The BIG LIE about CU is REVEALED

I have grown increasingly frustrated with the deliberate ignorance and BIG LIe that is the argument against the Supreme Court's Citizen's United decision. It time that I stop trying to educate individually, rather to take a broader approach with this blog. First let me state that I am no ideologue, I am a life long Republican, but rarely vote for a Republican unless they are deemed by ME as being worthy of my vote which has become a rare occurrence to say the least. I am a center-right voter. What was CU all about? A little history. The McCain/Feingold campaign reform law place limitations on the amount of money a person or corporation could spend on an individual candidate or party. When it came to issue ads, individuals were allowed to spend every dime they had. An issue ad is one that CANNOT be coordinated with any candidate or party. This is an ad that as an individual you want to throw your support to a candidate or party as a private person. PAC's, which are corporations were, by law, limited in their ability to create an issue ad as there was a financial limit to what they could spend. What CU was about was a PAC, which is a corporation created an infomercial attacking then candidate Hillary Clinton. The FEC cried foul as the CU PAC's broke the law by over spending. CU objected and filed suit claiming an infringement of 1st amendment rights of the people who were part of that PAC, a corporation. The Supreme Court agreed. So what was the effect of CU on elections? Now some claim that it means the Koch's and Adelson's of the country were now free to 'buy' an election. This is just not so. These individuals could have always spent unlimited amounts on issue ads PRIOR to CU. So let us put that one to rest. CU had nothing to do with individual's right to spend unlimited amounts of money on issue ads. So lets look at the effect of CU on the last election...Karl Rove's PAC (a corporation)spent $125M to defeat Mr. Obama and install Mr. Romney as President. How did that work out for them? Adelson spent a like amount as an individual for the same purpose and what was that result? So here you have $250 MILLION spent to 'buy' an election and what happened? Complete and total failure. So how can the CU ruling be a good thing? Here is a hypothetical for you to consider. Prior to CU, if David Koch wanted to create an issue ad supporting an anti-environment candidate and the Sierra Club (a corporation) wanted create their own ad, they were limited financially. They could never match Koch's money legally. AFTER CU the Sierra Club can fight him on equal footing. The playing field is leveled. Now this is but one example. Now for those of you who think in terms of say, Walmart being a corporation, which it is and they decide to support some extremist candidate or cause, it would be corporate suicide. First, the board of directors would have to approve the expenditure. Now, do you really think Walmart is going to put their stock price in jeopardy by doing something so stupid? No, they won't. The stockholders would never stand for it. Sure, they may not be known by the FEC, but the SEC would know they spent that money. Look, corporations have lobbyists who are much more effective for the money spent. Why bother with a crapshoot like an election?

Spending...spending...spending.... a solution.

For years the amount of government spending has come under public scrutiny, as in it's way too much or out of control. The problem with that logic is the premise. The premise being, no one really knows what the hell they are talking about. It's easy to say cut the military, cut finding for this and that. Unless we know what it is that should be cut, the perception is simply, cut the whole thing across the board. Of course, this is a fools errand. No one person it seems really knows where ALL of the funding goes. Unlike business, government is guided by law, which allows for certain responsibilities of any given agency or department. The second part of course is funding those responsibilities which is a completely separate issue. The next part of the puzzle is the difference between the needs of that agency or department and the political desires of politicians.

I will try to explain the problem. Let us say Congress creates an law that is responsible for building a bridge to nowhere. Of course, this tidbit will be buried in some other legislation that has national security or other mandatory issues and will pass no matter what. So now this agency is formed with a small budget to establish and man it minimally. Once the ball gets rolling, money is required for pre-construction, permits, other government agency rules and regulations to be implemented. Money is required for design. Say the agency finds an architect that will do the job for say $1M. A Congressman thinks it's not enough and thinks some other firm can do the job for $10M, so pressure is applied (funding threats). The Congressman has a vested interest in his district where the job is going to be accomplished. So instead of taking the guidance of the agency, someone sticks their nose in the deal and the price goes up. The same applies down the road until the project is actually built, or becomes so expensive that it is scrapped and all that money is wasted.

This sort of thing happens all the time, especially when it comes to military contracts. Such was the case for the second engine for the F35, the engine manufacturer was based in Mr. Boehner's district. The USAF said the engine was not needed or wanted, yet Boehner insisted. In the end, the engine was scrapped, but this was the exception rather than the rule. Military contractors are sacred cows, not so much for the military, but the politicians who want to keep their 'friends' happy.

So what is the solution? Transparency in the process would be a great start. A line item veto would be acceptable. Maybe the way funding legislation is written would be a better way to go. What if each department creates it's own budget based upon it legislative authority, that budget is approved by the top level department and that budget is sent to Congress for funding with a simple up or down vote. The Congress then votes on a locked budget without any given member tweaking any part of it. If approved, then the funds are released to the top department for disbursal. If the Congress votes down the budget, which the only possible reason would be it's too much, they can kick it back asking for say a 5% reduction and leave it up to the department(s) to find the savings and they resubmit the budget. Or Congress can simply approve a lower amount, but not higher.

As it stands now, it would take hundreds of accountants, taking each expenditure into consideration to find out where the money really goes. For us to just say, cut this and that means we too have no clue as to where the money goes. Would Congress be more effective by voting on a department budget without investigating  who they buy paper clips from and at what price?

Virgin Mobile - The Nightmare

Recently I purchased a Nexus 7 tablet, a truly wonderful device. At home I have TW cable internets and according to Virgin they have 4G INSIDE. So I thought I would purchase a WiFi hotspot from them, that way I can be mobile with my internets and my tablet can be used anywhere. Sounded good on paper. Well, I made the purchase online and received the device. True enough, it worked well except no 4G INSIDE. I pondered the situation and after some thought, since it did not do what it was advertised to do, I decided to take advantage of their 30 day money back guarantee. This is where the nightmare begins.

I called Virgin and a voice, best termed as 'not of this country' greeted me. I explained the situation and wanted to get an RMA to return the device. This after jumping through all of the 'hoops' to get a real person. After 4 tries, as we kept getting cut off, I was finally able to explain to the 4th person what it was I wanted to do. Now, I don't know about you...but the only reason why you should EVER be put on hold is if you don't know what you are doing. If this is the standard, none at Virgin does. I was told I would receive my RMA in an email. Hours later, no email. I called back again. This time, I decided to talk to someone in 'Tech Support'. This person appeared to know what he was doing. He explained the reason why I did not get an email was because the request was rejected because they did not include the original order number. He asked me for it. I said, 'don't you have it?'. To expedite matters, as I already had it handy, I gave it to him. An hour later I had my RMA and the next day, I shipped off the device to the address provided. I was told that my credit card would be credited with 24-72 hours. The device was delivered on Friday and on Tuesday next, no credit. So I called again. Asked to speak to a supervisor, I was told, they had not received it. So as requested I divulged the tracking number. Sure enough, it was delivered. Duh. Well, I was then told that I would be receiving my refund within 24-72 hours. The next Tuesday, no refund. I call again. This time I am transferred to a 'Specialist' after I was told that I should not be calling back because it takes 4-10 business days to issue a check. Yes, I went a little ballistic.

The specialist calmed me down a bit and issued a trouble ticket and asked for my number, he would call me back with in 24-72 hours to see if I got my refund. Well, he called on Thursday and I told him that I had not yet received it. He said I should call my bank in Alabama and make sure. I told him I was already online with the bank and it was not there. After he gave up arguing with me, he said he would upgrade the trouble ticket and call me back the next day. He called me back, no refund yet. He resent the ticket. Saturday he calls me and tells me I am not going to get a refund!!! At first he said that the serial number I sent back was not the one they sent me. You can imagine what I said next. I read off the invoice the serial number they sent. Then he said I could not get a refund because the device was in use. I said to him, how can it be in use if I sent it back and you have it in Indiana! You admit you have it. I told him, the problem is not with me, but them. Something very wrong with Virgin. What can't these people think I asked myself. I looked up my Virgin account and he was right, data has been used AFTER I sent it back. I told him that the only ways there could be data used is 1) Someone knows my password and took it home from the warehouse or 2) Someone in Indiana backdoored the device and reset it back to default and they have it turned on. In any case, I do not have it, you do. Then I suggested, if the criteria for denying my refund is that it's in use, then the solution is simple, disable the account! He said, 'Oh, that would work'.

