July 2010

Well, I knew sooner or later it was going to happen. I knew that there would be some landmark event that would serve to reveal the underlying rot that infects our modern society at large, and our government and body politic in particular. As it turns out, yesterday was the day. And the manifestation of this rot wasn’t just a surface eruption which can be easily treated with topical unguents. Nope, it was a full fledged systemic putrification, where the patient learns that there is little hope of cure and little time remains. As a result, I’m afraid our United States of America is dying, fast.

Yesterday (July 28, 2010 — mark it down!), in her infinite and mystical wisdom, District Judge Susan Bolton revealed that our legal process and our government no longer rely on firm Constitutional principles to guide their efforts. She made a ruling on Arizona’s SB 1070 law that used facts and precedents which are not present in the Constitution or federal law. Now, I’m not a lawyer (THANK YOU Sweet Jesus), and I do not claim the depth of legal expertise that trained student of the law has in evaluating these situation involving controversial judicial opinions. But having said that, I have a set of eyes and a brain, and I have been trained in the sciences, critical thinking and analysis as an engineer. These qualities have served me well as evaluator of difficult technical problems. So I’m not looking at Judge Bolton’s ruling as a wild-eyed ideologue or emotional crackpot…or even an ersatz lawyer.

Rather, I chose to go to first principles. I went to the US Constitution. Perhaps this is wrong of me, because we all know (or perhaps we don’t) that as time had progressed in our nation, a damnable froth of sketchy legal decisions have been put in place and given the respect of impenetrable precedent that clouds our direct view of the Constitution. But having been told time and again that the Constitution was the “people’s document, I wanted to embrace what was (still) allegedly mine.

So, here we have Judge Bolton granting injunctions against (enforcing) the key provisions of Arizona SB 1070 with the judicial hocus pocus only reserved for Las Vegas magic acts. In her ruling, she had the following observations:

A. Overview of Federal Immigration Law
Congress has created and refined a complex and detailed statutory framework regulating immigration. The federal immigration scheme is largely enacted through the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1101, et seq., which empowers various federal agencies (including the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), and Department of State (“DOS”)) to administer and enforce the immigration laws. See, e.g., id. §§ 1103-1104. Among its many provisions, the INA sets forth the conditions under which a foreign national may be admitted to and remain in the United States. Id. §§ 1181-1182, 1184. The INA also contains an alien registration system intended to monitor the entry and movement of aliens in the United States. Id. §§ 1201(b), 1301-1306.

Various actions may subject an alien to being placed in removal proceedings, such as entering the United States without inspection, presenting fraudulent documents at a port of entry, violating the conditions of admission, or engaging in certain other proscribed conduct. Id. §§ 1225, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1229c, 1231. Violations of immigration laws may also subject an alien to civil and criminal sanctions. E.g., id. §§ 1325, 1306, 1324c. Unlawful presence in the United States is not a federal crime, although it may make the alien removable. See id. §§ 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), 1227(a)(1)(B)-(C).(3)

Federal alien smuggling laws make it a crime to knowingly bring an unauthorized alien into the country, as well as to harbor such a person or to facilitate unlawful immigration. Id. § 1324. Congress also created sanctions to be implemented against employers who knowingly employ aliens who are not authorized to work when it passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (“IRCA”) in 1986. Id. § 1324a(a)(1)-(2). Federal law contains no criminal sanction for working without authorization, although document fraud is a civil violation under IRCA. Id. § 1324c. In 1996, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (“IIRIRA”), which, among other things, created various employment eligibility verification programs. See Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. v. Napolitano (Chicanos Por La Causa II), 558 F.3d 856, 861 (9th Cir. 2009).

Federal immigration law also envisions certain areas of cooperation in immigration enforcement among the federal government and state and local governments. See 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(1)-(9) (permitting DHS to enter into agreements whereby appropriately trained and supervised state and local officials can perform certain immigration responsibilities); id. § 1373 (establishing parameters for information-sharing between state and local officials and federal immigration officials); id. § 1252c (authorizing state and local law enforcement officials to arrest aliens unlawfully present in the United States who have previously been convicted of a felony and deported). DHS has also established the Law Enforcement Support Center (“LESC”), which is administered by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and serves as a national enforcement information center, answering queries from state and local officials regarding immigration status. (Pl.’s Mot., Ex. 3, Decl. of David Palmatier, Unit Chief for LESC (“Palmatier Decl.”) ¶¶ 3-6.)

(3) Unlawful presence is an element of the federal crime of reentry after deportation, 8 U.S.C. § 1326, and unlawful entry into the United States is also a federal crime, 8 U.S.C. § 1325.

As informative as Judge Bolton’s overview is, she does not indicate where the Congress receives such sweeping statutory powers to enact such immigration legislation. Are these unseen powers vested in them by the Ouija board-friendly “Welfare” clause or the similarly mercurial “Commerce” clause?? We don’t know, I guess because Judge Bolton just takes these powers as established dogma. Because, when I read the Constitution and study the ACTUAL words in the document, I see the following powers bestowed onto the Congress:

Article I, Section 8.

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

Nowhere, and I do mean nowhere, else does the Constitution give Congress the authority to regulate or legislate immigration. Unless you count the requirement:

Article IV, Section 4

The United States shallprotect [each STATE] from Invasionand domestic Violence.”

Does the ability to create rules of naturalization (i.e. the process of becoming a citizen) or protect us from invasion or domestic violence also grant the federal government the ability to create immigration laws, thus taking the ability to do so from “the various states?” As written, and again I’m being quite literal here, it appears as though the federal government has the power to only regulate NATURALIZATION — the process of becoming a citizen of the US — rather than immigration — the process of entering a particular STATE in the Union. To me this is a prime example where the Congress and the federal government have overstepped the Constitution, unless we invoke powers under the rubric of the ephemeral “Clauses.”

As such, I believe that this authority falls to the STATES under the provisions of the Constitution and the intent of the Founders. After all, the immigrant (illegal or legal) enters and resides in a particular STATE in the Union until they petition the federal government for citizenship. Until that time, they are guests of a particular STATE and they similarly derive social benefits from that STATE.

But what do I know. An experienced legal mind I am not. But I do understand MY Constitution. I do understand that we citizens have allowed far too much tampering, nonsense and malarkey to be heaped upon the substrate of the Constitution and then be accepted as dogma or doctrine. This constitutional shell game has only added to inane and gangrenous laws and restrictions that we labor under as citizens.

