Don't Fear Convention of the States - It is Time!

Article V of our Constitution prescribes two methods to add amendments. The first - most familiar method - is where two thirds of both Houses of Congress propose amendments. The second method which has never been used is a convention of the States. Unfamiliarity with this second method has created much trepidation and opposition to it ever being used. It is incorrectly believed that a Convention of the States would result is a complete rewrite of the Constitution. This fear is unfounded because this method is only to propose amendments not draft an entirely new document. Further, just as with the first method, any proposed changes would require approval by three fourths of the States. These safeguards were put in place to prevent a runaway of the process.

Virginia delegate George Mason proposed and argued for the second method for amending the Constitution as a safeguard against tyranny. He envisioned a time when Congress could not be relied upon to regulate itself. Two issues, term limits and balancing the budget, are perfect examples of his concerns and constitute a form of soft tyranny emanating from Congress.

A January 2013 Gallop poll showed 75% of Americans favor term limits on Congress and other polls show as high as 85% of Americans believe there should be an amendment requiring a balanced Federal budget. These are things the citizenry wants but will never be proposed by Congress because it would diminish its power. The only way to get these and many other needed reforms such as overturning the 17th Amendment and returning the selection of Senstors to State legislatures, is through the convention of the States process. It is time. We shouldn't fear this process. It was specifically designed to protect the States and ultimately the individual citizens from an out of control Congress and it is the last, best hope for saving the nation. We need this now!

Scapegoat Bernie

As polls show a dead heat in a potential match up between Trump and Hillary and as Bernie and Hillary continue to split the primary contests, Democrats are attacking Bernie Sanders and telling him he needs to get out of the race. They are realizing the coronation of Hillary is not a given.

Could Democrats and liberals (but I repeat myself) be searching for a face saving explanation in the event they suffer a humiliating defeat in November? After all, it couldn't possibly be the people rejecting their severely flawed and weak candidate now could it? If that doesn't work, we can always count on their other "go to" tactic: blaming it on the stupidity of the American people.

Progressives Defined Violence Differently Based on Their Need

A few annoying Democrat agitators disrupt Trump rallies and get punched in the face. Liberals come unhinged and cry about the violent behavior of Trump and all his supporters. They compare Trump to Hitler and Pol Pot. Use hyperbole much? Democratic agitators cause a riot at the Nevada Democrat Convention requiring a police response and everyone on the left call it "passion." The White House and its mainstream media sycophants all magically come up with the same word, "passion." Remember how they all came up with the same obscure word gravitas? Now that Bernie is threatening Hillary's candidacy, it's back to being violence.
Progressives live in an Orwellian "1984"  newspeak/group think world. Kinda scary, isn't it?

Not Knowing that You Don't Know

After several minutes of patting himself on the back for making things so much better, President Obama said the following last Sunday while delivering the commencement address at Rutgers University, "In politics and in life, ignorance is not a virtue. It's not cool to not know what you're talking about. That's not keeping it real, or telling it like it is. That's not challenging political correctness. That's just not knowing what you're talking about." It was meant as a jab at Trump.

Like so many of our politicians, Mr. Obama doesn't even realize that he doesn't even know that he himself doesn't know what he is talking about.

2nd Grand Obama Policy Deception

Well we now have proof that a second of President Obama's accomplishments is based on a big fat lie. First we learned from Jonathan Gruber, the economist and consultant paid $400k to help create and sell Obamacare to the American people, that we were intentionally deceived. As reported by Marc A. Thiessen in the Washington Post on 17 Nov 2014, "...there are now seven Gruber videos, in which he mocks the “stupidity” of American voters and boasts of the Obama administration’s ability to take advantage of it. In a new video that surfaced Friday, Gruber explains that the Obama administration passed the so-called “Cadillac tax” on high-value employer health plans “by mislabeling it, calling it a tax on insurance plans rather than a tax on people, when we know it’s a tax on people who hold these insurance plans.” Americans would not support a tax on individuals, so “We just tax the insurance companies, they pass on the higher prices . . . it ends up being the same thing.” The ruse, Gruber says, was “a very clever . . . basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.”

Now we have an Obama Administration official admitting that the people (and Congress apparently) were lied to regarding the Iran Nuclear Deal. In a New York Times profile of Obama Administration National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes, Rhodes himself details the level deception and lies told to the country in order to get support for the deal.

If progressive ideas are so good, why do they so frequently require some initial lie? The power of propaganda!

Reforming Our Backward Tax System

The more I consider all the proposed tax reform plans, the more I'm beginning to think perhaps none of us have been looking at this issue the right way. We are going after the symptoms not the problem.

The Framers of our Constitution devised a federal system and never dreamed of such a top-heavy government requiring such burdensome federal taxes. The way our tax code has evolved, I have serious doubts that it can every be brought under control.

The federal government confiscates money from citizens from around the country so that Senators and Congressmen in Washington can fight over the spoils like pirates or a pack of jackals. Individual States have a nearly insatiable appetite for other people's money to spend on themselves and they reward those they send to Washington with re-election for bring home the "bacon". The 10th Amendment should have prevented this kind of tax and spend behavior. Under the current system, States can implement the craziest programs and get the rest the nation to pay for them.

Federal income tax brackets go from 10% up to almost 40% of one's adjusted gross income. State income taxes range from 0% in States like Florida and Texas to 13.3% in California. We should return to the Framers' original intent of the federal government only doing what the Constitution empowers it to do and leaving the rest up to the individual States. This would require reversing the tax rates with States having the higher rates and the federal government requiring a lower rate. This would accomplish several important things.

First, it would force those who demand services to pay for those services themselves. Second, it would also force Senators and Representatives to earn their re-elections by representing their States on truly national issues not by enabling a scheme to redistribute wealth. Third, it would force accountability for spending and the good stewardship of the people's money back to the State and local levels where it is much harder to hide fraud, waste and abuse. Forth, it would reduce the ability of a few very populous States such as California or New York from forcing their agendas on the rest of the country. Lastly, it would make the States less suseptable to blackmail by the federal government. No more, "You will do 'x' or we will withhold federal funds."

I have no illusions that this would ever voluntarily be done by Congress, After all, it would be a voluntary relinquishment of power since $=power in Washington. It could be accomplished at an  Article V Convention of the States along with some other issues I have previously advocated such as returning the selection of Senators back to State legislatures as originally intended.

Could any of this ever happen? Who knows but we can hope!

Misinterpreting Trump's Numbers

A lot has been made by the so called experts about Trump's numbers. They say that, despite having received the most votes in US primary history, still more people voted for someone else than voted for him. While that may be true, the pundits have drawn erroneous conclusions. They somehow equate that to a vote against Trump rather than simply an indication of another preference. They make the assumption that, for all those other voters, Trump couldn't possibly be their 2nd or 3rd choice. Their own biases made them interpret this to mean that if he wasn't their first choice, he was automatically their last choice. This is very poor analysis indeed. Further, these same experts told us after each Trump primary or caucus win that based on his rate of picking up delegates, he would never reach the 1237 needed to secure the nomination. Again, poor analysis. As the number of choices decreased, the rate at which "The Donald" picked up delegates increased. To make matters worse,  the pundits' faulty logic is being used to try to convince Republican voters that Trump will never be able to beat Hillary Clinton in the general election. Funny how the vigorous challenge mounted against Hillary by Bernie Sanders is never seen as an indication of her unpopularity or that she may have trouble in November.

The Trump and Sanders insurgent candidacies reflect or perhaps have even caused a "Sea Change" in American politics. The establishment types in both the Republican and Democrat parties either fail to recognize this shift or are choosing to ignore it. Keeping all this in mind, it seems highly unlikely that Republican voters who didn't get their first choice in their party's nominee would not only cast their ballot for the other party's candidate but also vote for someone who is ideologically 180 degrees out of phase with them. Likewise, I don't see disappointed Bernie supporters voting for his antithesis, Hillary Clinton. In this election, I predict the anti-establishment fervor will "Trump" all. Pun intended.

Carnivore Picks for Trump Cabinet

VP - Rubio or Kasich (to bring FL or OH)
Sec State - former UN Ambassador John Bolton
Sec Def - Former US Senator and Sec Nav James Webb
Attorney Gen - Rudy Gulliani or Chris Christie
Tres Sec - another successful (non-banker) business person
Sec HHS (or Surgeon Gen) - Dr Ben Carson
Sec Ed - no one b/c he should get rid of the dept
Energy Sec - a retired Navy Nuc flag officer - if not energy independent by end of 1st term, get rid of the department
1st Supreme Court pick - Ted Cruz or whoever not picked for AG

Points to Ponder

Capuchin monkeys understand unequal pay. See the link.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg
So does this mean they are smarter than the staffers that Hillary pays less than their male counterparts  or the executives of the Clinton Foundation who earn less?

Is it the job of a primary candidate to win the nomination or prevent another candidate from winning the nomination? They aren't necessarily the same thing.

The North Carolina law that requires one to use the bathroom corresponding to their biological gender is causing many celebs to boycott the state. Could NC be getting exactly what it wants?

On a related note, Since when does one's attire determine one's gender?

So former Speaker of the House, John Boehner, called Ted Cruz "Lucifer in the flesh." So what? Does anyone really care what that has been has to say?