For All Who Are Clamoring for Constitutional Convention, Forewarned is Forearmed

As George Washington cautioned in his Farewell Address, "to resist the spirit of innovation upon the principles of the Constitution, however specious the pretexts"[1]...OM

Obama blamed Founding Fathers’ ‘structural’ design of Congress for gridlock

"The States in their House (Senate) would be a check on sudden and ill-considered action by the House of the People (House of Representatives).[1]...OM"

President Obama is taking a swipe at the Founding Fathers, blaming his inability to move his agenda on the “disadvantage” of having each state represented equally in the Senate. (For a so called, Constitutional scholar how little does BH0 know about the history of the Constitution he swore to "...preserve, protect and defend..." The Senate was originally designed to be a House of the States and "...shall be composed of two Senators from each state, CHOSEN by the Legislature there of...Art 1, Sec 3 emasculated by the 17th Amendment[1]...OM)

At a Democratic fundraiser in Chicago Thursday night, Mr. Obama told a small group of wealthy supporters that there are several hurdles to keeping Democrats in control of the Senate and recapturing the House. One of those problems, he said, is the apportionment of two Senate seats to each state regardless of population. (The House of Representatives is the HOUSE of the PEOPLE, elected by the PEOPLE as defined in Art 1, Sec 2 of Constitution and the House of Representatives is the people's check on the POTUS. The Senate was suppose to be the STATES check on the POTUS as explained in Federalist 62, "It is recommended by the double advantage favoring a SELECT appointment, and of giving to the STATE GOVERNMENT such an agency in the formation of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT as a must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems"...OM)

“Obviously, the nature of the Senate means that California has the same number of Senate seats as Wyoming. That puts us at a disadvantage,” Mr. Obama said. (That is exactly why the Founding Fathers set up Congress consisting of a HOUSE and SENATE because as much as the Socialist stress that America is a DEMOCRACY it isn't, AMERICA IS A REPUBLIC...OM)

The Founding Fathers decided in the “Great Compromise” in 1787 to apportion House seats based on population and give each state two seats in the Senate regardless of population. The solution was a compromise between large states and small states in a dispute that nearly dissolved the Constitutional Convention.

The president also blamed “demographics” for the inability of the Democratic Party to gain more power in Congress, saying Democrats “tend to congregate a little more densely” in cities such as New York and Chicago (Isn't that where most of the welfare handouts go?...OM). He said it gives Republicans disproportional clout in Congress.(Because most who believe in original meaning of the Constitution and hard work usually live outside the Democratic controlled urban areas...OM)

“So there are some structural reasons why, despite the fact that Republican ideas are largely rejected by the public, it’s still hard for us to break through,” Mr. Obama said. (Is that why the House turned over in 2010 and MAYBE there will be a turn of the Senate in 2014?...OM)

He also said Democrats suffer from the “congenital disease” of not voting in midterm elections.

Let's turn once more to the Federalist:

"The necessity of a Senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and
numerous assemblies to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to
be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions. Examples on this subject might be cited without number; and from proceedings within the  United States, as well as from the history of other nations."

Sources: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/23/obama-blames-structural-design-congress-gridlock/#ixzz32c1xNmwe 

[1] Norton, Thomas James, Undermining The Constitution, A History of a Lawless Government, The Devin-Adair Company, New York, 1950. (Thomas Norton was a member of the Bars of the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals for the 7th, 8th, and 9th Circuits, and the Supreme Courts of Illinois, Kansas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California.)

In the Hour of the Wolf – Random Thoughts about Twitter

Another sleepless night and as I stumbled into the living room to turn on the T.V. before heading to kitchen to start the coffee. As the coffee brews, I light the first of what will become one of many cigarettes I will smoke today and half listen to the T.V.

Coffee is ready, I pour a cup wander into living room, I glance at the screen and some “talking heads” and some “personality” are talking about who’s going to win, who’s going to loose and why.

Will it be Hillary or Sanders? Will it be Cruz, Bush, Trump or another candidate? 

During this back and forth there is never any mention of the Constitution. 

I would half way expect one of these various media brain trusts to say something like candidate ________, will work within the confines of the Constitution and work to defund everything that is not constitutional.

Maybe if they did work to remove some of these redistribution of wealth programs, we wouldn't need a new tax plan accept to lower the tax rate?

Needless to say, most likely if they did that as POTUS, they would serve only one term.

Of course, for the Hillary and Sanders supporters, as well as Obozo, the Constitution is a hindrance and the working American taxpayer is just a piggy bank.

After getting another cup of coffee, I power up the computer and settle in to check email, glance at the news and as regular as clockwork end up on Twitter.

I scan the threads, see the great tweets, photos and of course, the usual back in forth on who would be a better candidate for conservatives.

A number of tweets catch my eye and I do what I feel is my duty as a Patriot and a Marine engaged in the fight to save America, ask the hard questions.

LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR HERE AND NOW, I HAVE CANDIDATES I’M EYEING, BUT HAVE YET TO MAKE A CHOICE.

One question that I asked,

“Why the “sudden” change in Trump’s support of Hillary and being strangely silent till last year about the Democrats.”

Needless to say, I opened the flood gates of insults and comments but no real answer. However there was one prominent answer among them, 

“Ronald Reagan was a life long Democrat and he switched.”

I reminded them, that yes he switched in 1962, and as he said, 

“I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. It left me.”

