Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Checks and Balances’ Category


When reading print media pundits, like Maureen Down, or listening to cable media pundits and our black Representatives in Congress, I have become seriously distraught.  Throughout my life, I have learned that when you disagree with someone or find them misrepresenting the truth—lying, you could call them out on the statement or statements based on the facts.

Now, I am finding out that when I or another —shall I say it—white person call out or simply question a person of color about a disagreement of ideology or simply thought, I am a racist.  When I need to question statements of incorrect fact from a person of color, formerly known as lying, then again I am a racist.  I am so sorry for the previous indiscretions and failure to understand that I have become a racist.  Apparently I need to apologize.  But how and to whom?

This brings up another bit of recent confusion.  How and to whom do I apologize?  Apparently, as Representative Joe Wilson found out, there is now an extensive protocol to an apology involving dissent of a far left liberal of color.  As a newly identified racist, I apparently must apologize to the party who was misrepresenting the truth, his Chief of Staff, the Vice-President, both in writing and by telephone, and then finally apologize to the political community as demanded by another person of color, Congressman James E. Clyburn.

I wish someone would provide a manual on this racist apology thing.  I also hope that someone includes in the manual a section on:

  • How do I tell a person of color that they are misrepresenting the truth, lying, or that they are just simply misguided?
  • Will this section in the manual suggest that I just sit on my hands and close my mouth—saying absolutely nothing?
  • Would this be acceptable?

Perhaps, there might be some sort of color code.  If I feel a person of color is not telling the truth or is misguided, perhaps I can hold up a color coded card.  Choice of color must be absolutely correct of course or I might inadvertently move to the bigot category.

Maybe we can use a nondescript muted red color to tell a person of color that they are misrepresenting the truth.  A bland off white—oh, that will not work—white may be offensive as I am white, thus it may be interpreted by the far left as I am right and they are wrong.  Wait, we can use a bland gray—the equal mix of white and black can be used to indicate that I disagree with the potentially offended person of color.

I have it now!  When I confront a person of color who is lying, I will just hold up a red card.  When I just disagree, I will hold up a gray card.  This system, I hope will keep me out of racist hell and avoid that bigot label.  I certainly hope this will be acceptable to the far left, the pundit police, and our Representatives in Congress who are not  Caucasians.

Alternatively: All these folks can get real and not use the now heavily over used “racist” label to attempt to intimidate and quiet dissent, as they have been doing.   Generally and often calling a person a racist when they disagree with a person of color can only be the last arrow in the quiver of the far left in their fight to move an unpopular agenda and to quiet the other side by intimidation.

Read Full Post »


The funeral for the main stream cable broadcast media is occurring today.  At this writing, note this post’s date and time of 2:05 PM EDT, the Mall in Washington, D.C. is filled with Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and Independents.  TV pictures reveal that the Mall is tightly packed from the Capitol to the Washington Monument, with overflow, as  a CBS affiliate reports, onto Pennsylvania Avenue from the Capitol to the White House.

The Fourth Estate, aptly brought to life by Edmund Burke in the House of Commons on a particular session during the 19th century, is the press.  The clergy, nobles, and commoners being the other three.  These estates were essentially the makeup of the British government at that time.  He referred to the Fourth Estate as the most powerful of the estates present that day in the House of Commons—they were in the gallery.  Closer to home, our Founding Fathers believed the Fourth Estate was similarly powerful and sufficiently independent to keep the three branches of our new government in check.  This is why freedom of the press is clearly written into our Constitution.  They were depending on the press to keep government honest.  In no way did they ever believe that the press would become complicit with the government and withhold key pieces of news, slant the news coverage, and become the house organ of two of the three branches of government.

Incredibly, at this writing CNN is broadcasting a Barack Obama speech on reform before a large  partisan audience.  It is yet another speech by him in three or so days on healthcare reform—are they expecting him to say something new?  The President is stumping in relatively Democratic conclaves trying to repair the breach in his Party over health insurance reform—this breach has gone mostly unreported by CNN.  At this writing, MSNBC had planned a televised mystery / crime documentary which must be quite good and must serve the public interest to allow them to skip reporting about a long time planned event at the Mall in the nation’s capitol, now mostly filled with grass roots demonstrators made up of every day citizen protestors.  It now appears that MSNBC did manage to do some reporting of the event after all.  These protesters are mostly against big government and big spending, regardless of political party.  If this were an anti-war rally, MSNBC would be reporting.  If this was a Obama campaign rally, they would be reporting with flourishes.

The estimate for the attendance by the Park Police is 60,000.  Recently, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, issued a memo claiming that 2 Million will show.  She was setting ultra high expectations, so she could later minimize any protest significance.  Well if the Mall is filled, depending on how tightly packed it is, it can hold anywhere between 1.7 Million to 2.1 Million people.  TV pictures indicate that the Mall is filled.  Remember CBS reported that crowd overflow filled Pennsylvania Avenue.  Of course, government estimates, the Speaker’s estimates, and the news media’s estimates will be substantially minimized to accommodate their agenda.  The Washington Post had an article written at the inauguration of President Obama about how many people the Mall can hold—Mall information found at the Washington Post click here.

