Ten Question Constitution Quiz

How well do you know the Constitution? Take this 10 question quiz to see.

[QUIZZIN 1]

Crooks, Democrats and the MSM OH MY!

I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.

- James Madison

Or to put James Madison's quote more bluntly, "Those who lurk in the shadows and slowly chip away at liberty are more dangerous than those who try to do it openly."

Crooks

While trying to get universal health care through the House, Pelosi knew she wouldn't have the votes to do it. So, what was the answer to that? Backroom deals, outright bribery and slight of hand; a scene taken right out of the script of the God Father: "Bene, Don Corleone. I need a man who has powerful friends. I need a million dollars in cash. I need, Don Corleone, all of those politicians that you carry around in your pocket, like so many nickels and dimes."

Despite the majority of Americans rejecting it, the democrats got it through by hook and crook. To get the last of the holdouts, Obama went so far as to sign an executive order that would deny taxpayer funding of abortions, an order that is absurd because what Obama giveth, he can taketh away and it's not supposed to be able to overturn law anyway. In other words, Stupak was going to vote yes all along.

Democrats and the MSM

Now that the democrats have completed their quest for the Holy Grail of government handouts, they have now turned their attention to demonizing their detractors, or better known as the Tea Party movement.

During the sixties, left wing radicals were protesting, rioting and in more extreme cases blowing up police stations. They were demonized into obscurity and they learned a valuable lesson. Having reemerged with suit and ties in place of signs and pipe bombs, but with the same message and agenda, they have infiltrated the government and are transforming it from the inside.

Our president has surrounded himself with these radicals and they are transforming and remolding our country into something that will become unrecognizable if it's not stopped in November. But, in order to complete it, he must target his detractors and turn the tables on them just like the left wing radicals were demonized in the sixties. With the help of the state run, lamestream media's help, of course.

So, how are the democrats and their media cohorts demonizing the opposition? By using the race card and trying to link the Tea Party movement to just about anything that could potentially cause damage to the them. Shortly after Obamacare was passed, some democrat politicians openly complained that they were receiving death threats, as well as other vile activities directed against them. Now, why would they do that? Typically, these kind of actions are dealt with under the radar and with local police agencies, yet, they openly accused right wing loons as the culprit.

In response, Eric Cantor came out and stated that someone shot a bullet through the window of his campaign office. He also stated that the reason he did so, was to openly denounce these actions and that the democrats were using these threats for political purposes and basically telling everyone from both parties to knock it off.

During the House votes, nearly a thousand protesters were gathered at the Capitol. Immediately, the lamestream media were claiming that disparaging remarks and words were hurled at democrat politicians, yet nowhere is there any proof of this, much less evidence, but quickly blaming the Tea Party movement.

Laura Ingraham has the answer in dealing with the lamestream media.



When the lamestream media try to use this tactic, throw it right back in their face. Then there is the race hustler himself, Al Sharpton. Bill O'Reilly backed Sharpton into a corner and he couldn't get out.



The way to deal with these lies and falsehoods is to stop being afraid and take it head on. These people are counting on you to run and hide, however, you also need to denounce any acts violence publicly.

Our Constitution Was Spat Upon And We Got A Slap In The Face

"The purpose of a written constitution is to bind up the several branches of government by certain laws, which, when they transgress, their acts shall become nullities; to render unnecessary an appeal to the people, or in other words a rebellion, on every infraction of their rights, on the peril that their acquiescence shall be construed into an intention to surrender those rights."

- Thomas Jefferson

Yesterday the American people got a slap in the face as our Constitution was spat upon, and by extension the will of the people. Universal health care used to be the Holy Grail of liberal progressives and they succeeded in fulfilling their quest, albeit a shaky fulfillment; many states are gearing up to fight it if the government tries to make it a mandate. We'll see as time goes by and November rolls around.

The removal of these incumbent politicians is way pass due. However, I issue a warning to anyone running to oust their opponent during the midterms: If you campaign on repealing Obamacare, you had best not make it an empty promise. If you don't make it a campaign slogan, it would be in your best interest to do so. Right now these reprobates have a foot in the door to do anything they want and if they are not run out of office, it'll get worse.

The root of the problem is that the majority of our politicians no longer listen to us. They believe that the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence no longer applies and they give rights to its citizens. These documents, to them, is a roadblock to their agenda and have been slowly chipping away at it for decades and succeeded and they need to stopped.

If you believe that there is such a thing as a pro life democrat, well now you know better. If you believed that there were such things as "moderate" republicans or democrats, well now you know better. When Scott Brown won, the democrats knew that the writing was on the wall and they turned up the heat by making back room deals and committing felonious crimes to get their agenda pushed through.