Now, I don’t nor will I claim to know exactly why Reagan left the Democrat party, but I venture to say that it may been something to do with what the poet and Lincoln biographer Carl Sandburg, who was a former socialist, but later went on to support Democrats such as Adlai Stevenson and even John Kennedy said about the 1960 Democratic platform:

“That’s a very good imitation of the national Socialist Party platform adopted in Chicago in 1908.” (Note: Not to be confused with the National Socialist Party of Germany, NAZI...OM)

Then there was my question about how Trump could support ethanol subsidies and government mandates that ethanol be blended with gasoline and how someone who claims to be fighting for the Constitution can support someone who believes in something not in the Constitution?

To which I got one the most intelligent and honest answer I’ve heard in a long time:

“Well, nobody is perfect. I just like him”

Eventually the subject of eminent domain raised its ugly head when a follower tweeted:

“The Bush family used eminent domain to build a stadium for “their” baseball team.”

Now I don’t claim to be a lawyer, nor do I play one on Twitter, BUT as Eric Bolling said and I paraphrase, too many people haven’t read the last line of 5th Amendment of the Constitution. Before everyone reaches for their copy of the Constitution or search the web:

“…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Key word is public use.

So what is public use:

“…relating to, or affecting all or most of the people of a country, state, etc.”

Let’s look at this meaning.

Does a parking lot for a privately own business really affect all or most people of country, state or even the city?

Maybe it may bring jobs to a few. Maybe it will bring tax money to a city BUT will it allow use by everyone or just a select few?

One argument Trump brought up, was the use of eminent domain by federal government for roads, bridges and even the XL pipeline. SPOILER ALERT! Project in work on federal use eminent domain and the takeover of state's property in order to have the:

Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

or maybe it is:

"The extension of the public domain to include mines, quarries, oil wells, forests and water power and the scientific reforestation of timber lands, and the reclamation of swamp lands. The land so reforested or reclaimed to be permanently retained as a part of the public domain."

Without going into a long drawn out explanation and spoiling an ongoing project, let’s just say that the use of federal eminent domain is:

“The federal power of eminent domain is, of course, limited by the grants of power in the Constitution, so that property may only be taken for the effectuation of a granted power [1], but once this is conceded the ambit of national powers is so wideranging [sic] that vast numbers of objects may be effected.”[2]

Before getting off the subject of Trump, let me repeat what I said earlier:

I HAVE CANDIDATES I’M EYEING, BUT HAVE YET TO MAKE A CHOICE. I JUST ASK THE QUESTIONS.

NO, I’m not a Cruzbot as I have been accused of being. I attempt to look beyond the hype and ask questions and expect intelligent answers, preferably based on the Constitution and facts, feeling that maybe by asking these questions, people will stop, think (I realize that it hurts) and learn.

Speaking of which, it never ceases to amaze me how people can or will make statements without even reading or knowing the basic facts.

Case in point as a number of my great followers know, I do not believe in the use of tax money for government handouts including funding for schools and even refer to those who receive them as slaves to the government, I had one follower make the statement:

“Well you’re retired and you receive handouts from the federal government.”

Wrong, No where in my my profile does it say I’m a retired Marine. But, this follower ASSUMPED I was retired and doesn’t know, that short of being medically retired, a service person (I hate being politically correct) retires after twenty years of honorable service.

Wrong, because the benefits received by retired veteran are NOT “handouts” but they are or have been earned through 20 plus years of faithful service to the “company” called America. Yes, I used the term “company” because, just like in the civilian world, when they hire an employee, they usually have a contract or a promise that if you work “X” number of years, you will receive certain things.

The same is true with the armed forces, when a man or woman signs that contract, blank check if you will, that they are willing to defend America against all enemies foreign and domestic with their lives if required. In return, America made a contract, a promise, that laid out certain benefits, all of which can be traced back to the Article 1, Sections 12 thru 16. So for all of you who believe that veteran benefits are just handouts, think again.

To me, handouts are the redistribution of wealth using taxpayers’ money for various unconstitutional social programs, welfare or whatever PC name they call it, Medicaid, funding of schools, etc. Social Security and Medicare are NOT included.

WHY? Because the unconstitutional, in my opinion, BUT government programs REQUIRES working Americans to, by law, to fork over a portion of their money to a badly run federal retirement plan and medical plan and at a certain age, Americans get that money back.

This just goes to prove how lack of fore knowledge or the lack of comprehension has infested people.

Finally, for now, just as afterthought, I have often used the terms American Communism and American Communists to describe what others, including well known talking heads, use the softer terms such as: liberal, progressives, socialism, elites or big government and no one has said a word, BUT insist on still using the softer terms.

Why? Are they afraid to offend? Are they so brainwashed by “talking heads” and the lame stream media that even in the face of information from ORIGINAL sources they refuse to accept the fact that for over a century, America has been heading towards it unique form of government control of production, distribution and consumption or as early American socialists, Bliss and Berger defined as communism.

I believe people who use these softer terms do so as a self-denial that communism has taken hold of American life and this government control, big government if you will, because they realize that due to their inattention, taking freedom for granted and just plain assuming that most of what Washington does is, constitutional.

Or is it because they are getting free money for police, fire, schools and other unconstitutional items and their states, cities can use their local tax money for other things like planting trees or pushing the Sustainable Communities Initiative and further seeking enslaving the people with handouts?

So remember, when we get into discussions on Twitter or elsewhere, I'll ask the hard questions, not to insult you but by chance make you think and hopefully you can teach me something. So don't take it personal, it isn't.

