Interesting


The latest installment of the Obama Follies concerns the new Oval office rug. In an attempt to put his mark on the office, our president had an extreme office makeover while he vacationed on Martha’s Vineyard.

As part of Obama’s makeover, he had a new carpet designed that included quotes from five famous Americans: John F. Kennedy,  Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. This replaces the striking sunburst motif design that George W. Bush commissioned during his tenure.

Unfortunately for Obama, the quote attributed to Dr. King is incorrectly attributed to the civil rights leader:

The Arc of the Moral Universe is Long, But it Bends Towards Justice

Dr. King used this phrase on several occasions, but these words were spoken by Theodore Parker, a Revolutionary-era abolitionist and Unitarian minister.

So, now our Oracle of Washington is presented with a dilemma. If he want’s a do-over, White Out won’t do. And there is no amount of repair and replace work that can fix this error. Unlike his treatment of the present unemployment situation, the results can’t be swept under the rug (gratuitous pun intended.)

So, look for another vacation for the Obama’s in the near future to make sure that the Oval Office remains unoccupied long enough to put the new, correct carpet in place.

And while they’re at it, they may want to correctly attribute the quote by Abraham Lincoln:

Government Of The People, By The People And For The People

as being originated by the good Mr. Parker as well. Oh well, it goes along with Mr. Obama and his slipshod administration.  They’re not getting much right these days, so why expect a little historical accuracy on this important carpet?

I have a suggestion for a quote to add to the corrected carpet, by the inimitable Benjamin Franklin, should it ever be replaced:

Take Time For All Things: Great Haste Makes Great Waste.

I experienced my first hard drive failure EVER in my office workstation on Friday night.

Now this would be bad news for the average computer owner, as a hard drive failure is certain death for all the data on their system, as well as the system itself. The only thing that a failed hard drive is good for is a door stop.

But I didn’t even break a sweat!

I designed my system to be a little more robust than the average system when I put it together last spring. The most important feature that I added to this system was redundant hard drives. In fact I divided my hard drive into two logical segments — a 500GB “system” drive with 6 partitions on it where the Windows XP operating system and all my programs reside and a 4TB “storage” drive with 10 partitions on which I keep all my business data and data backups. The most important feature of these two drive sets is the fact that the 500GB drive is configured with two physical hard drives configured redundantly as RAID1, and the 4TB is configured of two pairs of 2TB drives configured redundantly as RAID1. The RAID1 configuration creates mirrored data on each of the physical drives in the array. If one drive fails, the other keeps on working with no data loss.

When one of the 500GB drives failed, I received an alert message telling me that the RAID array went critical, visually indicating on my screen that the drive had failed. At that point is was a matter of removing the drive from the system using the front panel removable, hot-swap drive bay — no tools required!

After a trip to Micro Center in Cambridge, MA where I bought two new 500GB drives, I replaced the unit that had failed. After some minor software configurations and settings for the RAID control software, the new drive was busily rebuilding as a mirror of the remaining drive. This process took around 3 and a half hours. Once the new drive was rebuilt and up and running, I removed the original “good” drive and replaced it with the second brand new drive, repeating the process. Again, the rebuilding took around 3.5 hours…which I scheduled to happen overnight. I replaced the used, good drive simply as a precaution because it was of the same pedigree and age as the failed drive.

To be sure you can do periodic data back ups to a USD external hard drive, or use an offsite backup service like Carbonite to protect yourself. But if you experience a hard drive failure, you will need to replace the drive and then go through the tedious process of reloading your operating system in order to restore your system from the backups. This can end up being a lot of work!

The moral of the story is that if you value your computer and your precious data, you MUST have a redundant drive array to prevent catastrophic data loss. It costs more, but it requires so much less work to recover from a hard drive failure. I figure the RAID configuration saved me at least 10 hours of futzing around with CDs and hard drives…all I spent was around 10 minutes removing and replacing hard drives from the drive bay caddies and around 3 minutes initiating the rebuilding process.

