Picking a U.S. President… in 2012… Now Just One Day Away From a New Start

Picking a U.S. President

Every four years, American voters head to the polls to elect a president and a vice president. Yet those votes are just part of a detailed system known as the Electoral College, which is used by the U.S. to determine its executive leaders; a system set up by the Founding Fathers of our nation.

The founding fathers established the Electoral College in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens. However, the term “electoral college” does not appear in the Constitution. Article II of the Constitution and the 12th Amendment refer to “electors,” but not to the “electoral college.”

Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system.

Note that the 12th Amendment, the expansion of voting rights, and the use of the popular vote in the States as the vehicle for selecting electors has substantially changed the process.

The Electoral College is made up of 538 electoral votes divided among the 50 states and the District of Columbia. A candidate needs 270 electoral votes to be elected.

The number of electoral votes each state receives ranges from 3 to 55 based on the number of Congressional seats the state holds, which is essentially linked to the population of the state. The District of Columbia gets 3 votes because the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution grants it the same number votes as the least populated state in the union. The territories of the U.S. like Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and American Samoa, etc. get no Electoral College votes.

The Electoral College system does not provide for residents of U.S. Territories, such as Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands and American Samoa to vote for President. Unless citizens in U.S. Territories have official residency (domicile) in a U.S. State or the District of Columbia (and vote by absentee ballot or travel to their State to vote), they cannot vote in the presidential election. Note that prior to the adoption of the 23rd Amendment, DC residents could not vote in the Presidential election.

The political parties may authorize voters in primary elections in Territories to select delegates to represent them at the political party conventions. But that process does not affect the Electoral College system.

The voting public’s ballots make up what is known as the “popular vote”, and in 48 of the 50 states, plus the District of Columbia, the candidate receiving the most popular votes in a state will receive all of that state’s electoral votes. Only Maine and Nebraska split their electoral votes among candidates through their state’s system for ‘proportional allocation’ of votes.

In the rare event that no candidate gets the necessary 270 electoral votes to win the office, the House of Representatives elects the president from the three candidates who received the most electoral votes. Each state only gets one vote, so it could be a long process and full of contention among the state representatives to decide on that vote.  That has never happened in U.S. history. 

However, in the Presidential election of 1836, the election for Vice President was decided in the Senate. Martin Van Buren’s running mate, Richard M. Johnson, fell one vote short of a majority in the Electoral College. Vice Presidential candidates Francis Granger and Johnson had a “run-off” in the Senate under the 12th Amendment, where Johnson was elected 33 votes to 17.

Over the decades the discussion of doing away with the Electoral College has arisen often, but after studying the process, one sees that there is a reason the Founding Fathers put it in place. Little that our Founding Fathers put in place has needed to be altered or changed. Many feel that these scholarly men were inspired and guided by a higher power while creating Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution.

Many different proposals to alter the Presidential election process have been offered over the years, such as direct nation-wide election by the People, but none have been passed by Congress and sent to the States for ratification as a Constitutional amendment. Under the most common method for amending the Constitution, an amendment must be proposed by a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the States.

Reference sources indicate that over the past 200 years, over 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The American Bar Association has criticized the Electoral College as “archaic” and “ambiguous” and its polling showed 69 percent of lawyers favored abolishing it in 1987. But surveys of political scientists have supported continuation of the Electoral College. Public opinion polls have shown Americans favored abolishing it by majorities of 58 percent in 1967; 81 percent in 1968; and 75 percent in 1981.

Opinions on the viability of the Electoral College system may be affected by attitudes toward third parties. Third parties have not fared well in the Electoral College system. Candidates with regional appeal such as Governor Thurmond in 1948 and Governor Wallace in 1968, won blocs of electoral votes in the South. Neither come close to seriously challenging the major party winner, but they may have affected the overall outcome of the election.