Semper Fi!

[1] United States v. Gettysburg Electric Ry., 160 U.S. 668, 679 (1896)

[2] California v. Central Pacific Railroad, 127 U.S. 1, 39 (1888) (highways);

     Luxton v. North River Bridge Co., 153 U.S. 525 (1894) (interstate bridges);

     Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas Ry, 135 U.S. 641 (1890) (railroads);

     Albert Hanson Lumber Co. v. United States, 261 U.S. 581 (1923) (canal);

     Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288 (1936) (hydroelectric power).



“Once the object is within the authority of Congress, the right to realize it through the exercise of eminent domain is clear. For the power of eminent domain is merely the means to the end.” Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 33 (1954)

In The Hour of the Wolf – Reflections on Constitution and Subsidies

As I read and think about the various tweets from my great followers on twitter and believe me when I say that I value each and every one of them I have to wonder if some of my follower have, like a number of “conservative” talking heads and political candidates, have gotten so numb to various government programs that they don’t even stop and consider whether it is within the limits of the responsibilities of the federal government as outlined and SPELLED out within the Constitution.

It is not my intention to bash or degrade any particular GOP candidate or any particular follower on twitter.

I will paraphrase certain things and point out where what I consider errors in reference to Constitution. If I’m in error, I’m sure someone will correct me.

With a vast number of people watching the unfolding events in Iowa between Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, either which could possibly get a boost by winning the caucus.

To this end, Mr. Trump has gotten what many “talking heads” may consider a very important endorsement.

No it was not Sarah Palin, but the so called conservative governor of Iowa, Terry Branstad.

Why did Gov. Branstad endorse Mr. Trump?

Was it because he believes that Trump is the best candidate for America?

I don’t think so!

I feel that Gov. Branstad endorsed Mr. Trump mainly because the governor is against Sen. Cruz’s stand on the ethanol subsidy and to some extend subsidies in general after Senator Cruz said:

“I don’t think Washington should be picking winners and losers. I have every bit of faith that businesses can continue to compete, can continue to do well without having to go on bended knee to Washington asking for subsidies, asking for special favors. I think that’s how we got in this problem to begin with.”

To which Gov. Branstad replied:

"Ted Cruz is ahead right now. What we’re trying to do is educate the people in the state of Iowa. He is the biggest opponent of renewable fuels," Branstad said, according to the paper. "I think it would be a big mistake for Iowa to support him." 

Now, I don’t blame Gov. Branstad for doing what he feels is best for his state, IF he didn’t, I would join Iowans in removing him from office. BUT like a number of laws and programs out of District of Corruption, they have been passed, put in place and taken for granted that they are okay. Why hasn’t anyone stopped and even considered their constitutionality?

When I posed this question on twitter, one of my followers said:

“They are acts of Congress not the Constitution. Congress makes law.”

To this I asked two simple questions, and it’s the same questions I have been asking for years on many other subjects:

“Isn’t congress supposed to make and pass laws that is within the authority of the Constitution? And just where is ANY subsidies authorized by the Constitution?”

Just where in the Constitution does it say that:

"Money paid, usually by GOVERNMENT, to keep PRICES below what they would be in a free market, or to keep alive businesses that would otherwise go bust, or to make activities happen that otherwise would not take place. Subsidies can be a form of PROTECTIONISM by making domestic goods and SERVICES artificially competitive against IMPORTS. By distorting markets, they can impose large economic costs."

This is the same question I asked Mr. Trump and Mr. Branstad on twitter? Did I get a reply, NO! In fact, I didn’t get anyone who supports Mr. Trump defending his stand on ethanol subsidies.

On the other side of the coin, I have to offer Ted Cruz, I offer this piece of advice. When talking about the corn subsidy or subsidies in general, just point out the fact that NO where in the Constitution does the federal government have any right to, as Mr. Cruz said, 

“I don’t think Washington should be picking winners and losers.”

In fact, if Mr. Cruz and Mr. Trump would have looked at history and see what a little known member of the FIRST congress, James Madison, had to say when confronted with a vote on what would be the first subsidy:

“...tied down to the specified powers, which explain and define general terms, If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor. . . . Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.” 

How many  “conservatives” were outraged & complained about the subsidies or bailouts to the auto industry which Mr. Trump supported in 2008? How were outraged and complainted about the subsidies to solar panel manufacturers? How about the tax money spent to study shrimp on treadmills?

ARE you one who complains about the waste of the many government handouts and programs?

Do you favor corn subsidies or any subsidies in general including government funding of schools?

If the answer is YES to the first question and NO to the second, then how can you look in the mirror and say you believe in the Constitution? Or do you, as many others do, just take it for granted that that's the government job.

Maybe it is, but not under our Constitutional Republic, but under a government where the elected officials believe in and follow an 1848 publication by Karl Marx or the 1908 American Socialist's party platform as a guide.

In the Hour of the Wolf – A Time to Reevaluate

NOTICE: YOU REALLY NEED TO READ ALL THREE PARTS OF SERIES

Many of you know that “The Hour of the Wolf” is when I do my “best” thinking and writing, others will say its when I do my best stinking thinking and writing.

I'll let you be the judge for I am about to unleash the hell that only a pissed off Marine Gunny is capable of when all else fails not only in blog posts but on twitter as well.

BUT, first things first, with this post, I will no longer spend time defining words, idea, etc. within this or any other post. I will establish a separate page that will list terms and words used in my posts with their meanings and source, and YES there will be history and original sources.