Today is the Monday after that Saturday conversation and still no refund. I am waiting for his call, maybe tomorrow. Whatever the case, this rant is going to be posted as a warning to all.

I don't like Romney..but

The revelations of the past few days has shed more light on Mr. Romney. I will admit that I don't like the guy for a variety of reasons.

Tonight's 'interviews' only tend to prove beyond any doubt that this man has his secrets, he will justify everything and is in denial over his past statements regarding Bain. There is no doubt now that he and his campaign staff have decided to play the deflection game because if he exposed the truth, the damage would be worse than not admitting to what he actually did. As long as there is no definitive proof, a smoking gun other than what we already know, he can deny anything and everything and accuse others of speculating.

The question we all must ask ourselves is simply this. Given the secrecy of his past and his unwillingness to produce his tax returns, this should give us pause. Can we trust this man with the fate of 330 million people? Are his other qualifications and other possible intangibles overpowering enough to over ride common sense? I think not. He may claim to know how to fix the economy based upon his business experience, but his whole experience is making a profit. Not job creation, but creating wealth. This is not the President's job, to create wealth. This is all he knows. Government is not a business. Government cannot be run like a business. Imagine 535 members of a board of directors and him trying to accomplish what HE wants. This is not the way the real world works.

The biggest concern we have is simple. Given his propensity for going with the flow means he will succumb to the pressures of the Tea Baggers, just like Mr. Boehner. This is his pattern. To this day, he will flip flop on any subject. Look what happened with the penalty/tax issue of just last week. His whole Presidency will be just like this. He will go with the flow for political expediency.

Is this really the man we want in the White House?

President Romney's first week in office....

The votes are in, the tally set, Mitt Romney is our President, inaugurated a week or so ago. Have to give him credit, he sure hit the ground running. With the House and Senate all locked up in GOP hands, it has been easy to make the changes the right wing has been wanting and fighting for years. 


As a recap, what has happened in the last week. 


The Ryan budget finally became law, austerity and lower taxes on business, a voucher plan for Medicare to mention a few things. 


A 20% increase in the defense budget. 


The biggest changes coming the regulatory environment. EPA, FDA, Department of Education all defunded. New laws rescinding Federal mandates in virtually all areas of regulation, replacing them with recommendations or suggestions to the states. States now will be responsible for their own environment, education, food safety and immigration. 


Virtually all Federal education, social programs, education programs, loan guarantees are abolished, leaving it up to the states to fund their own social programs, if they choose to have them at all. Medicaid and Food Stamps are eliminated on the Federal level. 


The NLRB too was defunded and the question of labor relations to be answered by the states, the national minimum wage being rescinded, also left up to the states. Revenue sharing is being phased out so as not to share the wealth between the states. 


Each state will be losing about 1/3rd of their budgets due to Federal cutbacks, leaving the states to replace that funding from other sources. 


As promised, the entire Affordable Care Act was revoked and the Federal mandate that any hospital MUST treat a person on an emergency basis, insured or not, is also repealed. 


Congress is now considering repealing the American with Disabilities Act, all laws regarding discrimination, workplace safety and equal pay and protections. 


To reduce the liability of Social Security, Social Security Disability program is terminated. 


The military will no longer allow gay's to serve, gay right's are being purged and national laws are under study to remove state responsibilities and authorities on this issue. 


There is also a new cabinet post, the Department of Moral Responsibility. This department will provide moral guidance to all areas of Federal responsibility, to provide litmus tests for appointees.


The first week was not without controversy too. Vice President Jindal had to step down a few days after taking the oath of office. The Congress passed a law making a person a person at the moment of conception. Mr. Jindal's mother was 6 months pregnant when she emigrated to the US which disqualified Mr. Jindal since he was a 'person' created in India. Mr. Jindal was replaced by Paul Ryan as Vice President. 


And this is just the beginning.......

Mitt Romney...Can he turn things around?

The Romney campaign has made a lot of noise, how he is a job creator and has the business experience to turn our economy around. Frankly, I am not convinced he can do this. My reasons are fairly simple. Mr. Romney's focus has always been to make a profit, regardless of the costs or the risks. Risks. This is the key. In Romney's business world he and his com-padre's would buy a corporation and sell off the individual assets and take the write-offs for the ones left over to offset the profits they made off the sale of assets. To some this is called 'Vulture Capitalism'. This is a fairly easy thing to do if you have the money behind you. The system is rigged to take advantage of this sort of operation. This is the basis for Mr. Romney's argument that he is a businessman, a job creator as the primary function of Bain Capital. This could be further from the truth. Bain's focus was to make money, increase wealth without creating one single job. Now, I am not complaining as to what Bain was doing. But to suggest that Romney is somehow qualified to turn the economy around based upon his vast business experience is misrepresenting reality.


Think of the US government as a giant corporation and you were Bain Capital, what would you do to make a buck? First you would identify those parts of the corporation which are the money makers and money losers. Can you imagine trying to sell off parts of the government to reduce overhead and costs, to bankrupt the losers and sell off the money makers? This is the experience Mr. Romney has. How this equates to government escapes me unless he plans on privatizing the parts government he can  and selling them off. 


The bottom line is this. Romney's plan would be to cut all money losing programs, essential or otherwise. If it's losing money, get rid of it. Then he can cut taxes across the board to match what has been cut loose. One thing is certain, people like Romney have no conscience when it comes to real people. Imagine sitting in a meeting at Bain Capital when a decision is made to shift a financial responsibility from one company to another then bankrupt that company, causing those employees to lose their jobs? Do you really think anyone stood up and said, 'what about the people?'. There is an old saying, Business is business, nothing personal.


The question we have to ask is this. Should we risk our future on a person who is risk averse, or do we maintain the status quo? The economy is clearly on  the rebound as it is. If it wasn't, then maybe we should look for change. 

Gay Marriage..my thoughts

Much has been made lately about who has come out in support or against gay marriage. I too have some thoughts on this issue, of course.


Firstly, a little background. I am almost 60 years old. I was raised at a time when the gay issue was not an issue at all. For all I knew at the time, a gay person was about as rare as an albino. It was suggested that a gay person was somehow defective, some still believe this today. As I grew up, living in Yankee states and California my exposure to gays increased as more people came out of the closet. I was stuck with a moral dilemma. I took the stand that while it was not for me, I would not be 'against' the gay lifestyle unless it affected me personally, in other words if I got 'hit' on. My toughest struggle was when my young son came to visit me in California and the couple who lived next door to me were gay. He, coming from the bible belt in Florida. I faced a tough problem. How do I explain to a child the situation when he told me that two men were holding hands and kissing each other? How do I explain it to his mother in Florida what my response would be and not catch flak for it? Needless to say, I punted and told him that they were gay and in love, other than that I don't know anything. In the same apartment complex, there was a mixed race couple who were living together, he never questioned that. Not so many years ago, mixed marriages were frowned upon or outright illegal in some states. Certain minorities could not move in next door to you. Times change. 


