*AUDIO* Mark Steyn: What Does It Take For Barack Obama To Cancel A Fundraiser?


.

.

Four-Star Marine Corps General James Amos Slams Obama Over His Handling Of Iraq War (Audio)

Top Marine Corps General Slams Obama’s Handling Of Iraq – Washington Times

Four-star Gen. James Amos, commandant of the Marine Corps, used a speaking engagement at the Brookings Institute on Tuesday to deliver a stinging rebuke of the Obama administration’s handling of Iraq.

“I have a hard time believing that had we been there, and worked with the government, and worked with parliament, and worked with the minister of defense, the minister of interior, I don’t think we’d be in the same shape we’re in today,” Gen. Amos said, the Fiscal Times reported Wednesday.

It is rare for an active-duty serviceman to give such blunt public criticism of a sitting president. While Gen. Amos was careful not to mention the president by name, The Fiscal Times reported that the top general’s upcoming retirement this fall may have played a role in his decision.

“We may think we’re done with all of these nasty, thorny, tacky little things that are going on around the world – and I’d argue that if you’re in that nation, it’s not a tacky, little thing for you. We may think we’re done with them, but they’re not done with us,” the commandant of the Marine Corps added, the paper reported. “We’re probably the only country in the world that has the resources and the capability to be able to do some of this that others can’t.”

The decorated officer added that it is breaking the hearts of Marines to see many of the gains made before U.S. troops pulled out in 2011 squandered. Sunni radicals with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) have taken over large swathes of Iraq since June.

Roughly 852 Marines were killed and 8,500 injured during deployments to Iraq, The Fiscal Times reported.

.

………………………..Click on image above to hear audio.

.

.

*VIDEO* Bill Whittle – Obamadelphia, DC: The New U.S. Capital


.

.

*VIDEO* Bill Whittle – Eloi: Political Correctness ‘Triggering’ Dangerous Herd-Like Mentality


.

Your Daley Gator Article V Convention Of The States Post-Apalooza (Videos)

Indiana To Host Meeting For Planning Article V Convention – American Thinker

.

.
The movement toward calling a state-led Constitutional Convention for the purpose of altering the Constitution bypassing Congress, as specified by Article V of the Constitution, has taken a step forward. Dan Carden of the Northwest Indiana Times reports:

Legislative leaders in all 50 states have been asked to send delegates to Indianapolis for a second discussion on the state-led process for crafting amendments to the U.S. Constitution, and to begin shaping the rules and procedures a Convention of the States that would follow.

Senate President David Long, R-Fort Wayne, is among the organizers of the June 12-13 meeting of The Mount Vernon Assembly that will convene in the Indiana Statehouse.

He said delegates won’t be proposing amendments to the U.S. Constitution this time. Instead, the goal is “to put a structure and a foundation in place for a Convention of the States, so that we can have consensus on how this thing is going to be run.” (snip)

Long said he’s heard the calls for fast action on an Article V convention, but is confident the careful, thoughtful approach being taken by The Mount Vernon Assembly is the best way to ensure Congress authorizes a Convention of the States and that any proposed constitutional amendments are seen as legitimate.

“This is the one group that is moving forward, with state legislators, putting a process in place so whatever ideas ultimately win out and get to a convention, we will have everything ready to go and the process will work effectively,” Long said. “Without this structure, it won’t work.”

A bipartisan group of lawmakers from 33 states initially met in December at George Washington’s Mount Vernon estate in Virginia to see if there was sufficient support to move forward with planning for a Convention of the States.

Long said he expects The Mount Vernon Assembly will meet a third time later this year to tweak and finalize the decisions it makes at the Indianapolis session. Then state legislatures in 2015 can begin sending identical resolutions to Congress requesting a Convention of the States.

He said the topic of the first proposed amendment likely will be a requirement for a balanced federal budget or some other plan to rein in the national debt.

“We need something to change and this is, I think, the only way it’s going to happen – the states are going to have to take charge,” Long said.

The process outlined by Mark Levin in his bestselling book, The Liberty Amendments, is beginning to unfold. Sen. Long is to be commended for his careful and deliberate process. It won’t be easy or quick, and a lot of debate lies ahead. The right has no monopoly on Article V consideration:

On Friday Vermont became the first state to call for a convention to amend the U.S. Constitution to reverse the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which precipitated a flood of cash into politics.

Mike Monetta, 37, drove from Boston with a colleague and spent more than 10 hours Thursday in the House gallery waiting for the lower chamber to vote on the Senate-passed resolution, which – as lawmakers race to wrap things up before the end of the biennium – was taken up at the end of a marathon floor session.

He was back in the gallery Friday morning to see Vermont’s resolution get final approval from the House. Monetta is the organizing director for Wolf PAC, which he described as a political action committee to end all political action committees.

“We exist for only one purpose and that’s to get a 28th amendment to get all money out of politics,” he explained.

The Left wants to limit the scope of the First Amendment freedom of speech guarantees, while conservatives want to limit government. Which do you suppose will better stand up to debate?

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
————————————————————————————————————————
.

Related article:
.

THE FEDERALIST NO. 85 – JAMES MADISON

(Excerpt) – By the fifth article of the plan, the Congress will be obliged “on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the States [which at present amount to nine], to call a convention for proposing amendments, which shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the States, or by conventions in three fourths thereof.” The words of this article are peremptory. The Congress “shall call a convention.” Nothing in this particular is left to the discretion of that body. And of consequence, all the declamation about the disinclination to a change vanishes in air. Nor however difficult it may be supposed to unite two thirds or three fourths of the State legislatures, in amendments which may affect local interests, can there be any room to apprehend any such difficulty in a union on points which are merely relative to the general liberty or security of the people. We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority.

.
————————————————————————————————————————
.

Related video:

.
ARTICLE V CONVENTION DEBATE

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————
.

Related articles:
.

THE ARTICLE V CONVENTION TO PROPOSE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS: CONTEMPORARY ISSUES FOR CONGRESS – CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE

(Excerpt) – Thomas H. Neale
Specialist in American National Government
April 11, 2014

Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides two ways of amending the nation’s fundamental charter. Congress, by a two-thirds vote of both houses, may propose amendments to the states for ratification, a procedure used for all 27 current amendments. Alternatively, if the legislatures of two-thirds of the states apply, 34 at present, Congress “shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments…” This alternative, known as an Article V Convention, has yet to be implemented. This report examines the Article V Convention, focusing on contemporary issues for Congress. CRS Report R42592, The Article V Convention for Pro posing Constitutional Amendments: Historical Perspectives for Congress examines the procedure’s constitutional origins and history and provides an analysis of related state procedures.

Significant developments in this issue have occurred recently: in March 2014, the Georgia Legislature applied for a convention to consider a balanced federal budget amendment, revoking its rescission of an earlier application; in April 2014, Tennessee took similar action. While both applications are valid, they may revive questions as to the constitutionality of rescissions of state applications for an Article V Convention and whether convention applications are valid indefinitely. Either issue could have an impact on the prospects for a convention. In other recent actions, the legislatures of Ohio, in November 2013, and Michigan, in March 2014, applied to Congress for an Article V Convention to consider a balanced federal budget amendment; these are the first new state applications since 1982 and are also the 33rd and 34th applications for the balanced budget amendment convention. If all 32 previous related state applications are valid, it is arguable that the constitutional requirement for requests from two-thirds of the states has been met, and that Congress should consider calling a convention.