The last third party, or splinter party, candidate to make a strong showing was Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 (Progressive, also known as the Bull Moose Party). He finished a distant second in Electoral and popular votes (taking 88 of the 266 electoral votes needed to win at the time). Although Ross Perot won 19 percent of the popular vote nationwide in 1992, he did not win any Electoral votes since he was not particularly strong in any one state. Any candidate who wins a majority or plurality of the popular vote nationwide has a good chance of winning in the Electoral College, but there are no guarantees (see the results of 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000 elections).

The Choice for 2012:

In some elections there hardly seems to be a difference between the two tickets and in others the two candidates and their party’s platforms could not be further apart. That is where we find ourselves this time, the election of 2012.  In recent years the two parties and their platforms have generally moved farther and farther apart.  America has become a ‘house’ divided which is at the heart of many of our problems.  And in the election of 2012 the top of the two tickets represent two completely different philosophies of government, leadership styles and experience.  Yet, had the Republicans chosen someone like Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Sarah Palin or even Ron Paul the differences would be even greater and that point should appeal to many of the Independents!

2012 is perhaps the most important election in America’s history and definitely of our lifetimes because it is a defining election. 2008 was an election that will go into the history books because it proved America had moved beyond the question whether Americans would ever elect a president of color.  The race also included only the second women and first Republican woman ever to be on a National ticket.  But, 2012 will be the election that will decide whether America will continue down the entitlement path, becoming a Nanny State, where Americans choose Big Brother and less individual freedom and opportunity in order to guarantee themselves benefits and cultural equality, like Europe has over the past two decades, a socialistic democracy type of system over a return to American Exceptionalism that guarantees everyone an equal playing field but not governmental mandates and guarantees of welfare or equality and is based on the foundation and documents our Founding Fathers left this country.

So before you vote, if you have not already, make sure that you really know what you are voting for.

A vote for Barack Obama, a community organizer, is a vote for more government control in every aspect of our lives. Four more years of his administration will take us from the position of strength, though waning, on the world scene to one of weakness because his style of leadership will take you and your children… and grandchildren further down the road to greater debt owed to foreign powers who will then control us which will not lead us to a domestic recovery or prosperity. The job numbers we have now or worse will become the norm and so will our dependence on the government and in-turn the government’s control over us.

A vote for Mitt Romney, a successful businessman and a man with experience in turning things around, like the failing Utah Olympics into a financial success and win for America, will turn around our economy, put Americans back to work and as the our debt declines our position in the world will be revived as number one. He will also overturn ObamaCare and will replace it with real reform… something that will work and that we can afford as a nation.  He learned from Romneycare and believes in states rights and individual choice.

And another thing to consider is that we now know, thanks to a few patriotic insiders and a few reporters who are doing their job instead of promoting their political agenda, that President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, VP Joe Biden and other leaders in the Obama Administration knew in advance that a terror attack was coming on 9.11.2012; They knew that Ambassador Stevens and others at the Libya Embassy/Consulate in Benghazi were asking for more help with security because they knew they could not defend themselves against an attack, and that the aforementioned leaders watched the terror attack in ‘real-time’ on a video from fed directly from the Consulate and did nothing. Instead they actually told teams and individuals who were in a place to help, to stand down while they watched our Ambassador and his team being murdered.

Can you really trust your life and the life of your children, grandchildren and the future of this country to a Commander in Chief who watches his Ambassador and other Americans being murdered and does nothing and then lies to their families and to you, to us… the American people? What else is he lying about? Think about it before casting your vote.

23 million people are out of work, our national debt has grown to a number that most of us never could have imagined  and our economy is worse under President Obama… and he has no new plan for the next four years; America cannot afford ObamaCare and there are hidden surprises in the Affordable Care Act that you won’t like… And then there is Benghazigate that Team Obama is doing their best to bury until after the election, as the Obama-Hillary foreign policy is unraveling.  Will you let them ‘cool out’ your vote?

"Democracy, as well as the survival of our Republic, demands an educated and informed electorate"

Know why you are voting for the candidate, party and issue you have chosen and the truth behind the issues…

Ask Marion~

Voter fraud complaints may be directed to any of the local U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, the local FBI offices or the Public Integrity Section (202-514-1412).

