Senate Unanimously Confirmed Gen Petraeus New Commander of US and Nato Forces in Afghanistan

Gen David Petraeus confirmed to lead Afghanistan war; BBC

The US Senate has unanimously confirmed Gen David Petraeus as the new commander of US and Nato forces in Afghanistan.

President Barack Obama nominated him after sacking the previous commander, Gen Stanley McChrystal, last week.

Gen McChrystal and his aides had criticised senior administration officials in a magazine article.

Gen Petraeus earlier warned in his Senate confirmation hearing of an escalation of violence in Afghanistan in the coming months.

He is one of America's best-known military figures and is widely credited with having turned around the military situation in Iraq with a "surge" there.

He is expected to step down as head of US Central Command, a role he has held since October 2009, to take up the new post.

Comment: I consider this akin to say the New York Yankees having to call George Stinebenner in to pitch game seven of the World Series. I have to ask, where the heck is the bullpen? We have more generals on active duty today than we did during World War II and yet we have to call in Petraeus. There's no one else who can manage this war? Something's wrong here.

However, if the US Senate was made up of representatives from the states, who are faced with depleted, overused, stretched thin National Guard units they might start asking the White House and Pentagon some hard questions.

If they were the true representatives of their state rather than the clown puppets that do the bidding of special interests they might be asking where the unaccounted billions of dollars lost by the Department of Defense went.

Maybe just maybe, if we had representatives from the states the US Senate might be a little concerned that our deficit is $1.7 trillion.

Oh and we shouldn't forget this conveniently lost question...where's Bin Laden?! Remember that's why we went on this fishing expedition in the first place.

This is what happens when you lose the checks and balances created by the founders. You foster a group of unaccountable big government statists who care nothing for the future of this country nor the people that work tirelessly paying the taxes these fools spend with no regard. You have a group of stooges either unwilling or too ignorant to ask the hard questions for the American people.

The Ridiculous Senate Confirmation Process

Senators are asking Elena Kagan who she likes on Twilight: Eclipse.



Senate hearings have become an utterly useless process as far as gathering information. Now they're all about grandstanding, demagogueing, and feeling superior to "the little people". These people have a job where they know they're virtually unaccountable. Repeal the 17th Amendment and maybe we'll have someone in Washington who's concerned about actually doing their job.

Hat tip: Hot Air

Alan Keyes: Repeal The 17th Amendment!

He's speaking at a rally in Alabama:

The 17th Amendment Was a Very Bad Idea - Doug Patton

The 17th Amendment Was a Very Bad Idea - Doug Patton; Objective Conservative

"When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the centre of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."
— Thomas Jefferson, in 1821

The most anti-American president in the history of the country — at least until Barack Obama entered the White House — was Woodrow Wilson. Elected in 1912, Wilson was a racist progressive Democrat who viewed the Founders and the Constitution with disdain. During his first year in office, he promoted two of the most destructive amendments to the U.S. Constitution ever ratified — the 16th, which gave us the direct federal income tax, and the 17th, which provided for the direct election of U.S. Senators.

The popular election of our Senators is bad public policy because it stripped the states of the one voice of representation they had in Washington, DC. James Madison, remembered as the Father of the Constitution, cautioned against "nationalism," wherein a strong national government would rule from Washington. Madison instead favored a new system, to be known as "federalism," which would give co-equal powers to the state and the federal governments. One of the key aspects of maintaining this distinction was the manner in which U.S. Senators were selected.

The House of Representatives, Madison said, would be the direct advocate for the people, and would be elected through their direct vote. U.S. Senators would be selected by their state legislatures, and would represent the interests of the states. By the end of the 19th Century, widespread corruption within state legislatures was rampant. At least that was the excuse used by those who advocated ratification of the 17th Amendment. As if there is no corruption surrounding this issue under the current system. Anyone been watching the trial of former Gov. Rod Blagojevich in Illinois?

Imagine how much more accountable United States Senators would be to the states they allegedly represent if they had to answer to the legislators in that state, rather than to the fickle whim of voters. ...

Read the rest here.

West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd dead at 92

West Virginia Sen. Robert Byrd dead at 92; The Associated Press

Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, a fiery orator versed in the classics and a hard-charging power broker who steered billions of federal dollars to the state of his Depression-era upbringing, died Monday. He was 92.

SWAT at BP Oil Rig: What's Going on Inside Our Government?

I spotted this video on my friends social networking site and I was as equally dismayed as was radio talk show host Mark Levin that the Department of Interior has a SWAT capability and the President sent them to "inspect" the oil platforms in the Gulf of Mexico.

I have to say what the heck is going on inside our government?



Comment: Since enacting of the 17th Amendment, and other questionable legislation that followed, there has been an assault waged against our Constitution and civil liberties by our federal and national government fostered by our elected officials, which has been moving us toward becoming a full fledged police state.

Because we have lost those checks and balances between the three branches of the federal government, the states and the people, we have very few ways to monitor the various activities that may be of dire consequence to our freedom.

When you consider the fact that the Department of Interior has SWAT capability it must be realized that it wasn't created by the present administration but in the last. Moreover, it means that while there are supposedly two main parties in this country there is really one agenda.

I realize that repealing the 17th Amendment won't fix every problem we face in the wake of the steady erosion of civil liberties, but it will put the brakes on this madness called a police state, which we are clearly headed toward (might very well be amidst).

The repeal of the 17th Amendment is not some esoteric or quixotic quest. It is first and foremost an important step to regaining the essential checks and balances and the civil liberties once contained within the US Constitution. If this video/audio doesn't at least make you consider that, then we are lost. We are lost as a country.

Sen. Byrd In Serious Condition

Sen. Robert Byrd, the longest-serving member of Congress, was admitted to a Washington-area hospital last week and is considered "seriously ill," according to a statement released today by his office.

Byrd, 92, was admitted to the hospital after "suffering from what was believed to be heat exhaustion and severe dehydration as a result of the extreme temperatures," according to the statement. "However, upon further examination by his doctors, other conditions have developed which has resulted in his condition being described as 'serious.'"

Political disagreements aside, my best wishes for Senator Byrd's recovery and for his family at this difficult time.

GA PSC Dist.2 Candidates Asked About 17th Amendment

The PSC is the Public Service Commissioner. This is the debate for the Republican candidates. @ 24:25



The four Republican primary candidates are State Rep. Jeff May, State Sen. John Douglas, former legislator Joey Brush, and nonprofit executive Tim Echols. The Democrat candidate is unchallenged.

Of course, the PSC has no power whatsoever to actually repeal the 17th Amendment. But it's good to see the question being asked, even though it was probably asked only to get ammo against a potential future candidate.

Hat tip: profg

The Tyranny Of Accountability

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air links to an NPR piece (via Instapundit) decrying the fact that politicians are being held accountable by their constitutents. Ed notes:

When the founders created Congress, they had two separate constituencies in mind. For the House, they wanted Representatives who would be accountable to the people, while for the Senate they wanted members accountable to the state legislatures that were the natural check on federal power. (Later, the 17th Amendment made Senators accountable to the general public instead.) They formed this body in answer to the tyranny of distant nobility and politicians with no accountability whatsoever to those whom they would rule. A representative government, they concluded, would be the antidote of tyranny.

...

In any case, accountability is not tyranny; it’s the exact opposite of tyranny.

