Article V proposed amendments/COS needed

Source; Oren Long


Everyone,
 
Below is an email I sent to Mr. David Schneider, a leader in the Convention of States Movement.  It is self-explanatory.  
 
Your thoughts,
 
Oren
 
 
 
 
Mr. Schneider,
 
Sadly, the Article V Convention of States movement appears stalled short of the necessary 34 State requirement, begging the question, "How do we restart it and push it over the finish line"?  
 
Given the current sad state of affairs, now might be the perfect time for such an effort.    I believe (perhaps "hope" is a better word) there is a way and would appreciate your thoughts.  
 
For several years I have worked on a series of amendments I hope to have introduced into Convention in the event we achieve a COS, continually revising and refining them to their current form and format.  They are in the link below.  
 
Are they perfect?  Probably not.  I'm sure you and others have your own ideas on what any amendments should look like.  I'm fine with that.  I just want to get us to the finish line.    
 
It occurs to me that we are essentially asking States to buy into a concept without fleshing out said concept.  We are essentially asking States to "buy a pig in a poke".  And we are surprised when they are reluctant to do so?  
 
Again, given the current sad state of affairs, now just might be the perfect time to restart the COS movement and push it over the finish line.  People and States are starving for a solution.  A COS can be that solution.  As has been said, "Never let a crisis go to waste".  It is one thing to glom onto the rage simmering just below the surface, but quite another to feed that rage and focus it on a constructive solution.         
 
What if we actually told State Legislators what we hope to accomplish -- with specifics?  It is of paramount importance that legislators be made to understand that we are NOT trying to rewrite the Constitution but are trying to armor and reinforce the Original Intent of the Founders.  My proposed amendments clearly serve that end.    
 
State politicians are no different than their federal counterparts.  Their primary concern is for their own political survival.  Make them understand that their political survival depends on their support for a Convention of States AND that we only want to armor and reinforce the Original Intent of the Founders.  I am confident (again, perhaps "hope" is a better word) that State Legislators could support that.      
 
To that end, we must give both people at large AND State Legislators something they can actually support.  For example, it is one thing to say we want a Balanced Budget Amendment.  But what would it look like, exactly?  A Balanced Budget Amendment is included in my proposed amendments.  Perfect?  Probably not, but it's a start.    
 
It is important that we not rush into Convention with only a vague, nebulous set of ideas and concepts.  We must offer up a SPECIFIC set of goals and product that we hope to accomplish.  Then and only then can we hope to succeed and garner public and legislative support.      
 
This is why I suggest you and others spread my proposed amendments far and wide.  Start a debate and stimulate a groundswell of support for a COS.    
 
I am not so arrogant or naive as to think my proposed amendments are perfect, BUT I also believe they are far better than anything else I have seen to date.  Nor do I believe they would be adopted carte blanche as written.  Even if introduced into Convention, they would be modified as delegates saw fit.        
 
Spreading my proposed amendments far and wide would hopefully start a vigorous debate that just might get us to the 34 State finish line.  To make my idea work, EVERYONE would have to REPEATEDLY hammer their State Legislators to support a COS Resolution and get us over the 34 State finish line.  Commensurately, that is why I suggest that my proposed amendments be spread far and wide.  They give people something to support and urge their State Legislators to support.  Give people and legislators something to fight FOR!  
 
Perhaps they could go viral and restart the COS movement.  
 
Again, people and States are starving for something to fight FOR rather than something to fight AGAINST!  Let's give them what they are looking for.     
 
What say you?  
 
Oren Long        
 
P.S.  When you reread my proposed amendments, please do not speed-read them.  Nuance and subtlety are there if you look for them.  
 
Thank you.  
 I present for your consideration something I have been working on for ten years, continually revising and refining it to its current form and format.   It is my hope that you will read it carefully and consider it seriously.   If you do, I ask that you reply with your thoughts.
We all know that no one, single amendment can even hope to resolve the many problems that have built up for well over 200 years.   That said, I hope that when you read my series of proposed amendments you consider them as a ‘package’ with each supporting and reinforcing the others.   I would ask that you search for the nuance and subtly, it’s all there if you look for it. 
I fully understand that proposing specific amendments at this early stage is inappropriate and it is not my intent that the COS Project throw them out for State Legislative consideration at this time.  
I am a firm believer in being prepared.   I firmly believe that it would behoove us to have something in the hopper for that day when a COS is actually convened.   Walking into a COS Convention with only a vague and nebulous set of ideas would almost certainly end in disaster and a set of ill-conceived amendments.
The above said, I present to you a series of proposed amendments that I hope could be introduced into Convention for discussion, debate, and consideration.   I believe each proposed amendment falls within the COS Project’s stated goal of limiting the size, scope, power, reach, and authority of the Federal Government and bringing it back within its Constitutional limitations.  
My proposed amendments are NOT something I just threw together ‘over a beer and a pool game’.   I have been working on them for over ten years, continually revising and refining them to their current form and format.  
Following each of my proposed amendments is an explanation of my thinking.   Yes, it is long; so be it.   We have waited well over 200 years for this august opportunity.   I say, “Carpe Diem”.   Seize the Day!  
My proposed amendments and accompanying explanations are as follows:  




Oren Long                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   










NUMBER ONE:
Section One: The Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of the Land, shall not be subservient to or subjugated to any Foreign Law, International Treaty, or International Agreement, and shall be read, interpreted, applied, and adhered to literally.   No words or phrases shall be changed unless done so under the amendment process as laid out in Article V of the Constitution.    No part of the Constitution shall be used to expand or increase Federal Power or Authority beyond that EXPRESSLY granted and enumerated in the Constitution.   The language of the Constitution shall be interpreted according to the definition of words at the time of their inclusion in the Constitution.   
Section Two:   The words “and general Welfare” are hereby stricken from the Constitution of the United States.   All Laws, Rules, Regulations, Orders, and/or Court Rulings based upon or reliant upon “and general Welfare” are hereby stricken from Law, declared null and void, and without force of effect.
Section Three:    This Amendment shall be retro-active upon its ratification.   Any and all Laws, Rules, Regulations, Orders, Treaties, and Agreements that directly or indirectly suborn or subjugate the Constitution of the United States as the Supreme Law of the Land, as read and interpreted literally, are hereby stricken from Law, declared null and void, and without force of effect.


EXPLANATION:   The Founders considered adding “expressly” into the Constitution, but decided that it was unnecessary.   The Founders were men of honor and could not imagine anyone even wanting to suborn the Constitution to political or ideological precepts.   They were wrong.   They grossly underestimated the creativity and lust for power of corrupt lawyers, judges, political parties, and politicians. 
Words change over time.   “And general Welfare” has been intentionally redefined from its original meaning until it now means something entirely different.
“Section Three” is added for the express purpose of preventing the Executive, Legislative, and/or Judicial Branches from declaring that previous Laws, Treaties, etc. are “Established Law” that should not be violated.


NUMBER TWO:
The Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed, declared null and void, and without force of effect.
EXPLANATION:
The Founders envisioned the House of Representatives as the House of the People and the Senate as the House of the States, and for good reason.
While the Founders wanted the People to be well represented in the new Federal Government, they had serious concerns over what Madison called the “Temporary and transient whims of the People”.  They also wanted to maintain State supremacy over the Federal Government.  Remember, the States got together and created the Federal Government, not the other way around.  Hence, the Senate was created as the House of the States, the adult in the room, if you will, with each State having an equal voice.
This proposed Amendment would restore the Original Intent of the Founders, a system that worked well until political parties undermined the Founders’ Original Intent.


NUMBER THREE:
Section One:   No person shall be nominated for or confirmed to the Federal Bench who is not a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, who has not attained the age of thirty five years, who is not a member of the Bar in good standing, who has not been a member of the Bar in good standing for a minimum of ten years, who is not law-abiding and without criminal conviction, who is not confirmed by a two thirds vote of the Senate of the United States, and who has not demonstrated a clear and consistent adherence to Constitutional Principles as envisioned by the Founders and expressed in subsequent amendments.
Section Two:   The Power and Authority of the Federal Judiciary shall be strictly limited to only those powers EXPRESSLY enumerated in Article III of the Constitution of the United States.    No Federal Judicial Ruling shall insert Legislative, Executive, or Judicial Power, Authority or Interpretation, direct or indirect, into the Constitution of the United States that is not EXPRESSLY enumerated therein.
Section Three:   Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States and Judges of inferior Federal Courts shall stand for reconfirmation by the Senate of the United States every six years.   Justices of the Supreme Court and Judges of inferior Federal Courts, ensconced on the Bench before the ratification of this amendment, shall also stand for reconfirmation by the Senate of the United States every six years.   Reconfirmation or de-confirmation shall occur within sixty calendar days of said due date.
Section Four:   Congress shall have, by three fourths vote of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, the power to override individual rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States and/or inferior Federal Courts.   The President must concur with Congressional overrides of Federal Court decisions.


EXPLANATION:   Article III is badly flawed.   The Founders spent much time and energy on Articles One and Two, but precious little time and energy on Article III.   In my view this was an error.   The Founders did not view the Federal Judiciary as a serious threat to Freedom or the Constitution.   History has proven them wrong.  
The Founders did not bother to lay out specific qualifications for the Federal Bench.   A careful reading of Article III reveals that there are NO qualifications for the Bench.   It is not even necessary for a Federal Judge to be a Citizen, let alone a Natural Born Citizen.   There is no requirement that a Federal Judge or Justice be a lawyer, let alone learned, in good standing, or a member of the Bar.   The Village Idiot could be nominated and confirmed.   A convicted felon could be nominated, confirmed, and serve as long as he/she committed no further offense(s) while on the Bench.   Technically, it is not even required that a person nominated to the Bench be a resident of the United States.
Nor are there ANY restrictions on Federal Judicial Power or Authority – NONE!   Article III lays out what the Judiciary CAN do, but does not say what it CANNOT do!   Any “limitations” on Judicial Authority are implied and assumed (and we all know the definition of “assume”).   Lawyers and Judges often assume that if there is no SPECIFIC restriction on their power or rulings, said rulings must be Constitutional.   The courts have used this oversight (starting with Marbury v Madison) to gradually increase their power to the current, overarching level.   This must stop!
Finally, there is no "Check" on Federal Judicial Power or the courts themselves.   The President can overrule Congress via Veto.   Congress can overrule the President via Veto Override.   Judges/Justices can overrule both Congress and the President.   But, NO ONE can overrule the Court!    The only "Check" on the Court(s) at this time is Impeachment.   Even if a Judge or Justice is impeached and removed from the Bench his/her decisions still stand.   We simply MUST implement some form of check on the courts and their rulings.  
It all comes down to the Latin, “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes” (who guards the guardians?).   My proposed amendment establishes a ‘guard’ over the Judiciary.    
Some have proposed term limits for the Judiciary.   This is a bad idea.   Term limits get rid of good Judges/Justices along with the bad.    My proposed amendment resolves ALL the issues surrounding the Judiciary; establishing qualifications for the Bench, restricting the courts to enumerated powers, and imposing a check on the Judiciary.        
I firmly believe that the ratification of this proposed amendment would go a long way towards bringing the Judiciary back within its Constitutional Limits as envisioned by the Founders.


NUMBER FOUR:
Section One: No person shall be elected to Congress more than once unless serving in Congress at the time of the ratification of this amendment, in which case sitting Members of Congress shall be eligible for re-election to their respective seats one time.
Section Two: In the event the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed Senators shall be selected according to the rules laid out in Article One of the Constitution of the United States, including service in the Senate as long as their respective State Legislature deems it appropriate.  
Section Three:  Members of the House of Representatives shall be elected for a term of six years, with one third of House Members elected every two years.
Section Four:   Members of Congress shall be subject to Popular Recall by their constituents.   Within 90 calendar days of the ratification of this Amendment the Legislatures of the several States shall pass Legislation governing the recall of their respective Members of Congress.   In the event a State fails to pass Legislation governing the Recall of its Members of Congress within the required 90 calendar days, that State’s Members of Congress shall have been recalled and new elections held within 60 calendar days.
Section Five:   In the event the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed, Section Four shall not apply to Members of the Senate of the United States.
Section Six:   The President and Vice-President of the United States shall be subject to Popular Recall by their constituents.   Within 90 calendar days of the ratification of this Amendment the Congress shall pass Legislation governing the Recall of the President and Vice-President of the United States.   The President shall not have Veto Authority over Legislation governing the Recall of the President and Vice-President.   In the event the Congress fails to pass the required Legislation within the required 90 calendar days, the President and Vice-President shall have been Recalled and a new election held within 60 calendar days.   In the event the President and Vice-President are Recalled, the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall serve as the President Pro Tempore pending the results of the aforementioned election, whereupon the newly elected President and Vice-President shall be sworn in immediately upon the certification of election results.   
Section Seven:  Neither Congress, the President, nor any Federal Court shall make any law, rule, regulation, or order that does not apply equally to themselves and all Citizens of the United States.   Nor shall Congress, the President, or any Federal Court cause or allow any law, rule, regulation, or order to be made by any agent or agency of the Federal Government that does not apply equally to themselves, all Federal employees, and all Citizens of the United States.
Section Eight: Neither Congress, the President, nor the Vice-President shall receive any publicly funded retirement or benefit, beyond appropriate pay, not available to all Citizens of the United States.
Section Nine: Section Eight shall not apply to Members of Congress, Presidents, or Vice-Presidents, serving or retired, at the time of the ratification of this Amendment.
Section Ten:   No former Member of Congress, former President or Vice-President, or former Federal employee shall advocate for or against Legislation or Policy for a period of ten years after leaving public service or employment.


EXPLANATION:   The problem with the term limits concept is that we have never had REAL term limits, except for the President and Vice-President, even on the State level.   Several States have imposed term limits, but some States have repealed them.   This is because, as tried, they are not actual ‘term limits’, but are just shortened career paths, complete with retirement and other special benefits.  
WHENEVER a politician is able to run for re-election, that politician is subject to the influence of lobbyists, big donors, and Party Leadership.   In fact, studies show that Members of Congress generally spend half their day seeking money and support for re-election instead of doing the Peoples’ business.   Then, after leaving office they move to a lobbying firm where they make millions of dollars a year.   I see a one-term limit and the repeal of the 17th Amendment as the ONLY way to return Congress to a Peoples’ and States’ Congress.   In short, what would be the point of lobbyists and big donors throwing money at someone who won’t be there next term?  
Some say that a one-term limit is a bad idea.   They say that seating an entirely new and inexperienced Congress each election eliminates experienced Members and puts new and inexperienced Members of Congress at the mercy of lobbyists and bureaucrats who could easily manipulate them.   My proposal to elect members of the House of Representatives for a term of six years, with one-third of the House elected every two years, along with the repeal of the 17th Amendment accomplishes four goals simultaneously.   It returns the House to a Peoples’ House; eliminates or seriously reduces the influence of lobbyists, big donors, and Party Leadership; provides for stability in the House; and returns the Senate to a States’ Senate as envisioned by the Founders.      
Sections Four and Six (Recall) would serve to keep elected officials true to their campaign promises and the Will of the People and States.   Further, repealing the 17th Amendment would automatically implement a form of recall on the Senate.   Under the rules laid out in Article I, a State can Recall and replace a Senator at will.   Shouldn’t the People have that same power over the House and the President?


NUMBER FIVE:
Section One:   Congress shall make and the President shall sign a Balanced Federal Budget every year and before the beginning of the ensuing fiscal year.   In the event Congress and the President fail to make said Balanced Federal Budget before the beginning of the ensuing fiscal year, the last constitutionally passed and signed Federal Budget shall go into effect and shall be the Federal Budget for the entirety of the ensuing fiscal year.
Section Two:   Expenditures in the Federal Budget shall be limited to only those expenditures expressly granted and enumerated in the Constitution of the United States.   No expenditures shall be authorized by Congress that are not enumerated in the Balanced Federal Budget as passed by Congress except as delineated in Section Three of this amendment.   Only taxes specifically allowed in the Constitution shall be levied. 
Section Three:   Balanced shall be defined as expenditures not to exceed revenues except in time of War as Formally Declared by Congress or National Emergencies as Formally Declared by a three fourths vote of both the House and Senate, in which case expenditures exceeding said Balanced Federal Budget shall be used exclusively for the prosecution of said Formally Declared War or the resolution of said Formally Declared Emergency and shall cease immediately upon the termination of hostilities or resolution of said Emergency.
Section Four:   Emergency shall be defined as situations or events not anticipated in the formulation of the Balanced Federal Budget.   These may include, but not be limited to, natural disasters, pandemics, social upheaval, or insurrections.   Emergencies shall be dealt with on a one-by-one basis with each Emergency budgeted for individually via a three fourths vote of both the House and Senate.     
Section Five:   Revenues shall be defined as monies received; not monies predicted, anticipated, or forecasted beyond the immediate fiscal year.  
Section Six:   Unfunded liabilities, obligations, and/or mandates shall be included in the calculation of the Balanced Federal Budget.


EXPLANATION:   I am aware that exigencies may arise where Congress may need to overspend the budget.   I have tried to allow for them.  
The key to balancing the Federal Budget is returning Congress to a true States’ and Peoples’ Congress via a one-term limit for the House and repealing the 17th Amendment.   Hence, my NUMBERS TWO and FOUR.   Unless and until that is accomplished, any attempt to balance the budget is an exercise in futility.   As long as Congress is composed of life-time, career, self-serving politicians the budget will remain unbalanced and bloated.  
This amendment points out yet another major flaw in the Constitution, that the Founders failed to define their terms.   They used words and phrases that they considered to be so well understood and accepted that there was no way to misinterpret them.   Again, they underestimated the creativity of corrupt lawyers, judges, and politicians.   My proposed amendment clearly defines “balanced”, “revenues”, “expenditures”, and “emergency”.


NUMBER SIX:
The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed and replaced with the following:
Section One:  The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Section Two:  Income shall be defined as “Gross Income”, not “Net Income”.
Section Three:  Income as defined in Section One shall not be taxed at a rate to exceed five per cent (5%) and said five per cent (5%) tax rate shall apply uniformly to all taxpayers, regardless of income level, except as defined in Section Four of this Amendment.
Section Four:  Income below the Federally defined poverty line shall not be taxed.
Section Five:  No income, however derived, shall be taxed more than once.




EXPLANATION:
I consider this proposed Amendment self-explanatory.  That said, I understand that certain “deductions” may need to be written into the amendment.  Again, not being an attorney or economist, I will leave that to better minds than mine to hash out in Convention. 
The fact remains that there is NO reason for the IRS code to be 60,000+ pages, so long and convoluted that not even the IRS itself can decipher it.  This proposed amendment could go a long way towards making taxation fair and equitable for everyone.
Further, debate rages over how best to control an overarching, overreaching Federal Government and keep it from becoming completely authoritarian.  Underpinning my other proposed amendments is the core concept, “Take away the money; take away the power”.  As the saying goes, “Money is the root of all Evil”. 
I have allowed for the Federal Government to be adequately funded, but only adequately and not excessively, at the expense of those it supposedly “serves”.


NUMBER SEVEN:  
Section One:   Congress shall make no Law, and the President shall take no Executive Action, after a National Election and before the swearing in of a new Congress and/or President except as allowed in Section Two of this Amendment.
Section Two:   The only exceptions to Section One of this Amendment shall be a Formal Declaration of War by Congress or a Formal Declaration of National Emergency by Congress requiring necessary Legislation and/or Executive Action.  
Section Three:   The President, Vice-President, and Congress shall be sworn into office no later than two weeks after the certification of election results. 


EXPLANATION:
Congress has a bad habit of passing unpopular Legislation, often against the overwhelming Will of the People, and during lame-duck sessions.   Presidents have a bad habit of granting Presidential Pardons and of issuing Executive Orders, before leaving office, and often at the last minute.   This Amendment would stop such nonsense. 