Internet- and social media-driven public policy campaigns have also embraced the Article V Convention as an alternative to perceived policy deadlock at the federal level. In 2011, the “Conference on a Constitutional Convention,” drew participants ranging from conservative libertarians to progressives together to discuss and promote a convention. In December 2013, a meeting of state legislators advocated a convention, while the “Convention of States” called for a convention to offer amendments to “impose fiscal restraints and limit the power of the federal government.” Also in 2013, the advocacy group Compact for America proposed the “Compact for a Balanced Budget,” an interstate compact that would provide a “turn-key” application, by which, with a single vote, states could join the compact; call for a convention; agree to its format, membership, and duration; adopt and propose a specific balanced budget amendment; and prospectively commit themselves to ratify the amendment.

Congress would face a range of questions if an Article V Convention seemed likely, including the following. What constitutes a legitimate state application? Does Congress have discretion as to whether it must call a convention? What vehicle does it use to call a convention? Could a convention consider any issue, or must it be limited to a specific issue? Could a “runaway convention propose amendments outside its mandate? Could Congress choose not to propose a convention-approved amendment to the states? What role would Congress have in defining a convention, including issues such as rules of procedure and voting, number and apportionment of delegates, funding and duration, service by Members of Congress, and other questions. Under these circumstances, Congress could consult a range of information resources in fashioning its response. These include the record of the founders’ original intent, scholarly works cited in this report and elsewhere, historical examples and pr ecedents, and relevant hearings, reports, and bills produced by Congress from the 1970s through the 1990s.

.
————————————————————————————————————————

.
How Michigan May Have Triggered Convention To Amend U.S. Constitution – Jonathan Oosting

Michigan’s Republican-led Legislature may have inadvertently made history last month when it adopted a resolution urging a convention of the states for the purpose of drafting a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Article V requires Congress to authorize a convention when 34 states have called for an amendment on the same topic, but that threshold has never been reached.

Conventional wisdom suggests – and supporters repeatedly stated – that by adopting its resolution, Michigan had joined more than 20 other states with similar applications.

But Michigan may unknowingly have been the 34th state to call for a federal balanced budget amendment, according to at least one constitutional scholar. A California Congressman is asking U.S. House Speaker John Boehner to consider the argument and explore whether a convention should be called.

The dispute hinges on an apparently untested legal question: Can a state rescind an application after petitioning Congress?

“There is a school of thought – scholars are very divided on the subject – that once a state Legislature has said ‘yes’ to an Article V Convention, it is without the ability to then turn around and change it’s mind and say, ‘No, we don’t want that any more,” said Gregory Watson, a constitutional expert who works as a staffer in the Texas House.

“The issue has never been brought before a federal court, and that’s why I think perhaps, maybe, possibly someone somewhere – not necessarily in Michigan – could file a lawsuit in a federal court claiming that the 34-state threshold has indeed been met.”

Watson, best known for spearheading ratification of the 27th Amendment some 200 years after it was proposed, believes that Michigan became the 22nd state with a clearly active application calling for a convention and balanced budget amendment. By his tally, 12 other states applied decades ago before they later changed their minds, but he’s not sure they had the authority to do so.

“If a federal judge were to rule that the activities that occurred in Lansing on March 26, 2014, did indeed make it the 34th state, then it was a very historic day,” Watson said. “If the judge ruled that, ‘No, a state can repeal it’s previous request,’ then it was not a historic day.”

Michigan’s resolution made national headlines last week, with The Washington Times and Fox News reporting on the prospect of a constitutional convention and questions over how many states have active applications.

Citing published reports, U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-California) sent a letter to Boehner suggesting that the House “should lead an effort to ascertain whether 34 states have voted affirmatively” for a convention and asking the speaker to direct appropriate entities to make that determination.

“A balanced budget amendment is long overdue and remains an effective tool to address runaway spending and deficits,” Hunter wrote. “With the recent decision by Michigan lawmakers, it is important that the House – and those of us who support a balanced budget amendment – determine whether the necessary number of states have acted and the appropriate role of Congress should this be the case.”

Still, even some supporters are skeptical.

Rob Natelson, a constitutional scholar and former law professor, told The Washington Times that states have always had the ability to rescind applications and does not think Michigan’s resolution is the 34th of its kind.

“I think it’s unlikely that a request for Congress to call a convention at this point would get anywhere,” said Natelson, who wrote an Article V handbook for state lawmakers published by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a conservative organization that supports the push for a balanced budget amendment.

State Sen. Mike Green (R-Mayville) said he was aware that there was some sort of dispute over the status of old applications when he introduced the balanced budget resolution in Michigan’s upper chamber last year, but he was surprised to learn that Congressman Hunter raised the issue with Boehner in D.C.

“The latest count that I was getting back from the group of legislators that I’ve been working with is that we were going to be number 23,” Green said Wednesday.

The issue may very well end up in federal courts, Green acknowledged, but he would prefer that other states sign on soon so that there is no question over active convention applications. Any proposed resolution would have to be ratified by 38 states.

“My goal is to get a balanced budget amendment done, and if it comes sooner rather than later, I’m all for it,” Green said. “I’d like to see it get done right now, when for sure we’d have 38 states that would (ratify) it. After the next election, you never know.”

If all this sounds hypothetical, that’s because it is at this point.

An Article V Convention has never been called, and it’s not even clear whether Congress or states or delegates would set the rules. The nation’s last constitutional convention was its first, as the founding fathers drafted the document now under dispute.

Despite those unknowns, supporters say states must act and force the federal government to stop what they believe is a reckless and now-annual pattern of deficit spending.

Michigan Joint Resolution V, like those adopted by several other states, calls for an amendment limiting federal appropriations to estimated revenues in each fiscal year, allowing exceptions only in the case of a national emergency.

Critics argue that a balanced budget amendment would limit the federal government’s ability to respond to fiscal crises or make strategic investments, and some have suggested the process could devolve into a “runaway convention” ruled more by public pressure, lobbyists and outside influences than sound policy.

“Government would become more beholden to artificial spending limits that would all but ensure that the shutdown of the federal government we just saw last month would become an all too-common occurrence,” State Sen. Bert Johnson (D-Detroit) said in November during an early floor debate on the resolution.

“Congress already struggles to complete its most basic functions. Why would we bog down the process even further? This amendment wouldn’t limit government, it would drown it.”

The resolution passed the Michigan House with some bipartisan support, but the Senate vote split directly down party lines, with all Democrats voting against it.

Republican Gov. Rick Snyder endorsed the push for a federal balanced budget amendment in his January State of the State address but the joint resolution did not require his signature for adoption.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
————————————————————————————————————————
.

Related videos:

.
ARTICLE V CONVENTION SUMPOSIUM

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————
.

Related article:

.
Article V: Congress, Conventions, And Constitutional Amendments – Matthew Spalding, Ph.D. & Trent England

Advocates of a “living” Constitution argue that the Founders’ Constitution is hopelessly outdated and unable to grow and adapt to the times. The amendment procedure detailed in Article V belies such claims. As Madison explains in The Federalist, the amendment procedure allows subsequent generations to correct errors and make whatever “useful alterations will be suggested by experience.” Yet at the same time, the difficulty of constitutional amendment prevents the Constitution from being deprived “of that veneration, which time bestows on everything, and without which the wisest and freest governments would not possess the requisite stability.” By design, the amendment process requires extensive deliberation and ensures that amendments are the settled opinion of the American people. To date, as was expected, every amendment to the Constitution has been proposed through Congress before being ratified by the states. Although there have been several attempts to call an Article V amending convention – some of which have driven Congress to act – the extensive unknowns and significant risks involved in that uncharted option make congressional proposal of amendments abundantly more prudent and the most viable method to achieve serious constitutional reform. This essay is adapted from The Heritage Guide to the Constitution for a new series providing constitutional guidance for lawmakers.