Consider this Washington Examiner column making the case that a policy-making court needs to be have the same kind of accountability that a legislature does.

There are two kinds of government: an accountable government or an unaccountable one. Nobody wants an unaccountable government (noboy intelligent, anyways), so the only question is how the government is to be held accountable. The original Constitutional framework provided that the states would hold the Senate accountable while the people held the House accountable. The election of the President was regulated through the electoral college to prevent populist democracy, while judges were monitored through the Presidency, the Senate, and the possibility of impeachment by the House.

Utopian visionaries lament that they are not allowed to force their social engineering programs on people. If only they were allowed to force people to obey without the threat of accountability! They could create heaven on earth!

Thomas Friedman recently said, "One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages." But the rule of law requires that government be held accountable. This is how Judge Napolitano reacted to the idea that the justice requires making government unaccountable:



Accountability is the foundation of the rule of law. If we tear down the laws in our quest to punish the devil, then what laws will there be to protect us?



Those who support big government oppose the repeal of the 17th Amendment because they don't want lawmakers held accountable. It's easier for people to hold their state and local governments accountable, but national politicians are loyal only to their party and to their special interests.

Infowar Covers Sen. Kyle's Comment About Why Obama Won't Send Troops to The Border

I got this video via email and thought it was provocative enough to post. It seems as if long held suspicions concerning our government's failure to secure our borders are valid, as well being a single track effort espoused by the two main parties.

On Obama's Cue, La. Senator Pushes Ambitious Gulf Coast Restoration Vision

On Obama's Cue, La. Senator Pushes Ambitious Gulf Coast Restoration Vision ; The New York Times

Sen. Mary Landrieu wants to create a new government agency funded to the tune of as much as $1 billion annually to direct the long-term Gulf Coast environmental restoration that President Obama called for in his Oval Office address last week. ...

Read the rest here.

Comment: The answer to every problem in Washington is more government.

Blagojevich trial focus shifts to alleged Senate seat sale attempt

Blagojevich trial focus shifts to alleged Senate seat sale attempt; The Chicago Tribune

It was right before the 2008 election when then- Gov. Rod Blagojevich first heard that future President Barack Obama had strong feelings about whom he wanted to succeed him in the U.S. Senate. And almost immediately, the governor had a question.

"What can I ... have a shot at getting?" Blagojevich asked his chief of staff on a call recorded by federal investigators.

As his corruption trial moved Tuesday into the marquee allegation against the former governor — the alleged sale of Obama's U.S. Senate seat — the jury spent a day listening as Blagojevich attempted to answer that question in rambling conversations with his chief of staff in the fall of 2008.

Comment: I have tended to stay away from this story because I saw this as "state" issue, not national, but I think the former Governor is not going to lay down for the anointed one and this has the makings of a great scandal. We might just see Chief Justice convening the US Senate for impeachment proceedings.

What's your take; will we see an impeachment?

Senate Dems Want Obama to Take Charge of Climate (World Tax) Bill

Senate Dems want Obama to take charge of climate bill; USA Today

Most Senate Democrats want President Obama to take the lead on a climate change bill that is edging closer to the Senate floor, POLITICO reports.

The Obama administration said Tuesday it postponed a meeting set for today with senators to discuss the process for passing energy and climate legislation this year, Reuters reports. No date was given for the rescheduled gathering.

"I think it's pretty clear we have to do something," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told POLITICO. "The question is what do we do. Now a lot of that depends on what the White House is going to do to help us get something done."

Obama has another meeting today with Gen. Stanley McChrystal after the top commander in the Afghan war made controversial remarks in a magazine article.

The House narrowly passed legislation last June that would curb greenhouse gases 17% below 2005 levels by 2020. It would take 60 votes in the Senate to pass a bill that creates a higher price on carbon emissions.

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told ABC Sunday that Obama's three main goals for energy legislation were reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil, making investments in clean energy technology and dealing with carbon pollution.

Comment: The march toward the global tax will not stop until we devolve the power consolidated in Washington. The first step to this realization is the repeal of the 17th Amendment.

Sen. Shelby (R-AL): Porker Of The Month!

The Constellation Program was intended to modernize NASA and replace the aging Space Shuttle, but has been plagued by cost overruns and blown deadlines. President Obama and NASA have proposed canceling the unsustainable program—turning instead to the emerging private space industry to oversee launches.

In response, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) co-sponsored a measure protecting Constellation, which was attached to an emergency war funding bill. Such a measure ensures millions of taxpayer dollars will continue being funneled to politically connected NASA contractors.

Contractors like Alabama's own Radiance Technologies, which—wouldn't you know it—just happens to be one of Shelby's biggest campaign contributors.

Repealing the 17th Amendment would do more than allow state legislatures to exercise greater oversight over Senators than the people do, it would also allow the people to focus their attention on the House instead of trying to keep track of two federal legislatures. The political parties love making the political system as complex as possible so that it's difficult to follow. The more difficult it is to see what's going on, the less that people will try.

That's how they can get away with this stuff.

Hat tip: ReasonTV

Return to framers' intent: Rescind 17th Amendment

Return to framers' intent: Rescind 17th Amendment; Community Voices; Harold Pease; The Bakersfield Californian

The Constitution divided power between two separate but co-equal governing bodies: the states and the national government. This division is called federalism and is so important that the flow of power away from the people cannot be preserved without it. It is the concept that in most things the states are not subordinate to the national government but in fact immune from it.

The national government was to handle mostly foreign concerns, and the states were to handle internal concerns. The states never surrendered any power that they felt they could manage and any new powers subsequently given required three-fourths of the states' permission, per Article V of the Constitution.

The Constitution then divided the power left at the national level into three branches of government: legislative, executive, and judicial branches, each a check on each other to prevent consolidation of power into one body. Collectively they were the national component while the states were the federal component hence the shared and equal concept known as federalism. Think of this relationship as a marriage, neither the servant of the other and each with different duties.

How would one know who had the power and when? Article I, Sec. 8 listed the powers of the national government and Amendment 10 noted that all other powers "belonged to the states and to the people." Who would keep the national government in its place due to their natural tendency to grow? The clarity of the document and the states themselves protecting the interests of their own people would do so by failing to comply when their partner in marriage overstepped boundaries. But one other step was critical: the creation of a bicameral legislature, one representing the people (the House of Representatives), the other the states (the Senate).

The Senate was never actually created to represent the people. Why would they create two legislative bodies doing the same thing? It was created to protect the needs of the states that indirectly protected the needs of its citizens. All law would be reviewed from two perspectives and both must be satisfied before enactment. James Madison explained, "No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then of a majority of the states."

Today the states have no voice in the making of law, and federalism and freedom are dying proportionally because of who elects the senators. Initially, under the Constitution, the state legislatures selected their two U.S. Senators. These were individuals who were familiar with and loyal to state issues, and were usually one of their own, gifted in the articulation of their interests as well.

Today, because of the 17th Amendment, ratified early in the 20th Century, Senators are directly selected by the voters like their counterparts in the House and can appeal to solely popular perspectives and may know nothing of the state legislatures concerns of an overpowering national government. They may not even need to campaign in their state capital to get elected. For example, the national government has no constitutional jurisdiction over water use, or environmental issues within a state. A California senator should be arguing such in Washington, D.C., Without this voice, the national government moves into state areas of power pretty much at will and no other government is powerful enough to stop them.