NUMBER EIGHT:
Section One: Only persons born of at least one United States Citizen-Parent shall be Citizens of the United States.   All others shall be non-citizens unless Naturalized under the terms and conditions of the Constitution of the United States.
Section Two: Only United States Citizens shall enjoy and/or receive all rights, benefits, privileges and protections of United States Citizenship.
Section Three:  Persons born of two United States Citizen-Parents, both of whom are Citizens of the United States at the time of the birth of the person, shall be Natural Born, regardless of the place or circumstance of the birth of the person in question.
Section Four: Non-citizens shall not receive, directly or indirectly, Federal or Constitutional rights, benefits, privileges, and/or protections except for:  Freedom from involuntary servitude; protection from physical abuse; protection of basic human rights defined as freedom from discrimination based on race, sex, religion, and/or cultural practices or beliefs; so long as they do not conflict with the Constitution of the United States.


EXPLANATION:    This is yet another example of the Founders’ failure to define their terms, in this case, leaving the definition of “Citizenship”, “Citizenship Rights”, and “Natural Born” up to the courts and much legal wrangling.
This proposed Amendment would instantly solve the ‘anchor baby’ issue AND stop almost all illegal immigrants who enter America for all the free benefits they can get.   Think about it.   Almost all schools, for example, receive Federal money.   Non-citizens who enter the country illegally or who do not have a work permit would not be able to send their children to a school that received Federal money.   They would not be eligible for welfare, food stamps, Federally subsidized housing, etc.   They would not even be able to get a job with an employer who receives Federal money or has a Federal contract.  
In the past immigrants were expected to support themselves and assimilate.   This proposed Amendment would re-institute that concept.
Further, this proposed Amendment would make it easy and quick to deport illegals and other non-citizens.   There would be no court hearings, lawyers, or other legal niceties.   They could just be rounded up and sent home, literally overnight.   That said, I have ZERO problem with guaranteeing basic human rights for non-citizens.  Any definition or delineation of ‘rights’ for non-citizens must be up to Congress and not the courts.   I will leave such verbiage to better minds than mine.


NUMBER NINE:     
Section One: The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States shall be interpreted to mean the FUNDAMENTAL right of individual citizens and/or groups of citizens to keep and bear arms of their choice; in their homes and/or other properties; in public and private; on their persons; and in or on public property regardless of Federal, State, or Local Laws to the contrary.
Section Two:   The phrase, “…shall not be infringed” shall not be interpreted to allow Federal, State, or Local Governments or Authorities to control, regulate, or legislate the purchase, possession, use, ownership, transfer, or sale of firearms of choice by Citizens, individually or collectively.   Nor shall firearm-related ammunition, supplies, parts, or accouterments be infringed by any Federal, State, or Local law, Rule, Regulation, or Order.
Section Three: Non-citizens and persons convicted of a violent felony by a jury of their peers do not have this right.


EXPLANATION:   While I agree conceptually that States have the right to run their State as they see fit, I also believe that certain INALIENABLE rights must be protected from government intrusion.   The Bill of Rights enumerates those rights.   If the Federal Government, a State, or City can neuter the Second Amendment, what other rights or Amendments can they not also neuter?


NUMBER TEN:
Section One:   The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States shall not be interpreted to prohibit or restrict the peaceful, free exercise or expression of religion, in public or private, or in or on public or private property.  
Section Two:   Neither Section One of this Amendment nor the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States shall apply to religions, religious doctrines, and/or religious beliefs that advocate, advance, or practice the overthrow or subjugation of the Constitution of the United States, the United States itself, persons or groups of persons, and/or violence in the name of a religion, religious doctrine, religious belief, or cultural practice based upon religion.     


EXPLANATION:   We all know what the Founders meant by “shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion”.   That said, this Amendment would stop religions or religious practices (think Sharia Law) that advocate supplanting the Constitution.   It would allow Congress to pass legislation that clearly reinforces the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, not to be subordinated to any religious belief or practice.




I hope this updated and refined version of my proposed amendments meets with your approval.


Oren Long 




 PLEASE PASS THIS ALONG TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW, AND ASK THEM TO DO THE SAME.

Proposed Constitutional Amendments​

I present for your consideration something I have been working on for ten years, continually revising and refining it to its current form and format.   It is my hope that you will read it carefully and consider it seriously.   If you do, I ask that you reply with your thoughts.
We all know that no one, single amendment can even hope to resolve the many problems that have built up for well over 200 years.   That said, I hope that when you read my series of proposed amendments you consider them as a ‘package’ with each supporting and reinforcing the others.   I would ask that you search for the nuance and subtly, it’s all there if you look for it. 
I fully understand that proposing specific amendments at this early stage is inappropriate and it is not my intent that the COS Project throw them out for State Legislative consideration at this time.  
I am a firm believer in being prepared.   I firmly believe that it would behoove us to have something in the hopper for that day when a COS is actually convened.   Walking into a COS Convention with only a vague and nebulous set of ideas would almost certainly end in disaster and a set of ill-conceived amendments.
The above said, I present to you a series of proposed amendments that I hope could be introduced into Convention for discussion, debate, and consideration.   I believe each proposed amendment falls within the COS Project’s stated goal of limiting the size, scope, power, reach, and authority of the Federal Government and bringing it back within its Constitutional limitations.  
My proposed amendments are NOT something I just threw together ‘over a beer and a pool game’.   I have been working on them for over ten years, continually revising and refining them to their current form and format.  
Following each of my proposed amendments is an explanation of my thinking.   Yes, it is long; so be it.   We have waited well over 200 years for this august opportunity.   I say, “Carpe Diem”.   Seize the Day!  
My proposed amendments and accompanying explanations are as follows:  
 
 
Oren Long 

NUMBER ONE:
Section One: The Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of the Land, shall not be subservient to or subjugated to any Foreign Law, International Treaty, or International Agreement, and shall be read, interpreted, applied, and adhered to literally.   No words or phrases shall be changed unless done so under the amendment process as laid out in Article V of the Constitution.    No part of the Constitution shall be used to expand or increase Federal Power or Authority beyond that EXPRESSLY granted and enumerated in the Constitution.   The language of the Constitution shall be interpreted according to the definition of words at the time of their inclusion in the Constitution.   
Section Two:   The words “and general Welfare” are hereby stricken from the Constitution of the United States.   All Laws, Rules, Regulations, Orders, and/or Court Rulings based upon or reliant upon “and general Welfare” are hereby stricken from Law, declared null and void, and without force of effect.
Section Three:    This Amendment shall be retro-active upon its ratification.   Any and all Laws, Rules, Regulations, Orders, Treaties, and Agreements that directly or indirectly suborn or subjugate the Constitution of the United States as the Supreme Law of the Land, as read and interpreted literally, are hereby stricken from Law, declared null and void, and without force of effect.


EXPLANATION:   The Founders considered adding “expressly” into the Constitution, but decided that it was unnecessary.   The Founders were men of honor and could not imagine anyone even wanting to suborn the Constitution to political or ideological precepts.   They were wrong.   They grossly underestimated the creativity and lust for power of corrupt lawyers, judges, political parties, and politicians. 
Words change over time.   “And general Welfare” has been intentionally redefined from its original meaning until it now means something entirely different.
“Section Three” is added for the express purpose of preventing the Executive, Legislative, and/or Judicial Branches from declaring that previous Laws, Treaties, etc. are “Established Law” that should not be violated.


NUMBER TWO:
The Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed, declared null and void, and without force of effect.
EXPLANATION:
The Founders envisioned the House of Representatives as the House of the People and the Senate as the House of the States, and for good reason.
While the Founders wanted the People to be well represented in the new Federal Government, they had serious concerns over what Madison called the “Temporary and transient whims of the People”.  They also wanted to maintain State supremacy over the Federal Government.  Remember, the States got together and created the Federal Government, not the other way around.  Hence, the Senate was created as the House of the States, the adult in the room, if you will, with each State having an equal voice.
This proposed Amendment would restore the Original Intent of the Founders, a system that worked well until political parties undermined the Founders’ Original Intent.


NUMBER THREE:
Section One:   No person shall be nominated for or confirmed to the Federal Bench who is not a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, who has not attained the age of thirty five years, who is not a member of the Bar in good standing, who has not been a member of the Bar in good standing for a minimum of ten years, who is not law-abiding and without criminal conviction, who is not confirmed by a two thirds vote of the Senate of the United States, and who has not demonstrated a clear and consistent adherence to Constitutional Principles as envisioned by the Founders and expressed in subsequent amendments.
Section Two:   The Power and Authority of the Federal Judiciary shall be strictly limited to only those powers EXPRESSLY enumerated in Article III of the Constitution of the United States.    No Federal Judicial Ruling shall insert Legislative, Executive, or Judicial Power, Authority or Interpretation, direct or indirect, into the Constitution of the United States that is not EXPRESSLY enumerated therein.
Section Three:   Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States and Judges of inferior Federal Courts shall stand for reconfirmation by the Senate of the United States every six years.   Justices of the Supreme Court and Judges of inferior Federal Courts, ensconced on the Bench before the ratification of this amendment, shall also stand for reconfirmation by the Senate of the United States every six years.   Reconfirmation or de-confirmation shall occur within sixty calendar days of said due date.
Section Four:   Congress shall have, by three fourths vote of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, the power to override individual rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States and/or inferior Federal Courts.   The President must concur with Congressional overrides of Federal Court decisions.
 
EXPLANATION:   Article III is badly flawed.   The Founders spent much time and energy on Articles One and Two, but precious little time and energy on Article III.   In my view this was an error.   The Founders did not view the Federal Judiciary as a serious threat to Freedom or the Constitution.   History has proven them wrong.  
The Founders did not bother to lay out specific qualifications for the Federal Bench.   A careful reading of Article III reveals that there are NO qualifications for the Bench.   It is not even necessary for a Federal Judge to be a Citizen, let alone a Natural Born Citizen.   There is no requirement that a Federal Judge or Justice be a lawyer, let alone learned, in good standing, or a member of the Bar.   The Village Idiot could be nominated and confirmed.   A convicted felon could be nominated, confirmed, and serve as long as he/she committed no further offense(s) while on the Bench.   Technically, it is not even required that a person nominated to the Bench be a resident of the United States.
Nor are there ANY restrictions on Federal Judicial Power or Authority – NONE!   Article III lays out what the Judiciary CAN do, but does not say what it CANNOT do!   Any “limitations” on Judicial Authority are implied and assumed (and we all know the definition of “assume”).   Lawyers and Judges often assume that if there is no SPECIFIC restriction on their power or rulings, said rulings must be Constitutional.   The courts have used this oversight (starting with Marbury v Madison) to gradually increase their power to the current, overarching level.   This must stop!
Finally, there is no "Check" on Federal Judicial Power or the courts themselves.   The President can overrule Congress via Veto.   Congress can overrule the President via Veto Override.   Judges/Justices can overrule both Congress and the President.   But, NO ONE can overrule the Court!    The only "Check" on the Court(s) at this time is Impeachment.   Even if a Judge or Justice is impeached and removed from the Bench his/her decisions still stand.   We simply MUST implement some form of check on the courts and their rulings.  
It all comes down to the Latin, “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes” (who guards the guardians?).   My proposed amendment establishes a ‘guard’ over the Judiciary.    
Some have proposed term limits for the Judiciary.   This is a bad idea.   Term limits get rid of good Judges/Justices along with the bad.    My proposed amendment resolves ALL the issues surrounding the Judiciary; establishing qualifications for the Bench, restricting the courts to enumerated powers, and imposing a check on the Judiciary.        
I firmly believe that the ratification of this proposed amendment would go a long way towards bringing the Judiciary back within its Constitutional Limits as envisioned by the Founders.


NUMBER FOUR:
Section One: No person shall be elected to Congress more than once unless serving in Congress at the time of the ratification of this amendment, in which case sitting Members of Congress shall be eligible for re-election to their respective seats one time.
Section Two: In the event the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed Senators shall be selected according to the rules laid out in Article One of the Constitution of the United States, including service in the Senate as long as their respective State Legislature deems it appropriate.  
Section Three:  Members of the House of Representatives shall be elected for a term of six years, with one third of House Members elected every two years.
Section Four:   Members of Congress shall be subject to Popular Recall by their constituents.   Within 90 calendar days of the ratification of this Amendment the Legislatures of the several States shall pass Legislation governing the recall of their respective Members of Congress.   In the event a State fails to pass Legislation governing the Recall of its Members of Congress within the required 90 calendar days, that State’s Members of Congress shall have been recalled and new elections held within 60 calendar days.
Section Five:   In the event the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed, Section Four shall not apply to Members of the Senate of the United States.
Section Six:   The President and Vice-President of the United States shall be subject to Popular Recall by their constituents.   Within 90 calendar days of the ratification of this Amendment the Congress shall pass Legislation governing the Recall of the President and Vice-President of the United States.   The President shall not have Veto Authority over Legislation governing the Recall of the President and Vice-President.   In the event the Congress fails to pass the required Legislation within the required 90 calendar days, the President and Vice-President shall have been Recalled and a new election held within 60 calendar days.   In the event the President and Vice-President are Recalled, the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall serve as the President Pro Tempore pending the results of the aforementioned election, whereupon the newly elected President and Vice-President shall be sworn in immediately upon the certification of election results.   
Section Seven:  Neither Congress, the President, nor any Federal Court shall make any law, rule, regulation, or order that does not apply equally to themselves and all Citizens of the United States.   Nor shall Congress, the President, or any Federal Court cause or allow any law, rule, regulation, or order to be made by any agent or agency of the Federal Government that does not apply equally to themselves, all Federal employees, and all Citizens of the United States.
Section Eight: Neither Congress, the President, nor the Vice-President shall receive any publicly funded retirement or benefit, beyond appropriate pay, not available to all Citizens of the United States.
Section Nine: Section Eight shall not apply to Members of Congress, Presidents, or Vice-Presidents, serving or retired, at the time of the ratification of this Amendment.
Section Ten:   No former Member of Congress, former President or Vice-President, or former Federal employee shall advocate for or against Legislation or Policy for a period of ten years after leaving public service or employment.


EXPLANATION:   The problem with the term limits concept is that we have never had REAL term limits, except for the President and Vice-President, even on the State level.   Several States have imposed term limits, but some States have repealed them.   This is because, as tried, they are not actual ‘term limits’, but are just shortened career paths, complete with retirement and other special benefits.  
WHENEVER a politician is able to run for re-election, that politician is subject to the influence of lobbyists, big donors, and Party Leadership.   In fact, studies show that Members of Congress generally spend half their day seeking money and support for re-election instead of doing the Peoples’ business.   Then, after leaving office they move to a lobbying firm where they make millions of dollars a year.   I see a one-term limit and the repeal of the 17th Amendment as the ONLY way to return Congress to a Peoples’ and States’ Congress.   In short, what would be the point of lobbyists and big donors throwing money at someone who won’t be there next term?  
Some say that a one-term limit is a bad idea.   They say that seating an entirely new and inexperienced Congress each election eliminates experienced Members and puts new and inexperienced Members of Congress at the mercy of lobbyists and bureaucrats who could easily manipulate them.   My proposal to elect members of the House of Representatives for a term of six years, with one-third of the House elected every two years, along with the repeal of the 17th Amendment accomplishes four goals simultaneously.   It returns the House to a Peoples’ House; eliminates or seriously reduces the influence of lobbyists, big donors, and Party Leadership; provides for stability in the House; and returns the Senate to a States’ Senate as envisioned by the Founders.      
Sections Four and Six (Recall) would serve to keep elected officials true to their campaign promises and the Will of the People and States.   Further, repealing the 17th Amendment would automatically implement a form of recall on the Senate.   Under the rules laid out in Article I, a State can Recall and replace a Senator at will.   Shouldn’t the People have that same power over the House and the President?


NUMBER FIVE:
Section One:   Congress shall make and the President shall sign a Balanced Federal Budget every year and before the beginning of the ensuing fiscal year.   In the event Congress and the President fail to make said Balanced Federal Budget before the beginning of the ensuing fiscal year, the last constitutionally passed and signed Federal Budget shall go into effect and shall be the Federal Budget for the entirety of the ensuing fiscal year.
Section Two:   Expenditures in the Federal Budget shall be limited to only those expenditures expressly granted and enumerated in the Constitution of the United States.   No expenditures shall be authorized by Congress that are not enumerated in the Balanced Federal Budget as passed by Congress except as delineated in Section Three of this amendment.   Only taxes specifically allowed in the Constitution shall be levied. 
Section Three:   Balanced shall be defined as expenditures not to exceed revenues except in time of War as Formally Declared by Congress or National Emergencies as Formally Declared by a three fourths vote of both the House and Senate, in which case expenditures exceeding said Balanced Federal Budget shall be used exclusively for the prosecution of said Formally Declared War or the resolution of said Formally Declared Emergency and shall cease immediately upon the termination of hostilities or resolution of said Emergency.
Section Four:   Emergency shall be defined as situations or events not anticipated in the formulation of the Balanced Federal Budget.   These may include, but not be limited to, natural disasters, pandemics, social upheaval, or insurrections.   Emergencies shall be dealt with on a one-by-one basis with each Emergency budgeted for individually via a three fourths vote of both the House and Senate.     
Section Five:   Revenues shall be defined as monies received; not monies predicted, anticipated, or forecasted beyond the immediate fiscal year.  
Section Six:   Unfunded liabilities, obligations, and/or mandates shall be included in the calculation of the Balanced Federal Budget.


EXPLANATION:   I am aware that exigencies may arise where Congress may need to overspend the budget.   I have tried to allow for them.  
The key to balancing the Federal Budget is returning Congress to a true States’ and Peoples’ Congress via a one-term limit for the House and repealing the 17th Amendment.   Hence, my NUMBERS TWO and FOUR.   Unless and until that is accomplished, any attempt to balance the budget is an exercise in futility.   As long as Congress is composed of life-time, career, self-serving politicians the budget will remain unbalanced and bloated.  
This amendment points out yet another major flaw in the Constitution, that the Founders failed to define their terms.   They used words and phrases that they considered to be so well understood and accepted that there was no way to misinterpret them.   Again, they underestimated the creativity of corrupt lawyers, judges, and politicians.   My proposed amendment clearly defines “balanced”, “revenues”, “expenditures”, and “emergency”.


NUMBER SIX:
The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed and replaced with the following:
Section One:  The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Section Two:  Income shall be defined as “Gross Income”, not “Net Income”.
Section Three:  Income as defined in Section One shall not be taxed at a rate to exceed five per cent (5%) and said five per cent (5%) tax rate shall apply uniformly to all taxpayers, regardless of income level, except as defined in Section Four of this Amendment.
Section Four:  Income below the Federally defined poverty line shall not be taxed.
Section Five:  No income, however derived, shall be taxed more than once.




EXPLANATION:
I consider this proposed Amendment self-explanatory.  That said, I understand that certain “deductions” may need to be written into the amendment.  Again, not being an attorney or economist, I will leave that to better minds than mine to hash out in Convention. 
The fact remains that there is NO reason for the IRS code to be 60,000+ pages, so long and convoluted that not even the IRS itself can decipher it.  This proposed amendment could go a long way towards making taxation fair and equitable for everyone.
Further, debate rages over how best to control an overarching, overreaching Federal Government and keep it from becoming completely authoritarian.  Underpinning my other proposed amendments is the core concept, “Take away the money; take away the power”.  As the saying goes, “Money is the root of all Evil”. 
I have allowed for the Federal Government to be adequately funded, but only adequately and not excessively, at the expense of those it supposedly “serves”.


NUMBER SEVEN:  
Section One:   Congress shall make no Law, and the President shall take no Executive Action, after a National Election and before the swearing in of a new Congress and/or President except as allowed in Section Two of this Amendment.
Section Two:   The only exceptions to Section One of this Amendment shall be a Formal Declaration of War by Congress or a Formal Declaration of National Emergency by Congress requiring necessary Legislation and/or Executive Action.  
Section Three:   The President, Vice-President, and Congress shall be sworn into office no later than two weeks after the certification of election results. 


EXPLANATION:
Congress has a bad habit of passing unpopular Legislation, often against the overwhelming Will of the People, and during lame-duck sessions.   Presidents have a bad habit of granting Presidential Pardons and of issuing Executive Orders, before leaving office, and often at the last minute.   This Amendment would stop such nonsense. 


