Monthly Archives: July 2011

Balanced Budget Amendment May Be Only Way Out

I have been opposed to the Balanced Budget Amendment proposed in the Republican Cut Cap and Balance Bill for a number of reasons. The two most important ones are the probability of unintended consequences and the ongoing lawlessness of the federal government.

1. Unintended Consequences: We do not have a very good track record with attempts to improve on the Constitution left us by the Founders. The seventeen Amendments added to the Constitution since the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791 have consistently been used by progressive legislatures and courts to circumvent the intent of the Framers and assault the liberties of the people. The most onerous of these unintended consequences have been found in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Congress and the courts are peopled with lawyers whose stock in trade is their ability to find loopholes in legal documents. Even as I write this a number of Congressional Democrats are suggesting to the President that he “invoke” the Fourteenth Amendment and raise the debt ceiling without the approval of Congress. Even such concise language as that found in the First and Second Amendments have been twisted by progressives to infringe on the very liberties they were intended to protect.

Every unnecessary word in an amendment becomes fodder for progressives in their efforts to twist the Constitution to fit their socialist agenda. Based on our two hundred and twenty year history of Amendments, it is easy to predict that future Presidents and Congresses would claim the power of the purse for the Executive Branch rather than the people’s assembly where it has been throughout our history. They will also claim that the federal government is “entitled” and even “guaranteed” 18% of the money earned by citizens from their intellectual and physical labors for its use for any purpose it desires. These are only two of several possible unintended Consequences of the Proposed Amendment.

2. Wanton Lawlessness: The Constitution proclaims itself to be the “Supreme Law of the Land” governing the operations of the federal government. Every official in the federal, state, and local governments have taken an oath to preserve and defend it; many have done so multiple times as they move from office to office. However, until the rise of the patriot movements in the past few years and the constitution conservatives among its members, government officials have routinely ignored the constraints imposed by the Constitution whenever they were unable to find any previously undetected meanings to justify their progressive agenda. Constitutional lawlessness has been steadily growing for generations and has reached epidemic proportions in our own time. Our first and most important job in restoring the liberties we have lost is to return the federal government to its lawful place under the Constitution.

We now find ourselves on the abyss of extinction as a nation of peace, liberty, freedom and prosperity. Based on recent developments in the progressive’s attempts to bankrupt the treasury and impose a servitude of debt on future generations, a well-crafted Balanced Budget Amendment may be the only hope for saving “America as we know it.” It is likely that in the near term such an amendment would be adhered to until the ardor for constitutional government that is now strong among our citizens, cooled and lost its attraction.

However, any Balanced Budget Amendment passed and sent to the states, must be concise with no “wiggle-room” for politicians and lawyers to exploit. Section one of the proposed amendment seems to meet that criteria.

“Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a roll call vote.”

Everything else in the proposed amendment should be by statutory law — if necessary —  under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Anything more is only inviting unintended consequences that will do more harm than good.

The value of such an Amendment will only be realized in the present crisis if it is used to force Congress and the President to curtail their unsustainable appetite for spending. Conservatives should hold fast to the demand that no increase in the government’s spending limit will be approved until a satisfactory Balanced Budget Amendment has been passed and submitted to the States for ratification. If the progressive Democrats maintain their “no compromise” position, they will be forced to downsize the federal government substantially when they run out of money to spend. That will cause major hardships for many, however, we are in a position much like the passengers on United Flight 93 over the hills of Pennsylvania, September 11, 2001. If we do nothing, we are going down as a nation. If we take a stand we may go down anyway, but if we succeed we can save the future for ourselves and our children and grandchildren.

Call or e-mail your Congressman today and urge them to hold out for a Balanced Budget Amendment as an uncompromising condition for raising the debt ceiling.

