Senators Oppose Passing Legislation with the Nuclear Option in the Senate

The Nuclear Option is passing legislation in the Senate with only 51 votes. Senators oppose it as a power grab. Listen to them in their own words.

Time to Make a Constitutional Challenge Against the Czar System

West Virginia mining operations filed for almost eighty permits to begin surface mining operations within the state this year. Obama's administration denied every single one of them. Denied permission to mine. Denied the state needed revenue in hard times. Denied countless West Virginians good paying jobs. The Environmental Protection Agency officially denied these permits. However a known "globull warming" expert, Carol Browning, serves as czar of the environment and climate change.

Here's the question. What role did she play in denying these permits? A Freedom of Information Act request should be directed at her office and the EPA to try and find any causal links between Obama's "special advisor" and these denials. If there is a definite link, then coal companies and miners should launch a federal case.

These special advisors skirt the Constitutional requirement that the Senate confirm every presidential appointment. We have seen bewildering appointments, such as a "safe schools czar" who proudly admitted to encouraging a fifteen year old boy to have sex with an old man at a bus station, but only if he used a condom. Sean Hannity revealed FBI transcripts of a seminar he attended that described how a man could have intercourse with an eighteen month old baby. If for no other reason, this is why the Founding Fathers wanted Senatorial participation in the appointment process. We also need congressional oversight over these appointments for policy reasons.

Senator Byrd complained several months ago about these appointments. Democratic Senators have launched hearings into the practice. They requested that Obama send a representative to explain his position; he so far has failed to respond.

Someone at some point needs to challenge the "czar" system. Few people worried when a handful of special advisors worked for presidents on extraordinary problems. Forty-one appointees and counting demonstrates a willful avoidance of the Constitution. Time to bring this presidency back to reality.

Blast from the Past: The Constitution

US Solider defends the Constitution

This US Solider takes his oath to defend the Constitution to heart, both on the battlefield and in the political arena. This is how it should be.

Census Counts Illegals and It Changes Congress

Yesterday I had the opportunity to hear a great presentation by a US Census worker on the up coming 2010 Census. The expected questions about Acorn involvement where asked and answered. It was stated that all people living in an area will be counted, even non-citizens. That begged the question as to why were non-citizens and illegal aliens being counted in the US Census. The reason given was a good one, that resources for health care, transportation, etc are allocated on a basis of population and, citizen or not, those resources are being used. While I believe illegals should be deported, I do understand that they are a drain on social resources and I understand the reasoning, but I do not agree with it.

The problem is they should not be counted as part of the population of the US, because they are not citizens and only citizens of the US should be counted. Article I, Section 2 of the US Constitution calls for Enumeration to determine each states Representation in the US House. This was later modified by the 14th Amendment. "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." It goes on to state, "Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed." It seems quite clear that only citizens are to be counted.

So what does this mean? According to the Department of Homeland Security the "estimated numbers of undocumented immigrants [are]-- California (2.0 million), Texas (700,000), New York (540,000)" By counting these non US citizens in the Census, these states get extra Congressional seats they should not have. An average of 693,000 residents is needed for each house seat. That means that California has at least three extra members of the US House of Representatives and Texas and New York each have one extra. Those five mis-allocated Representatives are at the expense of other states. Utah, Indiana and Mississippi would most likely pick up one each of those five mis-allocated seats.

It is important that the Census only count US Citizens. We are the only ones that are supposed to be voting. The presence of Legal or Illegal Aliens should not come in to play when dividing up the US House of Representatives. Once you become a citizen, then you should be counted and only then you should receive the benefits of citizenship, not before.

Blast from the Past: Fire Works

Blast from the Past: Tyrannosaurus Debt

Blast from the Past: Electorial College

Bald Eagle attends Flag Day Tea Party

Sunday at Grand Central Business Center a Tea Party was held. Turn out was good with over 118 counted in attendance from 2 states and 11 counties, not including a Bald Eagle that circled the group several times. No doubt to give his approval of those gathered to support the Constitution and liberty. The meeting was opened with, "Welcome Patriots, by attending your now on the Department of Homeland Security terrorist watch list." There was a big cheer from the crowd!