Based on the broadbased main stream media failed reporting on the just broken high impact ACORN story and the failed or minimal reporting on the Tea Party protests around the country today, I can only state, if you are depending on this dead media for information, you are uninformed.  The exceptions are those of you who are getting your news from Fox or by searching the internet for real news, not a blog like mine, otherwise you are seriously in the dark and cannot make informed decisions about our nation’s future.  If you meet this uninformed criteria, then careful, you are being manipulated with all the news these “news” operations deem you should have, with the slant they want you to have.

This ideological conspiracy is an attempt at censorship plain and simple.  MSNBC and now apparently CNN among other complicit news organizations are attempting to feed the populace with what they want us to know and are withholding selected news.   If it weren’t for Fox News Channel and the internet—call it the Fifth Estate, they would be successful in using censorship to manage government propaganda.  Are we living in a free nation or are we in a government and media controlled society, like Venezuela and Iran?   

I for one will not be steered and will not comply.  Want more? Read The Acorn Story Truly Exposes Main Stream Media.

Read Full Post »


We can officially declare September 10, 2009 the day honest media was laid to rest.  The breaking ACORN story—a viral internet story—broken by a new internet site “BigGovernment.Com”, and specifically James O’Keefe is a first class newsworthy story.  The story is clearly seriously detrimental to ACORN and the multitude of politicians in Congress and in the White House who have allied themselves with ACORN.

The Story, the back story, and extensive video can be seen at BigGovernment.Com: click here and review all the video clips, including the Glen Beck of Fox News clip.

 The story is big since ACORN receives millions in federal money—our tax money—and will receive Billions from the recent stimulus bill.  We know of ACORN activities from reports of rampant national voter registration fraud allegedly perpetrated by ACORN during the 2008 election cycle.  We also know that our President was a community organizer attorney advising ACORN for years.  We know of his intimate relationship and his history with ACORN during his Illinois Senate days, United States Senate Days, his campaign, and now his enthusiastic interaction with ACORN while President of the United States.

ACORN is clearly affiliated with SEIU, the Service Employees International Union—those folks who wear the purple shirts—through common related management and common addresses.  SEIU was instrumental in fostering an Obama victory by providing heaps of union dues money and plentiful union volunteers.  Of late it was utilized to picket the homes of financial executives in Connecticut over bonuses.

This story is huge from so many directions and it, if completely developed, could lead right to the White House and Congress.  Yet, no major news outlet is running with it to any legitimate extent, except Fox News.

Remember these ACORN folks specialize in helping community people to get the most from their government and regularly provide help and advice on how to maximize their members’ opportunities with applications for welfare, other government monetary assistance.  And now we see they have mortgage specialists providing “special” assistance.

Big Questions:

  • How many mortgages that ended in foreclosure and helped tank our economy were made possible by the apparent “extreme” advice provide by ACORN to non-qualified applicants?  How many non-qualified applicants qualified due to the “extreme” mortgage application and supporting documents advice provided by ACORN around the country?  I use the word “extreme” to indicate that where there is smoke, etc., …well you get the point. 
  • Just how much do our Representatives and Senators, such as Barney Frank and Chris Dodd among others in Congress, know about ACORN’s activities and why haven’t we seen any Congressional investigations operate with a full head of steam?  John Conyers was going to initiate an investigation, but cancelled it saying that “powers-to-be decided not to investigate”.  Who are the powers-to-be?  Who is protecting ACORN in the Congress and possibly the White House?
  • Why is the main stream media complicit in playing down or simply not reporting what appears to be massive fraud?  Is there a conspiracy of major media to lead us down the primrose path to socialism with a generous helping of organized community groups and political corruption tossed in for flavor?

The media is more concerned with Fox and now O’Keefe of BigGovernment.Com than with the real story.  The trusting public has been steered by most big media to support the current administration and the current administration was not and is not vetted and challenged.   Either big media is complicit with intentionally steering the populace or it is just terrible incompetent and gullible. Either way Americans who still get their news from the big media, other than Fox and a few other outlets are woefully uninformed.

Recently Robin Roberts of ABC interviewed President Obama about his healthcare proposals and she asked him about the distraction of losing Van Jones.  Bill O’Reilly of Fox News expertly pointed out on his show that Roberts more correctly should have asked him why was Van Jones picked to be in his administration as an unconfirmed Czar.  She should  have asked what is and how deep is Obama’s relationship with this avowed communist and ex-convict.  (Have we ever had an ex-convict be a Presidential advisor?)  It appears that either Roberts is incompetent or she is attempting to help our President achieve his goals regardless of all the issues surrounding those goals. 

We simply cannot trust most main stream media any longer as, with very few exceptions, honest media died some time ago—it was officially laid to rest yesterday.

