Posted by Tina
Looks like Mark Levin’s book, “The Liberty Amendments,” has been taken very seriously by those who would like to see changes made in Washington but find the two Congressional bodies sluggish and unresponsive. The process known as a Constitutional Convention is laid out in Article V of the Constitution. All fifty state will be sending delegates to Indianapolis in June where they will create the structure and rules that will allow delegates to determine their goals and debate ideas as an official constitutional body. The American Thinker has details from the organizers:
Senate President David Long, R-Fort Wayne, is among the organizers of the June 12-13 meeting of The Mount Vernon Assembly that will convene in the Indiana Statehouse.
He said delegates won’t be proposing amendments to the U.S. Constitution this time. Instead, the goal is “to put a structure and a foundation in place for a Convention of the States, so that we can have consensus on how this thing is going to be run.”
Apparently the left has been reading Levin as well and will be “organizing” from Vermont. A group dubbed “WolfPac” is determined to overturn the Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” decision. The problem with the decision for progressives is that companies are free to participate in our political process which a bunch of wealth lefty corporate big shots have been doing by stealth for decades. These donors essentially launder big piles of money through a super secret club. The club membership requirement is hefty annual dues and a sizable monthly “donations”. Always seeking ways around the Constitution this bunch are the real robber barons and are determined to undermine our freedoms and Constitution as well. Who is the left trying to fool with the anti-Koch brothers anger?
Certainly not you, right?
The very legitimate, above board and constitutional Convention of States will be looking at issues like a balanced budget amendment and term limits, two issues that many concerned Americans hope might reign in the out of control spending, waste, redistribution and crony capitalism in Washington DC. Hop on board this train it’s about to leave the station!
Citizens United allows too much money and therefore too much influence in politics from outside sources. One multi billionaire can out spend any union and I don’t want our leaders owned by billionaires or unions. Seems to me that the best solution would be to allow every citizen (and only single citizens) to donate up to, say, $200 to any one candidate and not a penny more. Take the power away from unions, corporations, and billionaires and give it back to the people. What it wrong with this?
This is great, but keep in mind the progressives will be working very hard to get their amendments on the agenda too.
Hopefully, along with the many states dealing with counties wanting to separate/divide from the progressives in control of their whole state, like the Jefferson state movement, will wake up to the fact that the majority is tired of being governed by the minority.
Joe it’s a nice idea but the supreme Court has ruled that money is speech. we would have to amend the Constitution to achieve such a goal. How do you word it without opening a slippery slope to eliminating certain forms of speech…pledge of allegiance, a prayer, campaign slogans that “offend”.
Joe’s idea may sound nice but it ignores that unions, corporations, (and even billionaires) are collections of human beings who have every right to participate in the political process. What is “too much money” and “too much influence”? By what yardstick are both those metrics measured? A percentage of the trillions of national debt? A percentage of the GDP?
As for the seeds of a Constitutional Convention, to me this is wonderful news. We live in exciting times.
Amen Peggy!
Pie thanks for bringing the human touch to what radicals on the left like to keep distant, cold, “other”.
Prior to this ruling, similarly associated groups of people had big money clout that gave them an unfair advantage. The University of California was the number one donor to Barack Obama in 2008 beating out Goldman Sachs by over $700,000! Harvard was number three slightly beating out Microsoft!
The problem that needs to be addressed is crony capitalism and quid pro quo. If it can be shown that the president/congress puts laws in place as a direct result of donations there should be consequences. Unfortunately it isn’t that easy to prove.
Obama took over the student loan program after accepting that big donation from the University of California. He’s also doing a lot in the environmental area. These are issues that benefit or are favored by the UC system. Is it quid pro quo?
The money that big donors contribute doesn’t overshadow the small donor any more often that it adds to the clout of the small donor. Since the decision at least the playing field is now wide open.
Hey Tina, did you see this?
The list of “contributors” aka: donors is impressive with big time union leaders and teacher unions. I wonder if union members know where their dues are going?
Also, for Calif. GOP/CRP/CRA members note Charles Munger’s name appears connected to Warren Buffet’s. I for one saw that connection years ago at the CRA meeting in Sacramento and his support and funding of the ACLU lawyer Harmeet Dhillonfor for CRP vice pres. at last years convention.
This Is What Happens When You Leave Behind an Important Document From a Secretive Meeting of Progressive Donors:
“Democracy Alliance, a secretive organization that directs millions of dollars to progressive causes, tries its best to keep its members list and activities a secret.
But a document left behind after the group’s recent gathering at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Chicago may have undone years of discreet activity.
