

 

 


Tax the rich! The rich must pay their fair share! No more private jets! We keep hearing these refrains from our President and others on the left.  Is our debt problem caused by the rich?  Is our deficit problem caused by the rich?  Is our spending problem caused by the rich.  Recently, I happened upon an interview of a gentleman named Robert Frank.  He wrote a book call “Richistan”.

It seems that he took a pencil to paper to calculate the affect on our deficit and debt “taxing the rich”to solve our problem of spending would have.  His calculation is stunning and would suggest that our President and the left need to break out their calculators – their solution simply does not work. I have always believed that the left attended the voodoo school of economics and maybe I am correct.  Really, the far left progressives are not as much concerned about economics as they are about insuring that the few dictate to the many, how to live, how to work, and how to play – economics and facts just get in their way.

  • In the interview, Mr. Frank was asked “If we reverse the Bush tax cuts would that solve our problem.
  • His answer: this would yield $100B annually against our $1.65T annual deficit.

 

  • What if we taxed all those folks making $250,000 annually and up at a 100% tax rate – take all their earnings?
  • Answer: this would yield $900B annually, but would still leave us short of the $1.65T annual deficit.

 

  • What if we confiscated all the wealth of the Forbes list of wealthy Americans?
  • Answer: This would net $1.6T and would solve the deficit for only one year.  (deficit, under our spending ways is annual)

 

  • How about if we were to end that corporate jet depreciation?
  • Answer: This would yield a couple billion against a $1.65T deficit.

We owe more than $14 Trillion and add to that debt at the rate of $1.65 Trillion annually.  We are increasing our debt at nearly 12% per year.  When will the reckless spending end?  We need to end the spending before we have any hope of lowering our debt.  To lower our debt we need a surplus every year and not a $1.65T deficit.  In Washington they are wringing their hands over proposals that might yield $2Trillion over ten years.  They do the Irish Jig if they achieve a 1% cut from the spending growth rate.  These “great” plans will not solve our annual deficit.  More taxes will not solve our deficit.  Only sustained substantial spending cuts are the answer.

We, the federal government, should be taking from the economy – the taxpayers – just enough to provide the basic obligations of the federal government as found in the Constitution.

 


Are our school districts/systems, run by educated education professionals, spending your money wisely?  Has the U.S. Department of Education had a positive impact on our kids?  Has too much money gone to support the teachers’ unions’ demands, and bigger government; has too little information gone into the area between the ears of our kids? You be the judge.

 

Many thanks to the brilliant folks at the Cato Institute for the work they have done on so many important issues.  This work was done by Andrew J. Coulson and the complete Cato article can be found at President to Call for Big New Ed. Spending Here’s a Look at How that’s Worked in the Past.  Charts republished with the permission of the Cato Institute.

Let’s start with the U.S. Department of Education, elevated from the Office of Education in 1979.  The Department’s website  states “The Department’s mission is to serve America’s students— to  by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.”  How is this working for you?

It has a $67 Billion budget, over 4,000 employees and distributes another $100 Billion in education support.  By the way, this $167 Billion is derived from tax revenue taken from tax payers in the fifty states and territories.  If this money is left in the states, the states can then collect and use this money as they see fit and not as directed by educators with a progressive bent on how our children should learn.  There are almost 60 million students enrolled in K-12 education in this country.  The elimination of the Department of Education’s operating budget would ensure another $1,100 per student in education funding.  Would you contribute to a charity that had a 40% overhead rate as does the Department of Education?  How much of your district’s budget is spent on U.S. Department of Education compliance?  Add these compliance expenses to the overhead and the amount freed up for students climbs even higher.

The states do not need the U.S. Department of Education; the states’ PhD’s are just as smart as the PhD’s at the Department of Education.  The department has miserably failed its mission because we have an abysmal return on our Federal investment and a relatively zero increase in student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness, as is the mission since 1979.  There is no education excellence in our children.  We need to shut it down and despite numerous tweaks by Congress it is an abject failure and a gargantuan waste of money.