Read Full Post »


The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on Roe v. Wade seems to apply to the current debate on health care—the right to privacy.  In that ruling, the Supreme Court established what is said to be “settled law” that a right to privacy is found in the constitution, even though not specifically stated.

Today’s health care bills include companions to H.R. 3200 in the Senate and the House.  These bills and especially H.R. 3200 have a common element.  It is the stripping of privacy from American citizens.  Just as a woman has the sacred right to manage her reproductive rights (per the Supreme Court), millions of Americans who would be fined for not having health care insurance have the right of privacy on how they manage their health care.

An excerpt from Mr. Justice Blackmun’s deliverance of the opinion of the court states:

 “…This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy…”

Essentially, I argue that any provision in the various bills circulating through Congress that could or would limit, direct, or propagate medical direction based on age and/or the condition itself is unconstitutional, under the right to privacy and other tenets of Roe v. Wade.

I argue that the degree of medical care suitable and available for the cure, prevention, or repair of an individual’s medical condition is up to the individual and the individual’s physician.  The available cure, prevention, or repair must be based on equal application of accepted general medical opinion on the cure, prevention, or repair of an individual’s condition and cannot be restricted or directed by the federal government or any state in any manner. 

I argue that any requirement requiring an individual to attend mandatory counseling sessions on life decisions is a violation of that individual’s right to privacy.

I argue that any fine for failure to keep health insurance is a violation of the right to privacy established under Roe v. Wade. I am a guy, but  I can still do with my body as I choose.

I argue that the federal government in its desire to create a nanny state is trampling on the precious tenets of this 1973 Supreme Court decision—a right to privacy for the individual. 

I argue that any attempt to house my or another person’s medical records with the government or any type of quasi-government agency, a requirement also found in these bills, is a violation of search and seizure and the aforementioned right to privacy.

Read Full Post »


Members of Congress have taken to calling those who are angry and attend health care town hall meetings “un-American” and a “right wing mob”.  Anyone who has viewed segments of these meetings should come to the opinion that while some may be on a mission from an organization, the crowd in general seems to support the more outspoken attendees. Speaker Pelosi has demonized anti-health care bill protesters at town hall meetings.  Her demonization of these very upset and frustrated people confirms that she is a hypocrite—watch in her own words.

Perhaps the anger goes deeper than the actual health care bill.  Perhaps the anger reaches all the way to defending one’s rights against a federal government intent on rolling right over the individual.  In this bill are requirements for citizens to attend counseling sessions and to create a board which will decide what procedures are good or bad for the people based on a formula.  As in other counties being held up as bastions of humane treatment by providing health care for all, this formula will look at a person’s age or health status to determine if the individual is entitled to a procedure, a type of care, or a pill.

Here is the $64 question!  Where does the federal government derive its authority to dictate how an American obtains health care or insurance and where he or she obtains health care or insurance?  What part of the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, provides the federal government the right to make these decisions and interfere with the lives of its citizens’ freedom of choice about health care management?

Our Constitution is unique in that it provides the federal government with limited specific powers and it attempts to protect the citizens from their own federal government.  At some point in the last twenty years, we have forgotten this important constitutional keystone of our republic.  We must assume that the Speaker of the House and the Majority Whip of the Democratic Party in the House in their leadership positions should be acutely aware of the freedoms provided citizens in the Constitution and the limits on the federal government.  If they are not aware, then they should not be in those positions.

Since there is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to minimize the health rights of the citizen, the anger being seen at town hall meetings may very well encompass more than simply a disagreement on healthcare.  These attendees are furious over the federal government’s unconstitutional attempt to regulate the health care of individuals and thus appear to be an unruly organized mob.  Their anger, most likely, also extends to the recent out of control spending by Congress and the prior and present administrations.

If you listen carefully, there is distrust of government and government representatives reflected in the comments of the attendees.  And if you listen more carefully to the comments from the Democratic hosts of these town halls, you will hear often disingenuous and trite statements and a desire not to listen to the attendees.  Often these disingenuous or trite comments inflame the already angry attendees to an even higher degree.

Since much of this healthcare bill is a gross violation of the powers provided the federal government under the constitution (if you don’t believe me, read it here or for a simpler version here), the attendees are being driven to frustrated ugly mob status because no one appears to be listening.  These deaf ears are attributed to the leadership in the House of Representatives and other federally elected officials.

Consider that this healthcare bill, specifically H.R. 3200, is enormous and hard to digest; the Democrats often themselves do not understand what is in the bill; and yet are attempting to unconstitutionally takeover one sixth of our economy while in the dark about the bill.  This is not only inadequate representation, it is also unconstitutional behavior.

If these actions by our elected representatives do not make you angry, you are not paying attention or you are getting your information from the wrong sources.  You need to join the angry mob, if only to defend the freedoms granted you in the constitution.  These freedoms are a bigger issue than little old healthcare.

