amendment (130)

Kenya's Answer Again, "Butt out, Barack!"

For the second time in five years, Barack Obama has sought to influence the future of Kenya. For the second time in five years, Kenyans have said, “Butt out, Barack!” But, of course, Barack still continues along the path of evil . . . alas, alas.

Your tax dollars from Uncle Sam have recently been proposed by one BHO, Jr. for the august purpose of bringing abortion to Kenya despite the fact that Kenyans, men and women, are virulently opposed. $23 million American dollars have been spent on the “Kenya Constitution Vote.” In Nairobi, the country’s capital, the constitution referendum, requiring among other things the legalization of abortion in the country, has received funds from the U.S. taxpayer for this constitutional election while promising much more money IF the referendum passes . . . in effect this is an effort to bribe Kenya to pass a new constitution whose main change is the inclusion of abortion.

Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey cited a U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, report estimating over $23 million in U.S. funds have been spent on the referendum, and overtly support the abortion law. The problem? Two American laws have been violated.

1) It’s against U.S. law for taxpayer funds in any fashion to be used to influence foreign elections.
“Under no circumstances should the U.S. government take sides,” said Smith at a news conference earlier. “But, that is precisely what the Obama administration has done.” Smith and other lawmakers accuse the Obama administration of offering incentives to Kenya to approve the controversial new constitution, promising that passage would “allow money to flow” into the nation's coffers.

2) Another federal law known as the Siljander Amendment makes it spefically illegal for the U.S. government to lobby on abortion in other countries. While the U.S. clearly should not be interfering and definitely NOT backing either the ‘yea’ or the ‘nay’ factions; and (by the Siljander Amendment) clearly never should be backing abortion in Kenya or any other country . . . the Obama administration has taken to openly backing the pro-abortionists.

Obama, in 2007, went to Kenya to back communist Raila Odinga’s failed attempt to become president. Odinga, educated in East Berlin well before the fall of the Berlin Wall, is not only a communist but was supported primarily by Muslims and more importantly by Muslim terrorists. Odinga promised Muslims in a secret document that Shariah Law would be imposed upon the country (Islam would become the official Kenyan religion and rules akin to those brought to Afghanistan by the Taliban would be imposed on all its citizens) despite the fact that Christianity (47%) is the single largest religious belief in Kenya and Islam only covers about 11% of the populace. While Odinga's chances of election were always slim, they dropped precipitously when the secret Muslim accord document was made public. Odinga then signed another accord with the Muslims with watered-down provisions while claiming that the first document had never occurred and was fraudulent.

Mr. Obama, while campaigning about ten days for Odinga, is supposed to have spoken twice to purely Muslim crowds and at least one picture of the president in Muslim attire while in Kenya has been circulating the internet for almost three years. Much controversy arose including supposedly valid e-mails discovered immediately after the election purportedly from Obama to Odinga advising that if he lost the election to claim voting fraud and then to resort to violence and extort a position in the government . . . which is precisely what happened. Muslim rioters attacked Christians and Christian churches inflicting arson, murder, rape and maiming upon the Christian populace and eventually the re-elected President offered Odinga the newly created “prime minister” position which Odinga now holds.

The “dreams” implicit in Mr. Obama’s first autobiography “Dreams from My Father” can perhaps be represented best by:

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_eastafrica.html

in which “scientific socialism” a.k.a. “communism” for Kenya is discussed as well as such enlightening concepts such as “100% taxation,” confiscation of private lands and private businesses, confiscation of foreign businesses, redistribution of wealth now in Kenyan White and Asian hands into Black ones, etc., etc. Apparently, our president not only wants to bring us communism, he aims to do it to Kenya also.

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

Read more…

Lame Duck to Quack Vociferously
after November Elections


Rajjpuut's own analysis and a few stray comments taken as hearsay from friends thrice removed quoting blue-dog Democrats who refused to be quoted on the record, in other words nothing a real journalist can take to the bank, have created a potential nightmare scenario for this country. It's all very iffy, nevertheless, you should know . . . . It appears that Obama and his huge majorities in the house and senate aim to "lie low" in the coming months rather than risking alienation of any more voters. After the election, however, things will get lively as the Dems ignoring the standard "gentleman's agreement" that lame duck congresses never deal with controversial matters ignore propriety and instead aim to force cap and trade, union card check, comprehensive immigration "reform," and virtual unionization of police, firefighters and other first responders upon the nation. In effect, the inglorious result of his first half-term will be that Obama will have made the Constitution and congress as well, almost totally irrelevant. If a voting path is created for 12-20 million illegal aliens who will presumably vote Democrat over Republican by 85%-15%, he will have become a virtual dictator for life . . . something even FDR couldn't do.