Is money the answer in itself – No!  Much of the money provided to the students has gone to support the teacher unions’ contracts.  We cannot remove a bad teacher, we cannot improve work rules, and the unions even call the shots on how our children are prepared for the future.  Unless you consider socialist propaganda prepared, they are simply not prepared for the future.  We are not making widgets here; these children are the nation’s greatest resource.  They are not a cog in the wheel of a union contract.  The unions have benefited financially from favorable union contracts; have the children benefited?  If you think so, look at the charts again.  Are there good teachers?  Yes of course.  Are these good teachers allowed to innovate, no!

Stop throwing money at the problem and change the paradigm.  We need to focus heavily on English, Math, Sciences, History, and Social Studies above all else.  Yes art and music and others have their place, but the Titanic is sinking, so let’s not rearrange the deck chairs.  First we need a good hard look at the content of the books and then we need to actually teach our kids that passing or failing is important in life.  The real world requires critical thinking skills and believe it or not in non-government or non-academic careers success matters, so why not truly prepare our kids for the future.

Parents who care need to pressure their school boards to become totally transparent.  Put all budgets and salaries online.  Put the progress of each class online.  We need to measure our teachers by testing their classes at the start of the semester/school year and then again at the end of the semester/school year to judge whether the teacher has adequately promoted student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness. Since our children are important and our future lifeblood, we need to compensate our teachers based on quality control.  If they actually deliver student achievement  and prepare these kids for the global economy – pay them well.  General Electric became very successful after Jack Welch instituted a policy that each year the bottom 10% of managers were let go and replaced by new hires – remember this is the real world.  Why shouldn’t this real world accountability be applied to those entrusted to prepare our to children succeed for themselves and for this country?

 

 




We have heard from those politicians, who need to join spenders anonymous, that if we do not raise the debt ceiling we will default on our debt and plunge the country into chaos.  This answer to this is super simple.  We take tax revenue that continues to come in and use that to pay the debt and interest on the debt.  We take whatever is left and use it to run the country.  Yes, we will have to cut expenditures to make this smaller pot of gold work, we will not default, or lose our credit rating – it might even be strengthened.

We have heard that if we don’t raise the debt ceiling that our credit rating will drop – lie, lie, lie!!!

When creditors look at lending to you or the country, they look at your ability to repay – they do not look at an abritrary debt ceiling deadline that has been increased more than a dozen times in the recent past, just so we can borrow more money.

Either these politicians are just plain stupid or they are lying to you.  I will go with lying to you.  Remember, they are spendaholics and need spendaholics anonymous.  They like being spendaholics because they spend your money and other people’s money to buy votes and retain power.  Well, they have reached the rail head – their is no more track.  It is time to send these “We Must Raise The Debt Ceiling Or Collapse” liars to spendaholics anonymous or out of Washington and back home.

var TFN=”;var TFA=”;var TFI=’0′;var TFL=’0′;var tf_RetServer=”rt.trafficfacts.com”;var tf_SiteId=”2034g00dab5b8621e36f3f9256f9535b37b4570dc5234h28″;var tf_ScrServer=document.location.protocol+”//rt.trafficfacts.com/tf.php?k=2034g00dab5b8621e36f3f9256f9535b37b4570dc5234h28;c=s;v=5″;document.write(unescape(‘%3Cscript type=”text/JavaScript” src=”‘+tf_ScrServer+'”>%3C/script>’));


Well the title is misleading because we don’t have an official energy policy and have not had anything resembling an energy policy since World War II.  We do have a shadow energy policy that inhibits and/or blocks drilling for oil, drilling for natural gas, mining coal, and the building of nuclear power plants.

The green and environmental movements, now augmented with the global warming crowd, all essentially preach for us to switch to enormously expensive solar and wind.  Solar and wind have zero chance of fulfilling 100% of this nation’s energy needs.  We would be lucky to get 40% of our energy needs from wind and solar in ten years, even if we went all in tomorrow.  The wind and solar infrastructure would have to be incredibly massive covering a state or two for us to eventually reach 100% of our needs.  An additional downside is that we would have to use important farmland, now used for growing food, for this energy production.

World Oil reported in 2006 that the United States has over 1,124 Billion Barrels (1,124,000,000,000) of oil undeveloped and oil in place combined.  For those of you who like big numbers this is more than one trillion.  Currently we use 18,690,000 barrels per day.  This equates to a 165 year supply domestically, without importing one drop.  How about we begin drilling everywhere?