NUMBER EIGHT:
Section One: Only persons born of at least one United States Citizen-Parent shall be Citizens of the United States.   All others shall be non-citizens unless Naturalized under the terms and conditions of the Constitution of the United States.
Section Two: Only United States Citizens shall enjoy and/or receive all rights, benefits, privileges and protections of United States Citizenship.
Section Three:  Persons born of two United States Citizen-Parents, both of whom are Citizens of the United States at the time of the birth of the person, shall be Natural Born, regardless of the place or circumstance of the birth of the person in question.
Section Four: Non-citizens shall not receive, directly or indirectly, Federal or Constitutional rights, benefits, privileges, and/or protections except for:  Freedom from involuntary servitude; protection from physical abuse; protection of basic human rights defined as freedom from discrimination based on race, sex, religion, and/or cultural practices or beliefs; so long as they do not conflict with the Constitution of the United States.


EXPLANATION:    This is yet another example of the Founders’ failure to define their terms, in this case, leaving the definition of “Citizenship”, “Citizenship Rights”, and “Natural Born” up to the courts and much legal wrangling.
This proposed Amendment would instantly solve the ‘anchor baby’ issue AND stop almost all illegal immigrants who enter America for all the free benefits they can get.   Think about it.   Almost all schools, for example, receive Federal money.   Non-citizens who enter the country illegally or who do not have a work permit would not be able to send their children to a school that received Federal money.   They would not be eligible for welfare, food stamps, Federally subsidized housing, etc.   They would not even be able to get a job with an employer who receives Federal money or has a Federal contract.  
In the past immigrants were expected to support themselves and assimilate.   This proposed Amendment would re-institute that concept.
Further, this proposed Amendment would make it easy and quick to deport illegals and other non-citizens.   There would be no court hearings, lawyers, or other legal niceties.   They could just be rounded up and sent home, literally overnight.   That said, I have ZERO problem with guaranteeing basic human rights for non-citizens.  Any definition or delineation of ‘rights’ for non-citizens must be up to Congress and not the courts.   I will leave such verbiage to better minds than mine.


NUMBER NINE:     
Section One: The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States shall be interpreted to mean the FUNDAMENTAL right of individual citizens and/or groups of citizens to keep and bear arms of their choice; in their homes and/or other properties; in public and private; on their persons; and in or on public property regardless of Federal, State, or Local Laws to the contrary.
Section Two:   The phrase, “…shall not be infringed” shall not be interpreted to allow Federal, State, or Local Governments or Authorities to control, regulate, or legislate the purchase, possession, use, ownership, transfer, or sale of firearms of choice by Citizens, individually or collectively.   Nor shall firearm-related ammunition, supplies, parts, or accouterments be infringed by any Federal, State, or Local law, Rule, Regulation, or Order.
Section Three: Non-citizens and persons convicted of a violent felony by a jury of their peers do not have this right.


EXPLANATION:   While I agree conceptually that States have the right to run their State as they see fit, I also believe that certain INALIENABLE rights must be protected from government intrusion.   The Bill of Rights enumerates those rights.   If the Federal Government, a State, or City can neuter the Second Amendment, what other rights or Amendments can they not also neuter?


NUMBER TEN:
Section One:   The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States shall not be interpreted to prohibit or restrict the peaceful, free exercise or expression of religion, in public or private, or in or on public or private property.  
Section Two:   Neither Section One of this Amendment nor the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States shall apply to religions, religious doctrines, and/or religious beliefs that advocate, advance, or practice the overthrow or subjugation of the Constitution of the United States, the United States itself, persons or groups of persons, and/or violence in the name of a religion, religious doctrine, religious belief, or cultural practice based upon religion.     


EXPLANATION:   We all know what the Founders meant by “shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion”.   That said, this Amendment would stop religions or religious practices (think Sharia Law) that advocate supplanting the Constitution.   It would allow Congress to pass legislation that clearly reinforces the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, not to be subordinated to any religious belief or practice.




I hope this updated and refined version of my proposed amendments meets with your approval.


Oren Long 
NUMBER ONE:
Section One: The Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of the Land, shall not be subservient to or subjugated to any Foreign Law, International Treaty, or International Agreement, and shall be read, interpreted, applied, and adhered to literally.   No words or phrases shall be changed unless done so under the amendment process as laid out in Article V of the Constitution.    No part of the Constitution shall be used to expand or increase Federal Power or Authority beyond that EXPRESSLY granted and enumerated in the Constitution.   The language of the Constitution shall be interpreted according to the definition of words at the time of their inclusion in the Constitution.   
Section Two:   The words “and general Welfare” are hereby stricken from the Constitution of the United States.   All Laws, Rules, Regulations, Orders, and/or Court Rulings based upon or reliant upon “and general Welfare” are hereby stricken from Law, declared null and void, and without force of effect.
Section Three:    This Amendment shall be retro-active upon its ratification.   Any and all Laws, Rules, Regulations, Orders, Treaties, and Agreements that directly or indirectly suborn or subjugate the Constitution of the United States as the Supreme Law of the Land, as read and interpreted literally, are hereby stricken from Law, declared null and void, and without force of effect.


EXPLANATION:   The Founders considered adding “expressly” into the Constitution, but decided that it was unnecessary.   The Founders were men of honor and could not imagine anyone even wanting to suborn the Constitution to political or ideological precepts.   They were wrong.   They grossly underestimated the creativity and lust for power of corrupt lawyers, judges, political parties, and politicians. 
Words change over time.   “And general Welfare” has been intentionally redefined from its original meaning until it now means something entirely different.
“Section Three” is added for the express purpose of preventing the Executive, Legislative, and/or Judicial Branches from declaring that previous Laws, Treaties, etc. are “Established Law” that should not be violated.



NUMBER TWO:
The Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed, declared null and void, and without force of effect.
EXPLANATION:
The Founders envisioned the House of Representatives as the House of the People and the Senate as the House of the States, and for good reason.
While the Founders wanted the People to be well represented in the new Federal Government, they had serious concerns over what Madison called the “Temporary and transient whims of the People”.  They also wanted to maintain State supremacy over the Federal Government.  Remember, the States got together and created the Federal Government, not the other way around.  Hence, the Senate was created as the House of the States, the adult in the room, if you will, with each State having an equal voice.
This proposed Amendment would restore the Original Intent of the Founders, a system that worked well until political parties undermined the Founders’ Original Intent.


NUMBER THREE:
Section One:   No person shall be nominated for or confirmed to the Federal Bench who is not a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, who has not attained the age of thirty five years, who is not a member of the Bar in good standing, who has not been a member of the Bar in good standing for a minimum of ten years, who is not law-abiding and without criminal conviction, who is not confirmed by a two thirds vote of the Senate of the United States, and who has not demonstrated a clear and consistent adherence to Constitutional Principles as envisioned by the Founders and expressed in subsequent amendments.
Section Two:   The Power and Authority of the Federal Judiciary shall be strictly limited to only those powers EXPRESSLY enumerated in Article III of the Constitution of the United States.    No Federal Judicial Ruling shall insert Legislative, Executive, or Judicial Power, Authority or Interpretation, direct or indirect, into the Constitution of the United States that is not EXPRESSLY enumerated therein.
Section Three:   Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States and Judges of inferior Federal Courts shall stand for reconfirmation by the Senate of the United States every six years.   Justices of the Supreme Court and Judges of inferior Federal Courts, ensconced on the Bench before the ratification of this amendment, shall also stand for reconfirmation by the Senate of the United States every six years.   Reconfirmation or de-confirmation shall occur within sixty calendar days of said due date.
Section Four:   Congress shall have, by three fourths vote of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, the power to override individual rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States and/or inferior Federal Courts.   The President must concur with Congressional overrides of Federal Court decisions.
 
EXPLANATION:   Article III is badly flawed.   The Founders spent much time and energy on Articles One and Two, but precious little time and energy on Article III.   In my view this was an error.   The Founders did not view the Federal Judiciary as a serious threat to Freedom or the Constitution.   History has proven them wrong.  
The Founders did not bother to lay out specific qualifications for the Federal Bench.   A careful reading of Article III reveals that there are NO qualifications for the Bench.   It is not even necessary for a Federal Judge to be a Citizen, let alone a Natural Born Citizen.   There is no requirement that a Federal Judge or Justice be a lawyer, let alone learned, in good standing, or a member of the Bar.   The Village Idiot could be nominated and confirmed.   A convicted felon could be nominated, confirmed, and serve as long as he/she committed no further offense(s) while on the Bench.   Technically, it is not even required that a person nominated to the Bench be a resident of the United States.
Nor are there ANY restrictions on Federal Judicial Power or Authority – NONE!   Article III lays out what the Judiciary CAN do, but does not say what it CANNOT do!   Any “limitations” on Judicial Authority are implied and assumed (and we all know the definition of “assume”).   Lawyers and Judges often assume that if there is no SPECIFIC restriction on their power or rulings, said rulings must be Constitutional.   The courts have used this oversight (starting with Marbury v Madison) to gradually increase their power to the current, overarching level.   This must stop!
Finally, there is no "Check" on Federal Judicial Power or the courts themselves.   The President can overrule Congress via Veto.   Congress can overrule the President via Veto Override.   Judges/Justices can overrule both Congress and the President.   But, NO ONE can overrule the Court!    The only "Check" on the Court(s) at this time is Impeachment.   Even if a Judge or Justice is impeached and removed from the Bench his/her decisions still stand.   We simply MUST implement some form of check on the courts and their rulings.  
It all comes down to the Latin, “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes” (who guards the guardians?).   My proposed amendment establishes a ‘guard’ over the Judiciary.    
Some have proposed term limits for the Judiciary.   This is a bad idea.   Term limits get rid of good Judges/Justices along with the bad.    My proposed amendment resolves ALL the issues surrounding the Judiciary; establishing qualifications for the Bench, restricting the courts to enumerated powers, and imposing a check on the Judiciary.        
I firmly believe that the ratification of this proposed amendment would go a long way towards bringing the Judiciary back within its Constitutional Limits as envisioned by the Founders.



NUMBER FOUR:
Section One: No person shall be elected to Congress more than once unless serving in Congress at the time of the ratification of this amendment, in which case sitting Members of Congress shall be eligible for re-election to their respective seats one time.
Section Two: In the event the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed Senators shall be selected according to the rules laid out in Article One of the Constitution of the United States, including service in the Senate as long as their respective State Legislature deems it appropriate.  
Section Three:  Members of the House of Representatives shall be elected for a term of six years, with one third of House Members elected every two years.
Section Four:   Members of Congress shall be subject to Popular Recall by their constituents.   Within 90 calendar days of the ratification of this Amendment the Legislatures of the several States shall pass Legislation governing the recall of their respective Members of Congress.   In the event a State fails to pass Legislation governing the Recall of its Members of Congress within the required 90 calendar days, that State’s Members of Congress shall have been recalled and new elections held within 60 calendar days.
Section Five:   In the event the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed, Section Four shall not apply to Members of the Senate of the United States.
Section Six:   The President and Vice-President of the United States shall be subject to Popular Recall by their constituents.   Within 90 calendar days of the ratification of this Amendment the Congress shall pass Legislation governing the Recall of the President and Vice-President of the United States.   The President shall not have Veto Authority over Legislation governing the Recall of the President and Vice-President.   In the event the Congress fails to pass the required Legislation within the required 90 calendar days, the President and Vice-President shall have been Recalled and a new election held within 60 calendar days.   In the event the President and Vice-President are Recalled, the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall serve as the President Pro Tempore pending the results of the aforementioned election, whereupon the newly elected President and Vice-President shall be sworn in immediately upon the certification of election results.   
Section Seven:  Neither Congress, the President, nor any Federal Court shall make any law, rule, regulation, or order that does not apply equally to themselves and all Citizens of the United States.   Nor shall Congress, the President, or any Federal Court cause or allow any law, rule, regulation, or order to be made by any agent or agency of the Federal Government that does not apply equally to themselves, all Federal employees, and all Citizens of the United States.
Section Eight: Neither Congress, the President, nor the Vice-President shall receive any publicly funded retirement or benefit, beyond appropriate pay, not available to all Citizens of the United States.
Section Nine: Section Eight shall not apply to Members of Congress, Presidents, or Vice-Presidents, serving or retired, at the time of the ratification of this Amendment.
Section Ten:   No former Member of Congress, former President or Vice-President, or former Federal employee shall advocate for or against Legislation or Policy for a period of ten years after leaving public service or employment.


EXPLANATION:   The problem with the term limits concept is that we have never had REAL term limits, except for the President and Vice-President, even on the State level.   Several States have imposed term limits, but some States have repealed them.   This is because, as tried, they are not actual ‘term limits’, but are just shortened career paths, complete with retirement and other special benefits.  
WHENEVER a politician is able to run for re-election, that politician is subject to the influence of lobbyists, big donors, and Party Leadership.   In fact, studies show that Members of Congress generally spend half their day seeking money and support for re-election instead of doing the Peoples’ business.   Then, after leaving office they move to a lobbying firm where they make millions of dollars a year.   I see a one-term limit and the repeal of the 17th Amendment as the ONLY way to return Congress to a Peoples’ and States’ Congress.   In short, what would be the point of lobbyists and big donors throwing money at someone who won’t be there next term?  
Some say that a one-term limit is a bad idea.   They say that seating an entirely new and inexperienced Congress each election eliminates experienced Members and puts new and inexperienced Members of Congress at the mercy of lobbyists and bureaucrats who could easily manipulate them.   My proposal to elect members of the House of Representatives for a term of six years, with one-third of the House elected every two years, along with the repeal of the 17th Amendment accomplishes four goals simultaneously.   It returns the House to a Peoples’ House; eliminates or seriously reduces the influence of lobbyists, big donors, and Party Leadership; provides for stability in the House; and returns the Senate to a States’ Senate as envisioned by the Founders.      
Sections Four and Six (Recall) would serve to keep elected officials true to their campaign promises and the Will of the People and States.   Further, repealing the 17th Amendment would automatically implement a form of recall on the Senate.   Under the rules laid out in Article I, a State can Recall and replace a Senator at will.   Shouldn’t the People have that same power over the House and the President?



NUMBER FIVE:
Section One:   Congress shall make and the President shall sign a Balanced Federal Budget every year and before the beginning of the ensuing fiscal year.   In the event Congress and the President fail to make said Balanced Federal Budget before the beginning of the ensuing fiscal year, the last constitutionally passed and signed Federal Budget shall go into effect and shall be the Federal Budget for the entirety of the ensuing fiscal year.
Section Two:   Expenditures in the Federal Budget shall be limited to only those expenditures expressly granted and enumerated in the Constitution of the United States.   No expenditures shall be authorized by Congress that are not enumerated in the Balanced Federal Budget as passed by Congress except as delineated in Section Three of this amendment.   Only taxes specifically allowed in the Constitution shall be levied. 
Section Three:   Balanced shall be defined as expenditures not to exceed revenues except in time of War as Formally Declared by Congress or National Emergencies as Formally Declared by a three fourths vote of both the House and Senate, in which case expenditures exceeding said Balanced Federal Budget shall be used exclusively for the prosecution of said Formally Declared War or the resolution of said Formally Declared Emergency and shall cease immediately upon the termination of hostilities or resolution of said Emergency.
Section Four:   Emergency shall be defined as situations or events not anticipated in the formulation of the Balanced Federal Budget.   These may include, but not be limited to, natural disasters, pandemics, social upheaval, or insurrections.   Emergencies shall be dealt with on a one-by-one basis with each Emergency budgeted for individually via a three fourths vote of both the House and Senate.     
Section Five:   Revenues shall be defined as monies received; not monies predicted, anticipated, or forecasted beyond the immediate fiscal year.  
Section Six:   Unfunded liabilities, obligations, and/or mandates shall be included in the calculation of the Balanced Federal Budget.


EXPLANATION:   I am aware that exigencies may arise where Congress may need to overspend the budget.   I have tried to allow for them.  
The key to balancing the Federal Budget is returning Congress to a true States’ and Peoples’ Congress via a one-term limit for the House and repealing the 17th Amendment.   Hence, my NUMBERS TWO and FOUR.   Unless and until that is accomplished, any attempt to balance the budget is an exercise in futility.   As long as Congress is composed of life-time, career, self-serving politicians the budget will remain unbalanced and bloated.  
This amendment points out yet another major flaw in the Constitution, that the Founders failed to define their terms.   They used words and phrases that they considered to be so well understood and accepted that there was no way to misinterpret them.   Again, they underestimated the creativity of corrupt lawyers, judges, and politicians.   My proposed amendment clearly defines “balanced”, “revenues”, “expenditures”, and “emergency”.


NUMBER SIX:
The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed and replaced with the following:
Section One:  The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Section Two:  Income shall be defined as “Gross Income”, not “Net Income”.
Section Three:  Income as defined in Section One shall not be taxed at a rate to exceed five per cent (5%) and said five per cent (5%) tax rate shall apply uniformly to all taxpayers, regardless of income level, except as defined in Section Four of this Amendment.
Section Four:  Income below the Federally defined poverty line shall not be taxed.
Section Five:  No income, however derived, shall be taxed more than once.




EXPLANATION:
I consider this proposed Amendment self-explanatory.  That said, I understand that certain “deductions” may need to be written into the amendment.  Again, not being an attorney or economist, I will leave that to better minds than mine to hash out in Convention. 
The fact remains that there is NO reason for the IRS code to be 60,000+ pages, so long and convoluted that not even the IRS itself can decipher it.  This proposed amendment could go a long way towards making taxation fair and equitable for everyone.
Further, debate rages over how best to control an overarching, overreaching Federal Government and keep it from becoming completely authoritarian.  Underpinning my other proposed amendments is the core concept, “Take away the money; take away the power”.  As the saying goes, “Money is the root of all Evil”. 
I have allowed for the Federal Government to be adequately funded, but only adequately and not excessively, at the expense of those it supposedly “serves”.


NUMBER SEVEN:  
Section One:   Congress shall make no Law, and the President shall take no Executive Action, after a National Election and before the swearing in of a new Congress and/or President except as allowed in Section Two of this Amendment.
Section Two:   The only exceptions to Section One of this Amendment shall be a Formal Declaration of War by Congress or a Formal Declaration of National Emergency by Congress requiring necessary Legislation and/or Executive Action.  
Section Three:   The President, Vice-President, and Congress shall be sworn into office no later than two weeks after the certification of election results. 


EXPLANATION:
Congress has a bad habit of passing unpopular Legislation, often against the overwhelming Will of the People, and during lame-duck sessions.   Presidents have a bad habit of granting Presidential Pardons and of issuing Executive Orders, before leaving office, and often at the last minute.   This Amendment would stop such nonsense.  



NUMBER EIGHT:
Section One: Only persons born of at least one United States Citizen-Parent shall be Citizens of the United States.   All others shall be non-citizens unless Naturalized under the terms and conditions of the Constitution of the United States.
Section Two: Only United States Citizens shall enjoy and/or receive all rights, benefits, privileges and protections of United States Citizenship.
Section Three:  Persons born of two United States Citizen-Parents, both of whom are Citizens of the United States at the time of the birth of the person, shall be Natural Born, regardless of the place or circumstance of the birth of the person in question.
Section Four: Non-citizens shall not receive, directly or indirectly, Federal or Constitutional rights, benefits, privileges, and/or protections except for:  Freedom from involuntary servitude; protection from physical abuse; protection of basic human rights defined as freedom from discrimination based on race, sex, religion, and/or cultural practices or beliefs; so long as they do not conflict with the Constitution of the United States.


EXPLANATION:    This is yet another example of the Founders’ failure to define their terms, in this case, leaving the definition of “Citizenship”, “Citizenship Rights”, and “Natural Born” up to the courts and much legal wrangling.
This proposed Amendment would instantly solve the ‘anchor baby’ issue AND stop almost all illegal immigrants who enter America for all the free benefits they can get.   Think about it.   Almost all schools, for example, receive Federal money.   Non-citizens who enter the country illegally or who do not have a work permit would not be able to send their children to a school that received Federal money.   They would not be eligible for welfare, food stamps, Federally subsidized housing, etc.   They would not even be able to get a job with an employer who receives Federal money or has a Federal contract.  
In the past immigrants were expected to support themselves and assimilate.   This proposed Amendment would re-institute that concept.
Further, this proposed Amendment would make it easy and quick to deport illegals and other non-citizens.   There would be no court hearings, lawyers, or other legal niceties.   They could just be rounded up and sent home, literally overnight.   That said, I have ZERO problem with guaranteeing basic human rights for non-citizens.  Any definition or delineation of ‘rights’ for non-citizens must be up to Congress and not the courts.   I will leave such verbiage to better minds than mine.


NUMBER NINE:     
Section One: The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States shall be interpreted to mean the FUNDAMENTAL right of individual citizens and/or groups of citizens to keep and bear arms of their choice; in their homes and/or other properties; in public and private; on their persons; and in or on public property regardless of Federal, State, or Local Laws to the contrary.
Section Two:   The phrase, “…shall not be infringed” shall not be interpreted to allow Federal, State, or Local Governments or Authorities to control, regulate, or legislate the purchase, possession, use, ownership, transfer, or sale of firearms of choice by Citizens, individually or collectively.   Nor shall firearm-related ammunition, supplies, parts, or accouterments be infringed by any Federal, State, or Local law, Rule, Regulation, or Order.
Section Three: Non-citizens and persons convicted of a violent felony by a jury of their peers do not have this right.


EXPLANATION:   While I agree conceptually that States have the right to run their State as they see fit, I also believe that certain INALIENABLE rights must be protected from government intrusion.   The Bill of Rights enumerates those rights.   If the Federal Government, a State, or City can neuter the Second Amendment, what other rights or Amendments can they not also neuter?


NUMBER TEN:
Section One:   The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States shall not be interpreted to prohibit or restrict the peaceful, free exercise or expression of religion, in public or private, or in or on public or private property.  
Section Two:   Neither Section One of this Amendment nor the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States shall apply to religions, religious doctrines, and/or religious beliefs that advocate, advance, or practice the overthrow or subjugation of the Constitution of the United States, the United States itself, persons or groups of persons, and/or violence in the name of a religion, religious doctrine, religious belief, or cultural practice based upon religion.     


EXPLANATION:   We all know what the Founders meant by “shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion”.   That said, this Amendment would stop religions or religious practices (think Sharia Law) that advocate supplanting the Constitution.   It would allow Congress to pass legislation that clearly reinforces the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, not to be subordinated to any religious belief or practice.




I hope this updated and refined version of my proposed amendments meets with your approval.
Oren
​Long

A Simmering Rage in America

​Source; Oren Long


This will be a long post.  Please bear with me.  I know I'm right.  
"The only thing new in the world is the history you don't already know".  -- Harry Truman
The continual and relentless attacks on Donald Trump have made him more than just a man.  He has become the symbol of a simmering rage in America, a rage that is growing.  Even if Trump was killed, he and what he represents would become even stronger.  He has become a symbol, a symbol of a movement that grows stronger the more it is attacked and will not be defeated.
  
Look at history and it will all make perfect sense.  
Jesus challenged the Rabbis, marching into the Temple and flipping over the tables of the money changers, asking why the People had to pay to pray.  For that, He was brought up on spurious charges and, at the behest of the Rabbis, killed by the Romans.  Unbeknownst to both Romans and Rabbis, His murder only grew a movement that neither Romans nor Rabbis could control.  Oh, they tried their best, even throwing early Christians to the lions in the Coliseum.  The more they tried, the more they failed.  Christianity grew and eventually overwhelmed the World.  God would not be denied!    

In 2017 Donald Trump marched into Washington and challenged the Establishment and Deep State, figuratively flipping over the tables of the lobbyists and big donors.  For that "sin" he has come under relentless attack, to the point of having [spurious] criminal charges filed against him by a George Soros supported Manhattan prosecutor.  Said charges will ultimately fail, but that's not the point.

All this has done -- ALL IT HAS DONE -- is make Trump and his movement stronger!  The more the Left tries to attack us and Trump, the stronger and more resistant we become.  WE WILL NOT SUBMIT!  After Alvin Bragg filed his weak and empty indictment, Trump's poll numbers leaped up 10 or 15 points.  Trump is more popular now than before the indictment.  "Didn't think of that, did you, Alvin?"  

If the Left had a brain and really wanted to defeat Trump -- AND US -- they should have simply ignored anything and everything he did.  They should have just kept him out of the news.  But they just couldn't make themselves do that, could they?  Instead, they continually focused their hatred of freedom and America and the Constitution on Trump and, by extension, us.  We knew what was really going on, didn't we?  

We are told we must learn to love and accept every deviant and violent social aberration the Left can think of -- trannies, homosexuals, child porn, criminals, BLM, ANTIFA, so-called social justice (whatever that is), anti-Christianity, Satanism, Communism, authoritarianism, and on down the list.  
They scream for their "rights" that have, supposedly, been denied.  Really?!  Someone tell me, what rights do they NOT have?  Have they been denied freedom of speech?  Can they not practice their religion, or lack thereof?  Can they not peacefully protest?  Can they not practice freedom of assembly?  Can they not vote?  Can they not lawfully keep and bear arms?  Can they not petition their government for a redress of [legitimate] grievances?  Can they not engage in free enterprise?  Are they not equally protected by law and the Constitution?  Someone tell me.  

Is the Left REALLY for wide open borders ushering in all manner of miscreants, malcontents, criminals, sex slavers, drug runners, etc., or is it just that Donald Trump FINALLY did what they, themselves, lobbied for -- UNTIL TRUMP WAS IN OFFICE?!  Is the Left really in favor of America becoming subservient to China, or is it that Trump finally did what they, themselves, lobbied to stop -- UNTIL TRUMP WAS IN OFFICE?!    Is the Left really in favor of perpetual Washington corruption or is it that only Trump actually tried to stop it?!
Well, we have had about enough of their whining!  We have had about enough of their temper tantrums!  
The Left doesn't want "acceptance".  They want dominance.  It's that simple.  
The Left would do well to remember that what they would deny to others, they ultimately deny to themselves.  The Founding Fathers knew this simple truth and established freedom for ALL, even those who hated and disagreed with them.  No anti-constitutionalists were rounded up and killed.  All were welcomed.  Yet, the Left would happily, with smiles on their faces, kill anyone who disagreed with their [unattainable] vision of a Socialist Utopia.   

I know many of you think things look pretty dark.  Remember, "Things always look darkest before the dawn".  
The rage is growing!  We The People are PISSED!  We will not submit!    
Mahatma Gandhi said, "Whenever I get discouraged, I remind myself that Good always defeats Evil.  Think of it, in the end, Good ultimately always defeats Evil".  

​KEEP THE FAITH AND KEEP FIGHTING!  We will win.  Failure is not an option.  
As I told my late brother, "When there is nothing you will die for, you have nothing to live for".  
Sometimes, the best way to win is to "lose".  And (what the Left refuses to get), the best way to lose is to "win".  
It may not seem like it right now, but we are winning.  The Left will push too far and there will be blowback.
Oren  

I sent the following to Oren Long to get his views on it; "I know the attack on our Constitution, our morals and values, and our freedom are under a devastating attack by the communists that hold power in Lansing, may have many of us losing hope. I am not going to tell you what I am sharing tonight is going to make you feel any better, but you need to see it, we all need to see it and let it sink in. Not to make you feel hopeless, but to inspire you to brush off that armor, and fight back. We are not victims, and we can and will defeat this evil. If you have not gotten in the fight yet, this should be enough to make you pick up that phone, pull out that pen and paper, or start typing. Laurie Pohutsky along with every other Democrat needs to be shamed using any and every platform possible for this blatant disregard of our Republic. 
Call her and tell her what you think of her and her gavel.
 Keep the faith my friends and find hope in knowing you are part of an army, that is preparing to defeat this evil. 
lauriepohutsky@house.mi.gov
 (517) 373-1530

The video speaks for itself; 
https://www.facebook.com/dan.bonamie/videos/956759842345879/?d=n"

This is his response;
If you like what I write, forward it to everyone you can.  If enough people forward it to others (including politicians), it may have an impact.


Message:

In ancient times the Hebrews, under the guidance and protection of the Founding Principles of God The Father, establishing their own land and kingdom.  They grew and prospered.  But slowly, inexorably, they strayed from the Founding Principles of God, assuming they would have His eternal protection.  Not so much!  God, in His eternal wisdom, had to teach them a lesson.  He cast them into 400 years of slavery (THINK OF IT -- FOUR HUNDRED YEARS!) until they returned to Him.  

The more things change, the more they stay the same.  Or, as Harry Truman said, "The only thing new in the world is the history you don't already know".  Hold that thought.  

Ancient Greece was founded as a Republic but fell into perversion and dictatorship, ultimately falling of its own weight.

Ancient Rome was founded as a Republic but fell into perversion and dictatorship, ultimately falling of its own weight.

Fast forward to America.  We were created by the Founding Fathers, under Divine Guidance and with Founding PRINCIPLES.  We grew and prospered.  Slowly, inexorably, we became corrupted, abandoning those Principles.  

As Jefferson said, "Stand fast to Principle".  We have forgotten that simple admonition.
  

We have strayed from said Principles, have forgotten what they are, and live on the fumes of past power and glory.  Now, we find ourselves on the cusp of becoming Sodom and Gomorrah, passionately in love with our crotches and "political correctness" at the expense of our minds, hearts, faith, and everything we instinctively know to be true.  Even churches have become ensnared by the Left and Satan.  

Stalin said it best, "America has three things we can never defeat:  Faith, Patriotism, and Culture.  But, if we can undermine those, she will fall of her own weight".  I fear we are in a free-fall into the oblivion of history.  

Heterosexuality, Faith (ironically, except for Islam), Right, Patriotism, and God are under relentless attack.  Laws mean nothing.  Borders mean nothing.  Morality means nothing.  Faith means nothing.  Culture means nothing.  Patriotism means nothing.  The Constitution means nothing.  Citizenship means nothing.  Freedom means nothing.  All the aforesaid are "Evil".  

To paraphrase the Bible, "And in those days, Good will be called Evil and Evil will be called Good".  

Can America be saved?  Hopefully, yes. I doubt it.  It has been said, "All that is necessary for Evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" -- Lord Byron.  

Too many "Good" men and women choose to keep their heads down, hoping for the best but doing nothing to actually fight for America as founded.  Why?  Are they waiting for God to save them from themselves?  As Franklin said, "God helps them that help themselves".

What will you do?  Will you, like me, stand proudly for America -- AS FOUNDED -- and the future of your children and grandchildren, even at the expense of being called "old fashioned" or "extremist"?!  Or, like so many, will you keep your head down in the foxhole, hoping the storm will magically pass you by?

IT WON'T ! ! !  

As I told my late brother, "When there is nothing you will die for, you have nothing to live for".  

I leave you with these thoughts from the Bible (paraphrased):

"The end times will come at a time of great learning and knowledge".

AGAIN, "And, in those days, Good will be called Evil and Evil will be called Good".  

I will not submit!  Will you?  

Your choice!    

Oren     ​​

Oren made a response to a meme about what Biden is trying to do to outlaw all semi-automatic firearms despite recent Supreme Court Rulings on Americans Second amendment rights to own guns;
​

Let's cut to the chase.  
 
One of the Prime Rules of good management is, "Separate problems from symptoms.  Treat the problem and the symptom will go away."  Private ownership/possession of firearms in America is an impediment to the Left's quest for absolute power; a symptom if you will.  Ergo, they must take away the guns.  Then and only then can they seize and retain power.  Power is the goal; guns are the impediment.  
 
The Left's obsession with banning guns is just about absolute power.  That's all!  
 
Let's dig a little deeper, shall we?
 
The Left talks about 'safety', public good, general welfare, yadda, yadda, yadda.  But, in the end, it's just about power, power, power.  
 
Take Communism, for example.  EVERY Communist country is a dictatorship -- EVERY SINGLE ONE!  Communist dictators HIDE behind Karl Marx's idealistic illusion that society can be perfected and everyone will somehow be gloriously happy.  Yeah, right!  
 
But, dig still deeper.  Look at history.  EVERY King, Queen, Emperor, Dictator (and now, Communist dictators) HID behind some illusion that they were somehow ENTITLED to rule over others.  Kings and Queens HID behind some self-ascribed "Divine Right".  Emperors HID behind military might.  Dictators HID behind their military and some self-ascribed notion that they and they alone were smart enough to rule.  And, the only way they could enforce their power was to disarm their subjects, leaving them helpless to resist.   
 
Then came the American Revolution and the radical notion of individual freedom defended by an armed populous.  Oops!  From the very first day of the Revolution (won by said "armed populous"), EVERY monarch and dictator realized and understood the threat freedom (and an armed citizenry) posed to their power.  They could not let this "freedom thing" survive. 
 
We have been under attack ever since.  We could NOT be allowed to survive, let alone prosper and spread our message.  
 
Thereafter came Marx and Communism, the perfect ideological cover for wannabe dictators who could HIDE behind it.  None of them believe it.  Hell, I doubt any of them truly understand it.  Yet, they convince their minds-full-of-mush followers that they are 'the way, the truth, and the light'.  And their followers blindly follow, well, at least until they, too, are subjugated.  By then, it's too damned late!   
 
The Left and wannabe dictators will never stop until they achieve their desired absolute power, HIDING behind the fantasy of some 'Socialist Utopia' (AKA, Communist dictatorship).  It has never worked, cannot work, and never will work.  It's like a desert mirage, always just out of reach, always just out of their grasp.  Never quite achievable.  But, never mind truth.   
 
Sadly, the lessons of history, no matter how stark or brutal, bounce off of them like a BB off of a battleship.  In every country ruled by socialist/communist dictators, the first people lined up against a wall and shot, are their own followers including intellectuals and media who helped put them into power. Lennin and Stalin called them "Useful idiots" and killed them all.  
 
Pol Pot is the most extreme example.  When he took power in Cambodia, he started killing everyone (especially the intellectuals and media that helped him gain power) including anyone who could even read and write.  Eventually, the military threw him out of power.  He retreated into the jungle where he eventually died in a grass hut, unrepentant to the end.  
 
Every time they gain power, the very first thing the socialists/communists do is disarm the People, leaving them easy prey for domination and subjugation.         
 
FDR's successful banning of automatic weapons began the relentless push to eventually remove firearms from private ownership.  It will never stop!  Rush Limbaugh said it best, "You can't talk to them.  You can't argue with them.  You can't convince them.  All you can do is defeat them."  Like Pol Pot, they will remain unrepentant to the end, absolutely convinced of their own superiority.  
 
THIS is exactly and precisely why the States demanded the 2nd Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights) BEFORE they would agree to ratify the new Constitution.  But, liberal (closet socialist/communist) judges and politicians continually push for ever more restrictions on firearms, regardless of the clear language in the Constitution and the OVERWHELMING lessons of history.  
 
I saw a T-shirt I really like and will either find one or have one made:  What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?  
 
Happily, I live in Kansas where no permit is needed for either open or concealed carry.  Why that is not the law in every State is beyond me.    
 
Oren
 
 
We need to support the groups fighting this before we are disarmed by the Gun Grabber Dictators.

​We no longer have honest elections, but only the illusion of honest elections.

​From Oren Long;


We no longer have honest elections, but only the illusion of honest elections.  
 
When I was young, we did not have election fraud.  To be sure, every once in a while, someone would vote twice, but it was rare and almost never impacted a race except in local elections and never in state or national elections.  
 
Then, two things happened.  
 
First came the push to eliminate hand-counted paper ballots and vote via machine, supposedly so we (the media, mostly) could more rapidly know election outcomes.  It hasn't worked out as promoted, has it?  
 
Sure, even using machines, the voter still fills out a paper ballot, but then runs it through a machine that counts it.  But machines can be (and often are) corrupted and spit out a false count.  In the case of touchscreen voting machines, there is literally no way to get an accurate recount if shenanigans are alleged.  How do you ask a machine to correct itself?  
 
Again, voting machines were touted as a way to know the outcome of a race almost immediately after the polls closed.  Well, how's that working out, especially when 20% of Arizona's machines went belly-up and had to be repaired (probably by the same technicians who programmed them in the first place)?  Then there is the case of Dominion machines that are [nationally] suspected of being intentionally programmed to favor Democrats, regardless of the actual vote.  
 
In yet another case from Arizona, when Cochise County said it was going to hand-count ballots, Democrats RAN to a friendly, Lefty judge who ruled that the county had to rely on machines whether it wanted to or not.  This, despite the fact that, under Arizona law, all ballots are paper ballots that are fed into a machine for counting and have to be stored and saved for years after an election.  Gee, what if the hand-count differed from the machine-count?  What would that say about the veracity and reliability of machine-counting?  So far, Cochise County if standing firm and says it will hand-count ballots anyway, despite threats from the county attorney to level felony charges if hand-counting proceeds.  We'll see what happens.    
 
Now, instead of having accurate election outcomes within a day or two of election day via hand-counts we have election "week or month".  So much for speed and accuracy.  Maybe we should remember that old adage, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".    
 
Many suspect that this is exactly what Democrats always wanted, time to "adjust" the vote tally when their candidate is losing by a narrow enough margin.  
 
Next came mass, mail-in ballots.  We have always allowed absentee voting for military, truckers, and others who are physically unable to vote in person on election day.  And they could always request an absentee ballot.  But mass mail-in voting?  Really?!  If people cannot get to a voting booth on election day, how do they manage to get to the store, beauty salon, church, bar, etc.?  Gimme a break!  
 
Mail-in ballots are just another Democrat push to permanently suborn and undermine honest elections for their own, perpetual power.  It reminds me of Communist dictatorships that hold "elections", but always get 98% of the vote.  Yeah, right!  
 
When mail-in ballots are received by a polling place, there is literally no way to know who filled out the ballot.  Sure, the voter has to "sign" the ballot, but does anyone really think officials look at the signature and double-check it against some official state record to make sure the signature matches some non-existent "official" signature?  Juxtapose unverifiable mail-in ballots against in-person voting where the voter has to show I.D. and personally fill out the ballot.  Which one do you think is more secure?  
 
Back to Arizona where hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots remain to be counted, yet important races are already being called for the Democrats.  Many, many, many of those hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots were hand-delivered to polling stations by voters who just didn't trust USPS to get their ballots delivered on time.  These ballots remain to be counted before races are "certified" and counting stops.  What happens if a race is certified, but the final tally of late-counted mail-in ballots disagrees with the State's "certification"?  
 
The same thing is happening in Pennsylvania where up to a million mail-in ballots have been arriving for weeks.  Yet, Pennsylvania refused to even begin counting mail-in ballots until AFTER the polls closed on election day.  Why?  Now, Pennsylvania says it may take weeks to count all the mail-in ballots.  Why weren't said ballots being counted as they were received?  What are they afraid of?  Meanwhile, you can bet Pennsylvania elections will be "certified" before all the mail-in ballots are tabulated.  Count on it.  And, you can bet the Democrat candidates will magically win. 
 
The electoral process ran just fine for well over two hundred years and there were very few problems.  Voters had confidence in the process  (except for places like Chicago).  But now, with the advent of voting machines and mail-in ballots, voters have little or no confidence in the process.  We know something is rotten.  
 
As Abraham Lincoln said, "You can fool some of the People some of the time and you can fool some of the People all the time and you can even fool all the People some of the time, but you cannot fool all the People all the time."  
 
Whenever we question the obvious corruption and mismanagement of elections, we are called "conspiracists", despite overwhelming evidence in our favor.  
 
The only solution is to go "Back to the future" and reinstitute in-person voting with hand-counted paper ballots on election day, with REQUESTED absentee voting as the exception.  
 
Will it happen?  Almost certainly not.  The Democrat machine is totally committed to electoral corruption.  
 
Talk Show host Dan Bongino posed an interesting question, "Why is it we can do almost anything BUT figure out how to have an honest election?".  It isn't that we can't; we WON'T!  Only Florida (remember the 2000 election and "hanging chad" controversy?) has fixed their election process and it took a conservative State to do it.  Both political parties have too much invested in a corrupted system.  It's that simple.  
 
Dan Bongino also says, "Republicans are not the solution to all your problems, but Democrats ARE the cause".     
 
Fair and honest elections will probably become a relic of the past.  As Ronald Reagan said, "The day may come when men tell their children and grandchildren what it was once like when men were free".  
 
So sad.
 