Another Independence Day has come and gone. We’ve watched our fireworks exhibitions maybe enjoyed a few relatively harmless, but probably illegal firecrackers and modest personal fireworks such as roman candles and even brandished a few sparklers about – never, however, in our history has it been so vital to remember and to understand what exactly the Fourth of July is all about or, by extension, to come to a firm mental grasp of the concepts enlivening our American Constitution. Our Founding Fathers did an excellent job of creating a government for the thirteen entities, the original colonies made into states, and for the numerous individuals inhabiting them.

One might be tempted to say, the Founding Fathers did the most nearly perfect job that’s ever been done of creating a government . . . however, we are surrounded by legions of those who don’t just doubt the near perfection of the job as many of them do, but literally legions who doubt it was even a good job. Some of them, mostly covertly, would consider “Das Kapital” by Marx as formulating a much more apt and perfect solution to this question as to what kind of government is best for mankind. Of course there are all manner of socialists around too, who would argue they’re merely talking about some needed, harmless and over-all beneficial “tweaking” of the Document in question. All of these individuals and groups are what’s called “progressives.” Progressives see the U.S. Constitution as an outdated and flawed document and see the need to “progress” beyond both the word and the spirit of the Constitution. Should we? Are they correct? Is it outdated? Is it seriously flawed?

The continuum of human government runs from anarchy (total freedom, total lack of responsibility, total lack of government, each man for himself) to totalitarianism (zero freedom, 100% duty; 100% government involvement in every aspect of existence, absolute power concentrated in a central government and thus every man exists only at the pleasure of the state and only to benefit the state). The thirteen colonies had just had two very recent experiences with unsatisfactory government . . . in the first instance the autocratic rule of King George III over the colonies went too far to the left, too far toward totalitarianism for their tastes. But when the British were kicked out, the loose pact created by the thirteen states under the Articles of Confederation was unsatisfactory in its closeness to anarchy.

Within reason, the colonials accepted the proposition that the government which governed (that is interfered with and coerced the citizens) the least was the best form of government. The Founding Fathers, “in order to create a more perfect union,” came up with a Republic in which the peoples’ representatives would be chosen by popular vote, democratic process . . . but as they were building a Constitution for the new government, the central government looked a little too potentially malicious and powerful for many tastes and so the powers of that central entity was dramatically curtailed by the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution (ensuring such personal freedoms as freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, right to bear arms, freedom from ex post facto laws, right to due process, etc., etc., and most importantly the 10th Amendment stating that except for the seventeen explicitly mentioned powers and responsibilities of the federal government ALL other power was reserved for the individual states and the individual citizens of the Republic.

Since 1901, the succession to the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt has marked mostly a succession of progressive presidents intent upon expanding their own powers and the powers of the centralized federal government over the states and the citizens. Obviously some good has been done, the National Park System seems, on balance a good thing, that is NOT the question. It’s a question of progressive aims. There’s no provision in the Constitution for the federal government owning huge tracts of land, but beside the national parks today, the majority of several western states is actually owned by the federal government and not the states themselves. The congress or the people could have passed an amendment to the Constitution expanding the federal powers to include, national parks and perhaps another allowing the central government to own such huge expanses of a given state’s land . . . but chances are the second one would NOT have passed, and perhaps the national parks as well . . . but it should have been the people’s choice yea or nay.

Teddy, in many ways seems beneficent, but certainly he was progressive to the core. Certain presidents wielded their progressiveness far more malevolently: Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and to a lesser extent Bill Clinton and George W. Bush fit that category. Even these did some good things. FDR’s CCC camps come to mind; the Civil Rights Act under Johnson come to mind. The legacy of these progressive "giants" is crushing, today's $14 TRillion national debt pales in comparison to the $110 TRillion in unfunded liabilities attached to Social Security, Medicare, and the federal side of Medicaid . . . of course, Welfare is never attached to this bill, but it certainly should be . . . malevolence surely . . . and now comes cap and trade and the bankrupting of the american coal industry and the skyrocketing electricity prices and the 67% inflation it alone will create, not even talking about general inflation of the money supply by 14X under Obama.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/03/video-of-obama-coal-bankruptcy/?print=1
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/03/obamas-energy-plan-bankupt-coal-power-plants-skyrocketing-electricity-rates/
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936289.ece
http://www.theproletariatsnews.com/2008/11/special-report-do-we-need-a-new-fdr-to-save-us-from-depression/
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_eastafrica.html

Perhaps we can credit the other four ultra-progressives and men like Clinton and Bush II as being only misguided and truly having good intentions, not so with Barack Obama. From the first days in office, Barack Obama has been poison for the American Dream and his own dream** of a Marxist America has been clear for all to see, unfortunately, the mainstream media has abetted his efforts and the couch potato class has been too busy with their reality shows and sitcoms -- perhaps America deserves the communism he brings -- personally, Rajjpuut deserves anything but . . . so, wake up America!
Ya'all live long, strong and ornery,
Rajjpuut

