Your Country Needs You - Get Politically Active

Great advice from Mychal Massie of the Daily Rant

Basic Things We Can Do

People ask me every day what they can do to make a difference. So I’m listing, in no particular, order basic things that every person can do and that will begin to make a difference.

1. Write letters to the editor of your local newspapers. If your local paper refuses to print your letters call the managing editor and demand an explanation.

2. Research the information that is being reported in your local newspapers. The Bradford newspaper is the poster child for the complete absence of credibility in reporting and on its editorial page. Managing editor Mark Ivancic of The Bradford Era was caught red-handed on more than one occasion, changing copyrighted, syndicated articles to intentionally make them read counter to the authors’ intent, and that includes my work. He may be one of the most contemptible managing editors, but he is by no means alone in said practice.

3. If your newspapers do not carry conservative opinion-editorial writers on a weekly basis end your subscriptions and/or stop purchasing them from vendors. Tell the editors why you are canceling your subscription. Why pay for something that is not meeting your expectations? Encourage five of your friends to do same, and have them encourage five of their friends, and so on.

4. Write reasoned, respectful letters to area businesses that advertise in your local newspapers. Clearly state your discontent with them advertising in a local newspaper that is deeply slanted to the left and/or refuses to carry conservative opinion-editorial commentaries and that pushes opinions contrary to your beliefs. And one that engages in biased reporting — site examples.

5. Make it a point to call in to local talk-radio programming and voice your concerns and share cogent, reasoned thoughts. Calling and insisting that Obama is bringing Russian troops to America to help put us in FEMA camps is not reasoned nor cogent. But calling and discussing Benghazi is.

6. Send handwritten letters to your Congressman and Senators. Without using profanities and threats, make your positions clearly known. For approximately one dollar, you can send two letters a month to your representatives. Call their local offices and congressional offices weekly. Let them know when you disapprove and when you approve. When elected officials start receiving several bags of mail daily all condemning the same thing it will get their attention. I can tell you that while emails are okay, 99 percent of elected representatives do not read them. The email comes in, and an automated letter goes out. Why do you think you receive a praise report from your representative when you write addressing a totally different subject? Snail-mail works.

7. Keep in mind that the elected are not our friends — they are our employees. They either represent us and our interests or we replace them. Rewarding failed representatives like Pat Toomey, R-PA and Marco Rubio, R-FL with reelection simply reinforces to them that they can do what they want and remain in office. John Boehner, John McCain, Eric Cantor, Lindsey Graham, et al. have done nothing to serve our interests, and still they are rewarded with reelection over and over. How does rewarding failure incentivize the elected to change?

8. Stop supporting candidates Republican hierarchy tells us we must elect to prevent a liberal from winning. The only difference between a liberal and a moderate is the spelling. We are conservatives not liberals and not moderates. We should not waste a nano second considering support for someone who isn’t in lockstep with our convictions and concerns.

9. Do not be afraid not to vote, and do not send money to the Republican National Committee or Karl Rove’s 527. They do not use that money to support the candidates we want supported. Voting for the lesser of two evils has never given us candidates we can rely on. Quite the opposite. Every successful person, every successful sports team, every successful entrepreneur understands that you cannot be afraid to lose if you expect to win. I’ve said it before, Obama is not our enemy: we are own enemies because we bought the bags of manure Rove, Reince Preibus, et al. were peddling per how great Mitt Romney would be. We absolved ourselves by saying things like “Herman Cain was my first choice but…” It is imperative to remember we elect candidates; contrary to political mythology, our votes still count.

10. Become militant. Refuse to be bullied and refuse to comply to bastardizations of legislation designed to deprive us of our rights. For example, how many people can our government punish if the 61 percent of Americans opposed to Obamacare refused to comply with it?

11. Organize protests around television networks and their local affiliates in your towns. Why at the television stations? Because it is impossible for you to be ignored when you are in front of their steps.

12. Stop believing internet myths that are circulated. Aliens didn’t crash at Roswell, and Obama isn’t going to appoint himself supreme leader and refuse to leave office.

13. Attend your local municipality meetings. They meet monthly and go mostly unattended. It is our job to do the little things that make a difference before we run out and attempt to do some grandiose effort.

14. Print out posters condemning a particular political action and post them around town. If they work for lost dogs and yard sales why not for our causes?

15. Those with the means, spend money helping those of us who are engaged and are not simply tools for those in office who are already not paying attention to the will of the people.

16. And finally, asking God to save the nation while we continue to place our hopes in the same failed politicians is idiotic. Our first step should be to seek the Lord for ourselves and make sure our lives are right with God. When that happens the 15 things listed above will fall in place without a lot of effort.

This is by no means an exhaustive list. It is a list for those who want to be involved and do not know how to make that happen. These seemingly insignificant things we can do will encourage and empower us to do greater things. My single most important question is, what has doing things the way they have been done the last years done for you and me? If your answer is nothing, then isn’t it time we tried something different? Can it hurt?