And we were telling you this in 2008, during the campaigns. For those of you who voted for Obama, how's that hope and change working out for you now? And I'm mainly asking the independents this question.

What should happen next is a trip to the SCOTUS. This has got to be fought to the bitter end until all avenues have been exhausted and the states take up the fight. When November comes up on the calendar, then it's time to take it to the ballot box and run these people out of office and repeal it.

And you know what? Whether you like it or not, it's our fault.

An Open Assault On The Constitution

Many of us Americans have said over and over that this administration has been circumventing our Constitution to get legislation passed. However, the latest brazen assault on our founding document is an outright attempt at usurping its authority and it's pass time that something be done.

The "Slaughter Solution", as it's being referred to, is a plan created by Representative Louise Slaughter (D-NY). It's sole purpose is to ram this health care train wreck through both houses of Congress by ignoring the Constitution. How they are doing it works like this:

"The rule would declare that the House “deems” the Senate version of health care to have been passed by the House. The House members would still have to vote on whether to accept the rule, but they would then be able to say they only voted for a rule, not for the bill itself. Thus, Congresswoman Slaughter is preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill “passed” once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes. Democrats would thereby avoid a direct vote on the health care bill while allowing it to become law!"

This is an outright, blatant and brazen attack on the Constitution:

Article I, Section VII, Clause II states:

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

This clause goes to the very foundation of how our laws are created and enacted. If these crooked democrats get away with doing this, it will create the biggest Constitutional crisis since the Civil War and would start a government that rules by fiat, better known as a tyranny.

This is proof positive that democrats will use whatever means necessary to get their way, even if it means that many of them will not be re-elected this coming November.

Luckily, the House Parliamentarian killed it.

Revisiting An Old Issue - The Patriot Act

"Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety."

- Benjamin Franklin

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."

- Patrick Henry

On October 26, 2001, President George W. Bush signed into law the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, better known as The Patriot Act.

This act allows government law enforcement agencies to track and search telephone, cell phone and other electronic communications, as well as financial and medical records and eases restrictions on foreign intelligence gathering within the United States.

And it's unconstitutional.

What one has to ask is, how much liberty do I need to relinquish to the federal government for my safety? I think Benjamin Franklin summed it up in one sentence. Liberty is the foundation of individual freedom; relinquish a small portion of it and you have opened the door for tyranny.

Playing devils advocate, one may ask how many Americans have been arrested, much less accosted by the Patriot Act. However, that's not the point. The point of it being unconstitutional is giving up ones liberty for temporary safety and when that happens, and we know this to be true, politicians will attempt to take even more.

Let's look at the Constitution and the Patriot Act, side by side.

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

The Patriot Act allows the federal government to monitor religious, as well as political institutions without any reasonable suspicion.

Amendment I -...abridging the freedom of speech.

The Patriot Act allows the government to prosecute any organization or group who maintains records that make public any investigation or subpoenas of those records.

Amendment IV - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Patriot Act allows the federal government to seize any documents and effects without probable cause, thus violating the freedom of reasonable search and seizure.

Amendment IV - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

The Patriot Act allows the federal government to prosecute and jail Americans indefinitely.

Amendment IV - ...to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

The Patriot Act allows the federal government to monitor conversations between clients and their lawyers in federal prisons and deny a lawyer to Americans accused of crimes involving terrorism.

Amendment IV - to be confronted with the witnesses against him...

The Patriot Act gives authority to the federal government to deny the accused any charges and to confront any witnesses. Any American who is accused of any crime related to terrorism can be jailed incommunicado and denied an attorney.

Revisiting Benjamin Franklin's quote, we begin to see what he meant. Yes, it is the federal governments role to protect us from the bad guys, domestically and abroad. But, how much freedom are we willing to forfeit to the federal government for the sake of temporary safety? Remember, if the government can give a right, it can take it away.

I am no Constitutional expert, but watch someone who is.

The Misuse Of Jefferson's "Wall of Separation"

If you spend a modicum of attention to the news, particularly during Christmas, no doubt you will hear something come up about some group or another complaining that a Christmas tree in an airport, or a nativity scene displayed in a library window is a violation of "Separation of Church and State." It's inevitable. This clause is always invoked when these types of issues come up and it's misused and abused by people who don't do a little reading about it.

First, let's read the First Amendment

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

This applies to the federal government not the individual states.

