Sold Out...Again

General Motors, that too-big-to-fail American auto maker that was bailed out in 2009 with billions of taxpayer dollars, maybe isn't so American after all.  While GM posted a record profit last year, according to this article on CNN Money, the taxpayers are still waiting on $25.5 billion back from GM on the bailout according to this article.  And though Virg Bernero. Democratic mayor of Saginaw, Michigan said, "I just gotta say 'I told you so' to all the naysayers like Mitt and those Republican southern senators who tried to kill off the domestic auto industry," it seems that GM has been moving more and more production to communist China.

I understand that we live in a global economy and that China is a growing market, but is this really what we paid for?  Is this really good for America and our labor force?  How long will it be until we start importing those vehicles back into the US? How long will it be until "Government Motors" becomes "China Motors?"  How's that for Hope and Change?

Watch this very enlightening video and decide for yourself.

Eroding Rights

We the People have largely fallen asleep at the wheel over the last hundred years or more.  Instead of driving the ship of state to serve our interests as citizens, we have allowed government at all levels to supplant the People's interests with their own.

At almost every turn, the government has been allowed torture and twist the Constitution to accrue more and more power to themselves.  Though the Constitution and the records left behind by those who ratified it is very clear that the powers of the Federal are very few and narrow, the power mongers in government seem to be able to find almost any power they wish to wield in this foundational document.  They have done this in the past by twisting and reinterpreting the word used and ignoring the clear "original intent."

In recent years, however, the statist usurpers have made more and more direct assaults on our power and rights.  Where they once at least made an attempt to cover their power grabs with heady, legalistic explanations about how they really do have constitutional authority to do x or y, Now, they simply laugh and scoff at the mere question of constitutionality.

To help overcome the last vestiges of resistance, the statists have begun to target the Constitution directly through the amendment process.  Representative Jim McGovern (D-MA) along with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and 26 other democrats and a one RINO have introduced the populist sounding People's Rights Amendment to the Constitution.  In this amendment, McGovern attempts to precisely define the "words people, person, or citizen as used in this Constitution..."It goes on to say that these words do not apply to "corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state."

Okay...so far, nothing earthshaking, right?  We all know that corporations are not people.  I don't think anyone was believing that they were.  It is the next part that is the problem: "such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected State and Federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution."  In other words...government can do to corporations whatever they want to do because they are not "people."

In an article dated May 4, 2012, columnist George Will points out that the "proposed amendment is intended to reverse the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which affirmed the right of persons to associate in corporate entities for the purpose of unrestricted collective speech independent of candidates’ campaigns."  The problem they had with Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case is that the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did not allow government to restrict independent political spending by corporations or unions, as required by the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002. In writing for the majority opinion on this case, Justice Kennedy points out that "[t]he First Amendment provides that 'Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech.'"

He continued:

"The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations—including nonprofit advocacy corporations—eitherto expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30days of a primary election and 60 days of a general elec-tion. Thus, the following acts would all be felonies under §441b: The Sierra Club runs an ad, within the crucial phase of 60 days before the general election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a Congressman who favors logging in national forests; the National Rifle Association publishes a book urging the public to vote for the challenger because the incumbent U. S. Senator supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties Union creates a Web site telling the public to vote for a Presidential candidate in light of that candidate’s defense of free speech. These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship." [emphasis added]

The so-called People's Rights Amendment, then, is an attempt to circumvent that nasty First Amendment restriction on Congress's power to control speech...one of our most cherished rights on the Left and the Right.  In his article, Will rightly point's out that this amendment would increase "the power of incumbent legislators — to write laws regulating, rationing or even proscribing speech in elections that determine the composition of the legislature and the rest of the government."  While they try to portray this amendment as a tool needed for election reform, it is in fact a naked power grab.

Amendment 1 - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

While corporations and other organizations are not people, they are made up of people...citizens who have implicit freedom of speech rights.  They also have a right to freely assemble into groups to address government.  This is also known as freedom of association, which the SCOTUS held in NAACP v. Alabama (357 U.S. 449) that:

"It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the 'liberty' assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech...it is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters, and state action which may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny."

This type of aggression...and that is truly what this is...toward our rights as citizens can not stand, and should not go unanswered.  Representative McGovern, Leader Pelosi and all of the other sponsors of this amendment should be censured...they should be soundly defeated in their next elections...and possibly recalled.  This is not simply a partisan maneuvering on their part.  This amendment would greatly restrict everyone's rights, no matter where they stand on the political spectrum.  And, it could easily lead to further aggression.  No, this is not a Right or a Left issue.  This is truly an American issue...and these usurpers are clearly UNAMERICAN.

Are You Getting It Yet?

In several past posts, I have given information on the size and scope of the federal debt.  I have supplied some very good videos from others...and some of you still think that it's just not that bad.  Some think, like multimillionaire, hypocrite Michael Moore, that America is awash with money and if we just take it from the evil rich, we would all be okay.

In this video, self-described independent, and motivational speaker Tony Robbins uses information originally compiled by blogger IowaHawk and updates it for 2012.  This takes a look at what would happen if we did soak the rich.

This should be a real eye opener.  It is abundantly and mathematically certain that we cannot tax our way out of the mess our politicians have gotten us into.  We must CUT SPENDING...DRASTICALLY.  And if we don't, we will have a collapse of our economy.  It's not too late...I think...but that time is quickly coming.  Are you getting it yet?  We can't tolerate the status quo.  We cannot continue to allow our elected officials to use OUR MONEY to buy votes, power, and influence.    We cannot take care of everyone...cradle-to-grave.  We have to cut the size and scope of government dramatically!

Are You Getting It YET?

The Debt from Two Perspectives

The videos below look at the National Debt from two different perspectives...and both of them are bad news.

In the first video, Professor Anthony Davies of Duquesne University looks at how long it takes for the government to run out of money in a given year.  The government collects $2.2 Trillion in revenues and spends $3.8 Trillion...leaving us to borrow $1.6 Trillion a year.  He goes through the simple math that shows that the government runs out of the money it has collected by 11:59 PM on July 31st.  This leaves 5 months of the year unfunded by revenues.

He then walks through cutting different parts of government and the effect it would have on balancing the budget.  He cuts everything but entitlements and debt interest payments and it still does not balance the budget. As he puts it, "In other words, we can reduce the Federal government to nothing more than a glorified assisted-living facility, and we still wouldn't be able to balance the budget."

In the second video, Jeff Miron of Harvard University starts out his video by saying "Cut entitlements, and then cut entitlements, and then cut entitlements some more."  The reason for this is clear from the chart above.  Spending on entitlements, which has no basis in the Constitution, is more than half of the total budget.  You cannot ignore entitlements and keep the country fiscally viable.

For these reasons alone, we need some serious people in Washington...not the self-aggrandizing power mongers we have there now.  We need true statesmen, like we haven't seen in decades, to deal with a very serious problem that threatens our country's entire economy and our standing  in the world.

D or R...Government Keeps Growing

Jack Hunter nailed it again.  This is what I'm talking about...and why I'm not very hopeful that the next Republican president will really offer much in the way of solutions.

The chart on the left illustrates what Mr. Hunter is saying in the video below...namely that government grows no matter who is president.  It also doesn't matter who runs Congress.  It always grows.

This is why we must look to the States to reign in the out-of-control Federal government by nullifying any Federal law that is beyond the Constitutional power of the central government.  We must also ween the States from the Federal teat...refusing to take Federal money as a bribe to knuckle under to Federal usurpation of State power.

Don't get me wrong....we must defeat Obama!  He is on the verge of the single largest peace-time power grab in the history of the country.  He must be booted out.  But, the Republican party has become the "just not quite as big government as the other guys" party.  They are still big government...still power mongers.

Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment!

Enforce the Tenth Amendment!

Related Posts:

Budget Cuts Across the Board!

Budget Cuts - No Sacred Cows:
Why Feed the Pig?
Like the 10th Amendment? Repeal the 17th!

Treaties and Ambassadors of the States

"[The President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and and which shall establish by law: but the Congress may by law vest appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments." ~ The Constitution of the United States; Article II, Section 2, Clause 2

If you have any doubt about the Founding Father's intention concerning the role of the the States in our Federal government, ask yourself why the Constitution specifically spells out that the President must have the "advice and consent" of the Senate for making treaties, appointing ambassadors and the other issues spelled out in Article II...and not the House.

As you're considering this, remember that the Senate, as originally designed...before the Seventeenth Amendment...was appointed by the legislators of the States.  They were to act "in the quality of ambassadors of the states," according to Massachusetts ratifying convention member, Fisher Ames.  The reason for this is that the country was designed not as a monolithic nation, but as a federation of sovereign States...thus the term United States, and the term Federal government.  Any treaties, ambassadors, Supreme Court judges, etc., directly affects and represents these sovereign states.  The State governments, therefore, were to have a direct input to these issues through their ambassadors to the central government...THEIR Senators.

Additionally, according to Article II, Section 1, "Each State shall appoint, in such a manner as the legislature thereof may direct, an number of electors" to choose the President of the United States.  This is the so-called Electoral College.  As James Madison explains in Federalist 39, "The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters.  The votes allotted to them are in compound ratio, which considers them partly as distinct and co-equal societies; partly as unequal as unequal members of the same society."

So, the States were to elect the President, through the electoral process, and provide advice and consent, through their "Ambassador/Senators" to any treaties and most appointments that the President makes.  The Senators were to provide a check on the power of the federal executive and "afford a shelter against the abuse of power, and will be the natural avengers of our violated rights."

Here is more from Fisher Ames:

Fisher Ames

"The state governments are essential parts of the system.... The senators represent the sovereignty of the states; in the other house, individuals are represented.... They are in the quality of ambassadors of the states, and it will not be denied that some permanency in their office is necessary to a discharge of their duty. Now, if they were chosen yearly, how could they perform their trust? If they would be brought by that means more immediately under the influence of the people, then they will represent the state legislatures less, and become the representatives of individuals. This belongs to the other house. The absurdity of this, and its repugnancy to the federal principles of the Constitution, will appear more fully, by supposing that they are to be chosen by the people at large. If there is any force in the objection to this article, this would be proper. But whom, in that case, would they represent? Not the legislatures of the states, but the people. This would totally obliterate the federal features of the Constitution. What would become of the state governments, and on whom would devolve the duty of defending them against the encroachments of the federal government? A consolidation of the states would ensue, which, it is conceded, would subvert the new Constitution, and against which this very article, so much condemned, is our best security. Too much provision cannot be made against a consolidation. The state governments represent the wishes, and feelings, and local interests, of the people. They are the safeguard and ornament of the Constitution; they will protract the period of our liberties; they will afford a shelter against the abuse of power, and will be the natural avengers of our violated rights."　

The Federal government has greatly overstepped it's constitutional bounds.  The office of the President has almost become the royal dictatorship that the founders sought to avoid.  The States must, if our republic is to survive, stand up and re-establish their role as a check on the power of the Federal government.

Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment!

Enforce the Tenth Amendment!

Related Links:

Like the 10th Amendment? Repeal the 17th!
Balance of Power

It's the Debt, Stupid!

Professor Anthony Davies of Duquesne University recently put together this informative video for LearnLiberty.org about the dangers of too much national debt.  As you watch it, remember that President Obama asked for an additional $1 TRILLION in debt within the past year.



Related Posts:
Budget Cuts Across The Board

It's Simple Math

Bill Whittle has recently posted another very insightful video in his Afterburner segment on PJTV.com. He points out that President Obama, while being touted as the smartest man ever to hold the office, doesn't seem to be able to do simple arithmetic.   The mounting debt we face is unsustainable, and yet Obama has asked for an additional $1 TRILLION in debt.

As Whittle puts it:

"We're just gonna have to face the arithmetic.  All the money in the world is gone!  It's been pillaged by the weak-willed, power hungry elitists who have stolen it to buy votes and stay in power.  That's the arithmetic."

While he does not believe it will be as bad as past collapses, we will have to pull together, tighten our belts, sacrifice some things we now think are important, and work through it together. "You are the people that's going to get this country, and the rest of the world, out of this mess...not our leaders...not our celebrities...not political pundits and talking heads.  You are...you and me...all of us."



Related Posts:
The National Debt in Perspective
The Keynesian Perpetual Motion Machine

JFK: Right-Wing Radical?

Could John F. Kennedy be supported by today's far-left Democratic Party?

Certainly not for his views on taxes and the economy.

The Largesse of the Democratic Party

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship." ~  Attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler. Unverified

Senator Jim DeMint speaks of the difficulty of getting a Balanced Budget Amendment passed through Congress in the video below.  This could also be applied to the Democratic contempt for the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act offered earlier last year by the House.  But, can we survive the continued largesse of an out-of-control Federal budget?

Related Link:

The National Debt in Perspective