Rand Paul Calls Out Congress For Cowardice On This Issue

| February 11, 2016

Rand Paul may have suspended his 2016 Presidential campaign, but he hasn’t stopped getting into the thick of things and stirring things up.

Yesterday, he published an article on breitbart.com calling out Congress on their lack of oversight of the Executive Brand and their willingness to give their power to the President. (hat tip to here for the story) Senator Paul writes,

“Many conservatives readily see the President’s overreach in economic regulation but fail to grasp Presidential overreach when it comes to war. Our founders gave the power to declare war to the Legislature not the President. Yet, this President has had our country involved in two undeclared, unconditional wars in Libya and Syria.

“Congress has done nothing.

“Yet Congress’ abdication of its constitutional authority and duty to declare war did not begin with a President run amok. It began with Congress partially transferring its power via legislation.

“The same can be said about the power to enact sanctions.

“During the debate over the Iranian Agreement to end sanctions, many Congressional voices lamented that these sanctions were enacted by Congress and should not be unilaterally ended by the President without Congressional approval.

“As many observers noted, Congress has only itself to blame.”

Senator Paul hits the nail on the head: while abuse of executive orders and Executive Branch overreach are a problem that the Executive Branch needs to show some restraint about, Congress shares a huge part of the blame for this whole problem because they have given the President legislative powers and they do not even seem to have tried to curb the dictatorial tendencies of an Executive Branch that can legislate.

It’s the devolution of the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire all over again.

And we need to remember that the Founding Fathers separated the three branches of government because they knew that an Executive Branch that can legislate and also be the decider of right and wrong, Constitutional or unConstitutional is an Executive Branch that is a dictator whether explicitly called that.

It’s time that we had a Congress with some guts. No more centrists. No more middle of the road people. We need a majority in both houses of Congress that isn’t afraid to be unpopular with the media so that they can drag the Executive Branch kicking and screaming back into compliance with the Constitution.

The question is: how do we get that majority in Congress?

How would you do that? Tell us below.

  • original ancestry

    Go after congress Rand. You are right to do so. These people elect had better uphold everything about this Constitution or remove themselves from office. Stand up for America you cowards in congress.

    • Rx7pj

      Well said. I wonder if they’ll do their constitutional duty and approve Obama’s supreme Court dominee?

      • disqus_HmhlZlvKbp

        Nice try to distort the issue.
        It is not their “duty” to “approve” his nominee!!!
        You definitely seem to be one of Hussein’s boys!

        • apzzyk

          It is the duty of the Senate to hold hearings on the Presidents nominee asap, and then to have an up or down vote, which, with this Congress will probably be down since Judge Judy does not seem to be on the short list. It was the GOP Senate, who not so many years ago, wanted to ignore the American Bar Association’s evaluation as to whether a nominee for the federal bench was considered qualified or not because there is no Constitutional requirement that a judge even be able to read and right.

          • rwp24382

            No they don’t! You can find that the Dems including Schumer, Oblozo, Reid, and Clinton all said in the last year of Bush’s term, that they didn’t have to have a vote on his nominee. It is on video of all of them claiming the same rule, they are now wanting to change. They were going to leave the post open for 18 months and didn’t care. So what is good for one, is good for the other. It should be a referendum to let the nation decide. If the country wants liberalism, then let them choose what kind of leadership they want. The same goes with judicial appointments. It has been a tradition for around 60 years, that judicial appointments to the Supreme Court aren’t decided in an election year. There is no rule that says the nominee has to be voted on or even brought to the floor. Of course, we know with all of the far left appointees he has made in every department and judicial vacancy, there is no reason to expect a moderate person to be nominated.

            If the videos are brought forth for ALL the public to see, the Dems will exposed for the hypocrites they truly are.

          • Maxine Smith

            These idiots will always rebut us no matter how much truth we tell because they are just like Obozo. They will follow him to hell and back no matter what. It is a waste to even acknowledge them. When we are all living in poverty with not enough food on our tables to feed our children let’s see how they feel. But they will just blame it on the GOP not that POS in our White House. Most of these people are plants just to insite turmoils. It’s a loss cause to acknowledge them.

          • Rx7pj

            GET A LIFE, PLEASE

          • Maxine Smith

            I got one and it doesn’t include a$$$$ like you!!!!

          • apzzyk

            First, this is one of those Separation of Powers things. The President has the duty, according to the Constitution, to nominate the replacement, which he will. Then the Senate has the duty to ‘advise and consent’ to anyone he nominates for anything – however there are no time limits set in the Constitution. so far, in US History, the shortest period of time taken to confirm was 7 days in the 1800′, with the longest one, so far, being 125 days. Right now there are over 300 days in the rest of his term, so that would set a new record. Schumer, who will be the Demo leader of the Senate no matter who wins, has threatened to use the ‘nuclear option’. At the beginning of every term the new Senate, by simple majority vote, can and usually does change some of the rules, so if the Democrats take over the Senate as they might since there are more R seats up for grabs, it will change the rules on confirmation, and at stake, is the fillibuster rule so that there will be a time limit on voting up or down on any nominee – this will kill the influence of the minority party in terms of blocking any future nominee, and the GOP really likes this rule, which Cruz used to shut down the government a couple of years ago by delaying the vote on increasing the national debt and passing the budget – he threatened to use the same this year to shut down the government by not passing the budget bill if funding for Planned Parenthood was not stripped. But if the D’s do not take the Senate and a Republican is elected, all of his nominees will be blocked or fillibustered to death. So if it is left to a possible new R president, there may be no confirmation of anyone to any office for 4 years because the new President will be considered a ‘lame duck’ and this can go on for ever. If there are no nominees approved for anything, you may get your wish because we will have no government.
            In case you have not noticed, there really are no ‘moderates’ left. The GOP has been pulled to the far right and there are really no RINOs left; and on the other side, my and Bernie’s views (we were in college at the same time fighting for the same causes) have not changed, but the Democratic party has also swung to the right, but with the election of Sen. Warren, we see light at the end of the tunnel.
            Then we look at history of the Court. When Eisenhower appointed Earl Warren, former Gov of CA, as Chief Justice, he thought that he was appointing a moderate conservative. Dwight really got a surprise, with almost a radical left Court over just a few years.
            The problem with leaving this seat vacant unless another justice dies or resigns, is that there will be no binding decisions at all in case of a 4 to 4 tie, for the rest of this session and half of the next. That can have great impact – there might be no decisions where there are clear differences between the circuits, which will make life difficult. For example, the 2nd Circuit has ruled that a ban on assult type of weapons is a reasonable restriction, while the neighboring 4th Cir has rulled the opposite, so how would you like to be driving from VA to NJ, and find yourself in violation of a ban and in prison for 5 years because of this difference? Then there is the restrition that TX has placed on abortion – making the provider have local admitting privileges at a hospital. Is that reasonable – do the women who have done it themselves since the closures of the clinics began, have admitting privileges, or are they just dying when they make a mistake with that coat hanger? Those are just two of the controversial ones that may just hang there. Then there is the still hanging suit by NE and OK on the issue of legalized pot in CO. Then there is Boehner v Obama, on the temporary amensty, and the suits by the states attorneys general against Obama on the same issue. The real question in both of these cases is whether the President can act when a Congress refuses to act. Do we have an adult in charge? With the Attorneys General case there are some other issues embedded – judicial shopping – the Federal Court in CO would have never done what the one in El Paso did and neighter would have the 10th Cir. in Denver. Then there is the matter of whether these attorneys general can even show damage – necessary to have standing – how can not deporting people who have been in the states long enough to have US citizen children cost the taxpayers more? Then there is at least one more voting rights case, which could influence the outcome of the 2016 election hanging. Then there id the death penalty (again).
            There is no censorship on political matters, but did you hear about the soft porn actress, Amy (not bad) who got kicked off the Cruz commercial?
            Then there is, by your terms, the ‘far left’ – which to me means just to the left of Adolph Hitler. Remember Reagan’s drug czar who wanted to imprison people for advocating for legalizing drugs? While I keep seeing these things about looking at a video before it is taken down by the government, if it were taken down, the Courts would become instantly involved and we would hear about that even on the ‘liberal media’. This is just to create the usual fear and distrust, and nothing more.

          • apzzyk

            On Hypocrites – Ronald Reagan came to office wanting a Balanced Budget Amendment because of what he called the horrible remaining debt from WWII – about $500B. and when that did not happen, said that his economic plan, Reaganomics, where tax cuts would produce more federal revenues (called by his primary opponent – George H. W. Bush ‘voodoo economics’) a balanced budget. When he left office 8 years later the horrible national debt (using New speak) had decreased to $2.3 Trillion dollars. Was Reagan a hypocrite? Why do we keep doing the same things hoping for different results?

        • rwp24382

          One guy on here claims he is a fluffin’ puffin’ fudge packer from Barry’s Chicago Bath House of fags.

        • Rx7pj

          No I’m a Constitutional boy.
          If is not their duty to approve the nomination, whose is it??

      • jreg9304

        lets hope they don’t, America does not need another underdog!!!!

        • Rx7pj

          What?

      • Donnie Buchanan

        In 1960, the Senate passed a resolution ( S.233 ) which barred them from confirming a SC nominee during an election year. Democrats passed it to stop an Eisenhower nomination. If the Senate confirms, they will be in violation of their own rules.

      • rwp24382

        You’re listening to a person that has tried every way possible to subvert and destroy the Constitution, but now suddenly, he wants to go by it. There is no provision that says how long it takes to find a replacement. Congress doesn’t have to approve his nominee either. During the Bush years, many of his nominees for lower courts were held up by the Dems. It was causing a backlog of trials, because the Dems didn’t want to approve his selections. They can reject any nominee they like, just as did the Dems with a couple Supreme Court nominees, during Bush’s tenure.

        • Rx7pj

          What a load of garbage. Prove just ONE instance where Obama has tried to subvert the constitution. His executive actions are NOT subverting the constitution.
          No there is no provision on how long it should take to replace a Supreme court judge it simple says in a timely manner. You think that’s a YEAR???
          Read this is you actually want the truth about nominees http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/payback-gop-blocks-obama-judge-picks-judiciary-119743

  • Lizard

    Impeach muslim and that would be great start to repairing America

    • Rx7pj

      What muslim? We don’t have any in highly elected positions in out government except one congressman.
      How would impeaching a senator repair our country?

      • Lizard

        I am talking about black BOY that like suck on other men .. Does that help you figure it out ??

        • Rx7pj

          You’re sick, get help

      • rog363

        The Muslim that you and your kind, low information voters, put in the office of president. This failure has a white mother, and an Arab father from , as it is now called, Kenya with some black in him , do yourself a favor and look up his fathers birth certificate and you will see he is an Arab from Africa. His father was never a United States citizen , which disqualifies Obama from the presidency, according to my reading of OUR Constitution, not some Shyster Lawyers interpretation of what he and these Constitutional Scholars say it means. They seem to thing that because they went to law school they know so much more then
        the people it was written for and given to. Calling Obama an African American makes about as much sense as calling a sheep a cracker because it is white.. Obama should be recognized as the first Arab American president not the first black president. To be perfectly honest about this he is only about 6.5% black on his fathers side. Check out when he was Barry Soetoro.

        It has been confirmed that a young Barack Obama was listed as an Indonesian citizen and a Muslim on school registration in the 1960s. And while the document has been reported on before, albeit lightly, it has compiled the most complete view thus far of the document and the circumstances surrounding it – including an interview with the president’s first-ever principal while he was in Indonesia.

        the document was repeatedly photographed in the office of the current headmaster of Santo Fransiskus Assisis, a Catholic school that Obama attended from January 1968 to December 1970 in Jakarta. The record shows that Obama (or his parents) – at least for the period of his life – claimed to be an Indonesian citizen, that he took the last name Soetoro (the last name of his step-father, Lolo), that his religion was listed as Islam, and that he was born in Honolulu.

        • Chuck Lynch

          Frank Marshall Davis was his father.
          Get over it bud……he WAS born in the U.S. to a couple of big commies!!

          • rwp24382

            Either way Oblozo is a fraud. He was listed as a foreign student when he went to Columbia University. That means that he could still possibly be a foreigner and not a US citizen, if he didn’t have his citizenship changed. Anyone that has given up their citizenship, is not eligible to run for president. There are many ways to hold this man as a fraud. Hopefully, Oblozo can be charged with fraud and Oblozocare doesn’t have to be voted down. His legislation and appointments are null, if he is convicted of a felony.

          • Rx7pj

            What the hell is wrong with you???? Are you really that full of hate??
            Whyou do you insist on believIng all that made up garbage being spewed by the right winged hate machine??

          • rog363

            Your right about the Commies but there is no proof that Frank Marshall Davies was his father, just because someone says he looks like Davies is not good enough for me. Maybe you can come up with a little more substantial evidence, a DNA sample would be great. Until this is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, I will stick with what I know, his mother was a United States citizen but his father, Barack Obama Senior, was NEVER a citizen of the USA>>>>>

          • Maxine Smith

            No he was not. He was born in Kenya. Most people believe that his birth certificate from Hawaii is a fake. But you know you can have any # of people look at an item or anything and you will get different answers with each person believeing that they are correct.

          • Rx7pj

            Wrong , he was born in Hawaii and MOST people believe his birth certificate he showed is real.

          • warren adkins

            If you really believe that ask yourself this question. In that one plane crash that everybody survived EXCEPT the ONE and ONLY lady that could solve his birth certificate issue. Why was she the only one that died. And besides all of that look at what people he associates with and goes out of his way to help. HINT MUSLIMS< MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD and such. The list goes on. So when you call others stupid you really should look in the mirror and then you will see the TRUE STUPID ONE.

          • Rx7pj

            The birth certificate “issue” has already been “solved”, resolved is a better answer.
            The president showed the WORLD his real birth certificate. Issue over, solved resolved finished complete period.
            What is with you righties and the Muslim brotherhood??
            Theyou don’t even exist anymore they are banned by the country that they came from. And there is absolutely NO connection between Obama and them.
            Ya I really know who ‘s stupid and it’s obviously YOU.
            Time to wake up to reality.

          • John J Nicklin

            Yea, The Birth Certificate Issue Was Resolved By Experts Who Said It Was The Most Fake Document Around. Why Did It Take So Long To Present It, If All They Needed To Do Was Make A Copy. Because There Was Nothing To Make A Copy Of. He Was On A Student Visa When He Went To School Here. If He Was A Natural Born Citizen Of The U.S., He Wouldn’t Need A Student Visa.

          • Rx7pj

            You just can’t get past you hate can you???
            Your so called experts were nothing more then hater birthers like you and none of them ever saw the birth certificate. They just saw copies probably 3rd generation highly modified by some of your right winged buddies. EVERYONE that saw the original that Obama has agreed it is the real thing. The Hawaii newspaper had his birth announcement in their paper. He was born in Hawaii, END OF STORY.
            You ridiculous unfounded statements that Obama attended school here on a visa are just that, a story ginned in by you haters.
            Get a real life

          • Rx7pj

            What??

        • Rx7pj

          No the last person you low information voters put in office was Bush and I don’t think he was muslim.
          If you’re attempting to talk obit our current president, NE is also NOT a muslim ya his father was a Kenyan so what? If you knew the constitution you would know the requirements for a NATURAL born citizen do NOT include yout father being an American.
          Obama was born in Hawaii to an American mother, he IS a natural born citizen.

          • rog363

            Are you so ignorant that you don’t even proof read what you write before you send it? Here is a little something you may want to read,”

            Status as a natural-born citizen of the United States is one of the eligibility requirements established in the United States Constitution for election to the office of President or Vice President. This requirement was intended to protect the nation from foreign influence.[1]

            The U.S. Constitution uses but does not define the phrase “natural born Citizen”, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. The consensus of early 21st-century constitutional scholars, together with relevant case law, is that natural-born citizens include, subject to exceptions, those born in the United States. Many scholars have also concluded that those who meet the legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at the moment of birth”, regardless of place of birth, are also natural born citizens
            2][3] Every president to date was either a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution in 1789 or born in the United States; of those in the latter group, every president except two had two U.S.-citizen parents.[4]

            The natural-born-citizen clause has been mentioned in passing in several decisions of the United States Supreme Court, and by some lower courts that have addressed eligibility challenges, but the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate’s eligibility as a natural-born citizen. Many eligibility lawsuits from the 2008 and 2012 election cycles were dismissed in lower courts due to the challengers’ difficulty in showing that they had standing to raise legal objections. Additionally, some experts have suggested that the precise meaning of the natural-born-citizen clause may never be decided by the courts because, in the end, presidential eligibility may be determined to be a non-justiciable political question that can be decided only by Congress rather than by the judicial branch of government. U.S. Constitution, given the number of Framers who then went on to serve in Congress, laws passed by the early sessions of Congress are often looked to as evidence of the Framers’ intent. The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”[40] This act was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which removed the characterization of such children as “natural born,” stating that “the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States” while retaining the same residency restrictions as the 1790 act.[40]

            Current State Department regulation concerning the Naturalization Act of 1790 reads: “This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.” Many agree, but many disagree with what constitutes Natural Born, as you yourself have stated you believe him to be eligible, but sir, I do not and beings the Constitution was, in fact, written for the people as a guideline, I, and I am sure many other American citizens, take it to mean what we believe it means, not what some court re-interprets it to mean…..

          • Rx7pj

            You are the ignorant one and you insist of PROVING it.
            All thought your opinions sound wonderful to YOU that’s all they are opinions. The LAW is currently if you are born here you are a natural born citizen. PERIOD
            Is this father has to be a citizen crap the new birther agenda??

          • rog363

            Why don’t you try reading up on things? A fellow I had worked with once told me that the computer was the most dangerous thing put into the hands of the common person and you do nothing but prove him right.

          • Saltporkdoc

            If you knew THE Constitution you would know that there is a difference between being a natural born citizen as required by said Constitution to be President and native born citizen.Natural born citizenship flows from the FATHER not the mother. Further, the father must be a citizen at the time of the child’s birth which is NOT the case for obama, Cruz nor Rubio!

          • David Kledzik

            Exactly right. But as usual they only interpret it the way they want.

          • David Kledzik

            But it does say he has to be a naturalized citizen. Article ll, section 1. There is no way around it. Still no solid proof he was born in Hawaii, other articles state he was born in Kenya, or Indonesia, and his mother was not old enough to defer citizenship, even if he was born in Hawaii. He sealed all his records. First president to do that, must be hiding something.

      • Dennis B Anderson

        Hey Oblowme must have recently let you out of jail and now you have a purpose because youre here you dumb cork sucking hick.
        Rx7pg Ill be betting is your prison ID. The boys cut your man hood off didnt they and now youre on the J. O. B. Im sick of you. If you cant read the big words you will be told that Obama is a full blown Muslim with the knots on his knees. Hiter-y has converted to Islam.
        Valerie Jarrett is muslim with family in the middle east. From the sounds you have been making since you have been on this site youre a little Muzz to.

        • Rx7pj

          You belong in a mental institution.

          • Dennis B Anderson

            Thats right kicking your sorry a$$ through the front gates in a straight jacket. Youre the plague and Im the cure. Theres an epidemic of your kind out there no one will miss.

          • Rx7pj

            You’re an idiot,

          • Dennis B Anderson

            Hey Rx7pg, They let you out of the insane assylum Dominee, nominee it makes no difference? Hey be sure to bring a loaf of bread with you to drop the crumbs because I know you will want to find your way back. You poor misguided little Muzz.

          • Rx7pj

            I Was never in your home.

          • Dennis B Anderson

            If you had been you wouldnt be at the insane assylum you would have been dead before you hit the floor. Habib??

          • Rx7pj

            That’s where you live. In an insane asylum, and you keep proving it with each of your idiotic posts.

          • Dennis B Anderson

            Stop chewing on your checkers and take your meds you one crazy pineapple.

      • Maxine Smith

        I hate to tell you but there are at least 5 Muslims in our government.

        • Rx7pj

          Ya so what, we’re they all elected?? And what possible good would it do to impeach them if that were even possible?

        • Rx7pj

          Actually there are 2

      • Dash Riprock

        It would be a much needed start.

        • Rx7pj

          You can’t be that ignorant

      • gingergirl

        Idiot! If you want to clear up ANY doubt that obama is a muslim, please review the video of Bergdahl’s father in the Rose garden making a speech. Watch Obama’s face when he starts speaking Arabic. That look will remove ALL doubt. And don’t even think about insulting me until you watch it – if you have the cajones, that is, which I kinda doubt.

        • Rx7pj

          What the hell do you think that proves???
          That “look” means NOTHING.
          Try to get a life

          • gingergirl

            That “look” says it all! You just don’t want to admit that your obama buddy is a muslim! Face the facts.

          • Rx7pj

            YOU face THE FACTS. Obama is NOT a muslim.
            The “look” means NOTHING.

      • Saltporkdoc

        Better do another “musim in congress” head count. Last I read there were at least 6, NOT including the dozens in high appointive positions AND the current resident of the White House!

        • Rx7pj

          you better do another count There are 2 , Keith Ellison of Minnesota and André Carson of Indiana both in the house.
          And there are NOT dozens of highly appointed positions in the Obama administration that are filled with muslims and finally Obama is NOT , I repeat or you learning impaired NOT, NOWAY a Muslim.

  • JC

    We need to replace the Rinos with grass roots people—no more professional politicians

  • dominke

    Where has this outrage been. For 7 plus years I have been looking for congress to do something and have not seen a thing. Maybe Rand decided it was time because people turned him down? Shutting the door after horse has run away is too late folks.

    • Trisha55

      Rand has been speaking up for quite a while. He just doesn’t get a lot of attention for his comments, especially from the media. He has been our champion on this subject since the day he took office.

      • Dennis B Anderson

        I sometimes get Rand Paul with Paul Ryan and another old guy. I do know exactly who Paul Ryan is another dirt bag who was just elected that is Obamas lap dog. Because of him Obama Care and everything else the commander in theif wanted he got. Its time for States to come together where they can be able to pull there constituents they have elected to go to washington on their behalf out of office.

        • elephant4life

          You’re probably right, There’s a fair amount of name confusion: Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan. It doesn’t help, apparently in the majority of voters’ minds, that Ron and Rand are father and son, respectively. So on the one hand, Rand’s policies are conflated with his father Ron’s, and on the other hand, his commitment to the Constitution is equated with the lack of commitment exhibited by Paul Ryan. Very unfortunate, because Rand would have made a great president, and might have been the saving of the Republic.

        • Maxine Smith

          Yes!!! We got Boyhner replaced with Paul Ryan and he is doing the same thing Boyhner did which is to give Obama exactly what her wanted. When his time is up for this term he should be replaced. Most of the people that we have elected are groomed for election over several years. Just like Cruz has been so we need to change our strategy. We need to elect people that are not owned and paid for by special interest groups and lobbiest. We get screwed every time.

    • rex ames

      I think the root cause is our liberal media. Put a leash on them first.Ban Megan Kelly from the White House. They print partial truths and distort what happens and then our F’ing liberal college professers are adding more fuel to the fire. Now we have all are youth thinking that Bernnie is good for the country. Talk about brain washing !!!!! Most in congress or the senate do not want to govern because they are afraid because of what the media will say. They are not willing to make decisions in keeping with the will of the people.Trump will call all these bastards out. He took the Pope on, and still won the Catholic county in South Carolina. That showed he had balls, and also that the Pope is out of touch with American Catholic’s too.
      A pale horse is coming folks. Trump.

      • American Me

        Only if LAZY A$$ Republicans and Conservatives will get off their couch and get out of their houses and VOTE.I think that is a big part of the problem.People think their one vote doesn’t count so why should they waste their time voting.They are so wrong.That is how we got Obama.That one vote turns into millions.So everybody please get out and vote.This is the most important election of our life time.It will determine if America survives or turns into a Banana Republic.

        • rex ames

          Yeah I agree with that. I’ve have never seen Americans more angry then they are right now., so I hope that translates to votes for Trump. The problem is you don’t see any republican establishment guys governing to hold Obama in check. Now because of Trump they are banding up against him at every corner. I don’t see a good future for our party as it is. I believe we should give back to the state the power over our representatives so we can do a state level recall if guys are not doing their jobs.

          • American Me

            Like most things that are not successful, we have no Leadership.Just figure heads who do nothing.What is a Rience Prebus anyway?Some bad medical condition?Is he even an American??

          • Maxine Smith

            Yes. The people we elect are OUR representatives, not our kings, lords or Zars!!!!!! The are there to do our bidding not their own. If we don’t get out there and vote we will end up with a OWO!!!!!!!! And it will be soon not later.

          • Maxine Smith

            That’s because they are the same peas in a pod.

          • rog363

            I, at 72 years old, have watched OUR government go down hill for decades now, the GOP has some good ideas but seem to lack to ability to stop the Democrats, a very Socialistic regime as far as I’m concerned. They are definitely afraid of Trump getting elected, both Republicans and Democrats, because of the fact that they believe Trump will stand before all of them and say something like, “Ladies and Gentlemen Your Ride on the Political Gravy Train, which you have created for yourselves, is now coming to an end. I just hope and pray that if Trump does win the presidency the people will stand with him to get OUR country back

          • rex ames

            Amen to that brother

          • rog363

            I thank you rex, now if others, like that clown Rx7pj would begin listening to reason instead of feeling entitled to everything many of us have worked very hard to obtain we would be on the road to recovery.

          • rex ames

            The problem is even the people that are getting hurt the most are so brain washed. We are gonna all have to get to the polls.

            Pray for Trump.

          • rog363

            I’m with you rex.

        • Chuck Lynch

          How can there be democracy fella, when it is well known many of the electronic polling booths are rigged.
          Now how in the heck could Barry Boy get 5,000 votes in one precinct in Philadelphia and Romney got zero?
          Impossible, except with a rigged set of voting booths…wake up folks….it will happed again to repress the popular vote…….!
          Wake up folks!!

          • American Me

            I agree with your point.Where I vote we went back to paper ballots a few elections ago.There is one machine,but I haven’t seen anyone use it lately.Even then can we be sure of the count?Who Knows.

      • elephant4life

        Free stuff is only one reason the kids are supporting Bernie. Some, at least, view him as the most ethical and principled candidate out there this year. There is some evidence that is not necessarily the case, but this generation of 18-24 year olds are looking for someone to believe in. And free stuff.

        • Maxine Smith

          Nothing is free in this world. Someone always pays for it. These freebies tha t Bernie is promising will be payed for by our taxes which is how the government pays for everything or by borrowing more and more money which adds to our $19 Trillion dollar debt that we already can’t pay back. Also these young people don’t seem to realize that they, hopefully, will have a job when they finish their free schooling, will be the taxpayers then. Then they will realize when they are overtaxed to pay for the uncontrolled spending of our government spending and can’t have the American Dream they thought they would have then it will be too late.

  • 4bills4

    Start with a Speaker of the House that will Stand up for the Constitution, make sure all House Members under stand our Constitution, and each day start with the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, and even bend their head in Silent Prayer. And no bill passed without understanding what it means to America. Also not to take bribes or be in the job for the money, but First of all to serve the People who Elected you and not who donated the most, maybe those persons should get a tax credit but that’s all. THEN make Sure The President obeyed the Constitution, if he did not remove him from the Presidency.

    • Maxine Smith

      Absolutely!!!!!!

  • Trisha55

    Good for Rand Paul. I’m glad he is continuing to speak out and call the traitors and cowards out for not upholding their oath of office.

  • theicecube

    The career politicians will be able to further expand on whatever “O” does because he has set a precedent which will let them gain more control and power. Kind of like if Jim gets to stay up late i can too.

  • Sharon Bauerle

    Start by Americans voting out all the career politicians. We need Christians running for elective offices at both state and national levels.

    • elephant4life

      Sorry, I’m a Christian, but I have to disagree with you. We need Constitutionalists running for elective offices at all levels of government.

      Every oath of office in this country contains the pledge to uphold the Constitution of the United States. It’s about time we, as the ones who put these people into positions of power over us, began to take that obligation seriously and pay attention to exactly who, and what, we’re voting for, and consider not only what they might do during their tenures, but what precedents may be set thereby. We can moan about what Obama and the career Congress have done to our nation, but in the end, it comes down to what we, the electorate, have permitted to continue year after year, decade after decade, in the face of blatant evidence that they were not worthy of our continued trust.

      It’s our fault. Now, what are we going to do about it?

  • richardcancemi

    We have to vote intelligently, not emotionally. look at their track records and pore over them. There are lots of ways for Politicians to vote so that they “appear” to be Conservative or Liberal. Do not be taken in by their BS con games. Sociopaths are usually charming and likable people but never-the-less they are bad people. Short of taking up arms the only weapon we have is the VOTE. Know for whom you are voting and why.

  • Noncompliant

    The answer to the question at the end of this article is simple: We the People storm the halls of DC and forcibly remove each and every member of the Senate and Congress, every federal administrator and employee, judges and attorneys, and executive branch member. We drag them in the streets where a citizen tribunal is held and we try each one on their merits and lies. We then proceed with immediate sentencing utilizing past punishment guidelines for their high crimes and treason. We sentence them to punishment such as tarring and feathering, the stocks, and firing squads for treason. We televise the event and then hold elections to fill the new positions. This will ensure the next electives and appointees will fly right.

    • elephant4life

      Do you realize that what you are advocating is in itself treason? If you want change, advocate for term limits for Congress. Advocate for the Constitutional Convention that many states are now considering. Overthrowing the government and subjecting our elected officials to mob rule and trials in the streets? I don’t know where you belong, but it sure as the devil isn’t in a forum intended for people who stand for the Constitution.

      • Noncompliant

        It is not treason at all. The people of the United States of America have the inalienable rights, in fact, the Constitutional DUTY to protect this nation from enemies foreign and DOMESTIC!!! The people have the duty to remove tyrants who usurp and hijack the halls of OUR government. What you are advocating, sir, is more cowardice which is what got us to this point to begin with, cowardice and apathy. I actually donated a few hundred bucks to the Article V movement and volunteer in SC for them by make tons of calls and emails. But what I am advocating is the men of this nation growing a pair of balls and stand up against tyranny, our duty! To think otherwise is to be ignorant of your rights. I belong on the front lines, as I have been in the stan and north africa. You sir are the one who should not be on a forum for the Constitution if you do not understand this. You should be in the safe spaces with the other apathetic cowards.

  • Junior1950

    Get rid of all of the career politicians for one thing, and make it easier for just plain ordinary everyday citizens with an understanding of how the real world works to be elected to office. The only way anybody gets elected these days is if you have mega bucks. You should not have to “buy” your way into office! It’s time to replace the idiocy that goes on in Washington D.C. with people who have common sense–which, sadly, seems to be in very short supply these days!

    • American Me

      Good point Junior1950.I believe it was Jeb who spent 50 million dollars and got no where.It’s ridiculous.Then once in office the big donors expect to get something for their millions of dollars and that is how we get stuff like Obamacare and gun control and on and on.

  • Rand Paul is not “Shaming” anyone. Shame is connected with guilt. For one to feel shame, feels guilt! Congress, as with ALL politicians, HAVE NO CONSIENCE!

  • American Me

    What we really need are term limits.No more lifers in congress or on the supreme court.They get greedy ,sloppy and lazy.Some of them rarely show up to vote. Eight years and their out.We need new people with new ideas instead of a bunch of old farts sleeping in their offices all day.

  • WhiteFalcon

    Conservatives everywhere in the U. S. need to encourage true conservatives to run against the establishment RHINOs and see that they win in the primaries. The only way we will get real conservatives in the Congress is to first see that they win in primary elections, then in general elections. I hope that process has already begun.

  • suz

    Rand Paul you go after them on the floor and we will go after them in the voting booths.

    • American Me

      suz,I don’t think people realize that we are about to lose our freedom and that it is very important to get out and vote.They think their vote doesn’t count and why should they waste their time standing in line.They are so wrong.

      • suz

        It’s because of all the voter fraud going on. We need voter ID. You need to show photo ID in every Federal building you go in. You have to show it when you are going for a loan, but you don’t need to show any when your voting. Now the Dems. here in Md. have given felony’s the right to vote again as soon as they are released. The system is rigged and we need to stop it. I also agree with term limits in Congress, mayor , Gov. etc.

        • American Me

          I have been beating the drum for voter ID nation wide for a long time.We have it in Ky.We must show a photo ID and sign under our printed name in a voter rolls book.These people who say ID is too hard to get are NUTS or Communists.I don’t know which.How do you live without ID?????

          • suz

            Those people are full of BS as they have to show ID for their welfare at banks, when they apply for their food stamps etc.

          • suz

            They have a dept card and they needed to show who they were in order to get it. Do you know places are taking just numbers off these cards and giving them money. Mostly Korean stores do this . They sell the am’t on dept cards for cash

          • American Me

            Yes I have heard of stores doing that or letting them buy stuff the card is not supposed to cover.They should be arrested and their business license taken away.There always seems to be a scam of some kind.We are all paying for it.

          • michael schimanski

            Here in N.J. we have voter I.D. too , you have to register in the town you live in and can only vote in that town . You have to sign the book of registry before voting . Also everyone has to have some form of I.D. to live any where in the world . With voter I.D. it could help stop a lot of fraud . We all know that is the only way most democrats can get elected .

  • theicecube

    It is amazing the number of voters voting for a candidate that misses voting while at work.

    How can you know a politicians views when he misses certain votes and not others, such as not voting on the budget deal is just one.

  • jreg9304

    Rand has hit the nail on the head once again and showing the backbone that all the others lack! he is showing proof that he would have been a fine president had he stayed in the run.. darn shame…

  • Dandy

    Every last one of these lying @$$holes, are gutless POS. they look you straight in the eye and LIE. THEN STAB YOU IN THE BACK. Yes every last one of them

  • jsftbb

    get rid of all of them and start over

  • Dandy

    Dear Rx7pj, blind is one thing but stupid. Make no mistake about it. He’s a rag head. His actions speak louder than words. He’s doing a death by a thousand cuts to this once great nation. Yes impeach the POS muslim

    • American Me

      Yes Dandy.None are so blind as those who will not see.It’s pretty obvious if you really open your eyes.

  • Wayne Winslow

    I agree with what Rand Paul said about congress, they are just is bad as Obama,hopefully we will get people like Mr. Trump , Ben Carson, retired Military General Allen West, Sheriff David Clarke, people that will make America strong. Those type of people will bring good people in to help. America is tired of politics as usual.

  • Johnstoirvin

    The oath of office should include a promise to be honest and tell the truth. If it’s required of a court witness when deciding one man’s fate, shouldn’t it be required of those who decide the fate of over 300 million people??

    • apzzyk

      Implicitly, the oath of office does contain these provisions. The reason why Bill Clinton was Impeached by the House was that he had lied during an official statement made about his relationship with Monica. However, the reason he was not convicted by the Senate was that enough of its members did not believe that this was an offical action waranting removal from office. People in public life also have private lives. These are matters for unbiased tribunals – usually the courts – not individuals. Now, for example, just go to any high school or university, and ask the students whether ‘oral’ is really sex or not, and you will probably be surprised at the results.
      We have the 3 separate but equal branches of government to decide the fates of the 300+ million people in the US, but we also have to accept that what each of us thinks is best for us might not be what is best for the majority of the people or the country as a whole.
      When we look at the polling on whether the country in headed in the right direction or not, you and I probably fall into the group of ‘not satisfied’ but for totally opposite reasons, which I am supporting Bernie, even though I think on some issues he might be too Conservative. I would nationalize the too big to fail banks, and when their parts could be sold to the highest private bidder, I would do that to recover the cost of purchase and a little profit, to be spent on the welfare of the people, such as a single payer total coverage health plan, like the one that I had in Canada (wish I would have stayed, but compromised with Wife and came back to face all of this profit only shit).
      The Koch Bros want to Privatize the VA, so will my 100% disability be paid back in to make them a profit. Due to lack of funding it has become almost as worthless as mammary glands on a boar. Wish I was eligible for the ACA!

      • Johnstoirvin

        First of all, without profit, no one gets a paycheck, unless you think we should do this:

        • Johnstoirvin

          Secondly, An oath to tell the truth needs to be spelled out, not implied. Implications, in the legal sense, are something any good lawyer can defeat.

          • elephant4life

            And how is that going to be enforced? Can you tell, infallibly, when someone is lying ? Neither can I. Nor does anyone seem to care anymore about perjury. It happens every day, in every courtroom in America. It certainly happens every time Hillary Clinton gets in front of Congress, and they let the witch get away with it, when they ought to be giving her the Martha Stewart treatment.

            But you’re right. Lawyers, even bad ones, are experts at parsing the letter of the law. It’s part of their training. That way, they know exactly how it can be circumvented. Every elected official has a legal compliance staff to do exactly that. Spelling it out explicitly might solve some of the problems, but even our Founders, who thought they had covered all bases when they wrote the Constitution, did not think of everything, and look what’s happened to us because of it.

          • Johnstoirvin

            No, I can’t always tell when everyone is lying, but it’s much easier with liberals… I just watch for their lips to move. Seriously, speaking of lawyers, it may interest you to know that in the 113th Congress (2013-2014) 156 members of the House (35.8%) and 56 members of the Senate (56%) were attorneys. That should provide a clue to one of the reasons our country is soooo screwed up.

          • elephant4life

            No doubt. I think we’re on the same page. The good news is that the percentage of lawyers in Congress has decreased. How many seats are now held by doctors and businessmen? My congressman is a doctor, although now he’s retiring, we’ll probably get another careerist, since I think that’s all that’s running. Ron and Rand Paul are both doctors: one a GYN, the other an opthalmologist. The late Sen. Fred Thompson was an actor, and MN’s clown Franken was a comedian (some still laugh at his actions). So we are moving in the right direction. What we need now are term limits, since the peepul, bless their lazy and self-serving little souls, will always vote to continue status quo and largesse. Here’s a statistic for you: in every congressional election, roughly 85% of the seats are considered “safe” for the incumbent, virtually negating the purpose of an election.

          • apzzyk

            First, we have a very short, in terms of words, Constitution. Years ago, LA had the longest and most specific constitution of any states, which was in Volumes because it was based on the Nepolianic Code, which explicitly stated what you could do, with all else being illegal. It went to far as to have a road map, that showed all of the dimensions of the roads – like whether they were paved or not – and this filled shelves. With this, each time anything had to be done, it took an amendment to the Constitution. In ours, it just says ‘High crimes and misdemeanors’ which keeps it some what current. Sex (an other ‘morality’) crimes vary a great deal from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. For example, if you check it out, there were no laws at all in the US outlawing abortion until the middle of the 19th Century, but that lead to the moralists insisting that every state have one, and these varied from state to state, and this got to be a legal problem, so in the majority opinion of the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade, all it says is that no state can ban abortions. The Texas law, which might or might not be decided this term, does not ban abortions, it just makes getting a safe and legal one extremely difficult – now down to about 9 place in the state with the law that requires that the Dr. have admitting privileges at a local hospital. The question before the Court is whether this is reasonable or not and that is all.
            If Scalia had lived, would he, as a strict construtionist, vote reasonable or not, since abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution? Since he was first of a a moralist, he would probably have voted reasonable. What happens if it is 4 to 4 – no change, but more women will keep on doing it themselves in the privacy of their own bathrooms, and if they rupture their own uterous in the process, would that be suicide? Or if they make it to a hospital ER, as sometimes happens, will they live to be sterile or just do the same thing again? Who will pay for their stay in the hospital – the taxpayers.
            It would seem that your idea would be for Congress to create a very long list of what would and under what circumstances would constitute a ‘high crime and misdeameanor’ that no one could possibly ever read and understand – like the LA constitution. Then there would be all of the exceptions – in CO if you are in my house, I can legally kill you, but if you fall outside after I have hit you and actually bleed out on my front porch is that legal or not?
            The way that things worked well for a long time, was that if something was needed, and there was no profit to be made, the government would raise money through taxes, and use these tax monies to pay for the needed service at a cost to all of the taxpayers, and if or when it became or could become profitable, it would go back to the private sector. At present, all that the VA is, is a drain on the taxpayers, so to save the taxpayers money, it is, and has not been for years, underfunded. They just hope that a vet will die to save them money. At the bottom level of the VA healthcare system, every vet is eligible for VA care, but there is a very large co-pay, but the VA has never been funded to pick up the slack. At the top (and my level) 100% service connected disabled leagally have the right to all care, but this has been reducted – only those who lost the ability to walk, can get a motorized wheel chair – my cousin can at 70% but I can’t at 100%. 3 years ago I lost the vision in one eye because of treatment delays, but the only liablity that the VA has is for acts which are committed which are outside of the discretion of the VA – that is what I learned from my Tort Claim (malpractice0, so the various clerks who make appointments have the discretion as to whether to give a vet an appointment or not without any possibility of appeal. This is way beyond the discretion given to people at a private practice, so are the VA clerks practicing medicine? Or is Congress acting as a ‘death panel’ buy deciding through funding who gets treated and when?
            Most medical malpractice cases are settled out of court, but in a talk on the phone with an ambulance chaser, a private practice would have paid at least a couple of million for the same thing. I got ziltch, and will get even less because I have no way to get to a VA facility that provides very much.
            The only way that the VA can become profitable is on a fee-for-service basis, and so the only way that could happen is if they charge me and all the others, and at my level, the only source of income in VA disability pension and SS – which sounds like a lot of money, but here I sit, too much month for my money already.
            50 years ago, nearly all of the hospitals in the Denver metro area were religious non profits – Presbyterian, St. Lukes, etc. So for profit people saw profit potentials, and bought them based on what they saw on the books. At the time of the private takeovers, they all had ER’s, which never make any money’ so soon the only place with an ER was the City of Denver, so if you were in an ambulance, you might go past several or many hospitals to get to the ER. People died and are still doing that. Most of the non-profits had nursing schools, where the students would wash bedpans and gradually work up to actually doing nursing work, but they lived in rooms at the hospitals and ate hospital food and wore hospital uniforms – no profit there, so these schools closed down, and this forced the expansion of nursing training onto the State institutions, and created a shortage of nurses – which was especially critical in mental health. Now, these nurses in training graduate with a lot of tuition debt, and so do the Drs. so this is why medical inflation is higher than other inflation. The first bill before congress about 3 years ago was to eliminate federal spending on advanced medical training – the VA medical centers are paired with Universities, so this is how we get new neurologists but with this bill, that would have stopped, so by residencies for advanced med students all I ever saw for my TBI were med students with a few minutes with their supervisors – the VA got more value than it paid for, but the ends justify the means, and the ends are to privatize everything because all else is worthless.
            Rome had no armies of its own except for the Preatorian guards, which mostly provided security for its leaders. All of the Legions were private armies, which made their profits by killing raping and taking slaves to be sold at auction, with a tribute (tax on income) paid to Rome itself. How much for that Bn of Marines? How much money could be made by taking over Tijuana – there are already brothels there which are great tourist attractions, and you can get one as young as about 8 or 9. No money in human rights.

        • apzzyk

          What we did for a long time was to tax the income on profits, at a higher rate than the lowest rate for earned income, and then the government would take this tax money, turn it around and hire private contractors to do work, pay their crews from the government and make a profit which was then taxed, and so on through the loop – in Keynesian Economics this was called the ‘multiplier effect’ where a buck spent by the government would circulate 5 or 6 times before becoming totally reabsorbed by taxes. What was also figured in to this equation was the fact that at least some people would save money for a rainy day, college tuition, etc. That way, economists could fairly accurately predict into the future what would happen in the macro economy – like the GNP, so that by adjusting taxes, and tax rates and who paid how much in federal income taxes, who was actually worthy of getting a tax break. This was at a time when the highest tax on income was very very high relative to now – up to 95% of the income above a certain amount. With finely tailored deductions, such as for actually buying new equipment and decreasing the amount of time in which it could be fully depreciated, say from 10 years down to 5, we could expect that by decreasing the depreciation time, that the demand in this number of years for replacement would increase. For a while, in order to help the auto industry, an individual could depreciate their personal vehicle and buy a new one. This came about because of the Smog in the LA Basin, which was becoming so bad, that seeing a mile on a clear day was almost impossible. Of all things, this worked, not only to sell new cars, but to clean up the air. But this was for the middle class, because industrial cars had to be replaced anyway because they had more miles, and could be depreciated by business faster, and so we no longer have this.
          Then came Reagomics, which said that if you just cut taxes on the wealthy, they will just automatically use their profits to build the new factories and buy the new machines with this extra money. Some did this – but not here where wages were high, so they did this, and still depreciated their new factories in China where wages were low, and even produced the machines there because they could do this at less cost and actually increase profits, which would then be taxed at an even lower rate, and the really bad thing about this, was that the movement of equipment to China, was a US tax deduction, which needed to be paid for by raising someone else’s taxes, so that the profiteers could move more jobs to where the labor was cheapest. That is why your taxes as a total proportion of your income is much higher than that of the businesses and the people who own them – you are paying them to move your job to off-shore.
          Then there is the problem with savings. If, relative to your own cost of living income goes down, do you have any money to save for that rainy day or tuition, etc. Probably not, so when you retire, since your wages have been kept low, you will not collect as much in SS as you would have if they had at least kept up with inflation, so if you are about 50 and average, your savings plus your SS will not cover your lifestyle. Probably the only real place that you have stored wealth is in your home, so you can use it as a piggy bank, as I am doing the end of this month, and spend your equity on food, utilities, credit card debt, etc. and maintain your life style a little longer.
          On the other hand, those who make their money from just profits, are trying to make more and pay taxes at a lower rate by, in the case of the Koch Bros, investing $900m in buying a new congress who will cut their taxes even more.
          When just a few have the money to increase their wealth and resist all attempts to get them to spread it around – as would happen with a new minimum wage, their bought and paid for Congress will not do that, so since these minimum wages are not living wages, we at the bottom pay corporate welfare to their minimum wage employees with our taxes because they want to pay less.
          4 years ago, very reluctanly, Romney released his tax returns for the previous years, and they all showed that in each of these years he made over $20M. With after-tax income still well over $10m. Is it actually possible to spend that much, on which you would actually pay sales taxes (8% of your net income) – so what does he do with that extra money – he turns it around, and buys more stock or something so that next year he will have more profits, not to spend in the US on the creation of new good paying jobs.
          There has to be an upper limit on how much profit an individual or corporation can make and keep – if only a few have actual wealth, then the rest of us would be better off being slaves that they would have to feed and shelter so that we could go to work for them so that they could make more profits next year, until everyone was too poor to buy anything, then there would be no profits, but there would still be, as there was during the great depressions, some very wealthy people who lived away from poverty so that they would not see it – the House in the Hamptons. My vacation home, a tent, wore out, so I can’t even afford to be homeless.

          • Johnstoirvin

            If you don’t think that “if you just cut taxes on the wealthy, they will just automatically use their profits to build the new factories and buy the new machines with this extra money,” then why in the world would you believe that if we gave the government more of our money, they would efficiently and wisely spend it?? The government is notorious for unwise and wasteful spending and the reason they do so is because it’s “someone else’s” money. And the reason they can continue to do so is because of people who believe as you do.

          • apzzyk

            Your definition of ‘wasteful spending’ is probably that spending that does not directly benefit you, and if so, that is too narrow a view. I live in CO, but I benefit, indirectly, by the subsidy given Amtrack to get passengers along the NE area – if they don’t make it to work, I, and others could suffer. I live just 30 miles from the E entrance to Rocky Mountain National Park, and so I only make it there when the tourists are not there – too much traffic, but the money that they spend in the resort areas comes back down the hill to keep some of our local businesses, who buy things like lumber from OR and WA, so by the govt cutting spending on National Parks over the years has reduced the amount that comes back down here for our lumber yard, and so on.
            When I was on a contract at the Denver Federal Center about 35 years ago, the fleet of little cars used by govt. employees were sold at auction when they reached a certain milage with a minimum bid set. At the time they were getting rid of Chevettes, and the minimum bid was only $500 for ones with only 45K miles. Which is about the time that things start going wrong, so the rationale was to sell them at a low price, and everyone could bid, and that would supply poorer people with transportation, but they would have to expect to put about the purchase price back into the car over the next year or so to keep it running. The govt. saved money by not repairing them – but the local repair places got business and paid their suppliers and mechanics, so it put money into the local economy.
            I keep hearing about the wisdom of govt spending, but in the private sector I have witnessed far dumber actions, which were probably tax deductions. For example, which I was at Citi, we had 3 big mainframe computers, and if we just had a momentary power failure, all of them would ‘go down’ and we would have no computers for at least an hour until after the power came back on. The cost of linking up to the area’s Uniteruptable Power Supply was $10K a month, and the rule was that the employee who found a was to save money, got 10% of it over a year. The Director of DP said we did not need that so, over the year, he got a $12K ‘bonus’. However, at any given time these 3 computers would have up to 10 K employees using them, and the average wage was at least $10/hr. So if they went down for just an hour there were 10K employees who were still being paid, which cost the company over $100K for each outage – a figure that no one had looked at since the Director said we didn’t need the UPS. During just that year we had power crashes on average, at least once a month. But the director got his $12K bonus anyway. Should stupidity and greed be tax deductible? This cost was passed on to the consumer (you and me) by higher interest rates.
            What happens with the govt and its spending, is that there are very few who take the time to look at how this spending influences the entire economy, and probably at least as important is what happens if the money is not spent when needed. A pothole starts out with just a little crack, where water settles and freezes, so the little crack becomes a little hole that just grows and grows, and eventually damages cars – tires and alignments. I had a truck tire blow because of one last winter. That put the truck out of commission for a day (lost about $250, plus the cost of the tire – it was on the tandum rear so no damage to alignment). I sure wish that I and others had paid another dollar in taxes so that the crack would have been sealed the day that it was noticed. I have an old chicken house that I use for my wood shop, and it has a fairly flat roof, so it is always leaking. As soon as the snow melts, I go in looking for leaks, and then get up on the roof with my bucket of tar – about $10/gal, and start patching. Deck on the table saw got rusty a few years ago, and it took me at least 10 hours and a lot of chemicals, and steel wool and other stuff to get it back to being smooth. Then there was the band saw, and rhe radial arm, and rust on hand tools, and warped lumber, so now to keep that from happening again I use less than a gallon a year and less than 10 hours a year, and none of the rest of the time, and I bought tarps to cover for a few bucks and they will be good for 10 years at least. The wooden windows on my house were installed in 1946, and they all still slide up and down as necessary, because each year I touch up the paint on the outside, replace the broken glazing, prime, paint again, lube the tracks. The neighbor with a newer house but similar windows had to get them all replaced because the exterior wood had not been painted or reglazed for years, and it caught his attention when it just fell apart with a gust of wind. He had to take out a 2nd on his house to pay for the whole set of new ones. But these are ‘maintenance free’, but if a single pane of glass breaks, you have to replace the entire window. Big bucks when you have a dozen small panes. One pane in one of mine is cracked, and will be replaced when I remove the storm window in a month or so, and it will cost me about $5 in materials and take me about an hour.
            When Reagan took office he cut the budget for the General Services Admin. which ‘owns’ nearly all of the public building, and all of the machinery – fixed capital equipment – Big A/C’s, boilers, pumps, etc. So for lack of maint. over the next 3 years – they had to go over budget by about $3-4B to replace things that, if they would have been maintained, would probably have lasted another 10-20, so the savings of about $1B cost the taxpayers one hell of a lot of money.

          • Johnstoirvin

            Seems you have a bad habit of thinking everyone you reply to is woefully ignorant, which must be the reason all your comments are book-length and contain every little thing you think you know on the subject, and more. Disagree if you must, but please try to be a little more concise and to the point.

          • apzzyk

            According to the ‘Liberal Media’ the indictment for the Wildlife occupiers contains 16 counts – probably less than 10 pages – clear and concise. If there are trials, how many pages will be in the trial transcript? To make allegations takes but a few words, but to refute these, takes more words, including examples, and alternative possible outcomes. Roberts Rules of Order on debates. Taught college for a couple of years, and each term I would have to define homosedasticity – a concise term that the students did not understand. Would you?

  • Jack G Simpson Jr

    we need to charge the president, vice president, all his cabinet, the liberal supreme court justices and any congressman that supported Obama, regardless of party affiliation, with treason and clean out the government. Then elect new folks and make term limits and do away with lobbyists. SSG U.S. Army (RET)

  • Anthony Griffin

    Obama is a Puppet of a Globalist Agenda and he’s not the only one! This infestation is worldwide,in every government,to bring about a New World Order! You know who these traitors are by the policies they make or try to make against a free people! It’s time to breakout the bug spray!

    • apzzyk

      It was the isolationist Conservatives who believed that this was Island America who laid the grounds for WWII by not allowing the US to join the League of Nations after WWI, where we were the only power standing who could have enforced the provisions not to allow Germany to rearm. Then, on December 7, 1941, we got hit in the face with a bad case of reality, and then, for the last time ever, Congress did its duty and declared war because we really had been attacked, and with this, the reamed Germans had to declare war on us. We just called World War I a World War, even though it was limited to Europe, Turkey and the seas, but WWII really was one, which did not effect the Southern Hemisphere that much except in the Pacific.
      Then, even after this wake up, there were still Conservatives – Henry Ford, and Charles Lindberg, and many others who did not think that we should be in Europe at all, and at the end of WWII, they were the minority opposition to the Machell Plan, the US becoming a member of the UN, NATO and SEATO. So with the recovery in Europe and Japan, we found ourselves, like it or not, a member of the world of nations, but even though so far this has kept us out of WWIII, there are still those who want to believe that we can actually go it alone, even though we are functionally dependent on the rest of the world.
      We could not be what we are without the ‘rare earth’ materials which are not found in the US. For examples, without these there would be no cell phones, and no flat scree TVs – neither of which are actually made in the USA where the labor is cheaper. For US emergency purposes, the Department of Interior (whose budget has been cut), maintains a stockpile of these, as well as the National Petroleum Reserves (which conservatives want to sell).
      But, at least to me, there are several international organization which we should join, but have not in the name of US soverignty and greatness. There is the World Court, which is charged with trying those who commit war crimes and ‘ethnic cleansing’. If we were a member of this, it would have inhibited the GW administration from acting on John Yoo’s legal advice that water boarding is not torture and killing innocent civilians was just a necessary means to an end, which had created many enemies for us.
      Your dreaded ‘New World Order’ has already gobbled us up – China owns a great deal of our national debt, so all that they need to do is sell off what they have at whatever price, and not loan us any more, and since there is only so much wealth in the world, that would really tube us. The same with the Petro Dollars that are invested in our debt and other securities. Did you know, for example, that China owns Rockefeller Center (complete with ice rink), that Google’s patents are actually held in Ireland? That without foreign countries buying Boeing’s planes, it would cost us over twice as much to keep them in operation – per plane – than it does now.
      The reason why there has been no WWIII (yet) is because of this horrible (to you Globalization). We could not live with out products made in China, and China could not exist without our markets. Right now, China has deployed Serface to Air missles on one of the little Islands that it has built in the S. China Sea, So, in the name of its national defense, it could control the sea between us and Sinapore or India, which are also important trading departments. Will it actually do this – that is a matter for diplomacy because we both have the Bomb.
      To my knowledge, there is no one yet living on the moon, so why don’t you become the first?

  • apzzyk

    For a great change, I agree with him. The last time that a Congress actually did its duty and declared war was after Pearl Harbor – almost 75 years ago, and the last one with the balls to tell a president that no Federal Money could be used was in the 1980’s when Reagan wanted to invade Nicaragua. At that time Reagan was trying to pull a GW by claiming that if we did not that their tanks would be in Brownsville the next day. This proposed optional war was stopped officially after someone broke out a map and found the distance between Nicaragua and Brownsville was really great (I have driven the Mexican East Coast from Brownsville to where the road ended a couple of times), but then Reagan went to the private sector, and Ollie North was convicted of lying to Congress, but his conviction was overturned, so when he retired, he went into the business of making the ankle bracelets – nice job, making something that you should be wearing.
    Why is there no mention of the fact that GW started this mess on the basis of WMD’s, and no exit strategy? This problem with Syria and ISIS, is just a continuation of his polices, so if Congress did step up to the plate and say no more money, then it could not get on Obama about not sending in boots on the ground – one of the great GOP problems is that they not only do not have the guts when needed, but they also want to have a whipping boy on which to blame anything that they do not like. If they did declare war, which they could tomorrow, then they would have to take responsibility for the increases in caskets coming into Dover AFB, which they do not want to do.
    However, there is another place where they won’t go in giving the administration needed authority – that is immigration policy. The reason why, years ago, they gave the administration the right to declare any substance an illegal drug was that they would be too slow – this gave all of the administrations since, essentially the power reserved to congress of making a substance illegal – but they won’t do the same thing for immigration. Here, if the administration did have this authority, then there could be an immigration policy part of the administration which could collect data and make decisions as to how many and what kind of people are really needed as immigrants. But there is a big loop hole in the current law that seems to escape them – that is the one which allows, based on nothing, to assert that it cannot find quialified candidates in the US, and legally import them to take American Jobs.
    45 years ago, I taought in a Department at a University, where the head of the Department would seldom even look at US citizens as candidates, because with his “j” visa (at the time), he could control them buy just with the threat that he would not re-certify them for the next year. I was hired by accident, because just before fall term began, it came to the attention of the administration that one of his slaves did not even have a college degree, so since I was available and had the degrees necessary, I got hired over the phone. When I got there I found people with academic qualification who could not speak English all that well, but they were fine with him, until I held a coup and got him out of his position of authority.
    The way this game is currently played is that an Employer can specify whatever qualifications they want – no matter whether they are really necessary to do the job or not – so, for example, they could Require a Ph.D. with 20 years of experience in Windows 10 – which we know would be impossible, since Windows 10 had not been avalable for 20 years, and not being able to find that person who does not exist, could hire anyone form anywhere – the one who would work for the lowest pay and still be able to do at least some of the duties of the job. To me this sounds like a new and improved version of slavery, but it is totally legal.

  • Sean Rickmin

    Beat this arrogant anti AMERICAN criminal into the ground.I CAN’T understand any patriotic AMERICAN condoning this muslims behavior.He spits in the face of AMERICA.Then there is billery/Hillary,please people,GET A LIFE,think about making our country great again,because,”IT SURE AIN’T NOW”.

  • BradLewis

    What a truly scary bunch of ignorant commenters ! If they only knew the contempt they arouse outside the US… We’ve had the “Ugly Americans” and now we also have the
    “Imbecile Americans” to shame us…

  • EmilyDickinson

    Thank you, Sen. Paul. Well said. Cruz!

  • ktholyk

    BO is reaching far beyond his authority and congress is partly to blame cuz they sit back do nothing to stop it, both democrats and republicans. They are both to blame. They need to remember that they represent we the people. Their actions shows they are not and have forgotten about the people. Seems like they are more interested in the lobbyists who give them favors/bribes to vote a certain way. Congress can change this and if they don’t rest assured the American people will at election time and you will be replaced.

    Congress has some hard decisions to make for the next appointment of Supreme Court Judge. The sad thing is there is no accountability and there should be. The people want a judge who will abide by our constitution and not make law as they have no authority to make law but seem to do it anyway. Decisions should never be based on public opinion, but on existing laws and our constitution. When they go about making law congress needs to put a stop to it through due process.

  • Randall clark

    I will tell you how to get congress to comply……just get rid of ALL of congress and start over!!!! Get people in there that will comply!!!!

  • Sandra M.

    How is it that Obama is getting away with everything! Does the elites(Bilderbergs or Iluminati) threaten Congress to obey Obama or face death, like it happened to many others like Scalia? Or does Obama have supernatural powers we don’t know about? No one have gotten away with this much as a US president, not even FDR. Interestingly the bible says that the Anti-Christ will look like he is winning and will get everything he wants…. but his rule on earth will be short because Jesus will come back again and defeat him.

  • elephant4life

    I think it’s perfectly fascinating that this publication now has good things to say about Rand Paul, after months of marginalizing him, and/or comparing him unfavorably to Ted Cruz, all the while lauding Cruz for plagiarizing every policy position first promulgated by Rand. I guess now they’ve done Cruz’s dirty work, they can turn back to their alleged mission of promoting liberty? Well, this newsletter, like Cruz, are complete frauds, and their applause of Rand at this point is too little, too late.

  • Robert Quigley

    To wave bipartisan politics and finger pointing. To realize the senators and Representatives had to have an ear to the people who vote, gave donations, and prayed for their election and not to listen to lobbyist and special interest groups but the people. On issues on healthcare, immigration, and 0ther foreign and domestic problems. To use the power of the super majority thus breaking Obama’s pen and smashing his phone.

  • myfordtruck

    Yes get rid of the muslim and the wimps in congress and change the way the supreme court is put in and how long they are in office

  • wcgraybill

    I would kick the whole damn bunch out of Washington and start over, and put the ones that are trying to help America,s people back in office. For some reason the ones voted in last time don’t seem to have any balls they are panty waists. Out out out with them.

  • B. Zerker

    OUR elected governmental representatives (government) have already gone too far with their usurpations and because “We The People”, the true sovereigns in exile, have allowed their treasonous acts to go on too long. I’m afraid that the only way we’ll ever be able to get “OUR” elected representatives to revert back and once again abide by the Constitution (the Supreme Law) is to do as the Founders did, take control through insurrection. And it’s long overdue!
    Governmental overstep began long before any of us living today were born. To my knowledge, the government’s usurpation of the Constitution began the 1800’s with the unconstitutional act(s) of Theodore Roosevelt seizing state and private lands to create national parks. Constitutionally, under Article I, Sec. 8, the ONLY lands the Federal Government may legally possess are the 10 mile square District of Columbia for their “seat of government” and the smaller pieces needed to construct ‘post offices and post roads, forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards and other needful buildings.’ But because of Roosevelt’s usurpations, the Federal Government is now in illegal possession of millions of acres coast to coast.
    Then in 1913, Woodrow Wilson, in violation of Article I, Sec. 10, unconstitutionally and criminally seeded the republic’s monetary and economic system to a group of unelected private central bankers when he enacted the Federal Reserve Act. This allowed government and the people of this republic to dispose of their debts with a “fiat currency” instead of the constitutionally required ‘gold and silver coin’. Now as a direct result of that, our “fiat currency” is almost worthless due to the fact that it’s un-backed and is subject to supply increases and decreases that fuel inflation. This was also unconstitutional because the Federal Reserve Act did NOT originate in congress, but was written by the central bankers themselves thereby making it a violation of Article I, Sec.1.
    Then in that same year, Wilson and Congress also unconstitutionally enacted the 16th Amendment that allowed another private agency (the IRS) to unconstitutionally collect taxes on “The People’s” income, which is a clear violation of Article I, Secs. 8 & 9.
    Next, in 1920, they stuck their noses into “The People’s” personal business and behavior by enacting “prohibition”. By doing that, those in government single handedly created “organized crime” because the free people now needed a supplier for the booze that they wanted and this required “rum-runners”. This resulted in violence between the entrepreneurs providing us with the booze we wanted and the “revenuers” charged with stopping them. Because of this violence, to protect their “revenuers” and their own worthless backsides, government needed to disarm us and our booze suppliers. So in direct violation of the Second Amendment (2A), they enacted the National Firearms Act (NFA) in 1934 which eventually became the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968 that restricted the types of firearms that the civilian public could own. ALL restrictions of 2A are unconstitutional because “arms” is NOT defined therein. Nowhere in 2A does it mention a type or sub-set of “arms” that the government can arbitrarily “infringe” our right to “keep and bear”. Therefore, “We The People” have the right to ALL of them! Nor does 2A mention any restrictions on how we “bear” them. So acquiring a license or permit to “bear” one (in the open or concealed) is unconstitutional.
    As far as it goes, the majority of “statutes” enacted in the past century are unconstitutional examples of governmental overreach. If you can find a right in the Constitution, no doubt government has illegally enacted a statute to restrict it. The plain truth is that the Federal Government has become too powerful and entrenched and the only viable way that I can see to reclaim our Constitutional Republic will be to do as the Founders did – REVOLT and TAKE IT BACK by force!

  • Jane Duke

    Block the f’n money!

  • l.bell

    Arrest them all for willfully ignoring their oath of office , aiding and abetting , facilitating a coup de ta.then put them on trial give them a fair trial and a first class hanging. Leave them swinging as a reminder to those who come after of who is supposed to be in charge of this country . We the people are to run this country as it is supposed to be by the people for the people. (Side note : many would hang some would never hold office again few would return to their place as represntives of the people.but those convicted and hung have obviously stolen from and profited from the Citizens and therefore any fortunes they aquire while in office should be seized and returned to the people.)

  • Kurt

    OMG !! What has become of the tea party that Ron Paul helped to get started ?
    The birther issue was a non starter, wishful thinking and always a distraction. In any case, the presidency of Emperor Obsma is yesterdays news. Get over it and talk/work on issues at hand.