Senator Ted Cruz points out that the media doesn't select the President. The voters elect the President, and by law, all legal votes must be counted before the winner is determined. So, the Presidential election is still undecided, despite what the media is saying.
Senator Cruz also emphasizes that there will be a run off for two Senators in Georgia in January 2021. He explains that if the Senate is at 50-50, and Biden ends up winning, they could vote in all kinds of things, like giving the Demonicrats a packed Supreme Court, two more states with their four Senators most likely being Demonicrats, and what ever horrible Green New Deal laws they will come up with that will destroy the economy. The Republicans, if they can maintain the majority in the U. S. Senate, can stop those things, even if Joe Biden ends up winning, God forbid.
In this episode, I address the worst fake news story yet, as the media continues to promote insanity and hysteria. I also address the ridiculous pork Pelosi tried to insert in the Wuhan Virus Bill.
Wow, would you look at all those links I've included below, from the show notes? Yes, make no mistake, it was another jam-packed episode on The Dan Bongino Show yesterday (I know, I'm still a day behind). But, it is so important for me to be able to concentrate on what the episodes are telling us. You will no doubt see Dan's anger in the beginning of this video. You may see my anger in the content of this blog post. No doubt.
How many of us are screaming, wishing the Demonicrats in Washington, District of Corruption, could hear us? Why in the world did the Demonicrats throw in all their wish list in this bill now being considered, that is supposed to be helping Americans get through this Coronavirus attack on our economy? So much in that bill goes against just about everything that Conservatives stand for. As I say in my pinned tweet on Twitter, "I do not need the government to legislate my happiness, or for that matter, my misery!!" Believe me! We the People of America do NOT need any of the crap that the Demonicrats crammed into the bill that is supposed to help America, specifically our economy, survive! It is outrageous! We just need legislation to do what it is supposed to do: Just FIX IT, you Demonicrat morons! It is all we want, and all we need!
I totally understand why Dan Bongino was slightly unhinged today. I am, too! The media and the Demonicrats, propping up Biden? That's practically impossible, so there is their usual fallback: Attack the President. However, thanks to the great commentators like Dan Bongino, and those of us that do what we can to promote them, to get the word out. I don't think that the American people are all as stupid as they think we are. In fact, we're on top of it! And, be ready, Demonicrats, many of you running for reelection in November are going to be looking for a job. And I kind of hope that many of those in the MSM gaslighting China-propaganda-spreading cohorts are in the unemployment lines along with you.
Sadly, some of the episode had to do with another Joe Biden moment. Seriously? Why are people close to the old former Senator, V.P, and college professor (which never happened), allowing Joe to continue? Are the Demonicrats that worried about Bernie Sanders becoming their nominee? Why? We should all be asking those questions.
Watch this video, and stay tuned to the show. I think that Dan Bongino has a special talent in explaining how crazy things are getting, and that we need to FIX IT. There will be a way to do that, in just a few more months, in an election.
Dan Bongino lays out the various shenanigans going on with the impeachment trial, for spying that was being done and the illegal warrants through FISA, the soft coup, and the intrigue of the various characters involved in the giant hoax, perpetrated in order to remove President Donald Trump from office.
This story and more news, coming your way!
I would like to personally state my sincerest condolences to Dan Bongino and his family for the loss of his sweet Grandmother, who will be greatly missed by all who knew her, and loved her.
As an additional feature here on Blogging In Our Time 2 Escape, this blog will be including videos that have been posted on the johnny2k's America Facebook page! Videos can sometimes say more than what can be expressed in text. Be sure to visit the archive with hundreds of videos to peruse.
It is my fear that the Estate Planners will have a very large and wealthy contingent of lobbyists that will attempt to keep this bill from passing in the U. S. Senate now that it has passed in the House of Representatives. We should soon find out if Senator McConnell is going to do his job as the Senate Majority Leader and get it through. They will need some Democrats to vote for the bill to get it through the Senate which makes it even more complicated, especially if Obama follows through with his threat to veto the repeal of the Estate Tax.
Repeal the Estate Tax. It is the right and moral thing to do, but the White House threatens a veto. Go figure. As...
As an additional feature here on Blogging In Our Time 2 Escape, this blog will be including videos that have been posted on the johnny2k's America Facebook page! Videos can sometimes say more than what can be expressed in text. Be sure to visit the archive with hundreds of videos to peruse.