Obama Presidency Most Lawless in History

The Obama government is the most lawless government in American History. When the fifty-five delegates to the Philadelphia Convention debated and crafted the U.S. Constitution their intention was to write the rules for the operation of the federal government. Their task was to preserve the principles of government identified in the Declaration of Independence, while at the same time, drawing up a plan that would provide the new government with the powers necessary for carrying out their legal functions and preserve the sovereignty of the participating states. A crucial goal of the Constitution was to limit the power and scope of the federal government and prevent it from encroaching on the legitimate powers of the states.

Article VI of the Constitution established the Constitution as the “supreme law of the land”. More specifically, it established the Constitution as the supreme law governing the operations and scope of the federal government. Only to the extent that the government is in compliance with the Constitution can it make any claim to being a government “of laws and not of men”.

The first ten Amendments to the Constitution were adopted to clarify portions of the Constitution and give emphasis to its limited powers. The limit on the powers of the federal government was given further emphasis in the Tenth Amendment. From the beginning, many power-hungry elected officials, tried to expand their powers beyond those granted. For the first hundred years Presidents and the Supreme Court were somewhat effective in defending the integrity of the Constitution. However, in the presidential elections of 1892 and 1896 conscious decisions were made by all the major political parties to begin testing the limits imposed by the Constitution.

The most important proposed departures from the original plan was to allow the federal government to collect a graduated income tax, and elect Senators by popular vote rather than by appointment of the state legislators as the Constitution required. The sixteenth and seventeenth amendments ratified in 1913 during the “progressive era” opened the floodgates, allowing for the wholesale violation of the Constitution. The sixteenth Amendment allowed for a direct income tax on individuals, making it possible for socialists and progressives in government to engage in income redistribution through a graduated income tax. The Seventeenth Amendment shifts the election of Senators from the state legislatures to the general population of each state, effectively neutralizing the Tenth Amendment placing the real government power in the hands of political “bosses” of the Parties in power.

Since that time the powers of the federal government and violations of the Constitution have increased exponentially to the point that it is questionable whether we are any longer a Constitutional Republic. Every administration since 1896 has violated the Constitution, both Democrats and Republicans. However, none have so blatantly refused to acknowledge the authority of the Constitution as Barack Obama, beginning with the first sentence of the first Article.

Article 1.1.1 “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

This clause makes it clear that the Executive and Judicial Branches do not have the power to legislate or make laws. Yet, most of the laws enforced by the federal government today that infringe on our liberties originate in the Executive and Judicial Branches and not in the Legislature. The legitimate functions of the various departments in the Executive Branch are to implement the laws and policies established by the Legislative Branch. The Treasury Department, State Department, Interior Department, Justice Department, and Defense Departments exist under the “necessary and proper clause” of the enumerated powers section. Others are unconstitutional because they do not relate to the limited powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution.

Today we have a plethora of Executive Branch bureaucracies, reminiscent of the old Soviet Union, making laws affecting every aspect of our personal and business life. These bureaucracies are headed by “Secretaries” who are illegally authorized by Congress to make laws at their discretion. This is a double violation of the Constitution; (1) Most are unconstitutional because their jurisdictions are not authorized by the Constitution; (2) Congress does not have the authority to delegate its legislative powers to another branch of government.

President Obama has taken this egregious violation of the Constitution to a new height by appointing Czars over the various bureaucracies who answer directly to the President, and have the authority to “dictate” to the Secretaries and department officials the “rules” to be made and enforced by the full power of the federal government. Department Secretaries are confirmed by the Senate and are accountable to it. The Czars are appointed directly by the President and are not confirmed by or accountable to Congress. This situation cannot be allowed to continue if we are to maintain any fragment of our liberty in the future. It is the responsibility of the House of Representatives to cut funding for these unconstitutional departments until they are forced out of existence.

****

Article 1.3.6 “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.”