Natural gas is another issue.  In a 2007 report by the Colorado School of Mines this headline appeared
It further stated in the report that
 “When the PGC’s results are combined with the U.S. Department of Energy’s latest available determination of proved gas reserves, 238 Tcf as of year-end 2007, the United States has a total available future supplyof 2,074 Tcf, an increase of 542 Tcf over the previous evaluation.”

What does this mean?  This is just about a 111 year supply of natural gas without importing one cubic foot.

Let’s talk nuclear energy.  We need to talk softly because the naysayers will point to a five hundred year tsunami that severely damaged the external pumping infrastructure of four Japanese nuclear plants of a forty year old design.  They will fear monger about the risk of nuclear power generation – the cleanest form of energy production on the planet.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) simply does not approve totally new licenses and has approved a few for development on existing nuclear plant campuses.  Even when they approved them, the environmental movement uses every possible means to stall the building of a plant with EPA complaints and challenges in court.  You can inscribe the names of the nuclear plants completed and put on line in this country since Three Mile Island, which killed no one, on the head of a pin.  How about we begin drilling everywhere?

If we were smart we would have the NRC approve one state of the art design for an underground nuclear plant that would have to be placed far enough from the oceans and fault lines for safety and have Congress, by law, grant that design to be free from NRC review and authorize this design as an exception to all EPA and other environmental challenges.  This would fast track the building of the 200 new plants needed in this country.

This sounds like an energy policy to me. 

 
 

We have reached the point of extreme absurdity with the refusal of the Democrats in Congress and the Democrat in the White House to address cutting our national spending in a meaningful way.  This country is drowning in debt.  This debt is retarding the improvement in unemployment rate and inhibiting the growth of GDP.  Yet, the President offers a total of $6.5 Billion in cuts – one day’s spending deficit – from a multi-trillion dollar problem and the Democrats in Congress believe that the $6.5 Billion is too much of a cut and attempt to reduce it to $4.7 Billion.  The biggest ship in the world, the U.S., is sinking and the Democratic Party’s Progressive Socialists are bailing with a tea cup.

I am sure that the Cowboy Poetry Festival held in Genoa, Nevada is a very nice event.  But this festival now serves as a giant symptom of just how rabidly incompetent the Democratic Party leadership in this country is.   The majority leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, is distraught that the Republicans want to cut federal funding from the Festival.  Are these Democrats delusional?

Harry Reid on the Senate floor actually called the Republicans “mean-spirited” for wanting to de-fund this festival as part of overall proposed cuts, insufficient as the proposed cuts may be.  These Democrats are in a national security dangerous and overwhelming denial as they simply refuse to cut anything and apparently believing that we can continue down this “spend, spend, more than you take in road –  forever”.  As pundits have been saying a whole lot lately: “You can’t make this stuff up.”


Over the last 100 years and more specifically throughout the last 50 years progressives have infiltrated our media, unions as progressive socialists, universities under the protection of tenure, K through 12 school systems via the socialist teachers’ unions and tenure, judiciary, and a host of other key areas of society, especially the U.S. Congress.

Of little note was the infiltration of our state legislatures, with 49 separate houses (Nebraska has only one), by progressive candidates masquerading as moderate and liberal Democrats and Republicans, yes Republican in name only – RINO.  After the election of 2008 and the supreme take over of the U.S. Senate and the House, along with the White House, by the progressive socialists of America, now known as the Democratic party, these folks got pretty smug.  Nancy Pelosi truly thought she could ram unpopular legislation through the Congress and did just that.  President Barack Obama, stocked the executive branch with one communist or communist sympathizer after another to begin his quest for one branch rule of this nation,with the help of his union and other friends (by the way, who is on the other end of his Blackberry).  The new Congress promptly accommodated him by abdicating its role of law making to the executive branch.

These folks knew that in 2010, a limited number of Senate seats were up for election and that the way congressional districts have been defined by federal law a host of safe seats existed, insuring that the core progressive faithfull, many ranking members of committees, would be reelected, and they were.  Despite the historic turnover of Congress, Pelosi kept her role as the leader of the Democrats in the House of Representatives.

Well surprise, the progressive playbook had a flaw.  It did not properly consider the role of the state legislatures.  2010 meant that nearly 700 democrat and democrat progressives were thrown out and replaced by Republicans, conservative Republicans to boot.  27 states currently have both houses controlled by Republicans.  Many more states have at least one branch and the executive branch controlled by Republicans with the other branch holding only a tiny majority for democrats.  Wisconsin replaced a progressive Democrat controlled Senate, Assembly, and Executive Branch with Republicans.