Noting close poll numbers in crucial states, she said the Democratic Party's advantages are "superior to the ones that Republicans have."
"When we keep races this close, Democrats win," said Wasserman Schultz.
The upbeat assessment stood in stark contrast to the conclusions drawn by Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus during the same segment.
"Our ground game is whipping their ground game," Priebus said, adding later, "We're going to have a great night."
Sure, it is totally okay to denigrate Debbie, she seems to earn the Crazy Lady In the Attic Award for her extremely absurd statement. What was she thinking? Is she not paying attention to any of the polls? Is she getting desperate because she's trying to save her job?
However, in Conservative Intel, where I first heard about this story, the people that commented on the story have a different theory. It seems quite cynical in their thinking that there's something sinister going on.
Lewis Clements Sr.:
I am sad to say MS.Debbie Wasserman Schultz is right, "When we keep races this close, Democrats win." Their Voter Fraud always seems to overcome a one to two point lead. BY Hook or Crook!
Barbara Carpenter:
I guess she has an inside track on the voter fraud the Dems continue to perpetrate.
Jeffrey Raum · Atlanta, Georgia:
Democrats will win if the electronic voting machines are allowed! Lie, Cheat, and Steal has always been the Democratic motto! It worked in 2012, with votes being change from R to D on machines in several states. Now it has already showed up in early voting! Why is it these calibration errors only changes Republican vote to Democrat, never the other way around? Why do you think Obama was taunting the American public about any vote for a Democrat was a vote for his policies? They know it's rigged, and there is nothing that will be done about it!
I am a just a little bit skeptical about the theory that the Democrats will steal the election. Wouldn't that be rather obvious if it actually happened? The polls and pundits seem to indicate a large landslide for the Republicans in this midterm election.
Well... whatever. But if Debbie Whatshername ends up being right, and all of the close races do end up going in the Democrat direction, there will be a great amount of suspicion, if not downright anger across the country. That wouldn't be why DHS beefed up security at federal facilities last week, would it? Just sayin'...
Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) predicted Sunday that her party would hold the Senate in Tuesday's midterm elections, thanks to its "superior" ground games in critical states.
"I think we're going to hold the Senate," Wasserman Schultz said during an interview with ABC's "This Week." "We have a ground game that I know [the GOP] would take over theirs any day of the week."
Wassermann Schultz also cited the high-level surrogates working with Democratic candidates on the campaign trail, including former President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vice President Biden.
As an additional feature here on Blogging In Our Time 2 Escape, this blog will be including videos that have been posted on the johnny2k's America Facebook page! Videos can sometimes say more than what can be expressed in text. Be sure to visit the archive with hundreds of videos to peruse.
And we thought that Joe Biden was the blooper king. It looks like Michelle Obama can give the Vice President a run for the money on faux pas leadership.
As an additional feature here on Blogging In Our Time 2 Escape, this blog will be including videos that have been posted on the johnny2k's America Facebook page! Videos can sometimes say more than what can be expressed in text. Be sure to visit the archive with hundreds of videos to peruse!
Ernst also spoke to the supporters of her competitors, urging them to seek common ground to come together to defeat Braley.
"This is not outcome we were hoping for but an outcome Iowans voted for, and we respect that decisions," her closest challenger, Mark Jacobs, said in his concession speech.
Ernst, also a National Guard officer, garnered support from such Tea Party favorites as Florida GOP Sen. Marco Rubio and establishment Republicans such as 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who helped Ernst with a last-minute swing around the state.
Joni Ernst won the primary election in a big way. There are some very notable reasons why Joni Ernst's successful election bid comes with a great example for the Republicans across the country this coming November on how to take back the U.S. Senate. As you will see in the video and description below, uniting the Republican Party may be the key. Just sayin'...
Please note: To see the following video, you must be logged in to Facebook.
Iowa Republican lawmaker Joni Ernst won her party's Senate primary race Tuesday night, after pulling ahead in a crowded field thanks to clever campaign ads and support from Tea Party favorites.
The 43-year-old Ernst, a state senator, handily won the nomination, receiving enough votes to avoid a nominating convention in the five-way race. She'll face Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley in the November general election to replace retiring Democrat Tom Harkin, who held the seat for 30 years.