Read Full Post »


With the Congress out of control, with 14 now 34 Czars and counting not answerable to the Congress reporting to President Obama, with U.S. Government ownership of GM and Chrysler, with first position bond holders tossed aside in favor of a union – forever altering the investment landscape where for hundreds of years bond holders were protected and now are no longer protected – forever dampening the economy and causing future corporate fund raising to be very difficult and expensive,  with the Treasury’s refusal to let some banks pay back their TARP money, with the proposals to establish national health care and a valued added tax to pay for it, with the marching order from the President of the United States to get this done by August, it is clear that the Federal Government looks at states as little fiefdoms subservient to the federal government.

Well, it is the other way around.  Someone in Washington D.C. and particularly in the Obama Administration should read the Constitution.  On more than one occasion President Obama has indicated that the Constitution is too restrictive of the federal (central) government and that the constitution should allow for the central government to make more rules to deliver services to the populace – often services not equally targeted toward all Americans.  His appointment of an activist judge for the Supreme Court is his attempt to make law and make constitutional law from the bench of the highest court in the land.  This must stop and stop now.

I have written the following similar letters to Governors Sanford of South Carolina, Perry of Texas, and Freudenthal of Wyoming.  This is the letter written to Rick Perry.

June 4, 2009

Rick Perry, Governor, State of Texas

Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 12428
Austin, Texas 78711-2428

Re: States Rights

Dear Governor;

I sent this note yesterday to Governor Dave Freudenthal of Wyoming.

Owing to the recent actions and planned actions (it all can’t be interstate commerce) by the Federal Government which are not within the 17 enumerated powers provided the U.S. Government in the Constitution, and the Obama supporting Congress, have you considered a law suit in Federal Court re-asserting the rights and powers of the states found in the Constitution? The goal is to stop this runaway madness and socialization of the private sector.

I suggest Wyoming because you have the greatest Republican majority of any state legislature. I also suggest a state file the suit since there should be no question about legal standing in the courts. This will probably work its way up to the Supreme Court.

Clearly as a state, Wyoming has the right to require the federal government to limit itself to the 17 powers and the few amendments describing the limits of power of the U.S. Government.

I represent no faction or organization. I write as an individual. I am not an attorney. I am an individual who sees the best of this nation disappearing more and more each day. President Obama and his Treasury among other Departments and the Congress are out of control and need to be reined in. Will you do it? Can you do it?

Governor Perry, perhaps you might contact Governor Freudenthal and encourage him to file that suit. Perhaps you may wish the former Republic and the State Texas to join him. Unless the states take action now, states rights will be gone forever and we will not recognize this nation by the next Presidential election. I will also be writing to Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina. I am not writing Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona, as I do not believe she has the fervor for righting this Constitutional wrong.

With the sincerest pleading, I am

Ken Moyes

I suggest that anyone who reads this post and feels that the federal government is out of control and is assuming the rights provided the states under the constitution (see Today’s Federal Government is Unconstitutional)   should write to their Governor or to the Governors listed in this post   Just go to a search engine and enter the state followed by “governor” and it will bring up a link to that state’s governor.

Unless we do something now, we will not recognize this country by the next Presidential election.  Stand up and be counted!

Read Full Post »


Recently the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives sought to move a global warming bill – a 900 page bill – that has not been read or digested by any legislator, out of committee and to the full House for a vote.  Congressman Henry Waxman, Democrat, the committee chairman, acknowledged publicly that he did not fully understand what was in the bill.  He simply wanted to move the bill out of committee and to the House for a vote.  At 900 pages, this an enormous bill covering intricate “cap and trade” and other environmental regulations.

“Cap and trade” potentially represents a radical change in the cost to the people of this country of our industrial infrastructure and power generation.  This bill has the potential to devastate our economy beyond the economy’s current volatility and yet no one person really knows what is in it.  What makes this plan even more flagrant is the cavalier attitude and approach by the Democratic leadership on passage of this bill.

When the committee Republicans were insisting that the bill be read aloud – their right under our Congressional procedures – Chairman Waxman hired a speed reader for the clerk’s staff and threatened to have the entire bill read by the speed reader.  Remember, speed readers are those folks no one can understand and are found in comedy routines.  Are our legislators this arrogant and whimsical about how they represent us in Congress?  Instead of taking bill content knowledge seriously, the Democrats just want to pass an ideologically radical, economically risky 900 page bill without any one legislator knowing what is in it.

Don’t we as citizens deserve more?  When we elect someone to Congress, we expect them to represent us on matters of legislation.  We don’t expect our legislators to abdicate learning about bills before them so they can make a prudent and intelligent vote.  If they are not going to bother learning what is in a bill, then we can either use a dice roll or hire chimps to vote.  Hiring a speed reader is not a funny or laughable matter.   It is an arrogant abuse of power and a mockery of our constitutional republic.   Just how many bills will these legislators vote on without reading?  This flagrant approach to bills started with the unread $770B stimulus package.  We deserve better.