It is understood that everything is legal, unless there is a law against it. When we see states which have state laws specifically forbidding such things as gay marriage, one has to question why. The answer, whether we want to admit it is simply a moral issue. Where does morality come into play? Organized religion. The next question of course is obvious, if a state creates a law against gay marriage based upon religious morality, then there is a problem between separation of church and state. I admit, over the years I had not considered the difference between the two, secular and religious. When I excluded the religious argument against gay marriage, the clouds parted and the sun shone bright. If you exclude religious morality, which is not consistent across the religious spectrum, then what is the secular justification for denying gay marriage? There is none. If gay marriage were allowed, what would the ramifications be? From a secular point of view, there is none. Equal rights for all, not special rights.

If a state were to allow for gay marriage, this does not compel a church to perform that ceremony. Marriage is still a state issue, not church issue. No person or church has any right to decide for someone else what their live's should be, nor should they be able influence an outcome that frankly is none of their business. What right does a heterosexual have to decide for someone else? 


The Catholic church is clear on this issue. The church see's homosexuality akin to mental illness and should be treated as such. The church is against gay marriage because in the eyes of the church, the whole reason for marriage is for procreation, which of course is not possible with gay marriage. While the church is tolerant (according to the Catechism) towards gays, the church is adamantly against the lifestyle. One could argue that procreation outside of marriage is against their god's will as well. 


When New York was considering a law allowing for gay marriage, the swing vote came down to a Republican Senator, who voted for it. When asked why he voted for gay marriage, his answer was simple. "I cannot find a legal reason why not." When you think about it, that is the best answer one can give. If you consider that we are a secular nation and not one run by religion, then that answer fits just fine. 


Time does change things.


So to all, on the issue of gay marriage, what secular reason can you find to defend the ban against it. 

Is the Occupy movement doomed?

The Occupy movement is the latest rant to come to not only America, but it seems the world. We have seen this all before, we have just forgotten or fail to recognize it for what it is. The Occupy movement is nothing more than a Neo-Marxist operation. The only difference between then and now is that they have no central leader. Not having a voice in the guise of a charismatic leader is what will doom them. Oh, I know, there are those who say it's not Marxist or Communist or Socialist at all. Maybe this is a hint...

      

 

Of course, there are no similarities at all. Marx called the working class, the Proletariat. In the Soviet Union, they had the Party Congress, where the Proletariat voted on issues, the Occupy has the General Assembly, where the Proletariat 'votes' on issues.

Lets look at some parts of the Soviet Constitution....

The declaration of rights of the labouring and exploited people (approved by the Third All-Russian Congress of Soviets in January 1918), together with the Constitution of the Soviet Republic, approved by the fifth congress, constitutes a single fundamental law of the Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic.


Russia is declared to be a republic of the Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies. All the central and local power belongs to these soviets.


Bearing in mind as its fundamental problem the abolition of the exploitation of men by men, the entire abolition of the division of the people into classes, the suppression of exploiters, the establishment of a socialist society, and the victory of socialism in all lands, the Third All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies further resolves: For the purpose of securing the working class in the possession of complete power, and in order to eliminate all possibility of restoring the power of the exploiters, it is decreed that all workers be armed, and that s Socialist Red Army be organized and the propertied class disarmed.


The Third All-Russian Congress of Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies believes that now, during the progress of the decisive battle between the proletariat and its exploiters, the exploiters should not hold a position in any branch of the Soviet Government. The power must belong entirely to the toiling masses and to their plenipotentiary representitives- the Soviets of Workers', Soldiers', and Peasants' Deputies.


Expressing its fixed resolve to liberate mankind from the grip of capital and imperialism, which flooded the earth with blood in its present most criminal of all wars, the Third Congress of Soviets fully agrees with the Soviet Government in its policy of abrogating secret treaties, of organizing on a wide scale the fraternization of the workers and peasants of the belligerent armies, and of making all efforts to conclude a general democratic peace without annexations or indemnities, upon the basis of the free determination of peoples.


The Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic, having crushed the economic and political power of the propertied classes, and having thus abolished all obstacles which interfered with the freedom of organization and action of the workers and peasants, offers assistance, material and other, to the workers and the poorest peasantry in their effort to unite and organize.


The fundamental problem of the constitution of the Russian Socialist federated Soviet Republic involves, in view of the present transition period, the establishment of a dictatorship of the urban and rural proletariat and the poorest peasantry in the form of a powerful All-Russian soviet authority, for the purpose of abolishing the exploitation of men by men and introduction of socialism, in which their will be neither a division into classes nor a state of autocracy.


 It is clear that the Soviets took the throw the baby out with the bath water approach to change. One thing is clear from both the Marxist and Occupy movement is the concept of 'exploitation of man by man'. This is the basis for Marxism and the Occupy movement, the system we have today is so flawed that only drastic change will do. 


The same thing happened in Cuba, the lack of a middle class, the gulf between rich and poor so wide. 


We should be wary of the Occupy movement, we should also be on the look out for an emerging leader who will bring all the different assemblies together to form a Central Committee. Only then will their power be consolidated and we should have plenty to worry about. 

Rants Primus, the TGOP and the attack on on women.

Rants Primus, the TGOP's #1 whiner today denied that the TGOP is attacking women. I have to wonder what planet he is on. Of course he blames the 'liberal' media for all the hubbaballoo associating women with caterpillars.

As I have promoted for over a year now, it is time that we voters send a clear, concise message to our lawmakers, state and Federal. The facts are the facts, there is a concerted effort by the TGOP to create laws under the premise that women are not capable of making life altering decisions on their own, they must be guided, corralled by law. Women can be President or Secretary of State, Senators, Congressman and business owners and CEO's, but are not qualified to make personal decisions.

It is time, once and for all for ALL women, eligible to vote, finally make a stand against the established misogyny of the TGOP. I would suggest that this coming election cycle be the final nail in that coffin. I would recommend that all women take stock and exercise their constitutional rights and vote every single one of these dipwads out of office, city, state, county, Federal...send them ALL packing. Women account for a slight majority in our population and can make a serious statement. I would hope they would.

If women don't stand up and demand to be treated as equals, their power will be whittled away by the TGOP.

Trayvon Martin....a breaking point.

Does anyone remember those old western movies where the townspeople storm the town jail and drag some guy out into the street and lynch him because the people wanted 'justice'? This is the image I have of what is going on in this case. 


Between 2005 and 2010 there have been 95 examples of the 'stand your ground' defense in Florida. Of these, 65 have been upheld as justifiable shootings. This means that 65 people did not get 'justice', 65 people 'got away with it'. What makes this shooting different? There is NO difference. But, to hear tell it, this particular case is a travesty. Why? There are two issues here, the law and racism. If Mr. Zimmerman acted in accordance to the law, then he will not be charged. If he broke the law, he will be arrested and charged. The big question is, did he or did he not break the law. A grand jury will decide this issue. The Feds have stepped in to determine if he violated Federal law. In both cases, the system is working as it is supposed to. Does this satisfy certain people and an ethnic minority? No. They want what they call justice, even if it means denying Mr. Zimmerman his due process rights, his rights under the US Constitution.

Now I do not profess to know or understand what was going through Mr. Zimmerman's mind at the time. None of us can. We are Monday morning quarterbacking if we think we know all the facts of the case. These groups are not interested in facts, they want blood. Eye for an eye. How is justice served if Mr. Zimmerman is denied an opportunity to defend himself? How is justice served if the jury pool is tainted and intimidated, if he is charged and heads to trial? 


If you read and listen to some of these people, what you hear is hatred towards whites, racism in it's worst form. I will not deny that this was a terrible mistake, the shooting. I lived in Los Angeles when the Rodney King verdict came down. We were all listening to the radio for the verdict and when it came down, I and many knew what was going to happen next. A friend of mine, who was from India, asked me what was going to happen next. I told him they will riot. I told him not to get off the freeway until his exit, do NOT take the side streets. Well, we all know what happened. Total breakdown of civil control. Now, there is no doubt in anyone's mind that justice was not served in this case, but still does not justify what happened next.