The Founding Fathers were between a rock and a hard place on the issue of freedom of religion; how does the new government allow religious freedom and equality, but ensure that the federal government doesn't establish a national religion? What many don't know is that when the country was founded, there were already seven states that adopted a "state" religion, preventing many people from fully exercising their religious freedoms.

Justice Joseph Story explains in his Commentaries on the Constitution why the Founding Fathers decided to completely remove the federal government on the issue of religion and allowing the states to deal with those issues themselves.

"It was under a solemn consciousness of the dangers from ecclesiastical ambition, the bigotry of spiritual pride, and the intolerance of sects, thus exemplified in our domestic, as well as in foreign annals, that it was deemed advisable to exclude from the national government all power to act upon the subject. The situation, too, of the different states equally proclaimed the policy, as well as the necessity of such an exclusion. In some of the states, episcopalians constituted the predominant sect; in others, presbyterians; in others, congregationalists; in others, quakers; and in others again, there was a close numerical rivalry among contending sects. It was impossible, that there should not arise perpetual strife and perpetual jealousy on the subject of ecclesiastical ascendancy, if the national government were left free to create a religious establishment. The only security was in extirpating the power. But this alone would have been an imperfect security, if it had not been followed up by a declaration of the right of the free exercise of religion, and a prohibition (as we have seen) of all religious tests. Thus, the whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the state governments, to be acted upon according to their own sense of justice, and the state constitutions; and the Catholic and the Protestant, the Calvinist and the Arminian, the Jew and the Infidel, may sit down at the common table of the national councils, without any inquisition into their faith, or mode of worship."

This is the reason why the Founders decided that Congress shall make NO law respecting ANY one religion, religious establishment, or making any law preventing the free exercise thereof. If they had decided otherwise, there would have been enormous civil unrest.

During his travels in the newly formed America, Alexis de Tocqueville noted that schools incorporated core beliefs of religion along side other academic teachings. He noted that in New England, "every citizen receives the elementary notions of human knowledge; he is taught, moreover, the doctrines and the evidences of his religion, the history of his country, and the leading features of its Constitution...".

He also noticed a bond resonating from the various churches. He observed that the clergy was fervent to uphold the separation of church and state, yet as a whole have an impact on the morals and customs of every day public life, which, in turn, showed itself when formulating new laws. Alexis de Tocqueville also noted that the clergy didn't hold any political office and were not even represented in any assemblies. This was completely unheard of in Europe where the clergy always belonged to a national church and occupied offices of power.

What de Tocqueville realized during his tour of the newly formed country, was that the clergy removed itself from politics because in their view it was beneath them. However, they also believed that it was their solemn duty to deliver the message of religious principles to the people. Not doing so would put America's freedom and political security at risk.

In terms of religion, the Founders wanted to do something that no other country on earth achieved: To give LEGAL equality to ALL religions, including non-Christians. Recalling the seven states that already established a state religion, these would have to be dissolved and Jefferson tried that in Virginia in 1776, but wasn't actually completed until 1786. Patrick Henry, on the other hand, made an attempt in 1784 to introduce a bill (Provision For Teachers of the Christian Religion) that would have allowed taxpayers to designate which society of Christians their money should go to.

This was counter intuitive to what the Founders had in mind causing James Madison to fire back with his famous Memorial and Remonstrance. Madison argued that the stated goal was to give legal rights to all religions and the government should not show preference of one over others:

Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were the two Founders that spearheaded the issue of church and state. Their intent was to completely remove the federal government and at the same time give all religions equality in the law on a national level. During the Virginia conference Madison stated, "There is not a shadow of right in the general government to intermeddle with religion. Its least interference with it would be a most flagrant usurpation."

And Thomas Jefferson took the same stance when he wrote the Kentucky Resolution of 1798, "Resolved that it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the Amendments to the Constitution that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people’; and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people..."

He also went further by making it crystal clear that the Supreme Court was also to be excluded from the jurisdiction of religion. He understood that the Supreme Court's role in the federal government was to act as a sentinel to safeguard the Constitution, not to get involved with making laws and interfering with the individual states. He wrote, "And that in addition to this general principle and express declaration, another & more special provision has been made by one of the amendments to the constitution which expressly declares that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press,’ thereby guarding in the same sentence, & under the same words, the freedom of religion of speech & of the press: insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, and that libels, falsehood & defamation, equally with heresy & false religion, ARE WITHHELD FROM THE COGNISANCE OF FEDERAL TRIBUNALS..." (Emphasis added).