If you are not familar with Mychal Massie - Mychal S. Massie is the former National Chairman of the conservative black think tank, Project 21-The National Leadership Network of Black Conservatives; and a member of its’ parent think tank, the National Center for Public Policy Research. In his official capacity with this free market public policy think tank he has spoken at the U.S. Capitol, CPAC, participated in numerous press conferences on Capitol Hill, the National Press Club and has testified concerning property rights pursuant to the “Endangered Species Act” before the Chairman of the House Committee on Resources. He has been a keynote speaker at colleges and universities nationwide, at Tea Party Rallies, at rallies supporting our troops and conservative presidents; and rally’s supporting conservative causes across the country. He is an unapologetic supporter of our right to own and carry firearms.

What Planet Is This Democrat Woman From?

You gotta give Mychal Massie credit for his extremely well written, and descriptive rants on idiots and  liberals,...there I go again being redundant,....anyway, here's Mychal Massie on Daily Rant, Politics

I once said of Maureen Dowd, “Flatulence generally refers to gases generated in the intestines or stomach and expulsed through that end of the posterior that graces a saddle. Unless you are Maureen Dowd … then said gases are expulsed through the pen (or mouth – you choose) and are no less a poisonous, asphyxiating irritant to the atmosphere.” I said it because of the crude remarks she made in reference to Justice Clarence Thomas.

I find now that this observation is also applicable to another liberal, lunatic, hate-monger — State Senator Karen Carter Peterson (D-New Orleans). Additionally, in the case of this woman I might suggest the name of a good proctologist to assist her with her lordotic posture. Because her head being buried where it is, must be the reason she walks hunched over. It’s either that or she is bent over under the weight of the contempt she has for whites.

Just when I thought that Frau Debbie Wasserman-Shultz and Nancy Pelosi were as contemptible as it got for liberal Democrat women, Peterson slithers out of the Democrat

Jeff Crouere writing for the BayouBuzz.com said: “Last Tuesday, State Senator Karen Carter Peterson (D-New Orleans) hurled a verbal stink bomb at her Senate colleagues. On the State Senate floor, she made the reckless claim that several of her Senate colleagues were voting against the expansion of Medicaid in Louisiana because of ‘the race of this African American president.’”

Specifically she said: “It isn’t about the administration, and it should not be about the administration of the state nor federal level when it comes to Obamacare. But in fact it is. And why is that? I have talked to so many members in the House and Senate and you know what it comes down to? Are you ready for this? It is not about how many federal dollars we can receive. You ready? You want to know what it’s about? It’s about race. Now nobody wants to talk about that. It’s about the race of this African-American president. … It comes down to the race of the president of the U.S. which causes people to disconnect and step away from the substance of the bill.”

It is difficult to imagine a person from this planet saying something any more ridiculous even if they are a Democrat. Perhaps she should have an Estradiol test done or consider asking her doctor for fluoxetine. Her comments were offensive, absolutely racist, and morally opprobrious, but obviously not out of character for her.

But there is a bright side to her attempt to use race to bully her colleagues into supporting Obamacare. Crouere further reported, “After Peterson’s incendiary remarks, a prominent Louisiana State Senator Elbert Guillory switched his party affiliation to the GOP. Guillory becomes the first African American Republican State Senator in Louisiana since Reconstruction. Guillory called Louisiana Democrats the ‘party of disappointment.’ According to Guillory, Carter Peterson’s comments ‘certainly helped push me over the edge….it just showed me just how far out of tune I was, I am, with the Democrat Party.’”

Guillory may become just another Republican In Name Only (RINO), but at least he had the decency and willingness to express his consternation with more than silence and/or support for Peterson’s hateful screed.

Regardless at this point of what his voting record becomes, I tip my hat for his doing the right thing. I have repeatedly said we must be willing to do the right thing regardless of the names we are called. Peterson is a cancer on the fabric of civility, and it is time that the adults in the room start to act like responsible

It is one thing to disagree with a person’s viewpoint, but it is beyond contempt to voice it by using racial demagoguery as a bludgeon. Guillory sends a message to black children who are tempted to buckle under the weight of peer pressure to use racial epithets.

I do not believe Guillory is the only black political figure who feels as he does. But he is one of a very small handful to take the steps he did in expressing it.

One final thought. Those inclined to support and/or agree with Peterson might ask themselves what it was when we defeated Hillary’s healthcare proposal. Was that racism? Then again, to Peterson it probably was. In the twisted world of her mind, she would probably agree that it was racist white people who caused Hillarycare to fail in order to prevent blacks from getting healthcare.

It’s disgusting but true — in the absence of any ability to engage in reasonable debate people like Peterson use race as a fall-back argument. Even more egregious is that I doubt Peterson feels any shame for her hateful and punitive screed, and once the fingers of other liberal Democrats dry from checking which way the political wind is blowing they will join her in denouncing Guillory as a sellout and Uncle Tom.

Campaign Against Christians

Mychal Massie makes a good point, albeit facetiously about which religious group is conducting all the terrorist acts, and which reglious groups are being persecuted. However his best point is that if the U.S. Government wil not support 1st Amendment rights for Christian soldiers or citizens, then perhaps the Government should not not use Christians to fight their wars nor accept taxes from Christians. From Mychal Massie 

According to Investors Business Daily, a spokesman for ISAF Joint Command said: "We can confirm that those items were removed from the chapel. These items were removed out of respect for the beliefs of other faiths." (Army Removes Crosses and Steeple From A Chapel In Afghanistan; 4/8/13)

What things was the spokesman referring to? The things removed from the chapel by the Army were Crucifixes and a steeple because they are religious symbols that offend Muslims. The interesting thing is that the action was prompted because of a complaint filed by an atheist military person which led to a formal letter of complaint being written to the Pentagon by an atheist organization. My point being, based on the course of complaint one could argue that Muslims are atheists, in addition to being terrorists.