Lately, we have heard of the rantings of these people who claim that Negroes are being singled out for execution, presumably for crimes they did not commit, even though they were tried, convicted, went through the entire appeals processes and ultimately the Supreme Court, that the death penalty should not apply, rather life in prison is preferable. Well, if the person is innocent, then why settle for life? Yet, within 2 days of that execution, a Caucasian was terminated here in Texas for killing a Negro and they did not stand up for him, demanding life in prison. What does that say about justice being blind? Is there a double standard? It would appear so. 


The point here is that all of these rantings are a result of pent up racism in the Negro community. Certainly I am not the only one who see's this. If you are going to blame anyone or anything, blame the law which allows for this sort of thing. If this was such a terrible law, then why not scream for justice for the 1st or 2nd or 65th victim also? No, this won't happen because they were not an unarmed Negro youth. Justice is only required of certain people. 


I have become so disappointed in mainstream media and certain personalities that I have had to either defriend or unlike them on Facebook because they are on a racist rampage to demand their kind of justice, regardless of the law or due process. To attempt to deny this man his rights in the interest of a mob mentality out to lynch him is just as wrong as the the shooting in the first place.


We will never know what really happened. To suggest racial bias is yet to be proven. This profiling charge is nonsense. The race of the child did not become an issue until Mr. Zimmerman was asked to describe him. A hoodie? One could argue that issue any number of ways. One must remember the most notorious person to wear a hoodie was a Caucasian, the Unabomber.

I am not saying that Mr. Zimmerman was justified or not, I was not there, none of us were. Under our system of laws, a man is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of his peers. As of this writing, no charges have been filed. I suggest we let the system run it's course. To calm down the racial rhetoric. 


In the mean time, I would suggest than those who demand justice, find another route, such as trying to get the law changed. That would be a fitting resolution. So put away your ropes and go home. Let the system work as it is designed to do. As for the family, if they have not already done so, file a wrongful death suit. Get your pound of flesh that way.

Keystone and the tar sand issue....

Much has been made of the Keystone XL pipeline lately. I am not going to comment on the ridiculous 'what if' scenarios being bandied about. I am not going to comment about the rampant ignorance on the subject by people who appear to be professional whiners and complainers. These folks will look at a picture or read a talking point and formulate their indignation without checking out any of the facts. What I am about to comment about is the mining itself, to offer a different point of view.

There are some who say that if the pipeline leaks, it will destroy the aquifer. This of course is silly talk. The same argument was made about the Alaska pipeline. What these loons fail to understand is that the tar sands are already ruining the environment by it's mere existence.

A gazillion years ago, natures god dumped billions of barrels of oil ONTO the surface of the land in Alberta, Canada, making it probably the largest toxic dump site on the entire planet. The soil is 'contaminated' with oil. The oil sands are very near the surface making the clean up easier than having to re-mediate soil well below the surface. Notice I use the term 'clean up' and 're-mediate'? So how do they get the oil out? The caustic, smelly, thick 'crude' on the ground and dump into a pipeline? Simply put, they dig out the contaminated soil, remove the oil and leave clean 'sand'. I don't know about you, but this sounds more like a toxic dump site clean up operation. Maybe because that is exactly what it is. You should see some of the before and after photos and videos after the land is reclaimed. Where a moon-like landscape once existed is replaced by lakes, ponds, forests...etc.

So I ask, what is the big deal?

Iran..Jewish State and nukes.....

For it seems an interminably long time I have been listening and watching this debate. I have tried to put this subject in context and perspective. All parties seem to have overblown the importance of the issue in my opinion. The press is not much better, especially if you think about it, it's not really ll that important to include the Jewish state into the discussion. Yet, a tiny minority seems to have the political power the rough equivalent of the entire US. The Jewish population on this planet equals .02%. If you took everyone who claims to be Jewish, the rough equivalent would be the entire population of the state of Pennsylvania. I don't see Pennsylvania as being a world power equivalent to the US. I don't see Pennsylvania being a relevant political power in the US. There are more Jews living in the US than in Israel, 2.1% of the US population. I find it offensive that the TGOP can rail against American women who are 50% of the population, but don't dare say a word against the Jewish state. Why is that? I am so sick and tired of politicians in this country pandering to tiny minorities and allow them to influence foreign policy. The Jewish state is not the only one, Cuban's are another tiny minority which excessive political power. I can travel to Vietnam, China and Russia, but not Cuba. Explain this to me..please. 


First off, our policy towards Iran should reflect OUR national security issues, not the Jewish state. If Iran, having a nuclear device is against our national interests, then the policy should reflect that. Let us consider who does have nukes. India, China, Russia, Israel, North Korea and of course, Pakistan. Now think about it for a moment, of those nations mentioned, who are the most erratic, irresponsible and unstable. The nation that should concern us directly is of course, Pakistan. If we had a choice between which nation we would feel more comfortable with having nukes, we would probably opt for Iran since they ARE a stable government. North Korea is a threat to Japan and yet we hear nothing like we do with the Jewish state.

What concerns me is that the Jewish state could influence our foreign policy further if they unilaterally attacked Iran. Attacking Iran by the Jewish state is NOT in the national security interests of the US. If the Jewish state were to attack Iran, then they should be left on their own. The Jewish state has a history of initiating conflict against her neighbors. In fact the Jewish state is under UN sanctions for not returning lands they illegally seized during their war of aggression in 1967. The Jewish state is indeed a rogue nation, not unlike Iraq when Saddam invaded Kuwait. Am I the only one who sees the double standard? 


It was mentioned today, again that Iran is guilty of state sponsored terrorism. Depending on your perspective, one could argue this point either way. However this cannot be said about the Jewish state. The Jewish state created state sponsored terrorism, just look to the tactics of the Irgun and Hagenah and today, Mossad. Mossad is notorious for their tactics worldwide, with assassinations and terrorist activities. How many times have the agents of the Jewish state been arrested in the US for stealing US secrets. Some ally. The Palestinians learned from the Jewish state how to conduct terror campaigns because that is how the Jewish state became a reality in 1948. 


Now lets be realistic. We dealt with the Cold War and the Soviet stockpiles of nuclear weapons. The calming factor was MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction. In the case of Iran, they have NO capability at all to equal the US in nuclear firepower. If they were to attack any US ally, Jewish state included, they would be instantly vaporized. The Iranians in power, many educated in the West know all too well this would happen. So an attack by nuclear means is almost impossible. The thing is, pragmatic Israelis also know this. So where is the realistic threat? Words? That's it...words. If the Jewish state were to attack every nation that say's they want to destroy them, we would be in WW3 by now. The key word is, 'Say's'. Someone you know tells you in anger, 'I am going to kill you'. Just words, unless they run to their pickup truck and grab their AK47 'hunting rifle'. The difference is the means.

I will end this blog with a quote from a well respected figure in history. One who also understood the US and the American people. The quote defines America and Americans.

"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."
                   Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto after the attack he led on Pearl Harbor. 

Propaganda and Hate, are you are you as sick of it as much as I am?

For the last year I have been compelled to do battle with those extremists on the right as well as the left. Dr. Goebbels would be more than proud with the multiple propaganda machines in play, Hitler himself coined the phrase, "when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, about the use of a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously." ".

There are multiple examples of how propaganda has worked itself into our collective consciousness'. The subjects range from the President's right to serve to Monsanto and GMO's. 


As I said, the right and the left are guilty. I use those terms as a matter if simplicity. One can break them down into their specific components, but don't think that is necessary.

On a social networking site the latest rant is about Monsanto and GMO's. I asked the simple question, why are so many people against Monsanto? What have they done so wrong to draw the ire of so many people? Well, it all starts with propaganda. Pictures and graphics and data taken totally out of context is how it begins. So I asked the obvious question, is any of this true? So I did my research and was able to come to my own conclusion when taking the facts into consideration. These facts came from reputable sources other than from sources who had an axe to grind and also from Monsanto's site. I sourced from FDA and EPA and the NIH among others. The results were clear, those who 'hate' Monsanto have absolutely no basis to do so if they were to accept the facts, scientifically proven. 