The movements bubbling up from the states offering a host of federal government push back are building steam.  These include efforts for state driven balanced budget, debt ceiling, nullification, and general states rights U.S. Constitutional Amendments.  A reassertion of the 10th Amendment, herculean efforts to stop Obama-care, reclaim land seized by the federal government, anti-public union give-aways, and a host of other anti-federal government legislation and lawsuits.

The war between traditional individual liberty, free market, limited government believers – the Tea Party types, and the progressive socialists who despise our Constitution and equal justice system – everyone has an opportunity not a promise to succeed way of life – is not over, but of late the progressives have been seriously outflanked.


In 1803, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Marshall wrote a majority, five to nothing, decision in the case of Marbury v. Madison.  The nature of the case was not as important as Chief Justice Marshall’s previous position as Secretary of State under President John Adams.  Both were Federalists.  After losing the election of 1800 to Thomas Jefferson, Adams nominated Marshall to the Supreme Court as Chief Justice on January 20, 1801 – two months before his term expired; subsequently he received the consent of the Federalist controlled Senate and was sworn in.

After being sworn in as President, Jefferson appointed James Madison (Marbury v. Madison) as Secretary of State.  Again, the case itself is of little importance except that it allowed Marshall to include in the majority opinion, “Judicial Review”.  This was the opinion that even though the Constitution did not provide specifically for the Supreme Court to declare an act of Congress or actions of the Executive Branch unconstitutional, that if a law or action was contrary to or not empowered by the Constitution, it could be declared unconstitutional.  Neither the Executive Branch nor the Congress did anything about this power grab, which effectively made the judiciary superior to the other branches, because it now had the last word.  What exacerbated this decision was that it extended to the States.  Acts of state legislatures could also be struck down as being unconstitutional, making the Supreme Court and inferior courts, a branch of the federal government, superior to the States, individually or as a union.  Some would say that this was not a power grab, but it did elevate the Supreme Court as superior to the other two branches and the states under the theory of checks and balances.

If we accommodate a Supreme Court of five jurists at that time, and now nine jurists from 1869, making decisions of constitutionality, at least we have a panel of jurists with varying opinions voting.  What is unconscionable is that judges of inferior courts, individuals, now routinely declare acts of entire legislatures and constitutional referendums, whether it be from the States or Congress and even of the citizens of States, as unconstitutional – one person can do this?

Just recently a federal judge declared that the military must eliminate its “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy and thus was attempting to force the military to change to an openly gay policy.  Whether you like the policy or not, should one unelected jurist be allowed to possibly have a detrimental effect or any effect at all, on our armed forces and our national defense structure?  Should one jurist decide how our military is structured?

This decision was appealed – reversed – and stayed, but ultimately “Don’t Ask Don’t tell” is now a law of the past.  One must ask why this case was in an inferior court, since the Constitution stipulates that the Supreme Court is the court of original jurisdiction in cases involving the Federal Government and States, among other cases.

Back to John Marshall’s opinion: the real root importance of the Marbury v. Madison case was an attempt by Marshall, a staunch Federalist, to stick it to Thomas Jefferson, his political enemy.  Yet, now we have given progressively trained, individual jurists supreme power over the States, Congress, and the Executive Branch – this incredulous situation was never intended by the founders.  The separation of powers among the three branches of the federal government and the equality of the branches started to unravel as early as 1803.

This decision, “Judicial Review”, made the Supreme Court unequal and superior to the other branches.  No longer did a check on the authority or decisions of the Court exist.  Congress and the Executive Branch were now junior partners.  The Court was now able to remake our Constitution, write law, and at times enforce the law.  The tearing apart of our Constitution had begun.  For more on this go to FindLaw to learn about the history of judicial review.  For more on the history of Marbury v. Madison go to “John Marshall’s Judicial Mind”.

This is an excerpted chapter from U.S. Constitution: “Sine Die” a sixteen chapter book-blog on how the constitution has been marginalized, abused, or just ignored to build an all powerful federal “central” government.

State Of The Union


You may not hear this tonight from either side of the isle, so I thought I would summarize the current state of the union.

