Michael Wolfe

Study up. Stand up. Speak up. Pray up!

Archive for the ‘politics’ Category

How anti-Obama people undermine the fight for liberty

Posted by americana83 on March 27, 2015

Some people will not like this post, because people who think they are doing what is best for the country (or indeed anyone) don’t like to be told that what they are doing is wrong, or detrimental to the very causes they profess to believe in.

What is an anti-Obama person? Isn’t that ANYONE who opposes the president’s agenda? No. These are two different groups, though there are definitely some people who are in both camps. An anti-Obama person is someone who continually criticizes trivial or meaningless things. They are the ones who viciously attack the person behind the agenda. They may use racist language. They almost always use what they deem to be “creative,” “cute” or “clever”  terminology when describing the president, his wife or their party, such as Obeyme, Oblabla, Moochelle, democraps,  and many others, some far worse. Some of the ones who belong to both groups will publish and write beautiful columns, commentary, or critique and then render it meaningless when attempting to dialing with democrats, independents and minorities by throwing in these slanderous terms. What good is hard hitting commentary if you cannot use it to dialogue? How long are we going to keep writing these things for the sole purpose of preaching to the choir? As our country continues to deteriorate we continue wasting our time and alienating those we need to reach in order to change the direction our country is headed.

Do we really want to turn people off. How many of your friends and family are apolitical or sick of politics? How do they get there? People showing at the top of their lungs talking points, making crude and unbecoming remarks about the president’s wife’s figure. Seriously! People are carping over the first lady’s dress while this Administration is in the middle of a series of 500 million dollar payments TO IRAN that will total at least 12 BILLION dollars. The president just recently laid bare Israel’s top secret nuclear program and all we can talk about is how he didn’t call to congratulate Bibi on his recent election win? Wake up America! You may think its cute or important, but then the rest of us have to spend days, weeks, months, years attempting to repair the DAMAGE you have caused to the cause. Will it be worth it when Jeb Bush steals the nomination? Will it be worth it when Hillary takes office? We have laws to repeal and freedoms to secure, but never mind all that, how terrible did you think Michelle Obama’s dress was? That’s what really matters.

Posted in politics | Leave a Comment »

Article V and the “Countermand Amendment”

Posted by americana83 on February 19, 2015

There is a vigorous campaign to get the states to call a Constitutional Convention for the purposes of passing a “countermand amendment.” What is the countermand amendment? It is a rather lengthy amendment that purports to allow states to exercize their “unenumerated powers” in the 10th amendment. Further, according to advocates, they will call a “Countermand Amendment convention” for the sole purpose of passing the Countermand amendment. The name is presumably to placate those who oppose opening an Article V convention (despite the fact that there is no such kind of convention recognized in Article V, nor any prescribed limits placed upon it by the Constitution itself. Article V was not intended to be a “surgical strike” for a small failure or oversight (which was intended to be corrected via the single amendment process that has been used for all amendments passed to date. Article V was designed for an urgent systematic failure OF THE CONSTITUTION. This is an important distinction. Many of those who are calling for a Convention are doing so because of the results of repeatedly electing politicians who ignore the clear limits and prescriptions for power in the Constitution. As such, the problem is NOT the Constitution, and will NOT be solved by changing the Constitution, it will only be solved by electing politicians that abide by the written limits on their powers. The text of the amendment below is from the source:

Section 1.  The Article restores State sovereignty in our Constitutional Republic by providing State Legislatures Countermand authority.

Section one states what the purpose of the amendment is supposed to be. However, in the Constitution, the only real matter of lost state sovereignty was the amendment that took from the states their representation in the Senate and converted it to a popular vote. The House was supposed to be the people’s house and the Senate was supposed to the representation of the States. The Countermand amendment does not address this key erosion of state sovereignty.

Section 2. State Legislatures in the several States shall have the authority to Countermand and rescind any Congressional Statute, Judicial decision, Executive Order, Treaty, government agency’s regulatory ruling, or any other government or non-government mandate (including excessive spending and credit) imposed on them when in the opinion of 60 percent of State Legislatures the law or ruling adversely affects their States’ interest.  When the Countermand threshold has been reached, the law or ruling shall be immediately and automatically nullified and repealed.  This Countermand authority shall also apply to existing laws and rulings.

This section which purportedly allows states to rescind (nullify) illegal federal actions, actually greatly constrains it. It only permits states to refuse illegal power grabs when 60% of the states agree it is an illegal power grab

Section 3. From the time the initial Countermand is issued by a State Legislature, the other Legislatures shall have 18 months to complete the Countermand process.  If the Countermand process is not completed in 18 months, then the law or ruling that is being challenged shall remain enforceable.

Section 3 further reduces the power of nullification. It says that  the 60% must come to an agreement that the power grab is illegal within 18 months! That is one year and 4 months. Many illegal regulations and laws do not have their worst aspects felt for a year or more from enactment. Obamacare has taken years to have its worst aspects start to be felt!

Even further than that, it gives these illegal power grabs the full force of law if the countermand process is not completed within 18 months! This is absolutely terrible. It would have given such power grabs as the fugitive slave law, REALid, and Obamacare the crown of proper legislation, and would have prevented any states from resisting these actions! Illegal laws and rulings are thus given the cover of the Supreme Law of the land if opposition can be stalled or stymied for 18 months!

Section 4.  Each State Legislature must complete their Countermand affidavit and deliver a certified copy to the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, the Leader of the United States Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President of the United States, and when applicable the Government Agency or Body that is being challenged.

