novatownhall blog

Where you are held accountable for your convictions and record

Browsing Posts in Federalism

Let me just put a few things out there. We have 3 candidates on the Dem side running for President: an old “white” socialist, an old “white” criminal hag, and an aging “white” shirtless liberal. First off, where are there any candidates of “color”? This party touts that they are for those of “color” (being the racists that they are) yet they don’t have any candidates to stand for their own “race”. Oh, that’s right. They already burnt that candle on the present guy. Yeah, that worked out well. Anyway, why is there any following for a corrupt, traitorous, incompetent criminal as Clinton? By the same token, how can a socialist, which is a theology entirely opposite of our capitalist system, garner so much support? And a tax and spend liberal that has had most signed bills on taxes reversed in his state because it hurt the state and its people. Young, ignorant voters is why. I will say no more than it is a failing of the public education system that either teaches the Constitution incorrectly or not at all. If we require aliens to have a working knowledge of our Constitution to become citizens, why don’t we absolutely require it of our own citizens? Despicable.

We have a rouge President and government that has done everything possible to circumvent their duties to uphold the Constitution of the United States. The citizens are upset and we are seeing many converts (usually happens when you hit people in their wallets or take away their livelihoods). On top of that you have an unwilling Congress that throws up it hands and says “what can we do?”. First the GOP needed the House and they got that. Nothing happened because they said they needed the Senate. So then they got that but still nothing happened and the next excuse was “we need the Presidency”. The GOP is scared. They laid on their backs and said no impeachment. The laid on their backs and said no government shutdown. They never held back monies for egregious executive orders or even healthcare that they never got a say-so in. Rather, they gave all the monies requested for this rogue government, biding their time for a sunnier sky. These clowns are as bad as what the Dems are and, as the Dems have shown the way to be corrupt, so goes these “establishment” types.

And the citizens are pissed. At least the ones that are astute to how this government should run, knowledge of the Constitution, and an understanding that they are being lied to at every turn. This is what I would consider the “perfect storm” for a conservative candidate and we have many in the race. The GOP used to be the party of conservatism but it has been continually corrupted for decades and those that are conservative are scorned at every turn. We have true conservatives (or the best we have seen in a very long time) yet there is a wild card……Trump. I stated before that I like what Trump was doing in “playing” on those issues that strike a chord with the people. But Trump is no conservative and never will be. The National Review Gave that a spin but this was nothing new to anyone that could see through this carney barker. He and Ted Cruz have been civil when Trump has been trashing all the other candidates until, of course, Trump was taking “second place” in the Iowa caucus, the first caucus to come. In an interview with CNN Trump talks about how nasty Cruz is and that no one likes him or can get along with him. Trump is barking and his lead soars past Cruz. Why? The same reason that anyone wants to vote for the idiots on the Dem side. People just refuse to do their homework. The first and BEST chance in a long, long time to take the Presidency and, possibly, get the GOP back to its roots and Trump is the leader. Imagine that. And he can deal with anyone and he can deal with the Dems cause Pelosi and Reid (who won’t be around, thank goodness) and Schumar and others like him, and he can get deals done. What deals? If the GOP has majority in the House, the Senate and take the Presidency, the Dems are no longer a factor. There are NO DEALS TO MAKE! So is he going to deal with foreign governments? What deals can he make? Yes, I consider the government as a business; a non-profit business. It needs to run as efficiently at with the least amount of people as possible. A business savvy individual would do alright I guess but isn’t that what picking the right people in the cabinet are for? Isn’t it better to have an individual who knows law and the Constitution (not some fraud from Harvard who says he teaches Constitutional law and then circumvents those laws) rather than someone who knows how to make a buck and screw people? I feel that this opportunity to change America back to a nation of values and principles will be lost on nothing more than people being sheep going to the slaughter yet once again. All I can hope is that people get there heads out of their ass so that they may see the “epiphany” necessary to keep from going down the whirlpool of another toilet flush.