Second, I am going to do something that I have never done, I am going to beg you to OPEN your minds, do as I do as a scientist, look at the facts, evaluate and if necessary reevaluate.

FINALLY, I am going to ask that IF you do not agree, which I'll admit a number of people won't, I want you to feel free to comment, but be fore warned; be prepared to defend it with facts and legitimate sources. IF you begin your comment “talking head” said, I will eat your lunch and then I will answer, but I will push you for the original sources. This will apply to all future and past posts.

Now that the housekeeping is out of the way, let's get down and dirty.

“Mediocre minds usually dismiss anything which reaches beyond their own understanding.” ... Francois de La Rochefoucauld

Re-evaluation of current situation

For many years, I have ranted and raved that America has become more and more socialistic. I have quoted and documented the actual words from the Manifesto of the Communist Party (Manifesto), the Platform of the 1908, the Soros run Center for American Progress (CAP) and of course Boo Boo, our current POTUS.

In the process of doing RESEARCH for my various rants and writings I must admit that I have been forced to re-evaluate my conclusions.

America HAS NOT become a socialistic country.

Just as our Founding Fathers used various sources; the Bible, David Hume, John Locke, etc., to establish America; America has “done it its own way”. We went from a group of disorganized colonies under a monarchy to the United States of America united under the unique document called the Constitution.

Americans have always done it our own, quite unique way.

YES, were some mistakes made along the way: but being Americans, we corrected them in most cases without bloodshed. All of which were part of the learning curve.

Unfortunately over the many years, the American people and particularly politicians have forgotten that uniqueness which made America great and began to copy and adapt the movements that began taking place in Europe during the middle 1800's, BUT like everything which made America great, those wishing to bring about this change did it in the unique American way.

They took into consideration that most people would be repulsed by the idea of the use of violence to change the system. After all, the people of America were (are) basically peace loving and would use force only if all else failed, saw the violence in Europe (Revolutions of 1848 and the Commune of 1870) and memories of our own Civil War were still fresh in American's mind.

Even Marx in late 1870, warned the workers of Paris NOT to use violence to overthrow the French capitalistic government and would later say:

“One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.”

Eventually those in America, who were seeking power, control, as well as change took heed of these words and turned to using crisis, propaganda and most importantly the ballot to began quietly and slowly using these guises to gain power.

The politicians took office, both locally and nationally, and began to pass laws and even allowed non-elected officials to enact regulations that would end up controlling aspects of American life.

Thus the establishment of what would become more acceptable, at the time, and falsely called “Big Government” but in reality should be called American Communism.

I can hear everybody, screaming now, “We are not communistic. We're a free country under a Constitution. We elect our leaders. We did not have a violent revolution that brought in a dictator, Etc.”

Part of these people's thinking is correct.

Yes, we do elect our our “leaders”.

True, we did not have a violent revolution that brought about a dictatorship. Although, under Boo Boo and the SCOTUS it appears that way.

Instead, Americans grew envious, greedy and sadly lazy and elected those on BOTH sides of the aisle who grew the size of government and made more people dependent on the government. A QUIET REVOLUTION, but a revolution nonetheless.

Does that mean we have not become communistic?

Are the American people really free or are we subject to whims of those in Washington who pass laws, or un-elected officials who issue regulations or the courts who interpret and in some cases misinterpret them. In other words, is Government controlling our lives?

“Si nescis unde venias, nescis quo adeas”

Socialism or Communism

“Yet, when it was written, we could not have called it a socialist (my emphasis) manifesto. By Socialists, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand the adherents of the various Utopian systems:...” (Fredrick Engels in the Preface of 1888 edition of the Manifesto of the Communist Party, which has served as a basis for the “modern” British, American and the late U.S.S.R publications of this infamous plan.)

Now, unless you do what a friend of mine did when we were discussing a mathematical equation and I showed him the equation in a reference book, he threw the book away and said, “it's wrong”; then there is no reason for you to keep reading, your mind is made up and I shouldn't confuse you with facts.

So, for those that are still with me, when I quote Marx or Engels and they say communist or communism I will ask you to remember Engels, preface and call it socialist or socialism.

Not to know what Communism is, is today simply intellectual laziness.

(Paraphrased from Sidney Webb)

Continued in.....In the Hour of the Wolf – A Time to Reevaluate With an Eye on History

No Chit Sherlock: Where have YOU Been?

Like most Americans who are fighting for the American way of life when I come on line there is one site that always comes up, the Drudge Report.

While scanning the headlines, I came across a link to a story that made me choke on my coffee.

Unfortunately, I wasn't thinking at the time and didn't copy the headline for farther use, BUT will attempt to paraphrase from memory, “Schlafly: TPP means Congress abdicates authority”. Now, if I didn't get it exactly right, sorry, I'm sure Drudge or someone will correct me.

Now, in all due respect to Ms Schlafly, who from what I have read is a very smart and talented writer, BUT I must ask her, “No chit Sherlock, where have you been?” Congress (as well as the states) has unconstitutionally been abdicating its authority for over a century and NOW people are complaining.

First things first

Let's take a look at the Constitution, you know the document that is suppose to tell the federal government what it CAN do, as opposed to the first ten amendments, The Bill of Rights, which tells the federal government what it can not do.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 says:

“...he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices...”