Ernst attracted national attention after she released an ad in March playfully suggesting her experience on her family’s farm castrating pigs will translate to her cutting “pork” in Congress, pledging to “make ‘em squeal.”
The attention helped her languishing fundraising efforts and made her the frontrunner for the first open Senate seat in the state in three decades.
As an additional feature here on Blogging In Our Time 2 Escape, this blog will be including videos that have been posted on the johnny2k's America Facebook page! Videos can sometimes say more than what can be expressed in text. Be sure to visit the archive with hundreds of videos to peruse!
Please note: To see the johnny2k’s America videos on this blog, you must be logged in to Facebook.
In a post written last week, Palin Endorses Ernst in Iowa Senate Race, I mentioned the slam on Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA). However, at that time, I had not yet discovered why Bruce Braley slammed Grassley for not being an attorney. It turns out that if the Republicans win back control of the U.S. Senate, Sen. Grassley would become the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and would likely allow tort reform legislation to go through.
Toward the end of her report, Shannon Bream mentioned one thing that should be a wake-up call: The trial lawyers have managed to give overwhelmingly to Democrats without attracting much attention like donors do that give to GOP candidates and organizations. Well, until now. Thanks to Braley's arrogant remarks that were caught on video, we finally learn the truth. And the truth ain't pretty when you realize how much frivolous law suits and huge settlements end up costing the consumer and keep our health costs skyrocketing (something that Obamacare failed to put a stop to!). Just sayin'...
* * * *
Special note: To learn more about America's judicial system, please read, "Adversarial Justice: America's Court System on Trial," by Theodore L. Kubicek. "Proposed remedies, however, rarely go as deep as the ethics of the system. America's judicial system should not be a game that anyone can win, regardless of actual guilt or liability."
* * * *
Please note: To see the following video, you must be logged in to Facebook.
As an additional feature here on Blogging In Our Time 2 Escape, this blog will be including videos that have been posted on the johnny2k's America Facebook page! Videos can sometimes say more than what can be expressed in text. Be sure to visit the archive with hundreds of videos to peruse!
Please note: To see the johnny2k’s America videos on this blog, you must be logged in to Facebook.
Liberalism is magical thinking promulgated by cynical exploiters upon the eternally gullible and the chronically lazy. It’s a political Ponzi scheme, and today’s participants are the unlucky marks coming in at the end of the grift.
Liberalism will collapse of its own dead weight. And when it does, you true believers better be ready for the hard truth that there is no such thing as a free lunch.
I need to continue on from what Kurt Schlichter said was Hard Truth Number 7:
And that leads to Hard Truth Number 7: This can’t go on.
Lady [Margaret] Thatcher famously formulated that, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.” And you will.
What I need to tell you is there are even more Hard Truths that you should know about:
Hard Truth Number 8: When the Ponzi system goes broke, the most likely result will be tyranny, and probably genocide. You probably will not be able to vote Conservatives into power; forget about trying to remove the likes of Harry Reid from control of the Senate; and we won't be taking back the White House anytime soon, either. In places like North Korea, the Dear Leader gets 100% of the vote.
Hard Truth Number 9: There are Liberals that knew very well about the first eight Hard Truths, and that was their plan all along! Well, their plan for at least 100 years, anyway, was to upend our culture, eliminate religion, divide the population by race and class warfare, and dumb down the kids with the indoctrination centers they call public schools...
But, perhaps, there is one more Hard Truth to discuss. What I consider to be Hard Truth Number 10: There are hardcore, gun-toting, Bible clinging "redneck" patriots out here that are going to make your plan much more difficult to achieve. This is Amazing America!!! This isn't the end of what some of us have to say. It is not over yet! I'm just sayin'...
H/T to Louis Van Marm, one of my Brother Tea Partiers, for the email that lead me to Kurt Schlichter's awesome column, and for a follow-up email that gave me encouragement to stay inspired to keep blogging and hoping that we can still turn this country around!
It’s difficult to understand liberals when you don’t live in their sheltered cocoon of participation trophies, faux caring and feel-good lies.
Those of us who labor in the real world – who built this country, who make it work and who defend it – deal with reality. Most liberals don’t. And that can be baffling, because when they speak they sound like visitors from the planet Nimrod.
Now, some liberals do understand the real world. They are the cynical liberal icons, the ones who know their entire ideology is a scam designed to wring power and wealth from the gullible.
They are the rich ones who cry about poverty and racism then gleefully consign poor and minority kids to public school failure factories by doing the bidding of their unionized teacher partners and torpedoing educational choice. Their own kids wouldn’t get within a mile of an inner city public school, except maybe to swing by in the Mercedes C-Class they got for their 16th birthday to buy some weed from the gangbangers infesting it.
Palin's endorsement, of course, playfully referred to Ernst's pig castration/pork-cutting TV ad that has the internet buzzing and left Tonight Show host Jimmy Fallon cringing.
In accepting Palin's endorsement, Ernst, who has also been backed by Mitt Romney, told Breitbart.com that she was "proud to stand with the Mama Grizzly against big spenders in Washington like Bruce Braley and Nancy Pelosi."
"Sarah Palin is an inspiration to those of us who want to protect life, defend the Second Amendment, and get Washington out of our wallets," Ernst said.
Funny thing about politics, especially in presidential elections; the campaigning starts long before the next election. And I'm wondering if the Mama Grizzly herself, Sarah Palin, has started her 2016 bid for the GOP nomination. By strongly endorsing a U.S. Senate candidate from Iowa for the GOP nomination, Joni Ernst, Sarah Palin has created an opening to make a lot of speeches here in Iowa over the next seven months, and probably for the next year or two. And if Joni Ernst wins the nomination, and then the election in November, you can bet that she'll be a huge supporter for a Sarah Palin presidential bid in 2016.
And right after I found out about Joni Ernst via this article about Sarah Palin's endorsement, I happened to see this segment on The Five: Please note: To see the following video, you must be logged in to Facebook.
The only other GOP U.S. Senate candidate in Iowa that I was aware of until yesterday was Mark Jacobs. There are six candidates running, and now I know of two. I am assuming that Jacobs' campaign is going well, as a lot of TV advertising money has been spent so far. But now, there is a big-time competitor in the mix, and based on the way it is starting out, Joni Ernst is going to make a race out of it.
Palin's endorsement of Ernst is also well-timed, coming one day after the GOP research group America Rising released a video of Braley calling Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley a "farmer from Iowa who never went to law school" at a Texas fundraiser.
Just a note to Bruce Braley: Sen. Grassley did NOT vote for Obamacare, and you did, without ever reading the bill... and you're the lawyer? Just sayin'...
One day after her campaign ad went viral, conservative Iowa Senate candidate Joni Ernst was endorsed by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in her bid to gain the Republican nomination among a crowded field of candidates in the June 3 primary election.
"If Nebraska’s Deb Fischer can see through the bull in Washington, then Iowa’s Joni Ernst can help her cut through the pork," Palin wrote on her Facebook page.
"Growing up on a hog farm in southwest Iowa, Joni has taken her 'pork cutting' skills to the Iowa State Senate, where she has been a champion for life, small government, and lower taxes – voting for the largest tax cut in Iowa history."
Palin also cited Ernst's background as a "veteran of the Iraq war [who] continues her service as a Lt. Colonel in the Iowa Army National Guard" and her pro-Second Amendment beliefs as owner of a concealed weapon license and "A" rating by the National Rifle Association as reasons Iowans should back Ernst.
"She's been a fighter for freedom both in and out of uniform," Palin said. "Iowa – come together and send this Midwest Mama Grizzly roaring to Washington on her Harley so she can join with the good guys to get our country back on track!"
As an additional feature here on Blogging In Our Time 2 Escape, this blog will be including videos that have been posted on the johnny2k's America Facebook page! Videos can sometimes say more than what can be expressed in text. Be sure to visit the archive with hundreds of videos to peruse!
Please note: To see the johnny2k’s America videos on this blog, you must be logged in to Facebook.
In a new feature here on Blogging In Our Time 2 Escape, this blog will now be including videos that I have recently posted on the johnny2k's America Facebook page!
The rise of Marxism in the mid 19th century that evolved into progressivism in America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, found that competing political powers were an obstacle to progressive objectives. The Senate, chosen by state legislatures, could block any measure proposed by the House or by the president. Of course, this is precisely what the founders had in mind.
Randolph Hearst unleashed his media empire to publish stories bashing the Senate as a den of thieves chosen by corrupt politicians in cahoots with big industry. Today, George Soros funds Media Matters to publish stories in hopes of destroying all things inconsistent with progressive objectives.
The progressives in Hearst's day won the battle. Woodrow Wilson won the presidency in 1912; and his band of progressive politicians gave us the Federal Reserve, the income tax and the 17th Amendment, which removed the states from any representation in the federal government. The 17th Amendment required senators to be elected by the public, rather than by state legislatures.
The competition between political powers was gone. There was no competing political power to check or balance the power of the Washington government. From the day the 17th Amendment was declared to be ratified, the government in Washington has continued to expand its power, its size and its budget with no voice or power of opposition from the states.
I hope that Henry Lamb is right! It was the fact that Henry included "it's not too late" in the title that should get your attention. It got mine.
Being that I only write one of these posts daily, and I have many great columns to choose from, it isn't easy to decide which columns that I want to discuss. But, this is one of those great commentaries that jumped out at me. I was going to get to this one posted last Sunday night, but that turned out to be the day that Osama bin Laden allegedly went to room temperature. (Just a quick thought: Had the President been a Republican, it would have changed the very BOLD headlines to: "OSAMA DIED, OR OBAMA LIED!!") The fact that I even have any doubts about the version(s) we have been told since last Sunday night, it is beginning to cast a very dark shadow over how I feel about Henry's "it's not too late" statement.
Just the notion that the Progressives have had a century to drill their propaganda into the minds of the youths, and Henry says that we can turn that around.... how? I tried to do my part by posting educational and uplifting videos... up until I was silenced! I hit the proverbial brick wall. (You may want to consider not getting this blog to go viral, or we may find it go the way of my former video venue.)
But, then again... There could be hope. There might be a way. Maybe it is not too late! You only need to know one thing: IT IS ABOUT SAVING AMERICA! What other motivation do you need, other than wanting to preserve freedom for our grandchildren? I'm just sayin'........
Because the U.S. has, relative to its "AAA" peers, what we consider to be very large budget deficits and rising government indebtedness and the path to addressing these is not clear to us, we have revised our outlook on the long-term rating to negative from stable.
" ... the United States would be forced into a position of defaulting on its debt. And the implications of that on our financial system, our fiscal policy and our economy would be catastrophic."
It certainly sounds as if the United States of America needs to be saved from certain bankruptcy resulting from crushing debt, from an economically aggressive China that has taken all our jobs and from a world that no longer believes the United States is the leader of nations.
It's not too late to save America, but it will take a massive revival and rededication to the principles that made America great in the first place. America is on the brink of oblivion because those principles have been replaced by a modified form of Marxism, popularly known as "progressivism." Progressivism is the philosophy advanced by the Democratic Party – which routinely ignores first principles in its quest to seize control of political power.
Proponents of a Con-Con say that the requirement that three-fourths of the states must ratify whatever comes out as a constitutional amendment is a safeguard to prevent radicals on either side from imposing radical provisions. These folks forget that the convention can specify what it takes to ratify whatever they produce. They could produce a new Constitution with an entirely new form of government and specify that ratification would occur upon a simple majority vote in national referendum. They could specify that the new document would be ratified when approved by state legislatures in any combination of states that represent more than 50 percent of the population. Under this scenario, a handful of blue states could transform the government of the United States.
Scary? You bet. Scenarios such as this should instill fear and force people to reject the idea of a Constitutional Convention for any reason. Here is a thorough explanation of the dangers:
Henry Lamb contends that we should not desire to amend the Constitution of the United States by using the Constitutional Convention (Con-Con) mode as specified in Article V, seen below:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
And why the discussion on how to amend the Constitution? Henry has a thorough understanding that the founders had a good reason for having the States elect the Senators, and the 17th Amendment destroyed the balance between the States and the federal government. He concludes by saying this: "The time has come to restrain the powers of the federal government, and the best way to do it is to return to the design created by our founders. Repeal the 17th Amendment!"
The U.S. Constitution provides two ways to offer amendments: by resolution of the Congress; and by a Constitutional Convention requested by two-thirds of the states. In either case, the proposed amendment(s) must be ratified by three-fourths of the states.