By mandating that the people rather than the states select the U.S. Senators, the 17th Amendment undid the benefits of a bicameral legislature: one specifically oriented to the needs of the masses, and the other oriented to the needs of the states. The result, whether intended or not, did great damage to federalism and the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution which ensured federalism.

The only real solution to taking the Tenth Amendment off life support is to rescind the 17th Amendment. Although it may have enhanced democracy, it also removed from the states their voice in the U.S. Senate and hence the ever-increasing growth of government at liberty's expense.

Harold Pease has taught history and political science for over 25 years at Taft College. His website is Liberty Under Fire.

Note: The bold font was used by this blogger.

The Tea Party has it right on the 17th amendment

The Tea Party has it right on the 17th amendment; The American Centrist

Every now and then, the Tea Party gets it right. The New York Times today reported that the Tea Party is on a quest to repeal the 17^th amendment.

I think the quest to repeal the 17th amendment needs to go further. Senators and members of the House sho1tld1 be elected by their respective state legislatures. It’s the first step toward scaling back the federal government to its basic responsibilities: protect the general welfare, promote commerce, provide national security.

I’d prefer we save a billion dollars a year by getting rid of the House of Representatives.

Comment: When folks get down to brass tacks in this country and look at the basic problems we have, the silly left-right paradigm used by the two main parties use to divide us gets put to the side and collectively we realize the same thing; WE NEED TO LIMIT THE NATIONAL AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!

The Tea Party perspective on the 17th Amendment

The Tea Party perspective on the 17th Amendment; The 28th Amendment

Before the primary for Virginia’s 11th congressional district, the Republican nominee, Keith Fimian, went on a radio show and was asked about some Tea Party participants’ desire to repeal the 17th Amendment. Passed in 1913, the amendment granted the direct popular election of senators, as opposed to their selection by state legislatures. Apparently, there is a feeling in the Tea Party that states’ rights would be better protected without the amendment. Fimian, while admitting that the idea has “some merit” said that he would not be inclined toward repeal.

Nevertheless, Democratic Rep. Gerry Connolly’s campaign is hammering Fimian for “want[ing] political insiders in Richmond to decide who represents us in the U.S. Senate. This radical shift will take us back to a time when a handful of insiders decided our future. Does that seem a little bit crazy to you?”

Well, actually…maybe not. The 17th Amendment was advocated by progressives who felt that the Senate was turning into a place for men of wealth who demanded special services. When the first Senate office building opened in 1909, bathing facilities, a masseuse, and an electric subway catered to the likes of William Lorimer of Illinois, whose election was invalidated after he was accused of bribing state assemblymen to obtain his seat.

So, in that sense, it seemed like a good idea to democratize the system. But then a funny thing happened: when one-third of the Senate was up for reelection in 1914, two did not receive their party’s renomination, but none of the incumbents lost in the general election. Apparently, the state legislatures had done a pretty accurate job of channeling the people’s choices. And what’s even funnier, the direct-election reform doesn’t seem to have had much impact on the type of people who get elected.

Consider a few of the current Senate members: John Kerry, John Rockefeller, Frank Lautenberg, and Dianne Feinstein are worth over $50 million. The list of millionaires also includes John “Eight Houses” McCain, cellphone mogul Mark Warner of Virginia, and Senate candidates Carly Fiorina of California and Linda McMahon of Connecticut. Who needs to bribe state legislators anymore when your personal fortune can fund mass negative ad campaigns?

What might a Senate look like if all its members were chosen by legislatures? Much of the talent pool would probably remain the same: former governors and representatives for sure, but probably even state legislators or judges could be chosen to go to Washington. It would certainly increase the prestige of state politics, and senators would not only have to lobby the legislators, but would also have to convince their constituents to exert pressure on their state representatives—which could result ironically in more spending to win the votes of only several dozen people.

Maybe senators would more readily approve aid to state education and infrastructure and could credibly point to their patrons for pork barrel spending rather than each other. On the other hand, maybe senators would be better able to reduce budget deficits by making hard taxing and spending decisions that are insulated from the public’s outrage. There would undoubtedly be deadlock in legislatures with narrow or split party control—of the kind resembling the months-long Minnesota recount. That would, of course, lead to backroom deals and vote-trading, which the public is probably sick of.

But for the million-dollar question, does direct election of senators actually result in more responsive and responsible public policy—who knows for sure?

Comment: I'll provide my opinion to the authors question; no, it does not. Read the papers linked on the right hand side of this page by Rosen, Hoebeke, and Zywicki for an explanation and answer.

US Senators are more responsive to special interests than to the states or citizenry, while creating irresponsible laws infringing upon our natural rights and spending at levels never witnessed in our history placing a tremendous burden on the back of future generations.

Does Fimian want to repeal 17th amendment on popular election of senators?

Does Fimian want to repeal 17th amendment on popular election of senators? Virginia Politics Blog; The Washington Post

Of all the issues dominating the 2010 election season, the debate over ending the direct election of senators seems relatively low on the priority list.

Rep. Gerald Connolly's (D-Va.) reelection campaign is trying to change that, highlighting what it claims is Oakton businessman Keith Fimian's (R) desire to repeal the 17th amendment to the Constitution, which ended the practice of senators being chosen by state legislatures. ...

Read the rest here.

Comment: This is where the repeal will begin, at the state and local level, not and never at the national. We have to get the information out those in our communities and teach them about the issue. Then we'll have a new group of politicians who will be responsive for state issues, not distracted by the hype and glitter of Washington, and not to forget the recklessness, the recklessness that an untold number of future generations are already saddled.

17th Amendment needs to come out of Constitution

17th Amendment needs to come out of Constitution; Letter to the Editor; Robert Carreau; The Las Vegas Sun

Regarding Joel Rector’s June 10 letter to the editor, “Taking elections away from voters hardly a panacea,” about the 17th Amendment:

Our constitutional founders wisely formed the U.S. Senate to be a body of state ambassadors. The most effective ambassadors are those appointed by the body of government they are to represent.

Senators must be responsive and answerable to and, if necessary, disciplined by, their appointees. Sens. John Ensign and Larry Craig, both disgraces to their states and their positions, could have been recalled quickly and efficiently.

But the 17th Amendment, by allowing senators to be elected by the people, has negated the most basic framework of our Constitution. It has moved us toward pure democracy. It has invited an avalanche of outside influence in both houses of Congress. It has destroyed a major check and balance of our federal government and it has disrupted the cohesion of our union of states.

Today we have 20 states suing to stop national health care. Arizona is struggling to enforce federal immigration laws, and many states are enacting laws to protect their sovereign rights against Washington’s intrusion.

It is well documented that when state legislators chose senators, there existed bribery and corruption, but at least it was a state problem. A state does not have enough power to destroy a nation.

The 17th Amendment is the root and the catalyst for our dysfunctional Congress, which is out of step, out of touch, and out of control. We need to repeal the 17th Amendment and allow our states to share power and restrain our Congress, or we can stay the course and wait for our international creditors to rein in our Congress and force it to face reality.

Comment: As it was prior to the enacting of 17th Amendment in 1913, states did not have the constitutional authority to recall a sitting US Senator, states would still have to wait until the end of the term to vote them out of office. However, as pointed out by professor Todd Zywicki and others, the senators were much more responsive to their individual state than they have been since 1913, and I would add, better "memories" than the average citizen voting today.