Remember that the intent of the First Amendment is to remove the federal government from religious issues of the individual states. When Thomas Jefferson was on the Virginia State legislature, he was among a group that drafted a bill to have a day of fasting and prayer. However, when he was elected president, he stated unequivocally that the federal government had NO authority to proclaim ANY religious holidays.

This is where the famous "wall of separation between church and state." came from. On January 1, 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association explaining his position on the matter:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the WHOLE AMERICAN people which declared THAT THEIR legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

Note the operative phrase, "that act of the WHOLE American people which declared THAT THEIR legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". This is a plural use in the sense that he was referring to the federal government, not the individual states. Recall the bill he submitted when he was in the state legislature and what he said when he became president.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has either forgotten their role in the three branches of government or they just don't care. They have taken it upon themselves to misuse Thomas Jefferson's metaphor to meddle in states' religious affairs and have forced others to take the same "hands off" stance. This was not the intent of our Founding Fathers and it only applied to the federal government.

When you read the statements of Jefferson, as well as his actions, you begin to see the obvious distortion of his statement to the Danbury Baptist Association. Remember that it was Madison and Jefferson who said that the states had sole authority of religion and that any state giving preference to any one religious establishment should be dissolved. Other Founding Fathers joined and emphasized that ALL religions were to be encouraged to foster the moral fiber, as well as the tone of the people. This would have been impossible if there were a "wall" between church and state on the state level. His statement was intended ONLY for the federal government.

References cited:

Joseph Story Commentaries

Virginia Ratifying Convention

Kentucky Resolution of 1798

Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association

Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville

Memorial and Remonstrance by James Madison

The Papers of Thomas Jefferson vol 30. January 1, 1798 - January 31, 1799

Tactics Of Tyranny - Disarm The People

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

- Second Amendment

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

- James Madison

"Taking my gun away because I might shoot someone is like cutting my tongue out because I might yell `Fire!' in a crowded theater."

- Peter Venetoklis

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it."

- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Guns. It is estimated that over 70 million American citizens own one either for hunting, self defense, target shooting, exhibitionist shows and people who just enjoy collecting them. As noted in the Second Amendment, the people's right to own them is guaranteed and cannot be taken away.

Unfortunately, some states, such as California, New York and Washington D.C. get around this by making it extremely difficult to own one legally.

Why did the Founding Fathers put this brief sentence into the Constitution? Well, remember that they were fighting a war to free themselves from the tyrannical rule of King George and at that time, the citizen was the soldier and it was necessary that he had a musket in the home in the event he was called upon. The Founding Fathers could not have possibly known what society in America would be like over two hundred years later. In order to prevent something like this occurring again, the Second Amendment was put in the Bill of Rights.

This is one reason why progressives wrongly assert that the Constitution is a "living" document. In their perverted world, they claim that the Second Amendment is no longer needed because we have a national guard system in each state under the direct control of that state's governor. Although this is correct to some extent, what they fail to understand is that a out of control government, that gains too much power and no longer has its checks and balances, may look to use one tactic to ensure its citizens can't fight back.

By taking their firearms.

A progressive will say that could never happen. However, when you look at the core tenets of the progressive movement and who they always look to for "philosophical" guidance, their claims that our government could never do something like that crumbles.

Then there is the self defense angle. Our country hosts over 300 million citizens and non citizens, people who are here illegally for one reason or another. Many of these illegal aliens are trafficking drugs, guns or both. Banning guns from  legal, law abiding American citizens, when they are easily obtained illegally, is akin to leading a sheep to slaughter. Their are numerous examples where a gun owner was able to fend off an assailant or someone breaking into their homes.

Lastly there are those Americans who hunt, or what many wildlife management agencies call harvesting. This is a two fold past time that puts food on the table and maintains wildlife to prevent a certain species from over populating and potentially destroying crops and removing other species in the food chain.

To take control of a populace, their ability to fight back must be controlled. By taking away firearms, the ability of the people to mount any sort of revolt, uprising or simply defending themselves is diminished greatly. Once this is accomplished, the rest is easy. This tactic is the first step to a tyrannical government and history has proven this again and again.

The video below is a graphical representation of what happens when firearms are taken from people and a cold blooded killer takes over and governs, not with the rule of law, but, the rule of power.

Note: This video is a combination of six clips. You will notice a transition when one completes and the next is loaded. After the credits there are interviews.

And please, leave a comment.

Warning. This video contains graphic images and may not be suitable for children. Parental discretion is advised.

