It’s been well over a year since my last article so I’ll get straight to the point…
Where do the President of the United States of America’s allegiances lie? How about your Senators or Congressional Representatives?
It’s an interesting question because after every election cycle lawmakers, both old and new, are required to publicly swear to preserve, protect, and defend the United States Constitution before they assume the duties of their elected office. Yet, judging by their actions before, during, and after elections, it has become apparent that, for a vast majority of lawmakers, their privately sworn allegiances to the Democrat or Republican National Committees super-cede any publicly sworn oath to maintain a constitutionally functional government.
And what has this gotten America?
Two gigantic political entities who have monopolized the American political industry churning out political salespeople that peddle a bunch of over-priced, poorly manufactured products that never function as advertised, are in need of constant repair, and/or contain materials that are hazardous to society in general. Their consumers are offered no guarantees, warranties, or refunds for defective craftsmanship and IF replacement parts are made available, they are charged to the public for exorbitant fees.
Until the American people realize that the Democratic and Republican National Committees share the common bi-partisan interests of growing the federal government beyond the scope of its constitutional boundaries which, in turn, robs citizens of their individual wealth and rights then things will only continue to worsen.
In high school, most people learn that the United States Constitution sets up a triune system of governance, complete with checks and balances that keep each branch accountable to the other, along with a Bill of Rights that offers the American citizen some protection from predatory government practices. Then, they go to college where they are inundated with advocacy groups and professors who challenge everything they were previously taught and replace it with garbage.
The Constitution was written with the intent of limiting federal authority over states so that, in most cases, the lowest common denominator, be it state or local government, would be able to manage domestic issues while the federal government concentrated on issues pertaining to national security. After all, why else would the original 13 states acquiesce to cede ANY of their authority to another state if it was not for the mutual interest they shared in maintaining their own sovereignty and protecting their own borders? Surely, its was not to provide education, housing, health care, employment, and a monthly allowance to its citizens but listening to today’s legislators, you would think that their generosity was boundless and their funds were endless.
So, perhaps, I’ll start with my biggest pet peeve…
Article 1, Section 7 of the United States Constitution clearly states, “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.”
By virtue of their two-year terms, House Representatives are directly accountable to the electorate twice during one Presidential term and three times during one Senate term. It doesn’t take the mind of genius to understand that this paragraph exists to ensure that the people who, ultimately, pay federal revenues (better known as taxes) retain control over the federal purse strings.
So why was the Patient Protection & Affordable Health Care Act passed in the Senate before it was passed in the House of Representatives? By what authority do Senators or Presidents propose national budgets to the House? What gives Senators the right to discuss internet sales taxes before the House has given them anything to discuss?
The Senate’s job was to provide seasoned advice on potential conflicts of interest or adverse effects that legislation, passed by the House, might have on the operation of the state government they represented in Congress, to confirm or deny potential presidential government appointees, and to approve or reject international treaties. Senators were given six-year terms and held accountable by the State Legislatures that elected them until 1913, when the 17th Amendment was adopted.
Now, Senators are no longer obligated to represent State Legislatures because they don’t elect them anymore, leaving the one legislative body least accountable to an electorate, ironically, accountable to an electorate. They are able to blatantly oppose political positions taken by the state governments that they are supposed to be representing in Congress without fear of repercussion for at least six years, allowing ‘tourists’ (politicians who establish residency in a state to campaign for a Senate seat) to get elected by spewing rhetoric to the ignorant instead of being properly vetted by the State Legislature.
This is where things get interesting because, for more than two years, the Senate Majority Leader has refused to allow any duly passed legislation from the House of Representatives onto the Senate floor for concurrence or proposed amendment. This action, effectively, alters the Constitutional flow of legislation that comes from the public (House of Representatives), goes to the states for review and amendment (Senate), and then to the president and changes it into a system that comes from the state (Senate), goes to the public for review (House of Representatives), and then to the president’s desk.