Oren          

The 2020 Election Was Stolen

​From Oren Long;
Whenever anyone says the 2020 election was stolen, they are called "conspiracist", "fringe", or any number of other insults.  The Left and media (same difference) immediately point to the fact that 60 federal judges rebuffed Trump's legal team's filings in all 60 federal courts.
>
Let's talk about that.  
>
Trump is right.  The election was stolen and there are truckloads of evidence to prove it, including HUNDREDS of sworn affidavits from hundreds of poll workers citing open theft of the election all across the country.  There are numerous videos of ballot tampering, fake ballots being stuffed into machines and ballot boxes, Republican poll watchers being prevented from observing the counting process and even being physically pushed out of polling stations.    
>
The new movie "2,000 Mules" clearly and accurately documents these shenanigans, especially stuffing ballots into drop boxes by the hundreds.    
>
Everyone with half a brain KNOWS the election was stolen; they just won't say it.    
>
But, back to the 60 federal court judges who summarily dismissed Trump's court filings.  "Summarily" is of prime importance.  Those 60 federal judges refused to even hear the mountains of evidence brought to court.  They dismissed all the cases without even listening to the evidence.  Their reasoning amounts to "Congress has already certified the election, so who am I to overrule Congress?"  Really?!  Courts overrule Congress all the time.  
>
So, what is really going on?
>
Simple, really.  Think about it.  
>
Imagine being a federal judge who actually heard all the evidence.  Given the overwhelming weight of evidence, there would be only one possible ruling, "Biden stole the election, is an illegitimate president, and must be thrown out of the White House".  Imagine being that judge.  You would literally be in fear for your life and the lives of your family.  
>
Such a ruling would create the mother of all constitutional crises.  It could start another civil war.  NO judge would want to be the person starting a civil war.  
>
Such a ruling would automatically be rushed through the appellate process all the way up to SCOTUS.  And, at each step of the appellate process, the evidence would be made public.  NO ONE within the judicial or political system would want that and would do anything and everything to stop it.  I doubt even SCOTUS would want to dethrone a sitting president.  And, if the courts did dethrone Biden, the country would explode.  The Democrat Party itself would likely be declared a "criminal" enterprise and disbanded.  More chaos!    
>
Then there is the MASSIVE pressure that was undoubtedly put on all 60 judges.  You can bet the pressure was MASSIVE!  
>
Perhaps my late brother said it best, "Any man who goes to court expecting justice is not just a fool, he's a damned fool". 
>
The prevailing 'wisdom' is that, regardless of the open undermining of the electoral process, the republic will somehow muddle through it and magically survive.  Again, REALLY?!  Without honest elections, THERE IS NO REPUBLIC!    
>
Given the open cowardice of the media, politicians, and even the courts, we no longer have elections, just the illusion of elections.  Hence, we have no republic.   
>
Or, as Joe Stalin said, "It does not matter how people vote; it only matters who counts the vote".  
>
Oren  

By Oren Long
Nov 5 2019

​A few days ago I read an article that made everything click into place, at least for me.  Overnight all the pieces of the puzzle came together and everything that is happening made perfect sense.

The article was about William Arkin, a reporter who resigned from MSNBC.  Mr. Arkin was a "respected" reporter and consultant on military affairs who became disgusted with the MSM over their mindless, one-sided reporting AND their blind, lock-step fealty to the Deep State and the Intelligence Community/State Department cabal.

According to Mr. Arkin, the Intel Community is essentially running the news cycle and telling the MSM what to report and how to report it.  Mr. Arkin said the MSM has become "the propaganda arm of the FBI and the CIA".  Hold that thought.

Rush Limbaugh often plays montages of the various MSM anchors ALL saying the exact same thing, right down to using the same words and phrases.  I have always wondered how and why they would all say the same thing in exactly the same way.  It isn't like all the news organizations get together over coffee every morning and decide what to say and how to say it -- OR IS IT?!  It begs the question of how the news is organized and who organizes it.  Who is pulling the strings?  One would think that, with so many different news organizations reporting on the same story, at least one or two would have a different take and report it differently, especially when they are [supposedly] in competition with each other for ratings, advertisers, etc.  Yet, apparently not.  Apparently, the only 'competitors' they worry about are Fox News and conservative talk radio. 

So, where do they get their information and talking points?  According to Mr. Arkin, the Intel Community (FBI, CIA, NSA, NSC, etc.) feed said stories and talking points to the MSM who obligingly regurgitate them.  Yeah, I know, it sounds almost crazy, but bear with me for a moment.

Rush Limbaugh also notes that the MSM is not REPORTING the news as much as it is SHAPING AND MANAGING the news and subsequent public opinion, something the Intel Community is hell-bent on doing.

"Impossible!", you say.  Well, Mr. Arkin maintains that the Intel Community has infiltrated the MSM from top to bottom and pretty much runs the narrative.  If you think about it, it really wouldn't be that difficult, given that the MSM is, by and large, 90+% liberal Democrat and big government status quo, as is the Intel Community.  It's a match made in Heaven with everyone singing off the same sheet of music and pursuing the same agenda of one-world governance with them in charge.  As evidence, Mr. Arkin points to the fact that many, many, many MSM "consultants" come from the Intel Community and are closely listened to by their MSM cohorts.  I give you John Brennan, a Communist put in charge of the CIA, an agency supposedly charged with spying on Communists, but now hired as yet another "consultant" by the MSM.  Really?!  The Latin, "Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodet" (Who guards the guards?) comes to mind.  

The entire thrust of this arrangement is to control the narrative and shape public opinion.  By and large, this started shortly after WWII and the advent of television when the news mantra became "If it bleeds, it leads".  The public is subjected to endless distractions -- wildfires, snowstorms, floods, and even car wrecks.  Meanwhile, Rome burns.

The Intel Community has even infiltrated the political sphere.  Let's look at the "Whistleblowers".  They are all connected, directly or indirectly, to the Intel Community and/or the State Department which is, itself, closely aligned with the Intel Community.  THEY are running foreign affairs and, in pursuit thereof, the news cycle.  This gives them great power.

Before Trump, presidents and political parties just went along to get along.  No one rocked the boat.  Then came Trump who doesn't play that game.  This make Trump a "Clear and present danger" to the status quo, its world view, and its long-term plans for total control.  Again, almost everyone in the MSM, the Intel Community, and the State Department are liberal, progressive, one-world-order Democrats. 

Anyone who doesn't adhere to their view is either drummed out or ignored.  But, Trump is impossible to ignore, so he has to go, period!  And, how are they trying to accomplish that?  Well, let's look at all Trump's attackers/accusers.  We have Comey, McCabe, Rosenstein, Strozk, Page, Steele, Brennan, Mueller, et al.   All of them are either current or former FBI, DOJ, NSC, CIA, State Department, etc. -- ALL OF THEM.  Yet, NO ONE points out this glaring, in your face, connection.  "Can't see the forest for the trees", I guess.

Mr. Arkin also says that the Intel Community and State Department are overwhelmingly pro-war.  War justifies their existence and gives them something to do, just as crime justifies the existence of police (my comparison).  Anyone who questions America's never-ending involvement in military conflicts, however major or minor, is a danger to the Intel Community and/or the State Department and must be disposed of.  Eisenhower warned of the "Military-Industrial Complex", but only in his farewell address, when he knew he would be safe from retribution.  JFK was on the cusp of pulling out of Vietnam; he was killed.  Trump promised to get America out of mindless, unresolvable wars; he is under ongoing assault.  Again, the Intel Community and State Department cabal love war and anyone who doesn't must be eliminated.

So, what's my point in all of this?  I have long maintained, and firmly believe, that Fortress Washington will do whatever is necessary to get rid of Trump.  If they cannot get him to resign; if they cannot impeach him; if they cannot defeat him next November; they will kill him.  If, as Mr. Arkin says, the Intel Community has successfully infiltrated the entirety of government, who is to say they have not also infiltrated the Secret Service?  How difficult would it be for the Secret Service to "overlook" some small window of opportunity for an assassin?  Just saying.  Or, as one politician pointed out, "Don't mess with the Intel Community.  They have six ways from Sunday to get you."

Throughout history, leaders who have become "inconvenient" have been killed.  

So far, the only thing they cannot control is the vote, but they are working on that, too, through voter fraud, franchising illegals, etc.  I would not be at all surprised if Trump "loses" re-election despite winning both the popular and electoral vote.  We'll see.

At the risk of getting into the weeds, let's talk about the Clintons.  Am I the only one who finds it strange that anyone and everyone who makes even the slightest noise about testifying against the Clintons magically, mysteriously, suddenly dies, often right before they are scheduled to testify?  We're talking 50+ mysterious deaths, all at just the right moment, many ruled "suicides" via a bullet to the back of the head.  Do we really believe the Clintons are running such a vast criminal network, employing an army of trained assassins, that they are essentially a mafia-style network?  Not me.  But, I wouldn't be surprised if they do have contacts in the Intel Community to do their bidding.  After all, AND AGAIN, they are all Democrats, birds of a feather.  They all want the same thing -- power for power's sake.  Yet, no one talks about it.  Perhaps, doing so is just too dangerous.

If you had said this to me a couple of years ago, I would have said you were nuts.  Now, I'm not so sure.  After all, I'm just an old, retired cop.  All I can do is follow the evidence.

Oren    

We are in a "Cold Civil War"by Oren Long;

On Saturday, September 28, 2019, 08:10:04 AM EDT, Oren Long wrote:


Yesterday, I was listening to Rush Limbaugh when he said, "We are in a 'cold' civil war...".

I almost fell out of my chair!

He actually, FINALLY, said what we have all been thinking and warning about!

When even Rush, always careful not to stick his toe over the line, actually says it, you know it's bad and getting worse.

The problem with a 'cold' war (civil or otherwise) is that it only takes one incident for it to go hot.   I give you "Bleeding Kansas" and Fort Sumter.   I give you Germany's invasion of Poland that started WWII.   I give you the sinking of USS Maine in Cuba.   I give you Lexington, Concord, and the Boston Massacre.   I give you the storming of the Bastille.  I give you the sinking of the Lusitania that brought America into WWI.   History is replete with such incidents where one side pushes too far and unintentionally starts a war.

No one knows what such an "incident" might be that would turn our cold civil war hot, with unintended consequences, but let me offer three scenarios I think might do it.   And, no, I'm not hoping for it; I'm just hypothesizing. 

The most immediate is impeachment.   I do think the House will at least eventually file Articles of Impeachment, and may even pass them, forcing a trial in the Senate.   In this scenario, one of two things would happen.   First, and most likely, Trump would be acquitted.  The Democrat Party, driven by its unhinged base, is so off the rails that it could actually and inadvertently say and do things that would encourage the base to go ballistic and riot, forcing massive federal and state government crackdowns.   If things went badly and Democrat Leadership (itself unhinged) did not tamp its base down, civil unrest could boil over into full scale war.   Second, Trump could be convicted on spurious and obviously false grounds, pushing his supporters into open resistance and rebellion.   Once war starts, it takes on a life of its own and the end result is up in the air.

Another possible catalyst for civil war is the obvious and open corruption in government and, especially, the Democrat Party now being exposed on an almost daily basis.   Note that I said "government" and not "federal government".  Corruption has become the order of the day at every level; federal, state, and local.   In the past, people have pretty much resigned themselves to the idea that corruption is just the "reality" of government.   BUT, thanks to Trump and the increasingly insane Democrat Party Leadership, egged on by the base, its pervasiveness and extent are so apparent and "in your face" that people are now seeing it for the cancer and danger it is.   

Attorney General Barr is quietly, behind the scenes, conducting a thorough investigation into Democrat Party corruption throughout government.   I believe (perhaps "hope" is a better word) heads will roll.   Democrat Leadership knows it, which is why they have started attacking Barr personally.   I believe this investigation (and, hopefully, indictments) could even include the Clintons.   IF (and it's a huge "if") the Clintons are eventually indicted, arrested, tried, convicted, and imprisoned, the Left will go absolutely crazy, very possibly generating civil unrest, rioting, etc. and, in turn, precipitating massive government (and possibly military) intervention.   This could easily become the spark that turns a cold civil war hot.

The third potential spark to a civil war would be Trump's assassination and an almost immediate return to the "business as usual" Washington template.   I firmly believe it is a very real possibility and a back burner option for the Democrats and their corrupt leadership, especially if Trump is re-elected in a landslide and Congress becomes overwhelmingly Republican.   EVERYTHING in Washington revolves around "business as usual" (corruption, and graft).   Biden's shenanigans are just the most recent revelations, but not at all unusual.   He was just too open about it.   But, as Trump and Barr pull back the curtain and the public begins to grasp the full and pervasive extent of Washington corruption, well, THAT cannot be allowed.   Too many powerful people would be exposed.   They simply have too much to lose (think Hillary and the 20-30 people she has [allegedly] had killed, some right before they were scheduled to testify against her).   They will do whatever they have to in order to survive.

The Left, especially the Radical Left, is ever more open about their ultimate goal of destroying the Constitution, American culture, and America herself.   Witness Beto's open admission that he would come for guns, in defiance of the Second Amendment.   The Law literally means ZIP to them.   They want what they want, at ANY cost.   And, they damned well mean to have it, by any means, peaceful or otherwise -- PERIOD!   They will use any "crisis" to achieve their ends, even if they have to fabricate one.   Remember, the FIRST casualty in any war is truth.   

OR, a hot civil war could well be a combination of the above and the slow, inexorable, relentless increase in 'hostilities' between the vast majority of Americans and the increasingly radicalized Left, until the Silent Majority say, "ENOUGH!".   In that case, you can bet your last bullet the Left will NOT surrender, but, Like the Nazis, will fight to the bitter end.   It's all they know!  

My brother, years ago, said, "We are already two countries, so let's just get to it.   The last person standing wins".   My observation is that we ARE two countries and are growing farther apart by the day, much as we were right before the American Civil War.   I genuinely fear that we will reach critical mass, possibly sooner than we think and are prepared for.   I hope not.   I hope we can right the Ship of State peacefully, but I am beginning to doubt it.   If history is any guide, it will end violently, and badly.   

What then?   

Oren              

What we are really up against
​By Oren Long
​9/9/19

​We are all missing the CORE REASON we are all sooo hated by the Left -- FREEDOM!   We love freedom.   They hate it.   It really, truly IS that damned simple!

Throughout all of human history, regardless of how far back you want to go, freedom has been hated and feared by power elites whom we euphemistically call the PTB (powers that be).   

Let me distill it all down to its essence.   Freedom can be defined with one word, "RESPONSIBILITY".   Power can also be distilled down to one word, "IRRESPONSIBILITY".  Free people are responsible for themselves and their own actions.   Enslaved people are responsible for NOTHING.   People granted "power" by a free people are held RESPONSIBLE for their actions.   Power brokers in a society of enslaved people are never held responsible for ANYTHING, EVER!

As far back as ancient Greece, Democracy was constantly challenged and undermined by those who would grasp and seek power for themselves until they eventually succeeded and garnered total power and control, returning, once again, to the time-established Status Quo of kingship running everyone's lives.   And, always for themselves and their family, but NEVER for the good of the People and/or the country.   

Ancient Rome was founded as a Republic, but was also eventually turned into a State run by ruthless emperors, again, and as throughout history, for pure self-aggrandizement, power, lust, and wealth.   It was all about power and control and NOTHING else.

Almost without exception and throughout history, ALL nations have been run by dictators.   Said dictators have come under many names: Kings, Emperors, Generals, Warlords, etc.   But, they ALL had one thing in common; they ALL garnered complete and total power and control over EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING, for themselves and themselves, alone.

Then came the American Revolution and, eventually, the Constitution, forwarding the concepts of freedom and equality to ALL regardless of wealth or position; concepts so alien to the PTB in the rest of the world that said concepts literally scared the pants off of them.   They correctly saw this "Freedom Thing" as the "Clear and Present Danger" it was to their perpetual rule.   They correctly understood that, if America succeeded under American concepts of Freedom and equality, THEY would be in danger, and they could not allow THAT!   

Word of the American Experiment (and success) spread like wildfire all around the planet.   People from across the globe flocked to America.   Like a virus, word spread back to other countries with disastrous results for the PTB in those countries.   The French Revolution (yes, it ended badly, but still) is just one example.   

Sadly, to a great extent, peoples who had never experienced freedom or self-determination and had no idea how it worked or how to make it work, yet still yearned for it, fell under the spell of "closet" PTB who enslaved them without their even knowing it was happening.   I give you Communism (Authoritarianism under the false promise of "equality"), National Socialism (under the guise of national/racial superiority), Islamic rule (under the guise of religious purity and fealty), and other equally evil constructs.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Now, the Democrat Party has been co-opted by power-mad, top-down, radicalized Socialists and Communists, promising Utopia while delivering slavery.   BUT, in the end, it all, always boils down to the same old, tired, worn, unsuccessful mantra -- top-down rule by the few over the many.   ALL they have done is change the name.   Instead of calling themselves "Kings" or "Emperors", they call themselves "Progressives".   The end goal remains the same, "Must destroy this "Freedom Thing!".          

Yeah, yeah, I know, this is a greatly abbreviated and simplified view of what we are up against, but the underlying premise remains, to wit, that America is, always has been, and always will be under ongoing and constant attack, by the PTB, until they once again restore the "Status Quo" of total power and control, for themselves and their minions alone.

As Reagan said, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction".

The current crop of wannabe kings and dictators, disguised as politicians of all stripes, ALL fall under that mantra.   They ALL -- except Trump for some strange reason -- want POWER over everyone and everything.   They tell us it is for our benefit, but not so much.   In the end, it is THEY, not us, who benefit.   It is THEY who get to make all the decisions.   It is THEY who get to spend our money.   It is THEY who get to tell us what to think, do, and say.

It reminds me of the country song, "They tell you to send your money to the Lord, but give you their address".   

This will not end!   In the end, it is ALL about restoring the historical Status Quo of top-down leadership and rule, ruthless if necessary.   In the end, it is ALL about stamping out this "Freedom Thing" and -- FINALLY -- getting back to the way things "should be", the powerful ruling over the powerless -- for everyone's own good, of course!

Happily, the Founders gave us the cure, a cure specifically designed to negate the necessity for all-out civil war and massive bloodshed.   The remedy is right in front of us in Article V of the Constitution via a Convention of States, yet we have allowed ourselves to be convinced not to use it.   Why is beyond me.   Perhaps we really do need to be enslaved before we will act.   Sadly, by then, it will be too late and "order" will have been restored.

Oren  

You're Gonna Love This.
by Oren Long
3/4/2019

We all know that the MSM, in cahoots with Fortress Washington and Mueller, have been salivating at the prospect of hounding Trump out of office, regardless of any collateral damage to innocent people.

Well, this morning, on the Wall Street Journal Report, they featured a story on the many people damaged and/or ruined by the Mueller "Investigation", an investigation that has, to date, turned up ZERO evidence of collusion with Russia in the 2016 election.

Never mind the facts (or lack, thereof), Mueller has doggedly pursued and harassed anyone and everyone even loosely associated with President Trump.   So much so that many, many innocent people have been ruined or severely damaged by their mere ancillary association with the President.

The WSJ story cited two examples, Neal (sp?) Cavuto and Carter Page.   Their businesses have essentially been ruined and they have even received death threats, forcing them to take severe security measures for themselves and their families.

And, neither the FBI nor the DOJ have shown ANY interest in pursuing the offenders.   Mr. Cavuto has reported to the FBI repeated harassing and threatening phone calls from the same phone number in Oklahoma.   The FBI has continually refused to investigate.   Now, tell me again that the FBI is not in sync with the supposedly "independent" and "above board" Mueller Team.   Yeah, right!

The WSJ story also reported on two Democrat members of Congress who are Hell-bent on ousting Trump, regardless of collateral damage.   One female Democrat essentially said "So what?" when told of the death threats.  The other one (male) said, on ABC's Good Morning Show that he would not accept Mueller's report if it did not lay out a case for impeachment, instead, saying that he would start his own investigation and would seek impeachment and removal from office.

It occurs to me that the MSM is gearing up for the likelihood that the Mueller Report will be a big 'Nothing Burger' and is setting the stage to CYA in a vain attempt to salvage what little reputation it has left.

Oren

WHY STATES CANNOT SUE TRUMP IN DISTRICT COURT
by Oren Long

  WHY STATES CANNOT SUE TRUMP IN DISTRICT COURT

When the Founders wrote Article III of the Constitution they specified three types of cases that can ONLY be heard by the Supreme Court, including cases where a State sues  the United States (Federal Government).   They clearly did not want District and/or Appellate Courts, possibly subject to personal/local/regional/political biases or prejudices, hearing cases of such national importance.  