For example, some argue that glyphosate used in Roundup causes cancer. This is completely false. There is no evidence to support that claim, in fact just the opposite. Some argue that Roundup poisons people, again a claim which is completely false. The state of California has a reporting system and in 13 years not one case of hospitalization due to Roundup poisoning has been reported. What the haters do not tell you is that the patent for Roundup expired in 2000, twelve years ago. Other pesticide manufacturers use glyphosate and some of their chemical formulations, the surficants they use when mixed with glyphosate can cause some issues, but glyphosate in and of itself is safe. 


Genetically modified seeds is another hate issue. Some argue, as in a current court case brought by a lobby against Monsanto that GMO's are not organic and that Monsanto should not be able to actually patent a seed product, that the farmers fear that Monsanto would sue them for cross-contamination. What they won't tell you is this. According to FDA, acting under LAW created rules regarding GMO's in 1992. Without getting into details, what FDA said is that GMO products are considered exactly the same if their characteristics are identical to a non-GMO product. These rule have withstood every court case. As for cross-contamination, GMO seeds are self terminating, meaning they cannot reproduce, hence no cross-contamination. Monsanto has never filed suit in a cross-contamination situation and has said they will not if this were the case. What the propaganda also claims is that Monsanto is sue happy and will sue organic farmers, their argument being over 700 farmers settling out of court and 124 other lawsuits. What they won't tell you is that those settlements were a result of those farmers breaking their contract with Monsanto over seed theft and/or seed hoarding. These were farmers who bought Monsanto seed and broke their contracts. The also claim that Monsanto enters property illegally, which is also false. Monsanto asks the farmer if they may enter the property, if the farmer refuses, Monsanto goes to court and gets a court order to allow them access because they have a contract with the farmer and have a right to protect their patent rights. Which takes us back to why they want the courts to deny Monsanto the right to patent their seeds. What I found interesting is that some people then use the argument that FDA is corrupt, EPA is corrupt. Okay, so Monsanto is fine, but the government is now corrupt.

Briefly I will touch on hormones, rGBH. This is another propaganda issue against Monsanto. The science disputes the claims made by the haters. But there is a twist to this propaganda. Monsanto has been vilified for continuing to sell rGBH to farmers when the truth is, Monsanto sold their rGBH product line to Eli Lilly in 2007, five years ago!! Imagine the silence when I mention this fact. 


Lets shift to Keystone XL. Here are some facts which the haters won't tell you. Keystone XL is NOT the first pipeline built by TransCanada to the US, there is one which was built a couple of years back to St. Louis, MO from the tar sands in Alberta. Where was the outcry then? If the pipeline is so 'unsafe' then why allow the first one, which has proven to be extremely safe. There are nearly 200,000 miles of pipeline in this country already. Why is this one drawing so much attention? Oh, the aquifer issue in Nebraska? What they won't tell you is that the state of Nebraska and TC have rerouted the pipeline. What they won't tell you that in the state of Nebraska alone, land owners are being compensated with one time payments for the use of their land anywhere from $10,000 to $110,000, not to mention the taxes which will flow to country governments, one of which is planning on using that money to build new schools, something they could not afford to do without the pipeline. Then there are the refineries being expanded to accommodate the oil. This pipeline will increase oil capacity to the US by another 900,000 barrels a day from a friendly source. Now, do you really want to know what the argument over the pipeline is? It's not the pipeline surprisingly enough. The pipeline is a red herring. What the environmentalists want to do is shut down the tar sands mining and they believe that if the pipeline is not built, the oil sands mining will stop. Silly of course, but those are the facts. The oil sands issue is a Canadian, not a US issue. The Canadian courts have backed the government of Alberta, so these guys figure they can take their case to the US and force a US President to step in on a Canadian issue. Imagine Canada telling us NOT to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico!!!

How about Exxon and their 'profits'? Last year Exxon had revenues of nearly $500 B. Exxon paid $108 B in taxes, $30 B of those taxes were US income taxes on profits of $71 B, their net profit was $41 B, $10 B of which was from an asset sale. Exxon's profit margin is roughly 6.5%, about the same as GM. For comparison, Apple, which has more money in the bank than the US Treasury, is $28%, Microsoft is 33%, McDonalds is 17%, WalMart 3.4%. Yet there are those who want to bash Exxon...my question is why Exxon? Imagine if we had no oil companies, what would be our complaint then?


Now for some political crap. 


Obama said unemployment would not go over 8%. 


Yes, he said that. He also was repeating what the Bush transition team had told him. No one knew at the time how bad the economy had tanked. The fact is in his first month in office, unemployment went over 8%, hardly his fault. May I point out that unemployment peaked at a little over 10%. In comparison, unemployment peaked over 12% when Reagan was President, 20% where I lived in central Florida. Jobs are coming back from Mexico and China as the standard of living in those countries has negated the lower labor costs, plus the two tiered UAW labor agreements. VW spent a billion $ on a new plant in Chattanooga, Hyundai and Kia and BMW and Daimler-Benz are expanding US factories and increasing production. GM is reopening the Saturn plant in Spring Hill. 


Obama's economic policies have been a total failure.


Unemployment is back down to when he took office, the stock market is back. GM and Chrysler were saved and have returned to profitability and expanding, increasing investments. Record profits. Instead of building on the positive momentum the GOP won't even admit that it exists. 


Repeal Obamacare.


No President can repeal anything. 85% of Americans have health insurance, so who is complaining about mandates? The 7% who refuse to take responsibility for their own medical care, letting the tax payer foot their bills. 


Same sex marriage. 


Give me one secular, legal reason why this cannot be allowed?

Taxing the uber wealthy is a tax hike.


False, the tax breaks the wealthy were given on their personal income was temporary, all the President wants them to pay is the actual, statutory rate authorized by Congress. Since the tax breaks are on personal income, it has NO effect on job creation. There is no shred of evidence to prove that those tax breaks have created one single job in 10 years. In fact, tax breaks are actually an expense according to the IRS. That expense, which will have to be paid for by the rest of us is running close to $1 trillion. 


I could go on and on, I have probably already lost my audience as it is. My point here is this. Beware of the propaganda machines. Become a cynic. Question everything. Think on your own, don't let anyone tell you what to think or believe. 

After Iowa

The Iowa caucus finished tonight with 3 leaders. Of the three, only one generally appreciates the responsibility of be President of all of us. The other two are extremist ideologues who have a very narrow moral view and agenda not shared by mainstream America. One must remember, this is a secular nation, with laws created by Congress. It is not the place of a President to wage a religious war upon this nation. It is common knowledge that the term 'family values' is a code phrase for the extremist views of right wing Christians, who wish to foist their values and morality upon the rest of us, to deny us our rights as Americans to choose our own values.

If we elect a President whose agenda is to create a nation in their image and likeness, then we empower that President to try to do just that. In turn an extremist Congress will follow suit. Think is cannot happen? It has happened before, slavery was abolished in part because of the extremist views of at the time, the Christian left. Prohibition too was brought about by pressures from moralists and we know how that worked out. A Republican Congress brought to fruition following the election of Ronald Reagan proved disastrous at the beginning with infernal tax cuts and high unemployment and record deficits and national debt. It was clear by the time Reagan's term was up this approach was not working and during his tenure, Congress was compelled to raise taxes and set things right again.

It is highly unlikely that the extremist religious right will be able to put 'their man' in the White House. All this talk about gay marriage and DADT and abortion rights are red herrings. The President has no power to affect any of these issues. An ignorant electorate will buy into this nonsense. It amazes me how myopic many voters are, they fail to look at the big picture when selecting a candidate.