The House of Representatives can not do anything except refuse to bring unconstitutionally conceived bills presented by the Senate or the President onto the House floor and de-fund certain sectors of the government. It makes House representatives easy targets for drive-by media and political pot shots artists but every time the House concedes its authority to the Senate, public interests and political accountability take a back seat to the interests of politicians who are three times less accountable to the public than their counterparts in the House of Representatives.
Which leads me to my second biggest pet peeve…
What in the world possesses a lawmaker to vote in favor of a passing a law that he or she has not read or does not understand? If people who create law do not understand the laws they create then how is the average citizen expected to understand, let alone obey, the laws that legislators create? And since federal authorities do not accept ignorance as an excuse for violating law then aren’t lawmakers, essentially, turning otherwise law-abiding citizens into criminals?
Somewhere along the line, lawmakers realized that the Constitution makes it extremely difficult to enact federal laws because a majority of the 435 House members and 100 Senators along with the President of the United States must all agree to them. So, in order to placate lobby and special interest groups that finance political campaigns for the Democratic and Republican National Committees, Congress began using collective bargain techniques to pass legislation that, otherwise, never would have reached the President’s desk on its own merits.
Congress has, literally, turned the amendment and reconciliation process into one big collective bargaining session and, as a consequence, lawmakers do not base their vote on a bill’s individual merits; they base their vote on amendments that, in many cases, are completely unrelated to the legislation presented to them. The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act was attached as a rider to the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act; which means, any time Congress opens Pell Grants for discussion, health care laws can change. Likewise, when farming subsidies are adjusted, welfare programs become fodder for debate as well.
Why waste time trying to decipher the incomprehensible legal-speak of proposed laws when bi-partisan committees already vet bills for potential problems? Heck, they even provide Congressional officials with talking points so that they do not appear ignorant for the masses and a mindless media machines that will, incessantly, try to beat them into the head of every American.
The truth is, there are not supposed to be lots of federal laws and every time Congress neglects to seriously study, discuss, and debate the pros and cons of proposed federal legislation before they cast their votes, every time they allow attachments of unrelated amendments to a bills they vote on, every time they carelessly grant sweeping authority to a federal department that can potentially be abused, they take one step closer to irrelevancy.
Which leads directly to my next point…
The executive branch of the United States federal government consists of the President, the Vice President, the Executive Office of the President, and 15 Cabinet members who run the various federal agencies responsible for executing federal law. With the exception of the President (and on rare occasion, the Vice President), none of these people are involved in the legislative process for two reasons:
- Article 1, Section 1 of the Constitution states, “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.”
- The people in the Executive Office of the President and the Cabinet of the United States are NOT elected. Some are appointed by the acting president while others require Senate confirmation but once they are appointed, they can only be removed by the standing president or by Congressional impeachment.
In short, the acting president’s Executive Office and Cabinet do not have the Constitutional authority to create or remove laws; their job is to administrate and enforce federal law.
So, when the Secretary of Homeland Security tells Congress that she will not enforce existing immigration laws, what makes Congress think that she will enforce any new immigration laws they pass? What gives the Secretary of Homeland Security, an unelected position in the federal government charged with faithfully executing the laws of the nation, the authority to pick and choose which laws are observed and which are ignored? And, since the President has not corrected the situation, why hasn’t Congress begun the impeachment process to have her removed from office?
Passing a new immigration law is a pointless action when the people who are entrusted to administrate and enforce it have already demonstrated a blatant disregard for their duties.
If this were a singular, isolated incident of belligerence shown by a cabinet member of a new administration then I would not be as critical but this same type of disturbing pattern has occurred with the Attorney General, Secretary of State, the National Security Administration, the Secretary of Interior, the Internal Revenue Service, the Treasury Secretary, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to name a few.
What is the point of having a Congress or a state government if appointed members of the Executive Branch can use regulations, and policies to violate the laws Congress and state governments make?
Further, the very last clause of Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution, “he [meaning the president] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States“, gives the President the authority to issue Executive orders to direct executive officers or clarify and further existing law. In no way, shape, or form does an executive order give a sitting president the authority to create or remove laws from the books, however, the president can issue orders to executive officers to not enforce existing federal laws that are on the books.
Congress, for its part, has the ability to overturn executive orders that go beyond the scope of administration and enforcement through the legislative process, it can remove all funding for the order, and, in more serious cases, it has the power to impeach and press criminal charges against any rogue cabinet members or the President, in which case Article 2, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution kicks in.
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
The Constitution, by itself, can do nothing except age and collect dust in the Library of Congress if the American people do not demand that their government, their lawmakers, and their President abide by the rules of governance it sets forth.
Blatantly Politicized Lies
The lack of honest and integrity from Democrat and Republican leaders can only be matched by mainstream media outlets who exploit tragedies and disseminate false or misleading information to the public for the purpose of personal profit or to garner political favors. Fortunately, many Americans have begun to realize that many things they see and hear in the mainstream press are not, necessarily, based in factual reality.
Take, for example….
The first two clauses of the 1rst Amendment are crystal clear, “Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof“.
Long before the federal government existed, welfare, education, and adoption services were established religious practices in the United States. Over time, state governments recognized the merits of offering welfare for the poor and disabled, having an educated society, and finding homes for orphaned children so they began working with established religious organizations within their states to help fund and promote these practices. Then, slowly but surely, Congress stepped in and began making federal laws to govern the welfare, education, and adoption services that states were helping to fund; and what were once established religious practices became “taxable civil rights“.
While most lawmakers, media, and political pundits attempt to portray the freedom of religion in American as Congress being unable to declare the entire country a specific religious denomination; the truth is, the first two clauses of the 1rst Amendment were included to keep Congress from passing laws that would, eventually, allow them to govern established religious practices under penalty of law.
Honestly, who would care if Congress passed a law that declared all Americans Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Agnostic, Atheist, or anything else for that matter if none of their religious practices had to be observed by law? That is like entertaining the absurd notion that the nation’s founders wrote the 1rst Amendment so that no one would be insulted by a religious label.
Now, this exact same scenario is playing itself out with, yet, another established religious practice that existed long before the U.S. federal government’s inception; marriage.
In every one of these cases, things that were once considered privileges are now considered civil rights; things that were once considered acts of charity are now considered acts of civil duty (by paying taxes); and things that were once governed by religious institutions are now governed by state and federal laws that prohibit religions from the free exercise of their pre-established practices.
While agreeing with the recent Supreme Court decision that Congress had no right passing the Defense of Marriage Act, I do find it extremely disturbing that the Supreme Court finds nothing wrong with state and federal governments respecting the religious practice of marriage in the tax code, with benefits, and inheritance rights of the people. How can the Supreme Court condone state marriage licenses, dictate education standards or practices to religious schools, or allow states to force religious adoption agencies to conform to the government standards of the ideal parent(s)? Since the Bill of Rights is guaranteed not to be breached by any state in the union, it would seem that some state legislatures have exceeded their Constitutional boundaries without so much as a peep from the Supremes.
How can anyone support state and federal lawmakers who want to ban certain guns, restrict ammunition sales, and increase background checks on law-abiding American citizens while the federal government, simultaneously, supplies military-style assault weapons to foreign rebels who use them to overthrow governments? Are there background checks performed on the people who will receive these weapons? What happens to these weapons when the people using them are killed or when their civil war is over? Can the U.S. government guarantee that none of the weapons they distribute will be used to harm innocent civilians?
The 2nd Amendment states, “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.”
If the goal of the 2nd Amendment is “the security of a free State” then a well-regulated militia AND the right of every citizen to keep and bear their own arms is a necessary means to that end. Logically, it is more difficult to invade a country whose people are armed and trained in modern weapons than it is to invade a country whose people are disarmed, untrained, and reliant on military protection. Likewise, domestically, a disarmed populace subjects itself to an unsecure police or criminal State.
So why, in this day and age of information and reason, do lawmakers persist on avoiding the real intent behind the 2nd Amendment by talking about what hunters should or should not be able to use? Why are domestic tragedies being used to restrict public availability to firearms and ammunition while the U.S. government arms rebels in foreign nations with military grade assault weapons? Why are federal lawmakers insistent upon passing legislation that criminals and court systems will benefit from instead of promoting the security of a free State through firearm safety, training, and protection programs?
Arbitrary Unemployment Figures
It’s a well-known fact that the national unemployment numbers, released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, are arbitrary figures that only represent what states paid out in unemployment benefits. If 50,000 people no longer qualify for unemployment benefits but never gain employment then the percentage number falls while the actual rate of unemployment does not change.
So why are these arbitrary figures routinely used by politicians and press agencies to measure national unemployment? How do they gauge economic improvement or decline based, solely, on what government is responsible for paying in benefits? More importantly, if lawmakers can point to an arbitrary figure that has fallen below 6% then what motivation do they have to address the lack of employment opportunities in America?
Tax & Spend Facades
While most Americans realize the necessity of taxation to fund government functions, which functions government should fund and which levels of government should tax citizens to implement and manage the functions it offers is continually shrouded in asinine debate.
First off, taxes are regressive to economic growth and individual wealth because government is not a financially self-sustaining entity. Taxes on high income earners, businesses, payrolls, properties, and capital gains ALWAYS effect the middle-class because the middle-class represents the largest consumer, home owner, and taxable income groups in the United States.
Secondly, while federal money is public money, there are only two sources of federal revenue: taxpayers and the nation’s credit. If taxpayers must tighten their belts and adjust their budgets to reflect less earnings due to the economy then it only makes sense that state, local, and federal government do so as well.
Therefore, in order to make the most out of every tax dollar, state and local governments should be implementing, taxing for, and managing their own domestic public services. Federal taxes should, strictly, be used for the purpose that the federal government was created to begin with; to fund national defense, international operations, intelligence agencies, disaster relief, foreign aid, the federal workforce and the supplies it needs to do its job.
It makes no sense, after all, to pay taxes for domestic services to a federal entity only to have portions of it returned to the states with strings attached on how it can be used. What use does state and local government serve if not to handle domestic issues? Of what use are state borders if not to define sovereign domestic territories? Of what use is the federal government if it has to choose between funding national defense programs or national welfare programs?
The Benghazi Cover-Up
Where was the President of the United States during the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on a Benghazi, Libyan consulate? Why weren’t the Commander In Chief and the Secretary of State, jointly, monitoring the events in the Situation Room as they took place? Why wasn’t help immediately dispatched to at least try to save the lives of an American ambassador and the people protecting him? And why did the President, the Secretary of State, and the United Nations ambassador continue to blame a YouTube video long after al-Qaeda had taken responsibility for the attack?
As Commander In Chief, it is the president’s job to monitor a foreign crisis of this nature until it is resolved because the Secretary of State can not mobilize or instruct military forces into combat on foreign soil without prior presidential approval. Unless a clear order was given to take whatever steps were necessary for retrieval, then a minute-by-minute oversight of the event by the president was every bit as necessary as it was when American forces entered Pakistan to get Osama Bin Laden. Why wasn’t the Commander In Chief in the White House Situation Room?
Poor assumptions were made that four Americans could not hold off a well-armed, military-style assault for more than seven hours. So, reinforcements were never sent; meaning that Ambassador Stevens and his entourage, while conducting official business on behalf of the United States government, were left behind, essentially abandoned by the people they trusted to protect them. Again, why weren’t the closest reinforcements dispatched immediately to at least try to save the lives of four Americans who were sent to represent the U.S. government on official business?
And, finally, we have the infamous YouTube video that caused violent uprisings on American embassies and consulates throughout the middle-east.
It’s true that people find some films offensive or disturbing but the idea of forbidding or punishing persons based on whom a film might offend (morally or spiritually) would not only destroy the motion picture industry but would completely stifle artistic creativity in the United States as well. YouTube videos and motion pictures do not cause Americans to riot, storm foreign embassies, and kill government officials. Why should the United States government expect any less from people of the middle-east?
While this president has tried to make the “lessons of Benghazi” nothing more than a cliché to describe his “learning curve”; the true lesson of Benghazi should be, “this is what happens when the Commander In Chief neglects his duties.”
Each of these examples demonstrate only a small portion of a cooperative effort between members of the press and members of the Democratic/Republican National Committees to deceive the American public about true nature of their government’s activities here and around the world.
If you don’t believe me, just look to the lawmakers and press agencies who assured Americans that the health care law would result in an annual savings of $2,000 for middle-class Americans; look to the legislators and media who scoffed at people who warned of across the board cuts in hours and benefits to employees; look to the political party and broadcast networks who advertised the penalties as something other than new taxes; look to representatives and television news casters who assured their viewers that “death panels” were nothing but absurd political rhetoric. Then, look to them one last time when the government seizes your health care records, makes you take an annual physical to determine what you should pay in insurance costs, when they begin to require that recreational drug/alcohol users enroll in a rehab programs, and when they begin to require that obese people enroll in fitness programs.
The job of the federal government is to ensure that the intent of the Constitution, as described in the Preamble, is upheld, “to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for a common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity“.
However, instead of unity they’ve sewn division; instead of enacting “just laws” they “just enact laws”; instead of ensuring domestic tranquility they’ve ensured domestic servitude; instead of providing for a common defense they’ve provided common excuses; instead of promoting the general welfare they’ve promoted federal welfare programs; and instead of securing freedom for this and future generations of Americans by upholding the Constitution they’re busy securing voting blocks for their political parties.
And that is really what it boils down to doesn’t it?
Lawmakers no longer work to sustain a constitutionally functional government.
They work as salespeople for the Democratic and Republican National Committees who are quickly turning the United States into a banana republic complete with questionable election results, unreasonable laws, political propaganda, and corrupt government officials who care more about the wealth, power, and prestige they can accumulate than preserving lawful governance or sustaining the civil rights guaranteed in writing by the nation’s founders.
The Banana Split
I hear it more and more with each passing day, on the street, at work, in restaurants, at public events, and family gatherings; people are disgusted with, not only other state representatives, but their own as well. Less than half of America approves of its President’s actions, Congress enjoys less than a 15% approval rating, and I bet if they took a poll; the various federal departments that administrate and enforce the nation’s laws would rate even lower.
Reformation of either political party through the election process has become implausible because, while politicians may change, their loyalties still lie with the lobby and advocacy groups that control their National Committees. Americans are frustrated by having to choose between the lesser of two evils as opposed to the better of two candidates so they are, increasingly, declaring themselves “independent” of the two dominant parties that monopolize the political industry.
The problem is, there are not a lot of choices available if you choose to totally boycott the candidates endorsed by the Democratic and Republican National Committees. The Green National Committee might as well merge with the Democratic National Committee as their big government agendas are essentially the same. As for the Libertarian and Reform Party National Committees; their candidates are, at the very least, conscious of the Constitutional violations committed by elected officials but neither include safeguards into their own committees to prevent the same thing from happening and many of their solutions, while well-meaning, do not restore what has been lost.
Therefore, the only prudent course of action left to the growing number of Americans who are concerned about, what can only be described as unconstitutional governance, is to begin anew.
What do I mean? Well, for brevity sake, I’ll refer to it as…
The Constitutional National Committee
The first order of business for any political party is to define an agenda or platform for its existence and since it is the solemn duty of every lawmaker “to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States” then its seems only fitting that a political party revolve around that particular purpose.
Secondly, I can not emphasize enough that politicians are ruled by the people/groups that fund their political campaigns. What they say, what they don’t say, and how they vote is determined by their sources of income because without political capital, they are rendered impotent as an incumbents. So, to keep politicians beholden to “we, the people”, it is imperative that all sources of funding come from individuals, not businesses or organizations. Similarly, it would be wise to cap the maximum amount that any individual politician can receive from an individual donor/contributor to $100 per year so that the average American can competitively afford to invest in their own future. Mathematically, according to Census Bureau data, 133 million people voted in 2012, if one-quarter of those people contribute $50 per year to the Constitutional National Committee then it could accumulate over $3 billion (yes with a “B”) dollars every election cycle to promote grass-root funded politicians who are not only morally, but financially obligated to their political donors.
Third. Even with the best of intentions, lobbyists tend to give politicians a form of amnesia that makes them forget who they work for when confronted with overwhelming amounts of campaign revenue coming from a single business, organization, or advocacy group. In order to keep potential lawmakers from simply becoming salespeople who work for another national political committees’ lobbyists, the Constitutional National Committee shall provide an annual membership to their verified donors and, once per year, any lobby group wishing to officially sponsor the Constitutional National Committee or the politicians it endorses must first make their case to the membership and, of the members who chose to vote, two-thirds must agree to allow new or continued sponsorship.
Fourth. Historical mistakes oftentimes repeat themselves when they are forgotten or ignored by society so it is crucial for party leadership and sponsored politicians of the Constitutional National Committee to demonstrate more than just a basic understanding of the United States Constitution. Showing an intimate knowledge of Constitutional wording is important but the comprehension of its intended objectives and applications in today’s society are equally significant in its preservation and protection. Therefore, it is vital to establish a Constitutional training course for party leaders and sponsored candidates so that, fundamentally, the entire party is on the same page. Furthermore, to maintain public transparency, party integrity, and general education about the Constitution, any and every course available to party leaders and sponsored candidates should be available to the general public online along with comprehensive details on voting records and the pros and cons of existing/proposed Congressional legislation.
Fifth. As a Constitutional Committee, is should be the goal of any officially sponsored candidate to help restore order to the United States Senate by openly calling for a repeal of the 17th Amendment so the U.S. Senators are, once again, accountable to State Legislatures. Now, while Americans are wondering why their Senators are granting amnesty to illegal immigrants while leaving the nation’s borders wide-open, is an opportune time to explain the necessity of this action to as many people as possible because the Senate is demonstrating that it is accountable to no one, including “we, the people”.
Sixth. American citizens can not legally print money to pay their bills and when their debts exceeds their incomes they can not simply tax their employer; they must either curb their spending habits, suffer bankruptcy, or face criminal charges for, what amounts to, theft. While the federal government can legally print money and use it to pay its bills, when its debt exceeds its income it can also, because of the 16th Amendment, demand more revenue from its employers even if they can afford no more. That, my friends, is extortion – theft at its finest. Since federal taxes were never meant to fund continuous domestic programs that, constitutionally, fall under state and local jurisdictions; the ideas of replacing the income tax (specifically the 16th Amendment) with a flat, not value added, federal sales tax along with Balanced Budget Amendment to ensure that federal taxes are used to eliminate the nation’s debt absolutely MUST be a key platform issue. After the nation’s debt is paid, Americans of all economic classes will demand their federal taxes be lowered so that their own costs of living are lowered, putting a nail in the coffin of the economic warfare games played, all too frequently, by today’s politicians.
Seventh. The tangled mess of federal legislation that the collective bargain process has wrought is simply unacceptable and will not be tolerated by the Constitutional National Committee. Any sponsored federal lawmakers should be able to demonstrate to the electorate that they have a thorough understanding of the proposed legislative acts that cross their desks. To allow discussion about problems that any federal laws might have inadvertently caused, promote government accountability, and answer questions about current or pending legislative acts; sponsored U.S. House Representatives must hold public town-hall style meetings with their District electorate and U.S. Senator must meet with the state legislature they represent in Congress quarterly during every calendar year. Since the average salary of a rank and file member of Congress is approximately $170,000 per year and the benefit packages they receive extend well beyond what the average citizen can afford for themselves or their families, it is neither unfair nor unreasonable to require that Congressional officials be held accountable by their district constituencies and state lawmakers.
Eighth. Since the freedom of speech and the right to publish thought without fear of government reprisal is being redefined by the internet, every effort should be made to establish an amendment that governs internet speech and publications with the same laws that govern public speech and publications. True privacy, on the internet or a cell/telephone is and always has been an illusion simply because in between you and the person you are emailing/texting in private lies a middle-man that has, for a VERY long time, had the capability of listening in. However, the collection and storage of data by the National Security Administration represents a direct threat to the 4th Amendment, “To 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 the be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Ninth. While recognizing that elected officials need wide-berth to discuss and debate sensitive issues, there is a palatable need for elected officials to be held accountable for their actions. Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution states, “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them [the states], or in adhering to their [the states] enemies, giving them [state enemies] aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.” The Constitutional National Committee should make it a point pursue and prosecute the treasonous acts of lawmakers who send financial aid packages and supply weapons to foreign governments or rebels that, by their own admissions, are at war with or consider the United States of America their enemy.
Tenth. The rules that govern the Constitutional National Committee’s candidate selection process should be pre-established and set in stone to avoid the confusion and corruption that plagued the 2012 elections.
The “trust but verify” mantra of the Reagan era is completely dead because, quite frankly, Democrat and Republican leaders have verified over and over again that they can not be trusted. In response to the lack of trust between the federal lawmaker and the average citizen, the Constitutional National Committee should adopt a “no-nonsense”, “drop the political rhetoric”, “give it to us straight” rapport with the general public complete with a new slogan, “Verify & Hold Us Accountable!”
The Bubble Will Burst
As the federal government continues its massive expansion, Americans will find that the only legal way to correct legislative, executive, or judicial injustices will be to petition an extremely powerful and extremely deaf federal authority.
Democrat and Republican leaders will continue to hide behind their masks of partisanship, demonizing each other to maintain a collective bargaining process that shows no respect or remorse for citizens who get caught in the crossfire; they will continue to issue talking points to the ignorant who will repeat them without a second thought to their logic or their validity; they will continue to ruthlessly divide Americans by their ethnicity, gender, age, socioeconomic condition, and, now, sexual preferences so as to promote and endorse civil war among the populace; and any political party that might rise up and threaten to unseat members of the status-quo in Washington D.C. will be met with the usual derogatory onslaughts, character assassinations, false accusations of extremism, threats of violence, and political ostracism from their propaganda machines.
But here are the irrefutable facts:
- Both Democrat and Republican leaders have forgotten that, even though they are elected by the people and are expected to represent their lobby interests, they are bound by oath to preserve, protect, and defend the United States Constitution FIRST.
- Both Democrat and Republican leaders enact laws that are not only unconstitutional but incomprehensible to the average citizen.
- Both Democrat and Republican leaders have managed to saddle every man, woman, and child in America with more than $50,000 of national debt while agreeing to give “foreign aid” to oppressive regimes around the world.
Deep down, Americans already know their government is corrupt; they can see their country, and the view that the entire world has of it, changing right before their very eyes. The sting of economic depression directly caused by their government’s bureaucracy, taxation, health care law, regulatory laws, and spending policies has forced over three-quarters of the American workforce to live paycheck to paycheck. As if that were not difficult enough to deal with, the Senate’s decision to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants will add 11 million new workers to compete in an already overloaded job market which will result in wage and benefit decreases.
Eventually, Americans will have little choice but to acknowledge that most of their elected officials are self-centered, egotistical thieves and liars who, despite their well-rehearsed speeches and promises of Utopia, couldn’t care less about the people they supposedly represent and are not fit to tie the shoes of this nation’s founding fathers. In the end, Americans will tire of choosing between the ass and the pachyderm. And when that day comes, hopefully, there will be a national political committee that will dust off the Constitution and use it.