All I know is that we have been trained and inured to not question lawmaking or law interpreting…as laymen supposedly the process to us is akin to making sausage and we may not have the stomach for it. We should leave things in the hands of the practitioners…the high priests and priestesses of the noble legal religion. But one day, perhaps we all will come to realize that the sausage that they are grinding includes many of our dearly held rights, liberties and closely held values. We are surrendering these Constitutional rights for what Judge Bolton refers to as the “Balance of Equities and the Public Interests” — you know, the greater good. And those high priests and priestesses, including Judge Bolton, continue to TELL US what OUR Constitution says even though we may see something totally different in the actual, authentic words contained in the document.

This my friends is the true decomposition of our nation laid bare. American judges are now in the frame of mind to rule against American citizens and American STATES in favor of illegal aliens present in our country who have NO tacit Constitutional protections. And rather that questioning the process and challenging the outcome, we abide by the corrupt and rigged process. We’re told “Vote the bums out”…”CHANGE!”


There will be no change until we take back OUR Constitution and tell the government and OUR representatives that we are not the governed. Rather, we are the owners of and stakeholders in the Constitution. And that we are owed an eternal apology for the insults and injuries that have been done to it by past and present Congresses. And furthermore, we cannot begin the road to recovery without the realization that the body politic is a festering, decaying mess that will kill us all if we do not excise it from our presence.

We have but two choices: Embrace the past practices and live with the rot until it kills us slowly but ever so surely. Or reject the past and demand a new day in politics and law where the original intent of the Constitution is held in the highest regard and used as our guiding principle.

Given recent decisions like that of Judge Bolton, we do not have much time left. Pray that in November that we select representatives who will choose excision over derision. Who will choose the Constitution over greed and corruption. Who will choose the PEOPLE above all else…

Today the unbelievably short-sighted legislature in Massachusetts approved the National Popular Vote (NPV) bill which would award all the electoral votes in the state to the candidate who won the national majority (popular) vote.

This is a crazy action by the legislators in my state. Why? Because they have now effectively silenced the voices of the voters in the STATE of Massachusetts through their inane action. Why? Because there will be situations in the future where the state of Massachusetts will vote for candidate A but candidate B will win the popular vote. In this case, the will of the voters in this state will be muted.

But there is also another situation that may render the will of the voters in Massachusetts perpetually irrelevant. This would be if there were a bloc of say four or five populous states, perhaps in the midwest and west, whose total vote count are significant with respect to the rest of the country. With the NPV in place in Massachusetts and elsewhere, these four or five states could end up to be “king makers” for a long, long time. Because their votes highly influence the popular vote, and as such once the majority threshold has been reached, Massachusetts will just go along with the flow. This to me is CRAZY. And an irresponsible action by the Massachusetts legislature.

[As an aside, I wonder what the hyper-partisan, Democrat crazies in the MA legislature would have thought if their enactment of the NPV was just BEFORE the 2000 or 2004 elections? Suicidal and apoplectic come to mind immediately!!]

Finally, I’m a little perturbed with the process by which this important electoral change was handled. This change is is direct contravention to the Massachusetts Constitution. As such, if backers of the NPV wanted this to be enacted in Mass., then this change should have gone through the established Constitutional amendment process. But it didn’t, and I’m not convinced that the manner in which the Legislature handled this change will pass constitutional muster.

Until then, we’ll have to live with the hyper-partisan inanity that is the Massachusetts legislature. Here’s hoping that there is a swift challenge to this bill and furthermore that the MSJC has more common sense and Constitutional fealty than our elected representatives. I certainly won’t be hanging by my thumbs until then, that’s for sure.

Students of the US Declaration of independence will recognize the following quotation:

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.

This quote contains the seminal notion among our founding documents regarding the relationship between the individual and the government. However, it is often misunderstood and the ultimate meaning of these words is often twisted to a different meaning by contemporary politicians.

The key idea of the “endowment” quote is that all men are created equal, and that if they are provided the essentials of life, liberty and the ability to pursue happiness, they may achieve great things. The operative word in that sentence is may. Unfortunately for us all, we have a government and a majority of legislators that constantly insist all men are equal beyond their creation, regardless of their initiative and achievements. In other words, the government has falsely endowed all men and women with unconditional equality.

This is a noble thought, but it is certainly not the concept of equality that the Founders had intended.

Certainly all men are valuable in the eyes of God, but are we all necessarily equal? Do we humans live in a world that is immune to or devoid of natural laws, such as natural selection? In our daily lives we sense for ourselves the inequities between individuals: Some are better politicians (brown-nosers or ass kissers); some are superb athletes; some are talented musicians; some are otherworldly artistic; some are scientific geniuses; and some are financial wizards. And on and on. See, all people have differing abilities that they may exploit, and as such we are not all equal when we reach the ends of our lives. Simply put, some people are more successful or more talented or just plain luckier than others. This difference doesn’t make them better, it just makes them unequal as compared to their peers. (And if we bring in the concepts of lawlessness and crime, then we may observe even greater inequities among men.)

Now, we can dispute this fact or try to legislate fairness…by treating all individuals in an egalitarian manner regardless of their effort in their life or the success that they have achieved. And our legislators can try to impose a false equity with taxes or restrictions on the successful, because it is good politics (as well as lucrative politics) to decry “the rich” and to foster and encourage class envy and warfare. But this is a self-defeating ideology, as it encourages laziness and it robs individuals from their will to succeed. After all, is it likely that a person who is provided a living, after expending as little effort as possible (sometimes the only exertion required is the right vote), will strive to pursue something better?

Well, experience with human nature tell us “NO!” People become inured to this existence, and they come to expect being taken care of — even though the lifestyle that they have can be considered austere. Politicians know this fact and they capitalize and exploit this human frailty. So, what happens is that we have legion individuals willing to trade some of their rights and liberties in order to “be taken care of” by the government. It is a sad fact, but unfortunately true.

And guess what happens? This situation of government-individual co-dependence further enhances the inequity between those who have the will to achieve (and succeed) and those who do not. Rather than a path to an egalitarian paradise, it is a road to serfdom and slavery. The individual is now beholding to the government and dependent upon the “generosity” of the politician.

And this is the rub where the true equity in our society has been co-opted by politicians — the equality of our vote. By encouraging class envy and inflating class differences, politician can create special interest voting blocs that they then may use to neutralize the votes of others. The votes of a smaller number of successful citizens may be swamped by those of a larger group of have-nots, thus creating a tacit inequity. So, the will of the majority have nots may be used to plunder the fruits of success from the haves. This is a sinful, ugly technique used by greedy and sinful politicians whose goals are not equality and “fairness” but rather life-long political power.

But none of what I’ve written should be a surprise to an observer of history and human nature. People are people, and they will exploit whatever circumstances that they are provided with. If that means wealth redistribution through the force of law, then so be it. If it means electing monarchical politicians time and time again, then so be it. If it means putting up with a loss of some liberties and freedoms, well everyone has their price.

I hope that the Tea Party movement restores for many the almost lost concepts of personal achievement and success. American is not and cannot be a great country, a country loyal to the intentions of the Founders, if we choose the mediocrity of government co-dependence. There was a time in the not-too-distant past when individuals of all abilities and classes called out quite loudly for the government to get the hell out of the way and let them take care of themselves. Some called this “pioneer spirit” but I like to think of it as the indomitable part of the human spirit that just wants to live life to its fullest and then let the chips fall where they may.

Please join me in watching for falling chips. Regardless of the outcome, they are far better than the humiliating scraps that will be flung at us by an intemperate government.

In mathematics and science, the occurrence of divergence from theory or expected results can be a pernicious happenstance. Divergence can mean the difference between an aircraft following a precise and safe course set by its autopilot or a horrible crash costing many lives. Divergence has consequences, and because it forces the result of our efforts to a place beyond our control, these consequences are always negative and usually catastrophic when encountered in the real world.

But divergence can be a good thing, particularly for human beings. We all learn from our mistakes. And each mistake we make is the result of divergence. When we vary from the norm, our efforts may yield an inexplicable result, and for whatever reason we may choose to either explain these results away or ignore them entirely. Whatever the reason, divergence always wins, and if we are intelligent, we learn from these experiences and strive to understand “Why?”. This simple fact is the basis of our highly successful scientific progress and it is the basis of the “Scientific Method.”

In science, we employ mathematics and mathematical models to predict the behavior of many physical processes from chemical and nuclear reactions to the reaction of mechanical systems to external stresses to the behaviors of electrical circuits. Many times, these models employ complex mathematical expressions composed of many variables to represent the situation to be analyzed. These expressions are quite often non-linear (not following a straight line) and their solution(s) are difficult to visualize. These models obtain solutions from “guesses” of constants and variables inserted into the equations, and then they solve the expressions from an initial condition. If the initial condition(s) are incorrect or the constants and variables are prone to divergence, then further calculations are abandoned and another guess is made (and the constants and variables suitably modified) until the results converge upon the desired result. This result is usually a steady-state value that is known and understood.

This is the time-tested process used by scientists and engineers to create safe and useful products that perform their tasks or operate as expected. Without such diligence in the scientific process, we can be sure of one of two things, that the results of our efforts will either tend toward the expected or veer towards chaos. But without understanding the divergence behavior, any result we obtain is a crap shoot at best.

Enter politics and the Constitution. The same can be said about the role of divergence in our legislative process. Since the formation of our country and the adoption of the Constitution by the Founders, subsequent Congresses have diverged from strict Constitutional obedience in their law making. Starting with baby steps, elected legislators (as well as appointed judges) have taken it upon themselves to interpret the Constitution in a light favorable to their divergent ideology. And making things worse, over time our representatives and judges have adopted philosophies that have assured us that future generations will have to accept the result of their earlier divergence(s). For example, practices like stare decisis prefer precedent over the rock-hard and firm substrate of strict Constitutionality. This willingness to let things stand even though they be divergent guarantees that the constants and variables (as we had talked about in mathematics) do not necessarily necessarily converge to a future that is strictly Constitutional.

Our political divergence, and the respect for precedent case law, means that as time goes by our country stands on shakier and shakier ground. The stability of our society is, after all, based on the Constitution. However we are forced to live within a system that resembles a house of cards — with strict constitutionality perhaps residing several decisions away from our present reality. It is because of this simple fact that the system that we’ve chosen and rely on guarantees us future divergence and increasing political instability with time. Cases in point are the constant challenging of the rights of individuals to bear arms or the constant attempts to limit what types of arms individuals may possess.

Complicating the legislative divergence process is the insistence by lawmakers and judges that they may freely interpret the actual words in the Constitution to harbor new, contemporary meanings. The two premiere examples are the often abused “Commerce Clause” and the “Welfare Clause.” In each case, where a modern Congress chose to diverge from the narrower Constitutional meaning, we are able to measure the effects of these divergences. For example, the welfare clause was assigned a new, broader meaning in 1936 and similarly for the commerce clause in 1887. Since those dates, we have seen the government assume roles never intended by the Founders, and in fact a role vigorously argued against by the authors of he Constitution.

So, as a result of our historical legislative divergences we have ended up with (among many others): national parks; departments of Education, HHS, Energy, Agriculture, Interior, Labor, HUD, etc.; Social Security; Medicare and Medicaid; the prescription drug “benefit”; Welfare; and the myriad other social programs that the government is involved with. But beyond these departments and programs, we have had our Constitutional rights infringed upon or truncated by divergent contemporary legislation. Cases in point are the mandate to purchase health insurance in the recent “Obamacare” legislation and the loss of personal property rights in the Supreme Court’s Kelo vs. New London eminent domain decision. Unfortunately for strict Constitutionalists, there are many, many others.

Now, certainly there have been later judicial and legislative challenges, and some of the divergent legislation has been overturned (like the re-affirmation of gun ownership rights this year in McDonald et. al. vs. Chicago, IL), but in most cases the new, more liberal interpretations hold sway. As a result, we are forced to abandon our strict Constitutional adherence and ‘embrace’ the attendant legislative erring, losing individual rights along the way. So we are forced to live within a new, more constricting interpretation of the Constitution that simply does not exist in the actual words contained within that document.

Unfortunately, because of malicious and capricious divergence, we are fated to lives filled with inevitable uncertainty and chaos. Because the result and cost of theses divergences are the spiraling federal debt and deficit and the new attitude of our legislators that all necessary means may be utilized to control an individual American citizen. So, here we are in 2010 wondering how we as citizens have gone from owners of the Constitution and government it provides for as part of its framework to servants of the government, indentured and beholding to it in far too many ways.

I believe that as Americans, we have an innate sense of our rights and liberties so long as the Constitution survives. And we will chafe at the new insults to our rights and liberties, and we may revolt at the ballot box and perhaps beyond. But we are in store for a painful lesson in divergence: That is is difficult (if not impossible) to wend our way back as a nation to the firm base that is the Constitution. Because just as it is difficult to scrape year-after-year’s worth of paint in an old house in order to get to the underlying wood, it is going to be a taxing (no pun intended) effort to undo the damage, bit by bit, layer by layer,  that past divergences from the Constitution have done.

I just hope that we are up to the task as a people. We can either accept the eventual chaos that the past and present divergences bring to us, or we can begin the dismantling process with haste. The choice is ours, and our choice will define our character as a nation forevermore!

  • The Rather Imperfect Ms. Sherrod. Shirley Sherrod has unwittingly become the new Joan d’Arc of race relations. Suddenly, this once more than casually racist (if you listen closely to her own words) woman had an epiphany and just as suddenly her past sins were, POOF, forgiven and she has been cast in a new light. This new light is the aggrieved and tragically maligned speaker whose words of redemption were taken out of context. Where we had calls for her resignation just mere days ago from the White House on down, including the NAACP, we now hear cries for canonizing this woman. And my God, let the apologies begin! Two things bother me about the who Sherrod situation: first is that as she spoke of her “transformation” from someone who provided a farmer with a lawyer of “his own kind”, the visible audience nodded their heads in agreement…and laughed heartily when she spoke of her past racism. This made me go hmmmmm… . And the second thing was that if you listen real closely, at the time starting at 23:40 of the NAACP-released video you can hear Ms. Sherrod, in her capacity as a Federal USDA employee, disparage the Bush administration and the “Republicans” for racism as it relates to their stand on health care “reform:”

    You know, I haven’t seen such a mean-spirited people as I’ve seen lately over this issue of health care. Some of the racism we thought was buried. Didn’t it surface? Now, we endured eight years of the Bush’s and we didn’t do the stuff these Republicans are doing because you have a black President.

    Maybe it’s just me, but Ms. Sherrod’s words are apparently in violation of the Hatch Act, which state that “a restricted employee may not (among other things) use an official title or position while engaged in political activity).” Well, she spoke as Shirley Sherrod, USDA representative, and her speech was highly political and inflammatory. Where are the consequences?

  • “Cap and Tax” Takes a Holiday. It was announced today by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that the Senate Democrats would no longer pursue “comprehensive” energy legislation — aka “Cap and Tax.” In place of this effort, the Dems will focus on the further beating up of BP for their accidental oil spill and increasing efficiency (whatever the hell THAT means!) I couldn’t be happier that this legislation and the effort to get it passed was abandoned. It is an economy buster, and we should oppose it in its various piecemeal incarnations that will be proposed in the future. But those of you who support this onerous pig of a bill there is still hope. Yup, there will be plenty of 2,000+ page pieces of legislation that will be floated between now and the time that the Democrats again become the minority party in both houses of Congress. And plenty of opportunities to tuck harmful, phoney-baloney amendments into, say a bill for education reform. Dear Lord, all that change, and so little time left!
  • A Day That Will Live In Infamy. On January 1, 2011 we Americans will be subjected, across the board, to the largest tax increase in the nation’s history. On that date, the un-extended Bush tax cuts are scheduled to end. Contrary to the Democrats and their minion punditry are telling the masses, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts affect every segment of the taxpaying spectrum. The effects will be chilling and toxic to an already straining economy.  To give you an idea of the damage that will be done to our personal finances, it is expected that $2.6 trillion new tax dollars will be collected by the government. I just wonder what the dunderheads in Congress will do this this new windfall? Pay the debt down? Reduce the deficit? Unfortunately, these actions are highly unlikely. Don’t be surprised when they start spending these new taxes to cultivate a whole new co-dependent constituency. It makes me crazy to think that they will get all these new monies that will only perpetuate the present corruption and bad behavior. And one last thought — Isn’t it “funny” that tax cuts have a definite expiry, but entitlements and social programs have no expiration date — they just go on and on forever??

Events of earlier this week prove to me that the oath of office that Reps and Senators take is a mere formality, and that the words themselves have no actual meaning to the oath taker.

The most recent case in point is now-Senator Carte Goodwin (D-WV). Mr. Goodwin was sworn in to replace Robert Byrd on early Tuesday morning, and with his oath of office still ringing in his ears, he immediately broke his pledge in favor of siding with the Democrats on the unemployment extension legislation. Two things about the speed with which Goodwin signed-on to this bill trouble me. The first is: Did he actually read the legislation to understand exactly what he was agreeing to? And the second is: Mr. Goodwin pledged to protect and defend the Constitution but did he even pause to consider that his action may not necessarily support his oath?

I understand that Mr. Goodwin is a lawyer by trade (just what we need, ANOTHER lawyer!) and he should be aware of the constitutionality of his actions. But I dare any proponent of actions like providing or extending unemployment “benefits”, including Mr. Goodwin, to show me the words (beyond the penumbral interpretaions) that allow such actions to be taken by the Congress. Wouldn’t a newly-minted, temporary office holder like Mr. Goodwin have any second thoughts regarding his prospective vote?

However, Goodwin did the predictable thing and voted for the extension, even though it will add to the nation’s out of control budget deficit and debt.

So there we have it. Yet another example of politics winning out over the Constitution. And what makes this even more galling is the fact that Goodwin is a rent-a-senator. Sure he was duly appointed by Governor Joe Manchin of West Virginia using the proscribed legal process. But Goodwin will be a senator for a mere 6 months…and being appointed rather than elected, his votes do not necessarily represent the will of the electorate in West Virginia (as if that is ever a consideration with modern elected officials.) So, his go-along-to-get-along voting with his Democrat brethren is symptomatic of the partisan and ideological political cancer that infests our government.

And being from Massachusetts, I’m sensitive to this rent-a-senator tomfoolery, as our once appointed senator, Paul Kirk, held the office long enough last fall and winter to endorse and ultimately vote for Obamacare. Again, this vote was in direct contravention to his very recent oath of office…and an affront to all citizens of our country, most of whom opposed this onerous legislation. Unfortunately, his appointment was a bag job from the git-go, and his affirmative vote for Obamacare was assured (regardless of the gravity of his oath promise) because he was a longtime friend of Ted Kennedy, who had been the biggest senatorial proponent of universal health care.

I guess that oaths may come and oaths may go…but the laws that are passed with the caprice of partisan politics by those oath takers last FOREVER. And that’s precisely how long that we citizens must suffer their consequences.

After considerable thinking on the subject I have finally formulated in my mind what has happened to our country. Over the past centuries, decades and years since the Constitution was ratified in 1789, the citizens of America have slowly but surely traded their guaranteed rights and liberties as represented by THAT Constitution and have replaced them with an invisible, pernicious set of new rights as represented by the present laws of the United States and not necessarily the Constitution as it stands today.

What do I mean by this and how did it happen?

What I mean by this is that words mean something. And so does intent. We have the actual words written in the Constitution as our guide to what our government may or may no do when representing our interests as a nation. In fact, these words were written quite plainly such that an average American citizen in the 18th century could understand and internalize the content and the intent of this document. There was no interpretation necessary: No lawyers were required to explain their rights and liberties to the citizens of the new nation. They were all in plain view and all citizens, from elected representative to field workers, had a common understanding of their meaning and intent.

The Law

Over time, however, it became clear that divining the meaning of the Constitution and furthermore transmitting its meaning to the hoi polloi was highfalutin business, and certainly not within the scope of intelligent or cognition of the average Joe citizen. On the Constitutional level, because there were so many opportunities for legal and political hijinx, we apparently needed legal scholars, steeped in the precedents and traditions of American law. Gradually, the Constitution itself began to take a back seat to the subordinate laws allegedly written to support it. Immense legal weight was and is given to “settled law,” even though the under-girding of these settled cases may be flimsy or possess the most fragile constitutionality. Law schools began to teach the importance of case law rather than focus on strict constitutionality. So instead of being the subject of the curriculum, Constitutional law and compliance became seminar topics in curricula dominated by case and tort law. Unfortunately in many law schools, including those in the rarefied air of the Ivy League, the Constitution has become a mere footnote when training our nation’s lawyers.

And with regards to the law and the Constitution, something more insipid has occurred. With every interpretation or mis-interpretation of what the Constitution “allows” our elected representative to create as laws of the land, the system maddeningly and chillingly adds layer-upon-layer of complexity upon our original Constitutional rights. The federal government now has rule after rule, dictate after dictate, mandate after mandate, regulation after regulation — you get the picture, that weighs upon the ability of the average American enjoy their life and liberty, or to ultimately pursue happiness.

But what does the legal system have to do with citizens anyway? In the end, the citizenry are supposed to toe the line and obey the dictates of the government, bolstered by the laws that our “representatives” have put in place. Right? First and foremost, we are supposed to be a nation of laws and not men — at least as posited by John Adams. But in a seminal sense, we are a nation of Constitutional liberties and freedoms, which cannot be superseded and subordinated by well-intentioned laws. But indeed this subordination has consistently happened over time. Sometimes for very good reasons, like truncating the freedom of speech to exclude crying “Fire” in a crowded theater, but most of the time it has been done for sinful and self-serving reasons by corrupt and contemptible legislators. Or even worse, determined as the intent of the Constitution using beneficial penumbras and the favorable interpretations of words and clauses by Supreme Court justices who were more ideological politically than they were loyal to the original intent of the document.

Making matters worse its that the Constitution was intended to be a user friendly document…as was supposed to be the nation it provides the operating framework for. The Framers never intended this to be a nation of law givers and law receivers — the rulers and the governed. No, the Constitution used simple, non-legalistic prose to convey its intent and its message to citizens and representatives alike. But again, with the passage of time American citizens have allowed a corruption of both the original intent and the process of governance to occur.

Our government and our society now supports a legal caste system when it comes to the Constitution and to the law. As individuals, the law is completely out of our hands. Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to submit or suffer the consequences! The laws, and their prospective constitutionality, are now in the retinue of high priests and priestesses of a new religious sect. A sect complete with rites and rules and regulations, and secret handshakes if you will, and with impenetrable powers with regards to the laws and the true (and often hidden) meaning of the Constitution. Our law givers have in essence become much like the fire bearers in ancient societies: Functionaries instilled with great responsibilities and importance in our society.

The Congress and the “Governed”

All the while that the legal system was being configured as an ersatz religion, our Congress was being co-opted and configured as a place where the average Joe citizen is unwelcome. It’s almost as if a sign were placed on the Rotunda that says “Citizens need not apply.” This sense of exclusion is anathema to what the Founders intended for the composition of the Congress. From the very beginning of our country, the Congress was intend to be the representative body where citizen-legislators of all occupations could participate. The Constitution makes no exclusions or allowances for the nature or situation of the representatives that each state may send to this body. Yet again, time coupled with corruption have made it difficult for an average citizen to be elected to the House of Representatives or nearly impossible to be elected to the Senate. We have now replaced traits like horse sense and virtue with Ivy League educations, past legislative “experience” and political connections. Couple these new determinants of suitability to the representation task with the fact that it takes a plump campaign war chest to overcome the inertia of a candidate deeply embedded into the two party political system, and you have a dire situation indeed for the average citizen who wants to honorably serve their fellow Americans.

The fact that there exists two political parties is also an unfortunate vestige of past bad practices in our government. The fact that these parties have come to dominate, no rule, our political lives is now accepted as the de facto way that things are done. But what role should parties play in the governance of our nation, given the fact that the Constitution does not mention such political allegiances? How can the real issues and real concerns of the average American be considered in a political process that has been configured for a fight? We now have a Congress that has been Balkanized as a result of these two parties. Primacy of one political philosophy has come to rule the day, and our republic. We now live and fully accept the concepts of majority and minority party rule: Democrat versus Republican. Sure there are so-called minor parties like Libertarians and the nascent Tea Party, but they trail far behind in regards to the political infrastructure, control and most importantly money that the two larger parties can muster and bring to bear.

And certainly making things worse in government is that “representation” has become all about money — all about perks that the government can provide to the citizenry, or more accurately to special constituencies in the citizenry guaranteed to provide generous legislators continued support and grateful votes in the next election. Once upon a time, at least as envisioned by the Founders, our representatives we supposed to, well, represent us…speak for our interests and advocate for our concerns as citizens of an individual state in the Union. Today, we hear a lot of talk about the “consent of the governed” and “doing what’s in the best interests of the citizens” and the “need to govern” being bandied about by our legislative betters. And this is another problem where our representatives have slowly become a select group who governs us. Again, this concept of governance is in direct conflict with the intent of the Constitution. Elected representatives do not govern those whom they represent, they are true advocates and above all they are acolytes of the Constitution. Or at least they’re supposed to be. In a strict Constitutional sense, they should listen to the concerns of their electorate and then voice these concerns to the remainder of the representatives in the Congress and take legislative action if absolutely necessary. Legislation should be used as a scalpel, not as a bludgeon.

But the emphasis on money and entitlements has separated the elected “representative” away from those he purports to represent. Advocacy for the electorate has been replaced by zealotry for the poor, the displaced or other sympathetic constituencies. The new advocacy for the manifold special interests groups in society has become big political business, and an incumbent or a candidate for elective office cannot expect to be (re-)elected without support for these constituencies, even though it may be to the detriment of the vast majority of the people who are supposed to be represented. With this situation, Americans have allowed themselves to essentially be “killed with kindness,” and the result is unsustainable budget deficits and mounting debt that will, unfortunately, never be paid off.

And, worse still, lawyers and the “lawyerly” class have infested our Congress. Roughly one-third of our representatives in the Congress are lawyers. Now considering that 62% of the members of the Constitutional Congress were lawyers, one might not think our modern-day proportion is not so bad. But no fair comparison may be made between the individuals who “studied the law” in Colonial times with our present day bar. Simply put, our contemporary legal brethren are steeped in American case law, precedent and the fine art of skirting the system whereas their historical counterparts were trained in the finer aspects of British law. Colonial lawyers had no preconceived notions about Constitutional interpretation and American jurisprudence, because there weren’t any in existence at the time!

Anyway, back to the proportion of lawyers in our modern Congress. Lawyers make up approximately 0.4% of our population (around 1.5 million of the 310 million total) yet constitute around 33% of our modern Congress. One would expect that based on their proportions in the total population that lawyers would be few and far between in the Congress, yet almost one third of that august body is “skilled” in the law. Why? Because the business of representation has turned from advocacy and rights to legislating and governing. And who better to legislate than lawyers, the ultimate manipulators of law?

The presence of such a preponderance of lawyers serving as representatives has allowed the legislative process to be corrupted from one of service and concerned advocacy to one of conflict between the law givers and the governed.

The Ruling Class

Now that serving in Congress is less about being a true representative of the people than it is about crafting laws, and furthermore since our “representatives” have perfected the process of governance, we citizens now must endure what may be kindly termed a ruling class. The best description of this ruling class may be found in the essay “America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution” byAngelo M. Codevilla in the July/August 2010 edition of the American Spectator. It is a long piece, but it is the most accurate analysis of the ascendancy and then primacy of our contemporary ruling class. As such, I’m not focusing on the hows and whys of why we have such as class, but the reason that it came to power and the method that it holds on to this power.

The reason the ruling class came to power is quite simple. Human nature coupled with human frailty, chiefly in the forms of gluttony, envy and greed, were exploited by the individuals who were fortunate enough to be elected. Obviously the situation existed (and still exists today) where there were legion people who had nothing and wanted something, as unfortunately hard work and and a luckless existence did not reward their efforts.  Enter the opportunistic elected representatives! Using a combination of audacity, trickery and legislative hocus pocus, the ruling class (augmented with complicit, appointed judges) started making socio-economic “investments” under the aegis of progressivism.

But these investments, investments for controlling future elections and enabling the primacy of a political ideology perhaps forever, required a willing citizenry to accept them. People being people took the bait, and they made the Hobson’s choice of goodies over a strict conformance to the Constitution. I guess it’s the ultimate confirmation of ‘it takes two to tango.’ And by allowing this craven manipulation to occur by their betters, we have insured that we will get more and more of this behavior in the future from the ruling class.

But the allowance of, then the ultimate endorsement of the ruling class (via our precious votes)  not only emboldened the ruling class into using the electorate as useful idiots,  it once again provided confirmation of a an observation attributed to an 18th century thinker. In 1721, Dr. Alexander Tytler was purported to have said:

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. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

Prof. Tytler may or may not have actually said these words, but this quote must be considered with caution and we should proceed on our self-destructive path with great peril. Because like Dr. Tytler, the ruling class are excellent students of human nature and behavior. And because of this fact they are not likely to let up with their political philosophy, even though the future of our nation may be damaged through their efforts. See, the ruling class is also wealthier than the average Joe citizen through their exploitation of their privileged circumstances. So for them, who cares if the masses have to suffer economic or even political turmoil and upheaval? The ruling class is all but guaranteed to regain their footing regardless of the mess that they get the rest of us into.

The Future

If I were a betting man I would say that the die is already cast and that our future as a nation is dismal. Why? Because we have citizens who are reluctant to refuse entitlements, regardless of the form that they are offered to them in. Another reason for my pessimism is the pernicious and stubborn tenacity of the ruling class. As certain as there are suicide cults, we have among us a political sect hell-bent on implementing their ideology regardless of the outcome, positive or negative. And given the increasing size of the government debt, the ever-increasing budget deficits and regulatory throttles being unleashed upon free enterprise businesses, the outcome of the progressive ideology appears to be quite negative and ultimately most harmful to the nation.

Now understand that things can change for the better. If our representatives can exert some self-control, discipline and a modicum of responsibility — and more importantly, some absolute constitutional fealty and real leadership, we can emerge from our present circumstances in reasonable shape. But this will require corresponding sacrifice as well, but not just sacrifice from taxpayers and “the rich.” We have to embrace a new ethic as individuals understanding that the free ride is over. That entitlements are tolls on the road to perdition. That we have to show the same fiscal restraint in government as we must in our personal lives. To continue to remain a strong nation we cannot trade the future security of unborn generations of Americans for the political gain of the ruling class and the continuation of an underclass co-dependent with government.

These steps are almost impossibly difficult, but like the Hebrews of Moses’ time we have assured ourselves through our own sinful actions that we must wander in virtual desert, free from prosperity as a nation, for a good long time. Only after this cleansing with suffering may we return from the ranks of the governed into the renewed (and hopefully better appreciated) liberty of American citizenship. I’m convinced that time does heal all wounds and that because we are human, we need to have “our noses shoved in it” in order to change our behaviors and to form new opinions — particularly as things relate to politics.

We don’t have many choices left to us. Come November we can re-elect or elect Democrats who will maintain the majorities in the Congress, and buttress the utter madness that the agenda of President Obama has at its core. This would be the ultimate in self-destructive behavior. Or we can elect Republican candidates such that they can achieve majority status in one or both chambers of the Congress. This would effectively grind President Obama’s agenda to a screeching halt. It would be a welcomed half-time in a game where the progressive opponents have been running up the political score with great gusto. And maybe, just maybe, the election of Republicans would lead to the repudiation of Obama the man in 2012. This would be a highly desirable result, but nothing can be taken for granted in the fickle arena of national politics.

Finally, there is a third option, and I believe this is the option that could lead to our ultimate salvation as a nation. We can support, endorse and vote for candidates who are members of a third party. Call it what you will; Tea Party, Constitutionalists, Fiscal Conservatives, we desperately need a viable alternative to ‘None of the Above’ as a category to place our votes. But this new option must not be just a rejection or repudiation of Democrats and Republicans, it must be a real, clear choice that offers voters the promise of Constitutional adherence coupled with fiscal restraint. This option must not be a compromise, it must be an iron-clad guarantee that candidates from this party would not resort to abusing their legislative powers for personal political gain. And it would assure every voter that the Constitution would be respected as it should be, at least according to the oath of office taken by our alleged representatives:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Except that as members of this new party, they REALLY mean it.


Like no other time in the history of the United States of America does its citizens hold its future and its fate in their hands. Our actions, or correspondingly our inaction, will bear grave consequences on the future existence of our nation. It is up to us to show that we can steel ourselves to the choices that must be made and then make these choices, sacrificing our wants and needs, in favor of securing a viable future for our nation’s inheritors. The time is now, and history will either remember our generation for its courage and wisdom, or our progeny will curse us for our continued greed and selfishness.

The future is calling us, and it’s time to answer!

An odd title for this essay, but I think an apt one nonetheless. Today in 2010 America, the manner in which we’re being governed is not the way it is supposed to be. We have our leaders at the federal level constantly preaching the benefits of this or that legislation is for the “middle class” or “hardworking Americans”, and that to pay for this or that social scheme that “the rich” will have to bear more of the burden.

Now, maybe I’m just proving myself to be the dolt that a few of my detractors have labeled me, but my reading of the Constitution doesn’t give the president or the Congress any authority to hurt, help or otherwise claim dominion over “the people.” Rather, the Constitution is quite clear and specific as to who and what our elected federal representatives may or may not help. And in all cases, it is the STATES…or the collected assemblage of these states, our Republic. Not people, not individuals or not social classes. But what do I know, I rely on that quaint, outmoded technique called reading comprehension to determine my opinion on the facts placed before me.

How can I prove this? Well, Article I, Section 8 “Powers of Congress” does not mention once the word individual, person, citizen, human, etc. It refers to the powers of Congress in regards to the United States. Certainly the United States is comprised of individuals, but first and foremost it is comprised of 50 independent sovereign STATES. And what’s even more clear is that no such authority or powers over individuals exist for the president as well.

The simple fact is that the only entities with any authority over the people who inhabit them are the STATES. It is only when we get to Article VI “The States” that any authority is granted in regards to ‘Citizens’ and ‘Persons’ by the Constitution. And this authority is furthermore bolstered by the Tenth Amendment. Not the federal government, the STATES!

In my opinion what has happened since the dawn of the 20th century is that individual American STATES and citizens have been snookered and tricked, and in some cases bought off with federal “entitlements”, into allowing an extra-Constitutional intrusion into our individual lives on the part of the federal government. By the rights proscribed to it by the Constitution, the Congress has no power to enact laws regarding health care, education, social programs, jobs, entitlements, etc. as they pertain to an individual citizen. They may only do these things as they pertain to the 50 states in our Union. We have allowed OUR laws to be Shanghaied by the ‘lawyerly’ class and even worse, we have allowed an almost religious sect be formed regarding the Constitution and the laws of our land. We have fostered a situation where there are law-givers and law interpreters, but the PEOPLE bear no place in the process except to obey these laws once they are thrust upon us.

But this is a gross perversion of the intent of the Founders. They wanted the United States to be a user friendly social compact. They didn’t intend to replace an all-powerful monarch, selected by heredity, with another similarly powerful monarchy, selected by our votes. But that’s precisely what has happened. Somehow, we individual citizens have let our collective guard down and have allowed our betters to interpret OUR laws using the vaguest of vague penumbral interpretations and readings. We have allowed two words in the Article I, Section 8 — “Welfare” and “Commerce” to be the ticket to legislative tyranny not seen in this country since the reign of King George.

The saddest part of all is that WE have allowed this to happen, for whatever reason. Millions of people don’t vote, millions vote for personal gain or benefit (or shall I say entitlement?), and millions more vote because they are told to do so and for whom (and perhaps million more vote who are prohibited, like felons and the dead!) And even worse, we are discouraged from discussing the Constitution in an informed manner because our educational system refuses to place much value in us being Constitutionally aware. No, our Constitutional awareness and discourse has been transmogrified into political party bickering and trying to obtain primacy over the goody giving that has become the raison d’etre of the federal government.

So for me, it’s not just enough to throw the bums out. Our problems run deeper than the group of 540 or so individuals who make up our elected federal representatives. No, our problems are systemic and run much deeper and thus need stronger medicine than a mere change of faces. Unfortunately, the change needs to occur in each of us, or in a majority of the voters who turn out each election. We need to place more emphasis and value in those individuals who promise us less, but similarly promise to hold dear and faithfully observe each provision as written in the Constitution. Until we get this tacit fealty, we are doomed. There is just no other way to express it.

But I’m also a realist, as I fear we’ve reached the tipping point in our society where more people obtain benefit from their vote — so why not vote for an utterly anti-Constitutional candidate regardless of the overall impact to our nation? We may have already entered into that democratic suicide pact with our government that cannot be stopped no more than a runaway train may be.

Unfortunately once we’ve reached that tipping point, there is exactly ZERO remaining chance that we can regain a solid Constitutional footing in the operation of our federal government. Let’s face it, only a fool would vote to slaughter and barbecue their cash cow! So, the only thing left that we can do is hold on tight and try not to be too negatively affected by the wild ride to wherever our situation as a country eventually takes us. Perhaps at some point it becomes every man and woman for themselves. Who knows?

Happy landings…

  • Ship Ahoy! SOS!! If there wasn’t so much hubris and duplicity involved, I’d probably have a little more empathy for the Obama administration. Because the wheels are coming off that wagon in a big way, or nautically speaking, the good ship Obama has run aground. Between his sinking in opinion polls, the mutiny in the Democrat ranks and the once lock-step, fawning, liberal media starting to turn on him, Obama and his minions are in serious political trouble. Although the future of our country is affected by all this, it is definitely a well-deserved comeuppance for this man who believes — truly believes — he is a demigod. I’m finally on the HOPE and CHANGE bandwagon: I hope that the Republicans can take both the House and the Senate and bring Obama’s contrarian agenda to a grinding halt. There has been no president in history so deserving of the term “lame duck” as our, hopefully, Commander-In-Brief.
  • Useful Idiots. Yesterday’s declaration by the NAACP that the Tea Parties are racist (or at least have significant racist elements) is the opening shot in the official 2010 election season. The resorting to ad hominem attacks and making unsubstantiated, specious accusations are the hallmark and chief tool in the Democrat toolkit. It’s apparent that the Democrat powers-that-be see a potential advantage by scatter-casting the racist tag on their Republican opponents, and that the NAACP is just a group of useful idiots in achieving this end. However, I think that the average American voter is seething angry, and furthermore they see clean through the desperation tactics of the Democrats. The Democrats are going to have to live with the consequences of their past legislative actions (like the Porkulis, Obamacare, etc.) and resorting to distractions just ain’t gonna work.
  • A Stranger In These Parts. I’ve finally figured out why Obama has such a tough time relating to the average American citizen. He’s not one of us! To put it kindly, his upbringing was way outside the mainstream. He might have been born and partially raised in Hawaii, but he spent his formative years as a Muslim — in a predominantly Muslim country. while the rest of use were being imbued and inculcated in everything American, young Barry Soetoro was subjected to a culture that is tens of thousands of miles and hundreds of years separated from that of a “mainstream” American. As a result, he’s having a tough time relating to his country, even though he went to college and graduate school here. He is essentially a stranger in a strange country. By the way, a country that he somehow became the leader of. I take little comfort in the fact that I understand him as little as he understands me and my cohort.  Hopefully, this accidental president won’t be allowed to do much harm during his tenure, and hopefully we’ll pick our presidents more carefully in the future. (More on this topic to come!)
  • Whither Europe and the Euro?? Things have become awfully quiet on the financial front in Europe. The problems with the PIIGS and the Euro have suddenly become back-burner news over the span of four short weeks. Could it be a case of the calm before the storm? Or could it be an example of a tree falling in the woods with nobody to hear it? Whatever the case, if Europe does fall, it will take us with it. Because with all the spending like a drunken sailor (the Congress’ spending gives drunken sailors a bad name!) and the intergalactic-sized deficits here, our economy and our government’s finances are tottering at the edge of the abyss. I wish I could blame hyperbole on my feelings, but I’m too grounded in reality to become hyperbolic at such a grave and serious time in our history.
  • Clueless In California. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) recently became the poster boy for cluelessness. In a recent town hall meeting with his constituents, he claimed that he had not heard about the recent brouhaha regarding voter intimidation by the New Black Panthers in Philadelphia during the 2008 elections. Please, Mr. Sherman — do us all a favor. You are obviously not very engaged in the goings on in our country, so call it a day — retire — ride off into the sunset with whatever scrap of credibility or dignity that you can.  Otherwise, I beg the voters of the California 27th to retire Mr. Sherman for your and his own good.
  • The Revenge of Obamacare, Part CCXVII! It seems like a week doesn’t go by when some new, and deleterious provision of Obamacare comes to light. And the newest affront to our sensibilities doesn’t even have to do with healthcare! No, it seems that a hidden and formerly obscure (until it’s passage) provision of Obamacare is the requirement for businesses to provide 1099 to vendors with whom they do more than $600 of business. My immediate question is: What the hell does this have to do with healthcare? It doesn’t, and it was one of the manifold ways that the desperate Democrats were trying to squeeze every penny that they could out of us citizens in order to pay for this monstrosity, and give them a favorable CBO report on “savings.” well, we now know those claims of savings to be a sham, but here we are left to deal with the collateral damage. As a small business owner, this new requirement is not only a nuisance, but it is a damper on my business. I will make damn sure that I just don’t procure more than $600 of anything with a single supplier. It will force me to keep track of my purchases and to spread my purchasing around. Because I will not be doing make work tasks, that prevent me from conducting real business, if I don’t have to.

Our Fearless Leader has unveiled his sure-to-win strategy for Democrats in the fall elections.  In a speech yesterday at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Obama railed against the GOP and Republican candidates, and he revealed what will probably be the catch-line that he will force upon our ears during the upcoming election cycle:

“This is a choice between the policies that led us into the mess or the policies that are leading us out of the mess,” Obama said. “It’s a choice between falling backward and moving forward.”

Clearly Obama, his handlers and the TOTUS didn’t think this strategy out very clearly. Apparently he believes that for some reason that for the past four-plus years that the Republicans were in the majority and furthermore they had some semblance of control of government priorities in Washington.

Earth-to-Barack: NO THEY DIDN’T!! It was YOU and THE DEMOCRAT MAJORITY!!!

But that’s not going to stop His Highness and the remainder of the Democrats seeking re-election from not only stretching the truth, but twisting it into pretzel-like contortions. They’ve got elections to win and onerous legislation to create, then pass — truth be damned!! It didn’t (and doesn’t matter) that the likes of Barney Frank (D-MA) and Christopher Dodd (D-CT) were responsible for the Freddie/Fannie/mortgage meltdown, and the fallout from the subprime mortgages and subsequent derivatives trading schemes. They encouraged this and they supported this via legislation and via opposition to Republican calls for closer scrutiny and regulation. But what’s a little truth and historical accuracy in the face of completing incomplete socialist/statist agendas.

And let’s not forget the inter-galactic-sized budget deficit and debt. Since the last echo of Obama’s oath of office reverberated, he has borrowed, spent and taxed us into oblivion. Our deficit is now twice as high as it was under George Bush and growing daily. Jeesh, I just read that we added $166 BILLION in one day to the debt on June 30th, a number that is more than the advertised, but later discredited, “savings” from Obamacare and the entire US budget deficit for 2007. under the “leadership” of Obama, we have started to discount billion in favor of trillions. “Oh, the proposed legislation will “only” cost $300 billion…that’s not bad as compared to a trillion.” And pneumonia isn’t that bad when compared to cancer!

And we’re supposed to forget the actual, authentic past and buy into Obama’s self-serving revisionist entreaties. He obviously thinks we’re idiots of  humongous proportions, willing to buy any balderdash that falls from his lips or scrolling across the TOTUS.

No flipping way!!

If the Republicans possess half a collective brain, they’ll seize upon Obama’s new tag line and use it to their advantage. I have an example that they could use:

“Do you want to return to prosperity or be tied up with socialist regulations and laws and then pushed down a flight of stairs by the Democrats and Obama only to have your pockets picked when you land and then be rejected for health care for your injuries?”

I know, I know, it needs a little work, but it’s a starting point!!

Next Page »