The Brilliance of the Electoral College

Residents of less populous states like Rhode Island were leary of signing the Constitution because they feared they would be controlled by more populous states like New York. So, in order to make sure that each state had an equal say in who would be President, the founding fathers created the Electoral College.  It was essentially devised as a means of getting the smaller states to sign the U.S. Constitution.

Look at it this way. When the 13 American colonies were a part of Britain, the most populous part of the British Empire was in Britain. So it was people who lived in the most populous area of the British Empire (mainly the King), who decided how the government was going to be run. The colonies had no say. They essentially had to give into the whims of the King.

The electoral college is based on the idea of Federalism, or the idea that states are sovereign and the Federal Government can't control them. According to the 10th amendment, the Federal Government has certain powers, but anything not mentioned in the Constitution is relegated to the States to decide.

So, to protect Federalism, to protect state sovereignty, the founders created the electoral college. It essentially made it so the most populous could not gain control of the Federal Government in such a way that would essentially turn the rest of states into colonies. That's the system the founders wanted to get away from; it's the reason for the American Revolution.

They understood that there were areas of the United States that were highly populated. They also understood that people tend to gravitate to certain populations centers, so they understood that the population centers change over time. They understood that ideas change over time.

They wanted to make sure that regardless of where the population centers were that they maintained the integrity of Federalism. They wanted to maintain the power of the states. It's to support the idea that elections are decided by the States and not by the population.

A perfect example here is California and New York. California and New York are run by a bunch of liberals and progressives. Most of the people in these states are inculcated to believe in liberal and progressive ideals. They are also high population centers. So, imagine if these two states decided how the government was run. All the rest of the states would lose their sovereignty and become no more significant than colonies.

This idea turned out to be ingenious.

It was never even questioned until the progressive Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000 and George Bush won the electoral vote. It wasn't questioned again until progressive Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016 and Donald Trump won the electoral vote.

Progressives essentially are claiming that Hillary should have won and that Donald Trumps presidency is illegitimate. But they are incorrect in their assertions. They are incorrect to assert that Hillary would have won if the rules were different. They fail to understand why the electoral college was created, and also what the reason for it is.

What they fail to tell you is that the rules at the present time make it so that Electoral Votes matter and the Popular Vote doesn't matter. For this reason, campaign strategies revolve around winning the electoral vote, not the popular vote.

There are some states that have lots of democrats, such as New York and California. Groupings of these states are called the blue wall, meaning that republicans in these states can vote, but their votes don't matter. There really isn't much point in Donald Trump spending much time there.

On the other hand, there are some states that have a lot of republicans, such as Texas. Groupings of these states are called the red wall, meaning that democrats in these states can vote, but their votes don't matter. There really isn't much point in Donald Trump spending much time there.

With the system the way it is, swing states are all that matters. Donald Trump and Hillary will spend most of their time in states like Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin. With the electoral college, voters in these swing states are usually what determine who wins elections.

With the rules as they are, Trump gave up in New York and it's 28 electoral votes, and California and its 55 electoral votes. Instead, he spent a lot of time in Wyoming to capture its 3 electoral votes, Michigan to capture its 16 electoral votes, and Ohio to capture its 18 electoral votes. This strategy paid off, as all these swing states gave Trump their electoral votes.

Now, for the sake of argument, let's assume, that prior to the 2016 election cycle, the electoral college was abolished. This would have changed the strategy. Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton would have spent hardly any time in less populous states, so that would take most of the swing states off the table. It would essentially take 80% of states off the table. Instead, they'd spend their time in New York and California.

If this happened, Trump and Clinton would have spent all their time campaigning in these two states. The campaigns would focus only on the issues that were relevant to the people in these population centers, which would probably include advancing the progressive agenda. The issues relevant to the rest of the nation would be irrelevant as the candidates would ignore those states.

Why, you ask, would Trump spend time in blue states like California and New York? Well, because there are a lot of republicans who do not vote in New York because they feel it is a waste of time. If they knew their vote counted, they would be more likely to vote. So Trump would be after these voters. Since there are a ton more potential voters in New York than New Hampshire, he would spend most of his time in New York and California, and maybe Florida and Texas.

This strategy would have made 80% of states irrelevant. The people living in these states would have no say in who becomes President, and they would essentially become slaves to the five largest states. These states would essentially be colonies rather than states.

So, with a different strategy, it is highly likely that Donald Trump would have been able to accrue the votes necessary to win the popular vote and still defeated Hillary.

Now, let us bring back the electoral college.

I would now like to use a simile that Rush Limbaugh used to put this into perspective. Let's use the 1960 world series, which had the New York Yankees playing the Pittsburgh Pirates. Over the course of four games, the Yankees scored a total of 55 runs and the Pirates scored a total of 27 runs. So, in essence, the Yankees scored the most runs, so they won the popular vote and should have won the world series.

But the total number of runs is not what determines the winner of the World Series. The winner of the world series is not who scores the most runs, it's who wins the most games. The Pirates won four of the seven games, so they won the world series. The Yankees won the popular vote, but the Pirates won the electoral vote, meaning the Pirates won and the Yankees lost.

The strategy to win the Presidency is not to get the most popular votes, it's to get at least 270 electoral votes. Trump accomplished this, and so he is our President-elect.

The way it is now, with the rules as they are set by the Constitution, talks between people from populous and non-populous states do occur, because we are a united nation where all states have a say in how the Federal government is run. Such talks are important to change minds, especially if the people of one state have a better way of running the Federal government.

In the United States, there's a vast amount of land that is divided into States. The Federal government is controlled by the people through the states. The Constitution was ratified by the states. The Bill of Rights was ratified by the states. And every President has been elected by the states. This is the same way the states controls the House and the Senate. This gives every person in every state a voice in how the country is run.

Another way to think of it is to think of America as a Democracy. This is what many young people think we are. This is what liberals think we are. So, when they see that Hillary won the popular vote, and she did not win, they see this as non-democratic.

You see? The problem is that we are not a democracy. The founding fathers did not like democracies. We are a republic, and so we elect people to represent us. That's what the premise of the electoral college is: we vote for electors. The electors then vote the way the people of the state want them to.

So, by having an Electoral College, the entire country gets represented, not just the most populous areas. This was because of the great foresight of the founders of this country.

Further reading:

1. Conservative Tribune: Here's What The Media Won't Tell You About The Popular Vote

The true nature of liberty

The founding fathers came up with an idea, and it was this idea which separates our idea from the ideas of other nations.  Their idea was that rights come from God, and cannot be taken away by any government.  Other men can deny you your rights, but they cannot take them away.

Contrary to this is the notion that our rights come from governments, which are created by men.  If other men give us our rights, then other men can take them away.  If other men give us our rights, then the people we elect -- such as Obama and Joe Biden and George Bush -- can make laws to take them away.

If our freedom was derived from the pens and pencils and keyboards of men, then our freedoms would not be very secure.  It is based on this notion that men have ignored the Constitution and made laws that take away our rights to choose.

Thomas Jefferson stayed up long nights thinking of this.  By his words and his pen, he wanted to make sure the freedoms that were fought for, the very rights that were denied to 99.9 percent of all men and women who lived before him, would not be denied to any person born in the United States.

The idea he and the other founding fathers devised was that rights were not born out of the minds of men, but born out of a gift of God.  It was in this way that he would assure that no man, no lawmaker, no king, no president, would ever make any law denying us our rights.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

He also wrote:

"God, who gave us life, gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?"

He was a brilliant man, one who not only wrote to secure his own rights, but the rights of all those who would be born after him.  If you so happen to forming in a womb of a person who doesn't believe you are a life, then your rights are denied you.

If you so happen to be born in a nation like Cuba, you will be born with rights, but they will be denied you.  You may think that you hate Castro, but you will not be able to say it or you will be severely punished, maybe even killed.  If you are born in any communist country, you will be denied your rights, but you will still have them.