** besides the evidence of his origins and point of view from the politico.com link above, and the first Obama autobiography "Dreams from My Father," it's worth noting that every scrap of coverage at "Russia Today" and from CPUSA (our own national communist daily) is 100% positive towards Obama, what are the odds?
Read more…



Patriotism: a High-Demand Commitment

Part II: Guaranteeing Our Freedoms

Audacity of Presidential Power-Grabbing

Abhorent to Nation’s Founders

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/06/01/meaning-of-federalism/

http://www.umt.edu/law/faculty/natelson.htm

In the first installment of this series on constitutional-conservativism
(
http://rajjpuutsfolly.blogtownhall.com/2010/05/19/obama,_mainstream_media_label_tea_party_insurgents.thtml) we looked at freedom, per se. Rajjpuut continues with a close look at personal and state freedoms as discussed in the all-important 10th Amendment, sometimes known as the “Federalism Amendment.”

Barack Obama is the national nightmare that some supporters of the Articles of Confederation and other anti-constitutionalists back at the nation’s founding strenuously condemned. Seemingly ignoring all seventeen of the allotted powers (enforcing our borders; standing up to our nation’s traditional enemies; obeying the uniform laws of bankrupties; and keeping treaties with our friends are all powers which Barack Obama has not chosen to exercise according to the folks in Arizona; South Korea; certified creditors of GM in Indiana; and allies in Poland to name just a few instances), Obama has made himself a picnic in abusing the constitution by advancing powers NOT granted by the Constitution. Many thought that Franklin Delano Roosevelt grossly overstepped the bounds of federalism with the 40 new agencies his administrations created. Barack Obama created almost 390 new agencies just in one law: Obamacare.

The powers of the federal government are listed in Article I, Section 8. They are available for anyone to read and simple to understand. More importantly, these powers

A. follow a simple, predictable pattern and

B. Much discussion was also made of which powers the federal government definitely did not have and should not have.

In its obvious general outline of powers for the federal government which amount to the 17 specific powers allowed, the Constitution provides for a government which protects the nation’s borders and defends against foreign invasion by maintaining an efficient army and navy; deals with custom and tariff matters; conducts foreign relations including war and treaties; settles disputes among the states and facilitates trade and intercourse among the American people and states and with the peoples and states within sovereign foreign nations.

Before looking at the powers the founding fathers refused to grant to the federal government, it’s crucial to understand that in a federal system such as ours the efforts over the entire two hundred plus years of the nation’s existence to turn the states into “departments or extensions” within the federal government . . . that is, into mere “administrative units” of the national govermnet is the greatest single threat to our nation’s survival as the founders foresaw and planned for it. Recent “States Rights” discussions (that is, up until the contemporary furor in Arizona over that state’s immigration laws and the 21 State “rebellion” against Obamacare directiives for the states that would literally bankrupt every state both calling for a new appreciation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution) arguments were as insipid as the notion that people wishing upon stars might somehow influence the cosmos to somehow influence our fates. Lyndon Johnson’s expansion of the “Welfare State” is the prime example of this insidious trend both in Welfare itself and in Medicaid especially . . . the states were turned into administrative arms of the federal government’s policies. Nixon’s policies of “federalistically” turning over large grants of federal monies to the states has undoubted great practical value, but only confuses the issue . . . why is that money in the federal hands in the first place?

Federalism, and specifically the 10th Amendment, is the single greatest system ever devised for the protection of individual and state liberties and for providing counter-balance to over-reaching by the federal entities. Powerful centralized government is the threat to our listed freedoms and to freedom of action. That is, because we don’t have LISTED LIBERTIES for the individual or the states . . . but they are free to do whatever is not listed as criminal . . . we have true liberty. Confusion about the limits of federal government must be cleared up and must be always aligned with the intents of the founding fathers if this blessed state of liberty is to prevail. All powers NOT listed in the Constitution are specifically reserved for the states and individual citizens.

And just how far has the nation strayed from this wise path? Virtually no one today understands the breadth of discussion, consideration and debate that ensued once it was popularly agreed that the Articles of Confederation were too weak. During the argument going on over possible adoption of the Constitution, the Constitution’s advocates also enumerated powers the federal government absolutely would not have. The Bill of Rights was, one answer to critics. The most Republican document in the world still stands us in good stead 223 years after its creation. But the biggest protection, the thing that satisfied virtually all the Constitution’s detractors was the addition to the Bill of Rights of the last of the original Amendments: the 10th Amendment. The federal government would NOT be granted the potential for unlimited power but severely limited in power and abuse potential and all powers NOT specifically enumerated for the federal government would be reserved to the individual states and to individual citizens.