What concerns me at this point is the probable selection of Mr. Romney as the GOP candidate. As we have already seen, Mr. Romney has powerful friends in very well connected places with an awful lot of money to spend on attack ads.

There is no doubt that Mr. Obama has nothing to fear from Mr. Romney as Mr. Obama has the power of incumbency and voters who vote. After all, what could Mr. Romney say, truthfully say about the policies of the Obama administration? What personal attacks can he mount against Mr. Obama which he has not already weathered?

Mr. Romney is a prime example of the military/industrial complex some complain about. He is also an example of Wall Street run amok, bankers running scams. He represents the worst and the best of corporate responsibility. The question we have to ask ourselves is this. Do we want as President someone who represents the same types of people who brought our country to it's knees?

So I have a choice, as do all Americans. I cannot accept the idea of a President who will not represent the nation as a whole, who wishes to force their morality upon us. The question then is, can I support someone who has direct ties to corporate America who will stop at nothing to put their man in power. Mr. Romney has already demonstrated that he will do whatever it takes to 'turn things around', even if it means throwing the rest of us under the bus. Morality has no place in big business, apparently neither does ethics. Romney is a risk I don't think we should take.

As for Mr. Obama. I will be the first to admit that there are some things I am not happy about, when I look at specifics, but looking at the long view, it's clear he is smarter than all of us. Contrary to what the GOP say's, things are better than what they were the day he took office. We are out of Iraq, Afghanistan is winding down. We have a a national health care plan. Almost every promise Mr. Obama has made has been kept. The ones he has not kept, he was blocked by Congress. It has been the stated goal of the GOP from day one, to make Mr. Obama a one term President. Why? In the grand scheme of things, he has won, considering the obstacles put in his way by the GOP. Imagine if he is re-elected, what then would the GOP mantra be? He cannot run again, so he has nothing to to lose and that is what scares them more than anything. Mr. Obama has shown great leadership. He has taken that 3 am call and done well.

The question for all of us is this. We have a sitting President who we have grown to know. It is true he has not pleased everyone. We are a nation of over 300 million people and he can never please everyone, no President can. Mr. Romney is an unknown quantity, but we know where his loyalties lie and it is not with the American people. No one can say Mr. Obama is not the President of all of us. I don't believe we would be able to make the same assessment of Mr. Romney.

I think what we should consider is simply this. We hear and read from the GOP candidates complaints. Unfounded accusations. Flat out lies about the policies of the current administration. What we have have NOT heard or read are specific solutions or ideas, well maybe 9-9-9...LOL. How can we consider voting for someone who can only lie, whine and complain? Let's hear some concrete ideas. Not the rhetoric about birth control, right to life, deficit, debt, economy, family values.....how about, what can you do as President? Answer that question. The problem is that when one has to think about it, the President's 'power' is very limited. Let's top the whining and come up with plausible, well thought out solutions. We have a President with ideas and solutions, should we not expect the same from someone who wants that job?

Concentration Camps being built in the US as we speak.

For the last few weeks we have been told that the Defense Authorization Bill includes a section which allows for the detention of American citizens, without charge, due process and habeas corpus. I have been frustrated to no end because I have actually read the bill and the section in question and by any rational standard, there is no such language, in simple fact, does just the opposite. For simplicity sake, I will provide here the actual text of the relevant sections AND the anchor law in effect by which sets the standard for ANY detention.


Now as you can see Sections 1031 and 1032 are inextricably tied to public law 107-40, which is the authorization for carrying out military operations OVERSEAS, with specific authorization against operations against Al Qaida. There is an important distinction here as the authority is given for operations overseas and under the cover of the LAW of war. This does NOT have anything to do with domestic operations, since there are no domestic operations authorized as that would be a violation of posse comitatus.

The ONLY people who can be detained are covered in 1031(b) 1,2. This is a very narrow focus and only applies to those detained during operations under PL 107-40.


As for US citizens, Section 1032(b) 1,2 is quite clear. US citizens CANNOT be detained by the military under this bill. Section 1032 (a) specifically outlines under what conditions anyone may be detained at all. They must be have been captured in the course of hostilities against the US.

SEC. 1031. AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.

(b) Covered Persons- A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

(c) Disposition Under Law of War- The disposition of a person under the law of war as described in subsection (a) may include the following:

(1) Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(2) Trial under chapter 47A of title 10, United States Code (as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009 (title XVIII of Public Law 111-84)).

(3) Transfer for trial by an alternative court or competent tribunal having lawful jurisdiction.

(4) Transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity.

(d) Construction- Nothing in this section is intended to limit or expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force.

(e) Authorities- Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

(f) Requirement for Briefings of Congress- The Secretary of Defense shall regularly brief Congress regarding the application of the authority described in this section, including the organizations, entities, and individuals considered to be `covered persons' for purposes of subsection (b)(2).

SEC. 1032. REQUIREMENT FOR MILITARY CUSTODY.

(a) Custody Pending Disposition Under Law of War-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Armed Forces of the United States shall hold a person described in paragraph (2) who is captured in the course of hostilities authorized by the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) in military custody pending disposition under the law of war.

(2) COVERED PERSONS- The requirement in paragraph (1) shall apply to any person whose detention is authorized under section 1031 who is determined--

(A) to be a member of, or part of, al-Qaeda or an associated force that acts in coordination with or pursuant to the direction of al-Qaeda; and

(B) to have participated in the course of planning or carrying out an attack or attempted attack against the United States or its coalition partners.

(3) DISPOSITION UNDER LAW OF WAR- For purposes of this subsection, the disposition of a person under the law of war has the meaning given in section 1031(c), except that no transfer otherwise described in paragraph (4) of that section shall be made unless consistent with the requirements of section 1033.

(4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY- The Secretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Director of National Intelligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the Secretary submits to Congress a certification in writing that such a waiver is in the national security interests of the United States.

(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

(c) Implementation Procedures-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall issue, and submit to Congress, procedures for implementing this section.

(2) ELEMENTS- The procedures for implementing this section shall include, but not be limited to, procedures as follows:

(A) Procedures designating the persons authorized to make determinations under subsection (a)(2) and the process by which such determinations are to be made.

(B) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not require the interruption of ongoing surveillance or intelligence gathering with regard to persons not already in the custody or control of the United States.

(C) Procedures providing that a determination under subsection (a)(2) is not required to be implemented until after the conclusion of an interrogation session which is ongoing at the time the determination is made and does not require the interruption of any such ongoing session.

(D) Procedures providing that the requirement for military custody under subsection (a)(1) does not apply when intelligence, law enforcement, or other government officials of the United States are granted access to an individual who remains in the custody of a third country.

(E) Procedures providing that a certification of national security interests under subsection (a)(4) may be granted for the purpose of transferring a covered person from a third country if such a transfer is in the interest of the United States and could not otherwise be accomplished.

(d) Effective Date- This section shall take effect on the date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply with respect to persons described in subsection (a)(2) who are taken into the custody or brought under the control of the United States on or after that effective date.

 Here is public law 107-40 which serves as the anchor for this section.

Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001 Public Law 107-40 [S. J. RES. 23]
107th CONGRESS

---

JOINT RESOLUTION To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

While sitting on my porcelain throne....

While sitting on my porcelain throne, I take time to whip out my iPod Touch and read articles from Automobile and Motor Trend. Having a WiFi router comes in handy. I am always frustrated by the fact that many articles are about cars none of us will ever be able to afford or they whine and complain about the ones we can.

A recent article about the new Hyundai Veloster is a prime example. There are the observations that it's built on the Accent/Elantra platform, then there are complaints about the engine not being 'zippy' enough like a Mazda3, or the handling not as good as a Golf, or the rear seat headroom not like....x. Which brings me to our national past time of being chronic whiners about virtually everything. In the case of the Veloster, it is what it is. It's is NOT supposed to be a Mazda3 or a Golf or anything else. It is supposed to be a Veloster.