LiveLeak.com - Innocents Betrayed - Gun Control History

The Federal Reserve And The Usurpation Of The Constitution

Article 1, section 8 -- The Congress shall have power to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Congress has the authority to delegate the above clause to a private banking firm. By the very nature of this clause, the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional, yet this institution is so deeply embedded into our financial system system, abolishing it would more than likely be more trouble than it's worth. With that in mind, everyone should support Ron Paul's bill to audit the Fed and see what they have been up to for all of these years.

So, where did the Federal Reserve come from? How and why was it unconstitutionally implemented to do what Congress is supposed to do? To answer that, we have to go back to the late 1800's and a little island off the coast of Georgia called Jekyll Island and the group of millionaire financiers that bought it.

In 1886 a group of millionaires purchased Jekyll Island and converted it into a hunting club and winter retreat and by 1900 the club's members boasted 1/6th of the worlds wealth; names like Vanderbilt, Pulitzer and Astor to name a few. Heads of state were refused admission to the club, such as Churchill and President McKinley.

During the first decade of the 1900's we were in the midst of a recession much like today and in 1907, the New York Stock Exchange fell to almost 50% from its peak in 1906. This sudden drop in stocks caused the Panic of 1907 or better known as the 1907 Banker's Panic, which was allegedly caused by J.P. Morgan. Other reasons include a failed attempt to corner the market of the United Copper Company and the downfall of the Knickerbocker Trust Company. The panic spread nationwide causing many banks and businesses to collapse, thus causing runs on banks and trust companies.

Prior to the Panic of 1907 there were several others in the early and mid 1800's. In May of 1908, Congress passed the Aldrich-Vreeland Act which established the National Monetary Commission to look into the panic and to research legislation to regulate banking. Senator Nelson Aldrich (R-RI), who was the chairman, left for Europe and stayed for almost two years to study their banking systems.

In 1910, seven wealthy financiers left by train from Hoboken, New Jersey to Jekyll Island. Supposedly, none of these men referred to each other by their last name as noted by Frank Vanderlip of the Saturday Evening Post:

"There was an occasion near the close of 1910 when I was as secretive, indeed as furtive, as any conspirator. I do not feel it is any exaggeration to speak of our secret expedition to Jekyll Island as the occasion of the actual conception of what eventually became the Federal Reserve System. 'We were told to leave our last names behind us. We were told further that we should avoid dining together on the night of our departure. We were instructed to come one at a time...where Senator Aldrich's private car would be in readiness, attached to the rear end of the train for the South. Once aboard the private car, we began to observe the taboo that had been fixed on last names. Discovery, we knew, simply MUST NOT HAPPEN, or else all our time and effort would be wasted..."

These seven men were:

Nelson Aldrich - Republican whip and father-in-law of John D. Rockefeller Jr.

Charles D. Norton - President of the First National bank of New York.

A. Piat Andrew - Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.

Frank A. Vanderlip - President of the National City Bank of New York and representing William Rockefeller.

Henry P. Davison Sr. - J.P. Morgan Partner.

Benjamin Strong - Head of JP Morgan's Bankers Trust and later chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Paul M. Warburg - Partner of Kuhn, Loeb & Company and representing the Rothschilds and Warburgs in Europe.

Paul Warburg was the chief drafter of the plan and it was a relatively simple one using sophistry and deceit. The United States wanted no part of a central bank, so rather than attaching those two words to it they merely gave it another name and it was to be largely controlled by Congress, but, the majority of the members was selected by private banks that owned its stock.

The reason why Americans didn't want anything to do with a central bank was due to the economic chaos going on in Europe. What they witnessed at the time in Europe was large scale deficit spending causing wide spread debt, much like what we are seeing today.

At any rate, the deception was to prevent the public from thinking that the Federal Reserve would be controlled from New York, where a system of twelve regional banks was created and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York controlling the entire system. The President was to select the board and its chairman, however, Colonel Edward House noted that the board would serve a term that would "put them out of the power of the President."

The power given by the Constitution to coin and regulate money was thus usurped and placed in the hands of private bankers, who could then expand and contract credit as they pleased and to whomever they wished.

FDR's Failed Policies Take Two

The Government Does Not Have the Constitutional Authority To Force Americans To Have Health Care

CNS News has asked some Congressional members where in the Constitution does it give the government the power to force Americans to buy health insurance, not one of them could answer the question. However, Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon states that it's in: Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which says: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."






That section is not what gives the government power to do anything of the sort and I am tired of these corrupt politicians misusing and abusing it to advance their agendas. The CBO has stated that “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”

We were warned of this by George Washington when he said in his farewell address:

"Let there be no change [in the Constitution] by usurpation. For though this, in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

Why would he make a statement like that? Because he knew that during times of trouble there would be politicians that would try to forcibly take over the powers of government to impose their will on its citizens. This was the very thing that the Revolutionaries fought and died for to prevent and our first president foresaw it as a potential hazard if any president attacked the Constitution to advance an agenda.