In addition, moreover, the Constitution’s proponents publicly told the people some of the important subjects which fell within the states’ exclusive jurisdiction - and outside the federal government’s control in a variety of speeches, newspaper articles, letters, and pamphlets. Chief among these proponents were, of course Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. Other names of note include:

James Wilson (convention delegate and chief proponent in Pennsylvania), Edmund Pendleton (chancellor of Virginia and chairman of his state’s ratifying convention), James Iredell (North Carolina judge, pro-Constitution floor leader at his state’s ratifying convention and later U.S. Supreme Court Justice), Maryland Congressman Alexander Contee Hanson, Nathaniel Peaslee Sargeant (a Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court), Alexander White (Virginia lawyer, ratifier, and later U.S. Senator), prominent businessman Tench Coxel and John Marshall (ratifier and later U.S. Chief Justice).

Here are some of the powers they solemnly promised would be outside the federal sphere:

  • governance of religion
  • training the militia and appointing militia officers
  • control over local government
  • most crimes
  • state justice systems
  • family affairs
  • real property titles and conveyances
  • wills and inheritance
  • the promotion of useful arts in ways other than granting patents and copyrights
  • control of personal property outside of commerce
  • governance of the law of torts and contracts, except in suits between citizens of different states
  • education
  • services for the poor and unfortunate
  • licensing of taverns
  • roads other than post roads
  • ferries and bridges
  • regulation of fisheries, farms, and other business enterprises.

The vast majority of these areas have been encroached upon by the federal government already. For example, the national endowment for the arts and other such organization is not a federal matter; involvement in the welfare state is forbidden; as is educational involvement; interstate highways; income taxes; inheritance taxes; family affairs; the national guard as we know it; control of personal property; and a hundred other areas where the federal government has crossed the line drawn by the 10th Amendment.

Right now our National Debt is approaching $14 TRillion; more shockingly our national obligation for Government Spending Boondoggles and Government Interference Boondoggles (GSBs and GIBs such as Social Security, Medicare and the federal side of Medicaid) has reached $109 TRillion . . . all this problem debt was created in areas where the Constitution forbid the federal government to tread. The lifeblood of the nation has been poisoned by this wanton and total ignorance and denial of the 10th Amendment. Most Americans not only don’t understand the provisions of the 10th Amendment, but because of the welfare state and the gross entitlement sentiment many citizens would also feel threatened by the loss of federal government involvement. The problems are exacerbated when its realized that these programs were all created as set asides and that congress never obeyed its own laws and set the money aside for these programs. Here, then lies the root cause of our present fiscal unaccountability and the potential for danger from the Obama administration’s headlong power grab . . . .

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

Read more…

What Liberals Need to Understand about Exactly

What Progressives are Threatening to Take From All of Us


On the national scene are three classes of people proving themselves most important right now within the wide-ranging debate tearing our government and our nation apart and the “scorekeeping within this public debate as resolved at the ballot boxes. These three major classes are the Constitutionalist or Conservative; the Liberal; and the Progressive. The formerly important “Moderate” has all but disappeared. At present it appears the Conservative force is attracting a huge national following in fiscal-matters owing to the nation’s runaway spending, deficits, and national debt and the growing opposition to Progressive programs to expand government. The Progressives seemingly (having the votes in the House and Senate) are calling all or virtually all the shots in law-making and spending. The important law-making they control includes burdensome taxes; expAnsive new expEnsive programs that impinge upon individual freedom and the free markets and place the government into the dominant realm of our nation’s activities rather than in its naturally-expected realm of being subservient to the people’s wishes. The feeling of the Conservative element is that the Progressives are running roughshod over the country and the Constitution. Where formerly there was a Moderate element, now tinges of Moderation are found in the tiny proportion of liberals who vote bi-partisan opposition to the President’s sweeping programs but no real moderation is found, mainly polarity. The Democratic Party under the gross and ill-advised Progressive leadership of Pelosi, Reid and Obama and their loyal followers has unquestionably moved the nation into deep socialist waters. The underpinnings of this socialism is a powerful forcible re-distribution of wealth: that is, THEFT.

A. The most basic principle of our American government is freedom. The American experience, the American constitution and the spirit of America are tied to freedom. That means the citizen is in charge of the government and not the other way around. Liberals tend to see the citizen as the always available FUNDING Source for the federal legislators. Progressives see the citizen as an obstruction, a bump in the road to their efforts to create (their version of) a perfect world. There are only 17 specific powers allotted to the federal government by the government and there are ten amendments (the Bill of Rights) limiting the power of the federal government over both the states and the individuals. All too often lost in the nonsensical arguments raised by Progressives (those who see the Constitution as “flawed” and who say we “MUST PROGRESS BEYOND” the Constitution), is that there is a gross difference between rights and needs. We all have needs and it is our own responsibility as individuals to employ our rights and our self-will to take care of those needs. The “NANNY-STATE” advocated by Progressives sees an unending number of basic needs (they call them rights) which the Federal Government is OBLIGATED to fulfill . . . the cost of fulfilling this cradle-to-grave catalog of needs is the loss of our real rights and our real freedoms to the increasingly powerful all-controlling federal government.