Whether Romney or Obama wins tomorrow… America will begin down a new path, which path is in the American voters’ hands.

h/t to NARA – the Electoral College

Related:

References

Read The Federalist Papers at: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html for the founders' views on the Electoral College:

• Alexander Hamilton's design for the Electoral College in Federalist No. 68
• James Madison's views on the republican form of government in Federalist No. 10

Search the writings of Thomas Jefferson for his views on the Presidency (especially, Letter to George Hay, August 17, 1823) at: http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/

U.S. Presidential Libraries

Technorati Tags: history,informed choices,U.S. Presidents,former presidents,elections,Election 2012,2012 Election,Electoral College,The Choice,informed voters,U.S. Constituion,educate yourself,U.S. Elections,picking a president,popular vote,23rd Amendment. Mitt Romney,Barack Obama,Romney-Ryan,Obama-Biden,Federalist Papers,U.S. territories,voter fraud,civics

Eat My Peas

Time to point a few things, watch them like a hawk and speak up!

The next time somebody tells me we must all sacrifice to save our country, I am going to tell them, “eat my peas”. Thank you, President Obama, for a great line.

First, let’s get something straight - soldiers and sailors and marines and airmen sacrifice to save our country; nobody else does. This whole shared sacrifice thing is a crock - the cannibal demanding a shared sacrifice at dinnertime.

Where was the shared sacrifice when the businessman quit his job 30 years ago and double-mortgaged his home to take a chance on a dream? Did any teachers come and work in his firm during their summer off so that his wife and kids could have a week of proper vacation? Did anyone donate their savings so she would not have to work two jobs to support the family during those start-up years?
And who was it that shared the sacrifice of the medical school or law school student – did the IT tech at the Department of Motor Vehicles babysit for free so that single mom could sleep for a few hours before the bar exam? Who was their brothers’ keeper back then, comrade?

Why are we only all in this together when the it-takes-the-village-people want to tax the dentists, doctors, lawyers, businesspeople, financiers, investors, entrepreneurs, inventors, visionaries, workaholics and all who have risen to the top of their professions into oblivion? Why do they wait 30 years and then come after our stuff?

And sacrifice for what? To cop an overused phrase, let me be clear: it is not the country they want to save, it’s the government. More specifically, it is their cushy government jobs and their generous government pensions and perks. When any partisan says we all need to sacrifice, he or she is saying that you need to sacrifice so they don’t. There’s your moment of clarity.

Not them, not their team, oh no. They are victims, martyrs, lambs who have already been slaughtered. $100k per year to watch porn on the job and you want me to eat peas? GE doesn’t pay a dime in taxes but you expect me to pitch in the other arm and the other leg? Eat my peas, buddy.

Shared sacrifice means we give and they take; that is the sharing formula. Last night I saw another ugly advertisement where the Cannibal Party candidate in the Milwaukee area recall election told me we all have to share in the sacrifice. Eat my peas, lady.
I don’t even know who you are, and I don’t know the lady you are running against, but I know she was elected fair and square. This recall nonsense in Wisconsin is a farce – a union election, run by out of state union pimps. Anyone who has been through one knows the familiar feel.

They get enough signatures to call an election, use the NLRB (oops, GAB) to rig the rules in their favor, schedule it faster than the management side can react, bring in the goons and the cash from outside and then lie, threaten, bully, bribe and cheat to win at all cost. Been there, done that - won all four times.

How low will they go? How about paying kids to lie in advertisements? The very first one they ran in Milwaukee shows “local” kids blaming the pain that the Milwaukee teachers’ union inflicted on its own members – layoffs, larger class sizes – on their Republican opponent. The kids weren’t even local, and the script was so bogus my dogs walked out of the room.