However, folks like John MacMullin, Sterling Sanders and others who are researching and preparing repeal proposals have discussed the idea of increasing the authority of the state to recall a senator if they were to act in an unlawful or nefarious manner. Zywicki has also pointed out that one of the central problems with the original framework may have been that it lacked real power and this may have been one of the central causes of frustration in some states. Certainly a repeal could correct this problem and keep within the founders framework while restoring republicanism.

Thanks to Mr. Carreau for taking the time to write this very good letter to his local newspaper. This helps to inform the general citznerey that is unlearned concerning our founding history.

Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano

Judge Napolitano's Freedom Watch has recently debuted on television. The Patriot's Network has the show in full, but here's a short clip from the second show.



You can watch the first show on Youtube here, and you can watch the second show on The Patriot's Network.

Reid's angle: Attack GOP foe Angle in Senate bid

Reid's angle: Attack GOP foe Angle in Senate bid; The Associated Press

Sig Rogich is a hyper-connected Nevada Republican who helped elect Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and once worked a few steps from the Oval Office in a White House corner later occupied by Karl Rove.

So which candidate gets Rogich's considerable support in the Nevada Senate race: Democrat Harry Reid or Republican Sharron Angle?

"Harry Reid," says the GOP strategist, who started "Republicans for Reid" months ago. "I could never support somebody who espouses the radical positions that Angle does."

Rogich's position is another small but significant sign that Reid, the Senate majority leader whose popularity has plummeted in Nevada, has a new hope for re-election.

Reid's rival — according to consultants and elected officials in both parties, as well as independent observers — may be a more flawed candidate than Reid. ...

The Republican mayor of Reno, longtime Reid backer Bob Cashell, calls Angle an "ultra right-winger" who is "just too far to the right for me." While Rogich and Cashell supported Reid before Angle's GOP primary victory, their concerns about her reflect the feelings of many inside the GOP establishment.

Angle, 60, was an anti-tax, anti-government social conservative years before the tea party emerged. A largely unknown former state lawmaker with 10 grandchildren, she is as far outside the political establishment as Reid is inside.

Angle supports phasing out Social Security, wiping out the Education Department and returning to the days almost a century ago when the federal income tax was unconstitutional.

She has not said how she would — or even if she would — propose replacing government pensions or lost tax receipts.

During four terms in the state Assembly, she agitated leaders of both parties as a vote-no oppositional figure with sometimes unconventional views. She wanted female inmates to enter a drug rehabilitation program devised by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard, an idea she still defends.

Angle backs the processing of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, a wildly unpopular idea in Nevada.

She is, for now, often the subject of ridicule.

Read the entire article here.

Comment: The above article is another example of the nonstop collusion that takes place between the two main parties, which continues to thwart real options and change in our political system.

I can't speak for Ms. Angle's position, nor will I, but for those that support the repeal of the 17th, and even those that don't but are seeking to limit government, you have to see that the path for change in this country is blocked by a number of foes, and central among them are the Democrat and Republican Parties.

This ideal of a two party system is as bad as any "crack" induced idea out there. Who in their right mind would think that life is only a road with one of two options...only a fool.

The road to real change in this country doesn't lay with fancy logos, colorful candidates or perfect hair, but through the breaking apart and removal of the barriers that have protected the establishment for the last 100 years. America's politicians have consolidated power into this centralized fiefdom that sit within the beltway of Washington DC at the expense of our rights and freedoms.

If we are going to have any chance at turning back the deficit, stopping the continued march of war, and the wholesale gutting of America's infrastructure we have to break these barriers they created, and it has to start with breaking the power of the two main parties; make no doubt about it.

White House Seeks to Bolster Role in Senate Climate Talks

White House Seeks to Bolster Role in Senate Climate Talks; The New York Times

The White House is trying to assert its influence over the Senate climate debate after President Obama's nationwide energy address left some questioning how aggressively the president will push for comprehensive climate and energy legislation.

Obama made calls yesterday morning to Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), both sponsors of competing Senate energy bills, and the White House announced plans to host a bipartisan group of senators next week to discuss the path forward on an energy package.

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs also insisted that the president remains committed to passing legislation that caps carbon dioxide emissions, fending off claims that the president backed away from the approach in his Oval Office speech Tuesday night.

"I think it is safe to say that the president's direction on energy is very similar to the direction that is in the Kerry-Lieberman bill and that the president feels strongly that including a component to deal with climate is important in comprehensive energy reform," Gibbs said.

The energy and climate bill (pdf) co-sponsored by Kerry and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) would cap domestic greenhouse gas emissions across multiple sectors of the economy. Many Senate Democrats and environmentalists say such a broad approach is needed to combat global warming, but critics say tagging a carbon price onto energy legislation would make it politically toxic. ...

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), one of the Senate's most vocal foes of climate legislation, said Obama did not mention a carbon cap because he knows the approach does not have enough support. "He realizes the votes just flat aren't there and the whole Kerry-Lieberman thing that's supposed to be different from the rest is no different -- cap and trade is cap and trade." ...

Some of the options on the table include the Kerry-Lieberman bill, Bingaman's energy bill with a nationwide renewable energy standard; an alternative "cap and dividend (pdf)" approach for pricing carbon emissions from Sens. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine); and Lugar's bill (pdf) that promotes energy efficiency.

In the last paragraph are some of the groups that will benefit from government collusion...

The coalition includes the Alliance to Save Energy, the American Wind Energy Association, the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, the Biomass Power Association, Growth Energy, the Energy Recovery Council, the Geothermal Energy Association, the National Hydropower Association and the Solar Energy Industries Association.

Read the complete article here.

Comment: I'm always completely amazed that the clowns in Congress never consider how the laws and regulations that are currently on the books strangle business, entrepreneurship and productivity. The only thing they know is to continue heaping more laws on to the old laws until you have no idea what you are trying to change or what's underneath.

It's just like our tax returns. From one year to the next we never know what the bloody law is, so I have to wonder how these jackasses are going to revamp the entire energy structure in one sitting when it has taken over 100 years to get where we are today. How are they going to know what is best for their respective state when the majority of the clowns in the Senate don't really come from that state nor reside in it.

However, you know who would know; someone who has spent a few years working in their respective state legislative body and lived a good part of their life in that state, that's who would.

When you really start pulling the threads apart of the fabric being weaved by the clowns in Washington you start to see how screwed up the whole piece really is. Then you realize quickly that the movement to repeal the 17th Amendment is not some quixotic ideal, but almost like an amputation that's needed to remove a dying limb in order to save the body.

Senate Negotiators Agree to No Confirmation of NY Fed President

Senate Negotiators Agree to No Confirmation of NY Fed President; The Wall Street Journal

Senate lawmakers negotiating the final version of a broad financial overhaul bill Thursday rejected a move to require the president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank be a presidential appointee, virtually ensuring that the proposal won’t make it into the final bill.

Sen. Jack Reed (D., R.I.) had asked for the change in a House proposal to reduce the influence of commercial banks on the appointment of regional Federal Reserve bank presidents.

Reed argued that the New York Fed president “has huge regulatory power,” noting that when Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner held the position, he presided over the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the purchase of Bear Stearns.

The lawmakers’ vote was the first taken in the third day of the “conference committee” in which House and Senate lawmakers are hammering out the final version of the financial overhaul bill.

“I think someone in this country who has that kind of power who can make those kinds of decisions should be subject to the nomination and confirmation process,” Reed said of the New York Fed president.

But Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.) was among the Senate negotiators rejecting the idea, saying the Senate already gets “bogged down” with the number of positions it has to review in the confirmation process.

Sen. Judd Gregg (R., N.H.), said confirming the New York Fed president would politicize the position. “You’re stepping on the slope of basically politicizing the Fed,” said Gregg.

Comment: Noting that Geithner held the same position doesn't indicate that the position is already politicized: so how could making the position a presidential appointment make it any less politicized? Are these guys smoking crack? How about getting rid of the Federal Reserve and completely remove the political element that effects more than just our monetary mechanisms.

EPA finds Senate climate bill affordable

EPA finds Senate climate bill affordable; Reuters

U.S. environmental regulators said on Tuesday the climate and energy bill in the Senate would only add slightly to average household costs, but the finding was not expected to boost chances for the legislation that would cap greenhouse gas emissions.

The climate bill unveiled last month by Senators John Kerry, a Democrat, and Joseph Lieberman, an independent, would cost households an average of $79 to $146 per year through 2050, the Environmental Protection Agency said in an economic analysis.

Through 2020 consumer energy costs would go down before picking up in following decades, the EPA said in the analysis that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid promised Republicans last year the bill would have to face.

The EPA's cost estimate of the Kerry-Lieberman bill was similar to the price tag it put last year on an analysis of the climate bill narrowly passed by the House of Representatives, which gained no traction in the Senate.

One analyst said the lack of a big change from last year's estimate limited how much the new analysis will boost support for the long-delayed Senate bill.

"The bottom line is the EPA analysis was not much different than last year's and the moderate result won't do much to change the calculus in the Senate," said Divya Reddy, an analyst at the Eurasia Group in Washington. "Many lawmakers from coal and manufacturing states still have reservations."

That could leave the bill's chances of passing largely up to President Barack Obama, who has made passing a broad energy bill to boost alternative energy and cut emissions one of his top priorities. In a speech to the nation later on Tuesday, Obama is expected to offer ambitious plans to cut U.S. dependence on fossil fuels in the wake of the BP Plc oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

The EPA analysis also showed that prices for carbon permits in the cap and trade market outlined in Kerry-Lieberman should hit $16 to $17 per tonne in 2013 and $23 to $24 per tonne in 2020. Those prices were well within range of the bill's initial floor and ceiling prices.

Read the rest here.

Comment: So much for conflict of interest.

Update: From the office of Senator Inhofe: EPA Avoids Discussing Jobs Impacts Of Kerry-Lieberman

Why the 17th Amendment Was a Bad Idea

Why the 17th Amendment was a bad idea; Steven Givler Online

The 17th Amendment to the US Constitution allowed for direct election by the voters of their senators. Never mind that the Founding Fathers foresaw that was a bad idea - onward in our rush toward democracy! (something else the Founders knew to be a mistake)

Not only does direct election of senators lead those senators to compete in confiscating and redistributing wealth in order to buy votes, but there's also the distinct possibility that, (Hm, how can I put this delicately?) if a significant portion of the electorate in your state is lazy, ignorant, or mentally deficient (or all the above) they might actually vote for someone like Alvin Greene, the Democrat candidate for the South Carolina senate seat who just won his primary despite not bothering to campaign for it. He spent no money, aside from the $10,000 filing fee, and how he came up with that is a mystery, since he's unemployed. He rang no doorbells, spoke at no rallies, and gave no interviews, but he won 60% of the vote. He is inarticulate. He can express no plan beyond "Jobs, Education, and Justice," and he is being charged with having shown obscene material to a minor. His responses to questions are so lame, so monosyllabic, that in this interview (Click on the title to this post.) his interviewer asks him if he is impaired. Really. Most candidates realize you have to survive your general election, not just the primary before you start acting like an idiot. At least we can credit Mr. Greene with being transparent.

Read the rest here.

“Democracy” is not a Definitive Argument Against the 17th Amendment:

“Democracy” is not a Definitive Argument Against the 17th Amendment; The Volokh Conspiracy; Todd Zywicki

Apparently Glenn Beck’s been thinking about the 17th Amendment too. A short mention in this video and a mention on his website (was this perhaps the text of a short discussion he had on it). Update: Here’s a longer clip with Beck’s analysis at the beginning. He’s actually got it basically right, both on the history and on the implications (such as for unfunded mandates).

And Mike Huckabee recently called the 17th Amendment “one of the dumbest things we did.”

Which brings to mind my observation that those who oppose the repeal of the 17th Amendment think it is a definitive argument that it would be anti-democratic or “distrustful of the people.” That’s one argument, but I think it much weaker than those folks believe it is. Well, yes, of course it is. But without belaboring the argument, it basically boils down to an argument about how to trade off arguments for democracy against arguments for a constitutional republic. Those of us who like the original system like the systemic values that it promoted–bicameralism and federalism. The goal is the preservation of liberty and the frustration of special interest faction, not the maximization of democracy. Those who have read my articles on this will note that in my view the the original Senate was at least as important in promoting bicameralism and the frustration of interest-group faction as federalism.

Notably, many of the same people who express horror or ridicule the thought of indirect election of Senators would also express horror or ridicule at the idea that we should elect federal judges. Just goes to show that the argument has to be about constitutional structure and that democracy is not a trump card. Note also that we don’t have direct election of the President, although it is somewhat more direct than the original Electoral College (notably many states had adopted different amounts of direct election of Senators prior to the 17th Amendment’s enactment).

Repealing the 17th Amendment might be a pipe dream as a political reality. Or it might be that the the pre-17th Amendment Senate was not actually as powerful as a force for bicameralism and federalism as the Framers’ intended. Or that democratic election furthers other normative goals here, but not in the context of judges. Or maybe its just not a good idea for some other reason. But to say it would be anti-democratic is merely the beginning, not the end, of the argument.

For the record, I also oppose direct election of federal judges despite the anti-democratic nature of that opinion as well.

Comment: The comments on the original site were lacking, however, I would point out that the 17th Amendment is not a fringe movement when you consider the following:

1. The almost complete loss of civil liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.
2. Continuous war since World War II.
3. $1.7 trillion federal deficit.
   
4. Non-elected federal governmental regulatory agencies having extra-constitutional authority.
5. Unfunded mandates thrust upon the states that have little recourse causing state expenditures to rise beyond the state's ability to fund.
6. Treaties that have resulted in the loss of our manufacturing base.
7. Treaties that continue to infringe upon our nation's sovereignty.
   
8. Unsecured borders and illegal immigrants numbering more than 25 million.
9. A nationalized health-care bill passed when the majority of the citizenry opposed it.
10. A court system made up of self-imposed legislators.
    

I could go on for hours listing the problems caused by this out of control federal government, but I think you get the idea, and hopefully quickly realize after some reflection, repealing the 17th Amendment is not a fringe issue. Freedom, liberty and limited government are nor fringe ideas or norms.

Another Opposing View

Repeal the 17th amendment - let your legislature choose the US senate; Salt Lake City Political Buzz Examiner; Alison Peek

Ms. Peek should spend a little bit more time researching...

Back in 1913, before two world wars, and countless others, and before women could vote: you know - the good old days, this country ratified (with the exception of the state of Utah), the 17th Amendment of the US Constitution. This amendment allows the people to directly elect their United States Senators instead of having the legislature do it for us. Originally, only the House of Representatives was filled by the vote of the people (albeit men, mostly white, mostly property holders). Sounds kind of like the House of Lords and the House of Commons. ...

The big reason behind the amendment was senators were purchasing their seats from legislators. In fact, it got so bad the purchasers were totally open about it. ...

Read the rest here.

Comment: What can you say.

The Other side: Sally Kohn; The 17th Amendment is Good for America

Sally Kohn: The 17th Amendment is Good for America; LaDailyTimes.Com

A look at the other side.

There’s a movement afoot to repeal the 17th Amendment of the United States Constitution which allows for the two US Senators from each state to be “elected by the people thereof.” As proof that the Tea Party wants to infringe on your democracy and make it easier for elite corporate interests to control Washington, they want to take away our vote and allow state legislators to secretly appoint Senators through back-room deals.

So apart from the obvious contradictions of claiming to be a populist, patriotic movement while attacking the popular vote and the democratic traditions of our nation, why else is repealing the 17th Amendment a bad idea?

One of the central themes of the Tea Party is the idea of returning to and honoring our Founding Father’s intent. Glenn Beck, who hosts Founders’ Friday every week on his show, recently evoked James Madison — who Beck called a “little cutie pie” — to make the case for repealing the 17th Amendment and taking American back to 1776.

Before we get too misty eyed and nostalgic, let’s remember what America was like in 1776 — and why the 17th Amendment was such a vital addition down the road.

The vaunted leaders at the Constitutional convention were all very wealthy, very white men and included the largest slave owners in the colonies. None of the Founders were very pro-equality on the subject of race, but some were more opposed to slavery than others. In particular, the North was more opposed to slavery than was the South. And the North had more people. So the South was worried that, if the new nation were just based on the popular vote alone, it would have less power and slavery would be abolished. ...

Read the rest here.

Comment: This one of the re-occurring and empty arguments, limited government and decentralization will return us back to slavery and elitism. I say with the 16th Amendment we've all become slaves to the Federal Government because we spend the first half of the year working just to pay taxes, and what could be considered the most prominent "elitist club" than the US Senate.

I'll take my chances with limited government, freedom and liberty any day of the week. I have less to be afraid from myself than I do a government that is slowly turning this country into a police state.

Repeal the 17th Amendment and save the United States of America from the statists!

From Eloquent Advocates to Boorish Hacks

From Eloquent Advocates to Boorish Hacks; Big Government

The 17th Amendment is stupid:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years….

But let me start at the beginning. Article I § 3 cl. 1 of the Constitution originally established the election of Senators through the state legislatures. The Federalist #62 laid out numerous arguments for the Constitutional framework of the Senate and its method of selection.

The senatorial trust, which, requiring greater extent of information and stability of character, requires at the same time that the senator should have reached a period of life most likely to supply these advantages….

Years later, Alexis de Tocqueville made some observations about the Senate in “Democracy in America.”

The Senate is composed of eloquent advocates, distinguished generals, wise magistrates, and statesmen of note, whose arguments would do honor to the most remarkable parliamentary debates of Europe.

We went from great statesmen like Henry Clay, Daniel Webster and John Calhoun prior to the 17th Amendment, to that of Al Franken.

This man would never have been elected to the Senate prior to the 17th Amendment.

A number of issues in the Missouri Senate race highlight the problems with the 17th Amendment, which leads me to US Senate candidate Robin Carnahan (D-MO).

As a Missouri blogger pointed out, she has no clue what a “banking executive” does or which side of the podium the state and national flags should be placed, let alone what her role would be as a Senator from Missouri. Evidence of this can be found in her recent smears of US Senate candidate Roy Blunt (R-Missouri). She accuses Blunt of being a proponent for a “Big Oil Bailout” in light of the recent BP oil spill. Her accusations were quickly debunked by left-leaning factcheck.org. Of course, the bigger issue here is what the hell that has to do with Missouri. What should concern Missourians is Democrat support for Cap & Trade that has been influenced by BP and would harm Missouri taxpayers. Robin Carnahan should have to explain why she would not support a job-killing bill proposed by her party, and supported by “Big Oil.” I say “should” because she is nowhere to be found. Roy Blunt can be seen all over the state campaigning.

Read the rest of the article here.

Comment: We can point to the number of clowns in the US Senate that do not represent their state's interest and are elected because of big money, popularity and media support. Even if they do represent many of the state's interests like Robert Byrd of West Virginia the US Senate has actually become regional overseers ruling our states from a distant land, and in the case of others becoming mini-presidents becoming involved in the affairs of other nations.

By repealing the 17th Amendment we can send representatives to Washington to control Washington, and stop those in Washington from controlling us.

Fiorina Sorry Boxer Hair Comment Has Diverted Attention From Campaign Issues

Fiorina Sorry Boxer Hair Comment Has Diverted Attention From Campaign Issues: FOXNews

California Senate candidate Carly Fiorina said Sunday she regrets being caught on tape making fun of Sen. Barbara Boxer's hair, but didn't say whether she apologized to the Democratic incumbent.

Fiorina, who last week won the Republican nomination to take on Boxer, said she was quoting a friend when a live microphone captured her saying Boxer's hair is "so yesterday." But she told "Fox News Sunday" that the worst part of the situation is that people are focusing now less on issues and more on trivialities.

Read the rest of the dribble here.

Comment: Repealing the 17th Amendment can't solve all the problems in the US Senate, but it might help push news articles like the one above to the pet section in the Sunday edition.

GOP foe offers Reid new Angle of hope

GOP foe offers Reid new Angle of hope; The Philadelphia Inquirer

Harry Reid is looking at life from a whole new Angle.

Only weeks ago, the Senate majority leader was a dead man walking, facing a seemingly inevitable defeat in his reelection battle in Nevada. But then came Tuesday's primary, and Republicans selected as their candidate Sharron Angle, a woman who, among other things, favors bringing more nuclear waste to Nevada, has floated the idea of outlawing alcohol, and wants to abolish the Education Department, the Energy Department, the Environmental Protection Agency, and most of the Internal Revenue Service. She's not so keen on Social Security, Medicare, or unemployment insurance, either.

That would explain the uncharacteristic smile on Reid's face as he opened Wednesday morning's Senate session. Instead of his usual stem-winder denouncing the obstructionist minority, he engaged his Republican counterpart, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, in a celebration of the national pastime.

"I watched on television last night much of the performance of this 21-year-old phenom, Stephen Strasburg," the majority leader declared. "Seven innings, he struck out 14. . . . He's righthanded but reminded me so much of Sandy Koufax because he throws more than 100 miles an hour." Reid went on to discuss, in no apparent order, the Nationals' latest draft pick (from Nevada), Mickey Mantle, Al Kaline, the old Griffith Stadium, Roger Maris, and Yogi Berra.

McConnell offered the Republican response. "I was there," the Kentuckian said of the Nats game. "Remarkable."

"I wish I could have been there," Reid said. "But it was really, even watching it on TV - gee whiz."

Gee whiz?

It's a measure of this strange political year that Reid, thanks to the tea party, now has a solid chance to win a fifth term in the Senate. More than half of Nevadans have an unfavorable opinion of him - which means he should have been an easy target for Republicans as they forced him to defend the economy and the national debt. Instead, the campaign now seems more likely to revolve around Angle's oddities. Gee whiz.

Comment: The article reflects and frames the position that limited government, Angle's position, is somehow ammunition enough to get Reid back in the fight. Reid will be back in the fight because the statist are feeling the pressure and he's their poster child, who's not quite ready to be thrown under the bus.

Nevada voters will have to get to know Ms. Angle since she is new to the political spotlight, but one thing is for sure, voters across the country and Nevada are tired of politics as usual, exponential growth of the centralized government and deficit, just to mention a few of the large number of issues affecting voters. As long as she stays on target she'll do well against the "red zone" attack the government media complex will wage on behalf of Reid.

Inhofe Joins AFP Press Conference to Urge Support for Efforts to Stop EPA Global Warming Regs

Dems Inconvenient Fact - BP, Democrats Behind Massive Global Warming Energy Tax

U.S. senators vow action on China currency bill

U.S. senators vow action on China currency bill; Reuters

U.S. congressional anger over China's currency and trade practices boiled over on Wednesday as senators vowed to pass legislation soon and lashed out at President Barack Obama's administration for failing to get tough with Beijing.

"Years of meetings and discussions with Chinese officials in an effort to persuade China to float its currency have repeatedly failed to produce lasting and meaningful results," Senator Charles Schumer told the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a watchdog group appointed by Congress.

"No question, this is what is called a 'put up or shut up' moment for lawmakers," the New York Democrat said.

Schumer told the commission that he and other colleagues would push for a vote "in the next two weeks" on legislation that would allow the Commerce Department to use anti-dumping and countervailing duty laws against China or any other country with a fundamentally misaligned exchange rate.

He blamed China's undervalued currency for millions of lost U.S. manufacturing jobs and thousands of closed facilities. ...

Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, called China "a country without a soul in terms of what's right and what's wrong" and predicted there could more than 80 votes in the 100-member U.S. Senate for the legislation he has co-sponsored with Schumer and others.

"We have an unhealthy relationship with China and the only way we can get back to an even keel is for the Congress to insist to play by the rules," Graham told reporters after he testified before the watchdog commission.

In addition to manipulating its currency, China also keeps its market closed to many U.S. goods and allows widespread intellectual property theft, he said.

"The Obama administration hasn't been forceful enough," but neither was former President George W. Bush, Graham said.

Schumer and Graham are expected to offer their bill as an amendment to a broader piece of legislation, rather than try to pass it on its own.

For the bill to be enacted, it would also have to be approved by the House of Representatives and signed into law by Obama.

"There's a lot of pressure from the Obama administration to stop this legislation," Graham said.

The panel also heard from Senator Debbie Stabenow, a Michigan Democrat, who said she and Graham would introduce a separate bill next week barring the U.S. government from buying Chinese products until Beijing has joined the World Trade Organization agreement on government procurement.

Senator Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat, told the panel he worried China was using its deep pockets to grab the world lead on clean energy manufacturing "while elbowing competition out of the way by discrimination against U.S. companies."

He urged the U.S. Trade Representative's office to launch a formal "Section 301" investigation to determine whether China is violating its WTO obligations,

"Just the launch of a '301' case by this administration will show China that we are serious about competing in this emerging market," Brown said.

Read the whole article here.

Comment: More worthless words from our little "mini-presidents" in the Senate. Yet it was these "mini-presidents" with their colleagues in the House that went to China to float our loans to pay for this endless war. It was these out of control spending-holics that grew the deficit to astronomical level we have today.

It was also these "mini-presidents" that signed on to treaties with the UN, WTO and the like that handicapped US manufacturing, and created a gloomy business environment where our companies fled to other countries.

We can blame the greed and incompetence of the US businessmen and the unions, which did contribute some to our manufacturing loss, but at the end of the day it was Congress and the meddling of these "mini-presidents" that put us squarely in the economic depression...not China.

Whitman and Fiorina Win in Calif.; Lincoln Prevails in Ark.

Whitman and Fiorina Win in Calif.; Lincoln Prevails in Ark. The New York Times

Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman, who ascended to the top of the business world before turning to politics, prevailed on Tuesday in their respective battles for the Republican nominations for the United States Senate and governor in California, setting the stage for costly general election fights this fall. ...

In a closely watched race in Arkansas, Senator Blanche Lincoln survived a tough challenge from her party’s left wing to capture the Democratic nomination in a runoff primary election, resisting the anti-incumbent wave that has defined the midterm election year. ...

Setting the stage for one of the more intriguing races this fall, Nevada Republicans chose Sharron Angle, a candidate backed by the Tea Party, to challenge Senator Harry Reid, the embattled Senate majority leader. Mr. Reid has emerged as a primary target of conservatives intent on dethroning key Democrats this year.

In South Carolina, Nikki Haley moved closer to becoming the first female governor of South Carolina as she strongly outpaced three Republican primary rivals in one of the nation’s most divisive contests. ...

Read the complete article here.

Repeal the 17th Amendment RESTORE THE REPUBLIC!!!

Repeal the 17th Amendment RESTORE THE REPUBLIC!!!

If we were to repeal the 17th amendment to the US constitution we would restore the republic that the founders created. It is time to take back this nation from the drunk monkeys running it.

1934 Cartoon

From the Chicago Tribune in 1934.

"Spend! Spend! Spend! Under the guise of recovery - bust the government - blame the capitalists for the failure - Junk the Constitution and declare a dictatorship"

I guess the game plan hasn't changed much in the last three-quarters of a century.

Hat tip: Heather

Who Wants The Late Sen. Kennedy's FBI File?

Judicial Watch does. But the family "will be given a rare opportunity to raise objections before the public disclosure of thousands of pages of the late Massachusetts senator’s exhaustive and secret FBI file..."

Ya, I bet.

The Boston Globe notes that there are “no formal guidelines” for consulting the Kennedy family on the release of the documents. Decisions will be made on a case by case basis. However, “Embarrassing information about Kennedy…could be withheld if the bureau doubts its factual basis, it is part of an ongoing investigation, or officials determine there is no reasonable need for the public to know it. In addition, the family, possibly on the advice of its lawyers, could persuade the FBI to remove it.” Obama “pay czar” Kenneth Feinberg is reportedly representing the Kennedy family in the matter.

“Senator Kennedy was one of the most controversial and scandal-ridden politicians in U.S. history and there are important lessons to learn from the legacy of corruption he left behind. The FBI must be transparent in its communications with the Kennedy family so the American people can be certain there is no corruption in the disclosure process. We fear that Kennedy’s file is being scrubbed. The FBI should lean towards the presumption of disclosure as FOIA law requires,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Exposing Kennedy's legacy of corruption would be a great disincentive for lawmakers to engage in corruption now. Covering up for him only encourages politicians to misbehave because they know they can get away with it.

Just like bailouts create a moral hazard.

The odds are virtually zero that this corrupt government would allow itself to be exposed in this way. But props to Judicial Watch for trying.

Just repeal the 17th Amendment and get all these corrupt demagogues out of the Senate.

Addendum: Judicial Watch did manage to get an FBI file revealing ACORN's corruption of the electoral process.