The confidential document, which was first retrieved and published by the Washington Free Beacon, contains a list of the group’s newest “partners” — members who must pay approximately $30,000 in annual dues.
Members must also donate at least $200,000 to approved progressive groups.
Democracy Alliance, which was founded in 2005 by Democratic strategist Rob Stein, does not publicly disclose details regarding its support for progressive organizations and its members are instructed to never speak about the group or its activities.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/05/06/this-is-what-happens-when-you-leave-behind-an-important-document-from-a-secretive-meeting-of-progressive-donors/
Munger Proxy/Attorney & CRP Vice Chair Harmeet Dhillon Sues the Munger Games–Over Old Photo:
Charles Munger Jr. is suing The Munger Games.
Not Munger specifically, but his attorney: Harmeet Dhillon, the vice chairperson of the California Republican Party and Charles Munger Jr.’s attorney.
http://capoliticalnews.com/2013/07/30/munger-proxyattorney-crp-vice-chair-harmeet-dhillon-sues-the-munger-games-over-old-photo/
Joe’s idea may sound nice but it ignores that unions, corporations, (and even billionaires) are collections of human beings who have every right to participate in the political process. What is “too much money” and “too much influence”? And by what yardstick are both those metrics measured?….Yes, human beings should have every right to to participate in the political process, but as individuals and not as collectives because the collective with the most money obtains the most favor therefore the money should have a cap to level the playing field. How do you stop a plutocracy when the wealthy are allowed to outspend the average individual?
Joe your arguments suggest that you believe all the collective money always goes against the candidate that the little guy wants. A lot of small donors contributed to Obama in 08. Their contributions were enhanced by that fat UC contribution; they were extactic. Those of us on the other team weren’t pleased but there is always a loser in every contest.
We were given a republic, a representative system with checks and balances and our president is termed out at eight years and can be voted out after four. The Constitution is the check on plutocracy unless the people become so apathetic we allow it to be fundamentally transformed into oblivion.
George Soros pumped a big stash of cash into the Democrat coffers through a multitude of organizations to beat GWB in 2004. His money bought him a loss.
I really am trying to wrap my head around your thinking but I’m having trouble. Any other thoughts?
Tina, I’m talking about basic politics 101 and I know you understand politics better than I do, so maybe I’m not saying it right. What candidate in what election got the most money has nothing to do with it. George Soros can go to hell with the Koch brothers as far as I’m concerned because they are both trying to buy power through the people they donate to. Yes a lot of people made small contributions to Obama and that was enhanced by UC, but it shouldn’t have been. Our checks and balances, the constitution, none of it works when you inject lots of money into campaigns. Yes, big money can go to the same candidate the little guy wants, but when an issue comes up that pits that little guy against the same large contributor who contributed to the same candidate, the little guy is going to loose. Example….Monsanto and other biotec industries contributed heavily to Obama, an industry that most democrats would like to see better regulated. A short while back Obama signed H.R. 933, a continuing resolution spending bill approved in Congress days earlier. Buried 78 pages within the bill exists a provision that grossly protects biotech corporations such as the Missouri-based Monsanto Company from litigation. Most liberals are not too happy about this bill. Government is supposed to work for everybody. Problem is, money talks.
Re #8 Joe Shaw : “Yes, human beings should have every right to to participate in the political process, but as individuals and not as collective …”
There is nothing in the constitution that limits the right to participate in the political process as a collective. If there were, there would be no PACS, no NAACP, political parties! How this notion that if collective groups were banned from participation in the political process somehow improves our democratic republic completely escapes me.
As for the “plutocracy” Shaw fears, it seems to me more of a pejorative than a reality. Something that the questionable Noam Chomsky would foam at the mouth about. Is California run by a “plutocracy”? Hardly.
Joe the hidden provision may have been in the bill but it is likely not going to stand…protection from litigation? Really? The lawyers are already working on the challenge.
We can’t even get judges to challenge frivolous lawsuits.
Also if the little guy feels that threatened by big whatever he usually forms a group/s to counter or starts a movement to protest. They can be powerful…it’s why Democrats don’t like the Tea Party.
Ours is a slow deliberate process and it can be frustrating at times. We are blessed, however, to have the best system to ever be devised as far as I’m concerned.
“Our checks and balances, the constitution, none of it works when you inject lots of money into campaigns.”
What does the money buy, Joe? It buys advertising, bumper stickers, hotel fees, gasoline and jet fuel, telephone bills, office space, paper products, coffee and cups to put it in, sound equipment and the guy to run it. Money is simply a means to an end in the campaign game. The more you have the easier it is to get out the message and influence the voters. In the end if you don’t have the right message and messenger all the money in the world won’t matter.
Every American has the right to participate. the people who own and work for Monsanto have the right to try to protect its survival, it’s patents and its business in general. Companies still have to abide by our laws. There are rules and limits, see here and here (scroll down for chart that shows limits)
Big company/money influence in Congress is a separate matter. It can come from competing interests and this is where ideology gets mixed up with lawmaking. I want clean air and water but it is stupid from my perspective to treat companies as an enemy in the challenge when it is they who must find a way to make the changes that would make a difference. Extreme radicals are exerting too much influence at the moment and its hurting everyone in America and for very little, if any, gain. Our leaders should have the integrity to resist pressure and do what they believe is right. We should vote them out when they behave badly. Neither happens often enough!
A simplified tax code would help. A smaller federal government would help and that would shift the problems to the states where the people are closer to the action.
Ronald Reagan used to say that given the information the people will always make the best choice…he said he trusted the people over officials to decide things. I tend to agree with that which is why I think smaller government (with simple laws) is best.
Perhaps there is nothing in the constitution to limit lobbying and campaign donations, but there should be. When the constitution was written I don’t think the framers foresaw multi billion dollar corporations or imagined that 90% of the countries wealth would ever be owned by the 10% 0f the people, the wealthiest anymore than they envisioned the internet or flying to the moon. No, California is not a plutocracy, but I fear that Washington, the national government, is on a fast track to being one if not already.
I have to wonder who this “little guy” is Joe Shaw keeps going on about. I am, I suppose, a little guy and Monstanto and other biotech companies are, in fact, regulated. What is this “better regulation”? What does “grossly protects biotech corporations” mean?
Sounds like a bunch of Luddite nonsense to me.
Tina used “little guy” in #9 and I carried on with the term. To me “little guy” is the other 99%, the rest of us who who cannot afford to buy political influence. Google Monsanto when you have time and read about what they are up to and why they need to be closely regulated. If you do this, and if you dare to read some articles other than those that support the conservative point of view, you’ll probaly end up eating all organic.
Re #13 Joe Shaw :
1) “Perhaps there is nothing in the constitution to limit lobbying and campaign donations, but there should be.”
Then you have the opportunity under the constitution to change the constitution under a lawful process known as a Constitutional Convention. (As opposed to rule by fiat by the POTUS.)
2) “I don’t think the framers foresaw multi billion dollar corporations or imagined that 90% of the countries wealth would ever be owned by the 10% 0f the people, the wealthiest anymore than they envisioned the internet or flying to the moon.”
How would you know what the framers envisioned or imagined? What do you have against the accumulation of wealth? Fair enough, the disparity in wealth you see is a fact. Nevertheless the US has a long history of creating new wealth (new million and billionaires) and raising the status of its “little guy” citizens far above what is considered poverty in the rest of the world. If this were not so, Mexicans (and others) would not be flocking to this country illegally.
So what do you propose, a divestment, confiscation, and redistribution of wealth? Seriously. This is not a rhetorical question, Joe.
Joe: “90% of the countries wealth would ever be owned by the 10% 0f the people”
Joe this is an inaccuracy of epic proportions.
There is no finite amount of wealth for anyone to “own” a percentage of, number one. And number two, we have freedom and property rights. You are free to create wealth, to grow wealth…something people living under tyrants and kings cannot do. And number three whatever wealth any of us have ISN’T “the countries wealth”. We don’t live in a commune or under a king.
This makes me crazy because the left has people believing that because there are rich people the rest of us have no chance to become richer. They also have people beleiving that rich people hoard their money and use it to harm others or hold them back. It simply is not true…none of it! and its despicable that they engage in these lies to promote class envy!
Think about something else Joe. Wwhat would make a company choose to create harmful products that would potentially hurt their own family members and friends?
The scare mongering is out of control.
Re #17 Tina : You said it better than I ever could.
Re #17 Tina : With one reservation …
What would make a company choose to create harmful products that would potentially hurt their own family members and friends?
Sadly, there is a long history of companies hurting people who are not family members or friends. Which is precisely the need for regulation. Take radium painted watches for one of many examples. Do I think this applies to GMO? Nope. But, hey, I could be wrong and Joe right.
At Pie #19
Is there evidence that radium painters were poisoned purposely by the companies or that after the danger was discovered the practice continued?
The left spends a lot of time demonizing by insinuation, creating sinister images of companies plotting to do great harm.
This is insidious propaganda at its worst. Just as industry has on occasion erred causing unintended damage/death the left too has caused unnecessary damage and death as they did with the scare mongering over the harmful effects of DDT. The deaths that have resulted from banning the substance are in the multi-millions. The green additive to California gasoline poisoned Lake Tahoe.
People make mistakes and the effects of substances are not always fully anticipated even with careful research and testing. Life is hard, water is wet, and mother is mother. There is no such thing as a risk free environment.
People who are claiming genetically altered vegetables are dangerous have little legitimate science to back their claims but the scare mongering is substantial. It may be an indication that the so-called natural food movement wants to eliminate the competition. Winning by scare mongering, rather than tastier more nutritious and inexpensive vegetables, just turns me off completely. If “natural” is better it will sell. If it’s bologna it won’t.
99.9% of the time companies endeavor to bring quality, safe, usable products to market. Their efforts have resulted in healthier more conditions for people generally. It’s one of the the greatest stories never told, to borrow a phrase.
Reasonable regulation and stringent testing is necessary and smart. Political and movement regulation and banning by scare tactics is doo doo.
Dewey the American Thinkers source for the item including WolfPac was the local Vermont paper.
Harry Reid has not allowed debate, discussion, votes in the Senate. Democrats and their big fat cat supporters have had control for most of the last seven decades. Your complaints are ridiculous.
Buy USA is not banned. It is too bad that progressive policies and extreme union demands have shove so many businesses out of the USA.
the only power companies hav eto make law is the power crooked politicians give them by making deals. The bigger problem is the controlling, tax and spend, redistribution, big government, progressive policies of the radical socialist left.
Your long winded, multi-subject posts require a blog of your own…please get one.
Please stop cluttering ours with your wild erratic rants.
Pie: “There is nothing in the constitution that limits the right to participate in the political process as a collective. If there were, there would be no PACS, no NAACP, political parties! How this notion that if collective groups were banned from participation in the political process somehow improves our democratic republic completely escapes me.”
I blame these wooly-headed Marxists:
In 1816, Thomas Jefferson, principal author of the Declaration of Independence, said he hoped to “crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”
In 1827, James Madison, known as the father of the Constitution, wrote that “incorporated companies with proper limitations and guards may, in particular cases, be useful; but they are at best a necessary evil only.”
Clements explains how President Andrew Jackson became concerned about the political clout of a corporation called Second Bank of the United States. In his 1833 message to Congress, Jackson asked whether the American people are to govern through their elected representatives or “whether the money and power of a great corporation are to be secretly exerted to influence their judgment and control their decisions.”
http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/local/article/Angela-Carella-Founding-fathers-worried-about-3628729.php
Damn hippies.
The incoherent El Stupido strikes again!
Re #21 Tina : “Is there evidence that radium painters were poisoned purposely by the companies or that after the danger was discovered the practice continued?”
With regard to the U.S. Radium Corporation YOU BET!
The owners and the scientists of U.S. Radium Corporation were familiar with the effects of radium and carefully avoided any exposure to it themselves; chemists at the plant used lead screens, masks and tongs.
Not so for their workers repeatedly dipping brushes into radium paint and using their tongues to form a fine point.
This administration is out of control.
Ted Cruz Releases Definitive List of 76 ‘Lawless’ Obama Actions:
“Republican Sen. Ted Cruz released a definitive list Wednesday of 76 “lawless” Obama administration actions and abuses of power.
1. “Obama implemented portions of the DREAM Act by executive action”
2. “Ended some terror asylum restrictions”
3. “Recognized same sex marriage in Utah despite a Supreme Court stay on a court order allowing the institution”
4. “Illegally revealed the existence of sealed indictments in the Benghazi investigation”
5. “Illegally delayed Obamacare verification of eligibility for healthcare subsidies”
6. “Ordered Boeing to fire 1,000 employees in South Carolina and shut down a new factory because it was non-union”
7. “Terminated the pensions of 20,000 non-union Delphi employees in the GM bankruptcy.”
8. “Government agencies are engaging in ‘Operation Choke Point,’ where the government asks banks to ‘choke off’ access to financial services for customers engaging in conduct the Administration does not like—such as ‘ammunition sales.’”
See the full report:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/222704929/Ted-Cruz-Legal-Limit-Report-4
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/07/ted-cruz-releases-definitive-list-of-76-lawless-obama-actions/#ixzz318SnEFlE
Re: Pie at 27 How stupid not to similarly protect thes workers!
It’s an alarming twist of fate that the oriental practice of tipping the paint brush with the mouth for many of these workers played a part in their later troubles.
According to one person, here, not all of the women were affected:
Life is risky. We can take steps to try to make things as safe as possible but we can’t always anticipate every danger or potential outcomes.
The company compensated many of them as they should have, but as with all such things money won’t bring the lost health back.