Using kids to spread lies – JFK would be so proud. What’s next, some pre-teen crying in a wheelchair? “Alberta Darling eats children and she closed all of the schools so that my mommy would die.” And when the director yells “cut”, the little princess jumps out of the wheelchair, puts on a flannel shirt, grabs a fishing rod, tucks the pony tail under the cap and pretends to be a boy from Rhinelander: “Kim Simac sold all the hospitals and schools to the Taliban so they can ban country music and dump nuclear waste into the Wisconsin River.”

“Paid for by friends of Agenda 21”. Eat my peas, Soros.

A liberal apologist for those over-the-top ads said they are thought-provoking. Here’s a thought - who in their right mind would spend millions to win a job that pays $49,000 per year? Or this - which did you lose first, your scruples or your marbles? And what on earth do they want to do to us that they want to win bad enough to force kids to lie? That’s what those skanky ads made me think about.
As a Libertarian, I had fully intended to stay out of the Wisconsin recall fray. It is a purely partisan peeing contest that will have no impact; and as one of my Facebook friends keenly observed, Republicans’ and Democrats’ top priority is to punish each other. It’s a stupid game, and I didn’t feel like playing. Using kids to lie changed my mind.

So please, vote Republican, no matter who it is. Not because I love Republicans; I don’t. But while Republicans are un-libertarian, Democrats are anti-libertarian. The modern-day Democrat Party stands for nothing; it is the party that pays kids to lie. It’s the Government Party, seeking more government for the sake of more government. Watch their ads in the recall, if you can stomach the bullsnot, and tell me what they stand for, besides not being Scott Walker. And paying kids to lie.

We already did not-Scott-Walker. A decade of not-Scott-Walker left us $3 billion in the tank with the 4th worst business climate in the nation, 39% proficient schools, a smoking ban on private property, tax hikes every year, unilateral personal disarmament, some useless train cars, and a ban on organic milk sales in the Dairy State.
You want me to sacrifice some more for that? Eat my peas.

“Moment Of Clarity” is a weekly commentary by Libertarian writer and speaker Tim Nerenz, Ph.D. Visit Tim’s website: www.timnerenz.com to find your moment.

Watch Them Like a Hawk

July 25, 2011
By Frank Neudecker  -  Watch Them Like A Hawk

Thursday, September 29, 2005

“In private meetings last week, GOP leaders sharply criticized rank-and-file Republicans for taking issue with the surge in spending…

“‘This leadership group is so out of touch, it’s unbelievable,’ said one House lawmaker, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid inflaming leaders further.”

- Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post

They dragged Congressman Mike Pence into a dark room.  They closed the door and attacked him repeatedly without mercy…

And why did they see fit to strong-arm this conservative champion?
Because Congressman Pence had the gall to suggest that the federal government should control its spending and cut hundred of billions of dollars of “pork” from the federal budget.

And who are the “they” I refer to?

At the time, none other than our Republican leaders in Congress: Former Speaker Dennis Hastert, then Majority Leader Tom DeLay, former Ways & Means Chairman Bill Thomas and Transportation Chairman Don Young, among others.

Seriously, Congressman Pence’s trip to the woodshed was so severe that columnist Robert Novak noted that when offered a seat at a subsequent meeting, Pence “explained that he would be more comfortable standing because House Speaker Dennis Hastert had just tanned his hide.”

Think betrayal will not happen again.

If you are a conservative, you voted for less government and better fiscal responsibility, and the Republican leaders promised you’d get it. But if we are not careful all they’ve given us is more out-of-control spending. And taxpayers like you and me and our children and our children’s children are stuck footing the bill.
In some ways Congressman Pence, (may I note that the highway bills he and other congress critters were willing to forego were also unconstitutional) should be applauded, not taken to the woodshed for trying to keep the promise that a great many at that time broke.
So what to do?

Well you can write your representative and tell them what you think; most of them know my mind already and consider me a nut case which is probably true. But I am a nut case with some power.
About a five thousand a day read this site’s news and comments. Not bad for a nut case.