We treat our politics the same way. We nitpick everything. We whine about everything. We draw comparisons to policies and people, past and current. We justify that whining because the person or policy is not to our specific liking. We miss the obvious point, we are a nation of over 300 million people and there is no way possible that any one person or policy is going to meet with 100% approval. So we whine and complain and hit the voting booth, vote the party line and then wonder why nothing changes, so we complain some more. I hear about term limits and have to laugh for example. Why do we need a law to limit a persons term when we can do it ourselves? If we don't have the political will to do it, why should a lawmaker?

As with a car manufacturer, if they responded to every complain from a Car Mag, the car would end up not being what it is. Sure, add a more powerful engine, then the suspension will have to change, the ride a bit stiffer. The whole character of what it was designed to be changes to something it was not supposed to be. The same is with politics, a politician will pander to their audience to the extent that we end up with something other than what we originally expected.

If a politician has a policy, stick with it. Then if elected, we know what we bought was what we actually wanted.

Whiners and complainers, the American pastime.

Friends, I have just about had it with the whining and complaining going on in America today.

I have no problem with the public expressing outrage over the problems we face as a nation, what I do have a problem with is where the outrage is directed. Everyone is responsible in this regard. The one thing thing that has been ignored is who is actually responsible and why the complaints are misdirected. The bottom line is this, if you are going to whine and complain, then focus on who is really responsible and do something about it. As I will point out, we can do something about it because there is but one cause and we do have the ability to rectify the situation on our own. The question is, can we walk the walk? Personally, I don't think the American people have the courage to resolve these issues.

I will give several examples of what I am talking about here. I will also point out the root causes and then what we can do about it.

There are those who will blame our President for raising taxes. The truth is, no President has the power to raise taxes. In fact, the President cannot submit a budget directly to the House, only members can do that. No Presidential budget has ever been passed by Congress in it's original submitted form. Congress alone is responsible for the budget. For example, the FY 2012 budget was to be finalized by LAW by the last day of September, yet we have no budget, just continuing resolutions. Who is responsible? Congress.

There are those who blame the banks and Wall Street for our financial difficulties. Again, even according to our President, on the surface it appears they broke no laws. There are those who want the banks prosecuted, but if they broke no law, then this won't happen. Why then did we get where we are? Congress deregulated the banks and allowed them to enter into the field of investments. There were not enough safeguards in the law to prevent the financial institutions from doing what they did. Congress, in their shortsightedness chose to open Pandora's Box and look what happened. Should we blame the banks for taking advantage of an opportunity to make a lot of money, courtesy of the US Congress? As a condition of any bailout, Congress should have instituted a financial transaction tax to pay back the American tax payer and to slow down the derivatives market.

Some people blame the banks when some instituted a 4 or 5 dollar fee for using a Visa other debit card (not credit card). Now a bank has every right to recover the costs involved with these transactions. Transactions are handled through a third party clearinghouse. Prior to the banking reform law just passed by Congress, these costs were covered in fees charged the merchants. By law those fees were reduced. Two things happened, one the merchants did not lower their prices to reflect the reduction, but it does pad their bottom line. Secondly, since the fees were reduced the banks had to find a way to cover those costs, hence the monthly fee. Is it right to be able to use a banking service without actually having to pay for it? Of course not. Believe it or not there are some people who actually believe that a bank makes money off our deposits. It may be true that if you have a CD they might, but not off a checking account where the customer lives from paycheck to paycheck. Some say they should not have to pay to use their own money. The thing is, it's not our money. If you make a purchase at WalMart, you are actually borrowing money from WalMart and WalMart then is paid through a third party from your bank.

Keystone XL pipeline has received a lot of attention lately. What most people don't know is that it's not the pipeline the protestors are against in DC. What they object to is the tar sands oil project in the Canadian Province of Alberta. They see the mining there as an environmental disaster. The problem is this, this is a CANADIAN issue and the President has no authority to shut down an oil mining project in the COUNTRY of Canada. Here are a couple of facts to consider. There are 7 billion people on this planet, there are a little over 300 million people in this country and we use 25% of the worlds oil. We need oil, regardless of where it comes from. We are oil gluttons, simple fact. We have less that 2% of the provable reserves on the planet, in fact if we stopped importing oil from all sources outside the US, we would have a 3 years supply, that's it, under current consumption rates. Canada (Alberta) provides us with 20% of our imported oil. Now, here is something you may not know. There is already a pipeline, Keystone 1 pumping oil from Alberta to St. Louis. This is a second pipeline, Case 2. Alberta's oil production is limited by pipeline capacity, just as the shale oil project, Bakken here in the US is. In the end, it will be the President's decision whether to approve the pipeline or not. Since this is a matter of national security, he will certainly sign it. But what if he did not sign it? What would the ramifications be? Well, for one, it won't stop the mining, which is what the tree huggers want. You see, Alberta also has Case 3, a pipeline to British Columbia to service China and the Pacific Rim in the works. So the Chinese would be getting the oil that was supposed to come here. The new refinery being built in Port Arthur, TX would have to be modified to accommodate a different type of oil, if possible. If we ever needed oil from a friendly source because we got cut off in the future, well, no pipeline, no oil. The point here is, protesting at the White House will have no effect one way or the other on the mining of the tar sands in Canada. It is a wasted effort. The complainers should go to Edmonton to voice their concerns. Given the fact that 1 in 14 people in Alberta are tied to the oil industry and that expected oil royalties from the mining is expected to reach a total of $335 Billion (CDN) by 2035, I would not expect a warm, polite Canadian welcome.

Citizen's United has caused quite a stir, but I doubt if many people know what the ruling really means other than the tag line the 'corporations are people too'. First off, corporations are taxed and regulated without representation, corporations cannot vote. The CU ruling does NOT affect direct contributions to a candidate or party by a corporation or union. The way the law was written, an individual could spend as much money for or against a person, party, platform or issue whereas a corporation could not. This means that George Soros or the Koch brothers could spend as much as they wanted, but not as a corporation. All the CU ruling said is that a corporation cannot be treated differently than a person. If a person can spend as much as they wanted on their own campaign for or against an issue, person or party, so too can a corporation or union. Now, if you limit corporation/union spending, then the only source of political campaign ads will come from a candidate or party. So say an incumbent in a safe district would have a distinct advantage over a rival without CU. Congress created this law and is responsible, not the Supreme Court.

The EPA and over regulation is another issue. When asked, what regulations are hurting business, you either get no answer or you get something like, Mercury emissions or Greenhouse Gases. The truth? EPA has no choice but to create and enforce these rules because they are under orders from the Supreme Court to do so. The mercury emissions law was created by Congress in 1990 and the regulations will be finalized this December of 2011. The greenhouse gases issue was ruled on by the Supreme Court in 2007 and the new rules went into effect in January 2011. What are the rules which kill business? 1) Only new builds will be affected by the rules. 2) Only major refits will be affected by the new rules 3) Small businesses are exempt from the new rules. Each state is required to issue a permit due to the different environmental conditions of each state, there is no blanket permit for all. Existing plants are not affected by the new rules. Now, where did the authority for EPA to regulate come from? The US Congress, that is where. The Congress creates laws which EPA must enforce.

Taxing the wealthy and business is a clear responsibility of Congress. The wealthy do not make tax law, Congress does. Business does not make tax law, Congress does. Don't blame the wealthy for paying the taxes they are lawfully mandated to pay. If it's not enough, blame Congress.

Why blame WalMart for buying from China if that is all we choose to buy from? WalMart sells products made from all over the world, but we will only buy at the cheapest price. So who is at fault? Is it WalMart for selling the product or US who wants cheap prices? No one wants to pay 'list' anymore. If this were true, people would not wait until Black Friday to get the best deals for Christmas. Why do smart people wait until the end of the month to buy a car knowing that dealerships push for those end of the month sales. Why bother have sales at all? It's because we want to get the best deal we can. We made WalMart who they are today. All WalMart is guilty of is providing us with exactly what we asked for, cheap.