This clause makes the Vice President the Chief Executive Officer of the Senate. The phrase, “but shall have no vote” has been interpreted by Senate Political Parties to turn the office of President of the Senate into a ceremonial position with no executive authority. Contrary to the belief of Vice President Biden, The Constitution places the office of Vice President in the Legislative Branch not the Executive; its position in the line of Presidential succession not withstanding. As a matter of fact, Presiding over the Senate is the only duty assigned to the Vice President by the Constitution. The office of Majority Leader, an unconstitutional office created by the Senate in 1921, has been allowed to usurp the authority of the Vice President with impunity for almost a hundred years. The Senate is the primary check on the Executive Branch of government. This departure from the Constitution upsets that balance of power in favor of the Executive Branch. There is no historical or Constitutional justification for the office of Majority Leader in its present form.

****

Article 1.7.1:  “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives;”

1.7.2:  “but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”

This clause gives the House of Representatives the “power of the purse” since revenue can only be raised to fund the legitimate functions of government and all revenue bills must specify the purposes for which the revenue is to be allocated.

Article 1.9.7:  “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”

Since budgets, revenue and allocations are inseparably linked, budgets are to originate in the House although the Senate may propose amendments. The President can make budget recommendations to Congress under Section 2 of the Constitution.

Article 2.3.1:  “He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient;”

The undisciplined and often unconstitutional methods of budgeting, allocating funds and raising revenue are a primary culprit in our present financial crisis.

Congressional authority for taxing and spending is further explained in section eight, Article I.

Article 1.8.1:  The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States;

1.8.2:  but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

1.8.3:  To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

Here Congress is given the power to tax and spend for three specific purposes; pay debts, provide for the general welfare and common defense. This is followed by a list of sixteen specific items for which revenue may be raised and spent, clarifying the general phrases “general welfare” and “common defense”.

****

One of the ways Party leaders ensure their choice of candidates for President and Vice President is to manipulate primary dates in violation of Article II of the Constitution. When we cast our votes in a primary election, we are actually voting for an Elector, and only indirectly for the candidate that Elector is pledged to support in the Electoral College. By manipulating the dates on which primaries are held, party leaders are able to influence the outcome through the power of suggestion, with support building for candidates who appear to have the most popular appeal. Article II, Section 1, clause 16, was included in the Constitution specifically to prevent prior voting by one state from influencing the votes in other states.

Article 2.1.16:  “The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.”

This clause is a single compound sentence broken only by a semicolon. The rules of English indicates that the Framers intended for the “time of choosing the Electors” and the “day on which they shall give their votes” to be on the same day respectively. The primary system and the primary dates are the creation of Political Parties and not the Constitution. The current primary system often results in candidates being chosen that do not represent the real choice of the voters.

****

Article3.2.9:  In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.

This clause gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over cases in which a state is one of the parties involved. However, due to the number of cases involving states because of the federal government’s overstepping of its Constitution role, for efficiency, cases involving states are handled in the same way any other federal lawsuit is handled; they are first heard in district courts, then appealed to the appellate courts, and eventually to the Supreme Court. We currently have several cases involving states winding their way through the court system; involving immigration, Obama care, and several other matters. Meanwhile the Constitutional issues these cases relate to continue unabated. The Constitution does not give either Congress or the Supreme Court the authority delegate these cases to a lower court.

****

One of the functions of the Executive Branch is to enforce the federal laws through the Justice Department.

Article 2.3.4:  [the President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

The Obama Justice Department picks and chooses the laws it will enforce and ignores those the President disagrees with.  The most obvious laws that Obama refuses to enforce are immigration laws.

4.4.1 The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,

4.4.2 And shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

By any definition, the yearly influx of illegal immigrants into the U.S. amounts to an invasion. Although “invasion” does not necessarily need to involve a foreign military, there have been several instances where foreign military have invaded U.S. territory while the Justice Department does nothing. There have been many instances where armed criminals have invaded our territory and committed murder and kidnapping, again with only a cursory response from the federal government. Example, instead of supplying protection to the State of Arizona when requested, and as the Constitution Demands, the Justice Department brought suit against the state for attempting to enforce the law themselves.