So what (should we do) for the rest of us to do you ask. Continue to write your Congress critter, give them the support they need when they do the right thing. Keep up with the bills that are on the State floors and the floors of Washington. Read the Constitution of the United States…. several times…. Read your state Constitution… at least once. Then Read the Federalist Papers … a difficult read…. but worth it.  Getting into the habit of carrying a pocket version of the Constitution is a good idea as well.  (Part of the reason the government and the courts get away with unconstitutional actions is because Americans don’t know what they have!).

Also See:  The Original Argument  -  The Federalist Papers written in modern language.  Also check out: The Road to Serfdom Also:  The Annotated U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution For Dummies for those who think they might need some additional insight.

When something comes up that you think is wrong, discuss it with close friends. Stand your ground and write your critter again. But always remember to write your critter when they do something right too.

It’s good to let them know what you think.

Libertarian GOP Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson, reacting to the latest Boehner and Reid debt compromise deals after another grueling WH meeting (the big problem with both is that they don’t solve the spending problem which will destroy us because Obama is really only interested in appearances and winning re-election), just appeared with Neil Cavuto and says we’d be off ‘not’ raising the debt ceiling now… than wait until later, even if it drove us into default, but says there is plenty of money to pay the interest on the debt, SS, the Military etc. so the only way they wouldn’t get paid is if Obama chose not to, to use it as a political weapon.  He added that Cut, Cap and Balance is the only answer with the balanced budget amendment as the lynch pin.  There is a great possibility that the S&P and Moody’s will down grade the U.S. credit rating anyway… and preventing that is the only reason even to consider raising the debt ceiling!

Well respected American Thinker: The Tea Party, Right About Everything!

**An added point: As I was watching Judge Andrew Napolitano on the Five he talked about the fact that Obama or any president does not have the power to cover financial debt, raise the debt ceiling or the power to cover related financial issues or debt by using an Executive Order. Obama quotes the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as his reference and justification for his threat to execute and sign an Executive Order (EO) to raise the debt ceiling if the Congress does not do what he wants. According to the Constitution under the wise concept of separation of powers, the House of Representatives holds the purse strings and the Congress must initiate and pass and all bills regarding funding and finances. The President’s only power is negotiation and to veto the bills sent to him. The provisions in the 14th Amendment were written to deal with unique issues caused by the Civil War and the execution of the Emancipation Proclamation that freed the slaves. The left keeps distorting them wrongly applying the provisions to allow them to do whatever they want… not what is legal, Constitutional or what the American People want!!

Wake-up and Stand-up America, while you still can!

h/t to Judson Phillips at the Tea Party Nation and Warbird at Sovereignty in Colorado

Related:

 Steve King on default: Obama could be impeached

Super Congress:  Echoes of Tyranny Rising

Posted by Ask Marion~

Super Congress: Echoes of Tyranny Rising

And now for something completely the same… In the “those who won’t learn from history, are doomed to repeat it” department, I give you a quote from the National Center for Constitutional Studies:

America’s Founders had just declared themselves free of a tyrannical government. They were determined that such tyranny would never be repeated in this land. Their new charter of government – the Constitution – carefully defined the powers delegated to government. The Founders were determined to bind down the administrators of the federal government with Constitutional chains so that abuse of power in any of its branches would be prevented. The revolutionary idea of separation of powers, although unpopular at first, became a means by which this was to be accomplished.

John Adams, in a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, stated: “I call you to witness that I was the first member of Congress who ventured to come out in public, as I did in January 1776, in my ‘Thoughts on Government,’ …in favor of a government with three branches, and an independent judiciary…” By the time the Constitution was adopted, the idea was supported by all of the members of the Convention. James Madison, the father of the Constitution, devoted five Federalist Papers (47-51) to an explanation of how the Executive, Legislative, and judicial branches were to be wholly independent of each other, yet bound together through an intricate system of checks and balances. Madison believed that keeping the three branches separated was fundamental to the preservation of liberty. He wrote:

“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many… may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

George Washington, in his Farewell Address, reminded Americans of the need to preserve the Founders’ system. He spoke of the “love of power and proneness to abuse it which predominates in the human heart” and warned of the “necessity of reciprocal checks of political power, by dividing and distributing it into different depositories and constituting each the guardian … against invasions by the others.” Of such checks and balances through the separation of powers be concluded, “To preserve them must be as necessary as to institute them.”

And from Harry Truman:

There is nothing in the world except the history you do not know.

As well as, Alexis deTocqueville:

History is a gallery of pictures in which there are few originals and many copies.

Americans labor under a failed government and a failed economy. High unemployment, soaring debt, want, need, desperation. Deja Vu comes knocking as our politicians are locked in a battle over our debt ceiling – a battle choreographed and planned for our benefit to accomplish some nefarious end, no doubt. It is the dance of history replaying itself in the fight between freedom and tyranny.

America is bankrupt and Democrats don’t want to cut spending at all. They want to keep spending in a Cloward and Piven frenzy guaranteed to destroy America once and for all. They insist on more revenue, i.e. taxes. Taxes on a suffering American public who can shoulder the burden of taxation no longer; who cannot even feed and clothe their families adequately or scrounge together the needed funds for gas to get to and from work. Does any one else feel like we are being played by both sides? These budget deals are not surpassingly awesome.

The Republicans claim they want to Cut, Cap and Balance the budget. And while I’ll concede there are a number of brave souls who wish to do that, primarily the Tea Party candidates in the House of Representatives, the remainder for the most part in the Senate are far too weak kneed to accomplish the vital objective of a Constitutional Amendment to balance the budget. They now claim to have a two-step plan to come to a bi-partisan agreement with the Progressives on the Left and handle the debt ceiling. But notice, this plan is not on CSPAN. You won’t see it on Fox News. It’s not out in the open. Just vague innuendos from Boehner that we aren’t there yet and that there is a two-step plan based on Cut, Cap and Balance involving a ‘committee.’ It is being cobbled together behind closed doors and in the dark of night.

I would remind people of the Enabling Act of 1933 in Germany. It is eerily similar to what is happening now. In short, with the Enabling Act, the parliament granted the German government additional powers and de facto legalized Hitler’s dictatorship.

And let’s not forget the Communist Party of Soviet Russia and the Politburo.

We are in a similar position. The “Super Congress,” however, is taking the power out of the people’s hands (as delegated to their “representatives”) and placing it into the hands of a few before giving it to an authoritarian.

And there are more and more of the whispers speaking of a Super Congress. Starting Saturday evening, a story came forth from the New York Times that a Super Congress was being touted as a solution to the debt ceiling impasse. Hardly the most reliable source, nevertheless it is being repeated in the Huffington Post and has now been picked up by NewsMax. I pray this is wrong, because it is so unconstitutional as to bring fear into this American’s heart of another revolution and to reverberate the echoes of tyranny rising throughout America.

I ask our politicians, where is the transparency? Since when do Americans get locked out of seeing your ‘plans?’ Plans that will effect each and every one of us in life changing ways. Why don’t you show us what you are proposing? Sunlight is the best disinfectant – bring these talks and plans into the open for all to see.

A Super Congress is not the answer. It is a Progressive/Marxist solution to a problem of their own making and will allow an elite cabal to rule over America with a dictator at the helm. Is this what we have come to? From the Huffington Post:

This “Super Congress,” composed of members of both chambers and both parties, isn’t mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but would be granted extraordinary new powers. Under a plan put forth by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and his counterpart Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), legislation to lift the debt ceiling would be accompanied by the creation of a 12-member panel made up of 12 lawmakers — six from each chamber and six from each party.

Legislation approved by the Super Congress — which some on Capitol Hill are calling the “super committee” — would then be fast-tracked through both chambers, where it couldn’t be amended by simple, regular lawmakers, who’d have the ability only to cast an up or down vote. With the weight of both leaderships behind it, a product originated by the Super Congress would have a strong chance of moving through the little Congress and quickly becoming law. A Super Congress would be less accountable than the system that exists today, and would find it easier to strip the public of popular benefits. Negotiators are currently considering cutting the mortgage deduction and tax credits for retirement savings, for instance, extremely popular policies that would be difficult to slice up using the traditional legislative process.