Well, well, well. Instead of someone else saying they were doing an “exploratory”, Cruz came right out and declared running for the presidency. Of course, he had the desired affect that I knew it would.
Here’s Gov. Jerry “moonbeam” Brown of California, stating that Cruz is “unfit” to be president. And this statement is because of Cruz’s disbelieve (no science) in the climate change issue. Brown is facing water shortages that he believes is due to climate change. Are smelts a part of climate? The northern part of the state, where there are more trees and less big cities and desert, is doing fine with water. Are trees and cities climate? Poor rabid “moonbeam”. Poor, wretched, boy!
And we all know that Boehner and other establishment Republicans don’t like the Tea Party because the GOP won’t be able to steal from the people like their progressive Dem counterparts. The almighty super-senator McCain called them “whacko birds”.
A conservative (you know, the ones like libertarians that believe in the Constitution) makes establishment Repubs go crazy and start talking stuff about “how we can’t win if we give in to the extreme right”. Extreme right? How about just the right compared to the wrong? What would happen if all the pseudo Repubs out there rallied behind their Tea Party brethren? You would have the old Republican Party back in full glory. Imagine that.

The reason I first went to The Angry Bear was posts this one. (Too bad it’s infested with intolerant liberals in charge.)

The author of this post is the current (and last) Postmaster of Webster, NC, and speaks of his area of expertise, the United States Postal Service.

It always confuses the big-government liberals, stuck in the false-dichotomy mindset that says if they support Big Government and all Big Government programs, then conservatives opposed to Big Government must oppose all Big Government programs. What they cannot seem to wrap their minds around is the concept that we DO support the U.S. government’s running those programs which a the U.S. Constitution says it is supposed to run. Among these are the Army, the Navy, and the Postal Service.

So why this fascination (among conservatives mostly, I suppose — I’m sure you will correct me if I am wrong) with the idea that the Postal Service is supposed to be self-supporting? We do not expect the Army to be self-supporting. It probably could be. We could probably sell enough weapons, and rent out enough troops, to make it so. We do not expect the Department of the Interior to be self-supporting. We could probably place high enough rents on mining and grazing operations, and high enough fees for visitors, to make it so.

The point is that profits are not what the government is about. Efficiency is desirable, but the primary mission of those agencies is to provide the services, not to turn a profit.

This is why we conservatives oppose Big Government — because Big Government is inefficient. That is why the Constitution cedes to the U.S. government only those things that cannot be done by the States and the People. At the time of our founding, the operations of the Postal Service could not be done by any other agency than the government of the United States. If, in the age of email, UPS, and Federal Express, we think that that situation no longer pertains, then we should amend the Constitution to remove that Power from the U.S. government. But killing a government program by forcing it to turn a profit, knowing that government programs are by nature inefficient, is, at best, disingenuous.

I have read till my eyes were bloodshot. I picked the articles I felt most appropriate and informative. If you REALLY, REALLY want to know what you are up against, read them. Yes, they can be a VERY long read but we’ll worth it if you seek good understanding. For me, the more I read, the more confused I got because of all the ambiguity, inference, and just the “muddy lines” of acceptance. Know this: the Executive Branch is more powerful than you may have thought, and without constraints or watchdogs in all matters, can easily get out of control by things perceived. Bottom line is that we, the people, may suffer greatly for nothing more than political ideology, favoritism to certain groups or individuals, or just visions of grandeur. This is a case for me of “the more you know, the less you like”. That’s just me.

is a basic primer for very general knowledge.

delves very deeply into pros, cons, and citing examples from various administrations, focusing heavily on the Clinton Administration.

, which talks further about more presidents and their orders.

There are plenty more articles out there but I learned enough and picked these 3 that would allow you to learn enough. I guess perception is what is needed here as to what type of America is being built. Most of these orders don’t get reviewed by successive administrations, which means we are stuck with them. Not good. Not good at all.

I am a bit perplexed over what just happened in the House. Trey Gowdy R-SC just introduced a bill called “Enforce The Law Act” which would make the Executive Branch enforce any laws passed by Congress. But the Constitution already has that provision so the Act seems redundant. What is at issue here is that the Executive Branch and its legal arm, the Justice Department, are not abiding by those Constitutional mandates. So if you have an idiot that knows nothing about Constitutional law, who has a pen and a phone to change/eliminate anything he pleases, and no one is suing him on these grievous breeches of the Constitution, how will this law be any different?

Now supposedly the Act that was passed will allow a suit to expedite through the courts. I thought judges and courts had their own agenda? I surely have no trust in the Judicial Branch. And why would it be a suit? Is there some compensatory outcome involved? I would think it a criminal action and adjudicated as such. But when you read the article, a few Democrats voted for the Act along with the Republicans. Huh? You mean that this Act, with established basis in the Constitution, wasn’t voted UNANIMOUS? That tells me that not only is there a problem in the Executive and Judicial branches but also in the Legislative Branch as well. Either we are failing our children in school by NOT spending and dedicating enough time to the Constitution and its understanding or there is such a prevalent nature of lawlessness in politics that it has become as common place as putting shoes on your feet. Or both.

We are constantly being informed/told/reminded that we are a “civilized” society. That word alone has caused the lawless to take advantage of the masses with impunity, in my mind. I hear always that we can “vote these people out” and the ballot box is our weapon. Unfortunately this doesn’t seem to be the case since there are too many stupid voters who refuse to be informed or understand the rule of law. These “voters” work on the premise of “me” and “free” for the most part when they cast there votes. Some vote on color. How does this benefit “all”? It doesn’t. Term limits are a good start but far more is necessary. Harsh consequences need to be instilled on those holding office so that there will always be pause before someone seeks office. Me, personally; I am not averse to immediate extrication from office with a good public beating in the town square. But that is just me. I grew up with the understanding of how viable consequences are in all aspects of life–especially when it affects the nation and it’s citizens as a whole. Otherwise, show me a rational for having laws at all.

I just heard on the news that 750 firemen may lose their jobs in California, and nursing home patients may not get meals. Aren’t nursing homes under Medicaid? Isn’t firefighting and police part of county/city/state taxes and the obligation of those jurisdictions? Are we subsidising areas of state obligation that we shouldn’t? will government subsidies of farmers mean a shortage of food or just higher prices at the grocers where EACH individual decides to purchase or not? Other than by direct contract with the feds, I don’t understand how employment in states are directly affected by sequester. I’m sure it is very complicated for the layman, like myself, to understand. What is so complicated about why states can’t take care of their own budgets without having the government (that is, every citizen in every state) having a monetary hand in most all aspects? Did I miss something in the Constitution about this? Whatever happened to state sovereignty, self governing and the like? Why the need for governors? I don’t get it?

Sign at corner store: “No hoodies or masks allowed”. Sign on credit union door: “Remove hats and sunglasses”. Either the proprietor will shoot you if you don’t comply or he will know when he is about to be robbed. Feel good statements brought on by hysteria so that you can lose a few common freedoms. Ok, don’t do business there. But what about mortgages to unqualified individuals? Private healthcare? Making state stores sell arms illegally to individuals forced from the US gov’t? National edict on standards for state public schools? US gov’t trade taxes for state goods? How about entitlement programs? How about no US gov’t budget which affects commerce, industry and personal economics? Un-elected individuals that make punishable and costly rules for all to abide? Federal courts were ideology rules and law is MADE instead of discerned, especially when it circumvents the Constitution–the law of the land? These are just some of what is happening outside the scope of our Constitution and circumventing that which is not under federal purview but some belonging to the states.

What is happening here is the breaking of the pact of the Republic with its individual states. We shouldn’t be entertaining the idea of a DC statehood but we are. West Virginia set up an illegal government, seceded from Virginia and was recognized by the Union government….in 1863. If the Confederacy was illegal then so are the 2 examples I just cited. Joining the union is no different than marriage–if it doesn’t work out then you get a divorce. An allegiance is as good as the pact it was made from. You don’t stayed married for the children’s sake if that marriage is very detrimental to all involved. Same with a state. The US gov’t HAS (not had) distinct and definable rules to follow. When those rules are broken, that would be considered a treasonous act perpetrated on all the people and the states. When inaction to remove the law-breakers result, one outcome is left. We are a nation following laws that no man is above and that the US gov’t must follow. When people succumb to nuances that take their freedom, and allow its subtlety to direct their lives, they lose that which was freedom and become subjects–slaves to the will of the master–the gov’t. It is not nor should it ever be “We, the government..”. We are at a place in history where the US gov’t needs to be handcuffed from doing any more harm, as well reinstating those freedoms being lost or the states need to be pushed to exodus from this enveloping monster. It’s better to be right and move on then be complacent and go down with a sinking ship.