If you so happen to be born in the United States, you will be born with natural rights and you will be able to keep most of them.  I say most of them because progressives have made many laws to perfect the world over the past 100 years that will deny you some of your rights.

It is for this reason that we must never stop learning about our founding fathers.  This must be taught in our schools every day, that our rights come from God. And if our schools don't teach it, this is the responsibility of fathers and mothers.

We must always be vigilant to those evil people who wish to deny us our natural rights, as some of them are born right here in this Great Nation. Freedom is not free.  Many good people have put their lives on the line, and many others have died, so that you may enjoy your God given freedoms.

2 reasons I support an armed public

There are many people who believe that there are too many guns in America, including great actor Liam Neeson.  These people believe that more laws need to be created to keep guns out of the hands of the public.

And every time there is an act of violence involving a gun, they use this as a reason for more gun control laws.  The most recent example is the violent action that occurred in France where police officers are unarmed and ride on bicycles.  They also frequently use school shootings, where guns are not allowed. 

There are two reasons why I am opposed to gun control laws.

1.  Bad guys will still get them.  If you could convince me that guns would be taken out of the hands of every thug in the world, I'd be all for gun control.

2.  The Police State would control us.  If you could convince me that the government would never take advantage of an unarmed populace, I'd be all for gun control.

Look!  Bad guys will get guns.  If the good guys don't have them, and the bad guys know this, then there's little hope for the good guys.

Look!  The U.S. military will always have guns, because their Raison d'être is to destroy things and kill people.  When the public no longer has guns, who is to prevent some future thug from getting elected president who will take advantage of this to control the people?

You see, people who support gun laws are the same progressives/liberals (fascists) who think they can perfect the world.  They actually think that if they get rid of guns there will be no criminals.  So the logic that bad guys would still commit crimes in a gun free world slips right by them.

Logic says that bad guys would find a way to get their hands on guns. If factories don't make them, then they would.  And if all the guns in the world miraculously disappeared, bad guys would use knives to kill instead.  So are they going to try to get rid of all the knives in the world too?

The truth is that most people who own guns are law abiding citizens who have a natural right to protect and defend themselves.  Attempts to take away their guns solves nothing, and creates chaos.

Progressives succeeded in changing a republic into a democracy

In order for the progressive movement to be a success,
progressives needed to take power away from the individual.

The founders of the United States wanted to form a republic rather than a democracy because they knew that democracies can lead to chaos, and they didn't want the new nation to be chaotic. The founders knew that democracies never work.

W. Cleon Skousen, in his book, "The 5000 year leap: Principles of Freedom 101," reminds us of this.  He said:

"There are many reasons why the Founders wanted a republican form of government rather than a democracy. Theoretically, a democracy requires the full participation of the masses of the people in the legislature or decision making processes of government. This has never worked because the people become so occupied with their daily tasks that they will not properly study the issues, nor will they take the time to participate in extensive hearings before the vote is taken. The Greeks tried to use democratic mass-participation in the government of the city-states, and each time it ended in tyranny."

The authors note that while a democracy becomes "increasingly unwieldy and inefficient as the population grows," a republic "governs through elected representatives and can be expanded indefinitely."

James Madison, one of the main authors of the Constitution, knew the limits of a democracy.  A republic, he said...

...derives its power directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior.  It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic.

The United States was a republic, and considered as such, until the progressive movement of the early 1900s. Early proponents of the progressive movement realized there were essentially two things standing in the way of moving forth their agenda: republicanism and the U.S. Constitution.  They aimed to tackle both these issues with a public relations campaign, or by twisting facts.

To understand this, we must first understand the history of the progressive movement.  Progressives believe that an ideal, or perfect, or Euphoric, world is possible. This is a world where there where every person has an equal share of the profits, where everyone who wants a job has one, and where everyone has health insurance.  We must realize that this is a dream.

To move America forward to this dream world laws must be made, and the people responsible for making these laws are experts in Washington.  Of course, these experts must all be progressives. These experts must make laws for the good of society, or for the good of all, or for the collective.  

The gist of this agenda is the assumption that people, as individuals, are not capable, or not willing, to do what is necessary to move forth the agenda. People, left to their own devices, are selfish, and will not give to charity and will not share the wealth.  So they must be forced.  

So you can see that this would not be popular in an republican America where individualism was taught.  So, these progressives started a campaign to change this view.  

Since a republican government limited their ability to push forth their agenda, the term "republic" was taken hostage.  It was at this time people, mainly progressives, started referring to their progressive programs as liberal, and their progressive programs as democratic.  They did this in order to make them sound more appealing.  They would say things like "this is for the good of society," or "for your own good."

For example, in 1921 socialists in the United States started calling themselves, "The League for Industrial Democracy." It has a much more appealing taste to Americans, and appeared much more likely to suck people in. 

During WWII, Woodrow Wilson added to the confusion when he hailed

"Make the world safe for Democracy."

This strategy worked.  Teachers and journalists prove the effects of this campaign by teaching that America is a democracy.  Even George W. Bush fell victim to this when he hailed that he was encouraging Muslim nations to become democracies.  

The second effort was to make the term socialism appealing withing the borders of the United States.  In order to to this they used the name "progressive" instead of "socialism."  Progressive was a much more appealing term.  Later, as this term lost its appeal, the name was changed to liberal.

Prior to the progressive movement the term liberty referred to the exercise of human rights in any manner a person chooses so long as it does not interfere with the rights of other people.  Liberal, therefore, which dates from the Middle Ages to about the 1930s, referred to freeing society from the shackles of the state.

In 1930 it was abducted by the progressives/liberals and now means "open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values." The term made it possible for the progressives to convince people that is was okay to change, or in some cases ignore, the laws of this nation, including the Constitution, in order to push forth their agenda.  

Evidence of the success of this campaign is seen in every day life in America. The influence of government has dangerously expanded far greater than the founding fathers ever envisioned, nearly to the point that presidents such as FDR and Obama have gained near king-like powers.  

Bottom line:  A successful push to destabilizing the meaning of the terms "republic" and "liberal" allowed progressives (i.e. socialists, liberals) to convince Americans to ignore or change the Constitution, thus allowing them to push forth their agenda. 

Should Obama be impeached?

If the only way to stop a lawless president from ignoring the constitution and over-stepping his bounds is impeachment, and the opposing party takes impeachment off the table for fear of backlash from voters, then there is no means of stopping him.

David Limbaugh wrote a good column ("Democrats, the Constitution, and the Rule of Law") on this subject. He makes a great point that. He writes:

Liberals believe, as a matter of their ideology, that the ends justify the means. We see it in practice every day. Liberals routinely distort facts and manipulate language to achieve their ends. As part of that, they will say that Republicans are guilty of precisely what they are doing. Manufactured projection is one of their most effective tools.

He added that while some conservatives would support a president ignoring the Constitution so long as the means was justified, most would not. He said:

But let me ask you to consider this: As a conservative, I would oppose judicial activism (roughly defined as the courts rewriting or making laws rather than interpreting them) to achieve conservative political ends. I don't know many liberals -- other than perhaps law professor Jonathan Turley -- who can make a similar statement.

It's not a matter of my (and conservatives generally) being more moral than liberals. That's not the point at all. The point is that we believe that preserving the integrity of the Constitution, as written and originally intended, is itself an essential end. 

We cherish liberty, and we understand the inextricable relationship between preserving the integrity of the Constitution and preserving our liberties. Anytime our constitutional system is undermined through egregious executive, legislative or judicial overreaches, our liberty is diminished.

He added:

When President Obama continues to act outside the scope of his executive authority and against the express will of Congress, he is, in effect, disenfranchising the people and thereby diminishing our liberties. When the courts rewrite laws to achieve their ideological or political ends, they assault the prerogative of the legislative branch and thereby further disenfranchise the people and popular sovereignty.

As a strong believer in the Constitution, the rule of law, the separation of powers, the doctrine of federalism and other essential limitations on government, I abhor judicial activism, executive overreaches and congressional usurpations, even if these abuses might be in furtherance of my political or ideological preferences. For to me, there are few more important principles than preserving the Constitution and the rule of law.

Basically, there is no law to stop a lawless president. In fact, the only thing that has stopped a president from over-reaching as Obama is today is the honor system and luck.

We have been lucky never to have a Stalin or Hitler or Hugo Chavez or Obama elected to the office of the President. Plus, all previous presidents honored and respected the rule of law (the Constitution) basically on an honor system.

So, basically, the only thing preventing any of the previous presidents, those before Obama, from violating the rule of law was the honor system. Other than that, the only means of lashing out against a lawless president is to wait for the next election.

In this case, November of 2016 might be too far away. That gives the president another two full years to further ignore and trample on our great Constitution, at the expense of our liberties and freedoms. That in mind, I am not endorsing impeachment, but it should not be taken off the table.

The thirty enumerated powers

In order to prevent the Federal government from getting too big, and therefore gaining too much influence over the people, the founding fathers created Article II Section 8 of the Constitution, which gives congress only 30 enumerated powers.

So, what are enumerated powers? They are those powers specifically delegated to Congress by the U.S. Constitution.  That means that Congress only has the right to rule on these 30 things.

Article II section 8 lists all of these powers:

1. To collect taxes in order to provide a common defense and general welfare of the people
2. To borrow money on the credit of the United States
3. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several states, and with Indian tribes
4. To establish an uinform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform laws regarding bankruptcies within the United States
5. To coin money, regulate the value therof, and fix the standard of weights and measures.
6. To provide punishment for counterfeiting the securities and Coin of the U.S.
7. To establish a post office and post roads
8. To promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
9. To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court
10. To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
11. To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
12. To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
13. To provide and maintain a Navy;
14. To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
15. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
16. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
17. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
18. To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
19. No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws:and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
20. The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
21. In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
22. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
23. The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
24. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
25. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
26. New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union;
27. The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
28. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress
29. The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment…
30. The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
31. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

Basically, Article II Section 8 limits the power of government to just a few things, including: standard weights and measures, coining money, post offices and post roads, the protection of intellectual property, and a national defense. Beyond these and a few other very specific items, there was not much for which the federal government was responsible.

These powers have obviously been loosely regarded by both Congress and the Supreme Court.  However, what is not listed here Congress has no legal authority to rule upon.  For all other issues Congress must refer to the 10th amendment: 

The 10th Amendment:  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

So by the law, the Congress has no right to make any laws regarding punishment except for the counterfeiting of money, treason, and impeachment.  All other laws regarding punishment, including murder and abortion, are reserved to the states, and therefore the people, to decide.

It was written this way to protect the rights of the states, and to limit the scope and power of the Federal government over the states. Another reason for this was to give states unlimited power, although they had limited funds to which to run government programs, as only the Federal government reserved the right to print money.

This system also allowed for the states to be risky with new programs, with other states copying the programs of other states that worked.  When a state's program failed, the other states would bail that state out.  If the Federal government failed, there would be on one, other than another country or group of countries (such as the United Nations) to bail it out. So this prevented the Federal government from taking unnecessary risk.

According to Kevin Price, "at renewamerica.com, "What are 'enumerated powers' and why do they matter, "The Founders of this republic believed in the dispersion of power. They did such in order to maximize individual freedom and to protect the power of the states. This unique system helped to limit the amount of money taxpayers spent on programs they disagreed with because on the federal level, all the enumerated powers were beneficial to all. Meanwhile, people had the power and freedom to move from state to state in order to find a government that best suited their needs. That power to "vote with their feet" kept most state government very small."

According to the Constitution, the Congress has no right to make any law regarding retirement, insurance, health, nor education, leaving these institutions up to the states, and therefore the people, to decide.

In other words, the size, scope and influence of the current government in the United States is illegal and must be scaled back.

Is it time to impeach Mr. Obama?

Okay, so I have never been an advocate of impeaching a president.  I think the idea is repulsive and counterproductive.

So you impeach a president and then what? You get his vice president as president, and he now has a fresh hold on the presidency and all the power that goes with it.  You have a potential, then, for eight more years of these guys being in power.

No!  That is not good.  But that's not even my main reason for being against impeaching a president.  In fact, back when there were arguments for impeaching President Clinton for lying about having sex with Monica Lewinski, I was opposed to the idea then.  The reason:  it looks bad for America.  As a person who loves my country, I do not want my country to look bad.

So now we have a few people talking about the possibility of impeaching Obama. You have people saying that the first thing Congress will do if people vote republicans into a majority in November of 2014 is to impeach Obama.

As noted, I have been completely opposed to this, until Obama released four of the world's biggest, most evil, villains in the world, giving them right back to the evil Taliban to which they came, in exchange for a person who appears to have been a deserter and not a prisoner of war.  Or, you could say it was one of our guys for four of theirs.

To me, this latest action makes all the suspect actions of Obama in the past several years make sense.  If Obama is making a four for one swap, releasing four Taliban leaders in the process, it's a sign to me that he does not see the Taliban as the enemy.  It's a sign that he sees his own country as the enemy.  That, dear readers, is an impeachable offense.  It's something I wrote about under my pseudonym even before Obama was elected.

Well, actually, what is impeachable is that he was, by a law that he signed, supposed to give Congress a 30 day notice for any prisoner swap.  But did you know that he tried to make this same deal back in March of 2012. The only reason this went public is because he briefed some members of Congress about it, they found it a repulsive idea, and so leading democrat and mega Obama supporter Dianne Feinstein put her country first an leaked the story to Foreign Policy magazine.

So this time Obama didn't want that to happen, so he bypassed the law and made the swap without telling Congress.  He broke the law.  This, by the way, is an impeachable offense.

However, we must temper any enthusiasm here.  The idea of this blog is not to be one sided, or blind sided, so we must take a look at all the facts before we come to any conclusions here.

Charles Krauthammer, in his June 5 column, notes the following:

There is strong eyewitness evidence that Bergdahl deserted his unit and that the search for him endangered his fellow soldiers. If he had served with honor and distinction, there would be no national uproar over his ransom and some of the widely aired objections to the deal would be as muted as they are flimsy. For example:

1. America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.  Nonsense. Of course we do. Everyone does, while pretending not to. The Israelis, by necessity the toughest of all anti-terror fighters, in 2011 gave up 1,027 prisoners, some with blood on their hands, for one captured staff sergeant.

2. The administration did not give Congress 30-day notice as required by law. Of all the jurisdictional disputes between president and Congress, the president stands on the firmest ground as commander in chief. And commanders have the power to negotiate prisoner exchanges.

Moreover, from where did this sudden assertion of congressional prerogative spring? After five years of supine acquiescence to President Obama’s multiple usurpations, Congress suddenly becomes exercised over a war power — where its claim is weakest. Congress does nothing in the face of 23 executive alterations of the president’s own Affordable Care Act. It does nothing when Obama essentially enacts by executive order the Dream Act, which Congress had refused to enact. It does nothing when the Justice Department unilaterally rewrites drug laws. And now it rises indignantly on its hind legs because it didn't get 30 days’ notice of a prisoner swap?

3. The Taliban release endangers national security.
Indeed it does. The five released detainees are unrepentant, militant and dangerous. They’re likely to go back into the field and resume their war against local and foreign infidels, especially us.
The administration pretense that we and the Qataris will monitor them is a joke. They can start planning against us tonight. And if they decide to leave Qatar tomorrow, who’s going to stop them?

So that was Krauthammer.  I think we can see he is equally concerned about this swap, although, because Congress has failed to show indignation at any of Obama's other unconstitutional moves, then how can he justify taking action on this most recent illegal move.  This kind of points the finger at the idea that neither the republican nor democrat party gives a hoot about the constitution.

However, I must note, that I recently watched the Untouchables starring Robert De Niro as Al Capone and Kevin Cosner as Eliot Ness.  This great movie reminds us that it was not that Capone was a famous mobster, nor that he sold alcohol illegally, nor that he killed hundreds of men in his attempts to get his way, that landed him in prison. No!  It was one small detail he considered to be minute:  it was tax evasion.

The fact that Obama has gotten away with illegal acts, acts that have weakened our economy, our borders, our national defense, our national resolve, and our confidence did not get him impeached.

He opens our borders and allows millions of illegals to cross our border, illegals who are prone to take low paying jobs and not bring in new ideas and technology to America, and illegals who will, more than likely, put themselves on the government dole and vote for democrats and their progressive ideals.

He allows guns to be sold near the border and to end up in the hands of Mexican drug lords to be used against American's trying to protect the border.  This was what many refer to as "fast and furious."  Obama wanted people to think drug Lords were crossing the border and purchasing guns at American stores, and he wanted to use this as a reason to get gun laws passed.  But, as it turned out, Obama is the one who allowed those guns to be sold.  Yes!  It all makes sense now why he would do it: he hates America.

It all makes sense now.  It's like I've had an epiphany of sorts.  All of these actions, when you put them together, all made America worse off.  It put us down to size.  Sure, Obama took hits. Sure, his popularity plummeted.  But, bottom line, he did what needed to be done: "fundamentally change America."

But this later action tops all of them, and should be the straw that breaks the camels back. It should be the action that causes -- forces -- Congress to take action.

I believe that he knows now that he no longer has the support of Congress, nor the people. For this reason, he is going to do whatever is in his power, legal or illegal, constitutional or unconstitutional, to continue his efforts to, as he put it, "fundamentally change America."

In other words: Impeach Obama.  Don't give him another 2.5 years to continue to destroy our country that he obviously hates.

Why do progressives hate the founding fathers?

Ever wonder why it is that progressives do not seem to like the founding fathers, and constantly try to diminish the founding documents?  Well, it's because the founding fathers were all conservative.

Now that we understand this, it's easy to see why progressives, or at least those who are pushing the progressive movement, say that the Constitution is a living document that must be changed and updated.  It is why they say the Declaration of Independence is dead.  It's why they ignore the Constitution to make into law what the people do not want, but what is essential to advance their agenda.  

A perfect example here is the fact that many progressives use Thomas Jefferson as a perfect example of a founding father who was an atheist who was for a large government.  

Why do progressives in the U.S. constantly say that Thomas Jefferson was for big government and that he wanted the Bible out of government?  Well, it's because he was really a conservative, and if people knew that they might want to become conservatives.  For this reason, they twist the truth to make Jefferson what they need him to be in order to advance their agenda.  

Neither of these are true, by the way.  Jefferson, although he may have been a deist, still understood the importance of God and the conservatism he preached. Jefferson, in essence, was for a limited government.  

Chuck Norris actually covered this topic in his April 13, 2014, column "Three myths about Thomas Jefferson."  He sites the following quote from Jefferson:

Jefferson was actually for smaller government, less debt and fewer taxes. About eight years after his two terms of president, Jefferson wrote, “We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses, and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes, have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account, but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers.”

Thomas Jefferson probably was a deist and not a Christian, although he also understood the importance of God in a functioning government. It is for this reason, in various letters to John Adams, he discussed why he thought it was important for a government to inculcate the values and morals taught through the Bible.

Jefferson wrote that he believed, that since the new nation could not afford a militia, that something else was needed to keep Americans in line.  Jefferson understood, perhaps by reading books from his own library, that fear of God and the Devil are all that is needed to encourage people to love and respect their neighbors.  That it was important for the government to encourage Bible study.

It is for this reason the founding fathers -- Jefferson, Washington, Paine, Adams, Madison, Franklin -- used God's name so frequently.  They understood, that in order to maintain a functioning society, God is essential.