B. Rights are not negotiable they come to us from God and not from the government; they belong to the individual as our basic inheritance for being human. Rights are NOT needs, however. For example, there is no natural right to health care; no natural right to have the government bail you out if your business fails; no natural right to the resources of others just because you are needy. Taking resources such as money and labor or goods by legal force from the individuals and the individual states** is theft. It is power from the barrel of a gun used to hold up some citizens for the benefit of others. The federal government has no right to deny freedoms to any group of people to advance the well-being or to benefit others. There is NO natural right to EQUALITY, except the equality of opportunity. The Federal Government has an obligation to defend the freedoms of each and every one of us and to protect us when our rights are violated but no right to force all of us into equality of means. Freedom means equality of opportuntiy to be free, it does not mean forced equality.

C. The most basic rights and freedoms protected by our Constitution against the infringement of the Federal Government are the freedoms guaranteed by the 10th Amendment, the last Amendment within the Bill of Rights and clearly the most important. The Obama administration has willfully stomped all over the 10th Amendment while stomping all over the American Dream on the one hand and willfully ignored their obligations under the Constitution. In other words, they have done everything that they shouldn’t do, and very little (for example, protecting our borders) that they are required to do. In fact, according to a leaked document in the news today, they are plotting to within nine months make 13 million illegal aliens into citizens because they believe that they will receive 80-85% of those new citizens’ votes and will be permanently locked-into the halls of power. This cynical attempt at permanent power, they say, is based upon the fact that our Immigration laws are “broken.” Over 220 years our immigration and naturalization laws have faithfully served the nation. They cannot be changed willy-nilly to benefit one political party over another, they must be amended in the Constitution and only in that may they be changed. The cynicism and Marxist grab for power of Barack Obama constitutes the single most damming threat to our nation in its 221 year history.

That is the most important thing that Liberals need to understand and that Progressives want to steal from all of us: our American freedom and the Constitutional American traditions that have made this the greatest most powerful and most just nation on earth by eternally defending and renewing our freedoms to pull from each of us the intrinsic strength that Americans has thrived upon for over two centuries.

Ya’ll live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

** right now Obamacare will temporarily ease the Medicaid burden upon the individual states, however, that changes quickly and the increasing share of Medicaid forced upon the states by Federal Medicaid requirements commanded by federal law will in due course bankrupt each and every one of them.

Read more…

Why does the TEA Party exist? It exists because people who love their country were not only fed up with the string of radical actions raping our wallets and spitting upon our Constitution by the spring of 2009, but also because these patriots felt isolated and helpless in the eye of the media storm of unceasing raucous support for this totally UN-American transformation of America into the nanny-state, abject socialism and now as we see more clearly communism itself. Look at it this way, we are suffering through a crisis created by, managed by and exploited to their great advantage by the progressive (those who feel the need to “progress” FAR BEYOND the Constitution of the United States) element in this country. People are afraid to call them “Communists” because it invokes memories of the McCarthy era, but communists they are . . . .

IF, and it's a big IF, IF the Mainstream media did their jobs instead of engaging in gutless and corrupt partisanship ever-benefitting the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party . . . IF they did their jobs, by 2000 Americans would have been well-informed enough to understand the present crisis was coming and informed enough to do something to ward it off, specifically:

o Presumably, one hundred times as many people would have read “Rules for Radicals” by community organizer Saul Alinsky and understood what and how the Communist Party planned to cleverly and subtlely bring down and replace the U.S. Government. But the media failed to do its job and Americans remained unaware.

o Citizens would have understood the much publicized and discussed (by the left wing) Cloward-Piven Strategy and read their boasting and detailed description of how they deliberately created the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO) specifically for the purpose of employing C-P Strategy and used NWRO to bankrupt New York City and almost New York State in 1975, a project that took them roughly eight years to complete. The citizenry would have understood the in-your-face radical affrontery of these radicals that made their uprising work. But the media failed to do its job and Americans remained unaware.

o Americans would have understood the original CRA ’77 (Community Reinvestment Act) was an unneeded GIB (government interference boondoggle). The United States at that time enjoyed the highest home ownership in the world at well over 60% for over thirty consecutive years when it was passed. Then they’d have seen the ’92 expansion into the Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae programs with mortgage-guarantee legislation for the danger it was; the ’95 expansion of M-G programs similarly; and understood why Clinton’s ’98 expansion was the final piece of the M-G puzzle that put the whole process on steroids. These were all both attacks on landlords and unneeded interference in the free market system which has made us the wealthiest and most just country in the world. But the media failed to do its job and Americans remained unaware.

o Americans would not have been surprised by the creation of the C-P organization ACORN and its Saul Alinsky style of operation. They would have understood what radical lawyers like Barack Obama were doing and why and how they were doing it. They would have understood how and why they were able to force banks and lending organizations to hand out hopelessly ill-advised loans, often to people without I.D., without jobs; with abysmally poor credit ratings; without home addresses or rental addresses; even to illegal aliens. But the media failed to do its job and Americans remained unaware.

o If if Americans didn’t discover all the previously items until 2007, when the crisis raised it’s ugly head, if they’d known then what was going on, our country NOW would be markedly different. But the media failed to do its job and Americans still remained unaware.