This is important in light of the many lawsuits filed against President Trump, in Federal District Court, by various States, over his Declaration of a National Emergency.     


Article III, Section Two, Paragraph Two, Sentences One and Two state, "In ALL (emphasis added) cases affecting Ambassadors, other Public Ministers and Consuls, AND THOSE IN WHICH A STATE SHALL BE PARTY (emphasis added), the Supreme Court SHALL (emphasis added) have ORIGINAL (emphasis added) Jurisdiction.  In all the other cases . . . the Supreme Court shall have Appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact . . . ".   


The above CLEARLY means that NO Federal District or Appellate Court can hear a case where a State sues the Federal Government, PERIOD!   In legal parlance, it's called "Improper Venue", meaning that Federal District Courts have no "Standing" to hear the case.   Given that President Trump is the head of the Federal Government, any State suing Trump or his Administration is, in fact, suing the Federal Government.   Ergo, said State MUST file directly with the Supreme Court and NOT in District Court.

In turn, this means that President Trump can legally and Constitutionally IGNORE any "Inferior Court" (Founders' Constitutional definition, Article III, Section One) ruling, unless and until the Supreme Court takes the case and rules against him.   IF the Supreme Court refuses the case, Presidential Orders stand.  


Further, IF this Clause of the Constitution was enforced, the Supreme Court would quickly tire of these endless 'State vs. Trump' cases and refuse to hear them, meaning that Trump's Executive Orders would stand.   AND the States, realizing this, would stop filing these frivolous lawsuits.   IT'S THAT SIMPLE!

So, why does the President not know this?   He is relying on legal advice from his legal team who either don't know or don't want him to know.   In either case, it's bad advice.   I am reminded of an old saying, "When you control what a man knows, you control what he thinks". 

Oren Long    

ARTICLE IV, SECTION FOUR OF THE CONSTITUTION
by Oren Long

ARTICLE IV, SECTION FOUR OF THE CONSTITUTION

The President has found it necessary to declare a National Emergency, under his powers in the 1976 National Emergency Act, in order to go around an intransigent Congress and build necessary barriers on the southern border to protect the United States from an ongoing incursion by up to 300,000 illegal border crossers annually.

Said intransigent Congress, along with many other groups and some States, have promised lawsuits to stop President Trump's Declaration, something that will take months or years to unwind in the courts.   Meanwhile, the invasion by thousands or hundreds of thousands of illegals continues unabated, overwhelming DHS, ICE, the Border Patrol, and the courts.

There is a Constitutional solution.

Article IV, Section Four of the Constitution says, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, AND SHALL PROTECT EACH OF THEM AGAINST INVASION (emphasis added) . . . "

The President, as the 'head' of the federal government and Commander in Chief of the armed forces, has the primary DUTY to protect the United States from invasion or other hostile acts against the country.

The President can simply activate Article IV, Section Four and send the military to the border with orders to "repel" the invaders.   "Invaders" have NO civil or constitutional "rights" -- NONE -- they are INVADERS!   They can just be repelled and pushed back across the border.   

I suspect the President may not even know about Article IV, Section Four.   Either his close advisors do not know about it or, if they do, do not want the President to know.   Someone needs to tell him.  

The key to successful implementation of Article IV, Section Four lies in the vernacular.   The President can STOP calling these illegal border crossers "Refugees", "Migrants", "Immigrants", or "Asylum Seekers".   Call them what they are -- INVADERS!

In conjunction with Article IV, Section Four, the President can use 10 USC 284 which allows the military to construct necessary barriers along the border to complete its mission.   Representative Mo Brooks is very familiar with this law, has advocated its implementation, and can brief the President on it.

The beauty of this approach is that it negates the need for a National Emergency Declaration AND takes both Congress and the courts out of the play.   Neither Congress nor the courts can override the Constitution's simple, clear, and succinct language.   Article IV, Section Four is a MANDATE, an ORDER, a REQUIREMENT!   It is NOT an option to be used if and when the federal government feels like it.   

Again, the use of Article IV, Section Four would instantly neutralize all civil/court actions and empower the President to keep his core promise of securing the border.   Unless and until it is activated and used, this bitter resistance to securing the border will continue unabated into the foreseeable future.

Oren Long

Tribalism in politics: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly

Webster's Dictionary defines "Tribe" as, "A human community developed by an association of, and interbreeding between, a number of families, opposed in principle to crossbreeding with other communities, and preserving its own customs, beliefs and organization.   A number of people associated by family relationship or by common interests, etc.".

We are all members of a tribe to a greater or lesser degree.   Most of us belong to multiple tribes, be they family, community, religious, regional, national, or political.   All of us belong to a 'tribal', nuclear family.   At the same time we probably see ourselves as belonging to a community, state, country, race, religion, and political party.   All are tribes.  Many identify as fans of a sports team, school, club, hobby, etc.   These, too, are tribes in a very real sense.

As humans, we like tribalism.   It makes us feel safe.   It puts us into a "comfort zone" with others we like and can feel comfortable with.   We don't have to worry about conflict.   We can do and say what we like without worrying about getting into arguments.   The others in our "tribe" probably agree with us and accept us as we are.   It is a natural tendency.   No one would voluntarily gravitate to a group with which we would find ourselves in conflict.  It would be asking for trouble, so we shy away from them.   Again, it's only natural.   


In and of itself, tribalism is neither good nor bad.   It is a way of identifying ourselves and finding others who share common interests.   But, taken to its extreme, tribalism can be bad and even ugly.   Some examples are racism, sexism, religious bigotry, economic bias, and political ideology.   Taken to their extreme, they can and do have negative consequences, especially in multi-cultural societies such as ours.   And, make no mistake, politics has become "Tribal" in the extreme.

This has been true from the very beginning.   Imagine yourself in a cave with other cavemen.   One day a stranger walks into your group.   He is dressed differently, looks different, talks different, and has different tools and weapons.  Your first instinct is for personal and group safety and survival.   Is he an enemy?   You don't know, but can't take that chance.   So, you kill him.  It's the safe play.   

This will not change unless and until humans evolve past it.   Well, hoping we don't kill each other off before that.

So, what does this have to do with politics?   Short answer, EVERYTHING!

Politics is, by nature and instinct, TRIBAL!   Political parties are "tribes" of like-minded people, with common interests and beliefs who form together to achieve commonly desired goals.   They tend to see opposing parties as the "enemy", seeking to thwart their agenda.   Party members tend to react to opposing party members in much the same way as the caveman cited above.   Even those within a party who deviate from the party mantra can find themselves cast out for not adhering to generally accepted party norms.   

Sometimes, competing tribes can come together to defeat a more threatening, common enemy (tribe).   Then, once that enemy is defeated, they go back to fighting each other.   This happened in WWII when America, England, and others joined forces with Russia to defeat Germany, Italy, and Japan.   Then, when the war was over, Russia, once again, became the enemy.

Fast forward to current events.   The Republicans and Democrats in Washington have traditionally been at each others' throats, sometimes more, sometimes less.   But, overall, they fought and quarreled.   

THEN CAME TRUMP!   Instantly, almost instinctively, the Washington Elite and Deep State (I call it "Fortress Washington") came together to defeat this interloper.   He wasn't one of them!   He wasn't part of the club (tribe)!   Who does he think he is telling we "smart people" how to run the country?   We'll show him, even if it means adopting a "scorched earth" policy, destroying everything!   In the end, ONLY "Fortress Washington" and the status quo matter!   ONLY the "tribe" matters.

The ongoing fight over the border is a perfect example.   Before Trump, both parties agreed that the border had to be secured.   Before Trump, both parties voted for massive funding to secure the border -- someday.   BUT, when Trump is elected on securing the border and promised to actually do it, EVERYTHING CHANGED -- INSTANTLY!   Suddenly, just because Trump says it, it is evil, inhuman, and unamerican.   Suddenly, everyone, Democrat and Republican alike, insist that the border is fine just the way it is.   "There's no crisis, no emergency, no problem!   Everything is fine!"   

It all goes right back to tribalism.   Trump is not part of the tribe, so he MUST be defeated.   It doesn't matter that he's right.   It ONLY matters that he's not part of the "Tribe".   Just like the outsider walking into the caveman camp, Trump talks different, acts different, thinks different so MUST be the enemy.   "Kill him" becomes the hue and cry of "Fortress Washington".   "He's not one of us" is all that matters!

In a way, Trump is a 'secular' Jesus.   He has marched into the Temple (Washington), flipped over the tables of the money-changers (lobbyists and big donors), and challenged the Rabbis (Washington Elite and Deep State).   And, he did it as an outsider (not part of the Tribe).   They hate him for it!   They want to kill him -- figuratively or literally!

Trump's ONLY ally is US and he knows it!   So, too, does Fortress Washington know it.   Why do you think We The People are so often and viciously impugned, berated, scoffed at, and insulted?   We, too, are the enemy.  We, too, are locked out of the power-elite "tribe".   Again, like the caveman outsider, we are not to be trusted.   We just don't understand how things are done in Fortress Washington.   We just need to go home, sit down, shut up, and sulk.   They'll handle everything.   Yeah, right!  

They've done such a BANG-UP job!
 
Oren 

Tucker Carlson Just Blew The Lid Off One Of The Biggest Scandals In American History
by Oren Long

https://greatamericandaily.com/tucker-carlson-biggest-scandals-amer...
All the pieces of the puzzle are falling into place.
Tucker Carlson aptly states what every thinking American already knows.   NO ONE in DC or the ruling elite gives a whit about us "dirty, little people".   This includes those uber-rich who should be on our side and against the Left and the Democrats but view us the same way.   We are little better than "house niggers" in the old South.   
As Tucker points out, they have NO IDEA who we are or what we think.   It amounts to
I   D O N ' T   K N O W ,   I   D O N ' T   W A N T   T O   K N O W ,   D O N ' T   T E L L   M E
It amounts to top-down socialism/communism where our "betters" run our lives, for our own good, of course.   
We saw the beginnings of this with Social Security where we "stupid" people were forced to save for retirement because we were too stupid to do it on our own.   Then came Medicare and Medicaid, followed by Obamacare, all implemented with the underlying mindset that the public needed to be told what to do and how to do it, by force if necessary, because we were, again, too stupid to make decisions on our own.   
Romney is nothing more than the mouthpiece of the ruling class, parroting the same, tired mantra that Trump is evil when all he is doing is giving voice -- and power -- to the People who have, to date, been lorded over by their betters.   
This is exactly what happened in the French and Russian Revolutions wherein the People finally rebelled against their rulers, rulers who could not have cared less if people fell over dead in the street.   Then, the violently overthrown rulers were shocked and amazed that it happened.   
As I have said before, the anti-Trump frenzy in the elite is really an anti-People frenzy!  We must be put back into our place, at all cost!   The status quo MUST be maintained, even at the cost of destroying the Republic.
In their feeble minds, the elite truly, naively believe that Trump, the Tea Party, and Populism are just some "dust-up" than can be quelled and the status quo of top-down leadership restored.   They have no clue what is headed their way.   
They are like the frog put into a pot of water and the heat turned up until the frog is cooked alive.   He doesn't realize what is happening until it is too late.
All this is exemplified by every "issue" currently being undertaken.   Mass illegal immigration, dumbing down the education system, teaching communism and anti-capitalism in colleges, radical Leftist propaganda in the Democrat Party, anti-religion, humanism in the form of abortion on demand, hatred of time-honored Western Civilization, anti-Constitutionalism, environmental extremism, et al, are just the latest tools formulated to destroy America.
This disparate assemblage of extremists are but the "useful idiots" Stalin used to maintain himself in power.   What they neither can nor will see is that they are being used, used to destroy themselves along with those they have been so well conditioned to hate.
They truly believe that they will somehow prevail, but forget that the American Revolution was accomplished by a mere 14% of the colonists, people who were willing to fight and die for freedom.   There is a HUGE difference between extremists willing to kill for slavery and those willing to die for freedom.   Those in Fortress Washington and their minions may well soon find that out.   
We are rapidly approaching critical mass, a mass that, once achieved, cannot be stopped.   The pot is simmering and on the verge of boiling.
Again, the anti-Trump mania is really anti-PEOPLE mania and We The People have had just about enough!
Be ready -- it's coming!
Oren

More on anti-Trumpism; US VS THEM
by Oren Long

I have struggled to understand why the political and uber-rich elite hate normal Americans and have no interest in even trying to understand us.
I have struggled to understand why the elitists want to welcome masses of illegal illiterates, people who cannot read or write their own language, let alone English, and who have zero marketable skills beyond digging in the dirt, into the United States.   
I have struggled to understand why the elitists have no problem with sending jobs to other countries while Americans go hungry.
I have struggled to understand why the elitists don't care about crime, poverty, disease, etc. among those they welcome into America, blind and oblivious to its effects on the public.
I have struggled to understand why the elitists can so easily and blithely lie to the voters and remain indifferent when caught, often on video, as though it really doesn't matter.
Now I know!   The answer is amazingly simple and, simultaneously, incomprehensible!
Elitists, in their own minds (think Nancy Pelosi), see NO difference between those with a Ph.D. and the "untouchables" of Calcutta.   In their minds, you are either part of the "Elitist Club" or you are NOT, regardless of ALL ELSE!   You are either one of them or you are NOT!   
Therefore, and pursuant thereto, there is NO difference between you as a hard-working, taxpaying, law-abiding Citizen and some disease-ridden, criminal, illegal border crosser.   There is NO difference between a taxpayer and a welfare recipient.   There is NO difference between a criminal and a cop.   
To the elitists, we are ALL serfs, slaves, and "dirty, little people".   We can drive Cadillacs we bought or car-jack a ride -- NO difference.
To differentiate between people would require elitists to think beyond a "us vs them" ("Club vs. non-Club") mantra.   And that is not only too much trouble, it's just too damned inconvenient. Why would someone already in "The Club" worry or care about people on "the outside"?   Or, as Pink Floyd said, "SEP (someone else's problem)".
The above is the only common denominator I can come up with in this equation.   Or, as Sherlock Holmes said, "When all other possibilities are eliminated, the only one remaining, however improbable, is probably the truth".
This can only lead to one, inescapable, terrifying conclusion; a conclusion I posted earlier this morning, to wit, that we are rapidly approaching critical mass and that We The People HAVE HAD JUST ABOUT ENOUGH!   
Oren

 I totally agree that a COS is desperately needed

​While I totally agree that a COS is desperately needed, I don't see it happening anytime soon -- if ever.   Nevertheless, we must keep fighting for it.   Let me explain.

Before I became involved in the Tea Party and the COS Movement I was like 95% of people in that I had a full-time job, family, extracurricular activities, and hobbies; all of which consumed my life.   I really didn't have time to worry about politics.   I voted for whom I thought was the best candidate and left politics up to them, Washington, the State Legislature, and the local authorities.   I naively assumed that they would do the right thing.  After all, wasn't that their job and didn't they love freedom and America as much as I?

I believe the vast, vast, vast majority of voters fall into that category.   And, that is EXACTLY what the politicians are counting on; that they (politicians) can do pretty much whatever they want and no one will pay much attention.   Even when conservatives and people like us scream, no one cares; they are just too busy with their lives and families.

Only when I retired (and divorced) did I have time to get my head out of my a-- and pay attention.   I was shocked at what I, for the first time, saw -- massive crime and corruption everywhere I looked.   

Now, I know better, BUT whenever I try to talk to people about it, their eyes roll back in their heads and they want to change the subject to their jobs, families, hobbies, sports, etc.   As long as things today look pretty much the same as yesterday, they couldn't care less.

So, to make a long story short, I don't foresee any grassroots clamor for a COS until things get so bad they can no longer be ignored.   For example, one of my brothers has had his property landscaped by outside workers.   I would bet serious money that he NEVER demanded that all workers be Americans and not illegals.   As long as the job got done, he couldn't care less.   Juxtapose that with last year when we had a new roof put on our house. I demanded that all workers be Americans -- and I checked!   ONLY when things get so bad that they DIRECTLY and PERSONALLY impact him will he wake up to the imminent danger. By then, it may be too late, both for him, his family, and the country.   

Only when the federal government becomes so onerous and authoritarian that even State politicians feel the need for a COS will we even have a chance of achieving one.   I know because I regularly deal with and talk to State politicians.   They are all the same in that they just refuse to see the danger.   It is as though they are pulling onto the tracks BEFORE they bother to look for the train.   It's just a matter of time before -- too late -- they realize their mistake.

Once the federal government and Deep State have seized total control there will be no way of taking it back without a bloodbath.

Meanwhile, I'll keep fighting.   After all, what can they do, kill me?   O.K., but I will die fighting and not on my knees begging for mercy from the merciless.

Oren

Changes in water on land rules

https://dailycaller.com/2018/12/07/epa-waterway-regulations/?fbclid=IwAR3i6jjDM_1eosej5erSVxeb8jk75mjMoWxMi0UZt9pIkdoK6DI6JNhaiSA
​

I am quite familiar with the WOTUS rule.   As Paul Harvey would say, "Here's the rest of the story".

The purpose of the Clean Waters Act is to regulate "navigable waters" for purposes of preventing and cleaning pollution in them.   To that end, the Clean Waters Act is good law.

The WOTUS rule sought to expand the definition of "navigable waters".   In typical bureaucratic fashion, the EPA magically concluded that ALL water is "navigable" since all water (including rainfall) eventually ends up in navigable rivers and/or the ocean.   Ergo, all water must be regulated, right up to its source.

As with all federal bureaucracies, the EPA constantly looks for ways to increase its power,  sphere of influence, and budget.   Hold that thought.

Environmentalist wackos basically want to shut down all development and progress and return humanity (except themselves, of course) to a primitive state of living naked in the forest, eating nuts and berries -- to 'save the planet'.

The EPA Lefties joined with the wackos and wrote the WOTUS rule which would essentially give the federal government total control over every aspect of everyone's life.   If implemented, the federal government would have the power to enter anyone's property at any time to ensure compliance.   It would have been just one more piece of the Socialist Utopian system of total control.   Under WOTUS, no one would be allowed to do anything that impacted water in any way without federal permission, something the federal government could conveniently deny in the name of saving the planet and protecting navigable waters.

Trump correctly wanted to scrap WOTUS, but instead of just ordering the EPA to withdraw it, he ordered the EPA to rewrite it, probably after listening to his 'advisors', many of whom are closet Democrats and love big government (as long as they are in charge and not affected).

Hence, EPA's resistance and ensuing legal battles.

Let me give you just two examples of how WOTUS negatively impacts real people.

In Montana, a couple bought some land for their dream home.   On that land is an area that is dry, EXCEPT when there is a heavy rain, in which case a depression is "wet" (essentially a big puddle) for a couple of days until the water soaks in.   The couple planned to fill in the depression and build there.   The Army Corps of Engineers (often the enforcement arm of the EPA) swooped in and stopped them, declaring the depression to be a "wetland" that could not be disturbed.   The couple spent thousands and thousands of dollars fighting this lunacy and eventually ended up with worthless land.

In another very recent case there is a business in Northern Alaska (tundra) that wanted to build an additional building on their property.   The Army Corps of Engineers told them that they could not do that because the building site was "navigable water".   The proposed building site was on level ground (tundra) and is frozen year round.   That didn't matter to the Corps.   Even if the water is frozen year round, it's still water and, as such, falls under WOTUS as "navigable water".   

Crazy, huh?   But, that's what we are up against.

Oren

Election Fraud Doesn't Exist Until Liberals Want It to Exist

https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/12/06/election-fraud-doesnt-exist-until-liberals-want-it-to/

Gentlemen,

Even if Harris is eventually declared the winner, Pelosi has already indicated that the House would probably refuse to seat him.

Rush Limbaugh has said that the Left will eventually start talking about just doing away with elections altogether.   I don't think so, especially if the Democrats can construct a voting "system" wherein they always win.   

In the old Soviet Union, the State trumpeted that 99% of people voted in every election and 99% of voters ALWAYS voted communist.   Under Communism, Russia only had the illusion of elections.   THAT is what the Democrats are trying to accomplish here.

Then, there would magically be NO fraud, as defined by the fraudsters. 

The only solution to this is to arrest and imprison everyone involved, from the top to the bottom.   It'll never happen.  

Oren

Will Trump’s pick for attorney general protect the Justice Department or the president? | The New Republic

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/152573/will-trumps-pick-attorney-general-protect-justice-department-president

Having worked for government all my career I can tell you that regardless of who is at the top of any agency -- NOTHING CHANGES!

This is especially true in the DOJ and FBI!

Government workers actually couldn't care less who sits in the administrator's office.   It has zero effect or impact on them or how they do their job.   The bigger the agency, the more this applies.   And, the DOJ and FBI are HUGE, as are ALL federal agencies!

Think about it, the "boss" cannot possibly oversee the day-to-day operations of subordinates.  He/she must necessarily rely on subordinate supervisors/administrators to implement directives and forward his/her agenda. 

Let's say Trump ORDERED the Attorney General to build a case against, say, Hillary and arrest her and her minions.   How would that happen?   The AG and President would have to drop ALL their other duties and responsibilities and personally lead the investigation, research, interviews, etc., all day and every day.   That would take months, possibly years.

The best Trump could hope for is an Attorney General who would fire everyone in DOJ/FBI leadership positions and replace them.   And, even then, there is no guarantee of success.

Plus, Trump would have to wade through the myriad other federal agencies in the Swamp and do the same thing.   Really?!

Ain't agonna hap'n!

The Swamp will survive this "Tempest in a teapot" called Trump.   In the end, nothing will change.

Sorry,

Oren  

Ed. Note to oren;
​OREN, That's why we need an Article V States Petitioned for Amendment Proposal Convention. That way the people could right the wrongs the Government has done over the last 100 + years.

 Free Speech on Campuses and Elsewhere
By Oren Long
9/6/18

Yesterday, Mark Steyn was substituting for Rush Limbaugh.   He interviewed a female author who has written a book about speech on campuses and how anyone and anything that disagrees with the Radical Left is being methodically eliminated and stamped out.   I should have written down her name and the name of the book, but I didn't -- my bad.

Anyway, she documented that the Radical Left has basically decided and decreed that words are weapons and, as such, are dangerous (not THEIR words, of course; just OURS).   Said "dangerous weapons" must be eliminated for the literal, physical "safety" of the "victim students" who cannot possibly be safe otherwise.   
                                             S T O P     L A U G H I N G     - -     D A M M I T     - -     T H I S     I S     S E R I O U S     ! ! ! ! 

They really, truly BELIEVE that conservative speech, heterosexuality, the Constitution, religion, et al are actual PHYSICAL THREATS that can hurt them PHYSICALLY!   

She also noted it has been assumed that once these snowflakes leave college and join the real world, they dump all this tripe and wake up.   "Not so", she contends.   Instead, it has wormed its way into the social fabric with devastating results that we can see all around us.   I agree with her.   The First Amendment is being vilified and [Left-Wing] "Free Speech" weaponized.

We see religion (except for Islam) being attacked as "hate speech".   We see conservatives prevented from speaking on campus.   We see conservatives confronted and attacked in public.   We see Social Media giants shutting down conservative speech online.   We see public schools dumping the Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance, teaching Socialism/Communism and slamming Capitalism.   We see athletes kneeling in protest (of what they have no clue).   We see Nike signing a has-been/never-was for millions of dollars to sell shoes to protesters and snowflakes.   We see citizens attacked in the street for supporting Trump and the Constitution.             

Too many fear that the Second Amendment will be thrown away and guns seized if the Left gains control.   Well, that may eventually happen, but first the Left must gain control of the mind.   The best way to do that is to control public dialogue.   AND, the best way to do that is to control speech, thought, and education.   

When Pol Pot seized control of Cambodia he set out to murder anyone and everyone who could even read or write.   Everyone with an education was killed in an effort to dumb down the public into a mindless blob of humanity.   He damned near succeeded before he was overthrown.   A logical person would contend that such an approach could not possibly work, that people simply would not cooperate.   Well, they DID.   The "authorities" went along with it like the good little robots they were.   Such is the way of government. 

In the French Revolution, ANYONE who dared to stand against the Socialist Revolution (and make no mistake, the French Revolution WAS a "Proletariat" Revolution) was killed.   Churches were burned or turned into Socialist housing.   Priests and nuns were slaughtered.   Religion, itself, was declared an "enemy of the State".   The educated were marched to the guillotine.   It got so bad that even house servants and chamber maids were killed.   They eventually even killed Robspierre, the father of the Revolution.   He found that he, too, was what Staling called a "useful idiot", eliminated when he had out-lived his usefulness.   It only stopped when they literally ran out of people to kill.      

In the Russian Revolution, shopkeepers, merchants, farmers, etc. were seen as Capitalists and were killed with the result that Russia damned near starved to death and working clocks/watches could not be found in Russia for DECADES.   Schools and universities were turned into propaganda arms for the Communists.   Religion was outlawed.   There was NO free speech or thought.   Anyone who questioned, even in the slightest, the Communist Manifesto was immediately killed or sent to a work camp where they died.  

They are doing it, again, this time using Constitutional values and law to undermine the Constitution and American Society.   The aforementioned author said that we can write all the op-eds we like, but it will make no difference.   The Left is on the march!   Unless and until We The People stand up and say, "STOP IT!" it will continue.

In WWII, the Jews protested, but meekly climbed into the cattle cars, with devastating results.   The ONLY time they fought back was in the Warsaw Ghetto and it took several German Divisions to overwhelm them.   IF Germans had stood up to the Nazis in the beginning, there would have been no Hitler or WWII in Europe.

Like those meek Jews, we, too, are "going along to get along"; all in the name of Political Correctness and free speech, the very freedom the Left is using to kill freedom of speech and thought.

Well, NOT ME!   I am in Kansas where we have open/concealed carry, no permit required.   I am armed all the time and am never confronted -- imagine that!   I have ordered a MAGA hat and will wear it proudly!   As I told one Lefty, "Yeah, come on down my drive, I'll give you a little touch-up!"   Or, as I told my other brother, "When there is nothing you will die for, you have nothing to live for".     

As I previously said, I am increasingly coming to believe that a second Civil War is coming.   It will either be all of them or all of us.

​In yesterday's Senate Confirmation Hearing for Judge Kavanaugh, a Democrat Senator (I forget whom) praised the demonstrators in the Gallery disrupting the Hearing by saying, "This is what democracy looks like".   WHAT A DIMBULB!   Unbeknownst to him, HE WAS RIGHT -- IT'S EXACTLY WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE!

"Democracy" (mob rule) would happily murder anyone and everyone who had the temerity to, however gently, disagree with them.   If their own parents, siblings, spouses, and children disagreed with them, on any subject, for any reason, under any circumstance, they would feel totally morally justified in murdering them -- "FOR THE GREATER GOOD", OF COURSE.

Oren

 FISA court held no hearings on spy warrants, they were approved after written submission, DOJ reveals
By Oren Long
​9/2/18

As I recall, when FISA courts were first proposed, civil libertarians strenuously warned of the potential danger of having what amounts to secret courts authorizing covert surveillance on American citizens.   But, everyone was up in arms after 9-11 and the legislation sailed through.

We forgot Benjamin Franklin's warning, "They that would trade a little bit of freedom for a little bit of security will soon find they have neither freedom nor security".

Now we are stuck with FISA courts and have no redress against them.   It's a lot like what we were told when the 16th Amendment (Income Tax) was first proposed, that the income tax would never amount to much more than a couple of percent.   Now we are stuck with the results of that lying and naivete.   

The above begs the questions, "How do we resolve this?   How do we get rid of FISA courts?   How can we drag the judiciary back within the constraints of the Constitution?"   The answer is both simple and complex.   A Convention of States could propose an amendment that would provide a "check" on the courts, something that does not currently exist.

I have written such an amendment in the event we achieve a COS.   It is NUMBER THREE of my proposed amendments and is in the attachment below.   Please refresh your familiarity and read them again.   For the sake of brevity, I will summarize my proposed checks on the courts; they are two-fold.

First, I propose that Congress have the ability to override court decisions by a two-thirds or three-fourths vote (I can make an argument for either).

Second, I propose that all judges and justices stand for re-confirmation or de-confirmation every six years.   I believe that if judges and justices knew they had to stand for re-confirmation or de-confirmation every six years, they would practice actual fealty to the Constitution and would be much less likely to stray off into the ideological swamp of the Left.   Courts would find it extremely difficult to read faux "rights" and powers into the Constitution that were never there in the first place (think Roe v. Wade).   

Unless and until we impose a check on the judiciary and drag them, kicking and screaming, back under their Constitutional constraints, as envisioned by the Founders, we will face never-ending crises with no end in sight.

Oren

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2018/09/01/fisa-court-held-no-hearings-on-spy-warrants-they-were-approved-after-written-submission-doj-reveals-670005?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=BPR%20Email&utm_campaign=DMS#

A Lesson In History
By Oren Long
Aug 30, 2018

A Lesson In History

Back in the '30s, and for the first time in history, "Mein Kampf" outsold the Bible.   There was even a HUGE Socialist/Communist Movement in America.   Huge communist rallies were held everywhere in America.

As a result of the Depression many, many Americans fell for the Democrat Socialist agenda.   It all sounded sooo wonderful, "equality for all, social justice, soak the rich" -- yadda, yadda, yadda!   

                  T H E N     C A M E     P E A R L     H A R B O R .     A N D    A M E R I C A     W O K E     U P     - -     F O R     A W H I L E     ! ! ! !

The pro-Commie/Socialist Movement immediately went "POOF"!   Whatever else they were, Americans were Americans -- FIRST -- and they rallied around America and American ideals and the Constitution.   

Years later came the anti-America Left who were against the war in Viet Nam, putting the country in turmoil.   Things eventually settled down, but nothing was resolved and the '60s-era Lefties are now in power in many offices throughout government.

                                                                 A M E R I C A    R E M A I N E D     A S L E E P    ! ! ! !

Still later came those Leftists who were against fighting Islamic terrorism ("Islam is wonderful and peaceful, etc.").

                                          T H E N     C A M  E     9 - 1 1 ,    A N D     A M E R I C A     W O K E     U P     - -     F O R     A W H I L E     ! ! ! !

Now it's all about the illegals, poverty, racism, homelessness, etc.   And, the [Left-wing] beat goes on.   They never give up and we have the new generation of American Socialists; Ocasio-Cortez, Gillum, and the Millennials!   

                                        T H E N     C A M E     T R U M P ,     A N D     A M E R I C A     W O K E     U P     - -     F O R    A W H I L E     ! ! ! !         

Yesterday's primaries openly pitted the Commies (Socialism is just Commie-Lite) against the Constitution and freedom.   The Commies won their primaries!   I truly believe that the Commies and the Elites in "Fortress Washington" will lose and lose big in November as Americans wake up and realize what is at stake.   for how long, I don't know.   Apparently, we need an almost endless series of crises to keep us from falling into a Socialist Stupor. 

                                                           W I L L     A M E R I C A     W A K E     U P     ? ? ? ?         W E ' L L     S E E     ! ! ! !

Yes, I, too, sometimes get depressed and am tempted to lose hope.   It's kind of like faith in God; there is so much Evil that I am sometimes tempted to lose hope and faith, but then, I get it back.   Why, I don't know, but my faith is always there in the recesses of my mind.   I have to remind myself of something Mahatma Ghandi said, " Whenever I get depressed I remind myself that Good always defeats Evil.   Think of it", he said, "In all of human history, Good always, ultimately, defeats Evil".   

Well, Evil only needs to win ONCE!   Good must win, EVERY TIME, else all is lost. 


Admiral Yamamoto, after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, said, "I fear that all we have done is awaken a sleeping giant and instill in him a terrible resolve."   Do we still have that resolve?

We are awake, at least for now.   We had better stay awake and awaken those around us, especially the young whom we may have to kick in the seat of the pants. 

The more things change the more they stay the same.

Oren  

 Rising tide of judicial tyranny threatens our republic – time for Congress to act

Source; https://www.bizpacreview.com/2018/08/03/rising-tide-of-judicial-tyranny-threatens-our-republic-time-for-congress-to-act-660593?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=BPR%20Email&utm_campaign=DMS#

Commentary by Oren Long on Article;
​Thank you for sending me this article.   I have much to say on the subject.

It is NOT "Judicial tyranny" that is the problem; it is much more basic.   As I wrote to my sister on another subject, one of the prime rules of good management is, "Separate problems from symptoms.   Treat the problem and the symptom will go away."   Judicial activism/tyranny is the symptom of the underlying problem, something I call "The tyranny of indifference and inaction".   I also wrote to her that there is an old saying, "All that is necessary for Evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".   I noted that I have always had a problem with that saying.   When "good" men do nothing in the face and presence of Evil, they then become party to it.   Evil (in this case, judicial tyranny) exists because it is allowed to exist by supposedly "good" men.     


A perfect example is the endless number of "State vs Trump" lawsuits filed in Federal District Courts in clear violation of Article III, Section Two, Paragraph Two.   I have been screaming about this clear Constitutional violation ever since Trump took office and issued his first Executive Order which was immediately challenged in Federal District Court.   To date, I have received ZERO response from anyone, including supposed constitutional conservatives who SWEAR they love the Constitution and want it read and enforced according to its literal text and Original Intent.   Amazingly, these "stalwart defenders" DO AND SAY NOTHING, making them those "good men" who, through their silence, become party to Evil.  


DOING something only requires that the Constitution actually be enforced.   So far I have seen no inclination by those in power to do that.  Our forebears fought and died, often against great odds, for government "...of, by, and for the People".   Sadly -- TRAGICALLY -- our current crop of "leaders" refuse to follow in their footsteps, instead opting for the status quo and going along to get along.   So sad!   


Mr. John R. Smith in his op-ed has successfully identified the "symptom", but has misidentified it as the "problem".   He suggests that our limp-wristed Congress and complicit Judiciary rein themselves in, something that will never happen.   Mr. Smith should know that but, like everyone else who either cannot or will not see the forest for the trees, relies on the status quo to somehow magically, mysteriously police themselves.   It comes full circle to the Latin, "Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodet" (who guards the guardians?).  


Just as I, through relentless persistence and at the risk of personal vilification, have finally gotten the attention of Kansas officials and the press regarding the Kansas State Budget quagmire and the only long-term solution, so, too, must we keep screaming the truth to the intentionally deaf.   We must drag them to it, kicking and screaming, arms and legs flailing, even as they throw themselves in the doorway, resisting at every turn.  


The above said, the only long-term and permanent solution lies in a Convention of States and appropriate amendments (in the attachment below) to rein in those "leaders" (including the Judiciary) who intentionally ignore and suborn the Constitution.   But, even that would require that it be enforced.   As has been said, "The price of Freedom is eternal vigilance". 


AGAIN, "All that is necessary for Evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing".   I will not be that "good" man who does nothing.   Will you?  


Oren

Final comment by Mr. Long;
​A final thought and comparison:

Those "stalwart defenders" of the Constitution of whom I spoke remind me of the faux, milk-toast, "Christian" politicians and pundits who, when pressed, walk back their supposed Christian values and beliefs, offering endless caveats to "explain" themselves and not piss anyone off.   When running for office or applying for a job they seek out the most milk-toast church so they can claim they are Christian without ever having to actually defend it or stand tall for God.

I guess they can explain it to God when they meet Him.   Sucks to be them, don't it?   :o   

Oren

Understanding Never-Trumpism
By Oren Long

​Gentlemen,

The more I think about the article at the end of this email,  the more I think I understand what is going on with 'Never-Trumpers'.

As I told &&&&&&& in a separate post, Bill Kristol said two things that explain the Never-Trumpers, "I still wish Hillary was President" and "How much simpler things would be".

These two quotes explain the psychology behind Never-Trumpism.   Even though Mr. Kristol admits that he likes everything Trump has done, he still prefers Hillary.   Why?   It doesn't make any logical sense, UNLESS you plug in the psychology.   As a cop I saw this all the time.   

Congress and the Washington Establishment are well aware that their ratings are in the tank.   They are well aware that everything Trump is doing desperately needed to be done.   They just couldn't make themselves do it and definitely don't like the way Trump is doing it.   Trump is operating outside the box and in ways they neither understand nor are used to.     

Never-Trumpers very much resemble a battered and abused woman.   She knows she has to leave or kick the abuser out, but she just can't seem to take that step.   Over and over, she makes excuses for the abuser and runs back into his arms, only to be abused again and again.   She wants the abuse to stop, but when faced with how to make it stop, she chooses abuse.   It's all she knows.   It is her "comfort zone".   She knows what to expect and has developed psychological coping mechanisms to deal with it.   Freedom, independence, and responsibility are just too dangerous.   They are the unknown and she cannot make herself go there.   Intellectually, she knows what she should do, but she cannot make that emotional decision.   

Democrats, the Left, and Hillary are the smooth talking abusers.   Never-Trumpers know it, but cleave unto their abusers for the same reasons the abused woman stays with her abuser.   They dislike Trump because he is the "unknown, the random element, the unpredictable".   He makes them uncomfortable.   Given a choice between freedom, lower taxes, less government, etc. they will choose slavery, high taxes, and more government because it is all they know.   It's their "comfort zone".   Trump challenges them to open their eyes and examine their beliefs -- and they hate him for it!  

THEY DON'T KNOW, THEY DON'T WANT TO KNOW, DON'T TELL THEM ! ! !    Trumpism is outside of their reality!   They can't grasp it!   They don't understand it!   Washington is ALL they know or want to know!   Washington is their "Reality"!

Unknowingly, Mr. Kristol, in the attached article, said as much.   He admits that he like everything Trump is doing, BUT it makes him uncomfortable, NOT because it is wrong, but because he doesn't like the way it's being done.   In short, Mr. Kristol is choosing form over substance.   He would be much more comfortable with Hillary because she fits neatly into his view of what a leader is and should be.   She is reliably predictable, even if her policies would destroy the country.   He could get up every morning knowing what to expect, and that makes him comfortable.   He could make excuses for her.   He knows she would have been a disaster, but she would be a "predictable" disaster and he could cope with that.  

But Trump demands responsibility, action, and tough choices; things Mr. Kristol and the Never-Trumpers hate.   Trump operates outside of "acceptable norms".   Mr. Kristol and the Never-Trumpers are happy to sit on the sidelines, complain, and do nothing.   They are old biddies complaining about their 'worthless husbands', but doing nothing to confront them or change their own lives.   It's just too difficult, so they live their lives in misery, but knowing what to expect each and every day.   It's just easier.   

Trump is a secular "Jesus", marching into the Temple (Washington), flipping over the tables of the money-changers (lobbyists and big donors), and confronting the Rabbis (Washington Elite).   They hate him for it.   It makes them uncomfortable and challenges "acceptable norms".
.   
Their entire mantra is the   S T A T U S    Q U O ,   for its own sake, and simply because it's all they know and are comfortable with.   "Business as usual" is perfectly O.K., even when it is a disaster!  

It Is Time to Pull the Plug on Never-Trumpism. http://google.com/newsstand/s/ CBIwlNzUpjc


Oren  

WHY WE NEED AN ARTICLE V CONVENTION OF STATES AND WHAT IT COULD ACCOMPLISH
​By Oren Long

WHY WE NEED AN ARTICLE V CONVENTION OF STATES AND WHAT IT COULD ACCOMPLISH
We all know something must be done to save the America we love.   But what?   We have basically three options:   1) Keep working within the current, corrupt system, 2)  Armed rebellion, or 3) An Article V Convention of States (COS).  
It has been over 200 years since the Constitution and Bill of Rights went into effect.   In that time  history has seen the Original Intent of the Constitution slowly whittled away and changed until we now live under an increasingly oppressive Federal Government, a government moving relentlessly towards Authoritarianism.
Happily, the Founders wisely gave us a remedy – a COS.   The Founders knew that times and circumstances would dictate that the Constitution be amended to accommodate them.   Therefore, they wrote Article V, allowing Congress to propose necessary changes.   But, Colonel George Mason, in Convention, noted that he could foresee a time when the Federal Government, itself, would become so onerous and corrupt that IT would be the enemy of the People and the States.   He therefore proposed that Article V be modified so that, if and when the Federal Government became the enemy, the States themselves could convene a Convention to propose amendments designed to bring the Federal Government back under control.   His impassioned plea resulted in the addition of a mechanism where the States could convene their own Convention and go around an intransigent Federal Government.  
There currently exists a Movement to gather the necessary 34 State Legislature Applications for a COS.   Twelve States have signed up so far.   We need another 22 States.   Government being what it is, it will take the PEOPLE DEMANDING it to make it happen.   This is where YOU come in.   ONLY when We The People FORCE our State Legislators to act will it happen!
But, this begs the questions, “What could we expect from a COS?  What would come out of Convention?   Could a Convention get out of control?   Could they throw the Constitution away?   Could they act on their own without any recourse by We The People or the States that convened them?   And a thousand other concerns?
To answer all the above questions would take far to much time and space for a single Discussion Topic.   Therefore, I want to start with what we could hopefully expect from a COS.
To that end, I am posting for your perusal, input, and discussion a series of proposed amendments that I have been working on for over NINE YEARS.   At the risk of sounding arrogant, I think they are very good.   I have repeatedly revised and refined them to their current form and format.   It is my hope that they will stimulate a vigorous debate and, hopefully, stimulate people to get on board with the COS Movement.  
Following each of my proposed amendments is an explanation of my thinking.   Yes, they are long and many will not read them (TLDR, I suppose), but there is simply too much at stake.   Those who will not even read them will almost certainly not bother to actively support the Movement.   That is their choice.
They are as follows: 
>
NUMBER ONE:
The Fourteenth, Sixteenth, and Seventeenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States are hereby repealed.   All Federal Laws, Agencies, Programs, Rules, Regulations, and/or Orders created, passed, or handed down as a direct or indirect result of the Fourteenth, Sixteenth, and/or Seventeenth Amendments are hereby stricken from Law, declared null and void, and without force of effect.


EXPLANATION:   Some say that past laws, rulings, etc. cannot be undone in one stroke under the “no ex post facto law” clause of the Constitution.   I beg to differ.   The “no ex post facto” clause deals with LAWS, not the Constitution.   The Constitution can do whatever three fourths of the States want it to do.
Others say that repealing all past laws, rulings, etc. would be too disruptive and possibly create chaos.   But, repealing the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments will do that, anyway.   We are talking about [legal] major surgery.   An Article V Convention of States may be the ONLY chance we get to save the country as envisioned and founded, so let’s just do it.   If we don’t do it while we can it WOULD take 20 to 50 years to undo the damage, and with no guarantee of success.


NUMBER TWO:
Section One: The Constitution of the United States is the Supreme Law of the Land, shall not be subservient to or subjugated to any Foreign Law, International Treaty, or International Agreement, and shall be read, interpreted, applied, and adhered to literally.   No words or phrases shall be changed or substituted and no part of the Constitution shall be used to expand or increase Federal Power or Authority beyond that EXPRESSLY granted and enumerated in the Constitution.   The language of the Constitution shall be interpreted according to the definition of words at the time of their inclusion in the Constitution.  
Section Two:   The words “and general Welfare” are hereby stricken from the Constitution of the United States.   All Laws, Rules, Regulations, Orders, and/or Court Rulings based upon or reliant upon “and general Welfare” are hereby stricken from Law, declared null and void, and without force of effect.
Section Three:    This Amendment shall be retro-active upon its ratification.   Any and all Laws, Rules, Regulations, Orders, Treaties, and Agreements that directly or indirectly suborn or subjugate the Constitution of the United States as the Supreme Law of the Land, as read and interpreted literally, are hereby stricken from Law, declared null and void, and without force of effect.


EXPLANATION:   The Founders considered adding “expressly” into the Constitution, but decided that it was unnecessary.   The Founders were men of honor and could not imagine anyone even wanting to suborn the Constitution to political or ideological precepts.   They were wrong.   They grossly underestimated the creativity and lust for power of corrupt lawyers, judges, and politicians. 
Words change over time.   “And general Welfare” has been intentionally redefined from its original meaning until it now means something entirely different.
“Section Three” is added for the express purpose of preventing the Executive, Legislative, and/or Judicial Branches from declaring that previous Laws, Treaties, etc. are “Established Law” that should not be violated.
>
NUMBER THREE:
Section One:   No person shall be nominated for or appointed to the Federal Bench who is not a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, who has not attained the age of thirty five years, who is not a member of the Bar in good standing, who has not been a member of the Bar in good standing for a minimum of ten years, who is not law-abiding and without criminal conviction, who is not confirmed by a two thirds vote of the Senate of the United States, and who has not demonstrated a clear and consistent adherence to Constitutional Principles as envisioned by the Founders.
Section Two:   The Power and Authority of the Federal Judiciary shall be strictly limited to only those powers EXPRESSLY enumerated in Article III of the Constitution of the United States.    No Federal Judicial Ruling shall insert Legislative, Executive, or Judicial Power, Authority or Interpretation, direct or indirect, into the Constitution of the United States that is not EXPRESSLY enumerated in the Constitution of the United States.
Section Three:   Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States and Judges of inferior Federal Courts shall stand for reconfirmation by the Senate of the United States every six years.   Justices of the Supreme Court and Judges of inferior Federal Courts, ensconced on the Bench before the ratification of this amendment, shall also stand for reconfirmation by the Senate of the United States every six years.
Section Four:   Congress shall have, by two thirds vote of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, the power to override individual rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States and/or inferior Federal Courts.   The President shall not have veto authority over Congressional overrides of Federal Court decisions.
EXPLANATION:   Article III is badly flawed.   The Founders spent much time and energy on Articles One and Two, but precious little time and energy on Article III.   In my view this was an error.   The Founders did not view the Federal Judiciary as a serious threat to Freedom or the Constitution.   History has proven them wrong.  
Neither did the Founders bother to lay out specific qualifications for the Federal Bench.   A careful reading of Article III reveals that there are NO qualifications for the Bench.   It is not even necessary for a Federal Judge to be a Citizen, let alone a Natural Born Citizen.   There is no requirement that a Federal Judge or Justice be a lawyer, let alone 'learned' or 'in good standing'.   The Village Idiot (think Joe Biden) could be nominated and would probably be confirmed.   A convicted felon could be nominated, confirmed, and serve as long as he/she committed no further offenses while on the Bench.   Technically, it is not even necessary for a person nominated to the Bench be a resident of the United States.
Nor are there ANY restrictions on Federal Judicial Power or Authority – NONE!   Article III lays out what the Judiciary CAN do, but does not say what it CANNOT do!   Any “limitations” on Judicial Authority are implied and assumed.   Lawyers and Judges often assume that if there is no SPECIFIC restriction on their power or rulings, said rulings must be Constitutional.   The courts have used this oversight to gradually increase their power to the current, overarching level.   This must stop!
Finally, there is NO "Check" on Federal Judicial Power.   The President can overrule Congress via Veto.   Congress can overrule the President via Veto Override.   Judges/Justices can overrule both Congress and the President.   But, NO ONE can overrule the Court!    The ONLY "Check" on the Court(s) at this time is Impeachment.   But, even if a Judge or Justice is impeached and removed from the Bench his/her decisions still stand.   We simply MUST implement some form of "Check" on the Court(s) and their rulings.    
Some have proposed term limits for the Judiciary.   This is a bad idea.   Term limits get rid of good Judges/Justices along with the bad.    My proposed amendment resolves ALL the issues surrounding the Judiciary.        
I firmly believe that the ratification of this proposed amendment would go a long way towards bringing the Judiciary back within its Constitutional Limits as envisioned by the Founders.
>
NUMBER FOUR:
Section One: No person shall be elected to Congress more than once unless serving in Congress at the time of the ratification of this amendment, in which case sitting Members of Congress shall be eligible for re-election to their respective seats one time.
Section Two: In the event the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed Senators shall be selected according to the rules laid out in Article One of the Constitution of the United States, including service in the Senate as long as their respective State Legislature deems it appropriate.  
Section Three:  Members of the House of Representatives shall be elected for a term of six years, with one third of House Members elected every two years.
Section Four:   Members of Congress shall be subject to Popular Recall by their constituents.   Within 90 calendar days of the ratification of this Amendment the Legislatures of the several States shall pass Legislation governing the recall of their respective Members of Congress.   In the event a State fails to pass Legislation governing the Recall of its Members of Congress within the required 90 calendar days, that State’s Members of Congress shall have been recalled and new elections held within 60 calendar days.
Section Five:   In the event the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed, Section Four shall not apply to Members of the Senate of the United States.
Section Six:   The President and Vice-President of the United States shall be subject to Popular Recall by their constituents.   Within 90 calendar days of the ratification of this Amendment the Congress shall pass Legislation governing the Recall of the President and Vice-President of the United States.   The President shall not have Veto Authority over Legislation governing the Recall of the President and Vice-President.   In the event the Congress fails to pass the required Legislation within the required 90 calendar days, the President and Vice-President shall have been Recalled and a new election held within 60 calendar days.   In the event the President and Vice-President are Recalled, the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall serve as the President Pro Tempore pending the results of the aforementioned election, whereupon the newly elected President and Vice-President shall be sworn in immediately upon the certification of election results.   
Section Seven:  Neither Congress, the President, nor any Federal Court shall make any law, rule, regulation, or order that does not apply equally to themselves and all Citizens of the United States.   Nor shall Congress, the President, nor any Federal Court cause or allow any law, rule, regulation, or order to be made by any agent or agency of the Federal Government that does not apply equally to themselves, all Federal employees,  and all Citizens of the United States.
Section Eight: Neither Congress, the President, nor the Vice-President shall receive any publicly funded retirement or benefit, beyond appropriate pay, not available to all Citizens of the United States.
Section Nine: Section Eight shall not apply to Members of Congress, Presidents, or Vice-Presidents, serving or retired, at the time of the ratification of this Amendment.
Section Ten:   No former Member of Congress, former President or Vice-President, or former Federal employee shall advocate for or against Legislation or Policy for a period of ten years after leaving public service or employment.


EXPLANATION:   The problem with the term limits concept is that we have never had REAL term limits, except for the President and Vice-President, even on the State level.   Several States have imposed term limits, but some States have repealed them.   This is because, as tried, they are not actual ‘term limits’, but are just shortened career paths with retirement and other special benefits.  
WHENEVER a politician is able to run for re-election, that politician is subject to the influence of lobbyists, big donors, and Party Leadership.   In fact, studies show that Members of Congress generally spend half their day seeking money and support for re-election instead of doing the Peoples’ business.   Then, after leaving office they move to a lobbying firm where they make millions of dollars a year.   I see a one-term limit and the repeal of the 17th Amendment as the ONLY way to return Congress to a Peoples’ and States’ Congress.   In short, what would be the point of lobbyists and big donors throwing money at someone who won’t be there next term?  
Some say that a one-term limit is a bad idea.   They say that seating an entirely new and inexperienced Congress each election eliminates experienced Members and puts new and inexperienced Members of Congress at the mercy of lobbyists and bureaucrats who could easily manipulate them.   My proposal to elect members of the House of Representatives for a term of six years,  with one-third of the House elected every two years, along with the repeal of the 17thAmendment accomplishes four goals simultaneously.   It returns the House to a Peoples’ House; eliminates or seriously reduces the influence of  lobbyists, big donors, and Party Leadership; provides for stability in the House; and returns the Senate to a States’ Senate as envisioned by the Founders.      
The Sections governing ‘recall’ would serve to keep elected officials true to their campaign promises and the Will of the People and States.   Further, repealing the 17th Amendment would automatically implement a form of recall on the Senate.   Under the rules laid out in Article I, a State can Recall and replace a Senator at will.   Shouldn’t the People have that same power over the House and the President?
>NUMBER FIVE:
Section One:   Congress shall make and the President shall sign a Balanced Federal Budget every year and before the beginning of the ensuing fiscal year.   In the event Congress and the President fail to make said Balanced Federal Budget before the beginning of the ensuing fiscal year, the last [Constitutionally] passed and signed Federal Budget shall go into effect and shall be the Federal Budget for the entirety of the ensuing fiscal year.
Section Two:   Expenditures in the Federal Budget shall be limited to only those expenditures expressly granted and enumerated in the Constitution of the United States.   No expenditures shall be authorized by Congress that are not enumerated in the Balanced Federal Budget as passed by Congress except as delineated in Section Three of this amendment.   Only taxes specifically allowed in the Constitution shall be levied. 
Section Three:   Balanced shall be defined as expenditures not to exceed revenues except in time of War as Formally Declared by Congress or National Emergencies as Formally Declared by a three fourths vote of both the House and Senate, in which case expenditures exceeding said Balanced Federal Budget shall be used exclusively for the prosecution of said Formally Declared War or the resolution of said Formally Declared Emergency and shall cease immediately upon the termination of hostilities or resolution of said Emergency.
Section Four:   Emergency shall be defined as situations or events not anticipated in the formulation of the Balanced Federal Budget.   These may include, but not be limited to, natural disasters, pandemics, social upheaval, or insurrections.   Emergencies shall be dealt with on a one-by-one basis with each Emergency budgeted for individually via a three fourths vote of both the House and Senate.     
Section Five:   Revenues shall be defined as monies received; not monies predicted, anticipated, or forecasted beyond the immediate fiscal year.  
Section Six:   Unfunded liabilities, obligations, and/or mandates shall be included in the calculation of the Balanced Federal Budget.
EXPLANATION:   I am aware that exigencies may arise where Congress may need to overspend the budget.   I have tried to allow for them.  
The key to balancing the Federal Budget is returning Congress to a true States’ and Peoples’ Congress via a one-term limit for the House and repealing the 17th Amendment.   Hence, my “NUMBERS ONE AND FOUR”.   Unless and until that is accomplished, any attempt to balance the budget is an exercise in futility.   As long as Congress is composed of life-time, career, self-serving politicians the budget will remain unbalanced and bloated.  
This amendment points out yet another major flaw in the Constitution, that the Founders failed to define their terms.   They used words and phrases that they considered to be so well understood and accepted that there was no way to misinterpret them.   Again, they underestimated the creativity of corrupt lawyers, judges, and politicians.   My proposed amendment clearly defines “balanced”, “revenues”, and “emergency”.
>
NUMBER SIX:  
Section One:   Congress shall make no Law, and the President shall take no Executive Action, after a National Election and before the swearing in of a new Congress and/or President except as allowed in Section Two of this Amendment.
Section Two:   The only exceptions to Section One of this Amendment shall be a Formal Declaration of War by Congress or a Formal Declaration of National Emergency by Congress requiring necessary Legislation and/or Executive Action.  
Section Three:   The President, Vice-President, and Congress shall be sworn into office no later than two weeks after the certification of election results. 


EXPLANATION:
Congress has a bad habit of passing unpopular Legislation, often against the overwhelming Will of the People, and during lame-duck sessions.   Presidents have a bad habit of granting Presidential Pardons and of issuing Executive Orders, before leaving office, and often at the last minute.   This Amendment would stop such nonsense.  
>
NUMBER SEVEN:
Section One: Only persons born of at least one United States Citizen-Parent shall be Citizens of the United States.   All others shall be non-citizens unless Naturalized under the terms and conditions of the Constitution of the United States.
Section Two: Only United States Citizens shall enjoy and/or receive all rights, benefits, privileges and protections of United States Citizenship.
Section Three:  Persons born of two United States Citizen-Parents, both of whom are Citizens of the United States at the time of the birth of the person, shall be Natural Born, regardless of the place or circumstance of the birth of the person in question.
Section Four: Non-citizens shall not receive, directly or indirectly, Federal or Constitutional rights, benefits, privileges, and/or protections except for:  Freedom from involuntary servitude; protection from physical abuse; protection of basic human rights defined as freedom from discrimination based on race, sex, religion, and/or cultural practices or beliefs; so long as they do not conflict with the Constitution of the United States.


EXPLANATION:    This is yet another example of the Founders’ failure to define their terms, in this case, leaving the definition of “Natural Born” up to the courts and much legal wrangling.
This proposed Amendment would instantly solve the ‘anchor baby’ issue AND stop almost all illegal immigrants who enter America for all the free benefits they can get.   Think about it,   almost all schools, for example, receive Federal money.   Non-citizens who enter the country illegally or who do not have a work permit would not be able to send their children to a school that received Federal money.   They would not be eligible for welfare, food stamps, Federally subsidized housing, etc.   They would not even be able to get a job with an employer who receives Federal money or has a Federal contract.  
In the past when immigrants arrived they were expected to support themselves and assimilate.   This proposed Amendment would re-institute that concept. Further, this proposed Amendment would make it easy and quick to deport illegals and other non-citizens.   There would be no court hearings, lawyers, or other legal ‘niceties’.   They could just be rounded up and sent home, literally overnight.   That said, I have ZERO problem with guaranteeing basic human rights for non-citizens.  Any definition or delineation of ‘rights’ for non-citizens must be up to Congress and not the courts.   I will leave such verbiage to better minds than mine
>
NUMBER EIGHT:     
Section One: The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States shall be interpreted to mean the FUNDAMENTAL right of individual citizens and/or groups of citizens to keep and bear arms of their choice; in their homes and/or other properties; in public and private; and on their persons; regardless of Federal, State or Local Laws to the contrary.
Section Two:   The phrase, “…shall not be infringed” shall not be interpreted to allow Federal, State, or Local Governments or Authorities to control, regulate, or legislate the purchase, possession, use, ownership, transfer, or sale of firearms of choice by Citizens, individually or collectively.   Nor shall firearm-related ammunition, supplies, parts, or accouterments be infringed by any Federal, State, or Local law, Rule, Regulation or Order.
Section Three: Non-citizens and persons convicted of a violent felony by a jury of their peers do not have this right.


EXPLANATION:   While I agree conceptually that States have the right to run their State as they see fit, I also believe that certain INALIENABLE rights must be protected from government intrusion.   The Bill of Rights enumerates those rights.   If a State or city can neuter the Second Amendment, what other rights or Amendments can a State or city not also neuter?
>
NUMBER NINE:
Section One:   The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States shall not be interpreted to prohibit or restrict the peaceful, free exercise or expression of religion, in public or private, or in or on public or private property.  
Section Two:   Neither Section One of this amendment nor the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States shall apply to religions, religious doctrines, and/or religious beliefs that advocate, advance, or practice the overthrow or subjugation of the Constitution of the United States, the United States itself, persons or groups of persons, and/or violence in the name of a religion, religious doctrine, or religious belief.     


EXPLANATION:   We all know what the Founders meant by “shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion”.   That said, this Amendment would stop religions or religious 
practices (think Sharia Law) that advocate supplanting the Constitution.   It would allow Congress to pass legislation that clearly reinforces the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, not to be subordinated to any religious belief or practice.


I hope this updated and refined version of my proposed amendments meets with your approval.  "My proposed amendments are NOT designed to 'change' the Constitution.   Rather, they are designed to RESTORE, ARMOR, AND REINFORCE the Original Intent of the Constitution as envisioned by the Founders.   Knowing that you will understand."


Oren Long

​

 Approaching Critical Mass

​Gentlemen,

Even the most cursory observation of current events can lead the observer to an overwhelming conclusion, to wit, that America is approaching (faster than many want to admit) a condition very similar to France just prior to the French Revolution.

It is GLARINGLY OBVIOUS that we are in the position of "The People vs the Government".   The People are increasingly finding themselves fighting against the Government, Bureaucracy (Deep State), Media, and the Political Parties.   It is literally "Us vs Them".   This is a fight to the death!   Freedom will either survive or it will not!   

In the end, the People will have to choose, Freedom or Slavery.

I never thought I would say this, but I am increasingly glad I'm old.   I have had the rare and distinct honor and privilege of living my entire life as a Free American, something only a handful of people on the planet can say.

If America chooses slavery to the Socialist State, I am glad I won't be around to see or experience it.   We are dangerously close to that precipice.   

Not only are the vast, vast, vast majority of Americans blind to the danger, they are indifferent to it.   

Today's issue of the Mangus Colorado Daily has stories that perfectly exemplify my point.   Government is at a boiling point and rapidly approaching a Critical Mass right before the ultimate explosion.

Meanwhile, everyone is obsessed with sex, sex, sex, oblivious to important issues.

Oren