And his omen came to pass in 1937.

Very few Americans know that, up until 1937, our government was conducting business within the realms of the 17 enumerated powers within Article I Section 8 of the United States Constitution. These powers authorized the government to levy taxes and allocate funds and anything outside of these 17 powers was considered out of the government's jurisdiction and was left to the states.

Between 1935-36 the Supreme Court struck down eight of ten statutes brought to them by the FDR administration as unconstitutional. Of course, FDR was none too pleased and declared war on the Supreme Court:

"we have therefore, reached the point as a nation where we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself."

In 1936 the Democrat Party won an overwhelming victory at the polls and what happened next is what Constitutional historians refer to as the Revolution of 1937. Or what George Washington called the usurpation of the Constitution, which FDR used as a weapon to foist his agenda on the American people. What FDR proposed was that for each Supreme Court justice over the age of 70 that one new justice be appointed to "help with the case load". What he actually did was stack the Supreme Court deck with six additional judges that would back his "must have" legislation as Constitutional.

The role of the Supreme Court is to act as guardian of the Constitution; it does not make laws, but interprets them within the boundaries of the Constitution. If legislation is signed into law, the Supreme Court has the authority to strike it down if it deems it as unconstitutional.

According to an unnamed source, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes was so frightened by FDR's move that he was convinced that the president was going to change the Supreme Court's historic role as the guardian of the Constitution. What Chief Justice Hughes did next was an attempt to ensure judicial supremacy.

At that time there were were three liberals, four conservatives, one moderate and one swing on the bench; the swing vote being Chief Justice Roberts. It was Chief Justice Roberts that was convinced by Chief Justice Hughes to swing over to the liberal side and declare Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, which was a social security case, as Constitutional. By doing so, it was sent back to committee where it died and sent a clear message to FDR that the Supreme Court was not a weapon to be used against the American people. It also came to be known as the "Switch in time that saved nine."

However, this decision also sent a message to Congress that it would no longer be held to enumerated powers and instead could tax and spend for anything; so long as it was for the general welfare. But, the 'general welfare' clause in the enumerated powers of Article 1 Section 8 was never intended to be a weapon for carte blanche taxing and spending. And up until the court case noted earlier, the Supreme Court never acquiesced.

What we are witnessing today is The New Deal Take Two. It is of historic fact that Franklin Delano Roosevelt's policies were disastrous then and a repeat of these policies will be disastrous now and the current unemployment rate is evidence. To quote his closest friend and confidant, Henry Morgenthau:

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong . . . somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises . . . I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started . . . And an enormous debt to boot!"

In closing I would like to quote James Madison, the principle founder of the Constitution:

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.”

James Madison, “Letter to Edmund Pendleton,”
-James Madison, January 21, 1792, in The Papers of James Madison, vol. 14, Robert A Rutland et. al., ed (Charlottesvile: University Press of Virginia,1984)

An Emergence Of A Third Party? A Political Shot Across The Bow

With the current administration's attempt to "fundamentally transform" this nation and rewriting (destroying) our Constitution, as well as the Republican Party turning its back on their supporters and losing its way, could there be an emergence of a third party?

Watching the campaign in New York's 23rd District, we have seen what the definition of a RINO is, when Dierdre Scozzafava, a democrat in republican's clothing, dropped out an threw her lot in with Bill Owens. What has emerged out of this is a third party candidate, Doug Hoffman who has been running an anti-White House, anti-spending campaign. What some so-called republicans, such as Newt Gingrich, has voiced is one of fear that a third party will reinforce the democrat party by splitting the GOP.

I have two questions for Newt: So what? Have you forgotten what George Washington said? Our Founding Fathers were not stupid and were well aware of the possible issues of our future and constructed our Constitution to address them.

George Washington warned us of the dangers of a two party system in his farewell address:

19 Towards the preservation of your government, and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect, in the forms of the constitution, alterations, which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown. In all the changes to which you may be invited, remember that time and habit are at least as necessary to fix the true character of governments, as of other human institutions; that experience is the surest standard, by which to test the real tendency of the existing constitution of a country; that facility in changes, upon the credit of mere hypothesis and opinion, exposes to perpetual change, from the endless variety of hypothesis and opinion; and remember, especially, that, for the efficient management of our common interests, in a country so extensive as ours, a government of as much vigor as is consistent with the perfect security of liberty is indispensable. Liberty itself will find in such a government, with powers properly distributed and adjusted, its surest guardian. It is, indeed, little else than a name, where the government is too feeble to withstand the enterprises of faction, to confine each member of the society within the limits prescribed by the laws, and to maintain all in the secure and tranquil enjoyment of the rights of person and property.

20 I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the state, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discrimination's. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.

21 This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

22 The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

23 Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

24 It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

25 There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

Why do our nation's leaders constantly ignore our Founding Fathers? A better question to ask is the competence of our leaders in regards to the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. I am an average American who has read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers to understand why our Founding Fathers felt it was the best way to go for our country.

If Doug Hoffman wins New York's 23rd District race, it will send a shock wave through the White House and send a message to our politicians, republicans in particular that there is no such thing as a "moderate" republican, and his win will be a political shot across the bow that we have had enough of political party over the will of the people.

Someone once asked me what the difference is between a republican and a Conservative. I replied that the two are like a coyote and a Labrador Retriever; they are of the same species, but of a different breed.

Sources:

Third Party Candidates Shake Up Local Races, Send Warning Ahead of 2010

Fiasco: N.Y. Republicans deliver again

Third-Party Challenges in N.J., N.Y. a Warning Sign

Base sends GOP warning shot in NY-23

Economic Victimization - A Fairy Tale

"By adjusting the top rates and reducing windfalls paid out to some of the wealthiest individuals in the nation, we can help restore a sense of equity and fairness that is critical to the success of our voluntary tax system."

- Charles Rangel, Chairman of the House ways and Means Committee

Equity and fairness. Life isn't fair, yet we are constantly bombarded with rhetoric that we can make it fair if we just spread the wealth around. In other words, if you are born into a rich and affluent family, then it stands to reason that you will go through life being rich and affluent. If you are born into a poor family, then logically you will be poor throughout your life.

And this message of economic victimization, that has been embedded into our daily lives, is a fairy tale; yet, those who trumpet this message, are the very people that think that government is the answer. Their message is one of gimme. You, who has become successful, doesn't deserve all of your money that you earned through determination, sweat and grit. No, you must give some of it to me, even though I am fully capable of working and has a fair shot of trying to run my own business, though I don't want to because I am lazy and would rather leech off of others.

This theme, that has been growing on a daily basis, basically says that everyone is to blame for their economic troubles, other than the man or woman in the mirror. The system is out to get them because they are either black, gay, female or some other minority and they are not given a fair shake, so why bother even trying.

If you are a liberal progressive and believe this tale, then ask yourself a serious question. If you say that many people in America can't achieve the American Dream, then how did the 400 wealthiest in 1982 drop to just 32, only to be replaced by 368 new wealthy people? Look it up on the Forbes 400 list for 1982 and follow it to today's list.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that every American is guaranteed success and happiness, it only guarantees that you can pursue them on a level playing field. The Constitution also doesn't guarantee any equal results if you attempt to start your own business or the outcome of a job. And no, the 'general welfare' statement in the preamble does not mean that the government is required to give you a job, that statement means limited government. James Madison explained the general welfare clause is neither a statement of ends nor a substantive grant of power. In other words, limited government. It is a mere “synonym” for the enumeration of particular powers, which are limited and wholly define its content.

Rather than stepping aside and allowing the free market to run its course, the government seems to be Hell bent on its destruction by making rich people poor and poor people rich. Taking over GM and the banks and bailing out every company that comes to them with hat in hand and with a sob story, we are witnessing an explosion of government expansion that FDR and his failed policies would be worthy of.

Our government leaders have gotten us into trouble by increasing our nation's debt to nearly $12 trillion, handed out $2 trillion to corporations and banks, which has ultimately done what? Put each of us in debt to the tune of $300,000 plus dollars which has placed generations of our unborn progeny in debt.

So, if you're one of those people that shouts accolades at the TV when a CEO of a big corporation gets the screws put to him, then let me ask you a question: "Has the demise of said CEO improved your livelihood? Has it increased your salary? Has it put more food on your table or more gas in your car?" If the answers to these questions are a resounding no, then I can only conclude that it makes you feel all warm inside when someone that is successful gets railroaded and ruined, whom, by the way, creates the very jobs that are desperately needed.

If you are one of those people that think America's wealthiest don't shoulder the burden of taxes then you would be wrong. Consider that in 2006, the richest one percent of American's paid 39.9% of taxes and the top ten percent paid 71%. It is also noteworthy to add that the bottom fifty percent paid less than 3% of income taxes. In other words, Americans in the top fifty percent paid 97% of this nation's income taxes.

Below is a tax table based on a 2005 CBO study

	Share of pre-tax income	Share of individual income taxes
Top 1%	18.1%	38.8%
Top 5%	31.1%	60.7%
Top 10%	40.9%	72.7%
Top 20%	55.1%	86.3%
Bottom 20%	4.0%	-2.9%

According to the 2005 effective tax rate on an American in the lowest income bracket was 4.3%, for someone in the middle class it was 14.2% and for the wealthiest .01% the effective tax rate was 31.5%. So, based on the 2005 study, the tax rates do not favor the wealthy and as a recent CBO report has stated, "High income households have a disproportionate share of comprehensive income and pay a disproportionate share of federal taxes."

And before you shout out that the payroll tax is what hits the poor the hardest, you need to consider that the Tax Policy Center (ran by the Brookings and Urban Institutes, two liberal think tanks) concluded that that the richest 1% still pay 27.5% of the total income tax burden in America, however, the bottom 20% pays only0.4%. I had to get someone to explain it to me, if you understand it, then click here.

One thing that liberal progressives seem to conveniently forget is the EITC (Earned Income Tax Credit). This credit reimburses an employee, who is in the low income bracket, with a portion of their payroll tax. What this means is that we are already refunding taxes to the hard working families who struggle day to day. Which, incidentally, ensures that the tax system a progressive one.

Continued...

Revisiting the beginning statements of this article, if you are of the belief that politicians are always thumbing the forehead of minorities and they shouldn't even bother trying, then you are a victim of your own willful ignorance or the public school system. For instance, did you know that the largest demographic to make an 80% gain in earnings between 1980 and 2007 were African-American women and the worst group to make said gains were white men? Don't believe me? Then look at the Census Bureau's data.

If you are an employee of a small business owner, you need to stop and think for a moment that your boss who hired you is in your sights when you shout out that the rich need to sacrifice more to spread the wealth around. You say that the government should ratchet up their taxes to 50%, yet you don't stop to think that your boss is part of 2/3 of small business owners that you are decrying, which is the backbone of this countries economy. Oh, by the way, you are getting a paycheck from said small business owner. So, if you run your boss out of town by forcing him or her to pay more taxes, guess what you don't get?

As I close this article, I would like to point out a few things. You may be one of those people that cries out social justice and wealth redistribution, but, if you are looking for a job in New York and can't seem to find one maybe it's because the rich are moving out and people are leaving in droves. Liberal progressive leadership in Detroit has done nothing but destroy its livelihood. In 1950 it was rated as the wealthiest city in America, now it's the poorest. Read the articles below:

Detroit: The Triumph of Progressive Public Policy

What Ruined Detroit

Boobs Who Ruined Michigan Called In To Advise Obama

After you read each one of these, ask yourself if it's where this country is headed with this administration. Ask yourself if this is where you want to live if we keep allowing our leaders to take us down this road. Ask yourself if this is the country you want to leave to your children.

A country is typically measured by how many of its people are trying to leave to seek a better life. I have yet to see anyone leave this country to do that, have you? I don't begrudge anyone who is wealthy or is seeking wealth, except when they cheat, steal and lie to do it. Our government is doing all three.

What are you going to do?

Why Things Need To Change In 2010

When CNS News asked Senator Patrick Leahy where in the Constitution does it say that Congress can force Americans to have health care, he couldn't answer it.

Sen. Leahy: "We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority?"

Read the rest of Leahy's response here.

The fact is that the Constitution does not give Congress any authority to force Americans to have health care and I defy anyone to point it out to me if I missed it. And don't tell me that's what the Constitution refers to with the "General welfare" statement, because that's not what that statement means.

Reading the back and forth between CNS News and Senator Leahy just lends more credence as to why things need to change in 2010. This is nothing more than government out of control and a complete disregard for our Constitution, particularly when a sitting senator, as arrogant as Leahy, claims that they have the authority to do what ever they want.

Sen. Leahy: "Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there’s no question there’s authority. Nobody questions that."

Yes, we do question it. Why he would think otherwise shows that he, as well as other politicians are out of touch with middle America. Just read how he compares this mystical authority to interstate highways and ask yourself if this senator speaks for most of us Americans.

James Madison explained the general welfare clause is neither a statement of ends nor a substantive grant of power. In other words, limited government. It is a mere "synonym" for the enumeration of particular powers, which are limited and wholly define its content.

People, you need to wake up! If politicians, like Leahy, doesn't make your head want to explode, I don't know what will. He is basically telling us that we need to sit down and shut up, we know what's best for you.