Now we see the change that was promised and the only hope we have is a return to the freedoms that built this country. Obama sought to make this country more like Europe and with double digit unemployment and loss of economic freedoms he has succeeded. Hopefully, this Novermber we will see a return to sanity in Washington, but even with a major GOP win the freedom loving libertarian in me is skeptical.

Yesterday a miracle happened. No, a lion did not lie down with a lamb, the lame did not walk and neither did the blind see. Instead, a miracle of an unprecedented magnitude happened in the state of Massachusetts. A Republican was elected to fill the seat of Teddy “One-for-the-Road” Kennedy. To say that the left is in shock is an understatement.

The question I ask coming out of this election is how will the GOP read it? The election was spun by the left as a referendum on healthcare and that is exactly what won it for Brown. The people of Massachusetts came out in droves to vote against Obama’s plans to extend control over 1/7th of the US economy in the guise of healthcare reform. GOP leadership is of course ecstatic over the victory and they should be (heaven knows it’s been a while since good news involved the GOP). The danger to those of us who value freedom is a misread of Brown’s victory by party elites.

If party leadership reads this victory to mean people are so fed up with the Democrats they will vote for anyone wearing the Republican moniker the potential for big wins in 2010 will be lost. The Republican Party lost big in the last round, not because the country had shifted left, but because the Republican Party had shifted left. Under Bush it was hard to tell a Republican voting record from a Democratic one. Keynesian deficit spending alongside rampant Congressional corruption and moral turpitude produced a perfect storm for the left. The left won because the right stayed home.

It may be possible for the GOP to go one cycle or perhaps two with the old practice of running RINOs and Rockefeller Republicans. It is possible the electorate, shocked by the abuses of a strong Democratic majority, will vote for any elephant walking down the street, but this will not last long. Unless the party of Reagan returns to its base it will find itself exiled from power again and again. If this happens it is not the Republican leaders who will suffer but the American people who are forced to watch more and more of their freedoms wheedled away by misguided apparatchiks.

Recently a friend sent a list of ideas to reform Congress. I told his that most of the ideas would not work and pointed out that many of the ideas were based on myths about Congress—such as the old claim that Congress does not pay into Social Security. This was changed in the 80’s. My friend’s response was to ask for my ideas. I don’t know why in this country we have adopted the ludicrous idea that one cannot point out problems of an action without also laying out a better plan. We saw this in the healthcare debates when the Democrats belittled Republican opposition with the accusation that they had not given a better plan. One does not have to have a better plan to be able to recognize a bad plan. Despite this, I put together my usual list of appropriate fixes. You will not that none of them are the usual fluff floating around conservative circles.

Since only Constitutional Amendments cannot be overturned let’s start there.

First, repeal the XVII Amendment. In the Constitution, the Senate represented the state governments so Senators were elected by the State Legislatures. This was changed to popular election by XVII. We have such a bloated federal government because no one speaks for the states in Congress. With this small change there will never be another unfunded mandate, the X Amendment will be uplifted, and state governments will be empowered to stand up to the federal juggernaut.

Second, repeal the XVI Amendment. This aberration allowed the federal government to tax the people directly without apportionment by census figures. This would abolish the income tax. If you want to limit a government you must keep a tight grip on its ability to raise funds.

Third, further define the treaty making process. The Constitution empowers the President and the Senate to ratify treaties. This is fine with the repeal of XVII since the Senate would once again represent the state governments. The problem is that all bills for appropriation of money are constitutionally required to start in the House. What happens if a treaty is signed that requires the raising of an amount of money? Does the house have to raise the money? If so this is in effect an appropriation started by the Executive branch and the Senate sunning roughshod over the people’s representatives. There needs to be more definition. It must be stated that even if the President and Senate approve a treaty, the House still has the right to refuse to pay for it, by withholding the appropriations. This would handicap much of the feared results of Kyoto, UN mandates, etc. This does not violate the president’s power of foreign diplomacy, but it would limit his ability to enact harmful legislation under the guise of diplomacy, and protect the sovereignty of the American people.

Fourth, the war powers of the president need to be amended. Yes, the president is Commander-in-Chief but the power to send troops outside the US borders to engage any force or nation must be limited to those engagements where Congress has passed a declaration of war. In the case of Afghanistan this would not have been a problem because one could have been passed within hours of 911. However, this would have prevented many problems with Korea and Vietnam because the war could not simply be handed off to blame the president because Congress’ own votes would have been a matter of record. The American soldier should never be sent into harm’s way without the recorded agreement of their representatives. Voting to fund is not enough; it must be a declaration of war.

Fifth, there must be a Constitutional definition of Executive orders. As it is right now the president can make what is in effect law through these monarchical pronouncements, without Constitutional limitation. These orders are necessary for the operation of the executive branch to carry out its duties, but for now there is nothing to limit them. In this way the president is without the limits of checks and balances in executive orders.

