Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Constitution’


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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »


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!

 

 

 

Read Full Post »


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%.

 

 

Read Full Post »


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.

 

Read Full Post »


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.

Read Full Post »


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?

Read Full Post »


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.

Read Full Post »


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”

Read Full Post »


Of the people, by the people, and for the people – apparently not!  When you look at the polls and look behind them you see an electorate (democrat, republican, libertarian, etc.) that is in such discontent, even spitting angry, over the politics and governance of this country.  Neither major party is held in high regard as both parties have placed party and special interests above country.

Look inside the Democratic Party, and you will find two very distinct parties.  The party has old line democrats who have not yet realized that their party has been taken over by left wing radicals – well there are so many “radicals” that perhaps we cannot call them radicals any longer.  Radical thinking is no longer radical when the number of proponents reaches a critical mass, and it has.  It is a movement of such strength that it can topple our Republic.

These radicals are the socialist, wealth, and health care re-distribution advocates.  Their climate change philosophy is centered on America literally paying monetary tribute to the less developed nations of the world. They claim we owe these underdeveloped nations our wealth since we have been successful and have destroyed the atmosphere with carbon dioxide –stuff plants and trees love.  This is the core driver of this crisis of climate change or global warming.

If we were to institute all the changes the climate change supporters want, we would see worldwide abject poverty grow and widespread food shortages.  The result will be that we will only affect man made climate change by about 1% in the next 100 years.  (This statement can be supported by many prominent scientists and economists, but this writing is not the place for this debate.  If you must digress into this argument then view John Stossel’s information on the topic or do your own research.) As we have recently seen with the exposed emails of leading climate change scientists, Jones (the UN’s key scientist for the IPCC) and Mann, among others, climate change is certainly not settled science and their manipulation of the data findings, destruction of the raw data, and their overt attempt to squelch professional, educated dissent makes this a political wealth distribution gambit and not science.

Climate change is a well disguised and well planned assault on our Republic and the free market system.  The current populist movement is fermented by those who seek national wealth redistribution and to expunge capitalism, because capitalism is supposedly a detriment to the people of the world.  This is also driven by these former radicals, now just far left believers.  Our President and many in Congress are drivers of this movement.

Capitalism is not the problem. The problem facing our Republic is the marriage of government and big business that enhances the corporate profit motive – largess for the elites at all cost is the result of this unholy alliance.  The relationship between our federal government and Goldman Sachs is almost incestuous.  The number of government officials in and around the White House and Treasury, who were Goldman Sachs executives, is staggering   – true under both the Obama and Bush administrations.  Why has our government become wed to these corporations?

For the government, mostly made up of democrats, this means that small business enterprise can be squeezed out and unions supporting the democrats will prosper.  Unions do not do well when small business creates 70 plus percent of the jobs in this country.  When the government eliminates small business as a major jobs grower, the government will grow, foster more pro democrat union memberships, and the democrats will have a built in support system to simply stay in power.  Take a look at the government payrolls.  The salaries of government workers average nearly double those of the private sector.  Remember this is tax payer money being paid in large grants to those who economically produce nothing for the country.  The nature of government work is to manage government and not to produce goods and services.

For corporations this means government capital availability and big profits.  This also means special interests rule Congress and no longer is “What is good for the nation” the top agenda item.   “What is good for the small echelon of corporate elites” moves to the top of the Congressional legislative calendar.  This means that Congress no longer represents the people – can we say it is official now?– that the goal of Congress is to make more than half the nation beholden to the Democratic Party and to raise money from the corporate elites.  We are seeing a government coup occur center stage as we look on.  The Congress through the last stimulus bill, omnibus bill, and now the health care bills has written enough empowerment to bureaucratic regulators and entitlements for the tax takers of America that what has been done, might never be undone.  Government bureaucrats continue to be given the ability to make law, without Congress’ approval and the requisite signature of the President.  Entitlements are targeted to those who pay little or no taxes, but have a vote.  Current decisions by our government, mostly against the growth of small business, are focused on keeping the number of tax takers at a voting majority level and yes, keeping them beholden to the Democrats.

By now you are thinking this writer is just bashing the Democrats.  Well, it is the Republican’s turn.  Two Congresses ago, the Republicans attempted the same un-American plan that the Democrats are carrying out with perfection, they just did not know how to do it well.  Look through the ranks of the Republican Party leadership and you will find a host of Congressman and Senators who also regularly put party ahead of country.  The problem is that too many Republicans are dependent on democrat voters and special interest money – they may wear different uniforms in the Congress, but they sell their souls to the same devil.  No longer is it “Damn Yankee!” – it’s now “Damn American!”  The powerful moneyed special interests are Lola and “What Lola wants Lola gets.”  Climate change just serves to make them richer.

How did we get here?  Well the Constitution has and had a number of protections against this coup that is taking place, but sadly some powers are lost and new ones need to be enacted.  First, the states, you know, those sovereign powers that created the United States Government in 1787 and actually super cede the Federal Government under the Constitution in Article 1, Section 8 and the Tenth Amendment, need to push for a repeal of the 17th amendment.

The Founders looking for a way for the states to control a centralized Federal Government created a control rod for the states, called the Senate.  Senators were appointed by the states’ legislatures and not directly elected by the people.  This made the Senators accountable only to the states’ legislatures and governors.  The states, via the Senate, were given the power to provide advice and consent on appointees, including judicial, and to ratify treaties with two thirds of the Senate voting in the affirmative.  Most importantly, the states through the Senate were given the power to keep the House of Representatives in check and continue the rights which their sovereignty brought them.

The 17th amendment removed the Senate as an arm of the states in 1913.  This was a crucial mistake by the Congress and the states ratifying the amendment.  Senators were now subject to the money and power of specials interests, instead of the one special interest they represented – their state.

What if this “angry electorate” votes out the incumbents?  Will this change the special interests’ impact?  Will the elite corporate echelon disappear? No! They will just have new meat to work with, new people to make rich.  Members of Congress have learned that entry into the club of representative government means that they can retire rich, give us our own money to buy votes, and provide for a cushy retirement and a wonderful lifetime medical plan.

Unless and until we successfully remove the money and largess of riches bestowed on our lawmakers nothing will change.  We are told that term limits already exist – called voting for the other guy.  Well, sitting Representatives have the decked stacked in campaign contributions and in name recognition, so that they are returned to Congress over 90% of the time.  Does this sound like to you what the Founders intended for the “People’s House”?

Our Republic founded in 1787 , with its “People’s House” and its upper house, the Senate, formerly representing the states, is in serious danger of morphing into what it was never intended to be, an inefficient socialist  economy and an oligarchy government with no real representation of the people.  It was intended to be the best form of government possible – not perfect, but better than all the rest.

Ill conceived changes to our Constitution and 21st century forces from corporate greed and special interest money, never anticipated by the Founders, are seriously threatening this grand and successful form of republican government.

If you want to vote out the incumbents go ahead, but then unceasingly demand of your candidate a constitutional amendment that will:

  • prohibit any campaign money received by a congressional candidate from any source other than a source predominantly domiciled in the candidate’s district;
  • prohibit all earmarks, limiting all appropriations to openly debated expenditures;
  • prohibit a congressional representative from accepting gift funds or in-kind services  from any person or organization, until five years after leaving office;
  • repeal the 17th amendment;
  • establish Congressional term limits at three terms;
  • prohibit retirement from the House; and
  • prohibit Congressional medical benefits one year after leaving office.

If your candidate commits to this amendment, then vote him or her in, otherwise find and support a candidate who will.

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 »


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 »


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 »

%d bloggers like this: