The National Tea Party Movement!

There was a National Tea Party convention this week in Nashville, TN and the latest news emerging from the convention is that former Alaska governor and keynote speaker, Sarah Palin is vying to take over the leadership role of the Tea Party movement. Some say, “Not so fast” as there are other potential leaders out there, namely, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. I say “be careful and move slowly” because the tea party movement is in its infant stage and it currently has many facets to it. I am not sure it really needs a “leader” just yet.

What is great about the tea party movement is that it is, truly, a grass roots movement that sprung up from the people, by the people. The Tea Party convention in Nashville does not necessarily represent that grass roots movement that has, in essence, come to be known as the Tea Party movement. I am a member of the Tea Party Coalition of Virginia which is part of the National Tea Party Patriots group. There are many more national, state and local tea party movements springing up every day. Each is separate and unique but each holds true to the same basic principles: liberty, freedom and restoring our Republic to its constitutional foundations.

So I think it is somewhat premature to be vying for leadership of a movement that is evolving, growing and gaining strength. The beauty and effectiveness of the Tea Party movement is that it spontaneously erupted from the fears and frustrations that have been building within the majority of the American people. No one created it and no person led it; it just happened.

And the most important thing that people have to remember is that it is not and cannot become a third political party. It is a movement that in steeped in conservative traditional values. It is no different from the Christian Coalition, AARP or the NAACP. These are groups with their own set of values and principles and they make political statements and support political candidates but they are not political parties.

Republicans are embracing the tea party movement as their own but I would caution the Republicans that they are not necessarily exempt from the wrath of the Tea Party members. Knowing what we know about the politics in Washington, D.C and seeing the policies that have been emerging that are undermining our Republic and our Constitution; I would characterize the Tea Party movement more as anti-incumbent than pro-Republican.

That is why Sarah Palin must be careful how she moves forward and embraces her political future through the Tea Party Coalition. If she wants to shape the political horizon by being the spokesperson for the group that will be pushing their conservative agenda through political endorsements is one thing; but to use her platform to move forward as the Tea Party’s candidate is a mistake: both for her and the tea party movement itself. The movement is gaining momentum and it is doing just fine.

Also, a very special thanks to the likes of Janeane Garafalo and Katrina vanden Heuvel for their malicious and idiotic attacks on the dedicated, concerned and patriotic tea party supporters by characterizing them as “stupid” and “teabaggers” for it has provided me with my moniker and battle cry, “BEWARE! I am a stupid tea-bagger and I VOTE!
Read Full Article!

The Economic Theory of E = MC2

No, I am not talking about Energy equals Mass times the Speed of Light, squared; I am talking about Economic Growth equals Money Supply times Capitalism, squared. The debate continues to rage about the best solutions to America’s problems, namely: lost jobs and increasing unemployment, a sluggish economy, rising government debt, deficits and spending. We also continue to hear the same solutions being offered by both sides of the political spectrum, namely: cutting taxes and government spending from the right; to increasing taxes, government spending and control from the left. These arguments have been laid out, dissected and disputed for decades and it continues today but who is right and who is wrong? Surely, there is one proven, effective solution?

Before this question can be properly answered, first you have to look at both sides of the argument to determine what is driving the various proposals being made. Republican’s, Conservatives and Libertarians firmly support the U.S Constitution, smaller government involvement in their lives, lower taxes, less government regulation and involvement in the free market system, States rights, a strong defense and the complete and undeniable sovereignty of the United States. This group will fight and die to protect their inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Democrat’s, Liberals and Progressives, on the other hand, believe just the opposite. They want government, specifically the federal government, to be the “be all and end all” controlling authority in our lives. They believe the federal government’s role is to control how much money we make and how much we can keep; they believe the federal government’s authority trumps States rights; they believe the U.S. Constitution is in their way; they believe the U.S. should be part of a greater “new world order”; and they believe the federal government will provide all that is needed to achieve happiness, even at the expense of liberty and freedom.

If we understand the foundations and principles on which both arguments are built, we can better understand why their proposed solutions to existing problems remain consistent. The problem is that both solutions can’t be correct. The right insists that less taxes and less government spending will boost the economy and create jobs; the left insists that increased government spending and higher taxes to support the spending will create jobs and stimulate the economy. Fine, but they both cannot be right.

I think everyone will agree to the natural law that says “whatever goes up, will come down”. This is based on Newton’s Law of Gravity and it is accepted as undeniable fact. The same holds true for scientific law that states “light travels faster than sound” or complex situations involving space and time contained in Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. I do not believe anyone disputes these scientific theories. Another interesting fact about scientific experimentation is that when a hypothesis is tested, over and over again, and the results remain the same, it becomes a theory and eventually scientific law that is accepted by the entire scientific community.

That brings us back to the perpetual arguments and solutions about economic stimulation, jobs creation and the role of government. If we accept the basic premise that drives Progressives then we must conclude that government spending will fix all problems and in order to maintain increased levels of spending, then taxes must be imposed and wealth must be equitably spread around. And since freedoms and liberties will be negatively impacted, then the Constitution must be neutralized in order to attain their targeted goal. That is their hypotheses.

If we believe the Conservatives to be correct then we must conclude that their solutions to existing economic problems will be found with reducing taxes, government’s size and spending while allowing the free market forces to function as they were designed to do. Conservatives also believe that the Founding Father’s designed the Constitution to keep the federal government in check and that is why they strive to protect its impact on today’s society. That is their hypotheses. But that still does not explain whose solutions are correct but merely why they espouse them.

That brings us to the tie breaker: scientific hypotheses and theory. If we look back at history there were times when the economy was declining and jobs were being lost and something was put into motion that turned things around. If we can see a consistent trend that caused positive economic and jobs growth then maybe we can draw an economic theory about the actions that were taken. Conversely, if we see a consistent historical trend causing a negative impact on jobs and the economy, that should also lend credence that supports our economic theory.

Fortunately, the history of the United States shows many economic contractions that we can look towards. During the Great Depression, FDR imposed massive government spending programs to boost the economy and create jobs but we find that this had little effect of ending the Depression until the U.S. entered World War II and America cranked up its industrial machine to support the war effort. Support for capitalism grew us out of the depression not massive government entitlement programs. JFK experienced his own recession and reversed the economy by cutting taxes. He knew that if you put more money into the hands of consumers, small business owners, investors, capitalists and innovators jobs creation would result and an economic boom would follow.

Progressive Jimmy Carter felt compelled to increase taxes, bank lending rates and government spending to unsustainable levels in order to control exploding inflation, a declining economy and crushing unemployment; but his actions caused this country to experience the worst economic crisis and jobs loss since the Great Depression. It wasn’t until Conservative Ronald Reagan took office and reversed most of Carter’s failed economic policies that the economy soared and full employment was attained. He simply cut the marginal tax rates and attempted to reduce the size of government.

Jobs and the economy continued to grow through the Bush and Clinton years (both Moderates) because both of these Presidents’s allowed the free markets to work and they kept government growth and taxes in relative check. This country experienced another economic boom when George W. Bush initiated an additional across the board tax cut. Unfortunately, the housing bubble and bank crisis forced us into a very deep recession including soaring unemployment and skyrocketing government debt. So what actions should be taken to reverse this current crisis, create jobs and get the economy moving forward again?

As I explained earlier, the Progressives (and President Obama is a self-proclaimed Progressive) are going to push for increased government spending, taxes and the redistribution of wealth because that is the foundation on which they govern. They have held this belief going back to the presidency of Woodrow Wilson and they continue to force feed this disillusioned economic debate today. But looking back at history to see what worked and what didn’t it is clear that lower taxes and less government spending creates jobs, stimulates economic growth and holds down government debt. Kennedy proved it; Reagan proved it and Bush proved it; and curiously enough, so did Roosevelt and Carter by taking a Progressive, big government approach that failed. It is truly a time tested economic theory that should not be questioned. But it continues to be.

The only other conclusion that must be drawn is that the Progressives are not really interested in creating jobs and stimulating economic growth; their agenda is to increase the size and impact of the federal government, control our free market systems, redistribute wealth, nationalize banks, insurance, automobile, energy and health care industries, strip us of our liberties and control our lives and marginalize this country to the status of a socialistic eunuch. In order for us to reverse the trend of this crippling recession then time tested and proven economic law should be applied. Cut taxes, reduce government spending and then get out of the way. In other words, E = MC2.
Read Full Article!

Barack Obama: The Great Communicator or the Great Agitator?

Republican Scott Brown’s senatorial victory in Massachusetts last week has caused enormous consternation, second guessing and hand wringing at the White House about the future of President Obama’s presidency. With the President’s poll results plummeting, many are trying to determine why so much of Mr. Obama’s first year initiatives have failed and why his influence has failed to carry elections in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts. After all, Mr. Obama is the great communicator whose oratory skills swept him into the White House. During Sunday morning’s barrage of political banter, many of the political pundits were heard saying Mr. Obama’s message to the American people about jobs, the economy and healthcare lacked clarity and that he needs to “reset” his message. Many pointed to the upcoming State of the Union address and speculated how he will refocus his agenda in order to stabilize the political horizon and win back the hearts and minds of the American people. While others made comparisons between the first years of President Ronald Reagan and President Obama, since both were addressing serious economic problems, both saw falling polls and both are regarded as being great communicators.

Progressive supporters want to believe that Mr. Obama will follow in Mr. Reagan’s footsteps; despite rough first years they envision Mr. Obama will also rally his backers and sweep him into a second term in 2012. But the differences between President Reagan and President Obama are stark in contrast and it is that disparity that will cause the defeat of Mr. Obama’s second presidential bid. Yes, Mr. Reagan was a great communicator and Mr. Obama inspires his listeners but their words and demeanor are ions apart. Ronald Reagan was an eternal optimist and he exuded that optimism with a confidence that turned public opinion in his favor. He took responsibility for his actions and proceeded to turn the economy around, spur tremendous growth and create jobs, jobs, jobs. He communicated his vision clearly and precisely to the American people and they rewarded him with “four more years” in office.

President Obama, on the other hand, approaches his challenges with tremendous pessimism and rather than exuding confidence, Mr. Obama displays arrogance and a disdain for all who oppose him and that has resulted with failed initiatives and lost elections. Mr. Obama has badly misread the American people and their wants and desires and that is what brings us to today’s events. There is an old saying, “you hear me but you are not listening to me.” President Reagan attained his results because he was a positive communicator. Mr. Obama finds himself falling into the political abyss because he is not communicating but agitating.

How can I say this? All you have to do is look at the public record and listen. Mr. Obama has followed the typical progressive playbook of class warfare and hate mongering. Everything is portrayed in a negative light: black against white; rich against poor; white collar vs. blue collar; men against women; and the newest assault, Wall Street against Main Street. In addition, Mr. Obama is constantly casting blame on everyone else but himself. How many times have you heard him say, “I inherited this problem”? Then there are the unrelenting attacks on the banking industry, the investment community, the insurance industry, the automobile industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the Republican Party, the Fox News Network, the legitimate and concerned Tea-Party movement and most recently the Supreme Court for upholding, among other things, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

We have heard the phrases and the attacks: “The party of No”; ‘the greedy bank executives”; “being held hostage by the insurance companies”, “the stupid tea-baggers”; "not really a news organization"; claiming that the recent Supreme Court ruling, “strikes at our democracy itself” as well as the unrelenting bashing of Wall Street and our free-market system. Mr. Obama is dictating; not listening. We are not hearing words like negotiate and compromise, but instead we are hearing inflammatory and divisive words like, “fight, fight, fight”.

In addition to words, President Obama is communicating his arrogance through his actions, like his overt partisanship in passing crucial health care legislation by totally locking out the minority party; encouraging Congress to conduct legislative negotiations behind closed doors, despite his overtures and promises of broadcasting congressional hearings on C-SPAN; the shameful practice of buying votes with political favors and kickbacks; and his far-left reaching agenda that the majority of American voters oppose. President Reagan resorted to none of these negative and pessimistic activities and that is why he was re-elected and why Mr. Obama will not.

An interesting analogy is to look to the animal kingdom and animal behavior and modification. It is safe to say that the American people are angry, frustrated and frightened with today’s political uncertainty. It is said that this anger is what swept Scott Brown into the Massachusetts Senate seat. So how do you reduce the anger? How do you eliminate the uncertainty? How do you change the mood in Washington?

Cesar Millan is a dog behavior specialist with his own television program, “The Dog Whisperer”. Mr. Millan is called to homes where dog owners have lost control of their animals who might display any number of negative traits like biting, barking, chewing, pulling or showing aggressive tendencies towards other dogs or people. After “listening” to the owner’s complaints and observing the mood of the animals, Mr. Millan explains how these aggressive or disobedient tendencies get elevated through the owner’s own heightened states of emotion and that the best way to combat the problem is to get the animal’s attention and then bring them down to a calm and submissive state. It is incredible to watch Mr. Millan reverse the negative behavior of the dog, within minutes, by communicating his calm demeanor and by taking control of the situation by becoming “the pack leader”. Mr. Millan leads and communicates in a calm and positive manner, he removes all fear, doubt and uncertainty as to who is in charge and the dogs immediately respond by following his every command.

Washington and Mr. Obama can learn something from Cesar Millan and Ronald Reagan. Both of these very skilled communicators exercised control and calmness in a positive way and their optimism was rewarded with immediate and positive responses. They cast no blame; they shed no doubt on who was in charge. Barack Obama is following a very different course of action and his results are, unfortunately, evident. That is why President Reagan was the “Great Communicator” who enjoyed eight years in office, and why Mr. Obama is “The Great Agitator” who will go down in history as just another one term president.
Read Full Article!

The U.S. Constitution: The Truth About the Health Care Bill

Michael R. Connolly is a retired attorney and a Constitutional Law Instructor with a very impressive resume. He has written three books, has his own radio talk show and maintains a blog that deals with Constitutional rights (http://michaelconnelly.viviti.com/). On August 12, 2009, Mr. Connolly posted a blog called “The Truth About the Health Care Bills” where he admits to reading the entire text of the original House Bill H.R. 3200 and then proceeded to point out all of the negative aspects of the legislation and its numerous provisions that are unconstitutional. Since that time, Mr. Connolly has posted copious blogs on the subject. (He actually reads and understands this stuff.) His latest entry on the U.S. Constitution vs. The Health Care Reform Bill is posted below. With the election of Republican Scott Brown of Massachusetts to the U.S. Senate, passage of healthcare reform appears to be in doubt but we cannot let our guard down because those Progressive Democrats are a slippery lot. Here is what they are attempting to inflict on the American people. Thanks, Michael, for unmasking this hideous excuse for health care reform.

Going On The Offensive by Michael R. Connolly

Posted January 4, 2010

There is still time to make one final push to defeat the healthcare legislation in the House and Senate before a final bill is passed and signed by the President. Here are some key points everyone should make when contacting their representatives:

1. There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States that authorizes Congress or any other branch of the Federal government to force anyone living in the United States to buy anything by virtue of their citizenship or residence. There are no U.S. Supreme Court decisions that allow this under either the “Commerce Clause” or the “General Welfare Clause” of the Constitution. Yet that is exactly what both the House and Senate versions of the Bills contain, a mandate requiring everyone to buy health insurance.

2. The requirement to have automobile insurance is not the same thing. First, it is a requirement imposed by the individual states, not the federal government, and you can’t be forced to have it if you don’t own a car or you choose not to drive.

3. Thus the passage of any health care bill containing such a provision is a violation of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution and the 9th Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

4. The regulation of the health care industry and the health insurance industry has always been left in the hands of the individual state legislatures. To now transfer all of this power to the hands of federal bureaucrats is a clear violation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

5. Both the House and Senate versions of the bill provide for massive tax increases for most Americans. However, the Senate version also imposes a “tax penalty” on anyone who fails to purchase the health care insurance the Federal bureaucracy deems that person or family needs. This is not in fact, a tax, but a “fine” and failure to pay it can lead to imprisonment. This is therefore an attempt to bypass the provisions of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution and take away property and liberty without “due process of law”.