Adding insult to injury, an Army training instructor lists Evangelical Christianity and Catholicism as examples of religious extremism.

I was prepared to be offended by the children of Erebus who have claimed such stupidity. But then I remembered that it is Evangelical Christians and Catholics who are responsible for thousands of violent acts of terrorism around the world. I forgot that it is Christians and Catholics who are responsible for vaginal mutilation of their wives and daughters. I forgot that it is Christians and Catholics who are responsible for stoning and caning women for such extreme acts of insubordination as learning to read. I forgot that it is Christians and Catholics who are responsible for beheadings, bombings, and practically every act of terrorism directed at military installations and bases located in the United States. I forgot that it is atheists and Muslims who are responsible for raising tens of millions of private dollars to send overseas to help those suffering. I forgot that it is Christians and Catholics who are responsible for raping and murdering women and children in some of the poorest regions around the world.

How silly of me not to remember that Christians and Catholics worship and follow after Jesus Christ the Risen Savior and Lord while Muslims follow after a faux prophet who was a murderer, a pedophile, a rapist, and is rumored to have engaged in homosexual acts.

Yes, sir, I was just about to lose my cool until I realized that it is an atheist and one of the most ritualistic cults under the sun that have teamed up in an attempt to outlaw the religious ornamentation Christians and Catholics in a worship chapel. Then I came up with a solution to the whole thing.

If they don't want Christians and Catholics worshipping there that's fine -- send home all of the Christians and Catholics. Do not send another Christian or Catholic ever again into a battle zone or area of conflict. Let the atheists and their Muslim brothers handle such things.

And I would also add that the federal government not receive another nickel of tax revenue from Christians or Catholics. If they want to deny us the right to worship let them deny themselves our service and tax dollars.

The bottom line is that Muslims and atheists contribute nothing but hatred. But, be of good cheer. Because the day is coming, and may well be very near, when they will reside in a place separate from us. We will reside for eternity in a place of untold beauty and wonder; they will reside in a place populated by those, like themselves, unable to even drink the moisture from their sweat to satisfy their thirst.

I believe this is where we say "The fool has said there is no God."

Best Summation of Barack and Michelle Obama Yet

This is from Mychal Massie is a respected writer and black talk show host in Los Angeles. His website is mychal-massie.com

The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn't like the Obama's? Specifically I was asked: "I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama's? It seems personal, not policy related. You even dissed (disrespect) their Christmas family picture."

The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation. I've made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don't like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.

I don't hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same, Michelle Obama's raw contempt for white America is transpicuous.

I don't like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress. I expect, no I demand respect, for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people. The Reagan's made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish. His arrogance by appointing 32 leftist czars and constantly bypassing congress is impeachable. Eric Holder is probably the MOST incompetent and arrogant DOJ head to ever hold the job. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?

Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama's have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry, and they display an animus for civility.

I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to now being able to be proud of America. I view that statement and that mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world. Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do same.

I have a saying, that "the only reason a person hides things, is because they have something to hide." No president in history has spent over a million dollars to keep his records and his past sealed.

And what the two of them have shared has been proved to be lies. He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother's death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about his father's military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nausea. He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address. He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today. He opposed rulings that protected women and children that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel. His wife treats being the First Lady as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement - as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.

I don't like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority.

Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin; it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their constantly playing the race card.

I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them, as they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are. There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people, as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.

As I wrote in a syndicated column titled, "Nero In The White House" - "Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequaled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood..

Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation, and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement - while America's people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.”

John Adams' 1776 pre-Declaration of Independence Speech

Continuing on with Mychal Massie's excellent list of his favorite political speeches of all time, we present John Adams.  In 1776, John Adams gave a speech before the Second Continental Congress to encourage his fellow delegates to sign of the Declaration of Independence

“Objects of the most stupendous magnitude. Measures which will effect the lives of millions — born and unborn — are now before us. We must expect a great expense of blood to obtain them, but we must always remember that a free constitution of civil government cannot be purchased at too dear a rate as there is nothing on this side of Jerusalem of greater importance to mankind.

My worthy colleague from Pennsylvania has spoken with great ingenuity and eloquence. He has given you a grim prognostication of our national future. But where he foresees apocalypse, I see hope. I see a new nation ready to take its place in the world, not an empire, but a republic. And a republic of laws, not men! Gentlemen, we are in the very midst of revolution; the most complete, unexpected and remarkable of any in the history of the world.

How few of the human race have ever had an opportunity of choosing a system of government for themselves and their children?

I am not without apprehensions, gentlemen. But the end we have in sight is more than worth all the means. My belief says that the hour has come. My judgment approves this measure and my whole heart is in it. All that I have, all that I am and all I that I hope in this life I am now ready to stake upon it.

While I live, let me have a country. A free country!”

Madison's Introduction of the Bill of Rights

Mychal Massie recently sent out an e-mail with his top five political speeches of all time. Now that's a hard choice to make, trying to choose five of the best speeches from all of the great American patriots since the Founding Fathers, but I think I'll go with Mychal Massie's list. In fact, over the new month or two, I'll post  these speeches which you can also find through the Mychal Massie link on the left hand side.

Madison's speech was instrumental in getting the new States to accept a Bill of Rights for which affirms our God granted rights, some of which are under assault and are in danger of being modified or going away as I write this. 

Madison's Introduction of the Bill of Rights

I am sorry to be accessary to the loss of a single moment of time by the House. If I had been indulged in my motion, and we had gone into a Committee of the whole, I think we might have rose and resumed the consideration of other business before this time; that is, so far as it depended upon what I proposed to bring forward. As that mode seems not to give satisfaction, I will withdraw the motion, and move you, sir, that a select committee be appointed to consider and report such amendments as are proper for Congress to propose to the Legislatures of the several States, conformably to the fifth article of the constitution.

I will state my reasons why I think it proper to propose amendments, and state the amendments themselves, so far as I think they ought to be proposed. If I thought I could fulfil the duty which I owe to myself and my constituents, to let the subject pass over in silence, I most certainly should not trespass upon the indulgence of this House. But I cannot do this, and am therefore compelled to beg a patient hearing to what I have to lay before you. And I do most sincerely believe, that if Congress will devote but one day to this subject, so far as to satisfy the public that we do not disregard their wishes, it will have a salutary influence on the public councils, and prepare the way for a favorable reception of our future measures. It appears to me that this House is bound by every motive of prudence, not to let the first session pass over without proposing to the State Legislatures some things to be incorporated into the constitution, that will render it as acceptable to the whole people of the United States, as it has been found acceptable to a majority of them.

I wish, among other reasons why something should be done, that those who have been friendly to the adoption of this constitution may have the opportunity of proving to those who were opposed to it that they were as sincerely devoted to liberty and a Republican Government, as those who charged them with wishing the adoption of this constitution in order to lay the foundation of an aristocracy or despotism. It will be a desirable thing to extinguish from the bosom of every member of the community, any apprehensions that there are those among his countrymen who wish to deprive them of the liberty for which they valiantly fought and honorably bled. And if there are amendments desired of such a nature as will not injure the constitution, and they can be ingrafted so as to give satisfaction to the doubting part of our fellow-citizens, the friends of the Federal Government will evince that spirit of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished.

It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is honorable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism, if they were satisfied on this one point. We ought not to disregard their inclination, but, on principles of amity and moderation, conform to their wishes and expressly declare the great rights of mankind secured under this constitution. The acceptance which our fellow-citizens show under the Government, calls upon us for a like return of moderation. But perhaps there is a stronger motive than this for our going into a consideration of the subject. It is to provide those securities for liberty which are required by a part of the community: I allude in a particular manner to those two States that have not thought fit to throw themselves into the bosom of the Confederacy. It is a desirable thing, on our part as well as theirs, that a re-union should take place as soon as possible. I have no doubt, if we proceed to take those steps which would be prudent and requisite at this juncture, that in a short time we should see that disposition prevailing in those States which have not come in, that we have seen prevailing in those States which have embraced the constitution.

But I will candidly acknowledge, that, over and above all these considerations, I do conceive that the constitution may be amended; that is to say, if all power is subject to abuse, that then it is possible the abuse of the powers of the General Government may be guarded against in a more secure manner than is now done, while no one advantage arising from the exercise of that power shall be damaged or endangered by it. We have in this way something to gain, and, if we proceed with caution, nothing to lose. And in this case it is necessary to proceed with caution; for while we feel all these inducements to go into a revisal of the constitution, we must feel for the constitution itself, and make that revisal a moderate one. I should be unwilling to see a door opened for a reconsideration of the whole structure of the Government — for a re-consideration of the principles and the substance of the powers given; because I doubt, if such a door were opened, we should be very likely to stop at that point which would be safe to the Government itself. But I do wish to see a door opened to consider, so far as to incorporate those provisions for the security of rights, against which I believe no serious objection has been made by any class of our constituents: such as would be likely to meet with the concurrence of two-thirds of both Houses, and the approbation of three-fourths of the State Legislatures.

I will not propose a single alteration which I do not wish to see take place, as intrinsically proper in itself, or proper because it is wished for by a respectable number of my fellow-citizens; and therefore I shall not propose a single alteration but is likely to meet the concurrence required by the constitution. There have been objections of various kinds made against the constitution. Some were levelled against its structure because the President was without a council; because the Senate, which is a legislative body, had judicial powers in trials on impeachments; and because the powers of that body were compounded in other respects, in a manner that did not correspond with a particular theory; because it grants more power than is supposed to be necessary for every good purpose, and controls the ordinary powers of the State Governments. I know some respectable characters who opposed this Government on these grounds; but I believe that the great mass of the people who opposed it, disliked it because it did not contain effectual provisions against encroachments on particular rights, and those safeguards which they have been long accustomed to have interposed between them and the magistrate who exercises the sovereign power; nor ought we to consider them safe, while a great number of our fellow-citizens think these securities necessary.

It is a fortunate thing that the objection to the Government has been made on the ground I stated, because it will be practicable, on that ground, to obviate the objection, so far as to satisfy the public mind that their liberties will be perpetual, and this without endangering any part of the constitution, which is considered as essential to the existence of the Government by those who promoted its adoption.

The amendments which have occurred to me, proper to be recommended by Congress to the State Legislatures, are these:

First, That there be prefixed to the constitution a declaration, that all power is originally rested in, and consequently derived from, the people.

That Government is instituted and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their Government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution.

Secondly, That in article 1st, section 2, clause 3, these words be struck out, to wit:

"The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each State shall have at least one Representative, and until such enumeration shall be made;" and that in place thereof be inserted these words, to wit: "After the first actual enumeration, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number amounts to —, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that the number shall never be less than —, nor more than —, but each State shall, after the first enumeration, have at least two Representatives; and prior thereto."

Thirdly, That in article 1st, section 6, clause 1, there be added to the end of the first sentence, these words, to wit: "But no law varying the compensation last ascertained shall operate before the next ensuing election of Representatives."

Fourthly, That in article 1st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.

The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.

The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good; nor from applying to the Legislature by petitions, or remonstrances, for redress of their grievances.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor at any time, but in a manner warranted by law.

No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment or one trial for the same offence; nor shall be compelled to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor be obliged to relinquish his property, where it may be necessary for public use, without a just compensation.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

The rights of the people to be secured in their persons; their houses, their papers, and their other property, from all unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, to be informed of the cause and nature of the accusation, to be confronted with his accusers, and the witnesses against him; to have a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence.

The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.

Fifthly, That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit:

No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases.

Sixthly, That, in article 3d, section 2, be annexed to the end of clause 2d, these words, to wit:

But no appeal to such court shall be allowed where the value in controversy shall not amount to — dollars: nor shall any fact triable by jury, according to the course of common law, be otherwise re-examinable than may consist with the principles of common law.

Seventhly, That in article 3d, section 2, the third clause be struck out, and in its place be inserted the clauses following, to wit:

The trial of all crimes (except in cases of impeachments, and cases arising in the land or naval forces, or the militia when on actual service, in time of war or public danger) shall be by an impartial jury of freeholders of the vicinage, with the requisite of unanimity for conviction, of the right of challenge, and other accustomed requisites; and in all crimes punishable with loss of life or member, presentment or indictment by a grand jury shall be an essential preliminary, provided that in cases of crimes committed within any county which may be in possession of an enemy, or in which a general insurrection may prevail, the trial may by law be authorized in some other county of the same State, as near as may be to the seat of the offence.

In cases of crimes committed not within any county, the trial may by law be in such county as the laws shall have prescribed. In suits at common law, between man and man, the trial by jury, as one of the best securities to the rights of the people, ought to remain inviolate.

Eighthly, That immediately after article 6th, be inserted, as article 7th, the clauses following, to wit:

The powers delegated by this constitution are appropriated to the departments to which they are respectively distributed: so that the legislative department shall never exercise the powers vested in the executive or judicial nor the executive exercise the powers vested in the legislative or judicial, nor the judicial exercise the powers vested in the legislative or executive departments.

The powers not delegated by this constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively.

Ninthly, That article 7th be numbered as article 8th.

The first of these amendments relates to what may be called a bill of rights. I will own that I never considered this provision so essential to the federal constitution, as to make it improper to ratify it, until such an amendment was added; at the same time, I always conceived, that in a certain form, and to a certain extent, such a provision was neither improper nor altogether useless. I am aware, that a great number of the most respectable friends to the Government, and champions for republican liberty, have thought such a provision, not only unnecessary, but even improper; nay, I believe some have gone so far as to think it even dangerous. Some policy has been made use of, perhaps, by gentlemen on both sides of the question: I acknowledge the ingenuity of those arguments which were drawn against the constitution, by a comparison with the policy of Great Britain, in establishing a declaration of rights; but there is too great a difference in the case to warrant the comparison: therefore, the arguments drawn from that source were in a great measure inapplicable. In the declaration of rights which that country has established, the truth is, they have gone no farther than to raise a barrier against the power of the Crown; the power of the Legislature is left altogether indefinite. Although I know whenever the great rights, the trial by jury, freedom of the press, or liberty of conscience, come in question in that body, the invasion of them is resisted by able advocates, yet their Magna Charta does not contain any one provision for the security of those rights, respecting which the people of America are most alarmed. The freedom of the press and rights of conscience, those choicest privileges of the people, are unguarded in the British constitution.

But although the case may be widely different, and it may not be thought necessary to provide limits for the legislative power in that country, yet a different opinion prevails in the United States. The people of many States have thought it necessary to raise barriers against power in all forms and departments of Government, and I am inclined to believe, if once bills of rights are established in all the States as well as the federal constitution, we shall find that although some of them are rather unimportant, yet, upon the whole, they will have a salutary tendency.

It may be said, in some instances, they do no more than state the perfect equality of mankind. This, to be sure, is an absolute truth, yet it is not absolutely necessary to be inserted at the head of a constitution.

In some instances they assert those rights which are exercised by the people in forming and establishing a plan of Government. In other instances, they specify those rights which are retained when particular powers are given up to be exercised by the Legislature. In other instances, they specify positive rights, which may seem to result from the nature of the compact. Trial by jury cannot be considered as a natural right, but a right resulting from a social compact which regulates the action of the community, but is as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the pre-existent rights of nature. In other instances, they lay down dogmatic maxims with respect to the construction of the Government; declaring that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches shall be kept separate and distinct. Perhaps the best way of securing this in practice is, to provide such checks as will prevent the encroachment of the one upon the other.