And as I recollect, the hot swap bay for 6 disks was approximately $150 and the added cost of the hard drives was approximately $250. This is a cheap date for a time-conscious business owner with lots of irreplaceable data. Based on the time I saved dealing with this failure alone I consider what I spent on the drive arrays and the drive bays MONEY WELL SPENT!!

I urge that you to do the same!

Our contemporary Congress has found it necessary to legislate with frequency and volume…using its power to enact law-after-law that are mind numbingly complicated and comprised of so many pages and so many words. Prime examples of this are Obamacare (2700+ pages), the Dodd-Frank “Financial Reform Act” (2300+) and the Waxman-Markey “Cap-and-Tax” Bill (1400+ pages). The length and the surprising intrusion of these proposed and enacted laws into almost every facet of our daily lives got me to wondering how many pages and how many words the seminal document of our citizenship, the US Constitution, is. So, in order to find out the approximate size, I cut and paste the text of the Constitution along with the Bill of Rights and the Amendments into Microsoft Word. I then formatted the document to double space to approximate the look of modern legislative documents…and I had Word count the number of words in the Constitution.

I came up with 38 pages and 8,645 words. Now certainly all these words weren’t put to paper by the Founders…their work was less by probably a third. But I’m awestruck that this noble and inspired document gets its point across, even with amendments, with such brevity and an economy of words. Our rights as freeborn citizens and the the (what was supposed to be limited) role of the government are defined in just thirty-eight short pages!

Juxtapose this brevity with the verbose and grandiose legislative prose of our contemporary representatives. These idiots use thousands of pages to abridge, limit or greatly infringe on our rights that were codified by the Founders in a little over three dozen pages. It makes me wonder why modern legislation is so excessive.

I hope to God it makes YOU wonder too.

Proponents of the proposed “Smart Grid” initiative for utility-provided electrical power cite the energy saving and user friendliness of this system. The smart grid is basically a means for a utility or some other organization, external to your home, to monitor and control the usage of power within your home. At least that’s the plan. The proponents also tout the ability of homeowners and consumers of electricity to monitor and control energy usage via a computer…a supposed benefit to the consumer.

Outside of the home, the smart grid is designed to provide the electrical utilities a means of matching loads to shifting demands…for example during the heavy use periods in the summer months when air conditioner use (and subsequent power demand) is at its highest. It would also allow utilities to “steer” power to high demand areas and around areas where damage from storms or other disasters may exist.A smart grid would also allow utilities to better integrate secondary, “clean” sources of power into the grid — as these power sources are transient on nature due to the vagaries of sunlight and wind.

The smart grid, when implemented, would allow the utility to charge a customer based on their power usage on a continuous basis — and apply time of  day dependent rates. This differs from how billing is done now where the time-varying rate is averaged over the day to yield a single billing rate.

So far this all sounds kind of innocuous and nonthreatening, right? Well, it is if we ignore the “monitor and control the usage of power within your home” part of the equation. See, part of the intent of the smart grid is to give the electrical power utilities the the ability to “shed” loads during times of high demand when brownouts and blackouts may be inevitable. The theory is that using a combination of the smart grid and smart appliances/consumer products that the utility could shed non-essential devices in order to reduce the overall load demand on the utility.

The theory is that the consumer would have tacit control over what appliances were “controllable” by the utility, with the exception of very special circumstances (like an impending black out.)

This still sounds pretty tame stuff…however…

When we have a build out of this smart grid, what stops another organization, say like the US government, from monitoring the power usage of individuals? A story today notes that the FCC is allocating more frequency spectrum for wireless communication relating to the smart grid. A LOT more frequency spectrum. The FCC also announced a panel to study the spectrum requirements for a built-out smart grid system. Why would they be doing this? Why would they, the government, be so concerned over the internal workings of a utility (which is obviously a commercial, private enterprise?)

The ability to monitor and control our electrical power usage would give the government a great control over our individual freedom and liberties. Not only would a maliciously used smart grid be a blatant invasion of privacy (someone else knowing what appliance or electronic device that I was using  and when chafes at my concept of privacy), but it would also present a great temptation for abuse. And we have numerous examples where the government has abused the powers given to it with our consent, let alone for those assumed without our consent. Utilizing a smart grid to monitor and potentially control power usage would be an unconstitutional assumption of political power and would bring the individual closer to the gulag.

As an electrical engineer for over 30 years, and an individual involved in power and communications systems, I understand the full ramifications, both positive and negative, of a smart grid electrical utility grid. The positive aspects are those that an informed consumer may gain from the ability to monitor and control their personal energy consumption, and the ability of the utility to better control and provide energy to their customers. But the smart grid has the potential for myriad unintended consequences…not the least of which is the invasion of privacy and an increased role of the government in the energy delivery system. These unintended consequences should concern and perhaps frighten any freedom/liberty-loving individual.

There is going to be a great push for the smart grid from both the government and commercial concerns alike. Why? Because there is a lot of money to be made! The utility stands to make more money from time-dependent rate billing, electrical equipment manufacturers stand to make a ton of money from all the smart metering equipment required, appliance and electronic equipment manufacturers stand to make a lot of cash too by providing the “next generation” smart grid enabled appliances and other devices (like TV’s, entertainment products, tools, etc.) and there are also a whole lot of other industries that stand to make even more money from the build-out of the smart grid.

I fear that most people will trade buckets of money for their liberties if given the choice. As for me, I’ll pass on this fad. I will not convert my home to this intrusive utility system unless I’m forced to do so. I love my privacy…love my liberty…love the Constitution too much to compromise.

There is no convenience or amount of money that I could earn or save that would convince me to abandon my hard-earned Constitutional rights.

The insinuation of Bill Clinton into the Sestak controversy is the lamest excuse in the history of excuse-making. And the chain of events, all of which were “perfectly legal”, that occurred apparently without the president’s knowledge makes the Kennedy assassination “Magic Bullet Theory” seem all the more plausible.

There are liars, damn liars and statisticians. And of course, politicians! But the present crew of mendicants in the White House make statisticians look like Mother Teresa in the veracity department.

I believe that Sestak was indeed offered a “job,” contrary to the official story coming from the administration. I also believe that everyone from BHO on down in the chain of command knew about this offer, and at least concurred with the sentiments (to expeditiously remove Sestak from the Democrat senatorial primary in Pennsylvania and allow Sen. Arlen Specter to emerge unscathed as the Democrat candidate.) After all, nothing that this administration, the most carefully orchestrated political machine in human history, does is done without full presidential approval.

Finally, I do believe that the offer of this “job” or position or whatever term is de rigeur in the MSM was a crime, and it should be exhaustively investigated by special counsel. Chief executives take oaths for a purpose, and we have laws for that purpose as well. And that purpose would be to assure the public’s trust that our government’s business is conducted in a ethical and honest manner with full transparency.

The Sestak controversy and the subsequent hokey excuses should raise enormous red flags with a vigilant and diligent media, and among serious journalists. We have a dearth of those lately, so this whole affair could die a quick death and be swept under the carpet if the MSM decides not to do its job, and do it as they would if this involved a Republican administration.

After all, its got nothing to do with personalities and politics and everything to do with the public’s trust.

The Congress is now, in my learned opinion, exerting fraudulent legislative power over the American people because of generous interpretations of their powers as set forth in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and a complicit, non-confrontational Supreme Court.

I’ve railed in the past about the generous interpretations of the words “welfare” and “commerce” and the assumed powers that these interpretations give to Congress. These “lawyerly,” scholarly interpretations are an affront to the average citizen’s rights given the (actual, put on paper) very limited set of duties and powers assigned to the Congress by the Founders. Over the past decades in the modern era (post-1900), Congresses have been on a political power grab to achieve legislative primacy over the American people, and the American people have been numbed by the residue of the cumulative legislation and “grateful” for the goodies that have been unleashed by these laws as well. We have been incrementally transformed from a nation of natural freedoms, rights and liberties to a nation where freedoms, rights and liberties are granted by our generous government. This transformation is a perversion of the intent of the Founders, and it sets us on a path of ultimate national failure due to our governmental excesses.

If we review Section 8 in a literal sense, our Congress has few real legislative powers. They don’t have the assigned power to, say, mandate our purchase of health care or manipulate our energy policy. They do however, have a fraudulent, assumptive power that WE have allowed them to assume. Congress’ powers have been assumed and accumulated over time due to the laziness and lack of oversight of the American citizen/voter. We have been lax in our oversight of our elected representatives, and we have with time replaced vigilance with dependence. Our representatives are expected to bring home the bacon rather than be vanguards of our collective Constitutional rights.

Simply put, the federal Congress should have little influence over our daily lives. The Constitution allows that the state that we live in is responsible for enacting legislation that affects our lives. Not the federal government. Any laws enacted should be done as close to the influence of the individual as possible…not at the stratospheric federal level by a detached legislature.

What better explains the reason why many Congressmen/women state that they don’t care about the Constitution? If the Constitution and it’s relationship to the average citizen doesn’t matter to them…or a piece of legislation is more important than the Constitution that it is supposed to be subordinate to, then we have definitely chosen our representatives unwisely, and they definitely have powers to legislate that are wrongly assigned or fraudulent in nature.

It has taken a long time for this situation to come into existence, so it will take a long time for us to reverse this legislative mindset. But this will only occur if we act soon. There has been much talk of tipping points in regards to establishing a permanent citizen-government political co-dependency in our nation. Trust me folks, we are almost there now!

But it is not too late yet. We need to change our expectations of what our federal government is or isn’t. We need to educate our children in the lost art of personal Constitutional vigilance. How can we expect to be vigilant over our rights and liberties if we are ignorant of the particulars of the Constitution?. We shouldn’t be dependent upon legislators, judges and lawyers to be the stewards of our rights and liberties. They are NOT the vanguards of our rights, etc., that we expect them to be as they are creatures of the SYSTEM. The desperately flawed and manipulated system. The system crafted in part by the fraudulent powers assumed by our Congress! This means that individually we need to become more active in the process of governance, regardless of how much time it takes from our private lives or our leisure. If we aren’t watchful, or don’t place a high value on our legislative governance process, then we can expect to be fleeced of our rights and liberties in order to satisfy those special interests who are.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again…the choice is yours and yours alone. I can’t make you become engaged and vigilant, nor can anyone else. But mark my words — if you abdicate your Constitutional responsibilities to an elected politician, then be prepared to accept the results. And since you only exercise your responsibilities on Tuesdays in November, then you heartily deserve to be used and abused.

Your inaction and passivity is your own reward.

I heard a pretty funny call in to yesterday’s Dennis Miller Radio Show. The female caller said she had attended a Tea party rally on April 15th (tax day) and saw a sign that she thought that Dennis would think was funny:

I Can See November From My Front Porch.

Funny stuff. There are a lot of simultaneously angry and humorous protesters out there in America. These aren’t right-wing nut jobs or neo-Nazi supporters who are one synapse away from shooting up their fellow man. Nor are they the socially-defective, racist swine as they are portrayed to be by the mainstream media.

No, contrary to what Obama and his über-Democrat/liberal/socialist minions think, I think that they are patriots in the most sincere sense. They represent the best in us, and they are willing to do the heavy lifting required to put our country back on the right track.

I just hope that that rally attendee’s sign is more prescient than they could ever hope for.

In a previous post I railed against the meaning of the word “Welfare” in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution being interpreted to suit the socialist aims of the Democrats and progressives over time. I was particularly annoyed how this word has been abused over time to mean almost anything — at least anything that means higher taxes, more government control or more social programs and entitlements. I made this assertion with the full knowledge that in addition to the magic word that there is also the often legislatively abused “Commerce” clause in Section 8 as well. Yes, you heard it right, we not only have a magic word but also a “squishy” clause in our Constitution.

The original intent of the commerce clause has been twisted by modern Congresses more than a pretzel and its meaning divined to be just about any activity, product, service or object touched by mankind. It seems that commerce is in the eye of the beholder — and for those who wield almost unchecked legislative power, it apparently means a heck of a lot. In fact, the same Ouija board and tea leaves that are routinely used to interpret the word “Welfare” in Article I, Section 8 are used to come up with tortured definitions for “Commerce” as well.

Now, as was the case for welfare, the original intent of the founders in regards to commerce was far more benign and less rights-threatening than the socially metastasizing form that has been used for about the last 100 years of mostly “progressive” thinking. The original intent of the commerce clause was one that treated it as the right of the people…but an activity that could be taxed to provide for the national defense. And, the national defense was required to allow for unimpeded domestic and foreign commerce. In essence, it was a self-satisfying feedback loop mechanism. If the United States desired free commerce at home and abroad, it needed to protect that ability. And the Congress was provided the constitutional means, via taxation, for insuring that unfettered commerce. In essence, the Founders saw the commerce clause through the eyes of citizen merchants who needed the full-force protection of a federal government in order to conduct their business.

However, although it had almost strictly mercantile beginnings, this “modest little power” of the Congress (as defined by Albert S. Abel) has been used to obtain, over time, far-reaching powers for the government. Not the least of which (in large part) is the imposition of the recent health care “reform” legislation on the American public. But any usage beyond that of the Founders is a proverbial thumb on the scale in their favor by subsequent Congresses. The fact that gross perversions of the original intent were allowed to stand indicates that over time an increasing number of jurists came to agree with the activist approach to this clause by progressive legislators. And obviously this agreement of interpretation included members of the Supreme Court. But the legislative and judicial activism that believes that the Constitution is a living and breathing document that must evolve with the times heavily discounts the capitalistic and humanistic aspects of the original intent of the commerce clause.

There was a time when the Supreme court considered the commerce clause “dormant,” meaning that it had little bearing on anything beyond prohibiting individual states from interfering with interstate commerce. Any other treatments of commerce were the purview of the individual states. This view pretty much followed the original intent of the Founders. But since Roosevelt and the New Deal, all bets are off regarding a humble and benign interpretation of the commerce clause. We are now left with and must endure future (probably well-intentioned) laws based on the loosest conformance to this clause. In many cases these laws face court challenges and possible repeal. But don’t bet on it as precedence trumps original intent nowadays.

Our brave new nanny-state national order depends on the most generous implementation of the commerce clause vis-a-vis federal powers. With the exception of the favorable (from a federal point of view) interpretation of that pesky word welfare, the commerce clause is the only place left of the Congress to assume the life-altering power and for it to implement over time the labyrinthine structure that is today’s federal government. The remainder of the powers are far too defined and not subject to the will-of-the-whim interpretations that follow welfare and commerce. For example, if you consider almost any federal department in existence, you will find a razor-thin constitutional rationale for its existence. In essence, they exist because “that’s just the way it is.”

In the past I would have mused that ‘God need help us’ if we are forced to act a certain way or buy something as a result of the legislative implementation of the commerce clause. But as of March 20th, 2010, that day has come and gone. Hopefully, the assumed court challenges to the health “legislation” are successful…and that ushers in a new era of dormant commerce clause thinking. However, I’m not optimistic as it is human nature to give an inch and take a mile. And the progressive factions of our government cannot implement their fundamental or “transformative” changes to our society if it were not for their sneaky thumb on the scales of interpretation.

So, rather than living in a society where the Constitution is considered for its original, immutable intent, we must live with a constant tinkering with our rights and liberties using the flimsiest of excuses. Only until we smarten up and elect representative lawmakers who value a strict interpretation of the Constitution according to its original intent will we enjoy the broadest set of rights and liberties as insured by the the document.

Otherwise, my friends, we have undoubtedly crossed the Rubicon of ‘make it up as you go along’ governance, and I fear that the bridge for the way back has burned. Our road back from legislative bondage may be a long one indeed — if at all possible.

The political scene has taken another turn for the worse as a result of the über-partisanship revolving around passage of the health care “reform” legislation. Claims and counter claims are flying about from the left and the right regarding threats and violence from the “other side” in the hours before and the days after passage of this bill. However, no entity can make hay out of their claims like the Democrats and their party. Let’s just look at the spectacle for a moment and take account of the alleged carnage to date: the alleged use of bitter invective including the so-called “n-word” by protesters at the Capitol; an alleged incident where a black legislator was spat upon; a coffin left on the lawn of a Democrat rep.; windows were broken in the local office of another Democrat rep.; death threats were made to by phone to several reps. of both parties; a Republican rep.’s discovered a bullet hole in the window of his local office; and other incidents of less than acceptable deportment and decorum vis-a-vis elected officials.

I think all of these incidents reside at the intersection of reality and hyperbole. I also think that the Democrats, using their strongest politically ally in the mainstream media, have performed a bit of political alchemy on the events of earlier this week — changing the controversy of the unpopular partisan healthcare vote to ersatz-sympathy for the alleged “attacks.” See, there is quite a bit of political apprehension and guilt on the left-leaning side of the aisle. The Democrats folks knew that they, proverbially-speaking, tweaked an angry dragon’s tail with their passage of Obamacare. But they did so in order to bolster their Ideologue-In-Chief and his socialist “transformative change” agenda. So they desperately needed political cover (and since not a single Republican voted for the monstrosity they can’t take cover behind them because of that), and fast! How better to obtain this cover, and fire up their base (because we all have poor short-term political memories in the face of righteous indignations affecting “our guy” or gal) than by playing presto-chango with their vote and the alleged “violent” repercussions? How can you despise someone and their actions if they’re the hapless “victim?”

Couple theses specious and increasingly debunked claims with the fact that the alleged perpetrators of these affronts are the Tea Party protesters, then you have the basic ingredients of a spittle laden rage and tirade by the likes of Comrade Keith Olbermann et. al. that even a heaping dose of mother’s little helper can’t curtail. And so the entire width and breadth of the government controlled media are now actively involved in the debasement and derision, if not outright ridicule, of the Tea Partiers (almost as though they received specific instructions by FAX as to what to say and how to say it!) This action by the MSM would be laughable except for the fact that the Tea party folks are from all political stripes — certainly the lion’s share are right-leaning ideologically– and I know several moderate Democrats who have joined the movement out of buyer’s remorse for their 2008 vote folly. So the swiftness with which the MSM painted the alleged “violence” as right wing and associated with the TP protesters is shameful and deceptive.

But really, isn’t that their job? Aren’t the entire MSM, probably with the exceptions of FOX News, the WSJ and the indies on the internet, in the bag for the current Democrat powers-that-be and their liberal base? So why would it be unexpected or raise a single eyebrow that the MSM is off trying to do everything they can to discredit the TP crowd in the eyes of the perhaps dozens of readers and viewers that they have?

The plain truth is it isn’t unexpected. In fact, it’s entirely expected! The fact of the matter is is that if you’re persistent enough and can tolerate enough liberal dreck and pablum, you will see a pattern emerge where all the newsreaders (no, they’re not journalists!) seem to have an eerily similar story to tell. So eerily similar, in fact, that one has to wonder if it wasn’t drafted in a windowless communications office in a certain Washington landmark and FAXed to the corpus of useful media idiots for them to recite.

This is NOTHING new…it’s just the new order of American politics. American politics Democrat style. Part of the de-evolution of our society into a modern day orgy of blood sport, ad hominem attacks and ridicule. And if you add in the new administration’s Chicago political roots, you’re left with a bare-knuckled, winner-take-all implementation of the previous.

So, fasten your seatbelts for the political ride we’re about to have between now and November. By the time that the Democrat spin machine is done, we won’t know right from left or up from down. But you can bet your grandma that we WILL know one thing — that the Republicans are the problem, they are the party of NO, they are egging-on violence, they don’t have any answers, they are the party of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, and they are closely aligned with the Tea Partiers. You can also be darned sure that their claims are righteous and true.

The FAXes say so…

There is one dangerous word in our Constitution that the courts and Congress have used (and continue to use) to legislate us into serfdom and to simultaneously spend us into oblivion, while providing us with all those special entitlement goodies.

My friends, that word is “Welfare.”

You can find this most dangerous word in Article I, Section 8, in the definition of the “Powers of Congress.”

One stinking word…so much trouble!!

The trouble comes because this word was (and unfortunately, because of “precedent” still is) interpreted in a very generous way by a progressive, socially and fiscally liberal judiciary when it came to past legislation passed by the Congress. Because when the Constitution was written, the word “Welfare” was a common use synonym of “Well being” and “Security.” It was never intended by the Founders as a hook for future Congresses to have carte blanche, unlimited powers to legislate and to spend. But our enlightened Constitutional scholars over time have interpreted this word to mean it’s literal modern definition — “Aid to Others” and “Assistance.” And, let’s be frank here, any other damn thing that the Congress wants to do.

[You can thank the historical, generous interpretation of this word for the recent consideration and passage of Obamacare, and all other social programs that are straining our finances to the breaking point.]

But even with the most general and generous interpretation of the word Welfare, a conundrum still exists if we claim that we are a nation that observes the Constitution. See, there is a modifier phrase to this word that was placed by the Founders — “Welfare of the United States.” Not the welfare of the citizens…not the welfare of the poor…not the welfare of individuals. Why was the phrase “Welfare of the United States” included in the Constitution? Because the primary duty of the Congress as intended by the Founders is the safety, security and defense of our nation. A nation comprised of separate states: The United States, united by the protective federal government for safety and security.

And this conundrum is further complicated by the fact that the word “Welfare” is contained in the preamble of Section 8, and in the time of the Founders, the preamble was not the meat of the topic, rather it was a light, appetizing summary. So, the Founders never intended that the “Welfare of the United States” to be a specific duty…but rather as the summary of the duties to follow. In other words, if the Congress performed all the duties following, they would be good stewards of the welfare of the United States.

I don’t fault the Founders for this misinterpretation. I bet in their wildest dreams they never imagined that the meaning a single word with fixed common usage in their era could be twisted in the future to mean so much else. How were they to know that paternalism and politics would replace patriotism in future generations of the Congress?

But now we’re saddled with this perversion of the original intent. We’re left with a political establishment that has interpreted the Constitution to THEIR advantage…and now they control US through the interpretation of this single word. And the funny thing is that we’ve let them routinely do it…because we’ve entrusted them to be the arbiters of the Constitution and the protectors of our rights. And again, let’s be frank, we’ve enjoyed the goodies and scraps that they’ve thrown our way.

So, how’s that folly worked out for us so far??

Because of our lack of vigilance and our soft spines, we’ve ended up with the likes of Obama, Reid and Pelosi. I can’t say we don’t deserve them, as we failed to heed the advice of orator and abolitionist Wendell Phillips when he cautioned us that “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty…“. And honestly, we have been less than vigilant as individuals when it comes to protecting our Constitutional rights.

This situation must change if our nation is to survive as a viable national entity. Please, read the Constitution…understand what the Congress can and cannot do by the Founder’s intent. And in the future, PLEASE, for God’s sake, select your representatives based on their fealty to the original intent of the Founders, rather than some bastardized, interpreted version.

We must not accept business as usual in Washington, DC. We may be forced into acceptance now, given the make up of this Congress — they don’t care about our opinions or our rights — and they certainly don’t have any allegiance at all to the Constitution. By their own admission, they make up the rules as they go. This circumstance won’t last forever!

But we have been taken for granted and abused by politicians of all political stripes for long enough. It’s time to assert our primacy — our Constitutional authority as the most important part of our nation. We can put all of this political nonsense behind us if we try, and if we get more involved. It’s dirty work and a lot of heavy lifting, but the result will be a country that we can be proud to leave to our children and heirs.

The choice is ours…let’s not allow the corrupt interpretation of a single word force us into perpetual servitude and cause us to be debtors to an out of control and increasingly powerful federal government.

It’s OUR government, and it’s high time that WE took it back.


Section 8 — Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United  States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among  the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the  Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the  Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post  Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of   Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures  on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that   Use  shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval  Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United  States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline  prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat  of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and  proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Section 9 — Limits on Congress

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any  of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th  Amendment.)

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of  Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the  Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

« Previous PageNext Page »