Section 4 is merely a procedural section.

Section 5.  Any elected or non-elected government official, or any non-government individual or organization, who intentionally obstructs or prevents the implementation of any provision in this Article shall have committed a criminal offense and shall be subject to impeachment (when applicable) and criminal prosecution and upon conviction serve up to five years in prison.

Presumably, this would also apply to those state legislators, state or local courts, governors, and other officials who would attempt to continue to resist or nullify an illegal federal action beyond the 18 month window when such attempts were not joined and simultaneously completed by at least 60% of the states. 60% is highly unreasonable and 18 months is a severe limitation on the power of nullification.

Section 6.  Individual States shall have authority to prosecute violators of this Article under State laws in the absence of Federal prosecution after 90 days from the date of the alleged violation.  Multiple prosecutions, by multiple States, for the same alleged crime are prohibited.

Could this also be used by states who are supportive of the illegal federal power grab to prosecute those state officials who might continue to resist as well?

Section 7. The Article shall be immediately part of the United States Constitution upon ratification by three quarters of the State Legislatures in the several States.

Section 8.  The provisions of this Article are enforceable within the United States which shall include the Several States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and the territories and possessions of the United States.

TLDR / Conclusion: States should neither pass the Countermand Amendment nor call for an Article V convention, as this amendment will severely curtail their 10th amendment rights to nullify unconstitutional government actions, and will give constitutional protection to illegal government actions, if opponents cannot muster 60% of state legislatures to join them, or if the federal government or its allies can stall the opposition for a mere 18 months.

Posted in politics | Leave a Comment »

Another persective on the influences that impact men, and #yesallwomen.

Posted by americana83 on May 27, 2014

Apparently, some think that vintage values and a desire to try to become rich are the root causes of mass shootings like the most recent scumbag who decided to murder women because he “couldn’t get one.” So wealth and power are to blame for this, and are the equivalents of sexual aggression? Traditional gender roles are to blame? I would suggest the oppositve, I wonder if its wasn’t on some level an evil polar reaction to the radical feminist line of “hate all men.”

From the article linked above: “Rodger was crazier and more violent than most people, but his beliefs are on a continuum with misogynistic, class-based ideas that are held by many.”

Seriously? If we’re on a rage against a construct of vanished cultural mores that have about as much influence as 8-track music releases today, it really does fly in the face of the long dead concept of chivalry.

A man not afraid to “pleasure himself” in public is a symptom not of a long dead 1950’s Leave it to Beaver cultural ethos, but of a hyper-sexualized society. We are seeing the ripening fruits of the so called sexual revolution. Sex and sexuality are blasted at us from across nearly the entirety of the culture. Kids are saturated in sexual instruction at schools, radio stations continually cycle sexually provocative songs, women are objectified and sexy clothing popularized by the Hollywood crowd. We as a people are drenched in sexual “entertainment” and “education” and then commanded to show a level of restraint that was murdered not long after the “Leave it to Beaver” cultural ethos.

It is not blaming the women, the scumbag who lays his hands on any woman or who tries or does take her life ought to be punished as seriously as the law allows when the evidence is conclusive. It is a statement of fact, that in a sexualized culture, when a woman who possesses the culture’s definition of sexually attractive, dresses in a way construed as sexually arousing, the likelihood of her attracting unwanted attention increases, sort of like someone flashing around lots of money in the wrong places. Given the animalistic nature that has been unchained, it is due to the worth of every woman that she should consider where she will be and minimize the risk of harm, or at the very least, be armed and know how to defend herself from potential hostiles. You may cringe at modesty or weapons, but it would be better to either go unnoticed or to physically repel an attacker and call the police to come get the body than to have one’s self savagely violated or slaughtered. Our culture may have already degraded to the point where rapists need to start becoming the victims of their own attacks for the rest to finally get the message.

It could also be argued that a Darwinist influence has helped to depreciate the value of life. How long have we been taught through our schools and through repeated reminders in generally accepted as scientific media, that we are all mere animals, brute beasts no better or different than monkeys or pigs? Which among the beasts possesses sexual restraint? Most beasts will mate whenever with whomever is ready. And its not just men. While human nature has always gravitated towards such things, it has been unchained from cultural restraints and from the underlying religious restraints, which the author vilifies as “dominance of the man and submission of the woman, without understanding the context placed on submission by the Christian scriptures:

Ephesians 5:22-29  Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.  (23)  For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body.  (24)  Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.  (25)  Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;  (26)  That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,  (27)  That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.  (28)  So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.  (29)  For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

Christ loves the church, he died that we might live. This flies in the face of the culturally generated stigma that blames these verses for locking wives in a kitchen and taking from them all manner of choice. Those who believe this would do well to consider the Proverbs 31 description of a virtuous woman, who is not only a household manager, but a small business owner and property buyer.


Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil. She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life. She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands. She is like the merchants’ ships; she bringeth her food from afar. She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens. She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard. She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms. She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night. She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff. She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy. She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet. She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple. Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land. She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant. Strength and honor are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come. She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness. She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness. Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her. Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all. Favor is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised. Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates. (Proverbs 31:10-31)

It should be clear that Biblical concepts such as submission of the wife in the marriage union have nothing to do with unleashing a generation of perverts on the women of America. And it certainly has little to do with “odd” fixations on houses and property, or the capitalist ability to generate wealth. Many among the rich and poor alike have embraced the now faded “music” group the Bloodhound Gang’s view on sex and life from their hit song: “you and me babe ain’t nothing but mammals, so lets do it like they do on the discovery channel.” It also has nothing to do with submitting to the sexual domination of a predator. Such attacks should be mitigated or physically repulsed by the woman whether some kind of spray or with deadly force such as that offered by a handgun. Because, #yesallwoman have the right to be unmolested in their effects and persons.

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

BLM vs the Rule of Law at the Bundy Ranch

Posted by americana83 on April 17, 2014

The aftermath of the first stage of federal physical force against the Bundy’s is now being assessed. The government destroys water tanks, shoots bulls, and generally oversteps even their judge’s own court order to “only” steal cattle. The government even crushes at least one nest of the turtles they feign to be protecting. They also want to “de-improve” the land, which of course is in line with the UN document Agenda 21, which paints human use of land as a blight, and envisions a dedustrialized West with mankind forced to live in cities with only very limited interaction with rural or “wild” lands…

This is gangster government. $200 per day per head of cattle in extortion money demanded by feds… Shoot, did the Mafia ever have it so good? Of course federal judges back this up. It takes a rare judge with a deep abiding sense of justice and a thorough knowledge of Constitutional Law to stand against the those who appointed them. Also, when did the BLM gain the authority to curtail an easement and demand extortionist payments for lawful activities that went on since the late 1800s, well before the BLM was even a thought? The government has no right. If the government values the easement at $640 MILLION, then it should offer to buy out the Bundy family’s easement at fair market value. Of course, the Federal government ought not to own as much land as it already does. Such land is properly the property of the state in which it resides, or of private individuals from whom it is routinely stolen in the name of The Greater Good.

All this lawlessness plays right into the goal of increased government control of our lives. The recent moves by the Obama administration to move the internet to a “global stakeholder” model of control only means that when viewpoints on the internet that are unpopular with the Establishment begin to be heavily censored and commerce taxed, that the offenders will be out of reach of rebuke. Which will mean that the next time the Federal government decides to abuse some ranchers, farmers, land owners, etc, there will be no one to turn to when the news is blocked…

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Affordable Care Act and Structural Premium Hikes

Posted by americana83 on September 26, 2013

There have been many accounts recently of very substantial premium hikes and numerous employers ceasing to provide coverage for their employees. Why is this? Among other things, the structure of “health reform” practically guarantees rate hikes.

It is increasingly well known that among the things Obama’s healthcare “reform” bill did was to increase mandatory benefits. Services such as keeping adult kids (oxymoron?) on healthcare plans, pre-existing condition coverage requirements, “preventative” care coverage birth control and many other things that not everyone wants (or needs) are expensive “benefits” to mandate. As such, it is no surprise that companies are dumping people into the government system. As such, it is no surprise that costs of premiums are skyrocketing across the board. The more benefits required, the higher the premium will be.

Middleman. Preventive and routine healthcare being added to insurance coverage completely changes the purpose of insurance. It is supposed to insure against catastrophic or unexpected and very expensive procedures. What it has become is a middleman payment system, now with both the government and the insurance company serving as middlemen. Layers of bureaucracy and red tape combined with the insurance company hierarchy and you have a recipe to increase costs without even considering the “benefits” mandates. The more middlemen you have and the longer payment for services is strung out, the more costs you have. Services such as routine and preventive care are likely to be used much more often than catastrophic or expensive procedures, and the added costs of the middlemen will show up.

When the association is voluntary, a middleman can provide a benefit, such as bulk purchasing power. However, when the middlemen are compelled by government dictate, free market benefits are lost and the money and time siphoned off by the middlemen / parasites requires costs of the services themselves to go up.

Paperwork. The more paperwork required, the more time it takes. The more time it takes, the more people you need to waste their time processing paper. Of course, this dovetails in with the electronic records mandate, which adds cost levels due to further required time and expertise. Costs will have to rise to compensate for the loss of man hours and capital to convert records over and maintain them. And this doesn’t even get into the loss of privacy and government invasion of private medical records.

Medical device tax. A special tax added to medical devices. This makes the cost of these devices go up, which in turn increases the costs for the insurance company which in turn increases premiums.

Imagine if car insurance were required to cover oil changes, wipers, tires, and pre-existing damage, and that there was a special tax added to car parts. What would that do to car insurance? The same exact thing it is doing to health insurance. The same thing will happen to any product or service where the provider or manufacturer is mandated to provide certain “benefits” or “features” as a minimum standard.

One way to reverse this trend would be to return economic liberty to the insurance companies and to the consumers to decide what benefits they want and if they even wish to purchase insurance. In the meantime, expect premiums and the costs of medical care to continue to climb as Obama’s healthcare control law continues the multi-generational extra-constitutional march towards government controlled medicine.

Also seen on newsninja2012.com


Posted in politics | Leave a Comment »

Balance the Budget, Change the Constitution?

Posted by americana83 on November 20, 2012

Alec has joined with others to call for an Article V Convention, and promises a way to a safe and limited convention which only addresses the issue of a balanced budget amendment. Before considering the argument, it would be best to look at the Constitution itself to see what legal limitations are placed on such a convention:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

The first section of article V addresses the familiar method of constitutional amendment, which has been done many times since the founding. Article V has really only actually been done once before, and then under the auspices of the previous constitution: the Articles of Confederation, which shows us how a convention goes.

Simply speaking, according to article V, 2/3 of the states apply to the congress, which then proceeds to call for a convention to propose amendments. After this, they must be approved by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states, OR by conventions, depending on which method is proposed by the Congress.

A straight forward reading of Article V shows that the only limitation placed upon such a convention, is that the international slave trade could not be abolished prior to 1808 and the states cannot be deprived of equal representation in the senate without their consent. That is it. Any promises of any other imposable limitations do not pass constitutional muster. Article V provides an escape hatch up to and including a complete rewrite of the Constitution. Since the founders were conducting a great experiment, there had to be a way to completely revise it if it proved unworkable or had some great defect. Article V provides the means for a peaceful political revolution. However, history has shown us now that the Constitution had no fatal flaws, and the need for “fundamental change” is greatly exaggerated. In fact, it is a lack of adherence to the existing Constitution which leads to a seriously out of control spending spree and an ever expanding and more intrusive government. This is NOT an article V scenario. This is an issue that can only provide the illusion of being addressed by a “balanced budget amendment, seeing as the government flouts the existing amendments regularly. Conservatives are not living in reality if they believe that they can prevent or negate what would surely be a considerable progressive influence in any convention. New York, the beltway, California and other large progressive centers would not doubt demand and receive due influence at any such convention, as well as progressives at large, such as the successors of ACORN and the various progressive think tanks such as the Tides Foundation, Center for the American Way, and the Council on Foreign Relations. Also, a Constitutional convention would provide a unique opportunity for team Obama to legally implement the fullness of his promise to “fundamentally transform” this country.

ALEC, the usually Conservative leaning American Legislative Exchange Council is actively promoting the idea of an Article V Constitutional convention as a safe and limited method to push through a balanced budget amendment and save the country. Throughout their work on the matter, they make constant reference to support for the balanced budget amendment in their push to compel people to embrace the idea of an Article V Convention. They then quote the heritage foundation, who managed somewhere in article V of the US constitution to find a limiting mechanism and appealing to “authorties” rather than to the actual text of the amendment:

“Worries [regarding a run-away convention] are based upon a misperception of the nature of an Article V convention and of the safeguards built into the amendment process. A wide variety of authorities, including a special study committee of the American Bar Association, point out that a convention legally can be limited to a particular subject. These limitations can be enforced by Congress or by the courts. A convention also would be constrained by a range of political factors, including the election of its delegates.
They bill the convention as the ulimate exercize of state’s rights, yet proceed to state:
Congress must designate whether state legislatures or state ratifying conventions are to ratify the amendment. This gives Congress a tool to stop, in effect, any amendments that exceed the convention’s charge.
And then despite vehement protest against labeling this movement for a convention a constitutional convention, they cite this (and ironically right after saying congress has a tool to stop amendments from the convention!):
the framers of the Constitution wisely intended the convention method to be a vital counterweight to the powers of Congress to block amendments. As the campaign for direct elections to the U.S. Senate demonstrated, the threat of a constitutional convention sometimes is necessary to force consideration of amendments that challenge the self-interest of Capitol Hill lawmakers.
In effect conceding it is a constitutional convention, while still denying it, and saying it is the highest states rights while saying congress can block it… all these quotes come from the PDF file Addendum: Other Questions (regarding the Article V Constitutional Convention).
The main PDF from ALEC, “Article V Handbook” goes through great pains to ease the concerns about an Article V Convention. It simply rejects as “inaccurate” the body of work explaining the full scope of power afforded to a Article V Convention, before concluding that, “there have been a few solid studies of the process, and the recommendations in this Handbook are based on their research and conclusions” Of course, their handbook is the result of the only good studies, and does not have an agenda, as those shady anti-convention people do. This is dishonest and unfair, especially since they ignore that there is nothing in the text that limits the topic of the convention and conceding in the Addendum that a convention can set its own rules. Either this Convention has the power to fundamentally change the constitution or it is severely limited. To ALEC, it is both things simultaneously which is impossible. In summary to the first portion ALEC says to note:
• The principal reason for the state application and convention process is to enable the states to check an oppressive or runaway Congress—although the Constitution does not actually limit the process to that purpose.
• The Framers explicitly designed the process to enable the states to substantially bypass Congress.

Given that congress is still involved in the convention process, it seems incorrect to assert the purpose was to thwart a “runaway congress,” but rather to check the advances of a runaway executive. Does it make sense to involve the abusive party in the process? Remember, the founders had much more concern regarding the executive, as opposed to the legislature. The second bullet point is just not true. The petition goes to congress for congress to call the convention, and the ratification process is chosen by congress. Does that really sound like “substantially bypassing” congress? ALEC then takes comfort in the idea that the Supreme Court will enforce the rights of state legislatures, and again asserts the myth of substantial bypass of congress. No one is entitled to their own facts, or to amend the words of Article V to say something that they absolutely do not say. They then go on to specify how states can apply to Congress (the one they claim the states are bypassing!) for a convention, designating open and limited petitions. Unfortunately for ALEC, there is no such distinction in Article V, which only allows for opening up a “Convention for proposing Amendments.”

They then invent a legal fiction which DOES NOT exist in article V, that the applications must be on the same topic. They repeat this multiple times, though again, a straight forward reading of Article V does not in any way place this limitation on the Amendments Convention. On page 14 of the Article V Factbook, this legal fiction is explicitly stated as fact:

The Constitution assigns Congress a routine duty it must perform. It is important to note, however, that congressional receipt of 34 applications is not sufficient; those applications must relate to the same subject matter.
It merely says on the application of two-thirds of the states. It doesn’t matter if the calls are for a balanced budget amendment or calls to abolish the right to bear arms or put Carbon taxes into the Constitution Once two-thirds of the states have sent petitions in, it is time for congress to act.
They repeat it again on the same page: The power to “call” an interstate convention authorizes Congress only to count and categorize the applications by subject matter, announce on what subjects the two-thirds threshold has been reached, and set the time and place of the convention.
They also assert another legal fiction after stating some evident truths:
Accordingly, a convention for proposing amendments has no authority to violate Article V or any other part of the Constitution. According to the rules in Article V, the convention may not propose a change in the rule that each state has “equal Suffrage in the Senate,”12 nor may it alter the ratification procedure.

There is nothing in Article V that prevents an amendment from adjusting the ratification process. They then discuss precedent in delegate selection, but the ultimate truth is that each state will do what it wants. This presents some difficulties for the professed purpose.

Alone, progressive radicals do not have the numbers to call for their own convention, however, through California’s radical legislature and some other states, they could easily pose a strong influence on any convention. ALEC talks as if the convention will take place in a conservative vacuum where Alinsky radicals are not allowed and a strict-constructionist anti-communist mindset are not allowed. Liberals have plenty of ideas to “balance the budget,” even if it is only for the purpose of making grow even more.

They then go on to attack those who oppose the Article V convention’s use. I would agree in a sense, though not how they intend. There really can’t be a runaway convention. Because barring the topics of equal representation in the senate and the now passed deadline regarding importation of slaves, the Convention can propose as many and as varied of amendments as it wishes. It can even end run hostile legislatures in the states if Congress opts for “conventions” for the purpose of ratification.

Many of their claims of safety stem from the myth of a Convention limited by topic, and ironically also hinge on a Supreme Court STRIKING DOWN a federal Constitutional Amendment (or amendments!) ratified by 3/4 of the states.

Article V is for proposing changes to the Constitution. We do not need fundamental change. The experiment which the Founders hedged all on has been a success, and would still be so today if we held our government accountable to following it. Congress has made laws violating their limits (EG light bulb bans, healthcare mandates). Congress and the president have both set up government bodies that go beyond the jurisdiction of federal powers (Department of Education, TSA, HUD, EPA, etc though such bodies MIGHT find a home at the state level depending on the state’s constitution and laws). Congress and the president have set up huge unconstitutional wealth redistribution programs for the purpose of buying votes and expanding federal power under the guise of “fairness” or “charity” Congress would ignore any Balanced Budget Amendment with teeth, and would only embrace one which had an escape hatch that could let them continue to spend how ever they want, just like this one. See my article addressing it specifically here.

In short, if we want to fix this problem, we can only solve it by fixing who we send to Washington. We do not need to edit our constitution via convention. We do not need a balanced budget amendment. We DO need a drastically REDUCED federal budget that will allow us to pay down the debt and then reduce taxes across the board.

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Don’t blame Romney, blame Ann Coulter

Posted by americana83 on November 13, 2012

If there is an Obama girl parallel for Romney this election cycle, it was definitely Ann Coulter. Even now, she refuses to assign any blame to Mitt Romney, blaming everyone else, attacking pro-life senators and stubbornly refusing to see the progressive socialist that was Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts record. Think I’m wrong dubbing her “ObamaGirl 2012,” just look at this (All quotes unless otherwise noted are from this article on the DailyCaller:

Romney was the perfect candidate, and he was the president this country needed right now. It’s less disheartening that a president who wrecked American health care, quadrupled gas prices, added $6 trillion to the national debt and gave us an 8 percent unemployment rate can squeak out re-election than that America will never have Romney as our president.

Indeed, Romney is one of the best presidential candidates the Republicans have ever fielded. Blaming the candidate may be fun, but it’s delusional and won’t help us avoid making the same mistakes in the future.

What a steaming load of fan boy drivel. If the best presidential candidate the republicans have ever fielded is one that foisted pre-Obama ObamaCare on the masses, complete with contraception and coverage mandates, approve so-called assault weapons bans, decreed homosexual marriage by executive order, then there must be two democrat parties. Romney is probably one of the WORST republican candidates ever fielded, because all his positions and attacks were blunted by his own record. If he pointed and shouted too loudly against things like ObamaCare and global warming, he would have had a dozen fingers pointing back at him. Oh, wait, that did happen. And the RINO sellout abandoned his rhetoric and returned to his record praising the parts of “healthcare reform” he wanted to keep, essentially all the free handouts except maybe the mandate, and even that is dubious since he has no qualms and once called his own tyrannical project a “model for the nation,” a phrase he conveniently omitted from a reissue of one of his books.

She did have a brief love affair with another Obama embracing, anti-coal, top down RINO:

After supporting Mitt Romney in 2008, some of you may recall, I ran off with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie midway through Obama’s first term for precisely that reason: The near-impossibility of beating an incumbent president. Christie seemed like the kind of once-in-a-lifetime star who could pull a Reagan upset against an incumbent president.

She then opines:

Obama started running anti-Romney ads in Ohio before the Republican primaries were even over.

Maybe that’s because Romney was who Obama wanted to run against. People believed Obama feared Romney! Laugh out loud! Obama wanted a spineless, feckless opportunistic etch-a-sketch opponent, and Romney was just the man for the job. The perfect candidate, if you will. Then she complains about VETTING! Yes, Ann doesn’t want people vetting aka “beating up on our candidate” before he was even the candidate! Isn’t that kind of the point of a primary? Would Ann prefer our candidate be annointed by some all-knowing vanguard of the people like, say, herself?

A little less time beating up our candidate in the primaries so that he could have started campaigning earlier would have helped.

Memo to Ann, at that point he wasn’t “our” candidate. He was YOUR candidate. Kind of like Obama was Obam Girl’s candidate. What makes it ironic is that in previous article, Ann wrote THIS:

The single most important issue in this election is ending the national nightmare of Obamacare. If Obamacare is not stopped, it will permanently change the political culture of this country. There will be no going back. America will become a less productive, less wealthy nation. What wealth remains will have to be plowed into Obamacare — to the delight only of the tens of thousands of government bureaucrats administering it.

And yet, she supported the guy who endorsed ObamaCare mandates! The grandfather of this modernized tyranny!
Ann Coulter wants to posit herself as a guardian of all things Christian and Conservative, which becomes more of a joke everytime she moves farther left. But what can you do when your idols are moving left? You have to follow them. You have to bash on prolife candidates and excoriate anyone who takes a position that makes establishment RINOs nervous:
Purist conservatives are like idiot hipsters who can’t like a band that’s popular…. just as show-off social conservatives consider it a mark of integrity that their candidates — Akin, Mourdock, Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell — take wildly unpopular positions and lose elections.
Oh, it can’t be the party’s fault on some of these. It couldn’t be ELECTION FRAUD. No, its the fault of those who take stands that, I don’t know, they ACTUALLY BELIEVE in! I guess when you make a habit of embracing sellouts that have to HIDE from their record, it becomes essential to blame those who actually STAND for something. She even blasts Bachmann for having the audacity to run for president. She also fails to take note that the PARTY denounced Akin and pulled ALL funding, even as he was still even up with his socialist opponent. I guess Ann would rather have a socialist than a man of principle take power.Here is where you can identify a partisan. A partisan is not a conservative or a liberal. A partisan is one who BLINDLY follows Party loyalty over ALL matters of policy and personnel. Ann Coulter is not a conservative and may not be Christian, but she is definitely a partisan. She made some heat with her incendiary rhetoric which once seemed conservative, but this election cycle really brought out her partisan side. Which leads her to denounce all who break status quo-orthodoxy, and demand silence from conservatives. SHUT UP AND SUPPORT WHO I SAY TO SUPPORT or you hate this country, mom and apple pie could basically sum up Coulter’s position. Even as she endorses RINOS, and embraces”conservative” homosexuality via GOProud.
Seems to me that Ann Coulter has one thing in common with Obama: A deep abiding hatred of all things tea party.Perhaps she’s right. Mitt Romney isn’t to blame. He just operated in his own self-interest and ran for president. We have nothing to blame but ourselves for refusing to vet for ourselves and relying on partisan hacks to do our thinking for us, for succumbing to the politics of fear and embracing who the MSM told us was electable, just as we did with McCain back in 2008. Well, I think there is enough blame to spread some around to the partisan hacks that feign themselves to be defenders of conservative constitutionalists orthodoxy but are in fact nothing more than partisan hacks. Of course, to be perfectly clear, this includes you Ann Coulter.

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

A Conservative look at the Heritage Plan “Saving the American Dream”

Posted by americana83 on August 16, 2012

Billed as a plan to “fix the debt, cut spending and restore prosperity, The heritage plan has some undeniably good elements. Unfortunately it does some things that seriously undermine its good points, which center around healthcare, taxes, the role of government and medicare. Ultimately, this is directed not at the Heritage foundation, but at their willingness to let an open advocate of progressive globalism draft a plan that uses Heritage’s good name and conservative reputation to further a plan that contains indisputably socialist elements and takes a wrong approach to what government must do on our behalf.


The plan does nothing to address the core problem facing healthcare in this country, and that is government subsidy and control. The plan accepts as gospel the indisputable fact that the Government can and must pay for healthcare. Not only that, but it accepts that the “rich” must continue to support it through their taxes, while receiving reduced ‘benefits’ or even none at all while those who contribute nothing will get it for free. In short it perpetuates socialism.


The plan actually fails in part because it pegs a FLOOR to government taxing, at a rate pegged by the Peter G Peterson foundation as being the highest rate people can comfortably tolerate (about 18.5% of GDP), and savings are to be poured into the health programs being run by the government, which this plan does absolutely nothing to phase out. It also carves out generous deductions (subsidies) for college. It should be noted that, according to a chart one on page four of the Heritage plan PDF, that 18.5 percent is only about a percentage point lower than the percent through the last term of G.W. Bush.


Role of Government.

It was President Obama who infamously said that you have to “spread the wealth around” and his wife that said, “Someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.

The Heritage plan would do just that. On page 10 we read:

Because the new Social Security is a real insurance system, designed to protect seniors from poverty, retirees with high incomes from sources other than Social Security will receive a smaller check, and very affluent seniors will receive no check.

First, it is not real insurance, we have no choice but to pay into it. And while the new rolled all into one tax plan obfuscates that, the fact is that taxpayers will be paying into a system that will reward those who have not paid into it and do nothing for those that have been forced to pay into it. This is not a conservative plan, this is marxist. On page 14, it breaks it down:

Under the Heritage plan, only about 9 percent of seniors would see their checks reduced and only just over 3.5 percent of seniors would receive no check.

They cite that taxes already dilute everyone’s Social Security checks, but this makes it a strict class-bias with the top 12.5% who have had the most money extorted out of them seeing nothing. Well, that is social justice in action.

But it gets better. Under this “conservative plan,” a new automatic opt-in is created:

Beginning in 2014, a new savings plan will be introduced over two years. Under this plan, 6 percent of each worker’s income is placed in a retirement savings plan that the worker owns and controls unless he or she explicitly declines to have such an account. (This approach is known as automatic enrollment.)

On page 15, it is claimed that the above elimination of benefits for the rich will, “drive the costs of Social Security below the level of taxes collected, those savings will go into the workers’ accounts.” There it is, the benefits paid for by “the rich” will be transferred to the automatically opted in “super 401(k)” accounts created by the Heritage plan. It sounds great, and since only 12.5% will be adversely affected, it will be perfectly fine. That’s democracy in action, right? Tell that to the people who have seen thousands of dollars of their hard earned income consumed by the Leviathan of government. At less than $15 an hour, I’ve already seen almost 900 dollars (plus the unseen 900 dollars taken directly from my employer by the government for the purpose of paying for this system. So I can imagine the cost to those who make way more than that. Of course, as heritage reminded us in the plan, what we pay now is going to someone else’s benefits, and it’s up to future generations to subsidize my generation. No matter what happens, my generation is going to lose money on this. An ideal plan would include the complete phasing out of Federal “retirement insurance” all together, as at least the losses would be limited in duration instead of extending out into perpetuity.


The Heritage plan also tackles Medicare reform. And has this to say:

When the changes are fully phased in, seniors will enroll in the health plans of their choice and receive a defined contribution (known as premium support) toward the cost of their plans, much as Members of Congress and millions of federal employees and retirees do through the FEHBP. (page 18)

The problem is again, what we have is not a plan to wean Americans off mandates, but a new subsidy for the purchase of insurance. We have a government body deciding what is an “adequate level of benefits” and telling us how to save and spend for retirement. Further, richer Americans are again left footing the bill for a plan which takes from them and doesn’t give back. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Is the apparent gist of the Heritage plan’s Medicare and social security reforms. Not to mention government subsidies and supports do little or nothing to decrease the cost of goods and services. Just look at what is happening to the cost of higher education. Government grants of all kinds not to mention state and local government support leaves no incentive for colleges and universities to control costs at all, or to offer degrees that are relevant to the needs of the economy or community. The same can be seen as the government has become a bigger and bigger payer for healthcare (though not yet the single payer, like Obama so badly wants). In short, it will not help the price of healthcare or medical care.

Wealth redistribution and market distortion are not proper roles of government, and are certainly not proper roles to be offered by a conservative organization.

Per our constitution, it is not the role of federal government to offer national retirement insurance, welfare, health insurance, subsidies for the purchase thereof, education, or subsidies for the purchase thereof. By offering so called tax breaks for the purchase of “higher education” or health insurance, the heritage plan does nothing to restore a true free market, which would lower the prices across the board as colleges and health care providers/insurers were no longer guaranteed government money or captive markets. The Heritage plan accepts the Government’s role as nanny. Further, it accepts as gospel the claims that reducing “redundant programs,” other waste and fraud will result in great savings in the political by and by twenty and thirty years down the road. 18.5% of GDP is too much. Almost one out of every 5 dollars in the economy belongs to the Federal government, not even counting state and local taxes?

By accepting 18.5 percent of GDP, we are accepting a government that spends roughly a percentage point below  Bush-Era levels, which is still way too high. The Bush Era saw the expansion of government medicine via Medicare Part D, It saw expanded federal intrusion in schools via no-child left behind and it saw the waging of two wars. We can and must shoot lower. As long as we accept a government that must act as a nanny state and custodian of our healthcare, education and retirement, we can forget about government ever being reduced to a size and intrusiveness (or lack thereof!) that will truly allow America to prosper once again.

Why is the heritage foundation offering up a plan which contains such explicitly socialist elements? The problem lies in large part with who they went to when creating the plan. The Foundation which apparently paid for and which authored this plan is the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, headed by a man of the same name. He and his foundation were also behind the deceptive “Owe No” Campaign, which was directed at the debt as well, and which involved a whole slew of big government socialism.

That Mr. Peterson and his foundation would promote progressivism and wealth redistribution comes as no surprise when you realize that Mr. Peterson is the Chairman Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, a powerful progressive think tank that actively promotes the UN, World Government, the global warming scam, and a whole slew of other progressive programs with the end goal being an invigorated UN serving as the foundation of world government. Most of your high profile RINO republicans will be associated with the CFR.

Believing the Heritage Foundation and the Family Research Council to be good organizations with many good goals, I would urge you to reach out to the FRC and heritage and let them know you reject Mr. Peterson’s big government socialism, and that you would like them to do so to.

In summary: Lowering the corporate tax rate and flattening the tax code is a great thing, but is ruined by mixing in socialism and doing nothing to reduce or eliminate the role of the Federal government in healthcare, education, charity, and retirement planning, ensuring that costs will continue to skyrocket. Mr. Peterson’s second debt solution plan is a Trojan horse for socialism, just like the last one.

You can read my previous article on Mr. Peterson and the “Owe No” Campaign here:

You can view for yourself the entire plan at savingthedream.org, which is currently linked from heritage.org. It even has nice graphical layouts showing people what freebies they will get depending on what demographic they are in!

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Declaration of Restoration 2012

Posted by americana83 on July 27, 2012

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to repair the political system which was set up by our founders, and to restore among our own citizens, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to such serious statements.

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.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government is distorted and becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to scrub it clean, and to renew Government, repairing its foundation on the principles fought for by past generations and organizing its powers in such form, as was most conducive to Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that corrupt men  will gradually introduce evils which are sufferable, and consolidate power to themselves not granted them by their oath or the Supreme Law of the Land. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design clear enough to warn of impending absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these States; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to Restore the Government given us by our founders, which this president has trampled more than any previous President and who’s usurpations we withstood in the shame and cowardice of silence to our detriment. The history of this President is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct or indirect object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world, many of which parallel those by which our Founding Fathers stood firm against the abuses of a runaway Monarchy and which may with the most minor of adjustments in a few cases be fitted to our present day.


He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has affected to [create a] National Civilian Security  Force independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation (UN gun grabs and power grabs through Green PseudoScience)

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the radical inhabitants of our Southern Neighbors, whose known rule of warfare, is an unconcealed Reconquista of the southern united States, consuming their substance and subverting the laws.


He has ensured the failure of our medical system through the enacting of a corrupt and unconstitutional law which violates the rights of the people to life and liberty and which extorts from  them the fruits of their labors.

He has by this same law, laid the foundation for abject tyranny and control over the lives of individuals by an ever expanding army of mandates with fines disguised as taxes.

He has endeavored to ignite a race war and turn brother against brother.

He has mocked our Creator by establishing special months to celebrate sexual perversion “in the year of our Lord.”

He uses the military for perverted social experiments.

He uses our troops to engage in UN world policing, in the toppling of secular dictators and the setting of of socialist or islamist regimes worse than the previous and in pledging our hard earned money to the support of the same.

He has lied repeatedly to the people on matters of great importance.

He has engaged in extensive overseas meddling, such as to make George W. Bush look like a prudent Isolationist.

He has endeavored by usurpations to rob us of our birthright of self defense.

He has conspired with the head of his “justice” department to violate US laws and force private citizens to sell weapons to foreign criminal organizations, causing the deaths of hundreds of Mexican citizens and two of our own border agents.

He has chastised wealthy Americans for their lifestyle only to live as flamboyantly as any king ever has.

He pushes laws and taxes designed to deprive law abiding citizens of the legitimate fruits of their labors and prudent investments.

He has grossly and completely with nearly every action violated his Sacred Oath of office to uphold and defend our Constitution and has shown utter disdain for any who attempt to adhere to such an oath.

He has waged open war against free enterprise, using every tyranny of government to squelch domestic energy exploration and production.

He has repeatedly insulted allies and friends of our Nation.

His departments have and continue to cause grave injury to American companies which have done no wrong and against whom no credible accusation of wrongdoing can be mustered.

He has doubled down on the worst and most oppressive policies of past regimes, bailouts, lies, vote buying, prolonged detention, warrentless wiretapping, and others such as are parellel to Adolph Hitler’s Reichstag Fire proclamation which set the stage for the abject tyranny and terrorization of those groups which the Nazi leadership hated and feared.

He has, by his officials labeled wholesale lots of Good Patriot American citizens “Domestic extremists and terrorists” and would make criminal those who are exercising the faith and freedoms of our forefathers.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in appeals to our leadership. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by this president and their spineless refusal to block his extend and unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our economy and ever more corrupt private and public culture. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common birthright to disavow these usurpations, which, if ignored, will inevitably destroy ours and our children’s future. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our firm Rejection of Socialist Tyranny, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Citizens of the united States of America, in General Agreement, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these States, solemnly publish and declare, That these United States  are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the Obama Administration, and that all political authority granted to him and his regime ought to be totally dissolved; and that they and their criminal coconspirators ought to be tried for high crimes and misdemeanors against the Constitution and against the people of this nation. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. May God save America

Posted in politics | 1 Comment »

The War on Black People

Posted by americana83 on May 10, 2012

Sharpton is right, there is a War on Black Pe0ple. The pr0blem is he missed who is conducting it. Its not the GOP, and it didn’t start yesterday. It was openly conducted by probably the most notorious American racist of the 20th century. She talked of a “Negro problem” the way the Nazis talked of a “Jewish question.” I guess I can’t blame Sharpton for missing it because others far greater than he missed it too (the best I can hope for in this is ignorance). Of course, none of them want to touch it because it is a progressive leader of the only women’s right progressives seem to care about, abortion. Of course its evil leader is Margaret Sanger.

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble

– This and more evil quotes here.

This evil woman was the founder of an organization that receives tax payers’ money. The president embraces it, and received high ranks from it for his political career in Illinois. This organization has murdered more blacks than probably any other racist organization in America in the past hundred years.

More about the dead Commander in Chief of the War on Black People

Her organization eagerly accepts money for “any reason” including a specific request to exterminate black people



How can the so-called leaders of the black community ignore such an organization and even be complicit in its nefarious activities. Those who call themselves ministers especially? And even more, how can a “Reverend” Al Sharpton declare that there is a “War on Black People” without acknowledging the leaders of this war? Further, he must think pretty low of Black Americans if he thinks government welfare cutbacks are targeted at Blacks, when there are many  more white people on those programs, are a war on Black people, then just wait until the whole unsustainable mess collapses. It is better for the government to withdrawal from the failed decades long “war on poverty” (which actually increases dependency and destroys autonomy) now than to face a collapse with no withdrawal period.

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 102 other followers