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!

In the Hour of the Wolf – And Wondering What the Hell has Happened

After another sleepless night, I stumbled from the bedroom, turned the coffee on to brew and sat down on the sofa. I reached for the remote, turned on the television and as usual for this hour of the morning on FOX, reruns of the various “talking heads”.

As I watched, sipping the first of what will be many cups of coffee, the “talking head” begins with the lead story concerning the police shooting in South Carolina.

Now, I'm a very strong, almost fanatical supporter of law enforcement officers BUT in this case, I have to admit and say the officer was WRONG and the city officials did the right thing. HOWEVER, does this satisfy the “race pimps”, the Al Sharptons, those who, as Greg Gutfeld said, “See everything through the prism of racism”, NO!

“There are lies, damned lies and statistics.”...Mark Twain

Instead of praising the city officials for their quick action, the race baiters cry “racism” by citing statistics saying, that “because the police force is mostly white patrolling a community that has high black population and most of the traffic stops are majority black, the police are racist.” Well, DUH! If you live in a community that has large number of blacks, then a large number of blacks may be stopped for traffic violations. The same would hold true in a largely white neighborhood, the majority of traffic stops will be white. Racism, NO, good policing, YES.

Then the subject of “recruiting” more blacks for the police force comes up.

Just like the military, IF a person is not qualified by education, police record or most importantly has the desire to serve, then what is a police force to do? Lower the standards? Wouldn't that just add to the problem?

As usual, the tax cheat Al Sharpton takes the stage with the usual bullchit about racist police officers, just like he did in the Twana Brawley case, Zimmerman case and of course Ferguson. BUT this time he, along with Mayor De Blasio, really showed their communist colors when he called for “..."there must be a national law on policing"because "it not only protects the citizens, it protects thepolice,” as Mayor De Blasio nodded in agreement.”

No one asks the most important question, just where in the Constitution does it allow the federal government to pass any law concerning a state's policing? Or as in the past, will the states abdicate their rights to the federal government?

What the hell has happened?

Commercial break, another cup of coffee, back in time for the next segment.

The segment begins with a sound bite from one of the conservative candidates for president and just as regular as the sun coming up, the usual “debate” between the “talking head”, a conservative and a socialist democrat takes place with the democrat attempting to talk over the conservative and the “talking head”. Finally, the “talking head” takes charge, spouting the usual and much deserved Obama and democrat bash fest and ends up with the usual Pollyanna outlook for 2016.

What the hell has happened?

Commercial break, another cup of coffee and as a “talking head” drones on, its time to go on line.

After scanning the news, I sign on to twitter.

After posting a “pearl of wisdom”, I turn to acknowledging and saying, “Thank you” to new followers, I look over the past tweets to see what my great followers are talking about.

As I read over the tweets, I read the usual and continuing complaints about the out of control government and the so called "conservative do nothing congress" and just as usual I see the Pollyanna outlook for the 2016 election and the usual division between people on the various candidates and the various “plans” and promises to return America to the principles of our Founding Fathers.

What the hell has happened?

I fully realize that these are just a few examples of me wondering “What the hell has happened”, but I have come to realize, PEOPLE really don't want to know or don't want to believe what the hell has happened.

I'll tell them anyway, COMMUNISM HAS HAPPENED.

America is as close to socialism as Marx outlined in the Manifesto of the Communist Party or the Socialist Party Platform of 1908, that frankly I wonder how much longer it will be before our freedom is completely gone.

“Know thy self, know thy enemy. A thousand battles, a thousand victories.”...Sun Tzu

I am not going to rehash some of the principles of socialism from my earlier posts to show why I feel this way, in the hope that people will learn and realize why America is in the shape we are in today. I will also provide a list of references at the end of this post for those who have an open mind and the desire to learn. For “those who don't have time”, Sorry about that, suffer in ignorance with the rest of the sheeple and continue complaining.

Now, there will be those Pollyannas out there that will tell me I'm wrong.

They will tell me that its not too late. They will strongly tell me, “we can straighten out America's course, bring America back to the ideals of our Founding Fathers.”

Then there will be some who will even say that I'm giving up, that I'm surrendering to the unpleasant fate.

Let's get the accusation of quitting out of the way first.

I AM NOT GIVING UP. I AM NOT SURRENDERING. I LOVE AMERICA AND HAVE BEEN FIGHTING FOR FREEDOM TOO DAMN LONG TO EVEN THINK ABOUT SURRENDER. HOWEVER, I HAVE TO ADMIT I AM TIRED AND WONDER IF ANYONE IS REALLY LEARNING AND WHY SO MANY PEOPLE DON'T / WILL NOT CALL THE ENEMY BY ITS REAL NAME.

Now to address the Pollyannas.

“Caesar, too, helped the people, but they lost their liberty to him.”

Please explain to me and America how one or two presidential elections or even a conservative take over of both houses of congress will straighten out America?

“I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” —Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One after signing the War on Poverty. [1]

Remember, the President proposes and congress disposes. 

Remember as well, every two years the House is elected and it is the house that “supposedly” controls the purse, so if a conservative House AND the Senate do pass laws that limit spending, particularly on welfare, medicaid, Obamacare or school spending, and the bill is signed into law by the conservative President; How long will it take for the socialists progressives to start claiming that conservatives do not care whether people starve on the streets or die in the gutters? Unfortunately, the generations of greedy lazy American people, who have changed the unconstitutional welfare safety net into a life style will believe them and work hard to vote the conservatives out of office. Just look at history.

"To accomplish this [sic Socialism] we want to make use of our political liberty and take possession of the public powers"....Victor Berger, “American Socialism”, 1898.

How long will it take for conservative state governors or in some cases mayors to be voted out of office if they were to refuse federal money for things like schools, police, fire, medicaid or other unconstitutional use of federal tax dollars?

Is this not very similar to “The government shall also loan money to States and municipalities without interest for the purpose of carrying on public works. It shall contribute to the funds of labor organizations for the purpose of assisting their unemployed members, and shall take such other measures within its power as will lessen the widespread misery of the workers caused by the misrule of the capitalist class.” (Socialist Party Platform of 1908).

I realize that there may be some out there who will say, “Just about everyone pays federal taxes to Washington, why shouldn't those that are “richer” and live in “wealthier” states help pay for schools and other “entitlements” in the less prosperous states.” Isn't this a “redistribution of wealth”? Just asking.

Let's look at federal funding for schools as an example of states abdicating their responsibility and powers to central control by the federal government.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Tenth Amendment, U.S. Constitution

FIRST and most importantly, there is nothing written in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to use tax money for local schools or even police, etc. for that matter.

The federal funding for schools became law in 1965 when the The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was passed as part of Johnson's War on Poverty. That “war” has worked out real well, hasn't it? The ESEA ended up being one of the most far-reaching pieces of federal legislation ever to affect education ever passed by Congress. This would eventually lead to the establishment of Department of Education (DoEd) in 1979, thus the take over of what use to be the sole responsibility of the states was completed and the people just slept through it.

Since the DoEd is part of the Executive Branch, the POTUS has tyrannical control of any funding for schools and as we have seen with Boo Boo, if the POTUS wants to abuse his “power”, he will.

The sad part about this takeover is when the states accepted this “free” federal money, the states abdicated their power and the sheeple allowed it by electing ANYONE at the national and local level who promises to give them free stuff, like “free community college”. Isn't this reminiscent of “Free education for all children in public schools...” (Manifesto of the Communist Party and a plank in the Platform of Socialist Party, 1908.)

Since the states abdicated their responsibility for local schools to the federal government, this gave the federal government centralized power to control education. Can you say, “Common Core.”

Can't happen? For those who are old enough to remember:

Using the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, congress passed the National Maximum Speed Law which set the speed to 55 mph on all roads and the states HAD to agree to this if they desired to receive federal funding for highway repair. President Nixon signed The Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act on January 2, 1974, and it became effective 60 days later.

Now, everyone should agree that when it comes to the FEDERAL road system as stated in the Art. 1, Section 8, Clause 7, the FEDERAL government can refuse funding to states that don't enforce speed limits on federal roads, BUT on state roads? Is this not reminiscent of “collective ownership of railroads, telegraphs, telephones, steamship lines and all other means of social transportation and communication.” (Again the Manifesto of the Communist Party and a plank in the Platform of Socialist Party, 1908.)

Socialism is what the hell has happened.

SECOND, just where in the hell in the Constitution is it written that the FEDERAL government should dictate what wages a PRIVATE company should pay their workers?

THIRD, Where is it written in the Constitution that the POTUS can TAKE a state's land and restrict/prohibit exploration natural resources. Is this not, “Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.” Or is it “The extension of the public domain to include mines, quarries, oil wells, forests and water power” or “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.” (Another example from the Manifesto of the Communist Party and a plank in the Platform of Socialist Party, 1908.)

And the REALLY sad part is that the people and states allow it.

SOCIALISM is what the Hell has happened.

FINALLY and definitely not last at the Federal level, again I must ask, just WHERE in the hell is it written in the Constitution that congress, particularly the House, has the authorization to abdicate its duty under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 to the Executive Branch. I could go into any number of cabinet level departments but I would be here for a very long time, instead I will cite just one example for now.

The Federal Communications Commission which was established in 1934 to “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.” Again is this not the same as “The collective ownership of railroads, telegraphs, telephones, steamship lines and all other means of social transportation and communication.”

Now, I have shown just some of the socialist's ideas and policies that have been put in place over the past century, although some cabinet positions were established before, but if one notices, some of these early cabinet position seem to have some utopian socialist ideas imbedded when they were proposed.

So, to all of you Pollyannas out there, I will be waiting for answers how do we stop Socialism in one or two elections? BUT before you answer, I have one final question:

Can you purchase an incandescence light bulb?

Semper Fi!

Once again, I must thank my brain trust, Igor & the Riceman

1. Kessler, Ronald, Inside The White House, Blackstone Audiobooks, Inc.; Unabridged edition (April 1, 2008).

Some Past Posts on Socialist Destruction of America

1st Amendment (4 part Series)

2nd Amendment

Federal Takeover of Public Land

General Welfare Clause Abuse (4 part Series)

No Difference Between Socialism and Progressivism

Progressives and Socialism