“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress…” – Article V

The process of amendment developed with the emergence of written constitutions that established popular government. The charters granted by William Penn in 1682 and 1683 provided for amending, as did eight of the state constitutions in effect in 1787. Three state constitutions provided for amendment through the legislature, and the other five gave the power to specially elected conventions.

The Articles of Confederation provided for amendments to be proposed by Congress and ratified by the unanimous vote of all thirteen state legislatures. This proved to be a major flaw in the Articles, as it created an insuperable obstacle to constitutional reform. The amendment process in the Constitution, as James Madison explained in The Federalist No. 43, was meant to establish a balance between the excesses of constant change and inflexibility: “It guards equally against that extreme facility which would render the Constitution too mutable; and that extreme difficulty which might perpetuate its discovered faults.”

In his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Justice Joseph Story wrote that a government that provides

no means of change, but assumes to be fixed and unalterable, must, after a while, become wholly unsuited to the circumstances of the nation; and it will either degenerate into a despotism, or by the pressure of its inequalities bring on a revolution… The great principle to be sought is to make the changes practicable, but not too easy; to secure due deliberation, and caution; and to follow experience, rather than to open a way for experiments, suggested by mere speculation or theory.

In its final form, Article V creates two ways to propose amendments to the Constitution: through Congress or by a special convention called by the states for the purpose of proposing amendments. In either case, the proposed amendment or amendments must then be ratified by the states, either (as determined by Congress) by state legislatures or by ratifying conventions in the states.

The Virginia Plan introduced at the start of the Constitutional Convention called for amendment “whensoever it shall seem necessary.” The Committee of Detail proposed a process whereby Congress would call for a constitutional convention on the request of two-thirds of the state legislatures. George Mason feared this method was insufficient to protect the states, while Alexander Hamilton thought that Congress should be able to propose amendments independent of the states. Madison (as recorded in his Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787) thought the vagueness of an amendment convention sufficiently problematic to reject the provision: “How was a Convention to be formed? By what rule decide? What the force of its acts?” After further debate, the delegates passed language proposed by Madison (and seconded by Alexander Hamilton) that the national legislature shall propose amendments when two-thirds of each House deems it necessary, or on the application of two-thirds of the state legislatures. Proposed amendments were to be ratified by three-fourths of the states in their legislatures or by state convention.

The Constitutional Convention made two specific exceptions to the Amendments Clause, concerning the slave trade (Article V, Clause 2) and equal state suffrage in the Senate (Article V, Clause 2), but defeated a motion to prevent amendments that affected internal police powers in the states.

Just before the end of the Convention, George Mason objected that the amendment proposal would allow Congress to block as well as propose amendments, and the method was changed again to require Congress to call a convention to propose amendments on the application of two-thirds of the states. Madison did not see why Congress would not be equally bound by two-thirds of the states directly proposing amendments as opposed to the same number calling for an amendments convention, especially when the proposed Article V convention process left so many unresolved questions. In the end, Madison did not object to including an amendments convention “except only that difficulties might arise as to the form, the quorum etc. which in constitutional regulations ought to be as much as possible avoided.”

The careful consideration of the amending power demonstrates that the Framers would have been astonished by more recent theories claiming the right of the Supreme Court to superintend a “living” or “evolving” Constitution outside of the amendment process. More significantly, the double supermajority requirements – two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and three-quarters of the states – create extensive deliberation and stability in the amendment process and restrain factions and special interests. It helps keep the Constitution as a “constitution,” and not an assemblage of legislative enactments. Most importantly, it also roots the amending process in the Founders’ unique concept of structural federalism based on the dual sovereignty of the state and national governments.

The advantage of the Amendments Clause was immediately apparent. The lack of a bill of rights – the Convention had considered and rejected this option – became a rallying cry during the ratification debate. Partly to head off an attempt to call for another general convention or an open-ended amendments convention, but mostly to legitimize the Constitution among patriots who were Anti-Federalists, the advocates of the Constitution (led by Madison) agreed to add amendments in the first session of Congress. North Carolina and Rhode Island acceded to the Constitution, and further disagreements were cabined within the constitutional structure.

Madison had wanted the amendments that became the Bill of Rights to be interwoven into the relevant sections of the Constitution. More for stylistic rather than substantive reasons, though, Congress proposed (and set the precedent for) amendments appended separately at the end of the document. Some have argued that this method makes amendments more susceptible to an activist interpretation than they would be otherwise.

As Madison predicted, the difficulties inherent in an Article V amendments convention have prevented its use, though some state applications (depending on how those applications are written and counted, an additional controversy in the Article V convention process) have come within one or two states of the requisite two-thirds. Precisely because of the potential chaos of the process, the very threat of an amendments convention can be used to pressure Congress to act rather than risk an amendments convention. The movement favoring direct election of Senators was just one state away from an amending convention when Congress proposed the Seventeenth Amendment in 1911. Most recently, in the 1980s, state applications for a convention to propose a balanced budget amendment led Congress to vote on such an amendment and pass the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act (later declared unconstitutional in part by the Supreme Court) requiring the federal budget to be balanced.

There have been hundreds of applications for an amending convention over the years from virtually every state. Because no amending convention has ever occurred, an important question is whether such a convention can be limited in scope, either to a particular proposal or within a particular subject. While most calls for amending conventions in the nineteenth century were general, the modern trend is to call (and thus count applications) for conventions limited to considering a single, specific amendment. Some scholars maintain that such attempts violate the very mechanism created by Article V: the text says that upon application of the states Congress “shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,” not for confirming a particular amendment already written, approved, and proposed by state legislatures (which would effectively turn the convention for proposing amendments into a ratifying convention). Indeed, it is not at all clear as a matter of constitutional construction (and doubtful in principle) that the power of two-thirds of the states to issue applications for a convention restricts, supersedes, or overrides the power of all the states assembled in that convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. Other questions include the many practical aspects of how an amending convention would operate and whether any aspects of such a convention (including going beyond its instructions) would be subject to judicial review.

The Federalist Papers, unfortunately, offer no guidance on this matter. Madison refers to amendment conventions in Federalist No. 43 only in general terms, noting that Article V “equally enables the general and the State governments to originate the amendment of errors.” And in Federalist No. 85, while Hamilton discusses how Congress cannot limit the scope of an Article V convention, he says nothing as to whether states can or cannot do so.

The requirement that amendments proposed by such a convention must be ratified by three-fourths of the states is a significant limit on the process and likely prevents a true “runaway” convention from fundamentally altering the Constitution. Serious scholars will undoubtedly continue to debate the historical record and speculate about the possibility of an amendments convention under Article V. Nevertheless, the lack of precedent, extensive unknowns, and considerable risks of an Article V amendments convention should bring sober pause to advocates of legitimate constitutional reform contemplating this avenue.