There is a very good reason why all 27 amendments to the Constitution were offered by congressional resolution: a Constitutional Convention is an invitation to disaster.
Proponents of a Constitutional Convention claim that opponents of a Con-Con use "half-truths, myths and outright falsehoods" to instill fear of the process. They do not, however, provide any examples of the alleged "half-truths, myths and outright falsehoods."
Here is the whole truth, which is neither a myth nor a falsehood.
Article V of the U.S. Constitution allows states to apply to the Congress for a Constitutional Convention. Should two-thirds of the states issue such an application, Congress is compelled to call a Constitutional Convention. Note, however, that the Constitution provides the states only with the authority to call for a convention for the purpose of "proposing amendments." There is no authority for the states to specify what those amendments might be, or to set or limit the agenda of a convention.
When 34 states have applied for a Constitutional Convention, Congress is compelled to call one. Here's where the scary begins. Congress sets the time and location for the Con-Con. Congress determines how the delegates are chosen and how many delegates will be chosen. Congress could designate the existing Senate to be the delegates. Congress could designate the Electoral College from the last presidential election to be the delegates. Or, Congress could allow the states to choose their own delegates in whatever manner Congress might contrive. But this is not the scariest part.
Should a Constitutional Convention ever be assembled, neither Congress nor any state would have any authority or control over what the convention might do. There is no way for Congress to set or limit the agenda of a Constitutional Convention, regardless of what proponents might say. As evidence, consider the only Constitutional Convention that was ever assembled. It was assembled expressly to amend the existing Articles of Confederation, with explicit instructions from some states for their delegates to walk out should the convention stray beyond this specific purpose.
History demonstrates that the convention ignored its instructions and abolished the Articles of Confederations while creating an entirely new Constitution. There is nothing to prohibit another Constitutional Convention from doing precisely the same thing.
Not until the 17th Amendment is repealed, and the states are given back their seat at the federal table, can we begin to return to the republic our founders created, and begin to restore the freedoms that have been lost.
In Henry Lamb's column last week,"A great New Year's resolution," the 17th Amendment was discussed, and hopefully helped you understand the significance of what it did to move America away from being a Republic. In this column, he tells us a little more to help us see why the Senators being elected by popular vote is destroying our freedom.
The states created the federal government; they designed it carefully to be sure that the federal government could never gain unlimited power to govern as a tyrant. Today, however, the federal government recognizes no limitations on its power; it issues edicts to states and individuals alike, with no fear of retribution. It has gained the power to rule as a tyrant – and does.
The creators of our government knew well that should the new federal government go unchecked, in time it would become as tyrannical as King George III. This is precisely why the founders gave the Senate to the state legislatures. The people elected representatives; the state legislatures chose their own senators. With the states in control of the Senate, the founders gave the Senate the responsibility of approving all executive appointments to the Cabinet and to the federal bench. The Senate alone was given the responsibility of approving all international treaties. The Senate – chosen by state legislatures – was given the responsibility to approve all laws enacted by the House of Representatives.
These extraordinary men who created the United States of America insisted that the states have a decisive voice in the federal government. The Senate – chosen by state legislatures – was the balance that restrained the federal government from becoming the tyrant the founders feared.
The Progressive movement saw this restraint on federal power as an impediment to their goals and convinced the electorate that it would be more democratic to allow the people to elect senators. In 1913, when the 17th Amendment was ratified, the states were kicked out of the federal government they created.
The first argument against repealing the 17th Amendment is often the same argument used to get the amendment ratified in the first place: Progressives said it is more democratic for the people to elect their senators than to have state legislatures choose the senators.
Two questions must be confronted: Exactly how is democracy diminished if the people elect the state legislatures that choose the senators? The second question requires some deep soul searching by anyone who opposes repealing the 17th Amendment. Opponents must ask: Am I better qualified to determine how government should be structured than George Washington, Ben Franklin, James Madison, Roger Sherman and the other great men who wrote the Constitution?