Read Full Post »


Many people in perceived fairness say that President Obama is in office a little more than two months, so we  should give him a chance.  To these people I ask, how long do you give a new nanny who demonstrates poor child rearing skills, with your children?  For the ladies, how long do you allow a  new beautician who is clearly doing her own thing and not doing what is best for you to continue before you yell stop?  We are seeing so called fixes to our economic problems that are not economic problem fixes.  We are seeing major changes to our civic culture under the guise of fixing our economic problem.  We are seeing a serious threat to our constitution, by a man who openly does not like our constitution the way it was written. 

President Obama is a “big government” – government is intended to take care of people – kind of guy.  Just listen to his own words.  He is asking to spend hundreds of billions on energy, health care, and education – sounds noble, but he has no plan on how to spend this money.  No businessman in the world could borrow money without a business plan, yet he wants multiple billions without a plan – he wants you to buy into his wishes sight unseen – something like buying land (swampland) in Florida.  This massive spending on noble targets may sound great, but you need to lift the hood to see just what happens when the big government engine is turned on.  In the world of gross domestic product, government produces nothing – it is a drain.  It does not foster job growth.  It does not provide the necessesary economic energy to sustain growth and to keep on delivering.  Government simply takes from the producers and the only thing it gives back is a portion of what it has taken – the rest is government overhead.  Over time, the producers stop producing because there is no upside for them to produce.

Sure government can create jobs, government jobs, and this does two things that should make you run from government intrusion in your life.  First, any government job created takes away from the producers the ability to produce, grow, and create jobs with a multiplier effect.  It must continue to take from the producer to support the government created job.  Second, the government created job, as it takes away from private sector job growth, keeps you permanently chained to the government to keep your job.  Some may say – “what is wrong with a good job from the government?” – the answer is that the government job is not sustainable and that over time, the ecomony and quality of life shrink.  As the economy shrinks, the government must take more and more from the remaining producers to sustain those made up government jobs – remember, government jobs produce nothing and add nothing to the economy.  As more and more is taken, the producers produce less due to loss of economic motivation – this becomes a cycle of doom.  Countless countries have tried this and met the same result – failure.

Throughout history in Latin America, South America, Europe, and Asia (most of the globe), power hungry despots and some well meaning socialists have adopted the control afforded by socialism and the “government can do it all” approach, and failed miserably.  Our current President is an academic with a law degree.  He has never produced, never managed anything, and appears to have never studied history on the failure rate of big government socialism.  That is, unless he is not concerned with 100% failure rate or the success of the venture (we cannot call it an experiment since the experiment failed in a plethora of tests around the globe), and he is only seeking the control and power that comes to a few, not the masses, from the big government socialist venture.

The following is Barack Obama, when he was a state senator, in his own words describing why our constitution is flawed and in need of change.  If this does not send chills up your spine, then you have not been paying attention.  He feels that the constitution does not provide government with sufficient powers.  In this video Mr. Obama telegraphs just where he wants to take this country with the big government socialist approach.  The video was found on a blog Bob’s Bites. (Thank you Bob’s Bites).

This bullet train approach to CHANGE toward a big government socialist nation with an understanding that the constitution does not permit the kind of change being attempted, must be stopped.  Unfortunately, President Obama will be in office for four years and the current very left, very socialist Democratic Party controlled Congress will be intact for two years, making the stopping of this train very difficult, but not impossible.

We need to pressure the members of the U.S. Senate’s Democratic Party who hold the more moderate and conservative economic voting records in the Democratic Party Senate caucus and three Republican RINO’s (republicans in name only) to act as a buffer and to take steps to retard the hi-speed approach to socialist economic change.  We must pressure these Senators to slow the massive government spending for big government.  This government spending is not sustainable and simply cannot be repaid.  You see, right now, the government is a sub-prime borrower seeking an unsustainable mortgage – have you heard this before?  This is what got us into this mess and now we are attempting to spend our way to prosperity and borrow our way out of debt – show me one budget text book that portends a happy outcome when you spend more than you can produce for a sustained time.  One book does explain this unique economic plan – it is the bible – the new testament to be exact.  It is commonly known as the “Miracle of the Loaves and the Fishes”.  Unfortunately for us, while Barack Obama may think he can walk on water – he cannot and he cannot perform the “Miracle of the Loaves and the Fishes” or make wine from water!

Do what you can to stop this bullet train, before it is too late! Tell them (cut and paste the statement if you wish):

“Stop the over the top spending and borrowing now – don’t destroy our country!  Socialism does not work!”