I fully understand that there is no single man elected to the office of president who does not need advice from “experts” in their fields, except maybe Obama, to govern this great country. But does this clause mean that a department within executive branch can control by regulations, NOT laws passed by congress, commerce and just about all aspects of American's freedom and life.

So what did/does congress do instead doing their duty as defined by the Constitution, they unconstitutionally turn their “powers” over to the executive branch by either passing laws or establishing cabinet posts.

Antiquities Act of 1906

This act gave the President of the United States (POTUS) the authority, by presidential proclamation, to restrict the use of public land owned by the federal government.

The key word is owned, did or has the Federal government paid any state or did any state's legislature give its consent for this land to be taken or was it seized on the whim of the President with consent of congress in order to give federal government control over mineral, including oil and gas, exploration and production? As stated in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17.

“...and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;...” (My emphasis)

Or was this an early attempt for the “Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.” (Page 26) or maybe “The extension of the public domain to include mines, quarries, oil wells, forests and water power.” (Page 376).

Federal Communication Commission

Take a look at Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, which clearly says:

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

Once again people need to ask, does this clause say that congress can abdicate this power to the executive branch?

As with the Antiquities Act of 1906, congress willfully violated the Constitution to establish the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) in 1934 to take over the duties that were handled by the Interstate Commerce Commission “to regulate interstate communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia and U.S. territories” by working towards “six goals in the areas of broadband, competition, the spectrum, the media, public safety and homeland security.”

The key words, in my opinion, is regulate interstate. Is this NOT the responsibility of Congress or is this a subtle way to establish “The collective ownership of railroads, telegraphs, telephones, steamship lines and all other means of social transportation and communication.” (Page 376)

There are some who will say, “This was passed under FDR and was needed because of the 'Depression'.”

Would someone please explain to me how government control of radio, telephone, radio and telegraphs (at that time in history) would help America to recover from the Depression.

Let's fast forward, this same FCC has and is working very hard to seize control of the internet through “Net Neutrality”. Again, where in the Constitution does a department within the executive branch have the right to regulate what a privately owned business can or cannot do?

Where in the Constitution does it give an agency, not even a Cabinet post to regulate international trade and or treaty? Is this not the jobs of the House and Senate?

Take the out of control EPA.

The EPA was established in 1970 to protect human health and the environment by writing and enforcing regulations based on laws passed by Congress.

The Clean Air Act of 1970, was established to protect both public health and public welfare by regulating the emission of air pollutants that could be (my emphasis) hazardous to the health of the Earth. The law set the National Ambient Air Quality Standards in each state and continues to monitor the air quality through these standards.

Now, like all Americans, I know the need for clean air, but by passing this law it, in my opinion, allowed congress and the states to turn over their control of interstate and intrastate commerce to an agency headed by an unelected official, who is not even a cabinet head.

Later in 1972 congress passed the Clean Water Act in order to regulate the water quality standards. This includes navigable waters and any connecting water, including coastal waters, lakes, rivers, streams and wetlands and now mud puddles.

Again, congress and the states unconstitutionally abdicated their right and duties as defined by the Constitution to the executive branch.

These are just a few of instances where Congress and the States have basically violated the Constitution in favor of a centralized government. (SPOILER ALERT! On going in depth project research on this in work for posting later)

So I have to say to Kevin L. Kearns of the U.S. Business and Industry Council and M's Schlafly, who are calling the TPP “another power grab” and pointing out the abdication of congressional powers to the executive branch.....

No Chit Sherlocks: Where have YOU Been? 

Semper Fi!

Further information can be found in:

Undermining the Constitution by Thomas James Norton

The Federalist

Federalist No. 9 - The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard against Domestic Faction and Insurrection, page 38

Federalist No. 47 - The meaning of the maxim, which requires a separation of the departments of power, examined and ascertained, pages 249 – 55

Federalist No. 51 - The same subject continued, with the same view, and concluded, pages 267–72

Federalist No. 66 - A further view of the constitution of the senate, in relation to its capacity, as a court for the trial of impeachments, pages 342– 44 

Federalist No. 71 - Concerning the constitution of the president: a gross attempt to misrepresent this part of the plan detected, page 371

Federalist No. 73 - The same view continued, in relation to the provision concerning support, and the power of the negative, pages 379 – 384

Federalist No. 75 - The same view continued, in relation to the power of making treaties, pages 387–90

Federalist No. 78 - A view of the constitution of the judicial department in relation to the tenure of good behaviour [sic], pages 402–408

Federalist No. 81 - A further view of the judicial department, in relation to the distribution of its authority, pages 418–419

People Trust Their Lying Ears More Their Brain

Pop Quiz: How much spending is actually Constitutional?

On May 8, Neil Cavuto presented a show on Fox Business that IF YOU DON'T GET IT, DEMAND IT, called America's Trust Deficit. As with many shows that Mr. Cavuto presents, it hits the target. Particularly in the first ten minutes which dealt with American's lack of trust in the government. A lack of trust that the government has earned by wasting TRILLIONS of American taxpayer's dollars on various programs which are not truly authorized within the Constitution, but have been passed and signed into law. These laws were never challenged, they were just accepted and now they are out of control and NOW people are concerned.

So, the question arises, is it the government that cannot be trusted or is it the people who believe everything a politician or some “talking head” tells them, not bothering to stop and think, “Is this truly what our founding Fathers intended to be the role of the federal government in its citizen's lives.”

This was evident within the first ten minutes of Neil's show when the discussion began with the government's failures with its various programs and showed that even a well respected “talking head” like Steve Moore, a Heritage Foundation visiting fellow, seems to have a lack of understanding of the Constitution and the role of the federal government.

Mr. Moore began by bringing up how much Washington has change and federal spending increased in the 25 to 30 years he had been in the District of Corruption. According to Mr. Moore, federal spending has increased from about a trillion dollars per year in spending to about four trillion in the coming year. He then continued to discuss spending for schools.

Mr. Moore drew attention to the fact that the per pupil spending when compared with the 1950 and 1960's when schools were considered much better, the cost has increased ca. three times as much as it did then. He failed to mention however, that in the 1950's and 1960's there was very little federal money given to local schools.

What followed was usual discussion and various opinions on federal spending, which in my opinion is the same old B.S.. The same B.S. that many others and I have heard over the years from both sides of the aisle. HOWEVER, no where in the discussion about federal spending did anyone bring up the fact that a lot of this federal spending is no where authorized in the Constitution.

In fact, Mr. Moore said, “...(the) problem is this...that government has gotten away from the core functions of what its suppose to do,...its suppose to educate our kids, its suppose to build good roads and highways, its suppose to defend us...”.

Now, such a well educated man like Mr. Moore should realize that the founding Fathers DID NOT intend for the federal government to use tax money to educate our kids. To build (post) roads, YES (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 7). To provide for the common defense (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1) by raising and supporting an Army and a Navy (Article 1 section 8, Clauses 12 & 13) definitely YES.

No matter how hard I search the Constitution and read the Federalist papers, I can not find anything that says that the federal government should educate our children. In fact, even the Department of Education admits that “The responsibility for K–12 education rests with the states under the Constitution.”

So, where did Mr. Moore come up with the idea that the federal government is suppose to educate our children? Was it from the Manifesto of the Communist Party, “Free education for all children in public schools...” I don't feel so. 

Was it from the Socialist Party Platform of 1908 and bragged about by the Center of American Progress? Again I don't think so.

I feel that Mr. Moore and many Americans have forgotten one very important thing, even though Mr. Moore eluded to it, “schools were considered much better in 1950 and 1960's”.

That important thing is that “the primary source of federal K–12 support began in 1965 with the enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).”

This law, basically took the funding of schools at the local level from the states and allowed for the redistribution of wealth from wealthy states to less wealthy states by the federal government. This redistribution of wealth also gave the federal government the opportunity to gain control of the school systems, can anyone say, “Common Core” or "standard testing" which has lead to corruption among those people trust to educate their children and this is just one case, how many more are out there not discovered.

This redistribution of wealth also lead to the increase in the size of government by the creation of the Department of Education in 1979.

I must ask again, just where is the use of federal taxes “to educate our kids” authorized by the Constitution?

This same question can be asked of Medicaid, the various welfare programs and unemployment compensation.

Just where are any of these programs authorized by the Constitution. Or were these programs put in place over the years as part of an agenda to slowly but surly change America from what the founding Fathers intended?

Over all, I found the show informative, but found that Neil Cavuto and the others did not fully explore the real reason why so many people do not trust the federal government or our elected officials.

The reason; is that to REALLY place the blame of this lost of trust would offend many of his viewers. The true source of this distrust is THE PEOPLE. The very same people who would rather believe the politicians who promise to bring “home the bacon” then stop and think, “Is this what the Constitution authorized the federal government to do?”

You tell me, is our current educational system better NOW or was it better before the federal government got involved? Is America better off now, either financially or spiritually, then before the federal government got involved in things not authorized in the Constitution.

Semper Fi!

Here We Go Again! Another Assault on Religion

PLEASE SEE UPDATE AT BOTTOM!!!!

Once again, the Socialist war against religion or if you prefer tradition rears its ugly head as those who want to destroy America by attacking our beliefs and more importantly destroying and misinterpreting the Constitution. 

Cross at Indiana State Park Prompts Atheist Protest

A 14-inch white cross on state park property has thrust the east-Central Indiana town of Liberty into a national debate over religious icons on public lands.

And a national atheist group has jumped into the fray.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation last month sent a letter to Department of Natural Resources Director Cameron Clark telling him that a cross attached to a new war veterans memorial statute has no place at Whitewater Memorial State Park. {The park was purchased by the surrounding counties of Union, Fayette, Franklin and Wayne as a memorial to the men and women who served in World War II. Now, the question that needs to be asked, Did FEDERAL GOVERNMENT levy a tax on U.S. citizens specifically for this park? If the answer is No, then the First amendment of the Constitution is not being violated. Remember the Constitution was written to lay guidelines of what the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT can do, the Bill of Rights was written to tell the Federal government can not do and to PROTECT the States and the PEOPLE from the Federal Government. Now, did these counties establish this park as a religious institution? The name tells you that it wasn't. IT IS A MEMORIAL which means it was established to serve to preserve remembrance :  commemorative. Now, lets look at the Indiana State Constitution and ask was this park established as religious institution? Again, the answer is NO, therefore Section 6 "No money shall be drawn from the treasury, for the benefit of any religious or theological institution" of the Indiana Constitution was NOT violated...OM}

"No secular purpose, no matter how sincere, will detract from the overall message that the Latin cross stands for Christianity and the overall display promotes Christianity," wrote Rebecca S. Markert, the foundation's attorney. (So? The Federal Government or State Government DID NOT pay for or erect it...OM)

Markert added that the cross "will send a message that the government only cares about the deaths of Christian soldiers." (No it doesn't. The government had nothing to do with it except donating the land and NOT receiving payment, after all it is a PUBLIC park and belongs to the CITIZENS of Indiana...OM)

The 14-inch, white-painted cross is at the bottom of an 8-foot-tall wooden chainsaw-carved statue. At the top is a bald eagle perched above lettering that says "All gave some; Some gave all." One side of the eagle's perch is an Indiana state flag. On the other side is a soldier.

DNR officials are deciding if they will allow the carving to stay in place near the park headquarters. A message left with a DNR spokesman Monday wasn't immediately returned.

Whitewater Memorial State Park was formed in 1949 and was dedicated to World War II veterans from Union, Wayne, Fayette and Franklin counties in east Central Indiana. It's about 80 miles east of Indianapolis.

The debate over the cross erupted earlier this summer when retired Liberty restaurateur Wendell Bias sent a letter to the DNR after he saw the statue on display at the park.

Bias, a U.S. Army veteran, told The Star today that he didn't think the cross was appropriate.

"I just thought that a memorial to veterans in a veterans' park didn't need to be turned into a religious shrine," he said. (Since when is a PUBLIC PARK a place connected with a holy person or event where people go to worship. So according to Mr. Bias, IF a church group camps overnight at the park and the next morning have a prayer of thanks, it is not allowed?)

Bias didn't know who alerted the Freedom From Religion Foundation, an atheist and agnostic group of more than 21,000 national members. The foundation didn't return a request for comment Monday.

Veterans' groups and other residents donated money to pay for the carved memorial, Union County Development Corp. president Howard Curry said. No taxpayer funds were used for the carving, which was donated to the park. (HERE IS THE CRUX OF THE MATTER! NO taxpayer money was used therefore this statue does not violate Federal OR Indiana Constitutions...OM)

The Richmond, Ind., sculptor who carved the piece, Dayle K. Lewis, said he used his chainsaw to carve the cross because that particular section of the statue "was plain and needed something," but he also wanted to set the scene of a soldier standing over a grave. The cross, he said, was a natural fit.

"We didn't think this would be a religious thing," he said.

Lewis was quite proud of the statue that he spent at least 90 hours working on, until he read a negative online article posted by an atheist group in which anonymous commenters tore it apart.

"They were talking that it was hideous, the worst sculpture they ever seen; it (the soldier) looked like a farm boy with overalls and a bad haircut," he said. "They were really ripping it."

But Lewis said he's also been heartened to received praise from national supporters. He said a California man offered to buy it if the DNR ordered it moved from the property.

The statue also has received more than its share of support in this town of 2,100 people.

Bob Napier, a Union County Korean War veteran, said his group sent a petition with 1,651 signatures to the DNR urging the agency to keep the statue where it is.

A Facebook group called "Keep the Cross Carving at Whitewater Memorial State Park" has more than 800 members.

Some have proposed removing the cross from the bottom of the statue, but Napier said that's not an option.

"We don't want that," Napier said. "We want it the way it is. We don't want to move it somewhere else, either. We want it to be at the park that is dedicated to veterans. Vets fought for freedom, but they keep taking our freedoms away from us."

But Bias said that all soldiers, not just the Christian ones, fought for their nation's freedoms.

"I've been to Arlington a couple times, and I've been to France to that cemetery over there," Bias said. "While they're mostly crosses, they're not all crosses." (This a MEMORIAL NOT A CEMETERY...OM)

It's going to be up to the DNR to determine which of these cross purposes prevails in Liberty.

Source: http://www.indystar.com/story/news/2014/09/01/cross-indiana-state-park-prompts-atheist-protest/14933081/

Final note: When is enough going to be enough? All Patriots should write, call, email, snail mail Indiana DNR to keep the statue. As I feel I've shown, in no way does this violate the establisnment clause of the U.S. Constitution or the Indiana Constitution.

Currently the online petition is closed, maybe if people contact the author he may reopen it.

UPDATE! UPDATE!

"Governor Pence to make a ruling yesterday that the cross stays on the statue as is & will be displayed at Whitewater Memorial State Park.

To that end, this Sunday at 2 pm at Whitewater Memorial State Park there will be a Salute to Veterans, free entrance to the public 1-3 pm, hotdogs will be served, please bring a side dish. The Wisconsin pro-atheist group has stated that they will be in attendance protesting the cross on the carving. It’s essential that we remain steadfast & unified. When this group arrives in our county, which will surely generate more national attention, they need to see that we are NOT budging. We speak for ourselves. 

We’ve made our opinions known and that the Governor has ruled with the majority. This WI pro-atheist group, who has no other interest in Union County, feels they should speak on our behalf to further their cause, ultimately giving them the attention they desire and lining their own coffers. 

We are asking that everyone in Union County, who IS in favor of the keeping the cross put a cross OR a sign in their yard, which reads “I support the keeping the cross on the carving” (or something to that affect) prior to this weekend & keep them up through Patriot Day, 9/11. When these people arrive, they need to see that we speak for ourselves, & it will be visible everywhere they look. Let’s keep this Sunday joyful & honorable for our veterans. Bring your families to Whitewater Memorial State Park to enjoy this community event."

Let me know what you think.

Semper Fi!

Once Again Those Wishing to Drive Religion Underground Attack

No Eden: Atheist group takes on religious-themed public garden

DES MOINES, Iowa – A park planned in Sioux City is getting national attention.