Today, the media is not only NOT doing its jobs (and much of the country still remains unaware of the truth of our situation, but the media still continues to act as a joyful advocate for the Communist Obama agenda . . .

Presently there are two righteous non-violent uprisings going on in this country, these two protests are based upon the single-most important of our Bill of Rights: the 10th Amendment which says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

A. On the one hand citizen-activists such as the TEA Party movement are making their outrage known. They are asking for fiscal responsibility, responsiveness by the Congress and President to real concerns; a return to honoring and obeying our Constitution and the Bill of Rights; balanced budgets and elimination of deficits and national debt; and transparency and honesty in government.

B. A second rebellion is marked by the individual states enacting laws that oppose federal legislation and a set of law suits against recently enacted unconstitutional federal programs.

C. There are only 17 specific powers which the Constitution allows our federal government, perhaps ten times that number of powers have been exercised by the federal government up till January, 2009.

D. Since that time perhaps 17,000 federal powers have been enacted by the Obama adminstration . . . pay attention here . . . the New Deal under FDR created 39 brand new federal agencies between 1933 and 1938. In just one law “Obamacare” the federal government has enacted the creation of almost 400 new federal agencies.

E. While the actions and unwise inactions of the progressive Republican President Hoover and the ultra-progressive Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt extended a recession into a twelve and a half year ordeal known as the Great Depression, revisionist history has NOT told the truth and made Roosevelt a hero. They have eliminated the fact that Roosevelt ran on promises of cutting taxes, cutting spending, bolstering the gold standard, and eliminating programs that Hoover had introduced. Why would he run his successful campaign like this?

F. Because the “Unknown Depression” begun in late 1920 under the progressive President Woodrow Wilson, was cleared up quickly by Harding cutting spending 49% and cutting taxes 40%. Harding died in office, but his vice-president Calvin Coolidge continued his policies which reversed the fiscal disaster and ushered in the Roaring Twenties the greatest shift in prosperity ever seen in the world. This is when for the first time, Americans in large numbers came to own their own automobiles, folks in cities and farms all had electricity and 85% came to have indoor plumbing. Virtually every household obtained an ice box or refrigerator, etc.

G. Because the media failed to do its job and Americans remained unaware, we have long lost our way and as we continued in the wrong direction, the media have cheered us on every misguided step of the way. We need, we demand a responsible new journalism interested in the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Meanwhile . . . .

Our brothers in Arizona have created a law that mirrors precisely the attributes of the federal anti-illegal immigration statutes while emphasizing the need for police fairness and avoidance of even the appearance of racial profiling. The state and local police may act on this new law, ONLY when a just arrest or detainment is in progress, by asking for identification when an apparent illegal alien is in their custody. Since LEGAL justified aliens are required by law to carry a green card at all times, the Arizona law is a virtually perfect instrument for the state to take back its southern border. Nationally over 60% favor the Arizona law signed by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer. Within its borders 70% of Arizona citizens believe it’s a good law. However, President Obama and the progressives seeking to add fourteen million Pro-progressive votes by enacting an Amnesty law for illegals . . . has now chosen to once again raise the “racism” card. The same media that accused peaceful TEA Party demonstrators of racism, extremism, hate-mongering and radicalism is cheering on and abetting the violent demonstrations in Arizona. The law, is our protection. Non-violence, a la Gandhi is our protection. Quiet persistence is our protection. And ultimately the wisdom of our Founding Fathers is our protection. We must wield these weapons wisely and relentlessly if we are to ever hope to bring this country back to reasonableness and prosperity.

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

Read more…

Ol’ Rajjpuut says it’s not a question of “IF,” but rather “WHEN” the U.S. Supreme Court calls Obamacare unconstitutional and sends it back to congress for a do-over. Right now ten states, led by Virginia which is suing on two separate fronts, have filed suit against the federal government for Obamacare miscues. At the same time a total of at least 38 states other than Virginia are seeking to pass recommended model state legislation so that they can have their ducks in order to challenge the federal government against Obamacare.

One weakness, Rajjpuut sees, is that some of the states are talking about Commerce Act challenges rather than direct Constitutional challenges or challenging on both issues. This is a major mistake. The court has always been reluctant to screw around with the Constitution but might very well jump at a chance to modify the Commerce Act.
Since bankruptcy of all 50 states is at stake, Rajjpuut suggests every bullet be fired and instantaneous reloading take place.