The Democratic Senators in the Senate, with the most conservative economic voting records and the three Republicans (RINOs), who should be pressured are:

Baucus, Max – (D – MT)

 

511 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2651
Web Form: baucus.senate.gov/contact/emailForm.cfm?subj=issue

 

Bayh, Evan – (D – IN)

 

131 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5623
Web Form: bayh.senate.gov/contact/email/

 

Byrd, Robert C. – (D – WV)

 

311 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3954
Web Form: byrd.senate.gov/contacts/

 

Carper, Thomas R. – (D – DE)

 

513 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2441
Web Form: carper.senate.gov/contact/

 

Conrad, Kent – (D – ND)

 

530 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2043
Web Form: conrad.senate.gov/contact/webform.cfm

 

Dorgan, Byron L. – (D – ND)

 

322 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2551
E-mail: senator@dorgan.senate.gov

 

Landrieu, Mary L. – (D – LA)

 

328 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5824
Web Form: landrieu.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

 

McCaskill, Claire – (D – MO)

 

717 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6154
Web Form: mccaskill.senate.gov/contact/

 

Nelson, Ben – (D – NE)

 

720 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6551
Web Form: bennelson.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

 

Tester, Jon – (D – MT)

 

724 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2644
Web Form: tester.senate.gov/Contact/index.cfm

 

Webb, Jim – (D – VA)

 

248 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4024
Web Form: webb.senate.gov/contact/

 

Wyden, Ron – (D – OR)

 

223 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5244
Web Form: wyden.senate.gov/contact/

 

Collins, Susan M. (R – ME)

 

413 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2523
Web Form: collins.senate.gov/public/continue.cfm?FuseAction=Contact…

 

Snowe, Olympia J. (R – ME)

 

154 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5344
Web Form: snowe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenat…

 

Specter, Arlen (R – PA)

 

711 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4254
Web Form: specter.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Co…

Read Full Post »


The real no spin definition of most earmarks is a Member of Congress targeting a group with your money taken right from the ever flowing government monetary fountain to either get votes or campaign funds for reelection.  This keeps the “select” few in Congress.  Search high and low and you will not find much integrity in Congress or with those who use the system to keep getting reelected.

Who runs our government?  At any given time, the decision makers in Congress represent the 15% of the population who place party above country.  Most people who are registered Democrats or Republicans follow their party and generally agree with their party, but do not place party above country.  Most elected representatives are of the 15% of the population who are Democrats or the 15% who are Republicans – these are the folks who place party above country.  Under the Bush administration there was a push to expand the Republican Party by expanding government and spending more – sounds like the Democrats doesn’t it?  The theory was, if we give the people “stuff” they will vote for us, since this has worked for the Democrats for some time.

 The problem was that the Democrats had elevated giving stuff to those who don’t have stuff to an art form and thus the Republican plan badly backfired.  In the case of the Republican representatives, they placed party above country.  The problem with the Democratic Party, now that the backlash against the Republicans has given the Democrats essentially a majority in both Houses of Congress and possession of the Whitehouse, is that they are seizing the opportunity to take their art form of expanding government and giving stuff to those who don’t have stuff to a new level.  They are using this opportunity to forever move this country, in a series of well planned steps, to the far left progressive governance of socialism and control by their party.  Again this is party over country.

In a previous posting “Fix Congress, But How?” I suggested changes to our Constitution as a means of regaining control of the country from the parties.  It should always be what is best for the country, not what is best for the party.  That posting did not cover one other method of regaining control of our country and the re-establishment of bi-partisan governing or more importantly multi-partisan governing.  This type of governing is brings back checks and balances.

By allowing a third or even more parties to grow and prosper to major status, we will force compromise, build in check and balances, and blunt extremism from the two major parties of today.  This means changing state laws that have been put in place to make it very hard for other than a Republican or Democrat to run for federal office.    Today’s Democratic Party is not the party to which my father, a union bricklayer, belonged.  The Democratic Party of John F. Kennedy was more like the Republican Party today.  Both Parties have moved very left.  Within each party are those who represent the centrist, left and right camps of party members.  The Blue Dog Democrats are fiscally conservative members of the Democratic Party, and are mostly from the south.   They may be Democrats, but they do not control the party – the Far left does.  This group would bolt to a viable third party if it could achieve major status.  Do you think they were comfortable recently when Speaker Pelosi demanded a yes vote for the 1,000+ page American Recovery Act (stimulus bill of $787 Billion) with no time to read or digest it?  This was a case for these people to place party over country, because if they did not comply, the party would not support them going forward during the reelection primary campaign.

You can initiate change yourself.  Find a party of your liking and change or simply go independent.  However in most states independents lose out during the primary season by being shut out of the vote.  The two major parties are simply too powerful, with the Democrats being in an über power position.  This situation is incredibly dangerous for this nation.  The far left 15% of the population are now in control of our country.  Is this how you want this country managed?  Spinning off those other major parties is change you can trust.  Change you need to push for by contacting your state representatives to insure that getting on the ballot is equally easy for all parties.

Read Full Post »


Updated: March 23, 2010

The two most important issues facing this nation are now very clear.  These two issues have now risen past all other issues previously highlighted in this blog.  The first big issue is:

We now have a House of Representatives where the progressives hold just about all committee chairmanships; A Senate with progressives from both parties holding key committee positions; we have an extreme progressive as Speaker of the House; an extreme progressive as Senate Majority Leader; and an extreme progressive, near socialist, as President of the United States.  I use the term progressive, because I believe the progressives have taken over the Democratic Party – it is certainly not the party of John F. Kennedy and not the party that my mother and father admired.  To digress a bit, just take a good look at the advisors with which our President surrounds himself.  These are for the most part radical revolutionaries with the pedigrees to match.