Matt Ryan, co-editor of "Unleashing Capitalism: Why Prosperity Stops at the West Virginia Border," gave an excellent speech on Capitalism and how the current steps Congress is taking is hurting our county.

Also Bob Adams said this is a non-political event, but when the President is making mistakes they need to be pointed out. His talk was themed, "If the shoe fits," and when talking about President Obama the shoe fits on a lot of things that are socialism. Dr. Doug McKinney of Clarksburg talked about the military and how there budget is being cut in time of war. We can not do enough for our military.

The microphone was opened up to people in the audience. They were told this is your Tea Party and your time to exercise your right to free speech. Even an Obama supporter took the mic and quoted some scripture. He later told me he disagreed with everything we said and did. I told him, "That's OK, we are supporting your freedom of speech to disagree."

At the end after a benediction given by R. Scott Smith of Terra Alta, WV a Liberty Tree was planted. During the planting it was stated, "While the Founding Fathers hid their meetings from the British Government by holding them at the Liberty Trees, we proudly notify our government this is our Liberty Tree and we disagree with what you are doing and want you to follow the Constitution."

Blast from the Past: I'm Just a Bill

Hate Crimes and the Constitution

Congress just passed the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. It expands the definition of hate crimes to include gays and related groups, but created fears that speech against such groups could now qualify as a crime.

Factcheck.org disputes the argument that this act will result in the prosecution of those simply speaking.

The problem lies in the notion of "hate crimes" itself. Way back in the good ol' days, the law responded simply to an act that really occurred. If I pulled out a 2x4 and hit somebody over the head with it, I'd be prosecuted for battery regardless of the victim's gender, race, sexual orientation, or whatever. The law also assumed that I might have some negative feelings, perhaps even hate, for the person that I just smacked in the head. Prosecutors and judges did not need to read my mind to figure out my motivation. I hit the guy. Mitigating circumstances or self-defense might come into play, but the state did not need to discern my personal feelings.

Hate crimes laws require the court to get inside the heads of criminals to figure out whether or not they have some prejudice that might have come into play. If one is found, extra harsh sentencing may be applied.

A man may "hate" an individual that he catches in a hotel room with his wife and beat him to a bloody pulp. A person may "hate" those of a different race or sexual orientation and do the same. In either case the law says that the aggressor is in the wrong if he or she is not facing a threat to their own person. Why should one victim of violent crime be granted a certain status and entitlement to a higher level of legal deterrence?

Sociologists might be able to come up with arguments that demonstrate a valid case for hate crimes. However, the Constitution says otherwise. All United States citizens are entitled to "equal protection under the laws," nothing more, nothing less. Applying harsher penalties dependent upon who the victim is could theoretically mean that a person would feel more deterred from beating up an individual enjoying a protected status more than just anyone else on the street. That does not meet 14th Amendment standards.

No one should be beaten or killed because of their lifestyle or the way God made them (unless the lifestyle or the way God made them leads them to harm others) but hate crimes statutes simply are not constitutional.

Blast from the Past: Three Ring Government

Time For the Republican Party to Get Back to Basics

The Republican Party since its birth in the 1850s has traditionally stood in some way or another for rights. At that point its rights platform emphasized the right to not be owned just because of your skin color. The Grand Old Party has always been at its best and truest when arguing a positive platform of the right of each individual to enjoy what was promised by the Declaration of Independence and enshrined by the Constitution.

Constitution? Declaration of Independence? Even now that they are terrorist manifestos, they ought to be easy sells to the American people in the upcoming elections right?

The art of selling (and it is an art despite pollsters trying to turn it into a science) requires focus. Right now the Republican Party lacks cohesive focus. Remember when we stormed back in 1994? We had a strong and deep vision that was well articulated. It was based upon the political values and economic principles that have always been Republican strong suits.

We believe in the right of individuals to choose within the law except when those choices result in direct bodily harm to another individual.

We believe that America must retain a strong role in world affairs because we realize if we do not, more unpalatable nations will rise to the fore.

We believe that when the government is knee deep in the private sector instead of an impartial referee, it leads to favoritism and corruption. The Credit Mobilier scandal of the 1870s sprang from direct government involvement in railroads. Lots of politicians stuck their hands into that cookie jar, including future President James Garfield.