As it stands the provisions of Obamacare that force individual states to take over a much augmented Medicaid and a very much augmented state role in paying for Medicaid are almost certain to bankrupt all 50 of the states with the possible exception of Texas (which has special doctor-friendly and insurance-friendly laws in place) by 2020 or 2022 at the latest. This much you already know if you’re a loyal reader of Rajjpuut’s Folly here or at TownHall.com . . . Listening to Fox News the other night was quite enlightening . . . .

The United States is not some single monlithic entity called “America” but rather a federal system of government with the national government holding some important dominion over 50 semi-autonomous states. The Bill of Rights of the Constitution is sort of like a protective armor designed to negate much of the potentially most objectionable power grabs that the national government (acting upon the states and upon the individual citizens) might attempt. Perhaps the least appreciated and little understood of all the Bill of Rights’ ten amendments is the 10th and last amendment which limits the power of the national government just to assume powers willy-nilly a la Obama and his czars and Obamacare.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10th_Amendment

The 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution:

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

The main reason the states will have a powerful case arguing against the provisions of Obamacare that will bankrupt them is that like so much of what Barak Obama has done his so-called “reforms” under Obamacare are merely commandeering the state legislature’s role in every one of the 50 states for federal purposes which always in the past the Supreme Court has labeled “unconstitutional.” In a nutshell the key question is this: “Should the U.S. Government be allowed to pass laws and programs and force the states to pay for them?” If you wanted a stronger form of the question, “Can the federal government be allowed to pass laws, then force the states to pay for them and bankrupt the states?”

This question about the U.S. Congress regulating state governments has been asked many times and always the answer has been a resounding, “NO!” In Obamacare, as the law now exists, Congress has told the states to modify their health care regulation; they must surrender some areas of health care regulations; and they must spend state taxpayer money in the exact manner that the U.S. Congress is telling them to spend it. The U.S. Congress is removing all self-determination and discretion from the state governments in the health care arena.

According to Fox News senior judicial analyst and former New Jersey Superior Judge and author of the book “Lies the Government Told You,” Andrew P. Napolitano, the longstanding precedent of state regulation of the health care industry and healthcare insurance makes the new sweeping federal legislation “all the more problematic” continuing to say, “Barak Obama is one of the worst presidents in terms of obedience to constitutional limitations. I believe we are run by a one-party system in this country called the ‘big-government party.' " The judge went on to delineate a Republican branch that likes war and deficits and assaulting civil liberties. There is a Democratic branceh that likes welfare and taxes and deficits and assaulting commercial liberties. " President Obama stands squarely with the most leftist portion of the Democratic branch.”
Many people today, believe that the differences between today's ordinary American citizens and their government is much larger than the 18th Century differences between Great Britain and the colonists . . . which is another way of saying what the judge has emphasized here. And the reasons for this? In Rajjpuut's view, the communistic leanings of Barak Obama added to the already entrenched view of the Congress that they constitute a privileged special interest group not beholden to the ordinary voter -- this has made the electorate feel that our country's traditions are being struck down in the name of more power for the politicians.

Napolitano is also no lover of FDR, for the same reasons he criticizes Obama. But he would surprise virtually everyone by saying that when it comes to “constitutional fidelity” the least loyal to the provisions of the constitution was Abraham Lincoln. “He waged war on about half the country, without authority for that in the Constitution, a war that killed 700,000 people if civilians are included. Obama is already close to Lincoln and has surpassed FDR in stepping on the Constitution. Ol’ Rajjpuut has known plenty of southerners who blanched at the term the “Civil War” and preferred to call it “The War of Northern Aggression" as they had been taught in their schools” but from a N.J. judge that’s gotta be a surprise . . . .

Back to Obamacare, the judge continues: “the states have had a role in health care delivery for 233 years, a big role since about 1920, and a huge role since Medicaid was passed in 1965, there is no precedent for the federal government to just move in there. I predict that the U.S. Supreme Court will invalidate major portions of the law the president just signed.” However, according to Napolitano, the bad news is that many of the laws provisions will not be "challengable" until 2014 when they’d go into effect. In any case, the Judge says it takes the average court case four years to pass through the system to reach the Supreme Court. “You’re talking abut 2018 which is eight years from now.

Rajjpuut, of course sees a cleaner, better world and has a better way, the thing to do is for 38 states (the 3/4 necessary for citizen creation of a new amendment to the Constitution) to pass an amendment repealing Obamacare and all its provision, eliminating all the 159 new federal bureaucracies created by the law, and unhiring all 1,650 new IRS agents required by the law. This is the single most magic action awaiting the TEA Party's commitment. There has never before been an Amendment created for the Constitution, this is the TEA Party's divine purpose if ever there was one!

Other points raised by the Judge include . . . .

The federal government lacks constitutional authority to order citizens to purchase healthcare insurance or fine them for not doing so.