These are just some of the illegal acts committed by the federal government against the original Constitution. When we add violations of the Bill of Rights and other Amendments, the list becomes too long to discuss in detail in a blog post. They would include violation of the First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of religion, expression and assembly; the Second Amendment guaranteeing the right of self-defense; Amendment Four protecting against illegal searches and seizures; and Amendment Five, the double-jeopardy Amendment. Last and most important is the constant and continuing violation of Amendment Ten.

Amendment 10-0:  “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Conservative Knees Getting Wobbly?

If you are confused as to what is going on in Washington concerning the looming national debt deadline, you are not alone. Washington politicians, mostly lawyers, are masters of obfuscation. The MSM, propaganda arm of the Democratic Party, are ignoring the CCB proposal from the House that passed yesterday along a party line vote, 234-190 with eight or nine Republicans voting against it. At the same time, everyone seems to be leaning toward a compromise plan being hatched by the “Gang of Seven” in the Senate: This in spite of the fact that details of the plan have not yet been made public.

Advance information on the plan is that it will call for a raise in the debt ceiling while increasing revenue by some $1 trillion, with a reduction in spending of $3.5 trillion over the next ten years. The only certainty in all this is that the American people will eventually be the loser, taxpayers will have to cough up additional taxes and the meager influence of the U.S. Constitution will be diminished even further. It strains credulity to believe future Congresses will honor any budget cutting deals made by the current Congress.

A further test of our gullibility is the insistence by conservatives that they will not vote to raise taxes under any circumstances, but they are not necessarily opposed to increasing revenue through closing tax loopholes and other tax reform measures. To be fair, it should be pointed out that very few conservative politicians have promised not to raise taxes. They have only promised not to raise tax rates. Thanks to the success politicians and the media have had in corrupting the English language, such nuances of speech can easily be slipped by a trusting public.

The claim of increasing revenue without raising taxes is based on closing “loopholes” in the current tax code. A side effect of the class envy promoted by progressives over the past hundred years is that almost everyone is against tax loopholes — until they understand what a tax loophole is. Loophole is the word used by politicians to cast dispersions on certain types of “deductions”. By using the word loophole instead of deduction it is easy to convince the public that “fat cat” rich folks avoid paying their taxes by taking unfair or even illegal deductions. The type of deductions being considered in the Gang of Seven plan are things like deductions for mortgage interest, and deductions for minor children, etc. Very few taxpayers, homeowners and parents would consider these “loopholes”.

The truth is that the ONLY way to increase revenue to the federal government is through raising taxes. Government has no revenue other than taxes extracted from the producing members of society. Other schemes for raising revenue through fees, permitting, tolls, etc., are really taxes on taxes, in most cases. For example, National Parks are owned and supported by the public; when we pay a fee to enter a park we are simply paying an additional tax on top of the taxes we already pay to support the park in the first place. In other words, we are paying an additional tax in order to use a facility we already own. The same is true at the local level when the City Fire Department charges you $800 to transport you to a hospital, two blocks away, after a traffic accident. The Fire Department and the Ambulance have already been paid for by taxes. The idea that revenue can be increased $1 trillion without raising taxes has to be the ultimate oxymoron.

There is no long-term way to get us out of our financial crisis other than “gritting our teeth” and abiding by the Constitution; only spending taxpayer money on programs authorized under the enumerated powers section. In the short term, we need to hold the line on the debt by refusing to raise the limit under any circumstances. That is the only way to force Washington to get their financial affairs in order before the next elections. I do not believe a Balanced Budget Amendment would provide much help with a government that violates the Constitution with impunity on a daily basis. However, a concise, well-written Amendment probably would do little harm.

The proposed BBA is a good start, provided it is limited to the wording of Section 1.

“Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a roll call vote.”