But whatever may be the form which the several States have adopted in making declarations in favor of particular rights, the great object in view is to limit and qualify the powers of Government, by excepting out of the grant of power those cases in which the Government ought not to act, or to act only in a particular mode. They point these exceptions sometimes against the abuse of the executive power, sometimes against the legislative, and, in some cases, against the community itself; or, in other words, against the majority in favor of the minority.

In our Government it is, perhaps, less necessary to guard against the abuse in the executive department than any other; because it is not the stronger branch of the system, but the weaker. It therefore must be levelled against the legislative, for it is the most powerful, and most likely to be abused, because it is under the least control. Hence, so far as a declaration of rights can tend to prevent the exercise of undue power, it cannot be doubted but such declaration is proper. But I confess that I do conceive, that in a Government modified like this of the United States, the great danger lies rather in the abuse of the community than in the legislative body. The prescriptions in favor of liberty ought to be levelled against that quarter where the greatest danger lies, namely, that which possesses the highest prerogative of power. But it is not found in either the executive or legislative departments of Government, but in the body of the people, operating by the majority against the minority.

It may be thought that all paper barriers against the power of the community are too weak to be worthy of attention. I am sensible they are not so strong as to satisfy gentlemen of every description who have seen and examined thoroughly the texture of such a defence; yet, as they have a tendency to impress some degree of respect for them, to establish the public opinion in their favor, and rouse the attention of the whole community, it may be one means to control the majority from those acts to which they might be otherwise inclined.

It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights, by many respectable gentlemen out of doors, and I find opposition on the same principles likely to be made by gentlemen on this floor, that they are unnecessary articles of a Republican Government, upon the presumption that the people have those rights in their own hands, and that is the proper place for them to rest. It would be a sufficient answer to say, that this objection lies against such provisions under the State Governments, as well as under the General Government: and there are, I believe, but few gentlemen who are inclined to push their theory so far as to say that a declaration of rights in those cases is either ineffectual or improper. It has been said, that in the Federal Government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained; that the constitution is a call of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and, therefore, a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the Government. I admit that these arguments are not entirely without foundation; but they are not conclusive to the extent which has been supposed. It is true, the powers of the General Government are circumscribed, they are directed to particular objects; but even if Government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse to a certain extent, in the same manner as the powers of the State Governments under their constitutions may to an indefinite extent; because in the constitution of the United States, there is a clause granting to Congress the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution all the powers vested in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof; this enables them to fulfil every purpose for which the Government was established.

Now, may not laws be considered necessary and proper by Congress, for it is for them to judge of the necessity and propriety to accomplish those special purposes which they may have in contemplation, which laws in themselves are neither necessary nor proper; as well as improper laws could be enacted by the State Legislatures, for fulfilling the more extended objects of those Governments. I will state an instance, which I think in point, and proves that this might be the case. The General Government has a right to pass all laws which shall be necessary to collect its revenue; the means for enforcing the collection are within the direction of the Legislature: may not general warrants be considered necessary for this purpose, as well as for some purposes which it was supposed at the framing of their constitutions the State Governments had in view? If there was reason for restraining the State Governments from exercising this power, there is like reason for restraining the Federal Government.

It may be said, indeed it has been said, that a bill of rights is not necessary, because the establishment of this Government has not repealed those declarations of rights which are added to the several State constitutions; that those rights of the people, which had been established by the most solemn act, could not be annihilated by a subsequent act of that people, who meant, and declared at the head of the instrument, that they ordained and established a new system, for the express purpose of securing to themselves and posterity the liberties they had gained by an arduous conflict.

I admit the force of this observation, but I do not look upon it to be conclusive. In the first place, it is too uncertain ground to leave this provision upon, if a provision is at all necessary to secure rights so important as many of those I have mentioned are conceived to be, by the public in general, as well as those in particular who opposed the adoption of this constitution. Besides, some States have no bills of rights, there are others provided with very defective ones, and there are others whose bills of rights are not only defective, but absolutely improper; instead of securing some in the full extent which republican principles would require, they limit them too much to agree with the common ideas of liberty.

It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow, by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.

It has been said, that it is unnecessary to load the constitution with this provision, because it was not found effectual in the constitution of the particular States. It is true, there are a few particular States in which some of the most valuable articles have not, at one time or other, been violated; but it does not follow but they may have, to a certain degree, a salutary effect against the abuse of power. If they are incorporated into the constitution, independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians of those rights; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive; they will be naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the constitution by the declaration of rights. Besides this security, there is a great probability that such a declaration in the federal system would be enforced; because the State Legislatures will jealously and closely watch the operations of this Government, and be able to resist with more effect every assumption of power, than any other power on earth can do; and the greatest opponents to a Federal Government admit the State Legislatures to be sure guardians of the people's liberty. I conclude, from this view of the subject, that it will be proper in itself, and highly politic, for the tranquillity of the public mind, and the stability of the Government, that we should offer something, in the form I have proposed, to be incorporated in the system of Government, as a declaration of the rights of the

In the next place, I wish to see that part of the constitution revised which declares that the number of Representatives shall not exceed the proportion of one for every thirty thousand persons, and allows one Representative to every State which rates below that proportion. If we attend to the discussion of this subject, which has taken place in the State conventions, and even in the opinion of the friends to the constitution, an alteration here is proper. It is the sense of the people of America, that the number of Representatives ought to be increased, but particularly that it should not be left in the discretion of the Government to diminish them, below that proportion which certainly is in the power of the Legislature as the constitution now stands; and they may, as the population of the country increases, increase the House of Representatives to a very unwieldy degree. I confess I always thought this part of the constitution defective, though not dangerous; and that it ought to be particularly attended to whenever Congress should go into the consideration of amendments.

There are several minor cases enumerated in my proposition, in which I wish also to see some alteration take place. That article which leaves it in the power of the Legislature to ascertain its own emolument, is one to which I allude. I do not believe this is a power which, in the ordinary course of Government, is likely to be abused. Perhaps of all the powers granted, it is least likely to abuse; but there is a seeming impropriety in leaving any set of men without control to put their hand into the public coffers, to take out money to put in their pockets; there is a seeming indecorum in such power, which leads me to propose a change. We have a guide to this alteration in several of the amendments which the different conventions have proposed. I have gone, therefore, so far as to fix it, that no law, varying the compensation shall operate until there is a change in the Legislature; in which case it cannot be for the particular benefit of those who are concerned in determining the value of the service.

I wish also, in revising the constitution, we may throw into that section, which interdict the abuse of certain powers in the State Legislatures, some other provisions of equal, if not greater importance than those already made. The words, "No State shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law," &c. were wise and proper restrictions in the constitution. I think there is more danger of those powers being abused by the State Governments than by the Government of the United States. The same may be said of other powers which they possess, if not controlled by the general principle, that laws are unconstitutional which infringe the rights of the community. I should therefore wish to extend this interdiction, and add, as I have stated in the 5th resolution, that no State shall violate the equal right of conscience, freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases; because it is proper that every Government should be disarmed of powers which trench upon those particular rights. I know, in some of the State constitutions, the power of the Government is controlled by such a declaration; but others are not. I cannot see any reason against obtaining even a double security on those points; and nothing can give a more sincere proof of the attachment of those who opposed this constitution to these great and important rights, than to see them join in obtaining the security I have now proposed; because it must be admitted, on all hands, that the State Governments are as liable to attack the invaluable privileges as the General Government is, and therefore ought to be as cautiously guarded against.

I think it will be proper, with respect to the judiciary powers, to satisfy the public mind of those points which I have mentioned. Great inconvenience has been apprehended to suitors from the distance they would be dragged to obtain justice in the Supreme Court of the United States, upon an appeal on an action for a small debt. To remedy this, declare that no appeal shall be made unless the matter in controversy amounts to a particular sum; this, with the regulations respecting jury trials in criminal cases, and suits at common law, it is to be hoped, will quiet and reconcile the minds of the people to that part of the constitution.

I find, from looking into the amendments proposed by the State conventions, that several are particularly anxious that it should be declared in the constitution, that the powers not therein delegated should be reserved to the several States. Perhaps words which may define this more precisely than the whole of the instrument now does, may be considered as superflous. I admit they may be deemed unnecessary: but there can be no harm in making such a declaration, if gentlemen will allow that the fact is as stated. I am sure I understand it so, and do therefore propose it.

These are the points on which I wish to see a revision of the constitution take place. How far they will accord with the sense of this body, I cannot take upon me absolutely to determine; but I believe every gentleman will readily admit that nothing is in contemplation, so far as I have mentioned, that can endanger the beauty of the Government in any one important feature, even in the eyes of its most sanguine admirers. I have proposed nothing that does not appear to me as proper in itself, or eligible as patronized by a respectable number of our fellow-citizens; and if we can make the constitution better in the opinion of those who are opposed to it, without weakening its frame, or abridging its usefulness, in the judgment of those who are attached to it, we act the part of wise and liberal men to make such alterations as shall produce that effect.

Having done what I conceived was my duty, in bringing before this House the subject of amendments, and also stated such as I wish for and approve, and offered the reasons which occurred to me in their support, I shall content myself, for the present, with moving "that a committee be appointed to consider of and report such amendments as ought to be proposed by Congress to the Legislatures of the States, to become, if ratified by three-fourths thereof, part of the constitution of the United States." By agreeing to this motion, the subject may be going on in the committee, while other important business is proceeding to a conclusion in the House. I should advocate greater despatch in the business of amendments, if I were not convinced of the absolute necessity there is of pursuing the organization of the Government; because I think we should obtain the confidence of our fellow- citizens, in proportion as we fortify the rights of the people against the encroachments of the Government.

The People Have Spoken,...and they are Clueless

The People Have Spoken,...and they are Clueless,....at least 51% is.

The below teaser came from Mychal Massie's Daily Rant site from a piece writen by Dan Bubalo. Read the entire article here.

Like him or not, Mitt Romney ran a good race. In fact he ran a great race. He was "presidential", he's brilliant beyond anything I can imagine, he presented an alternative, and the voters of the United States said, "Take a seat on the bench."

WOW. WOW. WOW. The message is still sinking in.

Last night I discussed the lives of Mitt and Ann Romney and asked rhetorically, "Do you think they're sleeping well?" Nobody could ask for a better shot at the prize. Nobody could have picked a better running partner than Paul Ryan, and nobody could have presented a more workable alternative than Mitt Romney, and America said, "NOT INTERESTED."

Watch out what you wished for, because reality is going to land soon with a giant thud. Apparently the country wants foreign energy dependency, the country cannot wait to embrace the excessive taxation of Obamacare, it desires a neutered military, and cares not a whit about a strangling deficit. The questions are how and why did we make this decision, and what prompted the country to accept such a weak man as its leader after he's proven himself to be a naïve and incompetent poser.

Well, another sign of the times is the exposure of the General Petraeus affair. A Yahoo! poll asked if General Petraeus should have resigned, like he did, or was his affair while serving as the Director of Central Intelligence only was his business and nobody else's and he should have stayed. With approx 12,000 voters at the time I saw the poll, 49% said he should have resigned and 51% said the affair was his business and he should have stayed. Wow! 51%,...that's the same percentage of people who voted for Obama.....and that's not a coincidence....that's 51% who have no concept of honor. 

Nothing to Like About the Obamas

Mychal Massie is a respected writer and conservative talk show host in Los Angeles. Sign up for his articles via e-mail on his site.  This is one of his articles:

The other evening on my twitter, a person asked me why I didn't like the Obama's? Specifically I was asked: "I have to ask, why do you hate the Obama's? It seems personal, not policy related. You even dissed (d...isrespect) their Christmas family picture."

The truth is I do not like the Obamas, what they represent, their ideology, and I certainly do not like his policies and legislation. I've made no secret of my contempt for the Obamas. As I responded to the person who asked me the aforementioned question, I don't like them because they are committed to the fundamental change of my/our country into what can only be regarded as a Communist state.

I don't hate them per definition, but I condemn them because they are the worst kind of racialists, they are elitist Leninists with contempt for traditional America. They display disrespect for the sanctity of the office he holds, and for those who are willing to admit same, Michelle Obama's raw contempt for white America is transpicuous. I don't like them because they comport themselves as emperor and empress.

I expect, no I demand respect, for the Office of President and a love of our country and her citizenry from the leader entrusted with the governance of same. President and Mrs. Reagan displayed an unparalleled love for the country and her people.

The Reagan's made Americans feel good about themselves and about what we could accomplish. Obama's arrogance by appointing 32 leftist czars and constantly bypassing congress is impeachable. Eric Holder is probably the MOST incompetent and arrogant DOJ head to ever hold the job. Could you envision President Reagan instructing his Justice Department to act like jack-booted thugs?

Presidents are politicians and all politicians are known and pretty much expected to manipulate the truth, if not outright lie, but even using that low standard, the Obama's have taken lies, dishonesty, deceit, mendacity, subterfuge and obfuscation to new depths. They are verbally abusive to the citizenry, and they display an animus for civility.

I do not like them, because they both display bigotry overtly, as in the case of Harvard Professor Louis Gates, when he accused the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly, and her code speak pursuant to not being able to be proud of America. I view that statement and that mindset as an insult to those who died to provide a country where a Kenyan, his illegal alien relatives, and his alleged progeny, could come and not only live freely, but rise to the highest, most powerful, position in the world.

Michelle Obama is free to hate and disparage whites because Americans of every description paid with their blood to ensure her right to do same. I have a saying, that "the only reason a person hides things, is because they have something to hide." No president in history has spent millions of dollars to keep his records and his past sealed.

And what the two of them have shared has been proved to be lies. He lied about when and how they met, he lied about his mother's death and problems with insurance, Michelle lied to a crowd pursuant to nearly $500,000 bank stocks they inherited from his family. He has lied about his father's military service, about the civil rights movement, ad nausea. He lied to the world about the Supreme Court in a State of the Union address. He berated and publicly insulted a sitting Congressman. He has surrounded himself with the most rabidly, radical, socialist academicians today.

He opposed rulings that protected women and children that even Planned Parenthood did not seek to support. He is openly hostile to business and aggressively hostile to Israel. His wife treats being the First Lady as her personal American Express Black Card (arguably the most prestigious credit card in the world). I condemn them because, as people are suffering, losing their homes, their jobs, their retirements, he and his family are arrogantly showing off their life of entitlement - as he goes about creating and fomenting class warfare.

I don't like them, and I neither apologize nor retreat from my public condemnation of them and of his policies. We should condemn them for the disrespect they show our people, for his willful and unconstitutional actions pursuant to obeying the Constitutional parameters he is bound by, and his willful disregard for Congressional authority.

Dislike for them has nothing to do with the color of their skin; it has everything to do with their behavior, attitudes, and policies. And I have open scorn for their constantly playing the race card.

It is my intention to do all within my ability to ensure their reign is one term. I could go on, but let me conclude with this. I condemn in the strongest possible terms the media for refusing to investigate them, as they did President Bush and President Clinton, and for refusing to label them for what they truly are. There is no scenario known to man, whereby a white president and his wife could ignore laws, flaunt their position, and lord over the people, as these two are permitted out of fear for their color.

As I wrote in a syndicated column titled, "Nero In The White House" - "Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood...

Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation, and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement - while America's people go homeless, hungry and unemployed."