Their agenda is simple, provide as much social legislation without regard to the debt and to our ability to pay the bill.  This is the first big issue facing America.  The means used to pass the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act demonstrated that this group of progressives believes that the end, that they seek, justifies the means with which they achieve the end.

They stopped at nothing in their effort to push a piece of legislation by going outside the rules of each House of Congress, by buying votes from legislators with our money, by a complete obfuscation of the true facts about the bill when informing or rather ill informing the public.  They wrote provisions into the bill to force the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to provide a dollar amount that was on the surface revenue neutral, even a debt reducer, when it is neither.  They did this by double counting supposed savings in a number of areas, with an egregious mis-count on Medicare savings to the tune of $563 Billion.

They sold this bill to the public as a bill to insure thirty-two million uninsured Americans, yet they do not cover these Americans for years.  In fact, the thirty two-million includes illegal aliens, but we were told that no illegal aliens would be covered.  What we were not told was that the next bill up in Congress, and they have started to work on this, is to provide amnesty for these illegal aliens, so they will be covered as well.

In this bill the Democrats have given the Secretary of Health and Human Services the authority and the marching orders 1,200 times to write her own rules for all sorts of health care, from payments to procedures, to insurance, to who is covered, to rationing, since thirty-two million newly insured will need to be covered by the same number of doctors who now practice – rationing will be necessary.  The Secretary has now been given the ability to write law without Congressional oversight. Remember the Secretary is Kathleen Sibelius, who refused to take action against “Tiller the Baby Killer” when she was governor, because he contributed heavily to her campaign.  “Tiller The Baby Killer” was one of two or three doctors in Kansas who would routinely abort late-term babies for frivolous reasons, before he was assassinated – these were babies who could have lived outside the womb.

This bill is actually a violation of Roe v. Wade – the Supreme Court decision that protected a women’s right to do with her body as she sees fit.  This also applies to men who wish to do with their body as they see fit.  Should men or women choose to not have health insurance and not to seek regular medical care, they have that right under Roe v. Wade. Read: Roe v. Wade to the Rescue: right to privacy or health care mandates.

One last item about this bill, is that you can search it high and low and you will find nothing in it that attempts to control the cost of health care.  Why?  Well, this bill is only intended to drive the health insurance companies out of business, leading to single payer universal health care, just as found in Canada and Great Britain.   Until this happens, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is in control of the insurance companies.

The second big issue facing this nation is even more dangerous to us than health insurance reform:

The flagrant disregard for our Constitution by Congressional leaders and our President should be a warning to all.  Speaker Pelosi actually laughed at a reporter who seriously asked if what she was proposing was Constitutional.  At the minimum they have flouted the spirit of the Constitution and at the most egregious they have simply ignored it.  The President is on record with his disdain for the Constitution, in that it does not offer mandates of what the government must do for its citizens.

It is clear that he and his cadre wish to rewrite our storied Constitution that currently prohibits our federal government from taking over the rights of people.  This document prohibits the federal government from diminishing the states and Congress to roles as bit players in the governing of this country.  It is clear that the current leadership in Washington feels inhibited by this Constitution – they cannot ignore the whole thing.

This progressive cadre wants to rewrite the Constitution and the way to do that is to create a national economic emergency the size of which has never been imagined.  They will spend us into oblivion until our economy is broken and our free markets are teetering on collapse.  Then and only then, to solve a national emergency, they will offer a solution to the problem that includes an even bigger federal government driven by an even bigger centralized executive branch.  They will attempt to use the tragic events of a broken economy to rouse public interest to rewrite the Constitution.

Read an indepth look at how the progressives have attempted to marginalize and discard our Constitution in a bookblog dedicated to looking at what is wrong, why it is wrong, and what we need to do to fix the problem at U.S. Constitution – “Sine Die”.

Read Full Post »


What are the impediments and the solutions to making the necessary changes to this country to get it back on track? The impediments are simple, the Presidency and the Congress. Perhaps you were going to answer special interests, lobbyists, and maybe partisan behavior by Congress and the President – any President, Republican and Democrat. The solution is not McCain-Feingold or other worthless legislation that is intentionally filled with loopholes. The solution is two fold and is very simple.

First, pass a Constitutional Amendment restricting the source of funds, personal property, real property, or in-kind services contributed to a campaign for the House of Representatives. Allow only individuals primarily residing in the district to contribute to a campaign for that district – allow no outside, political party, or corporate money to go to any congressional candidate’s campaign. No longer will a corporation or individual be able to contribute to the campaigns of candidates for Congress in districts where they have no stakeholder residence. An elected Representative will then be focused on his or her constituency and not the other folks who helped him or her get elected or reelected – who have no interest whatsoever in the people of that district. Any violation of this amendment, means forfeiture of the House seat. The opponent would sue in U.S. District Court – the loser pays all costs for the court and both sides of the litigation.