Sixth, repeal the XXII Amendment. While others are proposing term limits for Congress, I see presidential term limits as detrimental. Limiting the president to two terms places the executive at a disadvantage in dealing with Congress, because this person’s political career is over. This in effect removes part of the checks and balances over Congress. During a second four year term Congress can force through many things that would never be possible without an emasculated president. Yes, some may point to the danger of ending up with an unbeatable president doing popular but unwise things such as FDR. However the New Deal was long after the passage of the XVI and XVII Amendments. With these repealed FDR would have been powerless.

At one time the federal government was seen as limited. Now under the liberal junta currently running this nation the states are being reduced to branch offices of Washington. This was never envisioned by the founders who saw our nation as sovereign people in several sovereign states joined together and pooling part of their sovereignty in the federal government. King Obama and his Hip-Pocket Congress are working to sieze control of American lives and the American economy far beyond anything King George would have imagined. If you think healthcare has a problem now, wait until it becomes a government program–emergency room meet Post Office and DMV.

Calls from the left ring throughout the land, “We must be civil in discussing healthcare.” People are going to town halls to protest and harangue condescending officials defending this takeover of the American healthcare system. Constituents shout, plead and debate the candidate in a way that can be very uncomfortable, but does this lack proper civility?

Efforts of this administration and the Hip-pocket Congress prove that the current elected assemblies in Washington are representing a failed ideology at the expense of the American people. Many of us fear having an imperfect system that works replaced by a system destined for failure. The Democrats in Congress (with the help of their moderate to liberal Republican sycophants) are so set on building their leftist Utopia that they are ignoring the voices of the people.

This congress and administration has done far more to undermine the confidence of the American people in their own government than all previous ones combined. Over the last few months we have become aware that those elected to represent us are voting on bills they have never read, and that many times are not even off the presses. This happened before, but pair it with record spending and you have a government run amuck. Add to this their hatred for dissent with efforts to reinstate the failed “Fairness Doctrine,” special email addresses to report those who would dare to speak out against healthcare, labeling those who served their country with honor as potential terrorists and accusations by Speaker Pelosi that those who are now speaking out are un-American.”

Then there’s the blatant hypocrisy of a Congress that rails against corporate executives flying in private jets, only to turn around and request new business jets from the Pentagon to ferry Congressmen around. According to a story in Market Watch this money will have to be cut out of other areas of the defense budget. Congress is willing to cut the amount of money being spent to support our troops in war so they can get a cushy flight. Of course this ignores the old news request of Speaker Pelosi for a larger jet for her private coast to coast flights. Their hypocrisy doesn’t stop there though. What about Card Check? This plan, also known as the Employee “Free Choice” Act, claimed to be for the support of workers. This claim was possible because leftists still long for the days of the great Revolution and calls of “Workers of the World, Unite!” They overlook the facts about unions—driving up costs, making American manufacturing uncompetitive, and unwillingness to see companies as anything other than cash-cows to be milked at every opportunity. Do you want to know why manufacturing jobs are fleeing the United States? “Look for Union Label.” This nice little bill would have stripped away a worker’s right to a secret ballot in a union vote.

So what are good hard-working Americans to do when faced with these issues? Are we to wait for the media to get the word out? Considering they have still not dropped their love affair with Barack Obama, I don’t think this will happen anytime soon.

Of course we should not be surprised they still fawn over Barack. They should have known that once they sold their souls in the election they would have to keep up the charade for the rest of his presidency. Liberals do not care what you did for them yesterday. Any anchor in the MSM that comes out with any negative press about Barack Obama will find himself labeled a bigot and tarred and feathered by the left. We can hope the media will wake up and resume their post as defenders of liberty and clarions of the truth, but that kind of media is rare.

“If you do not read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you read the newspaper you are misinformed.” —-Mark Twain.

The answer is what we see happening today. Protests and demonstrations are one of the few ways left to get the word to congressmen. The first amendment was not meant to protect only the news industry but all Americans who want to express themselves. Solutions will not be found in quiet discourse and polite debate, but in high volume vitriol. Politician’s calls for niceness and quiet are a veiled attempt to silence and to muzzle. The left has used this tactic for decades. There is a huge difference between what the left did before and what is going on now. When the left would demonstrate, the ranks were filled with the unemployed, the professional protestors and people unlikely to pay for what they demanded. Those protesting now are the very people who write the check and mail it to the IRS to pay the bills of this country. They are the productive in our society. When those who create the wealth in this land feel the need to take time away from work and family to come to a townhall meeting and make their opinions known it is the Congressmen or other official that should sit down and be quiet because those who pay them are speaking.

From time to time we hear of some terrible scourge to civilized society that the government must do something about. Of course the government in question is always the federal government. The media doesn’t seem to even realize that this country has multiple layers of government so everything gets made into a federal issue. Beyond the problem of always looking for a federal solution, there are difficulties with the problems to be fixed. Many times things need a solution, but is legislation the only solution?

Every time a law is passed it chips away freedom. If the law forbids some action then you are no longer free to take certain actions. If the law requires an action then you are no longer free to refrain from acting. For this reason, I often point out that the freest time in America is when Congress is in recess. This nation has, on the federal level, 535 people paid full time to do nothing more than make laws and seek reelection. I know some will point out that the job of our Senators and Representatives includes meeting with constituents, but these meetings are primarily for three reasons: reelection, build support for legislation and get ideas for other legislation. With the majority of their time consumed with keeping their job and enacting laws the greatest threat to the freedoms we so love is Congress.

So what is the solution? Is it to be found in making Congress part time, similar to many state legislatures? This will actually change little. The best thing is to elect officials who understand the Constitution and honor their pledge to uphold it. For example, earmarks would not be a problem if constituents stopped electing people who shell out federal dollars to get reelected. Of course this is hard when many who balk at earmarks attack their own representative for not bringing home enough project money. Most Americans oppose earmarks, except for the ones that come home to line their own pockets. We need elected officials who are statesmen first and foremost. Such people do the right thing, even if the next election means a job hunt.

We also need passion on the floor of the Senate and House where those who believe strongly for and against any legislation are encouraged to fight it out tooth and nail—verbally of course. Instead of pandering to the CSPAN cameras, let’s have heated debates with partisans (yes, I said partisans) fighting to the point of exhaustion to prevent anything unconstitutional from leaving either floor. Breaking a sweat in defense of one’s beliefs has been replaced with looking good for the cameras.

The next thing we need is an informed electorate that will hold its representatives responsible by demanding for each vote the constitutional grounds upon which that person voted. If a politician is unable to give good constitutional reasons for a vote he or she should look for other work. Until the American people realize that this is our government that has been allowed to rob us of wealth and chip away at our freedoms there will be no meaningful change. I hear complaints all the time about how bad politicians are. Can you imagine any business owner having nothing but complaints about an employee continuing to employ that person? We must realize that the politicians are our employees and if they are not performing up to standards (the Constitution) then we must fire them.

Efforts to provide insurance coverage to all Americans sounds admirable. Speaking against the latest liberal efforts to extend such coverage is seen as hateful and uncaring. While no sane person wants another to suffer or die because of the cost of healthcare, we must ask what part of the Constitution gives Congress power to manage, or provide medical care for any Americans outside of the military. This element is being ignored by those who have taken oaths to support the Constitution.

This plan is blatant redistribution of wealth. As evidence of it, look at the various ways being considered to pay for this care. One of the latest is a tax on health policies costing $25,000 per year. This means that those who work hard and pay high premiums to get the best coverage would see their own health care costs to provide for others. “Soak the rich,” is a popular mantra of the left, but this promise must be viewed in light of history. Every government welfare program has started with taxes on the rich, but taxes always grow and the tax base always spreads.

Government provided healthcare, regardless of the method or the plan is an unconstitutional siezure and redistribution of wealth. Such programs subsidize bad decisions and punish productivity, while continuing to divide the nation along class lines.

Only a few months into the new administration and America has gotten exactly what the voters wanted—a boat load of change. With the changes we’ve seen, we’ll soon long for the good old days. The best thing about this current political situation: with the choking portion of liberal good intentions wrapped around government waste and abuse the words Democrat and liberal will soon become obscenities. (more…)

Every member of Congress since 1884 has taken the following oath of office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Those elected to represent a congressional district answer to their people first (as the sovereign body) and then to the people’s document—the Constitution. The founders knew a strong central government was needed to deal with foreign nations and ensure a strong union between the states, but they feared a federal government without restrictions. Besides establishing the branches of our federal government and defining its relationship to the states and the people the main emphasis of the Constitution is to restrain this new leviathan. For example, the navy is a permanent fixture, provided for in the constitution, while the army must be funded with new legislation every two years. The founders, in effect, placed a sunset clause on something as essential as an army to protect the people from abuse by their own leaders. (more…)

In the beginning there was the Three. The three were all powerful and all truth was filtered through the Three. The Three were known as ABC, CBS and NBC. Over time, alternatives to the Three come forward. Conservative talk radio, cable news outlets and the Internet allowed the truths once hidden by the Three to be shouted from the roof tops. Over time, the Three and their cronies in print saw their influence and power wane. It was no longer possible for them to twist the news to meet their political agenda without being called to task for it. Such a change is never welcome to despots. After years of wandering in the wilderness the Three have found their deliverer. The Obama administration along with the Hip-pocket Congress of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are working hard to end free speech in America with the “Fairness Doctrine.” This bold-faced effort to silence those who would stand against their leftist agenda to recreate America in the European image is everything the founders of our country fought against. (more…)