Sen. Boxer: CO2 Is National Security Threat

Via Hot Air:



Ed Morrissey adds "This hyperbole comes from a desperate attempt to get her colleagues to push her cap-and-tax bill forward in the Senate, and the ridiculous claim that CO2 will somehow outweigh a nuclear Iranian mullahcracy and a global Islamist network for national-security concerns shows just how desperate Boxer has become."

All indications are that global warming has lost its "crisis" epithet.

But the economic "crisis" is still picking up steam.

As Federalist 63 says,

As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind? What bitter anguish would not the people of Athens have often escaped if their government had contained so provident a safeguard against the tyranny of their own passions? Popular liberty might then have escaped the indelible reproach of decreeing to the same citizens the hemlock on one day and statues on the next...

It is evident that the Senate must be first corrupted before it can attempt an establishment of tyranny. Without corrupting the State legislatures, it cannot prosecute the attempt, because the periodical change of members would otherwise regenerate the whole body. Without exerting the means of corruption with equal success on the House of Representatives, the opposition of that coequal branch of the government would inevitably defeat the attempt; and without corrupting the people themselves, a succession of new representatives would speedily restore all things to their pristine order.

The 17th Amendment corrupted the Senate. America moves from one crisis to another in order to prevent the people from uniting against their own corrupt government.

Thomas DiLorenzo: Repeal The 17th Amendment!

A concise history and discussion of the Senate's original Constitutional role by the great Thomas DiLorenzo:

Halliburton campaign donations spike

Halliburton campaign donations spike; POLITICO.com

As Congress investigated its role in the doomed Deep Horizon oil rig, Halliburton donated $17,000 to candidates running for federal office, giving money to several lawmakers on committees that have launched inquiries into the massive spill.

The Texas-based oil giant’s political action committee made 14 contributions during the month of May, according to a federal campaign report filed Wednesday — 13 to Republicans and one to a Democrat. It was the busiest donation month for Halliburton’s PAC since September 2008.

Of the 10 current members of Congress who got money from Halliburton in May, seven are on committees with oversight of the oil spill and its aftermath.

Halliburton’s political contributions in May are the highest they’ve been since September 2009, when the PAC also gave $17,000 in donations. In fact, the last time the company gave more than $17,000 in one month was when it donated $25,000 during the heat of the presidential campaign in September 2008.

About one week before executive Timothy Probert appeared before the House Energy and Commerce’s investigative subcommittee, Halliburton donated $1,500 to Ranking Republican Joe Barton's reelection effort. It was Halliburton’s second-largest donation of the month — topped only by $2,500 to former Rep. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), who is running for the Senate.

In the Senate, Idaho Republican Mike Crapo, who serves on the Environment and Public Works Committee, Georgia Republican Johnny Isakson, who serves on the Commerce Committee and North Carolina Republican Richard Burr (N.C.), who serves on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, all got $1,000. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) also got $1,000. ...

Republican Steve Pearce, running for a House seat he once occupied in New Mexico, and Ohio Republican Senate candidate Rob Portman also got donations from Halliburton.

Read the whole article here.

Comment: Do you want change...real change? Well repeal the 17th Amendment and break the ties between companies like Halliburton and our US Senators.

Judge Napolitano: Repeal the “Progressive” 17th Amendment For Better Local Representation

Are the State Legislators More Corrupt than the Federal?

One of the arguments I often read opposing the repeal of the 17th Amendment, strangely enough comes by a variety of people from different ideologies, is that our state legislators are more corrupt than our elected federal legislators.

To me this sounds completely absurd. Yet time and time again I read in almost every comment portion of an article discussing the repeal of the 17th Amendment this very statement.

I have done a search through a couple of different scholarly search engines and I have not found any research to support this opinion. So where does this idea or opinion come from? It could possibly be one of the faulty arguments the progressives made during the run up to the enactment, and is still perpetuated in our government schools. Or people who are not in touch with their local elected officials make it. I’m not totally sure but one thing I know there is no evidence to support such a statement.

So what do you think; are your state legislators more corrupt than the federal?

At least from my vantage point in Ohio, I would say the state folks are no more or no less corrupt than our federal folks. Basically politics is politics. Yet when I consider the shenanigans in Washington, I’ve come to believe that the clowns in Congress are just better and more skilled at hiding said shenanigans. But again that’s just an opinion and I have no evidence to support this statement.

Again what do you think? Are your state officials more corrupt than the federal? I believe it’s important that we discuss this question because if this country is going to return to an era of limited government and state representation in the federal government we have to have the confidence that the local elected officials are competent, and at some level, looking out for our state and local communities, something most of us can agree has not happened in this country for a very long time…unless of course you live in the late John Murtha’s district.

"Repeal the 17th Amendment?"

"Repeal the 17th Amendment?" Campaign for Liberty

HT: David in Iowa and the Repeal the 17th Amendment Discussion Group

Gene Healy, vice president of the Cato Institute, asks that question this morning in his column at the Washington Examiner.

Quick, what's the 17th Amendment? Good on you if you didn't need a lifeline: It's the one that mandated direct election of senators, instead of having them appointed by state legislatures.

Thanks to the wonderfully impertinent Tea Partiers, that 1913 "reform" is no longer just the stuff of trivia -- it recently made headlines in House and Senate races.

Two Republican nominees for House seats -- Ohio's Steve Strivers and Idaho's Raul Labrador -- have expressed sympathy for repeal. And Tim Bridgewater, one of two Tea Party candidates who last month knocked off sitting Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, argues that "if the states elected their senators, legislative monstrosities like ObamaCare or [No Child Left Behind], with their burdensome mandates, would never see the light of day."

Predictably, the liberal intelligentsia has responded with scorn. Of all the "goofy ideas from those lovable wacky Tea Partyers [sic]," John Aloysius Farrell writes at USNews.com, this is the "stupidest." Repeal talk is "truly regressive," even "Paleolithic," Timothy Egan seethes in Sunday's New York Times.

Apparently, the only thing worse than peasants with pitchforks is peasants with pocket Constitutions. [emphasis added]

Continue reading.

Healy argues that while repeal of the 17th amendment is highly unlikely, there is nothing "silly or retrograde" about it. Virginia's George Mason, he points out, argued in 1787 that direct election of Senators would allow the newly empowered federal government to "swallow up the state legislatures."

Throughout the column Healy refers to George Mason University Law School Professor Todd Zywicki's work on the 17th amendment. For more information, some of his work on the topic can be found here, here, and here.

Congressman Paul has often discussed repealing the 16th and 17th amendment and rightly so, as both have done tremendous damage to federalism and limited government. While Healy describes any effort to repeal the 17th as "noble but quixotic", it's still a goal worth striving towards, if only to wake up and educate those around us.

Read all the comments here.

Comment: I have to disagree with Mr. Healy. Since I have started my small quixotic quest I have seen interest in the repeal grow. Maybe not as fast as interest for the repeal of the 16th (national income tax), but when people begin to understand the history surrounding the 17th and the serious consequences we are experiencing as result, opinions turn 180 degrees rapidly. (It's about education!)

I think that when a number of issues manifest in such a way, i.e. loss of US sovereignty, a global tax, and the astronomical deficit being placed upon the back of our young, repealing of the 17th is going to become one of the few means available, and left, to keep the Union together, because on the horizon is another supposed quixotic movement that people only thought years ago was a fringe movement, secession.

Update: Note the comments at The Volokh Conspiracy. The Healy article was linked to by Todd Zywicki.