The subject of this column by Henry Lamb may not be easily understood by the average American citizen. For the most part, none of us were around before the 17th Amendment was ratified. And I doubt that the importance of the 17th Amendment was discussed in your high school civics or history classes. We have only known that U.S. Senators are elected by popular vote. But it wasn't always that way:
The idea of people-powered government control of society offered by Marx ran head-on into the unregulated activities of laissez-faire capitalism. This produced a new system of political thought dubbed "Progressivism" by Theodore Roosevelt and others, in the late 19th century. This new hybrid political system pursued government policies that regulated economic and social activity without the government actually owning the sources of production – as Marx advocated.
Woodrow Wilson, a champion of Progressivism, ushered in the Federal Reserve, the income tax and the 17th Amendment – which destroyed the carefully balanced, unique structure of the American government. The 17th Amendment removed the states from the federal government altogether by allowing senators to be elected directly by the people rather than by the state legislatures.
Henry goes on to explain, "Since the Progressives sent Wilson to the White House, the states have had no voice in the approval of federal law to which states must conform."
In all honesty, I can't say that I was aware of the critical significance of what the 17th Amendment did until recently, and I'm still learning about it, with the help of the following two videos:
If you could spare the 43 minutes to watch the two videos above, along with reading Henry's entire column, you will probably understand much more about why the Constitution was written as it was, and why the 17th Amendment is leading the United States of America away from being a Republic as it was founded, and is being transformed into a Democracy, a "tyranny of the majority."
In hopes of returning to a previous, "better" condition, millions of Americans will resolve to: quit smoking, lose weight, or engage in some other activity to make their life better in some way. Suppose there were an activity in which Americans could engage that would make the entire world better, especially that portion of the world we call the United States of America. There is!
We can resolve to restore the original, unique republic created by our founders.
George Washington, Ben Franklin, James Madison and the handful of other great Americans who assembled in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 used nearly half of the Convention time debating the single issue of representation in the new government. Shall the new government be a government of the states, or a government of the people?
The Articles of Confederation created a government of the states, and any amendment to the Articles required unanimous approval. This arrangement was inadequate; no state could be compelled to comply with any directive from the government. James Madison's Virginia Plan proposed a new government of the people; Andrew Hamilton wanted a strong central government, with the president to be elected for life.
Small states argued that the Virginia Plan would essentially erase the small states because the large states would always have more delegates to the new government and could always outvote the small states. Delaware delegate John Dickenson nearly ended the Constitutional Convention by declaring that Madison's plan would exchange the tyranny of the king for the tyranny of the large states – tyranny to which small states would never submit.
Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman, of whom Thomas Jefferson once said: "… here is a man who never said a foolish thing in his life," suggested a compromise. His compromise would make the lower legislative chamber consist of representatives elected by the people based on population; the upper chamber, the Senate, would consist of two representatives from each state, chosen by the state legislature.
Madison compared such a government to a centaur – half man and half horse. Sherman's compromise government would be empowered half by the people and half by the states. This new form of government – unique in the world – would allow competition between the two sources of power, which would serve as a check and balance on each other to ensure that neither became domineering or tyrannical.
In a tweet from David Limbaugh, I found out about Sarah Palin's column on NRO where she weighs in on the Senate ratification of the New START Treaty. Sarah makes the correct statement by saying that we "cannot and must not give up the right to missile defense to protect our population – whether the missiles that threaten us come from Russia, Iran, China, North Korea, or anywhere else." And, that is exactly what I call common sense when it comes to defending and protecting the security of the United States!
The proposed New START agreement should be evaluated by the only criteria that matters for a treaty: Is it in America’s interest? I am convinced this treaty is not. It should not be rammed through in the lame duck session using behind the scenes deal-making reminiscent of the tactics used in the health care debate.
New START actually requires the U.S. to reduce our nuclear weapons and allows the Russians to increase theirs. This is one-sided and makes no strategic sense. New START’s verification regime is weaker than the treaty it replaces, making it harder for us to detect Russian cheating. Since we now know Russia has not complied with many arms control agreements currently in force, this is a serious matter.
New START recognizes a link between offensive and defensive weapons – a position the Russians have sought for years. Russia claims the treaty constrains U.S. missile defenses and that they will withdraw from the treaty if we pursue missile defenses. This linkage virtually guarantees that either we limit our missile defenses or the Russians will withdraw from the treaty. The Obama administration claims that this is not the case; but if that is true, why agree to linking offensive and defensive weapons in the treaty?
.jpg)
Posts