While a valid method created and available under the Constitution, “a Convention for proposing Amendments” has never been viewed as just another tool for reform but has become ever more so an ultimate option to be deployed only in extremis for the sake of maintaining the Constitution. Hence, the only time Madison pointed to an amendments convention was during the Nullification Crisis of 1832 as a last-ditch effort to prevent the wholly unacceptable and unconstitutional alternative of nullification and secession that then threatened the continued existence of the United States. Likewise, when Abraham Lincoln looked to constitutional reforms to resolve disputed questions in the midst of the Civil War, he noted that “under existing circumstances” the convention mode “seems preferable” precisely because it “allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose.” Yet when the immediate crisis was over, Lincoln strongly advocated what became the Thirteenth Amendment by congressional proposal and did not pursue an amending convention, despite the amendment’s initial failure in the House of Representatives. It should be noted that in both cases an amendments convention was understood to be free to propose whatever amendments thought necessary to address the problems at issue.

Much greater certainty – not to mention extensive historical experience and proven political viability – exists as to the power of Congress to propose amendments. Since 1789, well over 5,000 bills proposing to amend the Constitution have been introduced in Congress; thirty-three amendments have been sent to the states for ratification. Of those sent to the states, two have been defeated, four are still pending, and twenty-seven have been ratified. Because of the national distribution of representation in Congress, most amendment proposals are defeated by a lack of general support and those amendments that are proposed to the states by Congress are generally likely to be ratified.

In a challenge to the Eleventh Amendment, the Supreme Court waved aside the suggestion that amendments proposed by Congress must be submitted to the President according to the Presentment Clause (Article I, Section 7, Clause 2). Hollingsworth v. Virginia (1798). In the National Prohibition Cases (1920), the Court held that the “two-thirds of both Houses” requirement applies to a present quorum, not the total membership of each body. One year later, in Dillon v. Gloss (1921), the Court allowed Congress, when proposing an amendment, to set a reasonable time limit for ratification by the states.

Since 1924, no amendment has been proposed without a ratification time limit, although the Twenty-seventh Amendment, proposed by Madison in the First Congress more than two hundred years ago, was finally ratified in 1992. Regardless of how an amendment is proposed, Article V gives Congress authority to direct the mode of ratification. United States v. Sprague (1931). Of the ratified amendments, all but the Twenty-first Amendment, which was ratified by state conventions, have been ratified by state legislatures. In Hawke v. Smith (1920), the Court struck down an attempt by Ohio to make that state’s ratification of constitutional amendments subject to a vote of the people, holding that where Article V gives authority to state legislatures, these bodies are exercising a federal function.

Although some scholars have asserted that certain kinds of constitutional amendments might be “unconstitutional,” actual substantive challenges to amendments have so far been unsuccessful. National Prohibition Cases (1920); Leser v. Garnett (1922). The Supreme Court’s consideration of procedural challenges thus far does not extend beyond the 1939 decision of Coleman v. Miller, dealing with Kansas’s ratification of a child labor amendment. The Court split on whether state ratification disputes are nonjusticiable political questions, but then held that Congress, “in controlling the promulgation of the adoption of constitutional amendment[s],” should have final authority over ratification controversies.

In the end, the Framers believed that the amendment process would protect the Constitution from undue change at the same time that it would strengthen the authority of the Constitution with the people by allowing its deliberate reform while elevating it above immediate political passions. “The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government,” George Washington wrote in his Farewell Address of 1796. “But the Constitution which at any time exists, ‘till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People, is sacredly obligatory upon all.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.
————————————————————————————————————————
.

Related video:

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————
.

Related links:

.
Click HERE to read the first chapter of Mark Levin’s newest book THE LIBERTY AMENDMENTS onlline.

.

………………Click on the image above to purchase Mark’s book.

.
————————————————————————————————————————
.

Related video:

.

.
————————————————————————————————————————
.

Related links:

.
Click HERE to visit CONVENTIONOFSTATES.COM.

Click HERE to visit THEPEOPLESCONVENTION.ORG.

.

*AUDIO* Mark Levin: Cliven Bundy Versus The Federal Leviathan


.

*VIDEO* Andrew Klavan: The Revolting Truth About Obamacare


.

6 Arguments Only A Liberal Could Believe (John Hawkins)

6 Arguments Only A Liberal Could Believe – John Hawkins

.
…………

.

“Arguing with liberals… it’s like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around like it’s victorious.” – Anonymous

“If you can somehow force a liberal into a point-counterpoint argument, his retorts will bear no relation to what you’ve said – unless you were in fact talking about your looks, your age, your weight, your personal obsessions, or whether you are a fascist. In the famous liberal two-step, they leap from one idiotic point to the next, so you can never nail them. It’s like arguing with someone with Attention Deficit Disorder.” – Ann Coulter

It’s almost impossible to have any kind of meaningful discussion with a liberal because while you’re trying to come up with logical points to support your position, he’s trying to come up with new ways to convince people you’re Hitler. Modern liberalism has turned into a willful embrace of stupidity. It’s all about setting reason and intellect aside in order to take an emotionally-satisfying position that makes a liberal feel better about himself. This is how people who are undeniably intelligent can feel good about taking brainless positions that hurt a lot of people. While liberals have emotionally blinded themselves so totally that they believe they’re taking compassionate, intellectual, well-crafted stands, this is how they sound to everyone who’s not a liberal.

1) Everyone who disagrees with a liberal is racist! The Tea Party? Racist! Republicans? Racist! Fox News? Racist? Black conservatives? Racist! Barack Obama’s grandma? Racist! Do I think Social Security is solvent? My position on that is that “You’re a racist!” What do I think about flattening the tax code? Sarah Palin is a racist! Do I like potatoes? Well, Republicans eat potatoes sometimes; so potatoes are racist! Racist, racist, racist!

2) We’re all going to die because man is causing global warming! Proof? It’s science! Granted, no one can explain the science that proves global warming. But, science isn’t about science, it’s about repeating the word “science” over and over again like a magic incantation. Science, science, sciencey, sciencey science! See? It’s science and scientists agree that it’s science! Why do you hate science so much? Why do you want polar bears to die? Oh, and science!

3) (Before Obamacare was passed) Everyone should support Obamacare because it will cover all of the uninsured, it’ll save you money on health care, you’ll get to keep your doctor and it’ll be super convenient! It’s going to be the greatest thing ever! (Now) Sure, Obamacare mostly insures people it knocked off of their existing insurance, it costs a lot more, you can’t keep your doctor and the website is insanely difficult to deal with, but it’s the greatest thing ever!

4) Guns cause crime and if we take guns away from people who haven’t broken the law yet, then criminals will also not have guns somehow. Gun-free zones also protect people from criminals, who we’re sure won’t enter “gun-free zones” for some reason. Unless they do…. Which proves the problem is actually law abiding gun owners somehow or another. And that’s why we need more and more gun laws until all the people who obey gun laws can’t have guns any more, which will save us from criminals and crazy people who don’t care about the law.

5) You can’t expect black people to get voter ID. I mean, white guys? Sure. Hispanics? No problem. Asians and Jews? Obviously. But, have you met any black people in your life? You really think they’re capable of going to a government office with the proper paperwork and coming out with identification with their name on it? These guys? Seriously? Seriously? Okay, well, right after you run across a black American who can figure out how to get his own ID, why don’t we set up classrooms to teach cats how to do Algebra. Hey, Mr. Kitty, 3x + 10 + 2x = 12 + 4x? Black people getting IDs? Geeze…

6) Republicans are waging a war on women! You can tell because they oppose killing female babies and think women should buy their own birth control, just like men! Also, they’re so mean to women! For example, they oppose Hillary Clinton becoming President – obviously because she’s a woman. All criticism of women from conservatives is based on gender. Not like criticism of that @%$#^ Sarah Palin, who is so incredibly, unbelievably stupid that she only managed to become a mayor, a governor, a VP candidate, put out best selling books, had a successful TV show and became a wealthy, sought-after speaker while getting married and having 5 kids. She’s almost as bad as those @#$%!*$ – Michelle Malkin, S.E. Cupp, and Dana Loesch, although a little more evil than Ann Coulter and Megyn Kelly and more of a @#%@^$%^ #@$%^&(*^ @#$%^ than Laura Ingraham and Jan Brewer! Also, conservatives call women names!