Any additional words only gives politicians the tools to nullify it through imaginary meanings their legal wizards read into the text. However, I find a bit of irony in the term “sworn members” used in the Amendment, when if the member’s oath to defend the Constitution had been taken seriously in the past we would not be having the present debate. By the way, any plan the Gang of Seven comes up with is unconstitutional on its face because it purports to raise revenue. The Constitution requires that all revenue bills originate in the House.

Cut, Cap, and Unbalance

The more I see of the “Cut, Cap, and Balance” plan being ballyhooed by the Conservative Republicans the more it seems like little more than “smoke and mirrors” designed to hide from the American people the responsibilities of the Republican House of Representatives. It may succeed in making it appear that the Democrat Senate and the White House are responsible for our current mess, and since it has such a strong populist appeal, it may even become law. It cannot solve our problems however, and it plays on the lack of awareness by the American people as to how we got to where we are and who alone has the power to get us out.

We have a $14.5 trillion dollar debt only because of the unconstitutional spending of prior Congresses; mostly Democrats, often aided and abetted by “moderate” Republicans and RINO’s. Presidents are the titular heads of their respective party and Congresses of the same party try to follow his leadership and pass the legislation he asks for. There is no sound reason for doing so however, if his proposed legislation is unconstitutional. The willingness of Congress members to follow the wishes of their Party Bosses rather than the dictates of the Constitution is the only reason our country is in the fiscal shape it is.

Cut, Cap and Balance will not solve that problem, especially if the Cut and Balance is scheduled for future “out-years” and not NOW. Every new Congress starts with a new slate. They can pass any legislation or appropriate any funds they wish. The only constraints on them are those found in the Constitution which they ignore anyway. There is no reason to think future Congresses would honor the requirements of a CCB Amendment any more than they have honored Article I or Amendment 10 in the past. The only thing a Congress critter fears is losing his or her cushy position and the power that goes with it. There is only one way to turn the country around and it is questionable if enough members of Congress have the stomach for it.

The first step is to rein in spending, and the method for doing it is not complicated. Do not appropriate the funds for any NEW unconstitutional expenditure. The Executive Branch can only spend funds appropriated by Congress and for the purposes designated in the appropriations bill. (Constitution 101) The second step is to gradually de-fund the existing unconstitutional programs created by prior Congresses. While we are at it we also need to de-fund much of the bloated Executive Branch budget, particularly the unconstitutional bureaucracies created by Congresses determined to avoid voter censorship while implementing the socialist agenda through bureaucratic “rulemaking” in violation of the first clause in the Constitution. (Article I, Section 1, clause 1)

These reforms can only be undertaken by the House of Representatives which the Constitution gives sole responsibility over the national treasury. (Articles I, Sections 1, 7, 8 and 9). Voters also have an important role to play in any reforms we make. Watch your elected representatives carefully, those who support any appropriation bills authorizing unconstitutional expenditures or programs should be voted against in the next election, whether they wear the label of conservative, Republican, moderate, fiscal conservative, or are just plain RINOs. Allowing them to continue in office only makes our task more difficult.

Concerns About the Proposed Balanced Budget Amendment

Virtually every conservative and Republican politician, pundit, writer, and broadcaster is enthusiastically touting the Balanced Budget Amendment proposal. If I was of a more cynical nature I might think that Congress is trying to rid itself of some of the tedious responsibility the Constitution places on it. Considering the seriousness of any proposed Constitutional Amendment, we ought to spend some time reading and understanding its implications before giving it our support.

Section I of the proposed Amendment says,

“Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a roll call vote.”

If you are a fan of Constitutional Amendments that sounds fine; it is concise, to the point and reasonably well worded. It does not leave a lot of “wiggle room” for the courts and politicians to avoid understanding exactly what the Amendment is supposed to accomplish.

