Elections Have Consequences

Elections Have Consequences

Ah, Democrats—and the mainstream media. Is that being redundant? They want members of the Electoral College to ignore their responsibility to cast ballots according to the provisions of their respective states and instead vote for Hillary Clinton for President. Unprecedented. Quasi-illegal.

They would have you up in arms because the Russians interfered in our American presidential election. How did they do that? You see, none of the voting machines in any state are connected to the internet (as far as I know—if they are, I would suggest the Democrats would be more likely to sabotage our elections than the Russians). No, you see, what the Russians did (and we have it on very good authority—Obama’s CIA) was hack the Democrat National Committee’s email account and—what else? Hillary’s private server?—to release emails, none of which, at this writing, have been denied as to their authenticity.

All this could have been prevented by the performance of one simple expediency: Had Hillary released all those emails in a timely fashion, when they were requested by Congress and by the FBI, the attendant consequences would have been faced and possibly overcome by the time of the election. She had a choice, and she chose to ignore subpoenas requesting ALL emails her office had sent and received during her tenure as Secretary of State. In essence, until Wikileaks started releasing emails pilfered from the Democrat National Committee’s “secure” server, all previous emails concerning Hillary’s conduct of affairs as Secretary of State should have already been in the public domain—released, publicized and vetted—according to the law.  Ah, but there’s the rub. You see, what we deplorables have not come to understand is that the law was never meant to be applied to the Clintons. Tell me who else—besides perhaps Barack Obama—would have the audacity to establish his own private server, rather than utilizing supposedly secure government equipment, in defiance of the law and presidential orders?

Who else would have so little regard for security as to relay classified information through her cleaning lady, who I think it is safe to say does not have a Top Secret security clearance? Who else might tell the Supreme Court, “I know what your subpoena says, but these are all the emails you are going to get from me.”?

Let’s go back to a point made earlier in this piece; the fact that this is Barack Obama’s CIA that has ostensibly obtained sufficient evidence to conclude that it was the Russians who hacked into Hillary’s private server and that of the DNC. An unintended consequence of using the IRS, ICE, FBI, CIA and any other government agency as water-carriers for the administration—to silence objections and deny equal access—is that it tends to make Americans doubtful of anything—ANYTHING—the government might say through any of its agencies. There are times, I am sure, when President Obama desperately NEEDS the American people to believe him. Some information coming from his office might be true; might even be critical for the American people to know. However, like the little boy in the fairy tale who cried wolf one too many times, he has sacrificed all believability. In fact, if you still believe what the President puts out, I have a friend who would like to talk to you about some oceanfront property he has for sale in Oklahoma.

Although he appears to have forgotten it, Obama famously told the Republicans in 2008 or 2012; maybe both: “There are consequences to losing elections”. Those consequences exist for both parties, Mr. President.

The Nuclear Option

 

Harry Reid and the Democrat-controlled Senate adopted the so-called “Nuclear Option” on November 21, 2013.  That’s a date America will have cause to remember in years to come.   It will work to the advantage of the Progressives in the near run.  They will be able to obtain a quick approval of all the ultra-liberal justices that have been nominated for Federal courts by President Obama.  It will be only a formality to bring those nominees before the Senate for confirmation hearings.  No Democrat Senator has yet had the courage to vote against Harry Reid without the Leader's explicit permission—that would be to vote against something that is a shoo-in so that they can tell their constituents, “I voted against gun control”. This is specifically permitted by Reid so that Progressives can hang onto the seat that might otherwise be threatened.  

No, in this instance, why not just bring in a list of the names of nominees for a quick vote of approval?  Maybe the 50 Progressives and so-called “Independents” (who hold quorum with the Progressives; indeed, one “Independent” is an avowed Socialist) can just give Harry a proxy to vote for them.  That would shorten the confirmation hearings to a few minutes for the whole group.  Read the names, have Harry Reid say, “I and the other 50 members whose votes I am authorized to cast approve the nominations of these 120 judges.”  As was the case in the drafting of the ACA, Republicans need not attend, because you will not be allowed to have an input.  

As always, there is method behind Reid’s madness.  Or Obama’s genius—whoever came up with this idea.  You see, some challenges to the (Un) Affordable Care Act will be brought before the second-most powerful court in the United States—The Appellate Court of the District of Columbia.  It is imperative that the three extremely liberal justices Obama has selected to fill openings on that court be confirmed soon, so that they can hear appeals of the various supposed illegalities of Obamacare and rule in Obama’s favor BEFORE elections next November, when (hopefully) conservatives can perhaps regain control of the House and Senate. 

Why is employment of the “Nuclear Option” such a departure from the way things have been done since the adoption of the Constitution?  To understand that, we need to be informed as to the rationale behind determining how members of the two houses of the legislature would be selected:

 

Article I, section 3, of the Constitution states:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

The framers believed that having state legislatures elect senators would strengthen the states' ties to the national government and increase the chances for ratification of the Constitution. They hoped that this arrangement would give state political leaders a sense of participation, calming their fears about a strong central government. They also wanted to provide a filter between the Senate and the passions and pressures of the populace. As the authors of the Federalist Papers explained, election by the state legislatures "is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems" (Federalist No. 62). (Beautiful language—would that our education system made it possible for us to be able to fully comprehend it!)

Question: What is the Great Compromise?

Answer: Two plans were put forth during the Constitutional Convention to create the new branches of government. The Virginia Plan wanted a strong national government with three branches. The legislature would have two houses. One would be directly elected by the people and the second would selected by the first house from people nominated by the state legislatures. Further, the president and national judiciary would be chosen by the national legislature. On the other hand, the New Jersey Plan wanted a more decentralized plan amending the old Articles yet allowing for a somewhat stronger government. Each state would have one vote in Congress.

 



The Great Compromise combined these two plans creating our current legislature with two houses, one based on population and elected by the people and the other house allowing two senators per state being appointed by state legislatures.

Why did the framers of the constitution set up the Senate that way?  The smaller states were afraid of being run over by the more populous.  Virginia was by far the bigger with a population of almost 750,000.  Several states had fewer than 100,000 citizens.  By allowing each state only two senators, regardless of the population, and giving that body responsibility for confirming Presidential appointments, a balance was achieved to protect minority rights. 

Because of abuses by some states of the rules regarding interim appointments of Senators, etc., the 17^th Amendment in 1912 changed the method of choosing Senators from selection by State legislatures to popular election—just like the House.  This change, widely hailed by many when instituted, has the effect of making those Senators more beholden to the Senate Majority (or Minority, for that matter) Leader than to the state that he ostensibly represents.  That leader can be more instrumental in effecting his re-election than close ties to the electorate of his state.

Good move for the states?  What do you think NOW?

Certainly, the Democrats employing the nuclear option makes future elections a great deal more important to each party.

FOUNDING FATHERS HAUNT OBAMA

Founding Fathers Know Best, by Ross Edward Puskar. Hugo House Publishers, 2012 vii + 283 pp., Amazon price $17.95 paperback; $9.95 Kindle.

Have you ever wondered what America’s founding fathers would say to President Barack Obama? Imagine the rhetorical thunder that would ensue from that clash of philosophies. If you’ve been anxiously awaiting such a meeting then you’re in luck. Ross Edward Puskar brings them together in his book Founding Fathers Know Best. 

Mr. Puskar’s first foray into political fiction cleverly inculcates American history with current events through a literary narrative that pays homage to Dickens A Christmas Carol. In Founding Fathers Know Best there is a club known as the President’s Club. The club is comprised of the spirits of deceased U.S. presidents, and it’s purpose is for the spirits to visit sitting Presidents so that they may impart their wisdom and counsel. As one may surmise the president of the club is George Washington, who personally selects the apparitions that visit each sitting president. 

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVERSATIONS SEGMENT THREE: DO WE STILL HOLD THESE TRUTHS?

In segment three of Constitutional Conversations Dr. Richard Brake and Dennis Gallagher discuss in detail the Constitution’s principles and whether or not we still revere the principles inherent in the Constitution.

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVERSATIONS SEGMENT TWO: THE BATTLE FOR RATIFICATION

In segment two of Constitutional Conversations Dr. Richard Brake and Dennis Gallagher discuss the process and the political intrigue surrounding the ratification of America’s new Constitution. They also introduce how the two founding father groups, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, debated and resolved their philosophical differences to arrive at a compromise resulting in America’s new system of government.

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVERSATIONS SERIES

I am proud and privileged to be the co-host along with Dr. Richard Brake of a five part series on the American Constitution entitled Constitutional Conversations, produced under the auspices of my local township's public access TV station. Each 1/2 hour segment of this series will discuss an aspect of the fascinating story of America’s Constitution from it’s conception up until the modern day. The following are the titles and release dates for each segment. As each segment is released it will be downloaded on to the Constitutional Conversations website. The first segment entitled "In Order to Form a More Perfect Union" has been released and can be viewed below.

• Segment 1: "In Order to Form a More Perfect Union”. Released.
• Segment 2: “The Battle for Ratification”. Release date is July 9, 2012.
• Segment 3:  “Do We Still Hold These Truths?” Release date is July 23, 2012.
• Segment 4: “A Living Constitution?” Release date is August 6, 2012.
• Segment 5: “Health Care and the Constitution”. Release date is August 20, 2012.

I hope you enjoy each segment of this enlightening series on America’s Constitution. Below is the first segment entitled "In Order to Form a More Perfect Union”. 

MITT'S PITCH FOR AMERICA

If, to paraphrase Mark Twain, “the clothes make the man” then the speech defines the politician. It’s the memorable speech that irradiates the soul of the statesperson lighting the way for the electorate to view their heartfelt ideals. The rousing speech paves the path for the politician and the constituency to finally bond as one toward a common goal.

In the annals of notable politicos they are known as much, if not more, for the resplendence of their speeches as they are for the legacy of their policies. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation would have been a naked presidential order without the adornment of his Gettysburg address. Would Churchill have instilled the confidence of the British to thwart Hitler’s advances without his stirring maiden address to the House of Commons claiming “It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival”? Perhaps John F. Kennedy’s creation of the Peace Corps would have fell flat as just another humanitarian bureaucracy without his infamous call to public service wherein he stated, “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” Now it’s time for candidate Mitt Romney to deliver THE speech that will define his presidency--the speech that is his “pitch for America”.

FOUR FOUNDING PRINCIPLES AS 2012 RESOLUTIONS

America is about to face another full year, hopefully the last, of the Obama regime’s affronts to our founding father’s principles and the canons of the Constitution. In fact King Obama has kicked off 2012 in fine form, thumbing his nose again at the Constitution by appointing Richard Cordray to serve as director of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), an outgrowth of the Obama-led Dodd-Frank bill that empowers the federal government to pick financial institution bailout winners and losers. Seem familiar? Just think Solyndra. Mr. Obama enjoys playing Russian roulette with America’s economy.

Mr. Cordray is Mr. Obama’s latest big brother czar-like leader to social engineer America’s economy. The problem is the monarch-in-chief appointed Mr. Cordray in violation of the Constitution. Mr. Obama, who laughably claims he taught constitutional law as his only real former job, appointed Mr. Cordray without senatorial approval while the Senate was still in session. That my friends is unconstitutional and also flies in the face of the Senate’s long-standing role to advice and consent on presidential appointees.