The Shepherd’s Garden, a Christian-themed park, was recently was awarded $140,000 from the state through a Vision Iowa grant. It’s meant to “assist projects that will provide recreational, cultural, entertainment and educational attractions.” The money would go towards building and planting green spaces in the park, but not for any religious symbols.

But the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation is fighting the funding, saying using public money to promote Christian ideals violates the First Amendment of the Constitution (No it doesn't. First, the Constitution was written to lay guidelines of what the Federal Government is suppose to do, the Bill of Rights was written to PROTECT the States & the PEOPLE from the Federal Government and  "...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT taxing the American people for the park or giving any FEDERAL money to the Shepherd’s Garden Foundation Therefore, how can the FFRF claim that it violates U.S. Constitution. This is STATE money and though a 1947 case dealing with using STATE tax money to aid in busing I feel it hold true here, Justice Black wrote in Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township. et. Al (1947) that the expenditure of tax funds to pay for the busing of parochial school students does not violate The Establishment Clause, because it does not unduly assist any school, whether public or parochial. Neither does it violate Due Process no more then the concept of using tax funds for the payment of police and fire who are paid from tax funds to protect both public and parochial students...OM). What's more, according to the foundation, the grant would violate Iowa's own constitution, which “prohibits funding of religious spaces.”

Actually the Iowa Constitution says in Article 3 of its Bill of Rights says, "The General Assembly shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; nor shall any person be compelled to attend any place of worship, pay tithes, taxes, or other rates for building or repairing places of worship, or the maintenance of any minister, or ministry." The question that needs to be asked, Did the General Assembly pass any laws COMPELLING the people of Iowa to pay taxes to build this park? If not, how can it be a violation of the STATES Constitution?...OM

“The whole park’s purpose is religious which means the government can’t be supporting it at all, any part of it,” said FFRF attorney Andrew Seidel.

Seidel penned a letter to Cathy Reece, chairwoman of the Iowa Economic Development Authority, which manages Vision Iowa, calling for the funding to be rescinded.

Cathy Reece, criticizing the government entity for violating the constitutional ban on public sponsorship of religious activity:

"It is difficult to understand how this grant could have been approved. The “join us” section of the brochure — the plea for money — actually quotes the King James bible, Psalm 23 … Crosses decorate the brochure and park. This is openly about space to promote Christianity, not a public space.

Shepherd’s Garden is of course free to construct their Christian green space, but the government cannot support it. This is one of the most egregious grants for a religious purpose FFRF has encountered. Vision Iowa and the Iowa Economic Development Authority must rescind the grant to comply with the Constitution."

The Shepherd’s Garden fundraising brochure quotes Psalm 23 as a guide for the park and invites donors to “create a legacy to the ongoing role the Christian faith has had in shaping the life of this community.” (I wonder if there would be a complaint if it were for a Muslim park...OM)

The garden’s brochure goes on to say, “Shepherd’s Garden is more than a park, it has been conceived and designed to be a visible reminder that God’s presence is not confined to sacred institutions and buildings, but is very much a part of the public sphere.”

Garrett Smith, a member of the Shepherd’s Garden Foundation, said they were aware this might cause an issue when they applied for the grant.

“We were sensitive to this when we presented it to the board. We weren't trying to hide that this was spiritual and made sure that none of the state money was factored into the budget for the religious symbols,” said Smith.

The park plans to have Bible verses etched into walkway stones, Calvary Crosses in a water fountain and prayer spaces. There would also be “public green spaces,” which is what the Vision Iowa grant would go towards.

Tina Hoffman, a spokeswoman for the Iowa Economic Development Authority, said the board awarding the grant was aware the garden was meant to be a Christian space. But the board only agreed to give money to public green spaces in the park.

“We would make sure no state funds were expended on the religious elements that were part of the project,” said Hoffman.

But in a letter Seidel sent to state officials, he charged the green spaces are still part of the Christian-themed park and therefore should not be given government funds.

“The brochure makes it quite clear that this is not a park, it is a ‘Christian Park,'" reads the letter. "This is not a permanent green space, but ‘a permanent Christian green space.’

“The government can’t build a parking lot for a church anymore than it can build a green space for a church,” said Seidel. (As Justice Black asked in 1947, Does that mean public money can not be used for fire and police to protect Churches, Synagogues & even mosques? After all by using STATE tax money for these purposes is supporting & protecting religion...OM)

“The contract isn't signed, it’s not even completely drafted, no funds have been spent, nothing has been disbursed. So we’re still in the very early stages,” said Hoffman. She went on to say that if the board found they had new information they could change their decision to award the money. They’ll make that decision at their next meeting.

Smith says he hasn't read the letter from the FFRF yet and he hasn't heard anything from the Vision Iowa board indicating they wouldn't receive the grant money.

If the grant money is taken away Smith said, “It means I have a lot more work to do, I’ll just keep raising money. This park is going to happen.” Adding that although he will make sure the garden is fully funded through fundraising efforts, the loss of the grant, “would be a real blow.”

Seidel said the FFRF hasn't received an official response from chairwoman Reece and expects it to take some time before they do. He said they would choose their next steps at a later point if the board decides to award the garden with the grant.

Smith said that without the grant money, in the last year and a half they have raised about $660,000 of the estimated needed $850,000 to complete the park. Right now the garden is under construction with planting planned in the fall.

Primary Source: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/05/25/no-eden-atheist-group-takes-on-religious-themed-public-garden/