Obama is gutting the Constitution and is a real threat to our natural rights. We need to focus our message on a positive alternative vision. Right now we are simply reacting and muddying the water with other issues.

Social conservatives will argue with this, but it is time to jettison gay marriage as a major issue. This is my own opinion, not Gary Howell's. This issue contradicts our general stands on limited government and individual choice. Now on the issue of extending sexual education into elementary school with the idea of teaching children in ways that contradict parental prerogatives, that is an issue of rights where Republicans stand on firm ideological ground. Honestly what are we going to do if gays want to call themselves married? Put shock collars on them? The private sector already recognizes these relationships for insurance and other purposes. This issue muddies the waters and drives away to the Democrats many victims of Obama's stealing, I mean, tax policies.

Abortion, on the other hand, is an issue we need to continue to fight. It is a human rights issue. Children have the right to live, regardless. When the Declaration of Independence says that every person has the right to life, it gets no plainer than that. That is why this is not only a social conservative issue and should not be fought as one. We can even take this one into traditionally Democratic territory. One in three babies aborted is black. That is an astounding statistic. It should be better publicized by the Republican Party.

It's very simple. We only need to get back to the ideals upon which this country was founded. We separated from Britain for economic and individual freedom. We made those ideals our law. They are based upon the right to choose. If we stand by these two founding documents and fight on issues that flow directly from them, we are always strong.

No Title of Nobility Shall be Granted

231 years ago the 13 British colonies declared independence, in the Declaration of Independence, they clearly stated, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Five statesmen from Massachusetts signed that document; John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine and Elbridge Gerry.

March 4, 2009 British Prime Minster, Gordon Brown stood before a joint session of the US Congress and stated, “I want to announce that Her Majesty The Queen, has awarded an honorary Knighthood for Sir Edward Kennedy.” Now our founding fathers knew that titles of nobility inferred inequality of men. They promptly outlawed titles of nobility in the Articles of Confederation to insure the equality of men.

When considering the new constitution the Founding Fathers had very strong convictions. The outlawing of nobility titles was so important that James Madison had this to say about including that prevision in the new constitution, “The prohibition with respect to titles of nobility is copied from the articles of Confederation and needs no comment.” - January 25th, 1788, Federalist Papers #44

Alexander Hamilton ranked the banishment of nobility titles at the top, he even used all capital letters for emphases when he wrote, “The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus, the prohibition of ex-post-facto laws, and of TITLES OF NOBILITY, TO WHICH WE HAVE NO CORRESPONDING PROVISION IN OUR CONSTITUTION, are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it contains” He went on to say, “Nothing need be said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility. This may truly be denominated the corner-stone of republican government; for so long as they are excluded, there can never be serious danger that the government will be any other than that of the people.” Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers #84

As we know from history the pleas fell on receptive ears, because the banishment of titles of nobility made it into the US Constitution under Article 1, Section 9, “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

Today Senator Ted Kennedy and the US Congress have to make a decision. Are they statesmen or politicians? I think we can guess what the first Massachusetts Senators Caleb Strong and Tristram Dalton would recommend. Senator Kennedy should politely say, “No, thank you,” sighting the US Constitution. While Senator Kennedy has a long and distinguished career he is our equal nothing more. Congress should grant no exception and if Senator Kennedy wishes to accept, then he should resign from his office and renounce his US citizenship, just as the founding fathers renounced their British citizenship in order to form a nation of equals.

Byrd: Obama in power grab

An Open Letter to Obama

Mr. Obama today you will become the 44th President of the United States. I wish you and your family well on this day. It is yours and you earned it.

I would like to remind you as you move forward. You will be a leader of a nation that has diverse views and many of those views you do not share, but you must respect those views.

I want you to be a leader and a true leader leads. He understands that sometimes his views are the minority view and the nation may be best served by yielding to the majority. There will be times when the opposite is true. You must try to identify those and make the right decision. You will not always be right and when your wrong we will let you know.

You must respect our military and their sacrifice to freedom. Many have paid the ultimate price to allow you to become president. They fought wars past and present that you may not have agreed with, but they fought them for all of us. Do not forget their sacrifice when you make your decisions.

Some 200 years ago very wise men wrote the US Constitution. Use it when you make your decisions. Don't go by what some historian tells you about it, read it yourself and the papers of the founding fathers. See the nation through their eyes when you make your decisions.

While they will call you the leader of the Free World, the reality you are the leader of the United States of America. Always put the interest of the nation first.

I wish you good luck over the next 4 years. I never voted for you, but you will be my President. I will support you in that role, but I will also disagree with you from time to time. You are my president and you will have the respect from me that your office deserves.

What if there is a tie?

There are few battle ground states that are going to decide the Presidential Election, but there is the possibility of an Electoral College tie. If that happens, then the presidental election falls to the US House of Representatives and the vice presidental election to the Senate.

The only time in US History that a tie occurred was the election of 1824. John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson tied in the Electoral College. Both candidates were members of the Democratic-Republican Party. February 9th, 1825 the House elected John Quincy Adams to the Presidency. The fight in the House led a split in the Democratic-Republican Party. The result was the formation of the current Democratic Party led by Andrew Jackson and the National Republican Party led by John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay.

But what if there was a tie today? If Obama wins Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Mexico and Iowa but loses Virginia, New Hampshire, Florida and Ohio to McCain, both candidates would have 269 electoral votes.

The House is currently controlled by the Democrat Party and that leads most to believe that the house would vote for Obama, but the constitution forces each state vote as a delegation. Each state only gets one vote. 27 state of delegations that are Democrat majority, 21 are Republican and 2 state are equal.

But there is a catch. Some states will have voters support one parties candidate, while the congressional delegation is a majority of the other candidates party. West Virginia while most likely be one of those states. The polls show McCain the likely winner in WV, but Rahall and Mollohan will be able to out vote Capito to give the state to Obama. It will be a political blood bath. Mollohan and Rahall will be under termendous pressure from the Democratic Party to case their votes for Obama, while the people of West Virginia will be pushing them to vote for McCain. There choices could very well decide the outcome of the 2010 WV Congressional Elections for both.

It gets better. The Senate picks the Vice President. The Senate is near evenly split and Joe Liberman caucases with the Democrats, but is supporting McCain-Palin. The Senate could very easily pick Palin as the Vice President and if they do and the House has not decided, then she would be come president until the House decides. President Bush could be succeded by President Palin, only to be succeded by President Obama shortly after. It is possible that we end up with Obama as President and Palin as Vice President. If the House and Senate don't decide by Jan. 20th, 2008, then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi becomes President until a decision is made.

Hold on it could be a wild ride.

Whose Constitution?

One of the most dangerous trends in American law over the past several years lies in the blurring of the lines between citizen and non citizen. Maybe it is a failure of education that people for whatever reason assume that "Constitutional Rights" extend to anyone that happens to enter the jurisdiction of the United States.

Nationally the debate rages over detainees at Guantanamo Bay. People who ought to know better complain because those held there have been denied counsel, trial, and other legal remedies available to US citizens. Liberal judges (who are quickly overruled) support this nonsense to make a political statement against the president rather than ruling on the law. Closer to home, West Virginia law enforcement agencies have started distributing Miranda warnings in Spanish. No officer wants to work hard to get illegals off the street just so a liberal judge can wave a legal magic wand and give them Constitutional rights.

The Constitution's preamble has repeatedly been cited as part and parcel of the law of that document. This legal principle lay at the heart of every action taken by Abraham Lincoln to restore the Union. "We the people of the United States" opens the document. "The people" and "persons" used later on denotes United States citizens. Somewhere along the way, a segment of American thinkers has determined that our Constitution applies to those that sneak across our borders illegally. Even worse, they argue that enemies of our country that the military rounds up and detains have rights to our legal system. Imagine if Franklin Roosevelt had to deal with this foolishness when his FBI efficiently rounded up German agents at the commencement of World War II.


We cannot allow non citizens to take advantage of our benevolence. If you are not an American citizen, you do not receive the "privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Those politicians that support extending legal protections, social services, and (I am not kidding here) voting rights to illegal non citizens ought to be held to account.