Now for the big one, the biggest problem and the ONLY one we can fix. Congress.

If anyone watched Dylan Ratigan today on MSNBC and listened to Mike Williams who was running for Congress in Connecticut, who quit the race over money, you can get an idea how screwed up our political system really is. Does anyone remember when Hillary moved to NY to run for Senate? She could have gone anywhere and run, why? Money. She would raise millions for the party no matter where she landed. She was called a carpetbagger, which she was. Dennis Kucinich, it was speculated he would move to another state because his seat in Ohio would be lost due to apportionment after the census. It's all about the money. Who can raise the most, who has 'connections' to the party and lobbyists. In rare cases a new candidate can break through, but usually because there is no incumbent and their opponent does something really stupid. On the other hand, does anyone remember Carnahan in Missouri who was elected AFTER he had already died? What does that say about the Missouri electorate? What does that say about the electorate at large? What makes an incumbent's seat so safe that well over 90% get re-elected even when it is clear the Congress is absolutely responsible for the fix we are in? Why do we keep voting for the same incompetents? Congress has an 8% approval rating, yet nearly 100% of the incumbents will be re-elected. Doesn't this one question bother anyone? What is it they say about insanity, doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result? Yet this is what we do. We make it so easy for the political parties. We are predictable and they prey on that. Because we let them. Who decides who runs for Congress? The party for one. If there is an incumbent you can forget any party help UNLESS you can bring in more MONEY. If there is no incumbent, the party chooses whomever can bring in more MONEY. If you are a Democrat wanting to run against a Republican in a 'safe' Republican district, you can forget any help from the party at all, it will be all on your dime.

If you have the chance to watch the movie, 'The Distinguished Gentleman', with Eddie Murphy, you can get an idea of how the process works.

So what is the answer? Campaign finance reform for one, but it will never happen, after all, the current system virtually guarantees re-election, even at the avg. cost of $1.2M per seat and where does the money come from?

The second solution is a lot simpler, but it will take a real change in voter activities.

People vote. People should vote. People should have a choice. The problem is the institutionalized corruption of the political system. There is only one way to put the brakes on. Toss the 435. What would be the ramifications if every single member of Congress was tossed out on their ear? For one, the House seniority would be in a shambles, the pecking order would no longer exist. Money would be less of an issue since the lobbyists would not know who they can approach to bribe. We would have a Congress of idealists not ideologues. The power base would be destroyed overnight. Replacing every member would mean fresh ideas, smarter people, connected to the people and not party. Maybe then we may get campaign finance reform and possibly term limits. We would have people who would put country first rather than party or special interests.

The truth is, Congress is the root cause for where we are today. The solution is to toss them all. So instead of blaming Wall Street and the banks and the wealthy or the Chinese, go after the people who truly are responsible. We cannot bring down Wall Street, but we can bring down the political system. So why not go after what we really can change?

A new Constitution for the United States of America-IN WORK

Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article 1.

Section 1.

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section. 2.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, Territory, Commonwealth or District of Columbia. No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State, Territory, Commonwealth or District of Columbia AND district in which he shall be chosen. No candidate for the election in the House of Representatives shall receive as a campaign contribution no more than $1 per person living in the district for which they wish to represent. Each district shall be equal for the purposes of this section, the population by the most recent Census divided by 435. No candidate may accept contributions from any person who lives outside the district for which they wish to represent. No candidate may accept more than a $10 contribution from any single person, to the maximum allowed by this section. Contributions from sources other than living, individual human beings is prohibited.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States, Territory, Commonwealth or District of Columbia , according to their respective Numbers, the total number of representatives shall be 435. Each State shall have at Least one Representative. Each State, Territory, Commonwealth or District of Columbia shall perform redistricting based upon population as demonstrated by the US Census, every ten years. Districts shall be apportioned based solely upon population. No district shall be created based upon, race, political affiliation, socioeconomic status or religious beliefs.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, Territory, Commonwealth or District of Columbia , the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies, the seat shall remain vacant until an election can be held.

The House of Representatives shall elect their Speaker and other Officers, based upon popular vote of the House, a two-thirds majority is required for election.

The power of Impeachment or expulsion shall be the sole responsibility of the Judiciary. The Justice Department is responsible for investigation and prosecution. Any member of Congress convicted while in office of any crime against the United States in addition to the penalty the court proscribes shall repay to the Treasury all compensation received while in office or future compensation for the purposes of benefits due upon leaving their office. Any former member of Congress who is convicted in a court of law for crimes committed while in office shall repay to the Treasury all compensation received while in office and any future compensation and benefits as a result their time in office.

Section 3.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from Each State, Territory, Commonwealth or District of Columbia. They shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies, the seat shall remain vacant until an election can be held.

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State, Territory, Commonwealth or District of Columbia for which he shall be chosen.

No candidate for the election in the Senate shall receive as a campaign contribution no more than $1 per person living in the State, Territory, Commonwealth or District of Columbia for which they wish to represent. No candidate may accept contributions from any person who lives outside the State, Territory, Commonwealth or District of Columbia for which they wish to represent. No candidate may accept more than a $10 contribution from any single person, to the maximum allowed by this section. Contributions from sources other than living, individual human beings is prohibited.

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

The Senate shall choose their other Officers, based upon popular vote of the Senate, a two-thirds majority is required for election. and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.

The power of Impeachment other than for President or expulsion shall be the sole responsibility of the Judiciary. The Justice Department is responsible for investigation and prosecution. Any member of the Senate convicted while in office of any crime against the United States in addition to the penalty the court proscribes shall repay to the Treasury all compensation received while in office or future compensation for the purposes of benefits due upon leaving their office. Any former member of the Senate who is convicted in a court of law for crimes committed while in office shall repay to the Treasury all compensation received while in office and any future compensation and benefits as a result their time in office.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Presidential Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Presidential Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Section. 4.

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

Section. 5.

Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, a two thirds majority required.

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

Section 6.

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. No member of either house may be compensated if any new expenditures budgeted through current legislation must be borrowed on the full faith a credit of the United States, the exception being a declared state of war.

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

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.

Section 7.

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

Section 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

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

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the National Guard to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repeal Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the National Guard, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the National Guard according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise cooperative Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, 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;—And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Section. 9.

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases or Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census of Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported or imported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear or pay Duties in another.

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

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

Section. 10.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article. II.

Section. 1.

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows, by direct public vote.

No Person except a natural born Citizen or a person naturalized for a period of 35 years shall be eligible to the Office of President;

neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

Section. 2.

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the National Guard of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; 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, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. If the Senate fails to act upon nominations sent to them under this article within 30 days, the nominee considered confirmed.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section. 3.

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information on the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Section. 4.

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.

Article. III.

Section. 1.

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section. 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them 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 Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

Article. IV.

Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section. 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

Section. 3.

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Section. 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Upon the demand of any three State, Territory, Commonwealth or District of Columbia, legally assembled in their several conventions, the Congress shall summon a convention of all the State, Territory, Commonwealth or District of Columbia, to take into consideration such amendments to the Constitution as the said State, Territory, Commonwealth or District of Columbia shall concur in suggesting at the time when the said demand is made; and should any of the proposed amendments to the Constitution be agreed on by the said convention, voting by State, Territory, Commonwealth or District of Columbia, and the same be ratified by the Legislatures of two- thirds of the several State, Territory, Commonwealth or District of Columbia, or by conventions in two-thirds thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the general convention, they shall thenceforward form a part of this Constitution. But no State, Territory, Commonwealth or District of Columbia shall, without its consent, be deprived of its equal representation in the Senate.

Article. VI.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the previous Constitution.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.