6. By the very nature of this legislation there will have to be rationing of health care. The Senate Bill lays the ground work for this on page 1,000 in section 3403 by establishing an “independent” Medicare advisory board to make decisions about everything from Medicare payments to what type of medical devices can be paid for. The bill calls for specific reductions in Medicare benefits and prohibits seniors from using their own money to get the health care they desire. This is another massive violation of the due process clause and is aimed at older Americans.
7. What makes this and other portions of the bill even worse are the provisions though out the legislation to limit the right of Americans to seek administrative or court review of the decisions made under the law. There are also new rules established to make it extremely difficult, if not impossible for a future Congress to repeal sections of the law or even modify them. This includes the rationing provisions which ultimately allow federal bureaucrats to make life and death decisions for people. The Congress is again ignoring the 5th Amendment.

8. When you further consider the fact that a large number of people will be allowed access to the personal financial and medical information of individual Americans who are enforced to enroll in the health care plans you are also inevitably looking at violations of the right to privacy and the prohibitions against illegal searches contained in the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.

9. Last, members of the Senate should be asked to point out the specific language in the bill that prohibits federal funds from being used to pay for abortions, protects the right of conscience of those members of the medical community that don’t want to participate in abortions, and finally provides any enforcement mechanism to keep illegal aliens from participating in the programs set up in the bill. They won’t be able to cite any of these provisions because they don’t exist.

This is not just a bad law; it is a direct assault on the Constitution of the United States and the rights of individual Americans. If it passes my next blog on this subject will detail the legal and political steps that we can take to stop the implementation of this power grab. Hopefully, I won’t have to write that article.

Read Full Article!

The U.S. Constitution: Bill of Attainder

The more I delve into the simplicity and intricacies of the U. S. Constitution the more fascinated I become at the brilliance of the Founding Fathers and the more disturbed I become at our current government’s attempt to strip us of our liberties and freedoms. On January 15, 2010, I wrote about “The U.S. Constitution: A Document for the Ages” and I talked about the meager 17 pages, containing 7 Articles and 27 Amendments that make up this incredible document. I also wrote about the mere 28 words contained in the Tenth Amendment and the incredible impact these few words have in protecting our liberties from an oppressive government. Unfortunately, our current government is ignoring the provisions of the Constitution, such as the Tenth Amendment, and it is taking actions and invoking laws that are not granted to them in the Constitution and these laws and actions are further eroding our liberties and freedoms. I found 10 more words in the Constitution that are being abused and the result is more of our liberties being attacked. Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 simply says, “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed.” What an intriguing set of words but what liberties do they protect and how are these liberties being abused?

First of all, let me point out that a “Bill of Attainder” and an “ex post facto law” are two separate and distinct legal terms with different legal meanings and interpretations. Here we are looking only at the Bill of Attainder portion of Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3.

Bill of Attainder is defined as “a legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.” History and the legal community has this to say about the Bill of Attainder clause:

"The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature."
U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).{1}

"These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment."
William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.{1}

"Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community."
James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.{1}

“Within the U.S. Constitution, the clauses forbidding attainder laws serve two purposes. First, they reinforced the separation of powers, by forbidding the legislature to perform judicial functions—since the outcome of any such acts of legislature would of necessity take the form of a bill of attainder. Second, they embody the concept of due process, which was later reinforced by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.” {2}

Now that we have defined the Bill of Attainder clause and received some legal and historical explanations of the clause, how is this simple clause in the U.S. Constitution being ignored, or more importantly, abused by the 111th Congress of the United States? Let’s take a look at House Bill H.R. 1664 that states, “To amend the executive compensation provisions of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards.” This Bill is inflicting punitive prohibition and restrictions on individuals or group for punishment without a trial. In other words, Congress has found individuals working at specific financial institutions that accepted bailout money guilty of some type of wrongdoing; they are being singled out and punishment is being imposed on them in the form of prohibiting financial compensation and bonuses. This is clearly in violation of the Bill of Attainder clause.

Another example is a new “Bank Tax” that the Obama Administration is pushing Congress to pass that would impose a severe tax on a small, named group of banks, for the purpose of recouping Troubled Assets Recovery Plan or TARP funds. Even though most of these banks repaid or never received TARP funds, they are being singled out and punished with this Bank Tax by Congress without the benefit of a trial. This is in violation of the separation of powers clause because the legislature is performing judicial functions; and it violates their protections of due process. If this Bill passes it will be a Bill of Attainder imposed on a group of singled out banks and clearly unconstitutional.

Then there is the Healthcare Reform Bill that is currently being negotiated behind closed doors by the Democratic leadership in Congress. There are several provisions contained in this Bill that are clearly unconstitutional. One such provision forces individuals to purchase health insurance policies, under penalty of law, or face fines and/or potential incarceration. This is an excellent example of a violation of the Bill of Attainder clause because it demonstrates how a small group of individuals is being singled out and punished without the benefit of due process.

What is even scarier about this blatant disregard of the U.S. Constitution by Congress and the current Administration is that Congress can impose these punishments on any one of us if they deem some actions undertaken by the people warrant it. Think about it! These are the very same abuses that the Founding Fathers envisioned and that is why the Constitution states that “No Bill of Attainder will be passed.” That is why Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote, “Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment." And, that is why James Madison proclaimed in the Federalist Papers that “the sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy” and that “they have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences” could occur.

Once again, the Constitution has proven itself to be the people’s document and it continues to withstand the forces of tyranny. But it remains under attack and the people must be on guard and ever vigilant that its principles are upheld otherwise the United States of America will be no more.

{1} www.techlawjournal.com/glossary/legal/attainder.htm
{2} en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder

Read Full Article!

The U. S. Constitution: A Document for the Ages.

It is amazing to me how few Americans today read or truly understand what is contained in the U.S. Constitution. I would boldly predict that a vast majority of U.S. citizens would not know that the entire Constitution of the United States is a mere 17 pages in length. Compare that to the current Health Care Reform legislation that is over 2,500 pages long. Many more U.S. citizens often confuse the Constitution with the Declaration of Independence. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” are, in fact, the words contained in the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution, in essence, created our system of government and the rules under which our government operates. If you compare the actions of government today with the tenets established under the Constitution you would be surprised to see how much government intervention into our lives is not granted by the Constitution.

The Preamble of the Constitution states:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The Preamble does not grant any particular authority to the federal government and it does not prohibit any particular authority. It establishes the fact that the federal government has no authority outside of what follows the preamble, as amended. The U.S. Constitution is made up of the VII (7) original Articles, plus XXVII (27) Amendments that were incorporated into the Constitution between 1791 and 1992. The first three Articles establishes and defines the branches of government: Congress or legislative branch (Article I); the President or executive branch (Article II); and the Supreme Court or judicial branch (Article III). Article IV speaks of States rights; Article V addresses the amendment process; Article VI says that all debts, treaties and obligations entered into before or after the adoption of the Constitution shall be honored and all of government’s representatives “shall be bound by oath to support the Constitution”; and Article VII states that ratification by nine of the original thirteen States “shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution.” These seven articles are pure and concise and consume the first 10 pages of the Constitution.

There is also some confusion concerning the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is merely the first Ten Amendments to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights plus the remaining 17 amendments lays out [in 7 pages] the rights and authorities granted to the 3 branches of government by the Constitution, as well as States rights and the rights of the people. It is often said that the amendments state more about what the government cannot do as opposed to what it can do. For example, the First Amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting its citizens from freedom of religion, of speech, of the press, to assembly and to petition.

The Second Amendment grants citizens the rights to be free and safe, thereby, being able to establish a militia and bear arms. The remaining amendments grant citizens the rights to own and protect property, protection against unlawful searches and seizures, and protection against prosecution without due process of law. If prosecuted, citizens are granted the rights to a speedy and public trial, as well as a trial by a jury of their peers. If someone is found guilty of a crime, they are protected from excessive bail and fines as well as cruel and unusual punishment. That brings us to the Tenth and my favorite amendment. The Tenth Amendment is probably the least known and understood amendment, and surprisingly it contains only 28 words. The Tenth Amendment simply states, “The powers not delegated to the United States [government] by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” What that means is if the Constitution does not specifically grant the federal government the authority to act then those rights to act revert back to the States and the people.

As I said earlier, you would be surprised to see how much government intervention into our lives is not granted by the Constitution. So what authority was granted to Congress under the terms of the Constitution? If you look at Article I, Section 8 it states that Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, pay debts, borrow money, provide a strong defense, regulate interstate commerce, coin money and fix the standards for weights and measures, punish counterfeiting, establish post offices and roads, promote science and the arts, punish piracy and declare war, raise and support armies and provide and maintain a navy. Finally, Section 8 says, the Congress shall have power... “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers (that means previously stated), and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”

In other words, Congress has the power to make all laws pertaining to taxes, defense, interstate commerce, weights and measures, counterfeiting, piracy, and the like, but where does it say that Congress can pass laws that allows it to takeover banks, insurance companies, or the automobile, energy or healthcare industries? Where does it say that Congress can force its citizens to buy anything, like health insurance, and punish you if you don’t? For that matter, I can find nothing in the Constitution that grants Congress or the federal government the power to establish any social entitlement programs, restrict corporate compensation or restrict and forbid the exploration of energy sources within our own borders. If anything, those powers would revert to the States or the people, as defined in the Tenth Amendment. That is why I feel Congress and the Federal Government have overstepped their authority by creating laws not granted to them under the U. S. Constitution.

If the U.S. Constitution is a living document that was destined to retain jurisdiction over the Republic of the United States of America then it stands to reason that the Constitution holds the solutions to potential problems that exist today. I content that Congress and the Federal Government have exceeded their authority granted to them under the Constitution. If that is so, what is written in the Constitution to correct the injustices? The establishment of “checks and balances”, whereby, each of the three branches of government has jurisdictional oversight over the other two branches, is the first line of defense in the protection of the Constitution.

Recently, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott indicated that he and several other states attorney’s general would challenge the constitutionality of some aspects of the Healthcare Reform Bill. I believe that similar challenges should be raised against any law that is passed that calls into question the law’s constitutionality. It is clearly written in the Constitution under the Tenth Amendment that if it is not explicitly granted to them in the Constitution, Congress and the Federal Government do not have the authority to act, but that authority reverts back to the States and the people. If legislation is deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court then it should be immediately overturned. And, any pending legislation that might be challenged on constitutional grounds should be reviewed by the Supreme Court prior to being signed into law. This is what the Founder’s intended when they wrote Articles I, II and III and incorporated the concept of “checks and balances” into the Constitution.

I was also pleased to read that my State of Virginia is in the process of writing legislation that challenges the authority of Congress to impose laws on the States that they might not have the authority to do. With this pending legislation, Virginia is taking back its rights granted to it under the Constitution. The three House Bills that Virginia is proposing are:

1. HB 10- The major provisions of the healthcare reform bills in Washington, including the health insurance mandate and insurance provider exchanges, would not apply in VA.
2. HB 11- Will allow health care insurance company's licensed in any state to sell policies in VA.
3. HB 12- Any products made and consumed in VA are not subject to federal government regulation, like handguns.

I haven't seen it yet but I read that our new governor is in favor of drilling for oil off the VA coast. That would create jobs and generate state revenue. It sounds like the State(s) are starting to take back powers and authorities granted to them under the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and I applaud them for doing so.

I happen to believe that current members of Congress have lost their way of governing as defined and intended by the Constitution. “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Under the Constitution, members of Congress have the right to run for their respective offices indefinitely but I believe this Constitutional authority, although proper, leads to inevitable corruption. I now point to Article V of the Constitution that gives States the right to “on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments.” I strongly favor a Constitutional Convention to add a new amendment to the Constitution that will limit the authority of Congress. After all, it was the Founders who “expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers” the ability to add restrictive clauses or amendments to the Constitution.

On December 14, 2009, I wrote a letter to the Republican Governor’s Association urging them to exercise their State’s rights and call for a Constitutional Convention for the purpose of adding the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The new amendment would adopt “The Fair Tax” legislation, thereby, eliminating the federal tax code and the IRS; impose term limits on the Congress of the United States; adopt a balanced budget amendment at the federal level; restrict the actions of the federal government to those delegated under the U.S. Constitution, and render illegal, congressional “earmarks” and federal lobbying activity and the ability to buy legislative votes. In addition, members of Congress should no longer receive lifetime pay and benefits but should be paid only for the time they serve. The adoption of this amendment would cause the greatest transfer of power back to the States and the people and away from the Federal Government. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators; serve your term(s), then go home and back to work. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.

The U.S. Constitution has served this country well for over 200 years and the strength and endurance of its words will continue to prevail, provided we abide by the meaning, intent and spirit in which they were written. “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Read Full Article!

The Russians Are Coming the Russians Are Coming!

“The Russians Are Coming the Russians Are Coming” is a 1966 movie comedy about a Soviet submarine that went aground off the New England coast and the movie’s plot fostered the thought of a Soviet invasion. Consequently, the movie’s plot also created both panic and comedy relief: panic that it could happen; and comic relief in that it was just a funny movie. In reality, the thought of a foreign power invading this country, or even worse, being able to take over the United States from within is still the basis for many fictional novels and the cause of great consternation and fear, especially from those of us who grew up in the 1960’s. It is also clear that the Progressive, Socialist or Communist philosophy of governing is not restricted to Russia, China, Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, et al but is also alive and flourishing right here in the United States. The movement is not as blatant or overt as it is in those self-proclaimed countries but it is alive and well in the U.S. nonetheless and it has been propagating itself for many decades. Unlike other countries, it has been harder to take root in the U.S. primarily because of the strong belief in and the ever present existence of the U.S. Constitution. It is becoming increasingly apparent, however, that the Constitution is under attack and the Progressive movement is taking root at an alarming pace, and unlike “The Russians Are Coming the Russians Are Coming” there seems to be little fear or concern about its potential success.

There is a significant reason why the fear of losing our liberty and freedom is not as prevalent as it would otherwise be is because it is happening very slowly and methodically and at a pace that is unrecognizable. Think about it for a second: if a foreign nation attempted to covertly take over the U.S., the military would be called into action and the people would step forward to help fend off the attack; but if the takeover took 100 or more years and the effort was orchestrated by our very own government, a vast majority of the people would be lulled into the new movement before the reality set in that their liberties and freedoms were lost and the U.S. Constitution was no longer relevant.

Believe or not and accept it or not but there has been a slow, orchestrated and methodical movement to destroy this country, as we know it, and replace it with a country of reduced freedom and increased government control. Furthermore, the movement is patient and effective and brilliantly conceived. As we look back at the history of the United States we see the birth of the progressive movement in 1912 by, none other than San Juan Hill’s own Teddy Roosevelt. “Roosevelt's philosophy for the Progressive Party was based around New Nationalism, which was the belief in a strong government to regulate industry and protect the middle and working classes,” as well as “social welfare legislation, workers’ compensation, union strike protectionism, required health insurance in industry, new inheritance and income taxes, revision of banking regulations, and the restriction of naval armaments.” Of course, Teddy Roosevelt did not enact everything he wanted but he set the table and started the movement forward.

We saw our liberties and freedoms further eroded with the election of Progressive Woodrow Wilson in 1912. In his first term, “Wilson persuaded a Democratic Congress to pass the Federal Reserve Act, Federal Trade Commission, the Clayton Antitrust Act, the Federal Farm Loan Act and America's first-ever federal progressive income tax in the Revenue Act of 1913.”1 In his second term, he attempted to sacrifice United States sovereignty by pushing our joining the League of Nations and thus becoming merely one cog in a global wheel. Fortunately that effort failed, at least for the time being.

That brings us to the 1930’s and the election of the next and perhaps most powerful Progressive, President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Although he was not aware of it at the time, but FDR would put into motion a philosophy that is being used and perfected today. Roosevelt was elected in 1932 during the depths of the Great Depression. It is safe to say, that this event created a vast and major “crisis” in U.S. history. The reason I emphasize “crisis” is because the major cornerstone of the success of the modern Progressive movement is the utilization and manipulation of the so-called Cloward-Piven Strategy, sometimes known as “the crisis strategy” or “the flood-the-rolls” or “bankrupt-the-cities strategy.” A major contributor to this strategy was Roosevelt himself. His presidency and the legislation he enacted have had a major impact of “flooding-the-rolls” by adding incredible government intrusion into our lives and he was able to accomplish it by using the fear of “crisis” caused by the Great Depression. During his presidency we saw a monumental increase in federal spending and the federal bureaucracy by the creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Trade Commission, the Security and Exchange Commission, the Public Works Administration, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the National Labor Relations Act, the United States Housing Authority, and most significantly, the Social Security Act which included unemployment compensation. Based on a “crisis” and a progressive desire, Roosevelt continued to pile on federal government oppression and cost that could be the foundation for this country’s ultimate implosion.

The weight and oppression of the federal government continued with the presidency of Lyndon B. Johnson. LBJ’s presidency, also known as the “Great Society” continued to swell the federal government with federal funding for education, federal support for public broadcasting, the escalation of the Viet Nam War and space exploration or NASA, expansion of environmental protection, and the expansion of the Social Security entitlements with the added burden of Medicare and Medicaid. Under the “crisis” guise of helping the under privileged or protecting our national interests the federal government continued to push the progressive agenda while ultimately undermining our individual liberties and freedoms by placing added and uncontrolled financial burdens on the population of the country.

Let’s take a look at the modern day progressives and what they are doing to complete the actions begun by Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and LBJ. Let me remind you about the Cloward-Piven Strategy: taking advantage of crisis to ultimately bring down the system and cause the re-emergence of the federal government as the savior of the people. How do you suppose the government creates crisis? First of all there are the environmentalists. They are causing more chaos and financial burdens than they claim to be protecting. Because of a lawsuit under the Endangered Species Act, the environmentalists effectively shut down California’s water supply and that crisis is slowly causing the destruction of California’s agricultural industry and exacerbating California’s budget woes, not to mention federal unfunded mandates that the State(s) is forced to absorb. Environmentalists are also forcing industries to incur greater and greater costs due to emissions standards and the government is complicit. The government encourages the environmentalists and the result is adding more financial burden to consumers and taxpayers. Do you really think the “global warming” phenomenon just happened?

Progressivism is behind government’s current assault on the free market capital system. Government passed the Community Reinvestment Act and created Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. These actions forced banks to lend to non-creditworthy clients. These borrowers bought homes they could not afford and they subsequently defaulted on their financial obligations. Freddie and Fannie bought the bad loans but the cycle continued until the banks, investment firms and mortgage insurance companies and Freddie and Fannie nearly failed; while at the same time nearly causing the collapse of the global financial system. This created a Cloward-Piven style crisis that enabled government to step in and expand their grip on private enterprise. After all, wasn’t it President Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel who said, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste? And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” What other sane explanation could there be for passing TARP, TALF, trillion dollar Omnibus Appropriations bills, Cap & Trade, Healthcare Reform when two-thirds of the American people oppose these actions?

What other “crises” has the government inflicted on us so that they can advance their Progressive agenda? Can you come up with any rational reason why the government would pass a law that would grant the healthcare industry an anti-trust exemption? Why would you give health insurers the ability to be legally uncompetitive and fix prices without fear of prosecution unless your motive is to artificially run up costs; put the industry in crisis and eventually push for health care reform legislation. That also explains why government prohibits the sale of health insurance over state lines. How does this strategy play out in the energy industry? First of all, government passes laws making it illegal to develop our own sources of energy. Why would the government do that? We could become energy independent by expanding our use of clean burning coal technology; by increasing the development and use of nuclear technology; by drilling for oil and natural gas in Alaska and off the coasts of California and Virginia but the government prevents this energy development. Why would our government do that? Perhaps it is to drive up costs and our dependence on foreign oil so that the government can intercede and take over another free market industry. That is what the pending Cap & Trade legislation is all about.

The government, for all intents and purposes, took over the auto industry. What crisis caused this to happen? The crisis was caused by the over burdening financial costs the government forced the auto industry to absorb. Besides the crushing financial burden of union driven operating and legacy costs, that the government supports, they inflicted burdensome CAFÉ (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards on the industry that eventually made them uncompetitive. And then there are the ever present tax burdens that further eroded corporate profitability. If you cannot compete and you are losing money, how can you survive? How can a vital national industry remain viable unless government comes to the rescue?

Let us not forget the crisis of unemployment. First the government creates and imposes entitlement programs on everyone and raises taxes on individuals and corporations to pay for it. As they create more and more government programs taxes continue to rise. Then the government passes laws and regulations putting untold burdens on individuals and corporations to compete. Ultimately, businesses fail, industries virtually collapse and people lose jobs; thereby creating the most powerful crisis of all. The government steps in and pushes stimulus programs and industry takeovers and promises to make everything better for all Americans. The government promises “change we can count on” and most individuals buy into the master plan of the progressives. All the while, federal spending is climbing to unsustainable levels, more people are unemployed and more crises are being fabricated to complete the task at hand: flood-the-rolls and bankrupt-the cities; the Cloward-Piven strategy to collapse the system and elevate the government and destroy the free market economy.

This is not fiction. This is not “The Russian Are Coming the Russians Are Coming.” This is American history and this is what is happening in the United States today. Many people will deny this is happening. Even with all of the evidence at hand, there are those who are in denial believing that all of the governments increased involvement in our lives is for the general good of the people. There are members in the House of Representatives and U.S. Senate who firmly believe they are doing what is best for the American people even though their votes are being cast to destroy our Constitution and our way of life. Don’t you find it interesting that the former First Lady, former presidential candidate, current Secretary of State and leading Progressive would write a book entitled, “It Takes a Village?” The book is about raising children; not by the influence of parents or family but by the influence of the State or government. She handed the American people a blueprint of the Progressive strategy but most just saw it as a nice book. It is time the American people wake up and start taking notice of the tyranny being perpetrated on us. The “Tea-Party” folks are starting to see it. Town Hall goers are starting to see it. Voters in very blue states like Connecticut, North Dakota and Nevada are starting to see it. It is not too late to stand up and fight for our constitutional rights and to fight to take back our country and rid ourselves, once and for all, of the Progressive scourge.

One action taken by Woodrow Wilson was to reduce naval armaments. Keep in mind, at that time the navy was our primary military defense. Why do Progressives continually and consistently attempt to reduce federal military spending? Why do Progressives feel compelled to render impotent the impact of national defense measures like the Patriot Act or interrogation techniques for military combatants? Why are the Progressives pushing so hard to close Guantanamo? Like Wilson, the Progressives feel a strong military defense could undermine their attempts to complete the mission at hand. Do you think it is a coincidence that the A.C.L.U. challenges laws that strengthen our society, like the “separation of church and state?” Why was the “political correctness” movement thrust upon us if not to minimize our way of life? These are all subtle and not so subtle actions that continues to erode our liberties and freedoms.

The final bricks of the Progressive takeover of the United States are being laid in place right now. The Progressives will not stop with the current healthcare reform legislation that is now being finalized. They will push the effort until they achieve their ultimate success of one-payer health care for all. They will continue to push Cap & Trade until the energy industry is brought to its knees. They will continue to load this country with deficits and debt until the U.S. dollar is deemed worthless and the system finally collapses…the Cloward-Piven strategy. That is when the Progressives will finally declare victory, rebuild the broken dream, re-distribute whatever wealth that might remain equally to all people, and declare themselves the Masters of the world. “The Russians Have Landed the Russians Are Here!”


1. White, William Allen (2007). Woodrow Wilson - The Man, His Times and His Task. Read Books

Read Full Article!

Capitol Rush: A Year in Review!

According to the Chinese calendar, 2009 was the year of the Ox. “The Year of the Ox evokes stability and dependability. The Ox is a practical work animal that will create a kind of plodding energy that can be exasperating. Still, progress will be made in 2009; it will occur in slow, barely perceptible increments. If you stay patient and keep your nose to the grindstone, you will make the most of this ponderous energy.” In the United States, 2009 was the year of the Obama. It was to be a year of change, restructuring and transparency. Instead, 2009 will be written in history as the year of the rub, snub, club and flub.

January 2009 started as the year of great hope and anticipation. A new president was elected who campaigned on “yes, we can” optimism and “change we can count on” which included government transparency, bipartisanship, governing from the center, a magnanimous foreign policy and a domestic policy that would eliminate earmarks, lobbyist activity and not increase taxes on 95% of the American people. As the year unfolded, unfortunately, we saw quite a different picture of change.

January witnessed the Presidential proclamation that said the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba would close within one year; but the rub is that it will not. As a matter of fact, it may not close until 2011, if then. Governing from the center took a hard left turn as bipartisanship was replaced with one party rule and the country witnessed the greatest partisan expansion of government ever. Billions of dollars were spent on economic stimulus packages, bank and insurance company bailouts, nationalization of the auto industry, expansion of SCHIP, omnibus appropriations and the introduction of cap & trade, card check and healthcare reform.

The year saw the largest increase ever in government spending; budget deficits and government debt rising to unsustainable levels; free market capitalism being slowly dismantled and our liberties being undermined with the slow creep of socialism. All of this was accomplished with a strictly partisan Obamacare club.

We heard presidential speeches that said “everyone must sacrifice” because “the days of prosperity are over” and “we are sinking into a negative spiral.” “Yes, we can” was turned into “crisis and catastrophe.” We even heard administration officials call the U.S. “a nation of cowards.” Presidential responsibility was replaced with “it’s not my fault” and “we inherited this mess.” Campaign promises were broken with thousands of new earmarks being signed into law; lobbyists practically writing congressional legislation; and trillions of dollars of new taxes being placed on all Americans. What a flub!

Speaking of flubs, on the foreign policy scene we saw our President visit Europe and apologize for previous U.S. activity. We read about video messages he sent to Iran’s Supreme Leader, only to be rejected. Russia was approached and asked to help thwart Iran’s nuclear enrichment program but that effort was met with a stern “nyet.” A trip to Trinidad and Tobago witnessed the President warmly greet Venezuela’s anti-American and socialist President. Classified documents pertaining to foreign interrogation methods were released at the objection of the intelligence community. North Korea’s nuclear enrichment program was restarted and met with no response at all. And the Office of the Presidency was diminished when our President bowed to the Emperor of Japan.

Then there were the snubs. So far in 2009, our President snubbed England’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown as well as Queen Elizabeth by not inviting her to the D-Day Commemoration event; Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with his exposed soles communication; French President Nicholas Sarkozy, for refusing to dine with him; Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, by directing correspondence to a lesser government official; Tibet’s Dalai Lama, for refusing to grant an official State visit; the countries of Poland and the Czech Republic by pulling the missile defense program; Metal of Honor Recipients, by refusing to attend their annual Ball; the National Cathedral in Washington, for not attending National Prayer Day; and most recently King Harald of Denmark, when he refused his lunch invitation while there accepting the Nobel Peace Prize that he did not earn.

And I suppose you can find rubs, snubs, clubs and flubs in any number of other events that took place this year:
• The numerous presidential appointees who did not pay taxes…rub
• The acknowledgement of a presidential “enemies list” …rub
• The proclamation that the war in Iraq would end, but it still rages on…flub
• Racism would become a thing of the past, until Sgt. James Crowley arrested Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and the President proclaimed the “Cambridge Police acted stupidly”…flub
• The President’s former community group, ACORN, was exposed for questionable activity…rub
• The President’s Secretary of the Treasury forces banks to take TARP money even if they don’t need it…club
• Several presidential appointed czars had to resign because of activities and associations with communist groups…flub
• The President’s famous loss of Chicago’s Olympic bid following his impassioned plea to the IOC…flub
• The President’s Jobs Czar was forced to resign over questionable ties and fiery rhetoric…flub
• The Presidents Head of Health and Human Services proclaims sufficient supplies of H1N1 swine flu vaccine for all Americans…flub
• The President’s Justice Department announces the ill-advised decision to transfer 5 international terrorists to a NYC courtroom for trial…flub
• The President redefines the expanded use of the “teleprompter” during presidential speeches…rub
• The President’s Communications Director announces her admiration for Chairman Mao…rub
• The President procrastinates 8 months over his Afghanistan war strategy…flub
• The President takes 4 months to select a family pet…rub
• The President’s Pay Czar denies Wall Street executives pay increases and bonuses…rub
• The Administration resorts to bribes, extortion and corruption to buy Senate votes to get healthcare reform legislation passed…club
• The President’s extensive golf outings, extravagant vacations and wasteful boondoggles while the country suffers from job losses and home foreclosures…rub
• The President’s Head of Homeland Security announces the airport security system is “working just fine” as the President proclaims it systemically broken…flub

That pretty much sums up the year of 2009. It was not a year of activity “in slow, barely perceptible increments” as foretold by the Year of the Ox. And it was not a year of hope and optimism. It was a year of change, however, but the change was permeated with rubs, snubs, clubs and flubs.
Read Full Article!

Congressional Reform Act of 2010

A friend sent this to me that was written by an anonymous author. It sounds vaguely familiar to my “New Contract with America”, but I will admit it has a couple of added features which I like and support. The problem is that no one in Congress will initiate or vote for this type of legislation because it drastically reduces their power. The only way this kind of reform will happen is with a Constitutional Convention and a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and that will only happen if the Constitutional Convention is called by the states as authorized under Article V of the Constitution. In any event, here are the 8 components of the Congressional Reform Act of 2010:

1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options is listed below:

A. Two Six-year Senate terms
B. Six Two-year House terms
C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms

2. No Tenure / No Pension: A congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security: All funds in the Congressional retirement fund moves to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, Congress participates with the American people.

4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan just as all Americans.

5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

7. Congress must equally abide in all laws they impose on the American people.

8. All contracts with past and present congressmen are void effective January 1, 2010. The American people did not make this contract with congressmen, congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.

"Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work." That’s the way it should work. Somewhere along the line, this country lost its way because of greed and power. Perhaps the states and the American people can prevail and we can take back control of the people’s government.
Read Full Article!

You’re a Mean One, Mr. Grinch!

Here we are in the midst of the holiday season; Hanukkah just past and Christmas is rapidly approaching. Instead of it being “Tis the season to be jolly” it is really “How the Grinch stole Christmas.” Once again, the Grinch, or should I say, the ACLU is up to its old tricks of denying the free expression of religion. A recent headline read, “Luzerne County Removes Courthouse Menorah, Nativity Scene.” The article went on to say, “the ACLU said the display outside a courthouse violates the separation of church and state clause in the U.S. Constitution.” I cannot believe the ACLU continues to get away with this bullying tactic. More importantly, I cannot believe they continue to get away with it based on a Constitutional falsehood.


Now, I am not an attorney or a Constitutional scholar but I am fascinated with the First Amendment as it pertains to the separation of church and state. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States very simply reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” For such a short, succinct and powerful statement it seems to get misinterpreted far too often. (As a sidebar, can you imagine how difficult it is going to be to decipher and interpret the 2,500 page healthcare Bill? Sorry!)

Nowhere in the First Amendment to the Constitution are the words “separation of church and state” written. As a matter of fact, these words cannot be found anywhere in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson, in his attempt to pacify the Danbury Baptists Association of Connecticut that the U.S. government was not prepared to make the Congregationalists, another denomination, the official church of the land, stated in a letter dated January 1, 1802 that the First Amendment was created to put up a wall that would effectively separate the Church from the State. Jefferson wrote:

“I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people

which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an

establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof,” thus building

a wall of separation between Church and State.”

These words have come to supersede the actual words and intent of the First Amendment, while Jefferson was using them to actually defend its true meaning. “The Congress shall make no law”, and “prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, is the essence of the First Amendment as it pertains to freedom of religion. Nothing more; nothing less!

In 2002, the Ten Commandments were displayed in a Courthouse rotunda in Alabama. The A.C.L.U. sued and subsequently argued that this co-mingling of a religious artifact on government property violated the separation of church and state and is, therefore, unconstitutional. The court upheld their argument and the Ten Commandments were removed. But the separation of church and state is not a constitutional issue. The real argument is, “what law was made” to create a state sponsored church or promote religion or religious activity? I believe no law was made and no official church was established. More importantly, how does removing the Ten Commandments “protect the free exercise thereof”? I believe the rights to freedom of religion have been violated, not the other way around.

The First Amendment of the Constitution was written to eliminate the same conditions that existed in England that, by law, said the Anglican Church was the official Church of England and that all citizens were persuaded, if not directed to become members. The United States Constitution specifically precludes the establishment of an official state sponsored religion because the Founders believed all citizens should be free to choose their religion and that all religious beliefs were welcome in the new land. That was why they fled here and that is why they specifically included this language and protection in the Constitution. That is why the words, “Congress shall make no law….” were included in the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Let’s look at the 1999 issue of the Boy Scouts of America Jamboree at Fort A.P. Hill in Virginia. The A.C.L.U. sued and argued that the Jamboree violated the separation of church and state because the Jamboree was on government property and the Scouts espouse a belief in God? I must raise the question again, “what law was made”, creating a religion because a group believing in God used government property for their Jamboree? Also, based on the Constitution, who was defending the Scouts rights to “freely exercise religion”? The rights and beliefs of the Boy Scouts of America must be protected. They cannot be denied their rights just because they express them on government property. That was not the spirit of the law as it was written.

This argument goes to almost every issue that has been raised concerning the separation of church and state, such as school prayer. Surely a law was made respecting the establishment of religion that resulted in the banning of school prayer? But, I know of no such law. How about the banning of religious holiday expressions on municipal property? There must have been a law made respecting the establishment of religion? But again, I know of no such law.

Time after time, it seems these fundamental issues get over-turned based on the constitutional interpretation of the separation of church and state. But this often spoken phrase is not in the Constitution. Similarly frustrating is that the “prohibiting the free exercise thereof” goes unnoticed and undefended. Why doesn’t the A.C.L.U. protect school prayer, the Ten Commandments or the religious holiday scene arguing that the First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion, whether at home, on a public square or on government property? In all such instances, no law was made but the free exercise of religion was thwarted. How could this be? How can the courts continue to misinterpret the Constitution?

Those who take offense with the mention or reference to God within the jurisdiction of government do not understand the basis on which this country was established. As a people, we believe in God; whether it is the Christian God, the Jewish God, or the God of Islam. “In God we trust” is emblazoned on our money. “Under God” is included in our Pledge of Allegiance, although this is again under attack by the secularists. To attempt to eradicate God from our existence because it continues to cross paths with the concept of secular government is misguided.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Look at those words and contemplate their true meaning. One must then ask, “If God is totally pushed out of government, isn’t the government, in effect, making a law respecting the establishment of a secular religion”? At the same time, the government is prohibiting the free exercise of all religions, except for the religion of secularism. Clearly, this is unconstitutional because it violates both aspects of the First Amendment. Or, perhaps, it is the intention of Congress and the Court to free us of capitalism, the Constitution and God.
Read Full Article!

The Joys of Christmas!

I had an odd and troubling experience the other day and it got me wondering. As we all know, we are in the midst of the Christmas mailing season. Unfortunately, I had to visit the local Post Office to get a large envelop mailed that has nothing to do with Christmas. While at the USPS office I had 2 choices to consider: 1) stand on the excessively long line containing impatient and grumpy customers waiting for the understaffed service counter; or 2) stand on the excessively long line containing impatient and grumpy customers waiting for the only, slow automated postal machine. I chose the line with the automated postal machine. My first thought was “why only one machine?”

As I waited my turn, I observed people of every size, shape, age and color. There were business people, retired folks, young mothers holding their toddlers, seniors with walkers and young adults. These people were attempting to do something as simple as buy stamps to mail numerous amounts of poorly wrapped packages. Everyone who entered the facility and saw the lines invariably groaned and made some negative comments. Many of the people just stood in line waiting their turn, although I am sure they were seething inside; while others were visibly agitated and freely vocalizing their discontent.

Everyone should experience this fascinating event at least once in their lives. As a matter of fact, I would encourage everyone to go to their local post office to observe this annual ritual. It’s like visiting a court room proceeding or an emergency room at the hospital. Everyone needs to do it just once.

Then the thought hit me like a ton of bricks and it sent this eerie chill down my spine. As if glimpsing into the future, what I was really observing is what it will be like to visit a doctor (not your doctor) but a doctor after the government succeeds in taking over the national healthcare system. We will find ourselves standing in excessively long lines containing impatient and sick grumpy people waiting for understaffed and under paid medical personnel to evaluate our condition. After being probed and prodded, I will be sent to another facility to have some blood drawn and tested. When I arrive there, I will see excessively long lines containing impatient and sick grumpy people waiting for understaffed and under paid medical personnel to draw my blood. Finally, I will go back to the doctor’s office to have the results of my blood test revealed; and you guessed it, I will see excessively long lines containing impatient and sick grumpy people waiting for understaffed and under paid medical personnel.

This macabre look into the future might strike you as an exaggeration or some sort of fiction concocted by a diabolical mind but I have a funny feeling in the pit of my stomach that this short trip into the “Twilight Zone” is closer to reality than many people might think. This could be the future of our healthcare system…the government run healthcare system.
Read Full Article!

Healthcare Bill Flaw Exposed!

Being a resident of Virginia and having two Democratic Senators, I feel like I do not have anyone representing me or my interests in the U. S. Senate. I will admit, however, I was a little heartened to see Senator Webb support several Republican amendments recently concerning the hotly debated health care reform bill. For that, I will give Senator Webb credit. I noted a major flaw in the healthcare bill and rather than contacting either of my two Senators, I sent an e-mail to the Republican Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and asked him to look into this potential flaw and either fix it, expose it or use it as a means to kill the bill. I hope he reads his e-mails.

As you may or may not know, the 2,074 page Health Care Reform Bill is structured so that taxes to pay for the cost of this bill and keep it deficit neutral will kick in on January 1, 2010, provided the bill gets passed by Christmas, which Harry Reid and Barack Obama are pushing very hard to do. The taxpayers will be paying into the program for 4 years but no healthcare benefits will be realized until 2014. This nifty little accounting slight-of-hand maneuver was put into the bill to keep it deficit neutral, a provision that Mr. Obama has supposedly insisted on from the beginning of the debate. And, sure enough, the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) has consistently said the bill will pay for itself because of this 10 years of revenue vs. 6 years of cost tomfoolery.

Now here is the flaw and here is the question that I posed to Sen. McConnell: As the taxpayers start to pay for this healthcare debacle for the next 4 years, where is the money going? Is it going into a secure and failsafe healthcare lockbox? Do you think that the Democrats will allow gobs of cash to come into the U.S. Treasury and not spend it? This fiscal control (sarcasm) has been demonstrated repeatedly with the Social Security Trust Fund. The way I understand it, as workers pay into the Trust Fund, the government takes the money to pay for God knows what and replaces it with an IOU. That’s why Social Security is going broke. Another recent example of government fiscal self-control is TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program). This legislation was written to bailout the banks from bad mortgage loans but as banks repaid the TARP handout, the money was to be returned to the U.S. Treasury to pay down the government’s debt. Not so, my laddies! Barack and his band of thieves are looking to intercept the stagecoach at the pass and rob it of its treasure before it gets back to the Treasury.

So I ask the question again: Where is 4 years of taxpayer healthcare premiums going to be safeguarded so that it can begin paying the benefits of healthcare in 2014? I think I can answer this one all by myself: the money will be glommed by the Democrats and spent on anything but healthcare; putting this new government entitlement program into a deep crevasse, thereby, creating yet another unfunded liability that we will all have to eat. I think it is just about the right time to start looking for property in Switzerland. I only hope I can get my money out of the bank and converted into Euros before the U.S. dollar is rendered worthless.
Read Full Article!

I Love That Car, But The Color Sucks!

I am totally confused, befuddled and perplexed by a recent development in the healthcare reform debate. The issue is tantamount to my saying “I love my 2009 red Chevrolet Impala but I hate my 2009 black Chevrolet Impala. I have wrestled with this issue for a couple of days, and for the life of me, I cannot discern the difference or the intellectual rationale of the argument. If there is anyone who can help me decipher the difference, I would be most appreciative.

On Wednesday, Bryon Dorgan, the Democratic Senator from North Dakota, introduced an amendment to the pending health care bill. Apparently, this effort has been pushed by Dorgan before. “Dorgan’s legislation, called the Pharmaceutical Market Access and Drug Safety Act, would allow American consumers to safely import lower-priced, Food and Drug Administration-approved drugs from other countries. Dorgan said the legislation will bring consumers in North Dakota and across the country immediate relief from the world’s highest prescription medication costs, and will ultimately force the pharmaceutical industry to lower drug prices in the United States.” Dorgan further stated that the bill will attain these results because it will increase competition. Oh, you mean like that government "public option" thing?

In addition, “According to the Congressional Budget Office, Dorgan’s legislation is estimated to save the federal government $19.4 billion over the next ten years. In addition, Dorgan estimates that American consumers will save about $100 billion over the next decade thanks to the lower prescription drug prices that will result from the legislation.”

The amendment has the support of the following Democratic Senators: Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Al Franken (D-MN), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Jim Webb (D-VA), Jon Tester (D-MT) Tim Johnson (D-SD) and Mark Begich (D-AK) who are co-sponsoring the amendment. “Dorgan points out that President Obama also co-sponsored the bill when he was in the Senate,” and the bill also has the support of AARP.

I also support this effort if it is ultimately going to reduce the overall cost of healthcare. There are the detractors on both sides of the aisle, however; those Senators who feel a strong obligation to the pharmaceutical industry. I do not believe special interest pressure should trump what is best for the American people.

But here lies my confusion about the elements of the health care debate: the aforementioned Senators like the red Chevrolet but they hate the black Chevrolet. In other words, these Senators support the Dorgan amendment that purports to reduce prescription drug costs by going out of the country; but these same Democrat Senators rejected a Republican amendment that would have reduced the cost of health insurance premiums by allowing consumers to purchase health insurance across state lines.

What am I missing? Is there anyone who can explain this to me? These are two very similar amendments in scope and objective that will increase competition and reduce the cost of prescription drugs and health insurance premiums but Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Herb Kohl (D-WI), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Al Franken (D-MN), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Jim Webb (D-VA), Jon Tester (D-MT) Tim Johnson (D-SD) and Mark Begich (D-AK) accepts one and rejects the other. Why? Are these people so hung up on the color red as opposed to the color black when everything else about these vehicles is exactly identical?

If you expand the argument further to include the 2009 Chevrolet Impala’s in silver and white, these same Democrats rejected Republican amendments that would have further increased competition and reduced the cost of health care when they said “No!” to tort reform and allowing small businesses the ability to pool their resources to lower their collective costs for health care. Other than the color, what is the difference between any of these four amendments?

What did Dorgan say his amendment would accomplish? Dorgan said “the legislation will bring consumers in North Dakota and across the country immediate relief from the world’s highest prescription medication / (health insurance) costs, and will ultimately force the pharmaceutical /(insurance) industry to lower drug / (premium) prices in the United States.” You see, this statement is relevant and applicable to all four amendments but our friends Stabenow, Leahy, Sanders, Whitehouse, Boxer, et al, voted “yeah” for their buddy Dorgan but “nyet” for the dreaded, radical, fear mongering Republicans.

Is there any wonder why the American people are so critical and skeptical about the political process or what that process has become? As for my initial confusion, I will be waiting for an explanation about why one cost reducing effort is good but other cost reducing efforts are bad. Somehow, I feel that I am in for a long wait.
Read Full Article!

Come Out, Come Out, Wherever You Are?

The Founding Fathers wrote into the Constitution of the United States a series of “checks and balances”, whereby, the three branches of our government have oversight over the other two. This brilliant control device keeps the government flow in sync so that any one branch cannot gain unchecked powers. Article I of the Constitution established the legislative branch and granted it powers and authority, among other things to make laws and control government spending; as well as have approval over presidential cabinet and judicial appointments. Article II established the executive branch, giving the President Veto power over congressional legislation, as well as determining the makeup of the Supreme Court through judicial appointments. Article III established the judiciary branch and granted the Supreme Court the power to render congressional and presidential actions unconstitutional; thus keeping their expansion of power in check. This synergy of “checks and balances” is very effective when it is applied; but the governmental oversight capability of the Supreme Court seems to be conspicuously missing of late causing a misbalance of historic proportions.

Here are some headlines concerning the current docket of cases being heard by the Court:

• Supreme Court Justices Hear Arguments in High-Stakes Takings Case.

• Supreme Court will decide appeal of Christian student group.

• Supreme Court debates Miranda rights in Tampa case.

• Supreme Court ponders validity of anti-fraud law created after Enron, other scandals.

Where are the headlines that read, “Supreme Court debates the constitutionality of the government nationalizing banks, insurance companies, and the auto industry?” Or, what about, “Supreme Court reviews the constitutionality of presidential czar appointments?” Or, maybe, “Supreme Court reviews the constitutionality of Pay Czar restricting and dictating the compensation to free market corporate executives or the Energy Czar declaring that CO2 emissions are a danger to the public ?” Or, “Supreme Court reviews healthcare reform bill that forces private citizens to spend money on health insurance or face fines and/or incarceration.” If the Supreme Court is the “check and balance” over Congress and the President, why are they not doing their job? The U.S. Congress and the President of the United States have hijacked the government and the Supreme Court is sitting idly by.

In the above stated headline about the “validity of anti-fraud law”, the article said “A small Nevada accounting firm and an anti-tax group brought the challenge to the 2002 Sarbanes-Oxley law, arguing that the board created by the law violates the Constitution's separation of powers.” My question is “why did it take 7 years to challenge the validity or constitutionality of this or any law?” In my opinion, when a bill comes out of Congress, it should not go to the President for his signature; it should go to the desk of Chief Justice John Roberts, so that it can be placed on the Supreme Court docket for constitutional review. If the bill is deemed constitutional, then it can go to the President to be signed into law.

If making this happen requires the intervention of an outside source to bring a constitutional challenge to the Supreme Court, as with the Nevada accounting firm and anti-tax group, then I suggest that someone like the RNC (Republican National Committee) or the Chamber of Commerce hires someone like former Appeals Court Judge, Solicitor General, and Independent Counsel, Ken Starr to represent the people and challenge the constitutionality of bills coming out of Congress before being signed into law. If this cycle were put into place, then the true “checks and balances” envisioned by the Founders would be validated. If Congress remains emboldened and irresponsible about sabotaging the energy industry with the passing of ill advised Cap & Trade legislation; abducting the health industry through healthcare reform that nobody wants; attempts to minimize the independent authority of the Federal Reserve; or if the President moves to illegally divert treasury dollar TARP funds into other projects, then immediate action should be taken to bring about a constitutional challenge and the Supreme Court should be called upon to render an immediate ruling.

The Constitution of the United States is being assaulted and undermined everyday by the very elements it created: the Congress and the President. And to make matters worse, the judiciary branch has abdicated its constitutional responsibilities. The Supreme Court appears to be more content reviewing cases about beachfront property or Christian student groups then it does about protecting the U.S. Constitution and their own constitutional powers. Come out, come out, wherever you are, Supreme Court of the United States and start doing what Article III laid out for you to do. The American people are being stripped of their liberties and pursuits and the Supreme Court has turned a deaf ear. It is time to call in the Supreme Court; they have been hiding too long. "Olly, olly, otsinfree!"
Read Full Article!