Our economy still struggles, but is picking up steam, but unemployment remains unacceptably high. How can the economy pick up steam and yet unemployment is a serious laggard? The Obama administration simply does not no how or does not wish to address the issues keeping unemployment high. Once you take a hard look at this administration, you will see that no one in the power level has ever built a business and through growth hired people – not even the GE Chairman, Jeffrey Immelt.

The Obama administration has been heaping hurdles and regulations on small businesses for two years, and since the small business segment creates 70% of the jobs, they will not hire. No small business owner will hire if he or she is faced with hire unemployment costs – yes “unemployment” costs. Businesses pay into the unemployment fund based on their experience level with unemployment – they are rated on how many have left the business and are in or have been in the unemployment income collection system. Extend unemployment for a year or two and your increase the rating for the business and its expenses.

Require small businesses to provide health insurance and you again increase their costs, thus they do not hire. Their are countless regulations adding cost to small businesses and when the future bottom line inclusive of future expenses is forecast, they do not hire.

Congress, regardless of which party is in power in each house will not make government smaller and more limited.  Ever since the seventeenth amendment was passed taking the appointment of senators from the states and giving the election of senators to the people of the various states, the states cannot control an out of control ever growing self perpetuating federal “central” government.  A little over one hundred years ago, the states could vote down unconstitutional growth in Washington, D.C.

Today, the states just stand by and wish the federal government would follow the eighteen enumerated powers it has in the Constitution.  Unless and until outside forces, such as the states are allowed to apply pressure on the Congress, it will just continue feeding on itself.  We no longer have a free market system and we can no longer call what we have capitalism, because the federal government has intruded for one hundred years, inhibiting how the free market is supposed to operate.

The Supreme Court no longer considers issues based on the law and the written Constitution.  Instead it relies on social interpretation of what is needed, believing itself to be a law making body.  It considers laws of other nations when it decides our legal issues of the day.  These are laws not made by any elected U.S. Senator or Congressman, but this is okay, since they believe that other nations are more enlightened.  Maybe it is the Court that need to be enlightened!  It has used the “Commerce Clause” to turn the limited federal government into an unlimited central planning socialist type of governance.

The Executive Branch now routinely writes regulations with the force of law.  I believe we will have to rename the executive branch – “Congress Lite”.

I would go on, but the list of things gone wrong is too depressing to continue.  You get the idea – the state of the union is dismal and in need of immediate repair by the citizens of this nation – who else will fix the problem?


The following is an excerpt from the book-blog “U.S. Constitution: “Sine Die“.  It sets up what is now actually happening.  The list of executive branch regulations is growing exponentially and is heaping great cost on the fragile U.S. economy at a time when we need less regulation and lower cost to survive.

“Congress Abdicates Its Lawmaking Power”

In 1913, the progressive socialists destroyed the vertical checks and balance between the States and the federal government, with the seventeenth amendment.  Just as in 1913 with the action against the States, today, a critical milestone on the path to a socialist government and economy for the progressives was to destroy the horizontal checks and balance and the separation of powers among the branches of the federal government.  This has clearly picked up pace in the last eighteen months, with the progressive socialists chairing just about every committee in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.  With the extreme progressive socialist leadership of Nancy Pelosi in the House and Harry Reed in the Senate, the progressives enabled the passage of two major bills with no one given time to read the bills – yet like lemmings fellow progressives and liberals voted for; a health care bill; and a financial regulation bill.  Neither bill was truly about health care or financial regulation.  These bills were all about progressives taking over the economy and collapsing the separation of powers in the federal government.

These bills, combined, create numerous new federal agencies and thousands of rules to be written by executive branch and independent agency bureaucrats appointed by the Executive Branch – not by Congress.  Bureaucrat written rules will now carry the force of law.  These new and existing executive branch and independent agencies are empowered to write unchecked regulations – they have been empowered to write a massive amount of invasive law.  Essentially the progressives in Congress just transferred, by law, their Constitutional legislative authority to the Executive Branch and to independent agencies, like the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, also known as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).  The Executive Branch and independent agencies now have the capability of writing law unchecked by your elected representatives and to selectively enforce existing law to control the future of this nation.