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Ed’s 2016 Executive Branch Dream Team (Videos)


PRESIDENT – TED CRUZ
U.S. Senator/Former Texas Solicitor General/Former Director Of The Office Of Policy Planning For The Federal Trade Commission/Former Associate Deputy Attorney General For The U.S. Department Of Justice/Former Domestic Policy Advisor To U.S. President George W. Bush For The 2000 Bush-Cheney Campaign/Former Adjunct Professor Of Law At The University Of Texas School Of Law, Austin/Attorney

.

VICE PRESIDENT – SCOTT WALKER
Wisconsin Governor/Former Wisconsin State Assemblyman/Former Milwaukee County Executive/Former Marketer And Fundraiser For The American Red Cross

.

CHIEF OF STAFF – MARK LEVIN
President Of The Landmark Legal Foundation/Former Associate Director Of Presidential Personnel For The Reagan Administration/Former Deputy Assistant Secretary For Elementary And Secondary Education At The U.S. Department Of Education/Former Deputy Solicitor At The U.S. Department Of The Interior/Former Chief Of Staff To Attorney General Edwin Meese/Talk Raido Host/Historian/Author/Attorney

.

ATTORNEY GENERAL – TREY GOWDY
U.S. Congressman/Former District Attorney For South Carolina’s Seventh Judicial Circuit/Former Federal Prosecutor With The U.S. Attorney For The District Of South Carolina/Former Law Clerk For John P. Gardner On The South Carolina Court Of Appeals And United States District Court Judge Ross Anderson/Attorney

.

SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY – FRANK GAFFNEY
Founder And President Of The Center For Security Policy/Founder Of The Set America Free Coalition/Former Deputy Assistant Secretary Of Defense For Nuclear Forces And Arms Control Policy/Former Assistant Secretary Of Defense For International Security Policy/Former Senate Armed Services Committee Staff Member/Talk Radio Host/Producer/Columnist/Author

.

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE – STANLEY MCCHRYSTAL
Retired United States Army Four-Star General/Former Commander Of International Security Assistance Force/Former Commander Of U.S. Forces Afghanistan/Former Director Of Joint Staff/ Former Commander Of Joint Special Operations Command

.

DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE – KEITH ALEXANDER
United States Army Four-Star General/Director Of The National Security Agency/Chief Of The Central Security Service/Commander Of The United States Cyber Command/Former Deputy Chief Of Staff, G-2, U.S. Army

.

SECRETARY OF STATE – JOHN BOLTON
Former Ambassador To The United Nations/Former Assistant Secretary For International Organization Affairs At The Department Of State/Former Assistant Attorney General At The Department Of Justice/Former Assistant Administrator For Program And Policy Coordination At The U.S. Agency For International Development/Former General Counsel At The U.S. Agency For International Development/Attorney

.

CHAIRMAN OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE – MARK THORNTON
Senior Fellow At The Ludwig Von Mises Institute/Book Review Editor Of The Quarterly Journal Of Austrian Economics/Former Editor Of The Austrian Economics Newsletter/Editorial Board Member Of The Journal Of Libertarian Studies/Former Economics Professor At Auburn University At Montgomery And Trinity University In Texas/Former Assistant Superintendent Of Banking And Economic Adviser To Alabama Governor Fob James/Author

.

SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY – THOMAS SOWELL
Senior Fellow At The Hoover Institution At Stanford University/Former Professor Of Economics At Howard University, Rutgers University, Cornell University, Brandeis University, Amherst College And UCLA/Former Fellow At The Center For Advanced Study In The Behavioral Sciences At Stanford University/Former Project Director At The Urban Institute/Columnist/Author

.

DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET – NEWT GINGRICH
Former Speaker Of The U.S. House Of Representatives/Architect Of The ‘Contract With America’/Former House Minority Whip/Former Time Magazine ‘Man Of The Year’/Former Assistant Professor Of History And Geography At West Georgia College/Founder And Chairman Of American Solutions For Winning The Future And The Center For Health Transformation/Founder Of The Conservative Opportunity Society/Distinguished Visiting Scholar And Professor At The United States Air Force’s Air University And The National Defense University/Member Of The Council On Foreign Relations/Guiding Coalition Member Of The Project On National Security Reform/Founder And Chairman Of Gingrich Productions/Political Consultant/Historian/Lecturer/Author

.

SECRETARY OF ENERGY – REX TILLERSON
Chairman, President And CEO Of Exxon Mobil Corporation/Engineer/Trustee For The Center For Strategic And International Studies And The American Petroleum Institute/Former President Of Exxon Yemen Inc And Esso Exploration And Production Khorat Incorporated/Former Vice President Of Exxon Ventures/Former President Of Exxon Neftegas Limited/Former Executive Vice President Of ExxonMobil Development Company

.

SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR – SARAH PALIN
Former Alaska Governor/Former Wasilla Mayor/Former Wasilla City Councilwoman/Former Chairwoman Of The Alaska Oil And Gas Conservation Commission/Former Head Of The Fellowship Of Christian Athletes/Former Sportscaster For KTUU-TV And KTVA-TV/Former Sports Reporter For The Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman/Former Miss Wasilla/Political Commentator/Author

.

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS – ALLEN WEST
Former U.S. Congressman/Retired United States Army Lieutenant Colonel/Former Military Professional Resources Incorporated Adviser To The Afghan National Army/Former U.S. History Teacher And Track And Field Coach At Deerfield Beach High School, Deerfield Beach, Florida/Founder Of The Allen West Guardian Fund And The Allen West Foundation/Political Commentator/Columnist/Author

.

UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE – TERRY MILLER
Director Of The Center For International Trade And Economics/Kolokotrones Fellow In Economic Freedom At The Heritage Foundation/Editor Of The Annual Index Of Economic Freedom/Former Ambassador To The United Nations Economic And Social Council/Former Deputy Assistant Secretary Of State For Economic And Global Issues/Former Director Of The Office Of Agricultural And Textile Trade/Former Director Of The Office Of Human Rights, Social And Refugee Affairs/Former Director Of Economic And Development Affairs At The Bureau Of International Organisations/Former Head Of The U.S. Observer Mission To The U.N. Educational, Scientific And Cultural Organization/Former Head Of The U.S. Delegation To The U.N. Conference On Trade And Development/Former Lead Negotiator For The Monterrey Consensus On Financing For Development/Columnist

.

DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT – JOE ARPAIO
Sheriff Of Maricopa County, Arizona/Former Military Policeman In The U.S Army/Former Police Officer In Las Vegas, Nevada/Former Special Agent With The Federal Bureau Of Narcotics (Later DEA)/Former Head Of The DEA’s Arizona Branch/Author

.

SURGEON GENERAL – BEN CARSON
Former Director Of Pediatric Neurosurgery And Professor Of Neurosurgery, Oncology, Plastic Surgery And Pediatrics At Johns Hopkins Hospital/Former Co-Director Of The Johns Hopkins Craniofacial Center/Recipient Of The Presidential Medal Of Freedom/Member Of The American Academy Of Achievement And The Horatio Alger Association Of Distinguished Americans/Recipient Of The Jefferson Award For Greatest Public Service Benefiting The Disadvantaged/Member Of The National Academy Of Sciences Institute Of Medicine/Holder Of 38 Honorary Doctorate Degrees/Columnist/Political Commentator/Author

.

SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION – TED HOUGHTON
Chairman Of The Texas Transportation Commission/Former Member Of The El Paso School Land Board/Former Member Of The El Paso Water Utilities Public Service Board/Former Member Of The El Paso Rapid Transit Board/Former Vice President And Chairman Of The El Paso Public Relations And Communications Committee/Former Treasurer Of The El Paso Political Action Committee/Former Member Of The El Paso Electric Company Board Of Directors/Former President Of The Sun Bowl Association/Former Member Of The 1984 Los Angeles Olympic Committee

.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES – PAMELA PAULK
Senior Vice President For Human Resources For The Johns Hopkins Health System And Johns Hopkins Medicine/Co-Founder And President Of The Baltimore Alliance For Careers In Healthcare/President Of The Baltimore Community Mediation Board Of Directors/Member Of The Baltimore Employee Health Plan Board Of Directors/Member Of The Baltimore Leadership Class Of 2000/Member Of The Baltimore Workforce Investment Board/Former Director Of Operations Integration For The Johns Hopkins Health System/Former Interim Director For Johns Hopkins Home Care Group/Former Vice President Of Johns Hopkins International Global Services/Former National Consultant And Senior Vice President Of Operations For A Private Psychiatric Practice

.

PRESS SECRETARY – BILL WHITTLE
Co-founder Of Declaration Entertainment/Director/Screenwriter/Editor/Narrator/Political Commentator/Columnist/Pilot/Video Blogger/Author

.

————————————————————————————————————————
.

NEW OFFICES/AGENCIES

SECRETARY OF FREE MARKET CAPITALISM – ARTHUR BROOKS
President Of The American Enterprise Institute/Curry Scholar In Free Enterprise At The American Enterprise Institute/Former Professor Of Business, Economics, Social Entrepreneurship And Government At Syracuse University/Former Professor Of Public Administration At Syracuse University/Former Associate Professor At Syracuse University Maxwell School Of Citizenship And Public Affairs/Former Associate Professor At Syracuse University Whitman School Of Management/Former Assistant Professor Of Public Administration And Economics At Georgia State University/Former Doctoral Fellow And Consultant At The RAND Corporation/Former Professor Of French Horn At Lynn University Harid Conservatory Of Music/Former Classical French Hornist/Economist/Columnist/Author

.

DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT DOWNSIZING – THOMAS SCHATZ
President Of Citizens Against Government Waste And Its Lobbying Affiliate The Council For Citizens Against Government Waste/Former Legislative Director For Congressman Hamilton Fish Jr./Spokesman/Attorney/Columnist

.

————————————————————————————————————————
.

DISCONTINUED OFFICES/AGENCIES

SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
SECRETARY OF LABOR
SECRETARY OF EDUCATION
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED NATIONS

.

*VIDEO* Judge Jeanine Pirro Verbally Bitchslaps Obama Over Dictatorial Behavior


.

*VIDEOS* It’s Sunday! Time For Walid Shoebat To School All You Heathens On The Difference Between Christendom And Islam



.

.

.

.
Click HERE to visit Mr. Shoebat’s official website.

H/T The Right Scoop

.

*VIDEO* Dana Loesch Interviews Uncle Ted Nugent


.

*VIDEO* Black Chicagoans React To The State Of The Union Address – Obama, Just Quit!


.
H/T Gateway Pundit

.

State Of The Union: Obama To Disqualify Himself From Office (Jay Severin)

State Of The Union: Obama To Disqualify Himself From Office – Jay Severin

Some short-sighted observers are under the impression Obama’s State of the Union speech will be “insignificant.”

Some beg to differ.

Tuesday night Barack Obama is going to declare he’s both a Marxist and an enemy of the Constitution of the United States.

He will, thus, plead guilty to charges of Impeachment.

That qualifies for Page One, no?

.

.
Whether “Republicans” can actually make anything of it is another story.

But the astonishing prospect remains clear: Obama will state he is for ending “Income Inequality” (i.e. “I am a Marxist”) and that he intends to pursue that, and other left-wing policies, “with or without Congress.”

Without Congress?

Indeed?

Obama’s people call it a plan for a “Year of Action.” Guess what kind of action? The kind characteristic in South American and African juntas.

Obama’s flaks say it is a plan to enable El Presidente to “re-assert command.”

Say again?!

Interesting political system.

Problem is, it isn’t ours.

Obama’s brazen pre-fight threat to wield “my pen and my telephone” (more Steve Martin, “The Jerk,” than General Patton) to circumvent the Congress is, admittedly, novel.

It also happens to be blatantly Un (nay Anti-) Constitutional.

But why should that trouble Obama – the Harvard Law “constitutional expert,” so long as it serves partisan politics?

Speaking of which: when a President defies the law, aren’t we supposed to have Checks and Balances preventing it?

And we would. Only if we had any Real Republicans.

The State of the Union will be historical, hysterical in fact.

But it’s arrogance and illegality matter only if there is a countervailing force to challenge it.

That would, in theory, be the opposition party.

Republicans, Helloooooo? Anybody home?

Think about it; if you haven’t. We have: Obama vows to unilaterally “end income inequality” (you know, for the first time ever, on earth, in human history), and do it totally in defiance of our elected representatives, what do you call that?

We – and my 4th grader – call it: UnAmerican, Lawless, Impeachable.

But Impeachment is as Impeachment does.

If the opposition party sits on its hands (and rumor is, it will do worse*), then Obama can threaten, and do, anything.

(Rumor has it turncoat John “Benedict Arnold” Boehner, “Republican Leader” has cut the deal with Darth Obama to usher in massive amnesty for criminaliens. This will equal Game Over).

Given what Obama is planning to actually say Tuesday night – forgetting for the moment what we know he is planning to do thereafter – if the opposition has anybody, they will more than sit down when Obama rants.

They will stand up, turn their backs on this “Manchurian Candidate,” and storm out of the chamber.

Given the fundamental, mortal Constitutional sins expected of Obama in this historic State of the Union, this is the very least Real Republicans – Real Patriots – ought do.

But if these, our only hopes, demonstrate merely the pro-forma, nauseatingly polite, socially acceptable umbrage of, say, the model “Republican” John Boner(s), we’re sunk.

If there is nobody to make the case against Obama – there is no case!

And what do I mean by sunk?

I mean the crime – and political opportunity – of a President of the United States that stands before our elected representatives (i.e. you and I), and declares, screw you – I’ll do what I want… I mean, if we stand for that, we get what we deserve.

And we deserve better.

Stay tuned.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

*VIDEO* Greg Gutfeld Eviscerates Commie-Loving Rolling Stone Magazine


.

*VIDEO* Bill Whittle: Into The River!


.

Fed-Up Veteran Writes Letter Telling Rep. Ryan What He Thinks Of ‘Bipartisan’ Budget Deal

Fed-Up Veteran Tells Paul Ryan What He Thinks Of ‘Bipartisan’ Budget Deal In Viral Open Letter – The Blaze

Chuck Wooten, a military veteran, was already ticked off about Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) pushing through the “bipartisan” budget deal, which includes cuts to veterans’ retirement benefits. So when he got a fundraising email from Ryan’s office asking for money, he decided to really let the Wisconsin congressman know how he feels.

.
…………………

.
The scathing open letter, posted on Facebook last week, is going viral – and you only have to read the first few sentences to know why. It should be noted that because Wooten’s Facebook page is set to private, we weren’t able to review the original post on his wall and had to rely on re-posts.

“Please note that this request by you for a cash donation from me is extremely unfortunate and very ill-timed,” Wooten writes in the open letter to Ryan. “You see sir, I am one of the military retirees your ‘bipartisan’ budget just impacted. You and every Republican (both in the House and Senate) that voted to pass this travesty betrayed and broke trust with me and everyone like me.”

He continued: “You may not know us by name, but we’re the people, Congressman, who answered our Nation’s call, some of us at a very early age to willingly serve YOU and others LIKE YOU so you could safely attend college and pursue your personal ambitions without fear of harm.”

Wooten went on to remind Ryan of the bravery his “brothers-in-arms” display every single day as they boldly answer the call of duty, “without fail, without complaint.”

“And for that service, we were given absolute assurance our so-called retirement benefits would be protected by law. The very law you shattered in your zeal to impress your Democratic cohorts in your back room deal–with the enemy. Yes, I said it. The liberal Democrats are an enemy to the American people and our Nation,” the veteran writes. “Your lack of judgement and eagerness to compromise on the backs of us who protected you is sickening.”

Wooten concludes by assuring Ryan and his Republican “colleagues” who supported the budget deal that they will “NEVER” receive another cent of financial support from him.

“Remove me from your contact lists,” he added.

In an exclusive interview with TheBlaze on Thursday, Wooten explained that he was stunned by the “grand irony” of Ryan’s team asking for money after putting together the “backroom deal” that cuts military benefits.

“You’re picking my pocket and then you’re asking me for a handout,” he said.

Still, Wooten told TheBlaze he never anticipated all the attention his open letter has generated so far.

He also made it clear that he does not speak for the U.S. Air Force or the U.S. military, but shares the same views of many other veterans who feel betrayed by politicians in Washington.

Read the entire viral letter below and share the post:

FB Friends,

I’m still mulling this Paul Ryan budget deal that stole money from every military retiree (past, present and future). This morning, upon opening my email, I noticed I had a letter from Congressman Paul Ryan… and it was begging me for an “emergency end of the year donation.” It only proves what we already know. The folks in Washington are indeed clueless. Instead of hitting the delete button, I decided to call Congressman Ryan out on his audacity and lack of self-awareness. I sent the following to him. I’m also posting it on the FB USAF Chiefs page as an open letter to the Congressman. If you’re a retiree, I will tell you we may have lost the battle, but not the war. If you’re inclined and find it worthy, let’s flood social media with this letter and see if we can get some traction. Thanks.

To Congressman Paul Ryan
Today at 8:19 AM
Congressman Ryan,

Please note that this request by you for a cash donation from me is extremely unfortunate and very ill-timed. You see sir, I am one of the military retirees your “bipartisan” budget just impacted. You and every Republican (both in the House and Senate that voted to pass this travesty betrayed and broke trust with me and everyone like me. You may not know us by name, but we’re the people, Congressman, who answered our Nation’s call, some of us at a very early age to willingly serve YOU and others LIKE YOU so you could safely attend college and pursue your personal ambitions without fear of harm.

You might also want to note that for at least 20 years, my brothers-in-arms answered that call of duty EVERY SINGLE DAY, without fail, without complaint, without enough money to sustain our loved ones we had to leave behind while we DID OUR JOB in every corner of the Earth. And for that service, we were given absolute assurance our so-called retirement benefits would be protected by law. The very law you shattered in your zeal to impress your Democratic cohorts in your back room deal with the enemy. Yes, I said it. The liberal Democrats are an enemy to the American people and our Nation. Your lack of judgement and eagerness to compromise on the backs of us who protected you is sickening. Congressman, you and every Republican that voted for injuring military retirees have engaged in a complicit, sordid affair with the Democrats who’s objective has always been to dismantle the military. By climbing into their bed on this issue, you have confirmed you are absolutely no better than they and have proven it with your vote.

Congressman Ryan, the audacity which you display is noteworthy, but to unceremoniously snatch earned money from a small group that has added so much more value than the paltry $6B you looked to “save” (which is all smoke and mirrors and you know it), is reprehensible and insulting.

We have, despite the hardships, meager salaries and harsh conditions, have performed with honor and excellence… in silence, which is something most members of Congress have no idea about doing. Our job approval was, is and always be better than yours. We knew our mission and we got it done, then handed it off to a new generation in better shape than we found it.

Your ability to look us in the eye, take money from us (apparently there was ZERO, other source of waste within the federal government that you could have recovered this money from…right, got it), while simultaneously holding your hand out to beg (with passion) for our cash is stunning. Your actions have proven you do not have the tremendous intellect you’ve sold the American people on. I say, with all seriousness, Congressman, what you lack in intellect and spinal rigidity, you make up for in cajones.

I hope you and your cowardly, Republican “colleagues” hear a message from me loud and clear. You will NEVER receive another cent of financial support from me. Further, if you happen to be at a Capitol Hill dinner or at a K Street cocktail party with RNC Chair Reince Priebus, Rep. Ron Barber, Sen. Jeff Flake or Sen. John McCain, I would be honored if you communicate with them that I am launching an effort to ensure NONE of you traitorous “representatives of the people” ever receive another vote from a military retiree. Remove me from your contact lists.

Chuck Wooten,
Chief Master Sergeant, USAF (Ret)

President Barack Obama signed the budget deal on Thursday while vacationing in Hawaii, according to the Associated Press.

“The deal reduces across-the-board cuts already scheduled to take effect, restoring about $63 billion over two years. It includes a projected $85 billion in other savings,” the AP reports.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

The Suddenly Competent Incompetents (Russ Vaughn)

The Suddenly Competent Incompetents – Russ Vaughn

All I can say is “Wow!” Just when we’re all thinking this Obama administration is corrosively corrupt and consummately incompetent, they go and do something that just has to make us all pause and rethink our strongly held beliefs that the federal government is too massive and immovable to be either responsive to the needs of the citizenry or efficient. Here we are out here in flyover country, remote from all those coastal centers of incestuous intellectualism, pounding on our keyboards about all the predicted and daily unveiling failings of ObamaCare, and damn all if this Obama administration doesn’t go and show all us religious, gun-clingin’ fools that, by gosh, they can move with amazing alacrity when it is important to America suits their agenda.

.

.
What I’m referring to, if you haven’t heard, is the absolutely amazing rapid response to a request by several Democrat senators, to do something, for Pete’s sake, about this horrendous, looming mandate (federal noncompliance fine) that’s going to really piss off some voters back in their home states if it isn’t delayed. What’s ever so surprising is that some of these solicitous senatorial signatories, Begich, Pryor, Landrieu, and Hagan, all of whom voted for this lame legislation, are up for re-election in November. My own senator, Mark Pryor, has suddenly rediscovered the importance of the bible in this campaign year and another senator to my south, little Mary Half-Moon Landrieu, who’s support for ObamaCare came at a hefty price, has discovered that maybe she shouldn’t have sold out, too cheaply or otherwise. Little Contrary Mary peddled her political posterior and now wants it back when her past is coming back to bite her.

But enough about senatorial weasels, let’s look at those improbably industrious administration ants who, unable to build their humongous health-care system and its online enrollment website in three-plus years, have managed to respond to the demands of those senators in less than a day. All I can say, once again, is “Wow!” That’s right, in just one day, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, under tremendous pressures to correct all the many problems with her legislative Frankenstein, amazingly found the time to sit down and compose this extensive missive to the concerned senators. This executive edict grants them their every wish, by exempting failed applicants to Obamacare who have lost their insurance due to the poorly thought through provisions of the original, recklessly passed legislation,so that they now will be considered as hardship cases and therefore exempt from the fines mandated for those who fail to obtain coverage.

But just put it out of your damned old suspicious, conservative minds that such an executive fiat is clearly illegal and unconstitutional and that those issues were probably not considered by these incompetent clowns in their haste to serve their needy allies:

Democrat senators… up for re-election.

I know, I know, you’re thinking it’s just another cynical set-up by an arrogant administration led by the most self-centered and inept president in our nation’s history.All you skeptics reading here who see this event as just another pre-planned, butt-covering move by this Keystone Kops administration, should lighten up just a bit and give some credit where credit’s due; such as for these corruptocrats who are clearly and cleverly competent at covering up their incomparable incompetence. Hey, when this hapless turkey can respond to a senatorial request and effect the requested policy change in less than a day, you have to put aside your suspicions of a political fix and give credit where credit is due.

Yeah, right…

Who do these bungling fools think they’re fooling?

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.

Thus Spake Obama (Mark Steyn)

Thus Spake Obama – Mark Steyn

.

It is a condition of my admission to this great land that I am not allowed to foment the overthrow of the United States government. Oh, I signed it airily enough, but you’d be surprised, as the years go by, how often the urge to foment starts to rise in one’s gullet. Fortunately, at least as far as constitutional government goes, the president of the United States is doing a grand job of overthrowing it all by himself.

On Thursday, he passed a new law at a press conference. George III never did that. But, having ordered America’s insurance companies to comply with Obamacare, the president announced that he is now ordering them not to comply with Obamacare. The legislative branch (as it’s still quaintly known) passed a law purporting to grandfather your existing health plan. The regulatory bureaucracy then interpreted the law so as to un-grandfather your health plan. So His Most Excellent Majesty has commanded that your health plan be de-un-grandfathered. That seems likely to work. The insurance industry had three years to prepare for the introduction of Obamacare. Now the King has given them six weeks to de-introduce Obamacare.

“I wonder if he has the legal authority to do this,” mused former Vermont governor Howard Dean. But he’s obviously some kind of right-wing wacko. Later that day, anxious to help him out, Congress offered to “pass” a “law” allowing people to keep their health plans. The same president who had unilaterally commanded that people be allowed to keep their health plans indignantly threatened to veto any such law to that effect: It only counts if he does it — geddit? As his court eunuchs at the Associated Press obligingly put it: “Obama Will Allow Old Plans.” It’s Barry’s world; we just live in it.

The reason for the benign Sovereign’s exercise of the Royal Prerogative is that millions of his subjects – or “folks,” as he prefers to call us, no fewer than 27 times during his press conference – have had their lives upended by Obamacare. Your traditional hard-core statist, surveying the mountain of human wreckage he has wrought, usually says, “Well, you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.” But Obama is the first to order that his omelet be unscrambled and the eggs put back in their original shells. Is this even doable? No. That’s the point. When it doesn’t work, he’ll be able to give another press conference blaming the insurance companies, or the state commissioners, or George W. Bush . . .

The most telling line, the one that encapsulates the gulf between the boundless fantasies of the faculty-lounge utopian and the messiness of reality, was this: “What we’re also discovering is that insurance is complicated to buy.” Gee, thanks for sharing, genius. Maybe you should have thought of that before you governmentalized one-sixth of the economy. By “we,” the president means “I.” Out here in the ruder provinces of his decrepit realm, we “folks” are well aware of how complicated insurance is. What isn’t complicated in the Sultanate of Sclerosis? But, as with so many other things, Obama always gives the vague impression that routine features of humdrum human existence are entirely alien to him. Marie Antoinette, informed that the peasantry could no longer afford bread, is alleged to have responded, “Let them eat cake.” There is no evidence these words ever passed her lips, but certainly no one ever accused her of saying, “If you like your cake, you can keep your cake,” and then having to walk it back with “What we’re also discovering is that cake is complicated to buy.” That contribution to the annals of monarchical unworldliness had to await the reign of Queen Barry Antoinette, whose powdered wig seems to have slipped over his eyes.

Still, as historian Michael Beschloss pronounced the day after his election, he’s “probably the smartest guy ever to become president.” Naturally, Obama shares this assessment. As he assured us five years ago, “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors.” Well, apart from his signature health-care policy. That’s a mystery to him. “I was not informed directly that the website would not be working,” he told us. The buck stops with something called “the executive branch,” which is apparently nothing to do with him. As evidence that he was entirely out of the loop, he offered this:

Had I been I informed, I wouldn’t be going out saying, “Boy, this is going to be great.” You know, I’m accused of a lot of things, but I don’t think I’m stupid enough to go around saying, “This is going to be like shopping on Amazon or Travelocity,” a week before the website opens, if I thought that it wasn’t going to work.

Ooooo-kay. So, if I follow correctly, the smartest president ever is not smart enough to ensure that his website works; he’s not smart enough to inquire of others as to whether his website works; he’s not smart enough to check that his website works before he goes out and tells people what a great website experience they’re in for. But he is smart enough to know that he’s not stupid enough to go around bragging about how well it works if he’d already been informed that it doesn’t work. So he’s smart enough to know that if he’d known what he didn’t know he’d know enough not to let it be known that he knew nothing. The country’s in the very best of hands.

Michael Beschloss is right: This is what it means to be smart in a neo-monarchical America. Obama spake, and it shall be so. And, if it turns out not to be so, why pick on him? He talks a good Royal Proclamation; why get hung up on details?

Until October 1, Obama had never done anything – not run a gas station, or a doughnut stand – other than let himself be wafted onward and upward to the next do-nothing gig. Even in his first term, he didn’t really do: Starting with the 2009 trillion-dollar stimulus, he ran a money-no-object government that was all money and no objects; he spent and spent, and left no trace. Some things he massively expanded (food stamps, Social Security disability) and other things he massively diminished (effective foreign policy), but all were, so to speak, preexisting conditions. Obamacare is the first thing Obama has actually done, and, if you’re the person it’s being done to, it’s not pretty.

The president promised to “fundamentally transform” America. Certainly, other men have succeeded in transforming settled, free societies: Pierre Trudeau did in Canada four decades ago, and so, in post-war Britain, did the less charismatic Clement Attlee. And, if you subscribe to their particular philosophy, their transformations were effected very efficiently. But Obama is an incompetent, so “fundamentally transformed” is a euphemism for “wrecked beyond repair.” As a socialist, he makes a good socialite.

But on he staggers, with a wave of his scepter, delaying this, staying that, exempting the other, according to his regal whim and internal polling. The omniscient beneficent Sovereign will now graciously “allow” us “folks” to keep all those junk plans from bad-apple insurers. Yet even the wisest King cannot reign forever, and what will happen decades down the road were someone less benign – perhaps even (shudder) a Republican – to ascend the throne and wield these mighty powers?

Hey, relax: If you like your constitution, you can keep your constitution. Period. And your existing amendments. Well, most of them – except for the junk ones…

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

.