Second, repeal the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution. This amendment foolishly took away the power of the States to control Congress by eliminating the State Legislature election of Senators. It replaced it with the direct election by voters. At first blush, you might say what is wrong with Senators being elected by the Citizens of the State? Well our two house system , the bicameral Congress was specifically designed to allow the Senate to represent the States of the United States of America and for the House of Representatives to represent the people. The special duties and authority given to the Senate were structured to enable the Senate to be a check in balance for the House and the Executive Branch. The Seventeenth changed all this and eliminated any control over the Federal government by the States.

Repealing the Seventeenth or modifying it will bring back the balance needed in Congress to control, lobbyists, special interests, and out of control campaigns for the Senate. It will make the Senate directly accountable to the States’ Legislatures who put them in the Senate. The only change needed would be to limit the recall of a Senator by requiring a two thirds super majority of each house of the States’ Legislature for bicameral and the one house of the unicameral Nebraska Legislature, and the concurrence of the governor of that legislature’s state. Once members of Congress are representing the right parties – the people of the district and the state legislatures, this country will start to be more bipartisan, and start to correct the problems we face. Read more at: https://brokengovernment.wordpress.com/2008/05/02/1913-was-the-true-birth-of-our-federal-government/

https://brokengovernment.wordpress.com/2008/05/11/awash-in-special-interests-the-solution/

Updated May 17, 2008: The following is a link to a web site which discusses the repeal of the seventeenth in more depth. While I feel the seventeenth should be repealed, I do not fully accept the verbiage of the proposed amendment to repeal the seventeenth. I specifically oppose the liaison committee concept and the recall by a majority vote. I do, however, totally endorse the repeal of the foolhardy seventeenth amendment.

http://www.articlev.com/repeal_the_17th_amendment.htm

The following is a link added May 21, 2008: Barnstablepatriot

Read Full Post »


The Founding fathers of this longest running uninterrupted democratic republic in the world, The United States of America, understood that each of the three branches of our government left unchecked would try to be the sole driving force of this nation. Thus they gave us a system of checks and balances in our Constitution. The President is the Commander in Chief of our Armed Services, yet he needs the consent of Congress to go to war. Congress can pass bills with a majority vote of both houses, but the President can veto the bill if he doesn‘t agree with it. If the President vetoes a bill, the Congress can override his veto. Congress makes the laws and the President enforces the laws. The President negotiates treaties and the Senate ratifies treaties. The President appoints Federal Judges, Justices of the Supreme Court, Ambassadors, and other federal officials and the Senate must give its consent. The House of Representatives votes to impeach a President or the federal judiciary and the Senate tries the case. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides and a two thirds Senate present must vote to convict.

If we are to literally interpret the Constitution we would find that the Judicial Branch was sort of left out of the checks and balances and was playing a minor role when the Constitution and subsequently the Bill of Rights were adopted. No where in the constitution does it say that the Judiciary can declare a law to be unconstitutional (judicial review). However, in the very early nineteenth century, the Court’s power of judicial review, as it was applied to the constitution, came to be. Under the Constitution, the judiciary’s power did extend to cases of law arising under the constitution, and just about all other activity occurring between states, the federal governments and the states, citizens of different states, between states and their citizens, foreign states and citizens of foreign states and so on.

The Judiciary did receive more power indirectly when the Bill of Rights was adopted. Citizens were now protected and became an additional check and balance to the governing of the nation. The Judiciary is where the Citizenry go to for redress against their State or the Federal government. It was not until, 1803, when Chief Justice John Marshall invoked the power of judicial review and the authority of the Supreme Court to declare a law or actions by a State or the Federal Government unconstitutional, that the Judicial Branch became an equal player in the checks and balances triad. It would appear that judicial review is the most powerful tool of the Court. Well not so fast!

A new tool used by Federal Judges in lower courts, or as the Constitution puts it – inferior courts, is to make rulings that actually through precedent change the law. Here is a case where the checks and balances have failed. A bold approach would dictate that the Executive Branch ignore the new ruling as being outside the domain of the ruling judge, and that the Congress should censure or impeach any Federal Judge who attempts to make law. The heavily partisan nature of our lawmakers lends itself to their inability to take back their right as the sole Federal law making body in the country. The Executive Branch is also at fault by not decreeing that law made by a sitting judge is not constitutional and will not be enforced (no law making without representation).

Unless these actions of the Executive and Congress take place, the checks and balances are gone. It appears that neither the Congress nor the Executive Branch have the power or desire to hold the judiciary in check. Are the “checks and balances” protection built into the Constitution broken and in need of being fixed?

Of course, the Congress and States jointly can change the Constitution, while the Executive and the Judicial Branches have no direct role in amending the Constitution. Do the Congress and the States really need to exercise this gargantuan constitutional effort required to amend the Constitution just to offset some new law made by a judge through precedent or can they just ignore the judges ruling and make him or her go back and do it again and keep doing it until the judge is no longer making law. If the judge does not want to comply, there is always that impeachment thing.

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: