Tag Archives: constitution

RE: The US Senate Race in Kansas

“Independent” Greg Orman, who has so many Democrat Party operative working on his campaign one expects to see Nancy Pelosi’s name on his campaign headquarters door, has stated that he will caucus with whatever party presents the best ideas.

Mr. Orman’s campaign website states:

“If Greg is elected, there’s a reasonable chance that neither party would have a majority in the US Senate. If that is the case, he will work with the other independent Senators to caucus with the party that is most willing to face our country’s difficult problems head on and advance our problem-solving, non-partisan agenda.”

Therein lays the problem, and a perfect example of: a) how constitutionally illiterate our political class has become; b) how constitutionally illiterate our citizenry has become; and c) why the 17th Amendment is the most damaging action ever executed by the Progressive Left throughout US history.

When the Progressives of the early 20th Century marshaled through the 17th Amendment, they did a great damage to the symbiotic set of checks and balanced that achieved protections for both the individual and the individual states, where the power of the federal government was concerned. Under the guise of putting more control of government into the hands of the people, the Progressives, under Woodrow Wilson, literally destroyed the check and balance that protected state sovereignty and, through that erosion, the sovereignty of the individual.

At its inception, the US Constitution mandated, in Article I, Section 3, that:

“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote…”

The appointment of senators by the state legislators thwarted political faction on the floor of the US Senate. With each senator held accountable by their respective state legislatures for their votes, alliances and actions, the onus for political survival for the senatorial class was devotion to the well-being of their home states. The political ideology or factional allegiance of the senator was irrelevant for the most part. If a senator chose political party over the needs of his home state, the state legislature could – and would – simply recall him through an act the State House, replacing the senator with someone who held allegiance to his home state – and the constitution of that home state – above national political faction.

Understanding this original intent that the Framers built into the Constitution, the idea of Obamacare, or suffocating national debt, or an aggressive IRS, EPA or NSA, would never have come to be. The unfunded mandates of Obamacare would have seen the 54 senators from the 27 states that refused to establish ACA health insurance exchanges – and most likely more from states that did – voting against the bill in its infancy because the legislation harms the well-being of the individual states and usurps the authority of most every state’s constitution. So too, the national debt would never have been allowed to accumulate because it passes down to the citizens of individual states. The IRS would be little more than a gaggle of accountants, the EPA would not exist and the NSA wouldn’t be allowed to operate on US soil, if at all.

Simply put, there would be no party politics in the US Senate. It would be an assembly of representatives of each state’s government, tasked specifically and exclusively with the protection of the home state and her constitution. The passage of the 17th Amendment killed that protection and facilitated political faction on a national level to metastasize in the US Senate, something Pres. George Washington warned vehemently about in his Farewell Address.

The 17th Amendment mandates:

“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote…”

By tricking – and that’s exactly what the Progressives did – the populace into thinking the popular election of their senators gave them more power over government, it literally established the opposite; delivering great power to national political parties and the federal government, while extinguishing an essential check and balance over said political parties and the federal government. The 17th Amendment took power away from the people and the states, and delivered it to the political parties and the federal government.

So, why is the Senatorial Election in Kansas a perfect example of constitutional illiteracy and Progressive manipulation? Would the 17th Amendment have not been passed Mr. Orman wouldn’t need – or aspire – to caucus with any political faction or party. He would, instead, be carrying out the will of the Kansas State Legislature and, through them, the will of the people of his state. There would be no need – or desire – to “caucus” with those of any particular political “flavor” because the well-being of each state is dictated by the needs of each state and her people, not the leaders of any political party.

To wit, imagine that the 17th Amendment had never passed, or that a smart-thinking Congress repealed it. No longer would we see any – any – legislative gridlock; no longer would we amass unrepayable debt; no longer would we see hyper-partisan or ideological pieces of legislation rammed down our throats; no longer would the American people – and her government – be held hostage to politics…no long would the American people be held hostage to politics.

Still think Progressives are on the side of the people? Yeah, neither do I…I haven’t for a very, very long time.

Eh! Who Cares About the Rules?

Have we as a nation – and more precisely, we are Conservatives, Constitutionalists, Libertarians and Republicans – completely given up on playing by the rules? That would seem to be the case, at least in the instance of election law in the State of Michigan.

The Michigan Secretary of State, Ruth Johnson, a Republican, has abdicated her responsibility to enforce election law for the most basic of issues: how someone qualifies for being included on an election ballot.

The Hill reports:

“Michigan won’t appeal a federal judge’s ruling that placed Rep. John Conyers (P-MI) on the Democrat ballot, ending the threat that he would have to run a write-in campaign.

“The office of Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson, a Republican, announced the decision on Friday to let the judge’s ruling stand.

“Conyers had originally been ruled ineligible to appear on the ballot for the August primary because local officials found he didn’t submit enough valid petition signatures.

“A US district court judge last week, though, overturned that decision, finding it unconstitutional, and issued an order directing the local election commission to place the longtime lawmaker’s name back on the ballot.”

Let’s overlook, for the moment, that fundamental election law is supposed to be – supposed to be – reserved for the States. While the US Constitution prescribes basic qualifications of an individual to participate in a federal election, State legislatures regulate the eligibility of an individual for voting and to regulate the qualifications for a candidate appearing on a ballot paper. Ergo, the federal judiciary has unconstitutionally overstepped its authority in intervening in this case.

If the Secretary of State – a position directly elected by the voters of any given State – is charged with the responsibility to faithfully execute election law, in the case of Ms. Johnson, the option to abdicate responsibility to follow the letter of the law does not exist. By not executing an appeal of the federal judge’s unconstitutional ruling she both violates her oath of office to faithfully execute her duties as Secretary of State, but she also betrays the constitutional rights of her State’s citizenry by surrendering the State mandated rights of Michiganians.

A citizen versed in the threat of Progressivism would point out that one of the primary goals of the Progressive movement is to centralize government at the federal level, moving the authority of government away from elected representation and toward an ever-expanding federal bureaucracy. Ms. Johnson, by skirting her responsibility to defend her State’s authority to render election law, has aided the Progressive cause in Mr. Conyers’ inclusion on the Michigan ballot when he had not satisfied the requirements to be included.

As the mainstream media continues to manifest a false narrative about a “rift” within the Republican Party, the fact of the matter is this. Those who call themselves Conservatives, Constitutionalists and TEA Partiers (and by the way, TEA is capitalized because it is an acronym for Taxed Enough Already) are standing against those “go along to get along” Republicans who consistently betray the core tenets of the Republican Party, chief among them the common understanding that the United States of America – as so eloquently stated by John Adams – is “a nation of laws, not men.” To wit, there is no “rift.” True Republicans are trying to purge Progressives from their ranks, especially in positions of leadership.

This understood, hasn’t Ms. Johnson proved herself a Progressive in the Republican Ranks? One has to ask, what gives Ms. Johnson the authority to pick and choose what laws she follows and what laws she doesn’t? An action such as this is something the Obama Administration engages in…and that, constitutionally speaking and in a land of laws and not men, is both unAmerican and illegal.

The Benghazi Memo Points to a Crime

The newly dislodged memo from the Obama White House is effectively the smoking gun proving that President Obama’s handlers sought to deceive the American electorate in the run-up to the 2012 General Election on the issue of Benghazi. Even the refined spin and disinformation skills of White House Press Secretary Jay Carney weren’t enough to “play in Peoria”; the White House Press Corps audibly giggling at his insistence that the issue is a Republican conspiracy theory focused on “talking points.” That the Obama Administration has no problem lying to the American people in the pursuit of its agenda should be troubling enough, but now we have the issue of their complicity in covering-up the deaths – the murders – of four Americans. Anyone else executing the same rhetorical maneuvers would be charged with obstruction of justice, perjury and accessory to murder.

The memo, dated September 14, 2012 – now being referred to as the “smoking gun” memo – shows that then-White House Deputy Strategic Communications Adviser Ben Rhodes not only notified political operatives David Plouffe and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney (among others), on the email, but that all involved knowingly launched a disinformation campaign about the cause of the Benghazi attacks. In the memo Rhodes writes:

Subject: RE: Prep Call with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 pm ET

Goals:

▪ To convey that the United States is doing everything that we can to protect our people and facilities abroad;

▪ To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy;

▪ To show that we will be resolute in bringing people who harm Americans to justice, and standing steadfast through these protests;

▪ To reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.

The rest is recent history.

Forget for a moment that points one, two and three are absolute and bald-faced lies, rooted in the slash-and-burn political tactic of “say anything to get elected” Progressive politics, and that point four is the stuff of a political campaign memo and not a national security memo meant to inform the American people about the assassination of a United States Ambassador and his security contingent; an act of war. Forget all that for a moment.

What is of note here is: the date of the memo; who was included in the memo; and the fact that the instructions of this memo were carried out over 12 hours later.

That the date of the memo preceded now-UN Ambassador Susan Rice’s Sunday talk show circuit appearances proves that the effort was, in fact, a disinformation campaign. That then-White House Senior Advisor and political strategist David Plouffe, and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney were included in the email proves that there was an illegal coordination between the political and operational offices of the Obama White House. And since the actual deception was executed, just prior to a General Election where there was no clear front-runner, proves that everyone with any weight in the Obama White house – including David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett and President Obama himself – signed off on the execution of this disinformation campaign.

These three points clear, it would, to borrow a phrase from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, require a “willing suspension of disbelief” to believe that the erroneous information championed by the White House in the early days after the Benghazi attacks was both as fully informed as it could have been and not politically calculated. In other words, you would need to have the I.Q. of a fig to believe what is currently being shopped by Jay Carney.

The only conclusion possible for any thinking person is that the Obama Administration got caught with its pants down on the issue of al Qaeda-related terrorism by way of the assassination of a US ambassador and his security detail in Banghazi on September 11, 2012, and that in order to support its re-election political narrative – that al Qaeda was “on the run” – they knowingly and willfully lied to the American people. Again, the President of the United States and his handlers willingly lied about the murders of a US diplomat and three security personnel for political purposes.

A side note. The word “murder,” by definition, means:

1. Noun – Law. The killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law…

5. Verb – Law. To kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.

On August 9, 1974, facing the prospect of impeachment, President Richard M. Nixon, resigned the presidency of the United States of America. His “high crime and misdemeanor”: His knowledge and suspected complicity in a cover-up of a politically motivated crime that took place at the Watergate. The History Channel sums it up thusly:

“Early in the morning of June 17, 1972, several burglars were arrested inside the office of the Democratic National Committee, located in the Watergate building in Washington, DC. This was no ordinary robbery: The prowlers were connected to President Richard Nixon’s reelection campaign, and they had been caught while attempting to wiretap phones and steal secret documents. While historians are not sure whether Nixon knew about the Watergate espionage operation before it happened, he took steps to cover it up afterwards, raising ‘hush money’ for the burglars, trying to stop the Federal Bureau of Investigation from investigating the crime, destroying evidence and firing uncooperative staff members. In August 1974, after his role in the Watergate conspiracy had finally come to light, the president resigned. His successor, Gerald Ford, immediately pardoned Nixon for all the crimes he ‘committed or may have committed’ while in office. Although Nixon was never prosecuted, the Watergate scandal changed American politics forever, leading many Americans to question their leadership and think more critically about the presidency.”

Of note, the burglars at the Watergate were seeking to facilitate the gathering of information that would give Nixon’s Committee to Re-Elect the President (known derisively as CREEP), an advantage over Democrat nominee George McGovern.

I bring up Watergate in the context of the Benghazi attacks for several specific reasons.

What Did Mr. Obama (and His Principles) Know and When Did He Know It
Just as in Watergate, there are legitimate questions as to when Mr. Obama knew: a) that the attack even occurred; b) that the attack had taken the life of a US ambassador (an act of war); c) that an al Qaeda associated group was responsible for premeditating the attacks; d) that operatives within the CIA, State Department and Pentagon with knowledge of the attacks knew from the first moments that it was a terrorist attack; and e) that approval was given by senior White House staff to deceive the American electorate to shield the President’s reelection bid.

Both Events Resulted in Crimes
Aside from the fact that – both morally and ethically – the Obama State Department was guilty of ignoring critical security assessments for the Benghazi compound calling for tighter and upgraded security before the anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks, three specific crimes have striking parallels when Watergate and Benghazi are examined honestly.

Obstruction of Justice
Obstruction of Justice is usually a term used when a criminal or collaborator tries to thwart the investigation of a criminal act. In Watergate, the Nixon White House sought to withhold, destroy, alter and otherwise conceal evidence of wrong-doing from the FBI. With regard to the Obama White House’s response to the Benghazi attacks there was a carefully concerted effort to not only withhold, alter and otherwise conceal evidence of a crime – the murders of four Americans – from an investigative committee of the US House of Representatives, that effort extended to the dissemination of a false narrative – a lie – about the murderous events to the American people in an effort to win an election. Both acts of obstruction of justice – in Watergate and in Benghazi – were executed strictly and exclusively for political purposes.

Accessory to Murder
An accessory charge centers on “a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal.” This charge applies to a plethora of illegal actions, including murder. It is indisputable that US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, Foreign Service Information Specialist Sean Smith, and former Navy SEALs Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, were “murdered” (see the definition of murder provided above). As a point of order, the Obama Administration, by its own declarations, see the application of justice where terrorism is concerned as a “law enforcement issue,” so much so that the Holder Justice Department has sought to try 9/11 suspects in United States courts. That understood – and by their definition – they have implicated themselves via the purposeful cover-up, for political purposes, in four murders.

Perjury
Perjury is the “willful act of swearing a false oath or of falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding.” In the Watergate scandal, the Articles of Impeachment consist of three articles: “Obstruction of Justice,” “Abuse of Power,” and “Contempt of Congress.” All three of these articles alleged the act of perjury, whether to an empowered investigator or to congressional committees. All three of these “charges” would be applicable to the actions of some of the most senior members of the Obama Administration, including, Mr. Obama himself, regarding the Benghazi attacks.

In all of these comparisons, the parallels are legitimate. Senior members of the Obama White House – if not the President himself – are, with the advent of the Rhodes memo, implicated in obstruction of justice, accessory to murder and perjury. The only thing that separates Watergate from Benghazi is this: no one died in the total of the Watergate event. Four Americans did die in the Benghazi event; an event tantamount to an act of war; an event diminished and manipulated for political purposes.

I have always asked Mr. Obama’s detractors to “dial back” on the more intense charges against the man; charges that often served the Progressive disinformation and smear machines in maligning honest Constitution-loving Americans. Instead, I begged them, please stick to his policies and actions, because, just like his brethren Progressives of yesteryear, if we allow his actions and policies to play out, eventually he will weave enough rope with which he (or they) will eventually hang himself.

Mr. Obama’s Progressive, oligarchic, elitist, political greed has woven that rope. And no, this is not about the color of his skin. It’s all about the “color” of his politics.

“ARTICLE 1

“In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:

“On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.

“The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following…”

– Articles of Impeachment adopted by House Judiciary Committee on July 27, 1974

Are You Smarter Than a Supreme Court Judge?

Stevens’ idea for amending the Constitution is a loser, too.

Stevens’ idea for amending the Constitution is a loser, too.

April was not a good month for Americans that still believe the Supreme Court is a font of legal wisdom. Former Justice John Paul Stevens authored an Op–Ed in the WaPost proving you can be ignorant of history, blinded by ideology and confused regarding the plain meaning of words and still get to wear the black robe.

Stevens’ essay was titled ‘The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment.’

And no, Stevens’ five words weren’t “you can’t have a gun,” but that’s a good guess.

He began his effort in problem–solving by using the left’s favorite technique: Use distorted statistics to shock the public and advance a disingenuous argument: “Each year, more than 30,000 people die in the United States in firearm-related incidents.”

That’s a big number. Almost as big as the total number of Americans killed each year in car crashes. What Stevens purposely leaves out is the fact that 19,392 — or six in ten — of those deaths were suicide!

Once the suicide is removed from the total, it become obvious that riding in a car driven by a cell phone–wielding woman is much more dangerous than living in Virginia where people are allowed to carry guns openly. And cell phones aren’t protected by the Constitution.

What Stevens should be calling for is federal suicide control. If Congress would stop listening to the mortuary lobby and pass an effective law banning suicide — or at least get the ball rolling by creating suicide–free zones (this alone would speed up Metro travel in DC) — we could eliminate almost two–thirds of the gun deaths overnight.

The rest of the country could experience the safety and tranquility that residents of Detroit and Chicago currently enjoy in their gun–free cities. Once suicide is outlawed only criminals will kill themselves, surely a win–win.

But suicide doesn’t generate much news coverage so publicity–seekers aren’t interested in this sensible step to prevent unnecessary death.

Stevens contends the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment was ‘settled,’ much like global warming science, until the NRA went rogue. “For more than 200 years… federal judges uniformly understood that the right…was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms.”

That’s accurate without being truthful, since for two centuries neither states nor the federal government were trying to ban types of weapons, restrict the sale of weapons or impose ownership restrictions. So who would file a suit to stop an infringement that didn’t exist?

As for not imposing a limit on state or local governments, Stevens proves his knowledge of the Constitution is limited. If what he wrote is true then the Bill of Rights wouldn’t prevent states and cities from limiting speech, searching without a warrant and shutting down the newspaper if it criticized Barack Obama.

Stevens then lurches from urging judges to butt out because, “Public policies concerning gun control should be decided by the voters’ elected representatives, not by federal judges.” To complaining that those same legislators aren’t doing enough to seize weapons from the law abiding in the wake of Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook.

Before gracing us with his five–word prescription for domestic gun bliss, Stevens’ last contribution is to completely misrepresent the Bill of Rights and specifically the 2nd Amendment. He claims the amendment “was adopted to protect the states from federal interference with their power to ensure that their militias were “well regulated.” This is ludicrous on its face. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to protect individual rights and without those 10 amendments the Constitution would not have passed.

The obvious plain language of the 2nd protects an individual right to own weapons, but that’s evidently too subtle for a retired Supreme Court justice.

Then Stevens graces us with his solution: His amended amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”

If anything those five words would initiate an explosion of litigation.

In Athens a citizen was subject to military service until age 60. I figure I can pull a trigger until well into my 90’s. Sixteen–year–olds often served in militias, too, so many underage restrictions go by the board, thanks to Stevens.

As a serving militia member I will need my weapons at hand in case of a sudden call out. That makes militia members immune to any restrictions on carrying a firearm. I can carry in schools, courtrooms, national parks, football stadiums and even Toby Keith’s.

Stevens evidently believes the same legislators who aren’t passing the gun laws he wants are suddenly going to come down hard on militias. Historically militias were locally based and locally run without interference or control from the state government.

Each militia decided what weapons to carry, uniforms to wear, method of selecting officers and how often to meet. With Judge Stevens help you can think of the new militia as the Shriners with sidearms.

And as for what weapons to carry, let’s look at the world’s best–known militia the Taliban. The Talibs have RPGs, fully automatic rifles, grenades, heavy machine guns and donkeys. Everything the well–equipped American militia member could want, except for the donkey.

Stevens’ ‘solution’ removes age restrictions, expands the scope of weapons allowed for personal ownership and eliminates most geographic restrictions on where weapons can be carried. It’s the exact opposite of what Stevens wants, but not an unusual outcome for leftist social engineering.

If it weren’t for those boring monthly militia meetings, I would support him 100 percent.

An Oligarchy and Not a Republic? No Kidding?

The Washington Times is reporting that a study by Princeton and Northwestern Universities has determined that the fundamental transformation of the United States of America has already taken place. We have transitioned from a Republic (as our Framers intended) to an oligarchy:

“America is no longer a democracy — never mind the democratic-republic envision by Founding Fathers. Rather, it’s taken a turn down elitist lane and become a country led by a small dominant class comprised of powerful members who exert total control over the general population — an oligarchy, said a new study jointly conducted by Princeton and Northwestern universities.

“One concluding finding in the study: The US government now represents the rich and powerful, not the average citizen, United Press International reported…

“Researchers then concluded that US policies are formed more by special interest groups, than by politicians properly representing the will of the general people, including the lower-income class, UPI said.”

Really? Who would ever have thought?! Oh, that’s right, we “whackoids” and “domestic terrorists” among us; those warning about the encroachment of dominant government into our private lives. We have been (first politely and now with a twinge of anger) voicing this ongoing event for quite a while, first as individuals and now in organized groups.

This is what happens when Progressives capture the message-crafting media. This is what happens when we pass amendments to the US Constitution that destroy the protections built in for the individual States. This is what happens when factions and big money special interest groups reign supreme in Washington, DC. This is what happens when the no- and low-information voters decide elections; our country’s well-being hanging in the balance.

Whether or not it is too late to change anything is a matter of debate. Personally, I am inclined to fight for the country and the capitalist economic system that literally created the first Middle Class ever to exist in the history of man.

To that end, there is an organization that has developed a solution – or at least the vehicle to achieve a solution – for the manipulation of the no- and low-information voters by the special interests and political opportunists currently transforming our Republic; the oligarchs, if you will.

Founders Alliance USA*, a non-partisan group, has developed VoterFYI.

The VoterFYI initiative is for voters (and no- and low-information voters are included here) who are dissatisfied with the current political system and parties. The initiative matches voters to the strongest candidate on any given ballot, whose positions are compatible with the voters’ highest values using machine intelligence. Unlike the position paper model of think tanks, the VoterFYI process is more personalized by leveraging advances in social technology and artificial intelligence to match voters to their candidate, make recommendations on issues based on the data that is input, and save precious time.

Part of the pain of transitioning from the most promising form of government (the American constitutional Republic) to the failed tenets of oligarchical Socialism is the destruction of prosperity; the equalization of society by the denial of opportunity.

There has been very little economic growth for the last five years. The “recovery summer” has come and gone with the worst recovery ever recorded. In 1950, more than 80 percent of all men in the United States had jobs. Today, less than 65 percent of men do. Because they’re feeling acute pain monetarily, the sleeping giant that is “we the people” are waking up to the disparity and recognizing the incompetence of both political parties. It is at this point that Progressives and oligarchic elites intend to swoop in with an expansion of the entitlement state; the nanny state, where government advances to control even more of our lives than it already does.

The brilliance of the VoterFYI project comes in its ability to elevate the issues above the political parties and above the misinformation and deception of the terminal power-seekers. It allows each individual to formulate and refine their understanding of the issues, thus circumventing the Madison Avenue political rhetoric that only well-connected money can buy. Once the populace understands the issues – and how they, themselves, feel about the issues – no intentionally contrived message of spin by either established political camp can deceive the voters any longer…and this includes the no- and low-information voters.

Find out more about VoterFYI by clicking here.

I don’t know about you, but I am unwilling to stand by, doing nothing more than complaining, as Progressives and political opportunists finalize the fundamental transformation of the United States. I am choosing to actually do something about it. How about you?

“The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” ~ Patrick Henry

* In the interest of transparency, the author sits on the board of directors for Founders Alliance USA.

The Danger of Granting Lerner Immunity

The House Oversight & Government Reform Committee has voted to advance a Contempt of Congress charge against Lois Lerner, the former Director of the IRS Exempt Organizations Division. The vote was 21 to 12, brought about by Ms. Lerner’s refusal to provide information about the IRS’s targeting of Conservative advocacy groups vying for 501c3 tax-exempt status, especially during the period before the 2012 General Election.

To say that this very legitimate issue has been politicized would be an under-statement. Both Republicans and Democrats – not to mention Progressives – see political capital to be gained from this issue. Democrats and Progressives will continue to advance the canard that any action against a member of the Obama Administration is based on racism and hate, while Republicans, Conservatives and TEA Partiers will continue to point out that crimes have been committed against the American people; crimes directly affecting rights guaranteed in the United States Constitution.

While committee chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), stated, “This is not an action I take lightly… [lawmakers] need Ms. Lerner’s testimony to complete our oversight work and bring truth to the American people,” Rep. Carolyn Maloney (P-NY), rebutted, “Guilty or innocent, Ms. Lerner has a constitutional right to remain silent on this issue,” and Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA), said smugly that the case would be “laughed out of court.”

To the latter points, yes, Ms. Lerner has the right not to incriminate herself under the Fifth Amendment rights afforded her in the US Constitution, but I seriously doubt that the political targeting of American citizens’ First Amendment rights to redress government would be “laughed out of court.” As to the hypocrisy of Ms. Lerner seeking protection from the US Constitution, even as she disregarded the protections the US Constitution affords her fellow Americans, that she should be rewarded with a pension and/or benefits stemming from her 32 years of federal employment – including service with the Justice Department and the Federal Election Commission, two positions that prove she knew better than to do what she is accused of doing – is a scandal in and of itself.

There are those who are willing to allow Ms. Lerner to “get away” with her politically-based ideological attacks on her fellow Americans by granting her immunity to testify, perhaps in an effort to spotlight others who may have been involved in the crimes committed. Many suggest that she is shielding US Attorney’s General Eric Holder, who himself has been held in Contempt of Congress for his unyielding obstruction of several investigations led by the House of Representatives: “the people’s house”; the direct voice of the people in federal government. Others suggest that Ms. Lerner’s direction originated in the White House, possibly by super-secret special adviser, confidant and political handler Valerie Jarrett. Of these two accusations we cannot be sure, purely for the fact that Ms. Lerner and her complicit underlings refuse to answer questions about their actions, their direction and their motives.

Those in favor of granting Ms. Lerner immunity, with the caveat that she gets to keep her pension and benefits if she provides information, say just such a move will facilitate the information necessary to determine where the order to violate the citizenry’s constitutional rights, in deference to political advantage, originated. But there is a huge flaw in that thinking…and perhaps two.

Should Ms. Lerner be granted immunity to provide information related to this crime against the American people, there would be no guarantee she would tell the truth. She has already proven that she cannot be trusted to do right by the American people on two levels. First, the very fact that she would oversee the usurpation of the citizenry’s First Amendment rights proves, in enough measure, that she is willing to deceive to achieve; she is willing to break the law to achieve a political outcome. And second, she has proven, through her refusal to cooperate with a congressional investigation, but, in defiance, cooperate with a rigged investigation by the US Department of Justice (and please, the Holder DoJ has proven time and time again that they are politically and ideologically motivated), that she will seek the safe haven of the corrupt over admitting to wrong-doing and serving the best interests of the people of the United States.

Additionally, should congressional negotiators be naïve enough to offer immunity to Ms. Lerner, should she perjure herself in the immunized testimony, she will most likely claim immunity to prosecution if found out. This very point almost entices the corrupt and the politically and ideologically motivated to “re-write” the history of the events in question, if not to save their sorry hides, to affect the very political and ideological “change” that was the goal in the first place. And, if you even have a cursory understanding of the Progressive Movement, you know they are prone to re-writing the facts and history to facilitate their narratives.

(As an aside, a good example of Progressives re-writing history to suit their immediate needs comes in President Obama’s lionization of LBJ as a great and insightful leader; the one who burned political to achieve Civil Rights legislation. The truth of the matter is that President Eisenhower, a Republican, first floated Civil Rights legislation only to have it derailed by three Democrat Senators; Sens. Strom Thurmond, D-SC, John F. Kennedy, D-MA, and Lyndon B. Johnson, D-TX. Further, the only reason LBJ was able to steal credit for Civil Rights legislation was due to overwhelming Republican support. Democrats stood in opposition to the bill. Yet today, Mr. Obama re-writes history to extol the greatness of LBJ, the man who ensconced us in Vietnam.)

The intentional and systematic usurpation of our citizenry’s constitutional rights is, to put it mildly, unacceptable. Ms. Lerner – and all involved – should be made to pay an incredibly high price for their misdeeds. But depending on the Eric Holder-led US Justice Department to affect justice in this case is just as much a fantasy as Obamacare being a beneficial legislation for the total of the American people.

Perhaps – just perhaps – Mr. Issa and his crew can do some outside the box thinking on this matter; crafting an effective course of action to affect truth and justice in this case. Perhaps they can figure out a way to empower this investigation to extend beyond the 2016 General Elections, when an Attorney’s General might be seated who would actually care enough about the law to pursue a legitimate investigation into, and subsequent legitimate prosecutions of, the violation of the citizenry’s constitutional rights.

Of course, that would mean that Republicans – and many establishment Republicans at that, would have to dispense with ego to better serve the people…and we don’t see a lot of that these days, from either party.

The BO Behind the Obamacare Numbers

If there was one thing that then presidential candidate Barack Obama had right it was his assertion that words matter. That understood, it has always seemed a bit odd to me that a man who presents and proudly proclaims himself a full blown Progressive – if not the quintessential Fabian Progressive – would have alerted the electorate to this fact. Why, you ask? Well, because Progressives are notorious for manipulating the meanings of words to suit their objective needs. Remember, Progressives are the ones who insist that the United States Constitution is a “living document,” meant to facilitate the needs of the times (read: allow government to morph into any authority that the elites believe is needed at any given time).

So, it is with a gigantic grain of salt – a Guinness Book sized grain – that I consume the declarations being made by the Obama Administration on the “numbers of people who have signed up” for health insurance through the federal health exchange. There is a stark difference between “signing up” for the website and purchasing health insurance. Even then, there is a lot of ground between applying for health insurance through the exchange and actually paying the premiums each month.

The truth is, we won’t know how many people have successfully attained health insurance coverage through the “Obamacare Exchange” until after the first month of coverage has completed. This is because for coverage to be in effect it must be paid for. To that end The National Journal reports:

“One of the biggest players in Obamacare’s exchanges says 15 to 20 percent of its new customers aren’t paying their first premium – which means they’re not actually covered.

The latest data come from the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, whose members – known collectively as “Blues” plans – are participating in the exchanges in almost every state. Roughly 80 to 85 percent of people who selected a Blues plan through the exchanges went on to pay their first month’s premium, a BCBSA spokeswoman said Wednesday.”

It would seem that some – oh, maybe 15 to 20 percent – of those who “signed up” for health insurance through Healthcare.gov have figured out that as long as it appears as though they have signed up for health insurance through the exchange they might be able to circumvent the inaugural Obamacare fine (read: tax, per SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts) for not actually having health insurance. Of course, this remains to be seen, but given that the Obamacare website is the laughingstock of the tech world, maybe – just maybe – they might get away with it.

And another facet of this totalitarian Progressive overreach of government – this unconstitutional encroachment into our private lives – is the question surrounding the employer mandate. To date, there have seen so many exemptions given to both organizations and corporations alike, the idea that this is actually a “mandate” is becoming laughable. Let’s face it, when a mandate becomes something only applicable to select factions and demographics, it is less a mandate and more a punishment, and a punishment for “not thinking correctly.”

This Progressive line of thinking is typical of an elitist faction that truly believes – truly believes – they know what is best for everyone, even if the overwhelming majority views the “opinion(s)” of said Progressive elitists as undesirable and oppressive. It is for this reason – the elitist narcissism of the Progressive Left – that a recent declaration by former Obama Press Secretary Robert Gibbs shouldn’t surprise anyone.

TheHill.com reports:

“Former White House press secretary Robert Gibbs predicted Wednesday that the oft-delayed Obamacare employer mandate will never go into effect.

“I don’t think the employer mandate will go into effect. It’s a small part of the law. I think it will be one of the first things to go,” Gibbs told a crowd in Colorado, according to BenefitsPro.com.

“The website described the audience as being surprised by Gibbs’s comments…

“Gibbs argued that most employers with more than 100 workers already offer health insurance, and only a relatively small number of companies have between 50 and 99 employees.”

Putting aside, for a moment, Mr. Gibbs’ contention that only a small number of companies have employees numbering between 50 and 99 employees, this is another example of the “words matter” bait and switch, and with ramifications.

We the People, were told – in no uncertain terms – that the employer mandate was essential to the success of Obamacare. The Obama Administration has been so obstinate about this point that they were willing to fight the Hobby Lobby Corporation all the way to the US Supreme Court in an effort to force them to provide “end-of-life-causing” contraception options to their employees – against the moral and religiously-based objections of the company owners. The Obama Administration even tried to strong arm Catholic charities operated by nuns to do the same. Yet now we have one of the “soldiers of the Obamacare Movement” shrugging his shoulders insisting that the employer mandate is no big deal? If that’s true, why coerce nuns and those objecting to the mandate on religious grounds?

Looking further down the list of forced mandates, what could we expect next? Should we get ready for the individual mandate to become expendable, but for, of course, the demographics that are “not thinking correctly”?

If words matter, as now President Obama claimed in the days before his presidency, why don’t they matter now, now that he is president? He promised that Americans could keep their doctors and the insurance plans they enjoyed “period.” Yet that turned out to be a lie, bald-faced. He and his cronies said that the mandates were non-negotiable. But now one of the primary mouthpieces who trumpeted the need for these mandates during this blatant coercion of the American people says the need to mandate employer participation is “not so much.”

Truth be told, there are some provisions of the Affordable Care Act that are beneficial to the American people (dealing with the purchase of health insurance across state lines and addressing pre-existing conditions being two). But the negatives of this legislation far, far out-weigh the positives. Additionally, if federally elected politicians weren’t playing the whore for the behemoth insurance companies and their heartless lobbyists on K Street (let’s remember who was “all in” on getting Obamacare passed) purchasing health insurance would have been open to a national market, thus lowering prices through competition and creating viable options to address the issue of pre-existing conditions.

Don’t look now, but Capitalism is the answer to high health insurance prices and accessibility.

Yes, worlds matter. And where Obamacare is concerned, the only applicable words that matter are these, spoken by then candidate Obama:

“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

Democrat thinks Constitution 400 years old

Despite the fact that the United States of America is less than 250 years old, Houston, TX’s Democrat Representative to the House of Representatives in Washington apparently thinks it was created more than 150 years earlier.

Shiela Jackson Lee (Dem – TX) is well known for her uninformed gaffes. From her two Vietnam thing to an odd mix-up between the moon landing and mars rover misisions to now thinking that the Constitution of the United States is almost 200 years older than the nation itself.

I’m a native Texan and am ashamed that anyone has (repeatedly) voted this into office.

 

It Is Time, Democrats, to Send Mr. Reid Home

In these ridiculous times, where transparency is clandestine, science proves instead of disproves, and falsely instilled self-esteem trumps real education, I truly don’t expect even the most honest of Liberal or Democrat – and certainly not any Progressive – to understand, or even hear, what I am about to say, but for the good of our country I pray that they do. Truth be told, we rank-and-file Americans cannot trust the “Frank Underwoods” who lurk inside the Washington Beltway – on both sides of the aisle – to do anything on behalf of their constituencies any longer. They are frauds and converts to the oligarch. It is time we start depending on ourselves to affect real, true and honest change.

The examples of just how power-centered and self-serving the oligarchs in the US federal government have become are too many to list, although, if push came to shove, we could start amassing a list, in and of itself worthy of entry into the Guinness Book for longest continuous list of political transgressions against a people. From the IRS coercion of Conservative non-profit groups, to the political payoff that the billion-dollar so-called stimulus was to Blue State governments and labor unions, to the “too-big-to-fail” redistribution of taxpayer dollars through TARP to the über-greedy financial elites for their irresponsible financial skullduggery, the Janus-faced disingenuousness of our elected class – a disingenuousness meant to stave-off the torches and pitchforks of the taxpaying public – knows now shame…and yet we continue to tolerate it.

Stunning. Have we become that self-loathing as a people?

But even while we tolerate the power-hungry manipulations of the elected class – the elitists, the Progressives, the oligarchs – they have always been careful to at least pretend to care about the people. The entire game Progressives play is based on the false-premise that the “better educated” know how to care for the masses better than the masses know how to care for themselves. The illusion foisted by a great many Inside-the-Beltway Republicans (read: establishment Republican…Ann) is that they are standing with and for “the people,” executing a pursuit of limited government, fiscal responsibility and individual freedoms. Yet we all know that government does everything (but for achieving military superiority) poorly and at a greater price than the private-sector. And we all stand witness as government keeps expanding, both in size and scope. Now we can add overt disdain for the American people to that list.

On February 26, 2014, United States Senator and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), stood on the floor of the greatest chamber of debate – or at least what used to be – and openly expressed his hatred for the American people. Once again, abdicating his responsibility to serve his constituents, while playing partisan politics at the expense of the nation, Mr. Reid said, in defending the Patient Protection & Affordable Healthcare Act:

“Despite all that good news, there’s plenty of horror stories being told. All of them are untrue, but they’re being told all over America.”

I will overlook – for the moment – the fact that the most powerful man in the US Senate can’t speak proper English when entering his testimony into the Congressional Record. Lord knows there are members of Congress guilty of more egregious butchery of the English language.

It is beyond dispute that millions of Americans have been adversely affected by this unconstitutional piece of legislation. Millions have been denied the medical insurance they prefer while millions more have been told they must either pay more or go without; left to pay an IRS extracted penalty. Still hundreds of thousands more are being put into life-threatening situations where medical treatment deemed necessary for survival is not either outside their capability to afford, not authorized, or both. The putridly ironic thing about all of this is that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was imposed on the American people under the ruse of it being “for the common good.”

To say that Mr. Reid’s comment adds insult to injury is to affect injury to insult. And while it is serving as great fodder for the elitist Washington punditry, it is much more serious an issue than that, and two-fold.

For those whose lives have now been called into question; whose life-saving treatments have become too expensive to afford; or whose treatments have now been denied, this is a direct threat – and a government mandated threat, at that – to the guaranteed right, offered us as US citizens under the bedrock understanding of Natural Law, to “…Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” While self-serving, power-hungry, elitist manipulators like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi stare, wax-faced, into the television cameras extolling all of the “common good” that the Affordable Care Act is doing, millions face the prospect of dying for the Progressive Movement’s dream of a one-payer, nationalized health insurance system…health insurance, not healthcare, system.

While this faux benevolence is continuously presented as compassionate, needed and “the right thing” to get behind by the oligarchs and their toadies – the Progressive mainstream media, it is neither compassionate, needed nor the right thing to do. It is a redistribution of wealth that is literally costing people their lives…here…in the “land of the free.”

And what does Mr. Reid say about those who are facing the loss of their lives because of the ACA? What does he say about the real-life, fact-based stories of those who have been denied “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” because of Progressive benevolence?:

“…Tales…Stories made up from whole cloth…Lies, distorted by Republicans to grab headlines or make political advertisements…”

And as egregiously rancid as this reality is – and it is, the idea that the most powerful man in the US Senate would openly call those facing debilitated health and/or death because of his Progressive ideological zealotry “liars” is not only unacceptable, it should serve as the defining reason for why he should be: a) removed from Senate leadership by his Democrat colleagues immediately; b) reprimanded and censured but the whole of chamber immediately; and c) retired by the people of Nevada at the next election.

Our American system of government was based on the idea that those who would be elected to office – be it at the federal state, county, township or municipal levels – would be understood as those in the service of the public; public servants. Today, this notion – this foundational understanding of our American governmental system – has been grotesquely bastardized , done so with all the Progressive glory that could be mustered in its execution; destroyed at first by expunging the check and balance of States’ Rights through the ratification of the 17th Amendment all the way through to the imposition of having to purchase a private-sector product (health insurance) to be considered a true and faithful American citizen. Our country has been fundamentally transformed…“top-down, bottom-up, inside-out.”

George Washington, a man who could have been king would he have wanted the title, warned – warned – in his Farewell Address of the evils of “factions” (read: political party):

“However combinations or associations of [factions] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people, and to usurp for themselves the reins of government – destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion…

“Let me now…warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally. This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy. The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of public liberty.

“Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and the duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it…”

We, the American people, should not suffer the unbridled arrogance of Mr. Reid, evidenced not only by his lust for partisan faction, but by his open and overt disdain for our fellow citizens; fellow citizens now disenfranchised by the Progressive understanding of “the common good.” Mr. Reid is the perfect example of the “evils of faction.” He is a disgrace to his elected office. He is a disgrace as an American. And he is not suited to his station in the US Senate.

If Democrats in the US Senate – as well as in general – do not seize this moment to make an example of Mr. Reid, then from this day forward let the Democrat Party be known as the toady to the Progressive Movement; the entirety of which is unworthy to lick the heel of Mr. Washington’s boot.

When Disappointment Comes from The Right

As Republicans stand on the precipice of taking back the majority in the United States Senate – that is if (and that’s a mighty big “if”) they can achieve the remarkable feat of not snatching defeat from the jaws of victory – it is becoming painfully obvious that our rhetorical standard-bearers of the punditry have not only been absorbed into the beltway mentality, but have ingested so much of the elitist Kool-Aid that they are, themselves, becoming the poison that moves the foundation of the Republican Party – and, therefore, Conservatism – incrementally to the Left.

It was with great chagrin that I listened to Ann Coulter, appearing on FOX News Channel’s Hannity, depict those who are calling out “establishment Republicans” shysters (or scheisters, if you will). Ms. Coulter, a usually stalwart scion of the Conservative Movement (but for her affection for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who hasn’t a clue about the serious threat our country faces from Islamofascism), while seemingly lauding the TEA Party, in the same breath took them to task for identifying Progressives who exist on the Right side of the aisle.

In part, Ms. Coulter opined:

“There are two ways of looking at it. The people out in America who call themselves TEA Partiers are fantastic. They’re the heart of America and I think they have made a huge difference; they did in the 2010 elections, which in the House, anyway, Republicans picked-up more seats than they did in the famous 1994 election…[U]nfortunately, as with any grassroots movement, I think there are a lot of con men and scammers coming in a tricking good Americans into sending them money claiming ‘we are fighting for you,’ and they aren’t fighting for you.”

Ms. Coulter later opined:

“Basically, anyone who claims to be going after ‘establishment Republicans,’ the key word here is ‘Republican’…if we don’t elect Republicans – I don’t care which Republican – we will not repeal Obamacare…The only way to repeal Obamacare is to elect Republicans. It is not to be fighting against Republicans.”

Evidently, and due to the fact that we live in a time when the electorate is about as evenly split as it ever has been; a five to ten percent of the population deciding elections, by Ms. Coulter standards, it is never a time to take a stand against the encroachment of Progressivism in the Republican Party.

Each and every one of those so-called “Conservative” pundits (including Ms. Coulter, I am quite sad to say) who attack the TEA Party – which is just as much a part of the Republican Party as Progressive-Leftists are a part of the Democrat Party – should forever refrain from singing the praises of President Ronald Reagan for their complete abandonment of Reagan’s 11th Commandment, originally declared by Gaylord Parkinson, “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.”

The demonization of those who the TEA Party grassroots elected to office – be it on the local, county, state or federal level – is inexcusable, as is their defense of those who have made being federally-elected a career, instead of a duty. By defending the status quo in the “establishment GOP,” Ms. Coulter and her fellow “top level” pundits, either inadvertently or knowingly, facilitate the incremental political slide to the Left from which our country currently suffers. They do so by their support for those in elected leadership who abdicate the founding principles of the Republican Party for retention of power.

As I stated back in a 2009 article titled, The Path to the Future Requires a Return to the Roots:

“In summary – and to paraphrase – the platform stood for protecting the rights of individuals as outlined in the Charters of Freedom, the right to unfettered government recourse and due process in the event those rights were challenged. Further, it embraced only specific and limited measures that would provide opportunity for individual achievement and advancement. And lastly, it set forth a welcome mat for men of all ideas and affiliations who ‘believe in the spirit of our institution as well as the Constitution of our country.’

“In other words, the original platform of the Republican Party was one of protecting the rights of individuals so that they could advance their individual beliefs and causes in society. What it did not establish was a platform of positions on special interest issues and litmus tests for those who would be put into nomination to lead the party, both in government and organization.

“Today’s Republican Party has abandoned these founding platform commitments. Instead, today’s GOP finds itself naively acquiescing to false challenges put forth by our political opponent parties; taking concrete positions on special interest issues that divide the electorate into two camps. The Republican leadership of today has fallen prey to a political tactic that forces declared positions on special interest issues. Because of this the party has become a haven for special interest groups instead of being a pure political organization that protects the fundamental rights of all Americans, including special interest groups.”

Each time our modern day national GOP leadership engages into “compromise” with the Progressive leadership of today’s Democrat Party; each time they break-off into “gangs” of eight, twelve or sixteen; each time they make excuses not to hold to the promises they made to the electorate during campaigns or try to explain why they voted directly against the founding principles of the party they lead, they prove to care more about retaining power than doing the work they were elected to do: representing their constituents and executing their charge with fidelity to the platforms they ran on.

Even a cursory understanding of the tactics used by the Progressive-Left sheds light on the fact – the fact – that they use the word “compromise” in situations where they already have the advantage, so as to “begin” “negotiations” from a position left of true political and ideological center. In using this tactic, they are assured that any perceived “compromise” will always – always – move the issue’s end point further to the ideological Left. A perfect example of this is “hate crime” and “hate speech” legislation.

As addressed in a recent article, who is the arbiter of the definition of “hate”? Hitler, Stalin and Guevara all had their own definitions of “hate” and those definitions resulted in the mass murders of millions of people. But Progressives manipulate the electorate – and their political opponents – by tapping into “feelings,” therefore, a fickle national GOP; a federally-elected Republican Party leadership more concerned with how they are perceived than the principles they were sent to Washington, DC, to defend, will always lose – always, and do so incrementally.

Today we have a federal Republican leadership team – or, an “establishment Republican” leadership team (a moniker at which Ms. Coulter grimaces), that:

▪ …has promised tax reform for decades but has never delivered said reforms, almost always tapping the excuse that it would never fly in an election year, even though Democrats promise the same;

▪ …has promised a decrease in the size and scope of government but has, instead, presided over a grotesque expansion of government, including the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (just for snicks-and-giggles, look-up the literal translation of Gestapo or “Geheime Staats-Polizei,”);

▪ …has consistently, since the enactment of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), openly and overtly pledged to do “everything possible” to de-rail, de-fund and repeal the law, yet refused to use the full power of the purse allocated to the US House of Representatives by the Constitution to do so;

▪ …has abandoned the law – the law – that says the southern US border is to be secured physically; instead entering into another round of immigration reform “compromise” that will – again – see the Progressive-Left achieving a mass amnesty for those who violated our laws to exist in our country.

I could go on and on and on but I will simply address one more:

▪ …has abandoned and abdicated their constitutional mandate to provide for the common defense. They have so egregiously abdicated this responsibility that we exist at the point where we cannot, by all accounts formulated by military leadership, wage and win two major conflicts simultaneously. Would the same level of ineptitude have existed in 1941, we would have lost World War II to either the Nazis or the Imperial Japanese…maybe both.

Yet, Ms. Coulter and her “establishment Republican” pundit brethren, and it gives me no pleasure to say this, continue to support the status quo incremental slide to the Left by facilitating the mentality of the career elitist Republican politician; the Progressive who has infiltrated the GOP; those who seek to legislate by “gang” and oligarchic elitism. It is for this reason that this statement of Ms. Coulter’s is so very misguided and, in fact, dangerous, and it bears repeating:

“…the key word here is ‘Republican’…if we don’t elect Republicans – I don’t care which Republican

Ms. Coulter, I certain do care about which Republicans are elected. Consider this: a Senate full of Lindsay Grahams and John McCains…It should send shivers down your spine.

American Capitalism & The Illusion of Laissez Faire

To draw from an opening phrase, in the beginning, there was capitalism. More accurately, at the beginning of our Constitutional Republic, government was committed to limiting – drastically – it’s footprint in the new American marketplace. Americans were free from the tyranny of government interference leveled at the former colonists at the hand of King George III. Our Founders and Framers sought to secure the right of the individual not only to property, but to commerce in a form lightly touched by government. My, how far we have fallen from the Framer’s original intent.

The original intent of the Framers where commerce was concerned – and especially under the Articles of Confederation – was to leave the new American people to reap the benefits of their crafts and labors. The Framers embraced a laissez faire system of capitalism. Laissez faire capitalism is defined as:

“…a doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights.”

A system of government’s only responsibility in a laissez faire capitalist system, where commerce was concerned and if adhering to the original intent of the Framers, was:

“…to protect the rights of the individual, by banning the initiation of force, thus making all relations between men peaceful, i.e., free from the threat of violence and fraud…

“…a system of checks and balances so ordered to protect the rights of the individual, from criminals and most importantly from the democratically elected voices who claim to speak for the ‘public good.’”

Today’s American “free market system” is actually anything but a laissez faire capitalist system; a free system.

Starting a small business today requires that the aspiring entrepreneur incur significant start-up costs including fees, costly regulatory acquiescence, licensure requirements, taxes, tariffs, diversity quota hiring and other associated costs, taxes, actions and/or fees. Add to that the impossible task of acquiring necessary to-market development capital from a financial institution – many of which were afforded lifesaving financial infusions of taxpayer dollars, courtesy of crony capitalists in Washington, DC – and you have a formula for a stagnant economy and high unemployment for the “producers,” and the selective enrichment of the connected, the elite and the “chosen few.”

This was not the case so long ago. And as little as 30 years ago, starting a small business meant reaping the rewards of ingenuity and hard work. Someone with a dream; someone with a “good idea,” was able to acquire capital to launch small business initiatives based on that tangible idea; based on a well-crafted business plan and model. Sadly, today, no one “invests in ideas” anymore. Financial institutions and capable venture capitalists balk at the “good idea”; recoil from the uncertainty of start-up entrepreneurship because of the non-guarantee of return on investment, even as many of them have been deemed “too big to fail” when they make bad business decisions of their own, only to receive government-funded (read: taxpayer-funded) bailouts. This all happening while the “good idea” start-up concepts wither on the vine for lack of start-up capital.

Additionally, many a creative entrepreneur is neutered – or hamstrung – by the fact that the “powers that be” have declared they did not jump through the traditional “educational hoops”; did not attain the necessary piece of paper and the required student loan debt to be considered “competent” or “intelligent” enough to conceive of the “next big thing.” Of course, this certainly must come as a surprise to Bill Gates, or to the late Steve Jobs, two pioneers of the computer age who dropped out of college. So, too, must is be shocking news to the many “gangsta” rap moguls who possess a depth of language proficiency usually reserved for those with a single or low double-digit intelligence quotient, and most of whom know the assembly of automatic weaponry better than algebraic theory.

And while the successful navigation of the “educational hoops” does not guarantee entrée into the realm of the financially anointed, sometimes the connections and friendships acquired at many upper-echelon secondary education establishments can serve to circumvent the ties that bind “producer Americans” to the grind of the average. Yes, I am talking about elitist crony capitalism.

Case in point: Toni Townes-Whitley.

According to TheDailyCaller.com:

“Toni Townes-Whitley, Princeton class of ’85, is senior vice president at CGI Federal, which earned the no-bid contract to build the $678 million [failed] Obamacare enrollment website at Healthcare.gov. CGI Federal is the US arm of a Canadian company.

“Townes-Whitley and her Princeton classmate Michelle Obama are both members of the Association of Black Princeton Alumni.”

Coincidentally, George Schindler, the president of CGI Federal’s Canadian parent CGI Group, became an Obama 2012 campaign donor after his company gained the Obamacare website contract. What a coincidence…

What does all of this have to do with laissez faire capitalism? Well, actually, nothing. It has nothing to do with laissez faire capitalism. And that’s the point.

Considering that our economic system has turned into a fiscal bordello of short-cuts for the Progressive chosen few, bailouts for the “too big to fail” financial institutions, and a playground for the crony capitalists, is it any wonder the financial markets have ceased reflecting the health of the American economy? How are investors supposed to know when the next major economic disaster is approaching when risky investments and questionable financial schemes are always rewarded in their failures and losses with government-backed (read: taxpayer-funded) bailouts? For the “chosen ones,” where is the “risk”?

The original intent of the Founders and Framers was to have an “American capitalism”; a system of commerce and investment based on achievement, investment, hard work, production and, yes, failure. The American system of capitalism was designed to leave the evolution of society and the decisions about the “common good” to the people. Today’s “anything but free market system” is a disingenuous scheme establishing pre-determined winners and losers; a manipulation of the laissez faire capitalist purity that promotes equality in outcome over an equality of opportunity: economic and social justice.

In an economic system enslaved by the Progressive ideology, economic and social justice is of a paramount importance, trumping the small business, the innovator, the entrepreneur and the producer; trumping and extinguishing opportunity for all, opportunity guaranteed in the United States Constitution.

An economic system enslaved by the Progressive ideology dictates who will win and who will lose; who will acquire wealth and who will live just above poverty, all according to an oligarchical elites’ idea of what is fair, what is not and who is worthy.

Under a Progressive economic system, opportunity is dead and the American Dream, but for those chosen by the Progressive masters, swings from a rope off a branch of a socially engineered (read: Socialist) tree, long-standing on the Progressive plantation.

“Not houses finely roofed or the stones of walls well builded, nay nor canals and dockyards make the city, but men able to use their opportunity.” – Alcaeus

COMBATING THE SOCIALIST’S MARCH ON AMERICA

fight socialism

 

My two cents (if it is worth that much in an Obama economy) for victory over the Republican party opposition is as follows. I’ll preface my comments by saying I do not purport to be another Lee Atwater, Mike Murphy, Karl Rove or James Carville when it comes to political strategy. I, however, like many who are actively engaged in the political process, have strong opinions on what I believe works and what doesn’t work as far as successfully promoting Republican and conservative candidates into elected office.

I’ll begin by saying that in America today there is no longer a Democratic party. That party has been expunged for well over two decades. There are no longer any Harry Truman’s, Adlai Stevenson’s, JFKs, RFKs, Eugene McCarthy’s, Scoop Jacksons or Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s governing or legislating within the Republican’s opposing party. They are long gone.  The six-time presidential candidate of the Socialist party Norman Thomas is quoted as saying in 1944,

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of “liberalism,” they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened. I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform.” 

Mr. Thomas was prescient. The party that Republican’s oppose today, and for some time now is the Socialist party. That is clear, plain and simple. JFK’s party of fiscal conservatism, union crime-busting and identifying and opposing enemies to America has been removed and replaced with a political party that has no interest whatsoever in those concerns nor in fact with America’s system of government. The socialist’s have no respect for the tenets of our Declaration or regard for the canons of our Constitution. They eschew any reference to natural law or natural rights that are identified within our Declaration and view America’s cause of order, justice and freedom only from a moral relativistic perspective. The Socialist party determines what America’s “cause” is based on what side of the bed they awake in the morning in order to consolidate their power.

Along with the above characteristics of the Socialist party there is a fundamental common denominator that can be ascribed to virtually every one of them, and that is they are predominantly agnostics or atheists. I challenge anyone to conduct an informal survey on a group of socialist’s (or progressives as they like to spin) and I’ll bet dollars to donuts that most of them will either admit to being atheists or agnostics, or at best will hedge on any adherence to a Judeo-Christian philosophy. Without this characteristic the socialist cannot have the guiltless freedom to employ their brand of moral relativism across all socio and economic fronts. And of course America is founded on Judeo-Christian principles; that is not an opinion my friends, but an irrefutable fact. Ergo by renouncing those principles they grant themselves the freedom to employ their moral relativism as a tool to advance their amoral social agendas and to turn on it’s head one of America’s core principles, that being government is limited and it’s sole purpose is to protect our natural rights, not manufactured rights. Atheism, agnosticism or, at a minimum, severely compromised Judeo-Christian principles are absolutely necessary in order to animate the socialist ideology. Everything  “comes and goes” from it.

Of course none of what I just mentioned is new to any of us. In fact Orestes Brownson was warning about how socialism is infecting America in his book The American Republicwhich was published in 1865. Brownson wrote in his text the following, “The tendency of the last century was to individualism; that of the present is to socialism”. Brownson crafted that language 150 years ago. The socialists have been creeping around the baseboards of America like so many roaches for quite some time, and their policies have been seeping into America’s socio, political and economic fabric causing destruction and waste at every turn. It is now that they are front and center, have selected their leader and are bold, brazen and on the attack to turn America out.

Proof for the above is self-evident in the policies, rhetoric and history of the current President and the public policies brought forth by his Socialist party. When the leader of the Socialist party says, “America is not just a Christian nation…” his implication is that one of the underpinnings of America’s founding, a Judeo-Christian ethos, is not necessarily relevant any longer. A preconceived comment such as that is simply one of many evidences that the Socialist party has an anti-American mindset and will take any steps necessary to undermine America’s cause.

Along with many other comments and his actions, the following comment in 2001 by Barack Obama clearly capsulizes how the Socialist party finds our Constitution to be nothing more than a grand annoyance.

The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society… [The Supreme Court] didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. [It] says what the states can’t do to you. [It] says what the federal government can’t do to you, but [it] doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.”

The Socialist leadership was careful to select someone like Obama as his or her flag bearer. Why? Because Obama has no affection, regard, respect or admiration for America and it’s proud heritage.  Obama’s caretakers indoctrinated him as a child to have disdain and derision for everything America represents. Also, he doesn’t understand America. That is key. Without an understanding or appreciation for America Obama is an empty vessel. He is free of any guilt in his quest to “transform” America into his neo-communist, collectivist world vision wherein America is simply a bundle of resources to be redistributed around the world, with a central world government to dictate the division of said resources. Not unlike the socialist atheistic/agnostic who must free him or her from any principles or standards of virtue in order to practice their moral relativism, they must also free themselves of any knowledge, understanding or appreciation of America and it’s rich heritage in order to undertake their mission to dismantle America and redistribute it’s resources across the world based on their “omnipotence”.

There are reasons the socialists prefer to refer to themselves as “progressives” and not socialists. They certainly are clever with their wordsmithing to hide the results of their hideous and failed ideology. Take for example the name change from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” after the global warming fraudulent science was uncovered. One reason they prefer the word “progressive” is because the word “socialist” still smacks of oppression; the other is that “progressive” implies progress to a man-made secularist utopia that THEY will divine, which historically always leads to a terrestrial hell on earth. And, of course, by referring to themselves as “progressives” requires a refutation of history; a history that documents how socialism, communism, or any form of collectivism is an utter economic failure and was an ideology employed by tyrants in a totalitarian society. Additionally Obama’s Socialist party’s political slogan “Forward” was a slogan utilized by both Stalin and Hitler. From this point on any Socialist party presidential or lower level candidate will be cut from the same cloth as Obama. It is a requirement in order to further their agenda for America and the world.

This is the goal of central planning socialism. A microcosm of its effects is most evident by the ObamaCare debacle. Caught with their socialist pants down ObamaCare is the poster child for a central planning disaster. While the socialist party has scrambled to regroup what are their talking points to cover up their centrally planned disaster? That THEY know what health care plan is best for YOU. Ah hah, socialism’s tyranny uncovered. They had nowhere else to go but show their true colors. The “unwashed” will be cleansed by the “washed” socialist central planners all-knowing hands

Why? Why do the Socialist’s do what they do? In a word-POWER. Their overarching goal is to consolidate power over the populous’ lives. Why? Because they are godless; they truly believe that they know what is best for humankind and there is no God. There is no transcendent higher power higher than them that should direct our lives. And the socialist will work tirelessly to eliminate every intermediary relationship to maintain and achieve their power, whether it be eradicate the family unit, local community associations, Church affiliations or any other associations, guilds or relationships that are barriers between the individual and their central planning socialist regime.

For sure the socialist will attempt to mask their insidious agenda by pulling on the heart strings of the populace by how they care about the “poor”, the “disadvantaged”, “woman’s rights”, “blacks”, “Hispanics or minorities in general”, “self-serving versions of social justice”, “health-care for all”, the “environment” or any other so-called causes to manipulate the electorate. They will attempt to couch themselves as the party that “cares” about gun violence and income inequality. They will constantly market themselves as the party of “nice”, while branding Republicans, Conservatives or Tea Party folk as the party of “mean”. But in reality the Socialist party doesn’t give a damn about any of these people, issues or causes. They will use them simply as tools to divide society, gain and consolidate power and then wield their power as they see fit without any consideration for the useful idiots they used to advance their march to power.

So what does the conservative movement do with all of this? How do we convince the “uninformed”, “indoctrinated”, or “low information voter” to see the truth behind the Socialist party’s nefarious agenda and the truth about conservatism? How do we get them to go behind the “curtain of Oz” and see the reality? Simple. We do to the socialist’s what they have done to us. I humbly submit my four-part strategic plan for victory and truth to save America.

First: conservatives must brand the opposition for what they are. They are to no longer be referred to as democrats; they are to be referred to as socialists at all times. There are some brilliant conservative commentators who I greatly admire that disagree with me on this point, namely Charles Krauthammer and Michael Medved.  They feel it is ill advised to classify the democrats as socialists because it can cause confusion and unnecessary debate. But that is the point. The point to put the socialist’s on the defensive to defend this unseemly moniker. A moniker that does strike fear into the heart of the independent or low information voter who loves America and believes in its Judeo-Christian foundations. It is also a label that happens to be true, is easy to apply, and also ties them up in a knot and wraps them around an axel with having to fend off this label of tyranny.

Second: A thorough understanding of the Socialist’s bible, which is Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. Alinsky’s book is a step-by-step, paint-by-the-numbers tactical schematic for messaging and organizing by applying methods of chaos, diversion, lies, branding and polarization. Obama actually taught these tactics in Chicago. It is one of the few actual jobs he ever had, and is ashamed to admit along with most of his past. This book is required reading and it’s tactics should be used by the Republican party and conservatives of all brands to use against the socialists. My advice on this point is best summed up by the following quote,

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Third: Be proactive and constantly put the socialists on the defensive. Keep them preoccupied with defending and explaining their insidious agendas. We’ve seen this work with ObamaCare, but that was simply a by-product of the horrid legislation, and that is all well and good. But to those who say, “See, they will eventually implode”, I respond by saying “but while we’re waiting for them to implode they are inhabiting office doing their damage. By that point it is too late to undo their harm”. We must be proactive in putting them on the defensive using their hateful, dangerous, anti-American polices against them.  They twist the truth about conservatives and use it against us to great success. I simply suggest using the actual truth about the socialist’s to even greater success.

Fourth: Outreach, outreach and more outreach. Republicans and conservatives have for far too long lived in a little cocoon of frightened superiority. To a greater or lesser degree our attitude has always been “if you’re not smart, sophisticated, enlightened, educated, patriotic and moral enough to get us and come join us, then we’re not going to try and enlist you into our fold”. We have also permitted the socialists to make us uncomfortable with ourselves because of their proactive branding against us based on lies. Because of that we have crawled into a veritable fetal position sucking our conservative thumbs fearful of talking to anyone outside of our little comfort zones.  That must end. It must end for the sake of the future of the conservative philosophy that built America, and for the sake of America itself. We must reach out to each and every person, group, association or demographic that we feel is solidly against us and embrace them. We must invite them to our meetings, ask to be invited to their meetings, and share with them the truth about what we stand for and what the socialists stand for. Again, branding the opposition and ourselves, and in the process expanding our base. This strategy was the key to Governor Chris Christie’s 2013 gubernatorial re-election in one of the bluest of states, New Jersey.

How do we win? By taking the offensive. By growing our base. By thinking differently. By taking ownership of and defining our message. By branding the opposition before they can even think about branding us. By being bold and proud and confident and courageous in our fight to save America from the grips of socialism.

We must be tough as nails. Why? Because they are. The Socialist party’s thug tactics win elections and elections have consequences. And in the case of their victories that consequence is, as Churchill said about socialism, is a collective misery. You don’t fight a person using Marquess of Queensberry rules when they are bringing knives, axes and baseball bats to the fight.

We must never apologize for who we are nor give the socialists any quarter whatsoever.  This is a battle for America’s salvation. We have met the enemy and, unfortunately, they are us.

NO to An Article V Convention (AKA Con Con)

Stock Photo of the Consitution of the United States and Feather Quill

In a recent series of articles, my CDN colleague Bruce MacIsaac has argued for calling a Constitutional Convention (AKA an Article V Convention) and has proposed, by his own admission, „numerous amendments to the Constitution.”

Among these (admittedly laudable) amendments are ones to repeal the 16th and 17th Amendment, but also the monstrous „Balanced Budget Amendment.”

But even if all of his legislative proposals were good, it wouldn’t matter. The hell is paved with good intentions.

The fact is that an Article V Convention (AKA a Con-Con) would mean the end of the current Constitution, of the liberties of US citizens, and of the Republic as we know it.

Firstly, who would call the tune?

Firstly, let’s ask ourselves: who would appoint the delegates to an Article V Convention, and in what manner? How many delegates would be appointed? From what backgrounds? And what would their mandate be? To amend the current Constitution or to write an entirely new one?

Who will answer these questions?

Answer: the Congress. Specifically, the CURRENT Congress.

The same Congress that gave America a $17 trillion debt, nearly brought America to a first-ever default on its obligations in August 2011, and which utterly refuses to the blatant usurpations of power by the Executive and Judicial Branches. The same Congress where John Boehner is House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi the Minority Leader (and potential future Speaker), Harry Reid the Senate Majority Leader, and Mitch McConnell the Senate Minority Leader. This is the gang you’d be entrusting with appointing the delegates and setting their agenda.

Are those people really the ones you want to entrust your, your family’s, and your country’s future to? Because that’s EXACTLY what you’ll be doing if you support an Article V Convention.

And even if the delegates’ mandate is very narrow, what’s to stop them from writing, proposing, and adopting a new Constitution? Nothing.

Remember that the original Constitutional Convention’s mandate was only to amend the Articles of Confederation. Yet, it went far beyond that mandate and proposed an entirely new Constitution that created, for the first time ever, a federal government.

There’s nothing to stop a new Con Con from doing the same.

But if it is called and does so, you can bet it will propose a socialist constitution that will ban the private ownership of guns and limit religious freedom for Christians. You will be doing away with the greatest Constitution the world has ever known, and replacing it with a socialist system.

You say, „Oh, don’t worry, anything that a Con Con proposes would have to be ratified by ¾ of the states!” Really? Where does it say so? In the current Constitution. But the new, socialist constitution could have an entirely new method of ratification (just like the current Constitution did) – e.g. by a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress, or just the Senate.

I’ll say it again: if a Con Con is called, the current Constitution – the greatest document the world has ever known other than Magna Carta – will be done away with. Forever.

Finally, let’s remember one simple fact. Who is it that governs this country? Who is it that calls the tune in the US of A?

Why, of course the Congress, the President, the SCOTUS, and all the lobbyists and special interest groups on which the elected branches of government depend.

Look at how much power they have – over you, your family, your community, your state, and the country as a whole.

DO YOU REALLY THINK THEY WILL GIVE AWAY THAT POWER, OR SHARE IT WITH THE COMMON CITIZEN, OR ALLOW AVERAGE AMERICANS TO DESIGN AMENDMENTS TO TAKE THAT POWER AWAY FROM THEM?

OF COURSE NOT!

And that defeats the whole point of a Con-Con. If anything, the federal government will get even bigger, more intrusive, more oppressive, and more expensive if a Con-Con is called.

Anyone who, at this point, calls for an Article V Convention is either a shallow, ignorant idiot or a deceitful, lying bastard.

But nonetheless, I’m still amazed how easily Tea Party People are fooled and manipulated by wolves in sheep’s clothing like Tom Coburn and Mark Levin (both of whom support a Con-Con). It seems that Tea Partiers are so naive that all a wolf has to do to fool them is to put on his sheep’s clothing and start lying – and they will listen to him and blindly follow him.

Folks, do not allow wolves in sheep’s clothing to manipulate you! Do not support an Article V Convention. For if you do and it is called, there will be no turning back. The current Constitution will be consigned to the dustbin of history, and YOU will be co-responsible.

The Fomentation of a Government Shut Down

Well, it is upon us, the dreaded government shutdown. And yet the Earth still spins, the water still runs, the electric is on and Harry Reid is still tossing verbal grenades at anyone who dares represent an opposing view to the lock-step Progressive agenda. Imagine that! Our daily lives didn’t come to a grinding, catastrophic halt because the big government nanny state was sidelined by the fruits of their own discontent. In fact, to paraphrase an often heard chant at any Leftist-leaning protest march, “This is what not spending looks like!”

Truth be told, if our nation would have stayed true to our Founding Documents, the crisis that delivered unto us this dastardly government shutdown would never had existed. Indeed, if we would have executed government with fidelity to the Constitution, to governmental process and to the legislated laws instead of capitulating to the Progressive’s fundamental transformation of the United States of America (a transformation launched at the turn of the 20th Century), World War II veterans wouldn’t have had to push aside hastily erected barriers meant to shut down the World War II Memorial on the Mall in Washington, DC, Tuesday simply to experience the memorial erected in their honor.

I mention a lack of fidelity to the US Constitution and the rule of law because had two specific established protocols – Article I, Section 3 of the US Constitution and The Budget Control Act of 1974 – been honored, not only would the environment in Washington, DC, been devoid of gridlock, but regular order would have mandated the annual delivery of appropriations to the various departments and agencies.

When our Framers crafted the US Constitution they included Article I, Section 3, which reads:

“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.” (Emphasis added)

Where the members of the House of Representatives were to serve as the “voice of the people,” the Senate was supposed to act as the protector of States’ Rights. The check-and-balance between the co-equal branches of government was to have a check-and-balance within the Legislative Branch to assure that both the voice of the people and the rights of the States were balanced in any legislation that would emanate from that branch of government. By constructing this internal check-and-balance, the Framers enshrined the power to both force compromise with the Executive Branch and protect the rights of the minority (Read: States’ Rights) in the Legislative Branch.

But with the Progressive Era’s 1912-1913 achievement of the 17th Amendment, that check-and-balance, along with the protection of States’ Rights was obliterated, and a gigantic move toward a centralization of government power at the Federal level was achieved.

The 17th Amendment reads, in part,

“The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.” (Emphasis added.)

So, by effectively transforming the US Senate from a protector of States’ Rights to a redundant chamber catering to the voice of the people, Progressives created two chambers vulnerable to political faction; two competing political entities that could gridlock because their tasks were the same – their authorities derived from the same source.

Today, had the 17th Amendment not existed, the US House of Representatives would have advanced their bill to defund the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the Senate – given that 38 States have indicated they do not support the ACA – would have concurred, sending a Continuing Resolution to fund the whole of government but defunding the ACA to President Obama. The President would have almost certainly vetoed the legislation which, by virtue of the Senates’ loyalty to their respective State Legislatures, would have been overturned by the whole of the Legislative Branch. Of course, this is predicated on the ACA ever having had become law in the first place, which, under the original intent of the US Constitution, would be questionable.

Additionally, had the United States Senate, under the disingenuous and corrupt political hand of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), not insisted on existing in defiance of a federal law – The Budget Control Act of 1974, the entire Continuing Resolution process wouldn’t have taken place.

The Budget Control Act of 1974 mandates that,

“…Congress pass two annual budget resolutions (it later was decreased to one) and set timetables for finishing budget work. The budget resolution specifies spending levels in broad areas and may direct congressional committees to find ways to save money. Initially the date for completing the budget resolution was May 15, but later the deadline was changed to April 15.

“It’s a deadline Congress seldom has met. Since 1974, Congress has only succeeded in meeting its statutory deadline for passing a budget resolution six times. Sometimes it’s months late. Sometimes, as in Fiscal 2011, Congress doesn’t pass a budget resolution at all.

“Another section of the Budget Act of 1974 states that Congress cannot consider any annual appropriations bills until it adopts an overall budget blueprint…In Fiscal 2011 there should have been 12 appropriations bills.”

So, had Senate Majority Leader Reid actually adhered to the law by advancing a budget resolution to be reconciled, this “showdown” might never have come to pass. But, because there are automatic increases built into each annual budget to account for inflation, etc., it was to the benefit of the spendthrifts in Congress to refuse to advance – or even negotiate – a budget resolution. By using a Continuing Resolution they didn’t have to cut any spending in the face of repeated requests from President Obama to raise the debt ceiling even as the citizenry – and the elected GOP – screamed for fiscal responsibility and debt reduction.

Of course, we shouldn’t be surprised that Mr. Reid had an underhanded and completely partisan reason for not following the law. We should have come to understand that the Progressives of the 21st Century are vicious, win-at-all-cost, slash-and-burners when then-House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi (P-CA), dismissed the idea of legitimately legislating the ACA by saying,

“We will go through the gate. If the gate is closed, we will go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we will pole-vault in. If that doesn’t work, we will parachute in. But we are going to get health care reform passed for the American people for their own personal health and economic security and for the important role that it will play in reducing the deficit.”

And we should have known that 21st Century Progressives would scald their own Mothers to submission to advance their cause when we were subjected to the over-the-top and venomous assaults they made on duly elected officials who dared to disagree with their political agenda:

“It is embarrassing that these people who are elected to represent the country are representing the TEA Party, the anarchists of the country…” – Sen. Harry Reid, (D-NV)

“Obama will not – he cannot – negotiate with a roving band of anarchists who say, ‘Build our oil pipeline or the troops don’t get paid.’” – Former Obama Speechwriter Jon Favreau

“I have never seen such an extreme group of people adopt such an insane policy.” – Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)

“These people have come unhinged.” – Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (P-FL)

“I believe it’s terrorism…This is an attempt to destroy all we know of the republican form of government in this country.” – Chris Matthews, MSNBC

“What we’re not for is negotiating with people with a bomb strapped to their chest.” – Dan Pfeiffer, White House Senior Adviser

“I call them ‘legislative arsonists.’ They’re there to burn down what we should be building up…” – Nancy Pelosi (P-CA)

I could go on but you get the picture.

The bottom line here is this. Progressives will do anything and say anything; they will lie, cheat and steal, to achieve their goals; their agendas. They will alter the Constitution, create new behemoth entitlement programs, spend, raise taxes and amass debt from which there is no return, in any and all efforts to advance their nanny-state, centralized government vision for our country. And if those who believe in Constitutional law, States’ Rights, individualism, personal responsibility the free market and liberty don’t take a stand – now…well, it will all be over very, very soon…at the hands of the Progressives’ ideological death panel.

Of course, these are just the ravings of an “unhinged, roving legislative arsonist touting an insane terrorist policy, a bomb strapped to my chest,” don’t you know…

The Real-Time Evolution of ‘Soft Despotism’

Today, many who consider themselves “visionaries” are sounding the alarm about the size and scope of government. From Obamacare to the Right to Bear Arms they decry government over-reach and the bureaucratization of our government. But those who truly understand the agenda of the Progressive Movement in the United States have been sounding this warning for years, explaining that for the Progressive’s agenda to be achieved a strong and authoritative centralized government must exist, unfettered by the interference that a free people, armed with Natural Law rights, would inject. Sadly, even those who brag about understanding these points, do very little about it, choosing to complain while failing to support the foot soldiers fighting the battle.

The frustration among those who are moved to action; who are moved to sacrifice time, treasure and station, is palpable. Further, as Progressives use the many-tiered bureaucracies – at all levels of government – to advance their agenda (and make no mistake, they are advancing), those American citizens moved to defend the freedoms bequeathed to them not only stand alone in their fight, they are often penalized and ostracized in the pursuit of defending their rights.

To wit, the BaltimoreSun.com reports:

The Howard County father whose arrest became a viral web video and a cause célèbre of conservative talk radio won’t be prosecuted for disrupting a meeting on state education standards.

The Baltimore County state’s attorney’s office dropped assault charges Monday against Robert Small, who had been led out of the Thursday night meeting in Towson by an off-duty police officer. Small interrupted education officials, complaining that new standards were aimed at sending children to community colleges…

After a lengthy presentation by [US Department of Education] officials, members of the public were asked to submit their questions in writing. Baltimore County School Superintendent Dallas Dance then selectively scanned the pile of questions and picked out ones to be read aloud…

The Ellicott City father of two wasn’t satisfied that his question would be answered so he stood and interrupted Dance. He said he believed the new standards would lower expectations for students and that teaching would be aimed at “getting students to community colleges rather than Harvard.”

Mr. Smalls was then arrested…silenced…denied his First Amendment Free Speech Rights and his right to redress his government.

Whether or not you agree with the Common Core initiative is irrelevant to the point I am trying to make here, although it should be noted that Common Core, in the form in which it is being implemented, is a dramatic over-reach of federal authority and a mere shadow of what the National Governor’s Association intended for it to be. Textbooks are being geared toward the suggested curriculum standards and Progressives are taking the opportunity to advance their agenda (read here and here) through these textbooks and curricula.

The larger point I am making here is that our government – in the form of those elected to serve the citizenry – has not only gotten too large and too dependent on bureaucrats and the bureaucratic process, but arrogantly totalitarian as well; totalitarian to the point of usurping the rights guaranteed in the US Constitution.

It cannot be denied that Baltimore County School Superintendent Dallas Dance picked non-inflammatory and Common Core sympathetic questions to feature from the pile of questions submitted. Only an intellectual midget would suggest otherwise. And while this is disingenuous at best, it pales in comparison to the panel’s use of force to silence a parent…a taxpayer…the very person who pays the salaries of each and every authoritarian who sits on the panel that silenced him.

Redress of government is a constitutional right, at every level. When a parent – a taxpaying parent and an engaged and educated parent – is denied his or her constitutional right to redress government at the most base level; when a concerned and informed parent is silenced from questioning the implementation of a program he or she feels denies their children a basic education, tyranny reigns. In the Baltimore County School System, tyranny reigns, supported by the oppression only afforded by an oligarchical and corrupt system.

Democrat strategist Pat Caddell opined on this issue saying,

“What we saw here is much bigger than just this. It is the idea that the people work for the…that people are the slaves to the officeholders. Superintendents of schools who won’t take questions…We see this sort of thing with security…We see it when the EPA goes to Alaska and raids with armed people and four agencies going in with guns on gold-mining operations in some little town. The things the government does now to oppress people, the laws we have now…the NSA spying on them…the fear…and imposing of a ‘soft despotism,’ which is, ‘if you get out of line will come get you’…”

Mr. Caddell’s frustration and – dare I say fear-based concern – was palpable, and rightly so.

Make no mistake, as government grows this “soft despotism” with expand, morphing into full-blown oppression: Free speech will be a concept recalled with longing as “hate speech” laws expand; Redress of government will become non-existent, those courageous enough to defend liberty and freedom sequestered for “threatening the government” and/or publicly ostracized to the point of demagoguery. We have witnessed the latter in the despotic treatment of the TEA Party by the mainstream media and Progressive Movement, conciliatory and vulnerable establishment Republicans in tow.

Mr. Smalls not only deserves better, he should bring legal action, not against the Baltimore Police Department, but directly against those who violated his constitutional rights.

The people of Baltimore County deserve better and they should demand that they receive better. But that can only be achieved through action; at the expense of time, treasure and station. The concerned citizens of Baltimore County should stage a recall of their Progressive school board members and then run for those positions themselves. Once elected, they can provide constitutionally conscious oversight of the day-to-day operations of the country school system, including curriculum and textbooks.

And finally, the people of the United States deserve better than the elitist, oligarchical, career-conscious, gaggle of political opportunists currently elected to office. A perfect litmus test for divining the opportunistic among this class is to juxtapose their campaign promises with their chamber votes. If someone ran on defunding, repealing and replacing Obamacare, but now provides politically opportune and cowardly excuses for not doing so, identify him or her as the elitist, political opportunist that he or she is and act accordingly.

Additionally, hold your no- and low-information family, friends and neighbors accountable for their abdication of responsibility to the community; their abdication of responsibility to be informed and engaged. Truth be told, if you are a citizen and you are not informed and engaged, then you are an intellectually lazy and societally narcissistic, willing to benefit from the diligence and hard work of someone else; expecting someone else to provide the oversight to government so sorely needed today. If you are a citizen and you are not informed and engaged then you are societally selfish and deserve neither the Natural Law rights bequeathed to you, nor the protections they afford. If you are a citizen and you are not informed and engaged then you are the problem.

Personally, I will not exist as a slave to an oligarchical government because 41.8% of the US voting population thinks that it’s not worth their time or that they are too good to do the hard work of keeping an eye on their government’s actions, size and willingness to oppress.

I stand with Mr. Smalls. I will not sit like “cattle” as elitist oligarchs destroy our country. How about you?

« Older Entries