Sit Down Mr. President!

In light of the recent dictates on contraception, religion and health insurance emanating from the White House, I believe that it is time to review the duties, responsibilities and authorities of the office of the President of the United States of America.  The office of the President and its attendant powers are set out in Article II of the Constitution, and it's a very short Article.  The President is the executive officer of the agencies of the Executive Branch of the federal government.  He is not the executive officer of the Congress, the federal Courts, the States, individual citizens, private businesses or private organizations.  Thus he may direct the activities and spending of those federal agencies under his control, but that's it.  He cannot direct anyone else or anything else to spend or not spend or do or not do anything.  Period.  All of this huffing and puffing about directing churches or religious benevolent organizations or insurance companies to provide this or that or spend this or that is just downright silliness.  Beyond his executive duties for federal agencies his few responsibilities mostly relate to defense, foreign policy negotiations, appointing judges and signing or vetoing legislation.  I don't see running churches, charitable organizations or private insurance companies in that list.  His law enforcement and legal agencies may investigate violations of federal law, bring perpetrators to justice and try such cases in federal court; but the President may not amend federal laws on the fly.  This idea behind an all-powerful Presidency is what drives the move to abolish the Electoral College.  Forces in this country would like to elevate the President to a virtual dictator or king with power over all aspects of the federal government, state governments, individual citizens, private business and private organizations.  These forces would like to move to popular election of the President, ignoring the fact that the President is elected by the States to serve the United States of America.  The People's direct representation in the Federal Government is the House of Representatives, the People's House.  The President's role and influence has grown far beyond it's original intent and far beyond a safe and sane level.  It is time to return the office of the Presidency to it's proper and limited role in our government, our businesses and our personal, private lives.

Call It What It Is

Standing in a garage does not make one a car; and sleeping in the White House does not make one a President.

No More Blood From Turnips

If the President directs Treasury to bail out the automakers in defiance of the Senate decision last night, then it is about time for the American people and corporations to start withholding their federal income tax payments. We must protest and starve this ersatz, unconstitutional federal government into submission.

Historic Election

I'm voting for the WHITE GUY because I think it would be HISTORIC to elect a WHITE MAN as PRESIDENT.

Jonathan Freedland, The Guardian, U.K.

Mr. Freedland,
Yes, we Americans are about to elect John McCain & Sarah Palin.
Thank God!
Barack Hussein Obama is not running for President of the World.
Please keep your pig-headed ideas out of our election. We yankees do not want to be anything like you people in the old, decrepit world which neither produces or accomplishes anything. And then when you get in a pickle you hide and wait for us to come pull your collective chestnuts out of the fire.Your socialist/communist day has passed.
Get the hell out of our way or be rolled over!

Neophyte Neo-Commie

Barack Hussein Obama, the Junior Senator from Illinois who is running for President sounds like someone running for a local school board position when he speaks. And he's not even qualified for that. He has absolutely no resume for President. When you can glean a small tidbit of a policy position from his flowery nonsensical speeches that turns out to be just another illegal federal nanny program funded by higher taxes. He is the quintessential cradle-to-grave socialist manipulator. This guy is a blatant neo-communist. He is in the direct lineage of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini and Castro. He must be stopped!

Who's Your Daddy?

We make way too big of a fuss over electing a President. You would think that we are selecting a King. Or Queen. No, that would still be a King. Well nevertheless you get the point. How is it that we have come to expect our President to be our daddy, big brother, grandfather, uncle, mother, soldier, statesman, preacher, doctor, teacher, banker and all around best friend? The President's constitutional role is actually rather limited, as is that of the entire federal government really. More akin to a city manager than a potentate. Yes, he should inspire us to greatness and represent the country on the world stage; but not have a plan and a program for every single aspect of our lives. He runs the military, negotiates treaties and enforces the federal laws. He can propose budgets, but taxing and spending bills actually originate in the House. Have you grilled your Congressman on all of the various federal programs and spending priorities to the extent that you have the Presidential candidates? I doubt it. The President really represents the interests of the states, not the people. The Congress represents the people in Washington. His power to affect our daily lives is not that great. Bureaucrats have more power to make us miserable or happy in our everyday lives than the President ever will. And we don't even know who they are. This process has become a farce; nothing more than high comedy. We need to refocus on the right priorities. That would begin with teaching and understanding the Constitution.

Dear Doctor Dobson

As a fundamentalist Christian living in Colorado I have visited Focus on the Family several times and deeply appreciate the contributions that Dr. James Dobson has made to the cause of family values. On the issue of who to support in the 2008 Presidential contest I must however diverge from Dr. Dobson and many other Christian leaders. While I am not greatly enamored with the current field of Republican candidates, the prospects from the Democrats are downright frightful. I am constantly reminding my friends that electing government officials is not tantamount to selecting pastors and popes. We are selecting people to run our secular public institutions. Politics is the art of the possible not the perfect. I doubt any candidate will ever suit me completely (unless of course I run, not). My goal in deciding on whom to cast my vote comes down to who is the best possible choice on my side that has a chance of getting elected and keeping the much worse choice from the other side from being elected. The progress of political success is usually gained in many small steps with many small setbacks over a long period of time, not in one grand fell swoop. If my stand on principle predictably results in my opponent getting elected then I really have no principles. I have merely been a willing participant in making life worse for all. Sadly, politics is many times choosing the lesser of two evils. But the keyword is lesser. I know that the current consternation in Christian camps hinges on abortion. And I believe that there is a fear amongst many that voting for someone who is not unabashedly pro-life may truly invoke the personal judgment and wrath of God. But if your opponent is solidly pro-abortion and by your action of sitting out an election or supporting a third-party candidate (who has no chance of getting elected and merely siphons votes from your party’s candidate) with the result in either case being that the pro-abortion candidate is elected; then in my view you are complicit in that eventuality. Do you suppose that might be how God would see it? Have you served God and served your cause and the public or have you only served your selfish viewpoint? The truth is the President has little to do with abortion policy save appointing judges. So what we should be evaluating is who potential candidates might appoint to the bench and what the judicial temperament of a potential judge is. The real rub is that under our Constitution questions of abortion policy have no place in federal courts. The U.S. Supreme court has no jurisdiction in those questions since they are not addressed in the Constitution. The proper forums for those debates and policies are the States. So to my friends on the Christian right I beseech you to get some perspective on what we are really engaged in here. Washington, D.C is not heaven and politicians are not angels. We’re doing the best we can with what we have. Remember, progress not perfection is the goal. Let’s do some good today in order to avoid a really big bad tomorrow.

Amendment 36-Colorado

With regard to the initiative to alter the way Presidential Electors are selected in Colorado, the idea of voting on a measure to change the way an election is conducted for that very same election is patently absurd. One does not change the rules once the process is already underway.
On a more substantive note, the proposal in question would essentially eliminate the Electoral College without a U.S. Constitutional Amendment. Presidents are elected by the States, not a general national plebiscite. The purpose is to maintain the integrity of our republic. Without the Electoral College process, states with lesser populations would lose their participation in selecting the President. Our nation was founded as a federation of sovereign states with a relatively weak national government. The majority of power is vested in the states. The current process ensures that all citizens of the various states have a say in selecting our national leader. Under the proposed adulteration, the President could be elected by three or four populous states. That would herald the end of States’ rights. The President is elected by the States to represent the States; hence the President of the United States of America. The People directly elect their Representatives. Thus, the House of Representatives was designed to be the Peoples’ House.
Article II, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution charges the state legislatures with establishing the method for holding elections in their respective states for President. It does not provide for those legislatures to abdicate or delegate that specific responsibility.
This proposal is nothing more than a veiled attempt to unconstitutionally usurp the power to elect their President from the people. What these proponents cannot obtain by legal ballots, they seek to obtain by chicanery and tomfoolery. We must never allow any dangerous changes like this to take away the peoples’ right to elect the President.
We must demand from our State Representatives that they make a pre-emptive declaration by legislation that they and only they under the U. S. Constitution have the authority to designate how elections are held in Colorado and that the apportionment of electoral votes shall not change.
We’re waiting…