Since the purpose of an Amendment is to change, expand, or repeal the rules for government written by the Founders into the original Constitution, before we allow ourselves to be stampeded into something future generations will have to live with and very well may regret; we ought to carefully consider the consequences. History has shown that the U.S. Constitution including the Bill of Rights is the best plan of government ever devised by man. Although, for the past century, its value has been demonstrated mostly by the consequences following its many breaches rather than by strict compliance to it by our elected officials.

The fact that so many people feel that a Constitutional Amendment is necessary is prima facie evidence that one or more of the branches of government is failing to live up to the oath of office to defend and support the Constitution each of its members took before assuming their position. We do not have to look far to identify the culprits, either. Both the Legislative and Executive branches are ignoring the restrictions on taxing and spending in the original Constitution and taxing us into poverty and spending us into oblivion. Thomas Jefferson made the complaint against George III in The Declaration of Independence, that “he has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.”

Jefferson knew nothing about the EPA, DOE, DOL, or any of the many czars currently accomplishing this chore for the Obama Administration, so we have to assume that he was referring in particular to the “Quartering Act” and the occupation of Boston. But he could just as well have been writing about any of “alphabet soup” of government agencies jammed into every nook and cranny of Washington, D.C.

Assuming that we really do need a Constitutional Amendment to enforce fiscal discipline on our elected officials and that they will abide by a new Amendment more faithfully than they have abided by the Constitution itself in the past, the Amendment as written above seems to be adequate for the job — if it stopped with those words. However it does not. The proposed Amendment contains 618 words making it the longest Constitutional Amendment to date.

In writing Amendments brevity is the key to effectiveness. Every unnecessary or carelessly chosen word becomes a loophole through which the courts, politicians and lawyers can push socialist policies, or that societal busybodies can use to take away a little more of our liberties. For example, the Fourteenth Amendment, containing only 445 words, is used to grant birthright citizenship to the children of foreigners who happen to be born on U.S. soil; to claim the right for same sex marriage; and, to give the federal government the authority to decide the qualifications for voting in national, state and local elections. The same pattern is true for the other ill thought-out and excessively worded amendments added to the Constitution since 1791.

Section 2, provides that…

“Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending before the beginning of such fiscal year, unless two-thirds of the duly chosen and sworn Members of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific amount in excess of such 18 percent by a roll call vote.”

This may be okay for those willing to spend almost twenty percent of their work life laboring for the federal government. However, keep in mind that the federal government is only a small portion of the government bodies we have to support with our taxes. The spending limit imposed by this section is based on the aggregate GDP of all fifty states. Each of those states has hundreds of taxing and spending bodies “harassing their people and eating out their substances”. The combined outlay of all the government bodies in the United States, federal, state, county and local is much closer to 50% or more than to 20%. This section guarantees that the federal government will always be entitled to at least 18% of the produce of our labor, to spend on whatever it sees fit; more if it thinks it is necessary.

Section 3 is one of the more troubling sections of the proposed amendment. It provides that…

“Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which—
‘‘(1) total outlays do not exceed total receipts; and
‘‘(2) total outlays do not exceed 18 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States for the calendar year ending before the beginning of such fiscal year.”

What is troubling about this section is that it puts the onus on the President to determine the budgetary needs of the country each year, wiping out a four-hundred year portion of our heritage. If History is indeed our best predictor of the future, future Presidents will claim that the Constitution (this Amendment) gives the Executive Branch the “power of the purse” overturning four hundred years of custom and Constitutional law. As we pointed out in a previous post, the power of the purse has always resided in the people’s assembly. Before the Constitution it rested with the colonial general assemblies. Since the Constitution it has rested in the House of Representatives.

The Remaining eight sections all contain similar opportunities for future courts and politicians to mold in into about anything they desire it to be. The piece de resistance, however, is found in section 11, which says, “This article shall take effect beginning with the fifth fiscal year beginning after its ratification.’’

It takes on average, two to five years to get an Amendment through the Amendment process. This section adds an additional five or six years, depending on the time of the year it is finally ratified, before it takes effect. By that time we will either be a socialist dictatorship or we will have won the struggle with the socialists in government and will not need the amendment.

Space prevents a complete exposition of this question. We have provided a copy of the proposed Amendment here and challenged readers to consider some of the possible pitfalls inherent in any changes to our Constitution, no matter how logical and necessary they seem at the time. As my mom used to say “eat what’s on your plate before going back for more”. Enforce adherence to the Constitution we have, before attempting to add more requirements that are likely to be ignored or circumvented when government finds such action desirable for its agenda.

Mitch McConnell plays “Charlie Brown” on Washington Stage

According to an article in the Chicago Tribune, a compromise proposal crafted by Senate Majority leader Harry Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is likely to come before the Senate for a vote this week. Under this compromise plan designed to increase the debt limit before the August 2 deadline, the President would be given the authority to raise the debt limit three times for a total increase of $2.5 trillion without Congressional approval,  in exchange for a series of budget cuts that would reduce the budget $2.5 trillion over the next ten years.

In this scenario, Mitch McConnell plays the role of the Peanuts cartoon character, “Charlie Brown” and Harry Reid plays the role of “Lucy” holding the football. The budget reductions promised over the next ten years are reminiscent of the character “Wimpy” in the old Popeye comic strip as he tells the counterman at the local diner, “I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today”. Taking into account that the Tribune is a part of the MSM and this article comes out of their Washington News Bureau, the quotes of some conservative Republicans in Congress concerning the possibility of a last minute compromise is somewhat disconcerting.

It seems the Republican Leadership in Washington does not yet realize just how determined its conservative base is in taking back their country. By the same token, a large percentage of conservatives throughout the country do not yet realize that we are in the midst of a war between the socialists inside our government and the constitutional conservatives that make up a large part of the patriot or “tea party” movement. This war has been going on for the past 130 years and has now reached the critical stage. Make no mistake, this is a war with one side, the socialists or progressives, determined to destroy America, as we know it. Their goal is to destroy republicanism, capitalism, conservatism, the American culture and the U.S. Constitution. On the other side, the constitutional conservatives’ goal is to destroy socialism, purging it from the power structure of government and restoring the republican form of government designed by the Founders in the Constitution.

I was eleven years old when World War II ended. I did not understand at the time all the details behind the war but the one thing that made a lasting impression on me that I have never forgotten is the spirit of patriotism that permeated American society. No one would even think of compromising with the Axis Powers; the goal was to defeat them, totally and completely. The socialist in America have always understood the nature of the conflict we are engaged in and have been persistent and relentless in their attacks on the institutions of our government and culture. Conservative patriots have been on the defensive since the beginning of the socialist movement in the last quarter of the nineteenth century.

In the twentieth century, the socialist seemed to have lost most of the battles fought at the ballot box, in the courts and in the halls of Washington. Conservatives were content to defend their positions policy by policy with every contest ending in a compromise giving the socialists a little more ground. We are beginning to understand that compromise with socialists is simply another name for surrender.

For their part, the socialists never concede defeat. They simply accept the compromise and move forward to the next battle while the conservatives return to the mundane world of daily life. For example, universal, state-run health care has been a goal of socialism since the 1854 Bill for the Indigent Insane, vetoed by President Franklin Pierce because the Constitution does not give Congress the power to pass national welfare legislation. The push for universal health care was taken up again by President Theodore Roosevelt in the election campaign of 1912. Roosevelt was defeated and the issue lay dormant until revived by Franklin Roosevelt. The first bill for social security included publicly funded health care programs, but Roosevelt was forced to remove them from the Social Security legislation in 1935 while he sold Social Security to the American people as “insurance” and to the courts as a “tax”.

Socialists refused to accept these expressions of the American people’s will and kept on fighting for universal health care which they finally succeeded in getting passed into law, piece by piece, beginning with Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 and culminating in the health care bill, “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” passed by the Progressive Democrats led by Barack Obama in 2010. The hundred-year socialist vs. conservative contest over universal health care showcases the nature of the ongoing war for the future of America we are now engaged in.

As Israel has been demonstrating for the past fifty years, you cannot compromise with those who are determined to destroy you. In doing so, you merely let the enemy off the hook so they can regroup and return, even stronger, and as determined as ever in their mission of destruction. America cannot afford to compromise on the upcoming debt crisis. The Reid-McConnell compromise only assures that our national debt climbs to 17 trillion dollars in the short term, and the continuation of massive deficit spending in the long term.

America is not Soviet Russia or Communist China. Five-year and ten-year plans are meaningless in American politics because promises of future actions by Congress are binding only on the sitting Congress that makes the promise. They are not binding on future Congresses. The 112th Congress can plan and promise anything. The 113th Congress can do as they please because those promises are not binding on them. The only way we are going to return to fiscal stability and a thriving economy is to simply say NO to more debt, take the consequences and start over. That may mean short-term hardships for many but it will save the country for future generations.

Rethinking The Debt Limit Farce

My first impression of Barack Obama when he appeared on the national political scene in 2008 was “why, he’s just a kid”.  I tried to convince myself that my impression of him was just one more sign I was getting old. After watching him for three years I am starting to think my first impression was right on target. Since being in office his hair has begun to turn grey — a good hair dresser can do that for you — and he is beginning to show signs of aging. However, his sense of responsibility and grasp of reality in the grown-up world is still that of a spoiled adolescent.

Unfortunately he does not have any adult supervision in Washington. His tantrums because those mean Republicans don’t think his allowance should be increased is reminiscent of the kid who creates a scene in the local super market because his mom balks at buying him that goodie he jut saw on the shelf. When that happens in real life, observers are always more critical of the parent because of the evident lack of discipline they enforce. Most of the time, the real problem is that the parent herself or himself has no self-discipline of their own to draw on. That’s why the debate over the debt ceiling is such a farcical exercise in absurdity.

The Founders expected that Congress would provide the adult discipline for the federal government. It’s time for Congress to stop behaving toward the President like the doting parents of an out of control teen-ager and start exercising the Constitutional discipline over the nation‘s budget the Framers expected. The excessive spending in Washington does not originate in the White House, but in Congress. The debt ceiling was never intended to control the spending habits of the President. That would be absurd because the President does not have the freedom to spend money on anything he wishes unless Congress allows it.

Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution says, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”

I have been called many things, but I have never been called an Obama Supporter or a progressive. Nevertheless, it is grossly irresponsible and disingenuous to blame President Obama alone for America’s current fiscal problems. That blame lies squarely at the doorstep of Congress, more particularly, at the feet of the Democratic leadership in Congress and the spineless Republicans who go along with their socialist utopian fantasy that all problems can be solved and economic equality among the people can be realized through redistributive policy.

The level of the debt ceiling is immaterial. It could be raised tomorrow to $20 trillion and neither diminish or amplify the problem in Washington. Regardless of the debt limit the Executive Branch and the Treasury Department can only spend money that has been appropriated by Congress. The Constitution is clear on this point “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law;”

We need to be clear on exactly which part of the government is responsible for out of control spending and in the final analysis, it is not the Executive Branch. Article I, Sections 7, 8, and 9 gives total control over the nation’s Treasury to Congress, in particular the House of Representatives. The House and only the House has the power to levy taxes, appropriate funds, or borrow money on the credit of the United States.

It’s time for Speaker Boehner, Minority Leader McConnell; et al to grow up and take on the responsibility the American people gave them when they elected them to Congress. Getting rid of Obama in 2012 is not going to solve our fiscal problems unless we also get rid of the progressives (American Socialists) on both sides of the aisle in Congress at the same time. And when we change Congress we have to be sure we only elect candidates who will take seriously their oath to honor and defend the Constitution.