The article goes on to claim that John Boehner is making the Super Congress a defining point in his new proposal to raise the debt ceiling. If true, shame on him and shame on McConnell. We’ve come to expect fascist maneuvering from the Progressives on the Left, but now it would seem the Progressives on the Right are rearing their unconstitutional heads.

The Tea Party and American patriots want and demand that our leaders cut spending and not raise taxes. Do not raise the debt ceiling any more. We don’t want a Super Congress and we don’t want to be a party to your gleeful destruction of the Constitution. Stop floating these Marxist ideas or Americans will surely see you are removed from office for good. Americans will not become subservient to an elite ruling class. We will fight you, you can be sure of that.

There is a good reason that Boehner has not pressed this plan publicly. He would be ripped to shreds by Conservatives over it and he knows it. If this story is true, we are indeed in real trouble folks. Why is this story not everywhere you look? And how much power and money was promised to those that would betray the Tea Party and Americans in general? Inquiring minds really need to know.

Whether this piece of insanity comes to fruition is yet to be seen. I don’t think it will come to pass because it would mean a revolt of the people. However, I still believe there is a very strong chance that Obama will use his Executive Order power using the 14th Amendment as cover to raise the debt ceiling. Looks like this week will be one wild ride…

If this effort to create a Super Congress to distill power into the hands of the few, the elite, the select succeeds, we will indeed have tyranny rising.

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton

Source: NoisyRoom

Cross Posted at: Ask Marion

See:  The Original Argument  -  The Federalist Papers written in modern language.  Also check out: The Road to Serfdom

Related:

We Don’t Need No Steenking Constitution

Geithner Refuses to Tell Chris Wallace What Happens If Debt Ceiling Isn’t Raised  -  Despite persistent questioning from Chris Wallace, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner refused to acknowledge what his plans were just in case the debt ceiling is not raised before August 2nd. Insisting that his plan was only to get Congress to raise the debt ceiling, Geithner seemed to demonstrate just how fearful he is of what might happen by hesitating to even discuss the possibility of any contingency plan. Continuing to sound the alarm, Geithner warned Wallace, “we do not have the ability, Chris, to protect the American people from the consequences of Congress not” raising the debt ceiling. And he reiterated...

Video:  SR 19 - U.S. Debt Limit‏ 

Article - tells what opinions were given on the morning talk shows
Geithner: Obama And Boehner Still Negotiating Grand Bargain 

Video: Ex- New World Order Banker Tells It All

Restoring our History Series - The US Constitution (Part 2)

“If we fail there will no place to go.  America is the last bastion of true freedom in the world!”  …Ronald Reagan

The Enemy to our State is the Progressive Movement!!

The Founding Fathers gave us a perfect map to follow in 4-pages… the American Constitution,  4-pages is all it took our Founding Fathers to create the structure for the freest nation in history.  They rewrote the Federalist Papers into a 4-page document that inspired the world.

They decided on a Republic as the vehicle.  A democracy was further down the list than a monarchy, which they hated and had just freed themselves from, yet for years the Progressive have pushed the notion of a democracy verses a Republic.

And the Founding Fathers searched for the perfect leader for the first President of the United States, George Washington. (Our president under the Articles of Confederation was Charles Hansen.)

Beck has two of the Constitution’s greatest defenders as guests:  David Barton and Judge Andrew Napolitano.

The Founding Fathers believed in limited government and laid out 5 purposes of government:

1. Acknowledge and adore God

2. Exercise frugality

3. Restrain the infliction of injury

4. Encourage entrepreneurship and free enterprise

5. Protect property and the Earnings of Citizens.

Those 5 plus defending the United States is the really the total job of the federal government.

The 17th Amendment changed the way the Senate was chosen.  The Progressives wanted to take the States out of the picture.

The 20th Century has been a disaster for the Constitution because of the Progressive Presidents:  Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and FDR.

Wilson changed the relationship between individuals and the Federal government.

FDR ushered in an era of central economic planning… much like his counterpart Josef Stalin, which defies the Constitution and we are suffering today from the seeds these Progressives planted.  But let us remember that not all Progressives were/are Democrats… Teddy Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover were Progressives.  But over the years, even though there are Republican Progressives as well, the Progressive Movement has taken over the Democrat Party.

Presidents who were defenders of the Constitution were Grover Cleveland, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.

Was the Constitution a slavery document… absolutely not. Frederick Douglass was adamant that it was because at its inception it counted slaves as 3/5 of a person and it angered him.  But after reading the Constitution and reading the notes by the Founding Father’s on their thinking about this subject, he realized that it was exactly the opposite.  It was written to encourage the Southerners to abolish slavery to get representation.  Great book on Frederick Douglass and his relationship with Abraham Lincoln is Giants.

James Madison is often considered the father of the Constitution, but that actually isn’t true.  It s writing was truly a collective group proposition.  The Founding Fathers set up the bi-cameral Congress and the electoral college which is often misunderstood because of misinformation.  Progressives would like to get rid of the electoral college because it would limit the number of states that they would have to control to elect a president. And very few states would ever get candidates campaigning in their states if they were not on one of the coasts…  the states with high populations.

And to understand the Constitution, you really need to go back to the Declaration of Independence first.  You must understand the Declaration of Independence to get a handle on the Constitution… beginning with the first 85 words at the top.

When we look at President Obama’s comments where he leaves out the words, endowed by their Creator, it is crucial to the progressive philosophy.  Woodrow Wilson said that the Constitution is worthless.  Every word in the Constitution is there for a purpose! Endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights is crucial… because our rights come from a natural God not man.  It has nothing to do with any particular religion.  For if our rights come from man… then man can take them away.  And this notion that the Congress can give us as well as take away rights has permeated our government.  And many of the rights they are promoting come right out of Karl Marx’s writings.

One of the biggest dangers to our system is trans-nationalism developed by Harold Coe.  Trans-nationalists believe that International law trumps nationalism and national laws.  Globalism is part of the goal of the Progressive Movement. (Is Obama Quietly Erasing Borders?)

Another huge enemy of the Constitution is using case law instead of Constitutional law.

There is a code in the Constitution. It is “We The People”…  This is our country and we must take it back!

 

The U.S. Constitution

Video:  The U.S. Constitution

How do we reverse this??? We abolish the Federal Income Tax!  It can be done with one thing… the truth!  We must know our power by understanding the Constitution~

Who will protect us from the Government

Video:  Judge Napolitano 'Who will protect us from the government?'

 

Add a few of these book below to your shopping list~

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America

Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion

A Patriot's History of the United States: From Columbus's Great Discovery to the War on Terror

The Federalist Papers

George Washington's Sacred Fire

The American Patriot's Bible: The Word of God and the Shaping of America

Separation of Church & State: What the Founders Meant

Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History

Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century

The Five Thousand Year Leap: 30 Year Anniversary Edition with Glenn Beck Foreword

The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party

Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism

The Roots of Obama's Rage

The Ruling Class: How They Corrupted America and What We Can Do About It

Broke: The Plan to Restore Our Trust, Truth and Treasure

 

Restoring Our History Series – Revolution… What are the Warning Signs? (Part 1)

 

WE ARE STANDING AT A PRESIPUS.  WE MUST ALL CHOOSE SIDES AND STAND.  THERE IS NO ROOM FOR NEUTRALITY.  THOSE THAT REMAIN NEUTRAL WILL HELP THE OTHER SIDE.

Freedom is never free… it requires vigilance, participation, knowledge and sometimes even the ultimate sacrifice.  But be aware, dictatorships require more… they require that you relinquish your freedom and your soul.