The sweetheart deals still in the Obamacare law are definitely unconstitutional. The Gatorade exception, Louisiana Purchase and others “create a very unique and tricky constitutional problem (they violate the equal protection clauses and equal process clauses) because they treat some citizens differently from others” based upon the state they’re living in “so these benefits or bribes whatever you call them” force people in other states "to pay for the benefits of states that pay less.”

The U.S. Constitution created the federal government and it was “not created to right every wrong, but rather to operate only in the seventeen specific, discrete areas where the Constitution empowered it to act.”

One of the more objectionable parts of the law was that a takeover of the student college loan industry was added into the bill so that students taking out loans could partially fund Obamacare. Included in the law was an exception so that a congressional member’s bank (he partially owns it, Rajjpuut believes) could still stay in the student loan business.

Exempting union members from so-called “Cadillac taxes” on expensive health care insurance policies while imposing a direct tax on other citizens is “outright discrimination” and unconstitutional.

“This health care legislation will prove that the UNlimited government folks are WRONG in a very direct and in-your-face way.”

A group very much in tune with Judge Napolitano is the recently-emerged TEA^^^ Party (acronym: Taxed Enough Already) which buys his arguments 100% and seeks to find fiscal-conservatives to back this November. One strong reason for the great distress of TEA Party members: Obama's budget initiatives carried into the future have been shown by the Congressional Budget Office to increase the National Debt to Gross Domestic Product ratio from an alarmingly high 53% to an incredible 90+%. The last nation to embark willingly on such a plan was Japan in the late 80's and early 90's. Today Japan, once thought of as an economic super power, faces a debt/GDP ratio of 192% and her glory days are far behind her.

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

^^^http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/march_2010/most_say_tea_party_has_better_understanding_of_issues_than_congress

Voters across the nation feel closer to the Tea Party movement than they do to Congress according to the latest Rasmussen poll. 52% of U.S. voters believe the average member of the Tea Party movement has a better understanding of the issues facing America today than the average member of Congress while only 30% believe that those in Congress have a better understanding of those key issues. 47% think that their own political views are closer to those of the average Tea Party member than to the views of the average member of Congress. On this point, 26% feel closer to Congress. 46% of voters say that the average Tea Party member is more ethical than the average member of Congress. Twenty-seven percent (27%) say that the average member of Congress is more ethical. There is a wide divide between the tiny Political Class and Mainstream Americans on these questions. Seventy-five percent (75%) of those in the Political Class say that members of Congress are better informed on the issues. Among Mainstream Americans, 68% have the opposite view, and only 16% believe Congress is better informed. By a 62% to 12% margin, Mainstream Americans say the Tea Party is closer to their views. By a 90% to one percent (1%) margin, the Political Class feels closer to Congress.

http://rajjpuutsfolly.blogtownhall.com/2010/03/27/cbo_analysis_by_2020,_obama_budget_will_bankrupt__nation.thtml

http://rajjpuutsfolly.blogtownhall.com/2010/03/26/high_time_for_tea_party__major_parties_to_enact.thtml

http://rajjpuutsfolly.blogtownhall.com/2010/03/26/41_of_dems_say_republicans_should_challenge_obamacare_law_and_63_of_americans_agree_in_cbs_poll.thtml

Read more…

The short term Tea Party goals are important. We must remove irresponsible politicians from Washington DC and try to regain some measure of control over our government. This is only a stopgap measure, however, since the legal loopholes that allowed this gargantuan government to evolve are still in place.

We can argue about what we consider Constitutional until we are blue in the face, but as long as the Supreme Court rules in favor of big government with vague interpretations, the Republic will always be at risk.

The first time I saw a map with 38 states taking action to legally oppose Obamacare, it suddenly dawned on me: 38! Just the number of states needed to ratify an Amendment to the Constitution! We have the momentum and now support from the several states.

THE TIME IS RIGHT TO FOCUS THE TEA PARTY ON A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION TO ELIMINATE THE GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE AND MODIFY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE CLAUSE FOREVER

Read more…

28th Amendment

Subject: The 28th Amendment

For too long we have been complacent about theworkings of Congress. Many citizens have no idea that membersof Congress can retire with full pay after only one term, that theydon't pay into Social Security and that they havespecifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed(such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment)."Ordinary" citizens must live under all those laws. The latest travesty is that Congresswill exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reformthat is being considered...in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seemquite right. We do not have an elite class that is above the law. Itruly don't care if they are Democrats, Republicans, Independents or whatever.The self-serving must stop.

Thisis a good way to do that. It is an idea whose time has come.


Proposed28th Amendment to the United States Constitution:

"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the UnitedStates that does not apply equally to the Senators and Representatives; and,Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and Representatives thatdoes not apply equally to the citizens of the United States ".






http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/28thamendment.asp
Read more…