Tuesday, September 17, 2019

Article Five Convention Could Save America

Our founding fathers were insightful guys!

From the outset, there was always a lurking fear that the government that they were creating might someday get away from the people that it was supposed to serve. Sadly that day has come.

I have attended "Convention of States" meetings. I have read carefully their positions. Most, if not all, I support.

For those not familiar, here is the skinny: We need 34 states to agree to hold a convention. But first, we must define the stark distinction between an Article Five convention and a Constitutional Convention. It's confusing!

In an Article Five Convention, the states "pre-set conditions within the existing structure." In a constitutional convention, it's more about "rewriting the government outside the existing structure."

I have heard horrible predictions by noteworthy people, regarding the dangers of a Constitutional convention. It amounts to anything can happen, depending on "who" is most influencing the convention.

An Article Five Convention poses fewer surprises. 34 states meet and make alterations within the existing structure.

Co-founder, Michael Ferris explains the distinction. The objectives are,

Reducing the size and scope of the Federal Government.
Fiscal restraint through a balanced budget amendment.
Enacting term limits for elected federal officials, including Supreme Court Justices.

Thus far, 15 of the needed 34 states have signed on.

When I attended a rally held in Frankfort, Kentucky it became painfully apparent Kentucky was not going to be an easy addition. Many in attendance who otherwise supported the measures, didn't like the idea of term limiting a Kentucky Senator, who had made his way to Majority leader!

There are others who are saying, "no so fast," when it comes to a balanced budget amendment!

In short, while the proposed measures gather justified support, the question becomes, "can we ever expect to gain participation from the required 34 states?

Here is a thought. "What if we focused on some critical issues that would address some current stalemates in Washington?"

Such as,

+- Making English official language in the U.S.
+- Mandating that ONLY American Citizens are allowed to vote
+- Requiring that all voters present photo identification at a polling center. No "ballot harvesting." Any absentee ballot would need to be applied for at the county clerk's office thirty days prior to the election.
+- Congressional Representation would be based of U.S. Citizens, not persons. When the Constitution was written, there was no such thing as an "American Citizen." You were a citizen of the state you resided.
+- Birthright citizenship would be defined as "any person born in the U.S. who was previously engaged in involuntary servitude or who had no previous status."
+- Chain Migration would be defined as "an immediate family member only."

I have no doubt that we can get 34 states to agree to these specifications!

Make no mistake! There should be discussion regarding reducing the size and scope of the federal government. Term limits should be on the table! And we must get our fiscal house in order! Yet, can we do these things before it's too late!

For skeptics, take a look at California! Facts are facts! We are running out of time!

America stands at a crossroads! We can "swing for the fences," hoping to hit a home run. Or, we can play "small ball," temporarily settling for singles and doubles.

It begins with returning control of the country to American citizens.



Sunday, September 8, 2019

Green New Deal May Run Through Russia- Part II

Last month, I posted what some might consider a preposterous idea: "Working with Russia to reduce global carbon emissions."

In fairness, there might be an insightful few who would ask, "Even if we offered to foot the tab, could we honestly trust Putin to do his part?"

To fully gain a valid answer, one merely needs to place themselves in Putin's, and most Russians' shoes for an instant. Their predicted response would be, "could we trust the Americans who were making such a proposal?"

Which brings us to their next question: "Which Americans?"

Russian intelligentsia concludes correctly that there are two Americas, vying for power and control in the United States. They have identified the two factions as "faith based, national populists," who are backing the President, and "secular, global socialists," who oppose him.

To do anything with the United States amounts to knowing "which" America that you are negotiating with.

Did the Russian leadership favor Trump's election. Yes, but for different reasons than most American media elites will acknowledge.

Contrary to popular opinion, Putin and his inside circle, are not the Communists. In fact, they are the opponents of the Communists in Russia.

Since 1993 Gennady Zyuganov had been the leader of the Russian Communist Party. Last year, the 73-year-old Zyuganov announced that he would not oppose Putin in the upcoming election. Instead, he was passing the mantle to 57-year-old Pavel Grudinin, who ran and lost.

The background of Pavel Grudinin is a separate topic for a different post. But, it should be noted that Zyuganov and Grudinin are friends with John Brennan, who served as C.I.A. Director under Barack Obama.

Putin and Associates see the commonalities between Donald Trump's opponents and their own. They see Trump as a Nationalist, which makes him both a more difficult negotiator, but easier to figure.

Putin is also a Nationalist. He loves Russia and doesn't have a problem with Trump's "America first" ideology. If anything, he admires Trump for making a point of it!

As one Putin surrogate phraised, "Putin is "nash ceela moosheena."(Our strong man) Trump is "vash ceela moosheena."(Your strong man).

Most recall the almost fanatical fixation Trump's opponents and Democrats held when Trump met with Putin in Helsinki. Some even wanted to interrogate the translator!

The fear is simple: "Trump and Putin might just cut a deal, that would derail their globalist agenda permanently."

It's a foregone conclusion that Putin would be willing to cut a deal with Trump. And Trump would be willing to "lock in granite" any deal that was favorable to Nationalist America.

Putin would see a "green new deal" instigated by Trump as an opportunity to work out other differences. Starting with Russian return to the G-7. Trump has already hinted that he thinks it's a good idea, while admitting that Putin might be too proud to embrace such an overture.

Then comes the new "Start" treaty, followed by the lifting of sanctions and the recognition of Crimean annexation. Neo-Cons, most Democrats and of course, the mainstream media, would likely experience convulsions!

Calls for impeachment would dominate the airwaves!

Yet, there would be an unanswered question: "What would the President get in return?"

Putin is nobody's fool! He would know that to gain those concessions, he would need to offer something in return. The idea of global carbon emission reduction would not be unwelcomed. In fact, it would be the foundation for something much bigger.

Let's start with Russia, Ukraine and Georgia becoming part of N.A.T.O. Unbeknownst to most, this was the secret want a decade ago. It could still happen. Could it happen? Those former Warsaw Pact nations would oppose it. Primarily because they didn't then and still don't trust the Russians. The rest of Europe could see logic behind peaceful relations throughout the continent.

Russians have made it clear that they were interested in "integrating, not submitting" to N.A.T.O. This would be a giant step. They would know that to gain such statue, there would need to be serious concessions.

Starting with peace in Eastern Ukraine, allowing Ukraine total access to the Sea of Azov. There would be Russian withdrawal of troops from the Transdneistria region of Moldova, allowing Ukraine to access this "Delaware sized" strip of Moldova, while allowing Moldova to reunite with Romania.

Russia would join the U.S. in mandating to Kim Jong Un, that "nuclear options would not be allowed on the peninsula."

Russia would exit the Western Hemisphere, abandoning Soviet vintage allies, Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua.

Russia would even help the United States establish an independent Kurdistan in Kurd held provinces, jointly committing to a condition of religious freedom for all.

It would be called, "an exchange of ideas." To insure that neither side regressed, America would adopt Russia's gender standards. Russia would adopt America's federal land bank. More on both in a future post.

Meanwhile, America's current emission standards would not only be adopted by Russia, but adopted, under the threat of sanctions, by China and India. In reality, this is the only "New Green Deal that will be a New Green Deal."

The bald truth about A.O.C. and friends version of the Green New Deal is that it won't work. But, reduction of carbon emission isn't the objective.

Simply put, it's about "recreating the Soviet Union in America." Nothing more. Nothing less.

Why?

It's called "power." THEIR power! It is incomprehensible the absolute power that A.O.C. and friends would gain, if they forced their Marxists agenda upon the well intended, but feckless American mainstream.

That the mainstream media would advocate such a ruse is inexcusable. But, they are part of it. Never forget this.

















Monday, September 2, 2019

Immigration Debate Fraught with Demagoguery

Immigration remains a hot topic for much of America. Most disquieting is how much "demagoguery" has slipped into the discussion!

At the center is "birthright citizenship." Over the decades, the idea that "if you were born in the U.S., you were automatically a citizen," was strategically spawned. Yet, in returning to that 1868 Reconstruction Congress and examining the actual intentions of the authors, a different meaning becomes plainly evident.

Two groups were included. "People who had been previously engaged in involuntary servitude." And, "people born in the U.S., who held no previous status." That's it! No other groups were included. No outside circumstances were considered.

Case in point: The Native American did not gain citizenship until 1924. Case closed!

Chain Migration is a bit more subjective. Was it intended for immediate family members only? Or, were extended families afforded the same inclusion?

Herein lies part of our nation's emerging "clash of perceptions."

Two points of view: (a) Open borders, anyone can come and bring along their distant relatives. (b) We should be more selective with whom we allow into the country, because half the planet would love to be here.

Those supporting "A" are quick to call "B" supporters, "racists."

Those supporting "B" respond in saying, "we need immigrants who can immediately assimilate and contribute; not
jump on the entitlement rolls!"

In 2008, then Louisiana Senator, David Vitter introduced legislation that would base Congressional representation on "U.S. citizens and not persons." To the average American, this amounted to nothing more than "semantics." A deeper look acknowledged that if adopted, California would lose six house seats, New York two and Illinois one. Nine different states would gain seats.

What does the Constitution say?

It says "persons." Because, at the time of it's writing, there was no such thing as a U.S. Citizen. You were a citizen of your state. Many U.S. residents held citizenship in another country as recently as 1900.

Senator Vitter's proposed legislation never made it out of committee. Yet, there remains strong support for it's adoption. So strong that if advocates of an Article Five Convention were smart, they would make this measure their top initiative! I have no doubt that the necessary 34 states would vote to adopt this standard!

Perhaps this is where our immigration discussion needs to begin. The United States was always meant to be a "melting pot." Not a "salad bowl!" We are a nation of immigrants. We need immigrants. The question becomes, "do we want immigrants who want to adopt our culture?" Or, "are we looking for immigrants who want to bring their culture to our shores?"

Hence our "clash of perceptions!'

Most disturbing is how one side, when sensing that they are losing the argument, readily turns to "racism" as the true position held by the other side. This is the worst kind of demagoguery!

Our country is unique. Most of us can claim ancestry that came from another land, seeking something better. In doing so, we have founded the greatest nation in the history of the world.

Those who disagree, probably don't need to be here.

Oops! I recently recall the current President suggesting something along those lines. He was called everything from a bigot to racist to a NAZI to a white supremacist!

From childhood, I recall a popular assertion: "America. Love her or leave her!" Never heard was the cry of "racist or bigot or NAZI or White Supremacist!"

My, how things have changed!

Maybe it's because there is an agenda behind this belief that it's okay to trash out country. Perhaps there are those who are inwardly embarrassed by our success as a nation. I do recall a previous president rushing to Europe to launch an "apology tour."

What I still can't fathom is "what was he apologizing for?" Saving it from Hitler?

When seen in this light, a new question emerges: "Are those who prescribe to position "A" the true fascists?" Jonah Goldberg thought so! In his book, "Liberal Fascism," he revealed a chilling hint that through political correctness, AKA "Cultural Marxism," those proponents of position "A" would ultimately squelch all opposition.

Sound familiar?

Riding point in this discussion is Immigration.

Should we open our borders and allow anyone who can make it here entry? Should these "newcomers" be afforded the right to participate in elections? Should they gain access to entitlement rolls?"

The "A" camp would proclaim, "absolutely, positively, definitely."

The "B" camp proposes that immigration be "merit based." Or, in the words of the current House Speaker, a plan to "white-a-size" America.

Is there no end in sight?