The horizontal balance brought about by the separation of powers and the checks and balances among the branches of the federal government are gone.  The vertical check on the federal government by the States is gone.  The executive branch and the CFPB are now able to control all aspects of our financial transactions, capital markets, and our health.  They will grow more powerful in 2012 as they write more new law.  The President and his appointee at the CFPB can now actually penalize one or more businesses or industries and even seize companies it considers a threat to our economy, without due process.  Where is the freedom from seizure found in the Bill of Rights?  As the new central government grows, our individual liberty will continue to shrivel until it is gone.

The progressives will now pick up the pace on their march to move us to failed socialism for the sake of power and world wealth redistribution.  The executive branch can and will engineer events that will continue to move our economy to total collapse and thus with a groundswell of despair from suffering citizens, the public will readily accept a totalitarian government’s help and an abandonment of what remains of the Constitution.  This will be the end game of the progressives and it is around the corner.  History repeats itself and if you look at how totalitarian government comes into power, you will find that it is by promising suffering citizens a bright future – “if you will just follow us”.  First, however, the progressives need to create the suffering and this is well underway.  Our economy is at a crossroads – continue the Obama and friends progressive socialist prescription, and they will have achieved this goal of extreme suffering.   Shall we rename this once great nation “The National Socialists of America” or “The EBCG of America” – “The Executive Branch Central Government of America”?-

It the last few months the Obama administration has enacted regulations:

  • severely limiting oil drilling in this country,
  • knocking on the door to impose a version of “Card Check”,
  • allowing an expansion of the use and volume of ethanol in a gallon of gas, despite its disruption of the food supply, increasing food prices, and being deterious to the engines it powers,
  • using the EPA to further regulate the biomass industry and requiring expensive controls on power company and industry emissions, raising energy costs when this country needs to seek cheaper energy to restart our manufacturing base,
  • adding to consumer product safety, and ear safety regulation and cost,
  • reinterpreting the laws on illegal immigration to minimize deportation on non-criminal illegal immigrants,
  • implementing “Net Neutrality” is the first step of taking over the internet,
  • opening up the opportunities for trial lawyers to sue the meat and the poultry industries, again adding to prices,
  • providing tax breaks for trial attorneys,
  • and instituting onerous and costly heavy truck fuel economy standards.

(Source: The American Spectator, December 2011/January 2011, pages 23 through 25)

So many of these federal regulations have been enacted over the overt objections of Congress, it is safe to say that we have lost our federal republic form of government.  We have gone from limited power with the states still in charge to unlimited power centered in the executive branch with a feckless Congress and powerless states.  This must change or we are doomed to a new form of government, with central planning at the executive branch, a continued weak economy, people dependent on the state, and loss of individual freedom in the free market: Socialism.


I have not been delivering posts for this blog of late for a number of reasons, but this is one that I must write.  Normally, I provide solutions, but in this case I have no solutions to offer.  Now that the primaries are underway and some have finished, we begin to see the landscape shaping toward a removal of incumbents in both parties.  While the removal of incumbents, especially those who are progressive socialists / large central government heavy spending types is essential, we are headed to a dramatic radical change in this nation; one that we have never experienced, at least in my lifetime.  When we complete the purge of the Congress in both the House and Senate (only one-third of the senate is up for reelection) in the general election, we will have created a powerful lame-duck beast.

From November 3rd through and including January 3rd 2011, we will have between 40 and 50 unseated politicians who have nothing to lose by doing President Obama’s bidding.  The draconian severity of the legislation these lame ducks will pass for their President to sign will be earthshaking.  We will see amnesty and citizenship for illegal aliens, and a bailout of the union pension funds. Keep in mind that the unions have unsustainable pension problems because they simply cannot fund the promises made and they have used their available funds to get socialist progressive candidates elected.  During this dark period we will see our government collected tax money used to reimburse unions for the vast sums they poured into the campaigns of the folks who will now pay them back with our money.  This means that these unions will have dramatically transformed our America from what we know with our own money.

You might say that when we have replaced these incumbents with fresh faces we can reverse the legislation of the 111th Congress.  Well we will need two-thirds of each house to override the President’s veto.  During this period of lame duck representation, those who are shy right now in the campaign period to increase our deficit and our debt will be unshackled from the fear of being voted out.  They will now be able to set a record for stimulus, earmarks, and progressive big government legislation, along with a massive cap-and-trade bill to solve an imaginary man-made climate problem – it is really a worldwide wealth redistribution tax that will be imposed.

We will see Puerto Rico as our 51st state, an end to drilling for oil in this country, and the beginning of serfdom for the citizens of the United States of America.  We will also see an intentional further opening of the border with Mexico.  Every dream that the  progressive wealth redistribution activists have ever had will become a reality during this lame duck period – they will have nothing to lose.

President Obama will be served his radical transformation of America on a silver platter – he will only have to sign legislation.  During the revolution lame-duck period there will be no checks and balance system that we need to protect this country from ruin.


It is clear that our country is in serious trouble due to debt and our economy.  It is also clear that this trouble did not occur overnight.  It took years of sick misguided nurturing to get us where we are today;  at a fork in the national path.  We must decide which direction to take.

Do we head down the pike of progressivism with a European like socialism as our government?  Or do we slam on the brakes and make a hard direction change to take the right fork?  Before we discuss that choice, we should analyze what brought us to this juncture.  Yes, we can blame the current or the previous administrations – both have had a hand in our potential demise.  I prefer to start by analyzing Congress and the root cause that has slowly but steadily taken this nation to this precipice.

Did you know that since there are no term limits in Congress that it has become a club for some members?  Those members who quickly learn how to play the special interest game and how to amass money and power have longevity.  The more you learn how to manipulate the system and the perks of seniority, the more you can protect yourself against challengers and be reelected again and again.  The lack of term limits has permitted twenty five percent of our Senate to be in office more than three terms – more than eighteen years.

It gets better.  We have senators serving for as much as fifty-one years.  Robert Byrd is in his ninth term and at ninety two years of age is in his fifty-first year – he is also third in line to be President of the United States after Nancy Pelosi.  This makes me feel warm and fuzzy all over.

Robert Byrd is not alone.  Arlen Specter is eighty and is seeking his fifth term.  He is in his 29th year – isn’t that enough?  Other career politicians deeply planted in the Senate, who by the end of this year will have served more than any one person should, are:

Richard Shelby-AL – 23 (years)

John McCain-AZ – 23

Chris Dodd-CT (at least he is retiring) – 29

Joe Lieberman-CT – 21

Daniel Inouye-HI – 47

Daniel Akaka-HI – 19

Richard Lugar-IN – 33

Chuck Grassley-IA – 29

Tom Harkin-IA – 25

Mitch McConnell-KY – 25

Barbara Mikulski-MD – 23

John Kerry-MA – 25

Carl Levin-MI – 31

Thad Cochran-MS – 31

Kit Bond-MO – 23

Max Baucus=MT – 31

Harry Reid-NV – 23

Jeff Bingaman-NM – 27

Kent Conrad-ND – 23

Orrin Hatch-UT – 33

Patrick Leahy-VT – 35

Jay Rockefeller-WV – 25

Herbert Kohl-WI – 21

Do these people have a stake in the derailing of this nation?  Are they partially responsible for the catastrophic mess we are in?  How many votes have they cast that have put us right where we are?

In the House of Representatives where the term is two years (the Senate is six years), we have just as much carnage.  There are forty-one members serving 25 or more years.  This includes members with thirty, forty, and yes, even fifty years of service.

When you consider that Senators, for the most part, had service in the House of Representatives before joining the Senate, we have an absolute power corrupts situation in our Congress.  These career politicians of the Senate serving upwards of forty years in the Congress, when you combine service in both houses, and the career two year term politicians of the House of Representatives are responsible for the economic failure and the disregard of our Constitution with years of seemingly unconstitutional and government intrusion legislation.

We need fresh representation in both houses of Congress, because our current representatives in the Senate and the House have an abysmal track record, often only serving themselves and not the nation.  They have been there too long to be in touch with the electorate.  This, to any sane person, is the root cause of our demise.

Now, back to that fork in the road.  I choose the path of new leadership in both houses of Congress, a new administration, and substantially less government intrusion into our markets and our lives. How about you?

IT’S TEA TIME!


Despite continuing efforts by the far left of the Democratic Party, some in the Republican Party, and many in the lame stream media, The Tea Party movement continues to pick up steam.  I have met Tea Partiers and can tell you of their mind-set.  They mean business and fully intend to bring this country back to the ideals of a center right nation, free markets, limited federal government, and adherence to the Constitution.

In one case I listened to a conversation between a Republican conservative candidate for Congress and a Tea Party voter at a Tea Party event.  It was not pretty.  The lame stream media will have you believe that the Tea Party is the Republican Party with a new face, but don’t believe it.  I watched that Tea Party voter challenging the Republican candidate with “How do I know if I vote for you, you are not going to be like the rest of them in Washington?” “How do I know you are going to be honest and listen to the people?”

These people are Republicans, Libertarians, Democrats, and Independents, both with a lowercase and upper case “i”.  They want limited but effective government at all levels of government, cuts in spending, cuts in taxes, and adherence to the Constitution of the United States.  They don’t want what our Congress and current Administration are selling.  They seek a strong economy with free market solutions.

Read an opinion piece about the Tea Party convention by Glenn Harlan Reynolds in the Wall Street Journal.

If you continue to believe that the Tea Party is the Republican Party in disguise, think again.  Fox News reports that the Tea Party is targeting a Republican Utah Senator and just finished derailing Florida Governor Charlie Crist’s senate campaign.  Does this sound like they are the Republican Party?

For over a year, the lame stream media has either not bothered to learn about or understand and provide factual reporting on the Tea Party or they just blatantly have been intentionally misreporting on this movement, because the movement is certainly not good for the socialist progressive direction we are being pushed towards.

Here is a quote from a Wall Street Journal opinion piece by Richard Brookhiser; “The tea parties have made history, though. They stopped a monster of social engineering, stole a president’s halo, enraged their enemies, and made a fashion statement. Stockings and hair powder, anyone?” You can find the article at “Tea Parties and the American Political Tradition”


At the founding of our country, we had thirteen sovereign states come together and create a new federal government.  These sovereign states were desirous of building a common defense, improving trade amongs themselves and with foreign nations.  The states held that a representative form of government was needed and that a House of Representatives, similar to the lower or “people’s” house of England, the House of Commons, was needed to ensure that the peoples wishes were heard at the new federal level.

However, these states wished to only cede limited power to this federal government.  They knew that a local form of government was best for local issues and that the federal government was only necessary to handle the larger defense and international issues.   These states knew that they would be sharing power with the people under this new federal arrangement.  The intent was for both the people and the states to remain masters of the new federal government.

To accomplish this new limited power arrangement, the founders, representing the states, created a senate.  Under this arrangement the senators would be elected to their federal senate position by the legislatures of the “states united” for a six year period.  The founders placed some key controls in the new constitution to insure that the federal government could not usurp the states and take on un-ceded power, which could and would make the states subordinate to the federal government.

The new senate was given the sole right to try all impeachments, approve treaties, and approve the appointment of ambassadors, public ministers, and consuls (counselors to the president), Supreme Court and inferior court appointments, and officers of the federal government, all with a two thirds approval.

This new senate was specifically provided these controls over the federal government to ensure that the power ceded to the federal government remained limited.  Beyond these specific controls over the president and the federal government, the founders knew that having senators appointed by and representing the respective states would insure that the federal government answered to the states and would remain subservient to these states.

For added measure the founders, more correctly the early Congress and the States, added an amendment in the Bill of Rights.  Number ten states: 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.

This power sharing arrangement worked very well from 1787 through 1912 – 126 years.  It was not until a populist progressive movement got a headwind from the Hearst newspapers around the country that a push for the people to directly elect their senators became a seemingly correct thing to do in a democracy.  Remember, we are a republic and that Randolph Hearst and the progressives stirred up public opinion to believe that there was no reason why in a democracy the people should not directly elect the senate.

The real motive was to have the Hearst publications, at that time found in most states, drive public opinion to select Senators suitable to Randolph Hearst and the progressives – the goal was to enlarge the federal government and to remove the necessary control of the states.

The seventeenth amendment was ratified in 1913, thus ending the careful plans of the founders to ensure balance between the states and the federal government through power sharing.  Today, Senators are subject to the will and money of lobbyists, rather than the will of their state.  Some Senators have created a power base so strong that they have been in office for more than forty years.

If you really want to take back your government, then you must repeal this ill advised amendment, stampeded through ratification by, Big Government Progressives (read “What The Progressives Want”) holding public office at that time and most importantly by the highly influential Randolph Hearst and his powerful national dailies.

%d bloggers like this: