Categories
Archives
HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN
target="_top">

Archive for the ‘America’s Future’ Category

103,000 Entitled Muslims In Michigan Just Woke Up To Nasty Surprise From Pissed Off Citizens

by Amanda Shea

Michigan has become a hotbed of hate as Muslims have been allowed to take over much of the state and impose their “religious rights” on everyone who was there before them. After years of this infiltration, fueled in large part by Barack Obama’s refugee program and the town of Dearborn becoming the Middle East of Michigan, citizens have had enough. The entitled ride of thinking they can take over has just come to an abrupt end with the rude awakening they just faced by one brave individual leading the charge of making the state American again.

The nature of the Islamic religion does not allow Muslims to assimilate into Western culture — they want to dominate it since everything America stands for is counter to their beliefs. Michigan has systematically been forced to bow down to Islam under the pressure of our previous president who herded thousands of refugees into their state and allowed one town, in particular, to become unrecognizable as an American city — Dearborn — which looks more like the Middle East with its predominately Muslim population of approximately 103,000, according to WXYZ.

Muslims’ plan is world domination as that’s what their holy book preached for them to achieve. Key to that plan is the implementation of Sharia Law which they try to slowly establish under the radar here in America, without anyone realizing it before it’s too late. Wise to their disguise is Michigan Representative Michele Hoitenga who isn’t taking a backseat to political correctness and just got proactive about stopping Muslims in their tracks with a nasty surprise she just slapped them with.

With a new president in charge, states are starting to feel empowered to take assertive action against Islam in America, as was seen this week by what Hoitenga who just proposed a bill to ban Sharia Law.

Michigan Representative Michele Hoitenga

MLive reports:

“Michigan residents would be banned from using other countries’ laws in court under a bill proposed by Rep. Michele Hoitenga, R-Manton, according to an email obtained by MLive.

In an email sent to state lawmakers seeking co-sponsors on Monday, Hoitenga said her bill doesn’t specifically mention Sharia Law, but wrote that it would include the religious law association with Islam.

“If you have not heard by now, a doctor in Detroit is being charged with operating an underground clinic that actively engaged in genital mutilation on young girls, essentially practicing a fundamentalist version of Sharia Law,” Hoitenga wrote in the email.”

Hoitega’s timing couldn’t have been more important as she saw first-hand the horrific results of Islam and Sharia Law in her own state last week when a female doctor was arrested for what she had been doing to Michigan girls who were not Muslim. Federal prosecutors accused 44-year-old Muslim Dr. Jumana Nagarwala of performing female genital mutilation on unsuspecting little girls in her Detroit-area E.R.

As expected, Hoitega faces an uphill battle with this bill in getting it past state Democrats who must not see a problem in disturbing crimes like Dr. Nagarwala’s who was forcing the sickest part of her religion on little girls. Hoitega wants to prevent more of this from being acceptable by law, which shouldn’t be up for debate since it’s completely contradictory to the U.S. Constitution, which liberals love to ignore.

Had this been a measure to prevent any other religion from gaining dominance over people, Democrats would be demanding that it pass and wreaking havoc on city streets if they were denied.

This Map Shows the Hourly Wage You Need to Afford an Apartment in Your State

by Tom Cahill

A new report shows that skyrocketing rent prices have put basic living arrangements out of reach in nearly every state for most low-income workers.

In order to afford a modest two-bedroom apartment in the U.S., workers on average need to earn at least $20.30 an hour, according to 2016 data from the National Low-Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC). That’s roughly $13 more per hour than the federal minimum wage, and roughly $5 per hour more than the average national $15.42 hourly wage earned by renters last year.

Even a one-bedroom apartment is out of reach for minimum wage earners today at Fair Market Rent (FMR) levels. FMR is the metric that the Department of Housing and Urban Development uses to determine standard payments for housing choice vouchers, rent ceilings for the HOME rental assistance program, and rents at Section 8 housing developments when contracts are up for renewal.

The NLIHC estimates that a worker earning the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour needed to work an average of 90 hours per week to afford even just a one-bedroom apartment in 2016. The number of hours needed to afford a two-bedroom apartment jumps to 112 hours of minimum wage work.

Fair market rent varies by state. But after looking at the average cost of rents throughout the U.S., and comparing that side-by-side with the Area Median Income (AMI) of each state, the NLIHC estimated that the average rental wage needed to afford rent for a two-bedroom apartment hovered over a little over $20.30 an hour.

However, because the average renter’s wage is actually just $15.42 an hour, this means that rent needs to be, on average, $802 a month or less in order to qualify as affordable. This means each worker would need 1.3 minimum wage jobs in order to make rent for a modest two-bedroom unit.

The NLIHC’s 2016″Out of Reach” report estimated the wages needed for rent in each state by classifying “affordable” rent as being no more than 30 percent of a worker’s monthly take-home pay.

Puerto Rico, West Virginia, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Ohio ranked as the most affordable places to live, while Hawaii, Maryland, Washington DC, Virginia, and New York ranked among the most expensive places for renters.

The two maps below show how many hours in each state a minimum wage earner needs to work in each state in order to pay for a one-bedroom apartment, and the hourly wage needed to afford a two-bedroom apartment in each state.

EVEN WITH AN ANGELIC SUBJECT LIKE “MADE IN AMERICA,” THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS

By John F. Di Leo –

Reflections on government procurement and the Buy American Act

President Donald Trump traveled to southeast Wisconsin to make a speech and issue a proclamation: that he would require that – on the big government spending projects of his administration – everything had better be Made in America.

Hopefully, no one will quarrel with the intent.

A country should be proud of its manufacturing sector, and if tax dollars are to be spent at all, the preference ought to be that they be spent giving business to their own companies, employing their own people, utilizing their own local resources.  It’s important not only for the economy, but for national security as well.  Such an intention is good and honorable.

But we all know what the road to Hell is paved with, don’t we?

The Residency Rule

Before we analyze this rule, let’s spend a moment contemplating a rule with which we’re all familiar: the residency rule that many cities have in place for their employees.

Lots of cities decree that if you want to be a policeman, fireman, school teacher, or other city employee, you have to live in the city that issues your paycheck. The theory is, this keeps fine, upstanding citizens in the neighborhoods (especially important if the city is suffering a loss of fleeing taxpayers), and it keeps rents and home values up for everyone.  Granted, it limits the hiring pool a bit, but the bigger the city, the more manageable that should be. In theory.

So it is that many cities have specific neighborhoods, like Chicago’s northwest side and Milwaukee’s southwest side, for example, that become well-known for being particularly safe because they’re chock full of policemen. Fine, as far as it goes, right?

Until the property taxes, or crime levels, or school system collapses of such a city reach the point at which it becomes unwise to raise children there, or even becomes unaffordable or unsafe to remain at all.  A city may lose good employees when this rule drives them out, to search for other jobs that allow freedom of residency.  But perhaps, sometimes, the cities decide it’s worth the tradeoff.  It’s their choice, after all; that’s what home rule is all about.

And so the cities write rules to manage their residency rule, to deal with a grace period upon time of hiring, or to deal with marriages between city employees and suburbanites, or to deal with employees who own multiple properties, like a couple of small apartment buildings in different towns as their chosen investment method.

The questions get thorny: what if a new employee can’t sell his suburban house within the 30, or 60, or 90 days of his grace period?  Surely we can’t make him sell at a loss just because it’s a slow housing market.  Or what if his child is a junior in a suburban high school; surely we won’t make our new teacher, policeman, or fireman move his kid to a new school at a time like that, just to satisfy this rule, will we?

There are dozens of such questions, and each city writes their rules, and builds in provisions for exceptions.  Every city may handle it differently, and that’s their right.

We all recognize the value in the original goal of a local residency requirement, but we also see the complexity that it causes.  The devil is in the details.

The Buy American Act

Now, in this context, we can address the national issue of a “Buy American” rule.

For the exact same reasons – all good reasons – that cities have residency requirements, nations may want a rule that tax dollars are spent on their own taxpayers.

We want a thriving economy.  We want a strong business sector, full employment, profitable manufacturers.

Because of the scale involved in the national government’s purchases, federal spending can be a huge portion of the GDP.  It shouldn’t be, of course – government is much too big already – but to the extent that we’re stuck with it, it makes sense to at least direct those purchases of asphalt and concrete, steel beams and armaments, toward businesses that keep the most Americans employed.

This is the goal that President Trump reinforced this week, and it’s nothing new; the first major Buy American Act dates all the way back to 1933, and was signed by outgoing President Hoover for the incoming Roosevelt Administration to enforce. There have been plenty of permutations of this well-intentioned concept since.

The Complexity of Manufacturing

As we’ve seen, even a rule as simple as a local residency rule can become complicated in application, as different cities have different levels of affordable real estate for renters, homeowners, parents, and investors.  Cities need to carve out both permanent exceptions and individual waivers all the time, or risk missing out on desirable employees, while mindful of the fact that too many exceptions will infuriate their existing employees who live with the same rule.

By the same token, when the national government attempts a Buy American provision, therefore, it encounters plenty of problems that it likely never anticipated, because so few people in government know anything about the world of manufacturing.

Let’s start by assuming that we do manufacture this kind of product in the United States, so domestic sourcing is at least an option.  What is that product made of?  Is it a single item, such as an injection-molded article of plastic or a cast iron product poured in a foundry?

Or is it a complex manufactured product, like a huge water pump to keep a highway underpass clear during rainstorms, or a whole electrical power station for an airport or army base? Such products have Bills of Material – a manufactured product’s “recipe,” if you will – listing hundreds, or even thousands, of materials.  Cast or molded parts, wire and cable, nuts and bolts, sheet steel and brass rods, dials and controls.

No single company manufactures all those parts, so a manufacturer sources them from vendors all over the world.  Perhaps wire and cable made in the USA, nuts and bolts made in South Korea, dials made in Germany, cast steel parts made in the USA, molded plastic parts made in Mexico, gaskets made in China… the possibilities are endless.

If we require the finished product to be made here, that’s an accomplishment.  That does indeed satisfy the first goal of spending money on American companies that put Americans to work.  But then there is always an effort to go further, to the next tier of production, and manage those purchased raw materials and components as well.

When the government implements a Buy American rule, it first has to decide how far down to go in this supply chain.  In recent years, the choices have run the gamut from final manufacture all the way to requirements of 100% American content, right down to the rawest of raw materials.

Imagine requiring, for example, that a steel part be not only formed here, but made of steel that was alloyed here, of iron, chromium and carbon that were pulled out of the earth and processed here too.  Sound easy?  Well, not so much.  We have plenty of iron in the USA, but chromium just can’t be practically sourced here; most of it comes from South Africa, Turkey, India or FSU sources like Russia and Kazakhstan.  So at a certain point, it becomes impossible to mandate domestic sourcing… and that “certain point” varies by product, by material, by industry.

So at some spot in the sourcing process, we have to stop trying to control it.  We just have to.  We don’t make lots of nuts and bolts in the USA anymore; we’d like to, but we just don’t.    And we make lots of wire and cable here, but maybe not the exact kind that the power station contractor or the pump manufacturer needs for this particular finished product.  So we have to allow them some flexibility in sourcing, if we want our finished product to work.

But all these industries – yes, all of them – have lobbyists in Washington, lobbyists (and unions and reporters and donors and businessmen) who will point out that making the bridge or power station or water pump here is nice, but we really need to create jobs for the American steel industry too, and the American fastener industry, and the American wire and cable industry, and the American electrical controller industry…

Every administration, and even more so, every individual agency issuing government contracts, has to make this decision:  Where to draw the line? Where to give up and realize that the goal of making every single government dollar create an American job is just impossible?

Complexity and Practicality

These rules add complexity to the government contracting process, and also often-unmanageable complexity for the contractors and their subcontractors.  The myriad vendors on these government projects have different skill levels, and the farther back you go from the primary contractor, the less the others upstream may understand just what their commitment actually is.

In addition to making a great product at the right price, delivering it on time at the right place, they now have to meet rules of content origin that vary from contract to contract, but that always bear the exact same title: a “Buy American clause.”

What good is a commitment that means something different in every bid, especially when the contractor offering the project for bidding probably doesn’t understand the commitment himself?

If the vendor can’t meet a requirement because the part isn’t made here at all, he can seek a waiver, of course… but seeking, proving, and obtaining such waivers are an added cost, adding to the cost of the project… and if a vendor knows he’ll need such waivers, he may drop out entirely, costing the bid some potentially good vendors.

In most of the government projects authorized in the 2009 ARRA, for example, simple US origin was required – meaning that the product had to be manufactured here, but they didn’t dig deeper into the materials therein.  The following year, the government revised it, and most 2010 contracts from the 2009 ARRA had an almost impossible 100% US content requirement, extending right into raw materials.

This made compliance difficult for many products, and accomplishment often impossible, which meant more products having the total waiver: when it becomes impossible to meet a Buy American clause, you just give up and fill the order with a foreign product.

Foreign products have no requirement for US content at all, so once you have a waiver on the origin of the “master” finished product, it gets made in Canada or Mexico or Europe instead, and no Americans are hired at all.   This overly-ambitious version of a Buy American clause is truly the textbook example of the old saying, “The perfect is the enemy of the good.”

So, here is our quandary: Should the government impose a Buy American clause, if it’s so difficult?

Of course we should.  But it’s time to standardize it, and make it reasonable.  If the Trump administration wants to ensure that its projects employ lots of Americans, it needs to abandon the overly-ambitious clauses of the past, and apply a reasonable requirement, based on those used by the Ex-Im Bank or NAFTA in determining US origin.

We can require US manufacture, and set a percentage of minimum US spend on the manufacturer’s purchased materials, such as “50% or 75% must be US-manufactured parts as well. “  Something along those lines.

But we need to put an end to these promises that “Every product will be made of US steel!” that the lobbyists and unionists insist upon. Such pie-in-the-sky promises create more work for lawyers, bean-counters and foreigners than they do for American workers.

Copyright 2017 John F. Di Leo

John F. Di Leo is a Chicagoland-based Customs broker, writer, and actor.  A former county chairman of the Milwaukee County Republican Party, he has been a recovering politician for twenty years.

Is Sean Hannity Next On The Murdoch Brothers’ Hit List?

A New York Times reporter suggested Thursday that conservative TV host Sean Hannity could be the next Fox News host to be pressured to leave the network, after Bill O’Reilly’s stunning departure in the wake of sexual harassment claims.

The Washington Examiner reports,

On MSNBC, Times reporter Jeremy Peters noted a 2010 report about Fox that included a quote that said some within the Murdoch family were unhappy with the way the network was being run. Rupert Murdoch and his two sons are the top executives of the corporation that owns Fox.

“I think you have to look at somebody like Sean Hannity,” Peters said, “and question whether or not his almost propaganda-like attitude and programming every night is going to be acceptable in the minds of the family which is clearly trying to shift the network in another direction.”

Hannity is widely viewed as President Trump’s biggest champion in TV news, and rarely has anything critical to say about the White House. He is also now the longest running host in Fox’s prime-time lineup now that O’Reilly was ousted this week.

Before O’Reilly’s departure, Roger Ailes was forced to leave his perch as Fox’s long-running CEO last summer after several women accused him of sexual harassment.

The fallout and reorganizing of Fox is reportedly being led by Lachlan and James Murdoch, who are said to be attempting a repositioning of the highest-rated cable news channel, well known for its conservative bent.

Fox News Has Decided Bill O’Reilly Has to Go

  The Murdochs have decided Bill O’Reilly’s 21-year run at Fox News will come to an end. According to sources briefed on the discussions, network executives are preparing to announce O’Reilly’s departure before he returns from an Italian vacation on April 24. Now the big questions are how the exit will look and who will replace him.

Wednesday morning, according to sources, executives are holding emergency meetings to discuss how they can sever the relationship with the country’s highest-rated cable-news host without causing collateral damage to the network. The board of Fox News’ parent company, 21st Century Fox, is scheduled to meet on Thursday to discuss the matter.

Sources briefed on the discussions say O’Reilly’s exit negotiations are moving quickly. Right now, a key issue on the table is whether he would be allowed to say good-bye to his audience, perhaps the most loyal in all of cable (O’Reilly’s ratings have ticked up during the sexual-harassment allegations). Fox executives are leaning against allowing him to have a sign-off, sources say. The other main issue on the table is money. O’Reilly recently signed a new multiyear contract worth more than $20 million per year. When Roger Ailes left Fox News last summer, the Murdochs paid out $40 million, the remainder of his contract.

According to sources, Fox News wants the transition to be seamless. Executives are currently debating possible replacement hosts. Names that have been discussed include Eric Bolling, Dana Perino, and Tucker Carlson, who would move from his successful 9 p.m. slot and create a need for a new host at that time. One source said Sean Hannity is happy at 10 p.m. and would not want to move. Network executives are hopingto have the new host in place by Monday.

The Murdochs’ decision to dump O’Reilly shocked many Fox News staffers I’ve spoken to in recent days. Late last week, the feeling inside the company was that Rupert Murdoch would prevail over his son James, who lobbied to jettison the embattled host. It’s still unclear exactly how the tide turned. According to one source, Lachlan Murdoch’s wife helped convince her husband that O’Reilly needed to go, which moved Lachlan into James’s corner. The source added that senior executives at other divisions within the Murdoch empire have complained that if O’Reilly’s allegations had happened to anyone else at their companies, that person would be gone already.

Spokespersons for 21st Century Fox and Fox News did not respond to requests for comment, nor did O’Reilly’s agent, Carole Cooper.

New Report Suggests Bill O’Reilly May Not Return To Fox News

Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly announced Tuesday that he was going on vacation. According to a report by New York Magazine, some 21st Century Fox executives don’t want him back.

Four anonymous sources spoke to the magazine and each claimed O’Reilly’s days at Fox are numbered.

While Fox News Co-President Bill Shine has reportedly campaigned to keep O’Reilly, the Murdoch family who runs the network is divided.

“It’s up to the family,” one source told the magazine.

The report says 21st Century Fox CEO James Murdoch wants O’Reilly gone, but his father Rupert and his older brother Lachlan — the company’s executive co-chairmen — disagree.

A similar dynamic played out last year when news of former Chairman Roger Ailes’ sexual harassment surfaced. Then, just like now, James called for his immediate release while Rupert did what he could to keep Ailes on board.

Lawyers from the firm hired last year to investigate Ailes have been brought back and are conducting a thorough investigation into O’Reilly’s history.

Michael Wolff, writing in the Hollywood Reporter, said the controversy surrounding the future of O’Reilly is indicative of a divide within the Murdoch family for how to run the highly profitable news channel.

“Last July, after Gretchen Carlson sued … 21st Century Fox and Roger Ailes, the then-head of Fox News Channel, for sexual harassment, Rupert Murdoch told his sons, both Ailes enemies, that paying off Carlson without a fight would mean more lawsuits,” Wolff wrote. “Easy-money settlements always bring more claims. James and Lachlan Murdoch, however, were eager to get rid of their nemesis, and the most direct way to do that was to accept Carlson’s claims after a quickie investigation and then use a big payoff — $20 million — to end the dispute and calm the storm.”

Now, in the wake of the April 1 New York Times report detailing how O’Reilly, with the support of 21st Century Fox, paid $13 million over 15 years to five different women who accused him of sexual harassment or inappropriate behavior, Wolf says Rupert Murdoch is blaming his sons for opening the door to additional claims.

“It’s a particular sort of irony that Fox, which, to the delight of its audience, built itself on rejecting liberal assumptions, might now be brought down by such a signature liberal assumption: Where there are charges of sexual harassment, there is sexual harassment,” Wolff wrote.

O’Reilly announced Tuesday night that he would be taking a vacation until April 24, saying the time off had been planned since October.

But the announcement also coincides with the decision by 60 companies to pull their advertising spots on The O’Reilly Factor,which has been the most-watched show on cable news for more than a decade.

Total paid advertising time on his program fell from an average of more than 14 minutes per show during March to fewer than five minutes on Friday’s program.

By John F. Di Leo – 

In the first week of April, 2017, a nostalgic nation watched as one of the grand old institutions crumbled into dust: the Senate filibuster was removed from the toolbox for presidential appointments.

Many on both sides of the aisle shed a tear or two as the US Senate lost one of its most famous and romantic tools; until the Democrats overplayed their hand on the Gorsuch nomination, a single Senator could hold up a presidential appointee with a filibuster.  No more.

Before you shed any more tears, though, dear Gentle Reader, please consider who had long been empowered with this tool.  Have you thought about asking whether or not these Senators deserved it in the first place?

I believe that a great deal of our political trouble today is caused by a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of our government – not just in what the government is for, but in how the Constitution designed it to function … how much thought the Framers put into its careful  design.

They were frustrated by the failures of the Articles of Confederation, and recognized that no mere amendment would do; we needed a new Constitution to obtain public support, and to both set up a national government and simultaneously rein it in, to both provide for the prosperity and security of the American people and to fully protect our liberties.  A difficult task.

Read the notes taken at the convention, by Robert Yates, James Madison and others – or read the fascinating books about it, such as David O Stewart’s “The Summer of 1787” – and consider the contributions of Madison, James Wilson, Gouverneur Morris, Roger Sherman, Rufus King, and in particular, General Washington, whom the delegates’ elected as their presiding officer.

The Founding Fathers – and most specifically the Framers (the men who participated in the Constitutional Convention of 1787) – understood that a national government is a necessary evil, and wanted that government to be successful, and effective, in its proper functions.

But they also knew that a national government would want to expand… that both elected officials and bureaucratic appointees would try to expand their influence – for good, of course, always for good – and they knew that each such expansion would pose a greater threat to the people’s freedom.

So today, in studying our government and its perks and rules, we need to recognize how the people in the national government were meant to be selected, and recognize that it was a very deliberate selection process.  The Framers didn’t just throw the dice and say “okay, we’ll pick the Senate this way and the House that way.” It was deliberate.

One house of the legislature would be known as the people’s house.  In a nation quite intentionally designed without referenda, this would be the closest thing to “democracy” the new system would allow.  The House of Representatives would be picked directly by the voters, every two years, so there would always be a representation in our nation’s capitol of the public’s most recent will.

By contrast, the executive – the President – would be selected by an “Electoral College” – a group of wise people, perhaps statesmen, perhaps just local worthies, elected by the voters.  Through the Electoral College, the public could appoint thoughtful people who could be trusted to choose well.  Their sole duty would be their vote for President, so they would presumably give it everything they had.  Again, this is close to democracy, but not directly; the public chooses middlemen to gather and deliberate on their behalf.  The Framers were certain that people make more intelligent decisions when deliberating in a group than when simply walking into a voting booth, checking a box, and departing.

Finally, we have the US Senate.  The public would not select them at all.

The way the Framers set up our country, this was up to the states; each state government had two seats to fill in the US Senate, and it was up to them how the state legislatures select them.  Perhaps the governor would submit names for consideration? Perhaps the state house would send several nominations to the state senate for a final run-off? Their choice.

Why?  To empower the state governments … in Washington.

Many of the Framers rightly worried that eliminating the Articles of Confederation would leave the state governments powerless in the new nation’s capital.  Some for noble reasons, others jealous for power, most wanted to ensure that the state governments – not just the people in those states, but their experienced, thoughtful representatives – still had the power to rein in the new national government if it ever went too far.

Most of the Framers therefore knew that the Senate was the most important piece of this process, the lynchpin of the whole deal, specifically because the Senate was chosen by the state governments.

These US Senators would jealously guard the rights of the people and the states, because they would understand, better than anyone else, that any expansion of the national government in Washington would – by definition – be an incursion upon the state authority and individual freedoms that the Senators are there to protect.

The Guard Towers

Please think of the federal government in Washington DC as a prison complex, and of the Constitution as the wall surrounding that prison.  The Constitution has limits – each body can do this, and only this… each body is limited in what it’s allowed to tax, to regulate, to attempt… and anything outside these limits is forbidden to those within the government.  It’s a wall ten or twenty feet high, with barbed wire on top.

All the people inside this prison complex – both the elected officials and the bureaucrats – would naturally want to break through that wall and expand their powers, right? Of course they would.

Every newly created agency, every new law, every new program that the regulators enforce, is going to be an expansion beyond that original wall, enlarging the national government, enlarging the scope of Washington DC.   You can picture sections of wall being opened up, all the time, pushing it out 20 feet to the north, then 50 feet to the southwest, then another 100 feet to the east… as the inmates constantly and naturally try to expand their areas of influence.

And that’s what the Framers were worried about.  They pictured this tiny national capital city, to be designed so cleverly by Pierre Charles L’Enfant a few years later, gradually expanding until it became the massive leviathan that they so terribly feared.  They didn’t want to risk their handiwork enabling the very monster of an encroaching government that they’d just fought a revolution against!

So now we come to the U.S. Senate.

Remember, the voters directly sent Congressmen to the nation’s capital to do stuff for them, or to get stuff for them, stuff that might lead to enlarging the government, breaking through the walls that the Constitution had erected.  Similarly, they sent a President there after a huge national election, hoping that he would do stuff for them, and get stuff for them, as well.  Hopefully – from the perspective of this “small d” democratic population, the House and President will work together to make sure it happens, and the gravy train flows smoothly!

Where do the Senators fit in this picture? They’re the prison guards, sharpshooters in teams of two per state, posted very indirectly by the American people through their state governments, in the guard towers all along the prison wall.   First thirteen, then fifteen, then on and on until we now have fifty such guard towers encircling the nation’s capital.

The job of the U.S. Senate is to constantly be on the lookout for bad appointments to the judiciary, and for bad laws being proposed in the House, and bad new agencies or regulations being proposed by the newspapers or the lobbyists, bad cabinet secretaries being proposed by the President.

The U.S. Senate is there to watch out for anyone or anything that would enlarge the scope of the national government beyond its proper, constitutional scale.

The job of the U.S. Senate is to stand at the ready, with binoculars and night vision goggles, rifles cocked and ready at their sides, and watch for such encroachments… and then to stop them.

The Constitution gave the Senate several tools for this task – the impeachment process, the “advise and consent” process, the legislative process, etc.

The Senate’s job is to identify encroachments, and stop them.

So to return to our prison metaphor, the Senators are the guards, very carefully selected and posted by the 50 states in these guard towers metaphorically surrounding Washington DC.  They were given wonderful tools – the impeachment process, the security of six-year terms, the filibuster, and so many more – to use in the service of this one goal: keeping the leviathan at bay.

Their job was to watch closely, and whenever they see anyone trying to break out of these Constitutional limits and expand the walls – trying to expand the power of the national government – the Senators were supposed to shoot them down.

And it worked pretty darned well, for over 120 years, too.

The Errors of (and leading up to) 1913

Unfortunately, some of the states never fully understood this process – never fully understood how carefully and thoughtfully the Framers had been looking out for their interests.  So by the late 1800s, some of the states had a reputation for chicanery in their selection of Senators, and some others were giving in to the populist effort to let the public have control of this house too… and finally, in 1913, the 17th amendment was passed, mandating direct election of US Senators.

This one colossal error removed the state governments’ one and only institutional check on the federal government, essentially just turning the Senators into stuffier, more powerful, just-as-democratic Congressmen, but with six-year-terms.

In other words, the prison guards now serve the prisoners… unite with the prisoners… join the prisoners at the feast.

They’re on the same side as the people they were supposed to be guarding us from.

Now that it’s all changed, do today’s Senators really still deserve all the perks and tools that the Senators had when they served their state governments in their original cause?

Well, if you ever wondered why the walls have all collapsed and the federal government can now rule the entire country, with nothing holding them back… now you know.

Many accuse the Constitution of failing, because the national government is now enormous, but that’s not fair.  When the Constitution was in place, from 1788 through 1913, it did a pretty good job of keeping the national government small, by using the self-interest of the state governments as a wonderfully, brilliantly effective permanent check on the federal government.

Until 1913, when we ratified the 17th amendment, and the states totally destroyed the country.

The lesson of the day is to never allow the inmates to appoint the guards on the prison walls.

Our current socialist, omnipresent national government isn’t the fault of the Constitution at all, it’s the fault of the conscious destruction of the Constitution’s brilliant plan in 1913.

Copyright 2017 John F. Di Leo

Trey Gowdy shuts down CNN anchor over Trump’s wiretap accusations

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) shut down the suggestion from CBS news anchor John Dickerson that there was anything unsavory about Rep. Devin Nunes’ (R-Ca.) decision to inform President Trump about evidence he thinks might substantiate the president’s claim of wiretapping.

“I want to start with this question of unmasking that Chairman Nunes brought out,” Dickerson began Sunday on “Face the Nation.” “Has he shown you any of what caused him to suggest that Obama officials are doing surveillance, captured some Trump campaign associates and then unmasked them in the process of investigating?”

“He has not shown it to me, John,” Gowdy answered. “I am vaguely familiar with it, no more, no less familiar with it than Adam Schiff is. I just tell you this. My understanding is Chairman Nunes briefed the commander in chief on matters unrelated to the Russian investigation, so if that is big deal in Washington, then we have sunk to a new low.”

“Well, I guess Congressman Schiff would say but the president is the one that is a part of this investigation being done by the committee, so the chairman shouldn’t be talking to him,” Dickerson offered.
“Well, then, let me repeat what I said,” Gowdy reiterated. “That the chairman of House Intel briefed the commander in chief that has nothing to do with the Russian investigation. So if the commander in chief cannot be briefed by the chairperson of the House Intel Committee on a matter that has nothing to do with the FBI investigation, then I don’t know what they can talk about, John.”

“He is the commander in chief,” Gowdy interjected.

“So if this is an issue outside of the one they are investigating at the moment in the committee and that you are investigating,” Dickerson asked, “should it then be taken out of this investigation? Have a separate investigation on both the issues that Chairman Nunes has discovered this week and then also the one you are quite concerned about, which is the leaks that have been in the paper, some of them potentially illegal. Get that out of this question of Russia to keep things from getting mixed the way they appear to have?”

“Well, they are separate,” Gowdy responded, “and I heard my friend from California mention that independent commission, thank goodness we have one, it is called the FBI. The FBI has counterintelligence jurisdiction and they have criminal jurisdiction, and what we learned on Monday, and it is about the only thing we learned on Monday was that the FBI’s investigating both. They are the world’s premiere law enforcement agency, they are independent, you have women and men at the Department of Justice who have dedicated their careers to the blind pursuit of justice. It doesn’t get any more independent than that. So we have an independent entity investigating counter-intelligence and allegations of potential criminality, let Congress do its job which is provide oversight over the intelligence community.”

“Do you have any sense from the chairman about the schedule of when this new information that we have been talking about here,” Dickerson continued, “this question of unmasking, when you might have enough information to make a judgment about whether this is, in fact, something that was done improperly or whether, as Congressman Schiff said, this is just the normal procedures for going through unmasking?”

“It is just one more reason to bring director [James] Comey and [Admiral Mike] Rogers back on Tuesday,” Gowdy said, “It’s incredibly important. Adam is right, that Adam is right that the incidental collection of U.S. persons happens. What I wish some of my friends over on the other side would be a little more outraged about is the political use of that unmasking. So I understand we collect U.S. citizens but we don’t read about those U.S. citizens on the first page of the New York Times and the Washington Post. That admission to threatening the surveillance programs is also a felony. So I hope that we learn more about that on Tuesday.”

“All of this is important, John,” Gowdy continued. “Every bit of it. Russia is not our friend. They attacked our Democracy. I want to investigate every fact that is related there to, but the felonious dissemination of classified information is the only thing we know for sure is a crime, and it would be nice if we showed the same level of interest in that.”

“Let me ask you, you chaired a committee that got a lot of attention in the papers,” Dickerson asked. “What is your sense of the health of this committee? We have seen dueling press conferences. There has been a lot of accusations and passive aggression here, how healthy is this committee?”

“I think it is fine,” Gowdy answered. “I actually think Chairman Nunes and ranking member Schiff are both good men and I think they get along fine. I think what you learned Monday, because I heard the witnesses almost 100 times, John, say they could not answer the question in that setting and I want you and your viewers to ask themselves, why are we satisfied with every other facet of culture having serious investigations done confidentially, the grand jury, judges meeting with attorneys, police officers interviewing suspects, all of that is done confidentially, and we are more than satisfied with those investigations, and yet when it comes to Congress, we think we ought to have a public hearing. 100 times those two witnesses said they could not answer the question in that setting.”

“Why in the hell would we go back to that setting if the witnesses can’t answer the questions?” Gowdy concluded.

Trump Sets HISTORIC Renegotiation Meeting In Coming Weeks That Will Change America FOREVER

If Mexican officials were hoping that the North American Free Trade Agreement was going to stay intact under the Trump administration, they were sadly mistaken — and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross just put them on notice that their worst nightmare is going to begin in a few weeks.

According to CNBC, Ross announced Friday that he plans to begin the formal process of renegotiating NAFTA “in the next couple of weeks.”

From Conservative Tribune

American law stipulates that the executive branch needs to inform Congress 90 days before it signs any new trade agreement. Ross said that there is no “date certain” to begin the formal process, according to Breitbart.

During a joint news conference with Mexican Economy Minister Ildefonso Guajardo Villarreal, Ross also announced he had been consulting with the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means committees on negotiations involving the trilateral agreement between the U.S., Canada and Mexico.

“The next stage will be hopefully in the next couple of weeks, which will be to issue 90-day letter,” Ross said.

While three nations are involved in NAFTA, Ross said negotiations with Mexico and Canada could happen separately as “two parallel bilaterals.”

Renegotiating NAFTA had been one of President Donald Trump’s major promises during his campaign, and Ross seemed to indicate that he was going to reshape the agreement based on current economic realities.

Trump had already signed, in the same executive order in which he announced America’s intent to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an order declaring his intent to renegotiate NAFTA, according to CNBC.

Rebuilding the U.S. economy was a cornerstone of Trump’s campaign, and Ross said, “doesn’t deal with the Mexican economy or the U.S. economy or the Canadian economy in their current form.”

“At a minimum its needs an update. Arguably there were some sections that didn’t work out.”

You can bet this is making Mexico very nervous… and the Trump White House very happy.

Trump’s DOJ sends documents related to Wiretap Claim to House Panel

The Department of Justice (DOJ) sent documents to the House Intelligence Committee on Friday in response to a request for evidence backing up President Trump’s claim that former President Obama wiretapped Trump Tower.

The committee is currently reviewing the documents, an aide confirmed to The Hill.

The Hill reports,

It’s unclear what’s in the documents, which CNN reported separately had also been delivered to the Senate Intelligence Committee, though that report could not be immediately confirmed.

Leaders on the House panel sent a letter to the DOJ last week asking for evidence related to Trump’s claim earlier this month that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower ahead of the presidential election. A spokesman for Obama denied at the time that he or any White House official ordered such surveillance.

On Monday, the DOJ asked for more time to produce the documents, bucking a March 13 deadline set by the committee. Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) indicated that the committee could subpoena the department for the documents if they were not received by Monday, when the panel holds a hearing.

Trump tweeted March 4 accusing Obama of having his “wires tapped” in Trump Tower during the 2016 presidential campaign. He has stood by his claim despite lawmakers in both parties saying as of Thursday that they had not seen evidence to support his allegation.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer has sought to clarify the claim, saying that Trump put the wiretapping accusation “in quotes” and was more broadly referring to surveillance activities by the Obama administration.

But Spicer also said that Trump “stands by” his initial tweets on the subject, and Trump on Friday joked about the wiretapping claim during a press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

The House Intelligence Committee will hold an open hearing on Russian interference in the election on Monday, where questions about Trump’s claims are sure to be raised. Lawmakers will have the opportunity to press FBI Director James Comey on the issue.

HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN