What did I tell you? ..

Our Republic is being attacked by the New Left.  These people are mostly the millennials, the ones with the burn for Bernie; the Social Democrats.  They have been taught by their teachers of the supposed evils of capitalism and imbued with notions of rampant racism, misogyny, environmental destruction, political correctness, existential climate change and enumerable other maladies brought about by “right wing radicals” and their dupes like the “red necks” and libertarians who believe in the sanctity of the US Constitution and who in their supposed uneducated bliss live in the unenlightened “red state,” the “fly over country.”  These useful idiots, as Lenin would have called them, have no feeling for work, because most of them have never done any or if they have, they are seething with discontent at their wages.  They have no feeling for the value of money, because, for the most part, if they needed some, their parents eagerly provided it.

This is a new political generation that was born after 1992, 26 years ago, the year that the great socialist utopia, the Communist Union of Soviet Socialistic Republics, finally bit the dust and joined the other great socialistic experiment of the 20th Century that had failed in May of 1945, the National Socialistic Workers Party of Germany a utopian system known commonly as the Nazi Party, a socialist paradise called Fascism.  These millennials know nothing about the horrors of socialistic statism.  That had all disappeared before they were born.  They have never contemplated what it would be like to be subject to the will of a dictator like Hitler or Mussolini or a central directorate run by a monster criminal like Josef Stalin or Mao Tse Tsung or Pol Pot.

Socialism’s appeal to young people is the visionary  view of an utopia where everybody is equal, peace prevails for all, no one hurts anyone, everybody’s needs are met, the sick are to be cared for for free, no one has personal advantage over anyone else, everyone has the same education … basically “to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities.”  Of course, someone has to be in control to see that these ideals are faithfully carried out.  Typically, the overseeing is to be done by a democratic committee, so that the views of one or two or more individuals, who could possibly be wrong, do not become ascendant. The needs of the few (or the individual) must be sacrificed to the needs of the many.

Just a little reflection on this scenario will lead to the conclusion of its unworkability.  The world is not made up of classes, but of individuals.  An individual’s primary concern is for himself/herself.  One is not equal in size, strength, ability, intelligence, determination, empathy, lethargy, morality, ethics or any other characteristic to anyone else.  If personal endeavor is not rewarded, why endeavor?  Obviously, in a society such as this, one’s needs grow exponentially and their abilities are never tapped for there is no reward.  Twentieth Century socialists lived in a gray, bland world like automatons.  They did what they were told or they became enemies of the State.  These societies were forced upon and maintained upon the populace by the sword and in every pseudo-successful state run by maniacal tyrant.  Of course, that was in other countries … but we here in the USA are smarter and more enlightened than those other foreign people … we can make it work, can’t we?

And how did those socialistic societies emerge?  In every case, by violent bloody revolution.  The advocates of these violent revolutions, in particularly the Communists like the intellectual Marx or Lenin wrote voluminously and spoke widely about how to foment revolution.  Here in the US in modern times, the guru of this “Hope and Change” to people like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Bernie Sanders was a community organizer named Sol Alinski.  Their tactics are those which we have discussed in this blog … Fabianism in politics and government, civil turmoil like the accusation of misogyny by men, existential climate change, radical Constitutionalists, race hating whites, abuse of women,  Obama care and on and on.  Probably the most succinct indictment that I can give you is what they teach their acolytes about how to do our constitutional Republic in.

Below are Sal Alinski’s Rules for Radicals:

Power is not only what you have but what you make your opponent think you have;

Stay within the confines of your expertise;

Take the opportunities presented to go outside the expertise of your opponents;

Make your opponents live up to their own rules;

Ridiculing your opponent can be a most potent weapon;

Make the tactics used by your own people enjoyable to them;

Do not employ a tactic so long as to drag it on;

Always keep pressure on your opponent;

The threat is usually more terrifying than the actual thing;

Develop tactics to keep pressure on the opponent;

Push a negative long enough to turn it into a positive;

Always have an alternative solution, lest the opponent accuse you of having no solution;

Pick the target, preferably a person, then freeze it, personalize it, and polarize/isolate it from sympathy

Then peruse the 10 tenets of Communism below and muse as to whether our government has adopted any of them to the determent of our freedom and Constitution and if they are incorporated, who did it:

Abolition of Private Property

Progressive tax

Abolition of Rights of Inheritance

Confiscation of the property of all emigrants & rebels

Central Bank

Government Ownership of Communication and Transportation

Government Ownership of Factories and Agriculture

Government Control of Labor

Corporate Farms and Regional Planning

Government Control of Education

I maintain that we are now engaged in a war for the survival of our Constitution and Republic … there has been as yet little shooting and very little blood has been spilled, but that could all change in the blink of an eye.  The Lord Christ said as he died on the Cross, “forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do.”  Do you suppose the millennials know what they are doing?

Posted in Lee's Musings | Leave a comment

Rope-a-Dope Republicans

The term “rope-a-dope” is generally attributed to a boxing strategy employed by former heavyweight champion Muhammed Ali in his eight-round victory over George Foreman in their October 30, 1974 title fight in Zaire.

Following the advice if his long-time trainer, Angelo Dundee, Ali spent most of the first seven rounds of the fight with his back against the ropes, covering his face and upper body with his arms and hands.  In doing so, he took round after round of brutal punishment at the hands of his opponent.  However, by the time the bell rang to begin the eighth round of the fight, Foreman was so fatigued by his unrelenting attack that Ali was able to score an eighth-round knockout.

But “rope-a-dope” as a competitive strategy is not exclusive to the boxing arena.  Anyone who has been a keen observer of the American political scene for more than fifteen minutes will understand that Republicans have spent many decades turning the “rope-a-dope” concept into a political artform.

For example, history tells us that, beginning in 1866, following the close of the Civil War, Democrats created a paramilitary auxiliary called the Ku Klux Klan.  The sole purpose of the Klan was to intimidate black people into continuing their subservient support of their former slavemasters and to insure that they regularly and unfailingly voted the Democrat ticket.  Blacks who demonstrated a bit too much independence of thought and action were dealt with in a most brutal fashion.  It is not known how many people were murdered by the Klan in the 17 years between 1865 and 1882 because no official records of the reign of terror were kept.  However, according to statistics maintained by the Tuskegee Institute, between 1882 and 1951, KKK Democrats murdered some 4,730 people… substantially more people than were murdered by al Qaeda on 9/11.  Of these, 3,437 were blacks and 1,293 were whites… mostly white Republicans.

While Klan membership has been almost exclusively Democratic throughout its history… at times numbering well over one million members… Democrats have been able to identify at least one Republican Klan member… David Duke, of Louisiana.  And when the Klan is mentioned in a political context, Democrats are trained to immediately mention Duke’s name as a prime example of Republican racism, causing Republicans to immediately go into “rope-a-dope” mode.

It has been estimated that, if Republicans could consistently win at least 17% of the black vote across the nation, it would be all but impossible for Democrats to ever win a national election. Nevertheless, “rope-a-dope” Republicans have totally ignored the cruelty and the humiliation of Democratic racial atrocities as a campaign issue for fear of retaliation by Democrats.  Instead, they prefer to lean against the political ropes and allow Democrats to pummel them mercilessly with charges of racism and social injustice.

Republican cowardice was never more evident than during the Clinton impeachment trial in January and February 1999.  The Senate trial began early in the 106th Congress, in which Republicans held 55 Senate seats and the Democrats held 45.  Sixty-seven votes were required for conviction, which meant that 12 of the 45 Democrats would have to vote with the 55 Republicans to return a guilty verdict.  Yet, every one of the 45 Democrat senators strolled to the well of the Senate, raised their right hands, placed their left hands on the Holy Bible, and swore to do “impartial justice” under the Constitution and laws of the United States, knowing in their hearts that, no matter what evidence was presented against a president of their party, they would not vote to remove him from office.

When House managers methodically presented evidence proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that the President of the United States… the man most responsible for upholding and enforcing the laws of the land… had lied under oath in a court of law and had engaged in obstruction of justice, 50 senators voted to convict on the obstruction of justice charge and 45 voted to convict on the perjury charge.  All of those voting to convict were Republicans; there was not a single man or woman of honor among the 45 Democratic senators.

If the Framers were convinced that the United States Senate would always be comprised of honorable men and women when they drafted Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, they clearly did not foresee what would become the Democratic Party.  It was a shameless disregard for the rule of law, yet “rope-a-dope” Republicans have regularly ignored what could be a powerful weapon in the ever-expanding war between the parties.

In more recent times, since Donald Trump became our president, Democratic duplicity has provided numerous opportunities for Republican political advantage… all of them ignored by “rope-a-dope” Republicans as if they were sexually transmitted diseases.

For example, when questions arise regarding the motivations behind the so-called “Russian collusion,” Democrats invariably assume that, if the Russians did interfere in our 2016 General Election, to the detriment of Hillary Rodham Clinton, they did so in a conscious effort to help elect Donald Trump.  Not once have Republicans pointed out that, if Clinton was defeated because of Russian subversion, it does not necessarily follow that it was done to help the Trump campaign.  It could just as easily be the case that the Russians were as frightened at the prospect of a Clinton presidency as were millions of American Republicans.  Donald Trump was merely the unwitting beneficiary of their dislike and distrust of Hillary Clinton.

Since the 2016 campaign, Democrats have made much of the June 9, 2016 meeting at the Trump Tower, in New York, in which a Russian attorney, Natalia Veselnitskaya, arranged to meet with Donald Trump, Jr. by promising to deliver information damaging to Hillary Clinton.  From the Trump standpoint, the meeting was merely an opportunity to add to their store of opposition research, an activity that all political campaigns engage in on a daily basis.

As the meeting got under way, it soon became evident to Trump campaign officials that Ms. Veselnitskaya had no information on Hillary Clinton that would be useful to them.  What they did not know at the time was that the meeting was intended only to be a setup, helping the Clinton campaign create the appearance that the Trump organization was involved in collusion with Russian nationals.  When it was subsequently learned that Ms. Veselnitskaya had met with principals at the George Soros-funded Fusion GPS consulting firm in Washington, DC, both before and after the Trump Tower meeting, it should have occurred to Trump and to other GOP leaders that the meeting was a sham, its only purpose being to create the appearance of a nexus between the Trump campaign and the Russians.  Since Trump’s magnificent electoral upset in November 2016, we have yet to hear a single “rope-a-dope” Republican make the case that the Trump Tower meeting was arranged only for the “optics” of the gathering.

Republicans missed another perfect opportunity to score points against Democrats in the days and weeks following the one-on-one Trump-Putin meeting in Helsinki.  When Trump met with Putin behind closed doors, with only their interpreters present, Democrats threw a hissy-fit, insisting that Trump divulge exactly what the two leaders discussed in private.  As expected, Republicans immediately fell into their defensive “rope-a-dope” mode, when the perfect response would have been, “We’ve asked the president about that and he tells us they discussed nothing but golf and their grandchildren.”

Finally, Republicans are regularly charged with the unspeakable cruelty of tearing families apart, separating a few dozen children from their parents when the parents illegally cross our southern border and are taken into custody by ICE agents.

When Democrats accuse the Trump administration of being cruel and heartless, Republicans immediately go into “rope-a-dope” mode.  What they fail to point out is that our state and federal governments regularly separate large numbers of children from their American citizen parents. For example, Pentagon statistics tell us that more than 1.3 million men and women currently serve in the U.S. military.  Of those, some 55 percent are married and 43 percent have children.  And when those parents are deployed to overseas war zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan, which can last from six to nine months, or more, they do not take their families with them.  Many of those military parents have been deployed multiple times.

Further, the United States has the world’s largest prison population.  At any given time, roughly 2.2 million Americans – approximately one out of every 115 – are in jail or prison, where they are forcibly separated from their families for long periods of time… some for a lifetime.  It is estimated that some 2.7 million American children (approximately 1 in 28) currently have a parent behind bars.

Now that liberals and Democrats have dug themselves into a very deep hole during the first twenty months of the Trump administration, and having demonstrated for all to see who and what they are during the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. it seems only reasonable that Republican leaders have an obligation to pick up a shovel and fill it in.

When Muhammed Ali met George Foreman in the boxing ring in Zaire, he allowed Foreman to use him as a human punching bag for seven rounds before putting him down.  The question now arises, how long will Republicans allow themselves to be political punching bags before they finally figure out what game they’re in and do whatever is necessary to put the opposition flat on their backs.  When will they begin to act like men… or are we to assume that Lindsey Graham  (R-SC) is the only real man in our party?

Paul R. Hollrah is a retired government relations executive and a two-time member of the U.S. Electoral College.  He currently lives and writes among the hills and lakes of northeast Oklahoma’s Green Country.

 

 

Posted in Today's Misinformation | Leave a comment

Illegal? ..

I have been told that it is illegal to “propose” a state constitutional amendment that would re-enfranchise the state’s counties by doing away with the “one man, one vote” mandate imposed by the Reynolds v. Sims decision handed down by the US Supreme Court.  A decision that destroyed the Republican form of government guaranteed to the states in the US Constitution.  My concept would be for every county to be represented in both houses in the state legislature as was the case in many states before SCOTUS found new unarticulated meaning in the US Constitution that negated state Constitutions.  To understand what was done we should review what republics and democracies are … issues that are fundamental to the mission of this blog … Saving the Republic!

In the first place, the United States of America is not a democracy, it is a federation of 50 small republics.  The original republics joined together to win their independence from a despotic tyranny imposed upon them from Great Britain in a conflict we know as the Revolutionary War.  In order to present an united front to their oppressor, they first met in two different congresses and then formed a government to prosecute the war under the Articles of Confederation.  After winning their independence, the Articles of Confederation proved to be too cumbersome to be a viable instrument to promote peace and harmony among the members of the Federation and to confront problems with foreign powers and external threats adequately.  A Constitutional Convention was convened to address the shortcomings of the Articles in 1787.

Most of what was discussed in the Convention is known thanks to notes taken by James Madison who is considered the “Father of the Constitution.”  The men who attended the Convention were, for the most part, highly educated, mostly home schooled or tutored, and then further educated in universities such as Harvard, Yale and Princeton.  This was the “Age of Enlightenment” where their course of study was the ancient classics from Greece and Rome, written in Greek and Latin, which were read in the original languages and, additionally, the writings of the then contemporary thinkers such as Edmund Burke, David Hume, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Jacques Rousseau, Adam Smith and Montesquieu.

All forms of government were discussed, but these men were already republicans.  Alexander Hamilton suggested a monarchy and was ignored.  No thought was given to democracies, because history shows that they, including the great Athenian democracy that you and I were taught to venerate, always fail.  This is  because, ultimately, the governed always vote themselves the treasury or are conned because of demagogic duplicity.  The only concession to democracy in the US Constitution is the political enfranchisement of the common man with the vote and that was a magnificent step, it was the first time in the history of man that the common person had a say in government.

The genius of the Constitution came in several stages.  First was to understand that the national government  was to be of limited scope with only specific powers where it was supreme; the limited and only powers of the Federal government were set down in Article I Section 8.  Second, following the wisdom of the Spartan Republic where no one man was to be long trusted with power, was the maxim of checks and balances; every branch of the government was in some way checked in its power by the exclusive powers of the other branches; the House is the paymaster, the Executive has the veto, the Senate has its advice and consent.  And the Judicial the sacred duty of making sure that the other two branches were acting within the bounds of their constitutionally prescribed authority.

The philosophical aim of the Constitution was to protect minorities from the “tyranny of the majority” and to protect the individual person, the tiniest minority, from having his inalienable rights trod upon by the exuberant exigencies of temporary “crises.”  All this while protecting the will of the majority to be realized.  This was done by recognizing that the individual states were unique and should be left to govern their own internal affairs.  The problems of the States, each co-equal, were to be represented by the Senate; the problems of the populace represented by the House of Representatives.  Since the States were co-equal, they each had two ambassadors, their Senators, who were to be elected by the state legislature.  Who better to pick these ambassadors than the elected representatives of the people of the state?  The President  was to be elected by the States; this process was addressed by the Electoral College.

When James Madison took this document back to Virginia, the then most populace state, his views were instantly challenged, most notably by Patrick Henry.  Henry was appalled that there was no constraint on the minions of the Federal government protecting the rights of man.  Madison argued that the new government was constrained by its specific powers granted in Article I Section 8 … Henry was adamant that the rights of man be made untouchable by the new government  … many agreed with him.  Madison, along with John Jay and Alexander Hamilton tried to sell the document through writing the magnificent “Federalist Papers.”  Henry and those who agreed with him, men like George Mason, Henry Lee, James Monroe, Melanchthon Smith and many others countered with the “Anti-Federalist Papers.”  The upshot was that in order to obtain ratification, Madison agreed to introduce the “Bill of Rights” in the first Congress and it was done.  Suffice it to say that the Constitution would be unthinkable today without the 10 articles in the Bill of Rights.

Reflection will inform you that the Bill of Rights, which already resided in many state constitutions and in the Articles of Confederation, was not just a constraint, but a negation of the ability of the minions of the Federal government, be they the Executive, the Legislative or the Judicial, to tinker with the rights of the States or the People at large; the Bill is the ultimate check on tyranny from the Federal government.  The US Supreme Court has historically slapped down the Executive and the Legislative for transgressions against these fundamental Freedoms.  But who checks the Supreme Court if it gets out of line?

The tenth article in the Bill of Rights, the 10th Amendment, says: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  This article confirms that the State and the People, not the national government , are the supreme power in this union.  It was added so that there was an ultimate check upon un-delegated laws or interpretations of the Constitution, it is the vehicle by which any trend to tyranny by the Feds can be negated.  It applies to the Supreme Court as well as the two other branches.  In the final analysis it is the only check on tyranny from SCOTUS.  But who enforces the 10th Amendment?  It most certainly would not be the Federal Executive or Congress … it could be SCOTUS, but not when SCOTUS is the violator.  The States must be the watchdog and if we want to preserve the Republic, the States must act when the ugly head of tyranny arises.  The States must nullify Federal overstepping of the powers granted to them under the Constitution.  Has this ever been done?  Madison and Jefferson threatened it against John Adams’ Alien and Sedition laws with the result that they were withdrawn.  During Andrew Jackson’s time, South Carolina threaten it over tariffs on cotton, until the Federal government gave them relief.  States in the North nullified the Fugitive Slave Act, by refusing to comply with it.  The Dred Scott decision of SCOTUS was not implemented in the North and led to insurrection in some quarters and maybe was one of the causes of the Civil War.  Recently, we have the situation where states have legalized marijuana, flaunting Federal statutes to the contrary.  The simple fact is that the Federal government does not have police power sufficient subjugate the States and the People.  The Federal Posse Comitatus Act severely limits the possibility of the use of the Armed Forces.

There have always been enemies of our Republic since before the Revolutionary War.  Many people, then and now, believed and do believe in Statism, be it Monarchy, Progressivism,  Fascism, Socialism or some other form of a planned, command society.  The Founders made our Constitution amendable but difficult so as to not make mistakes by acting in haste.  And even then the process was not thorough enough, bear witness to the alcohol prohibition amendment and its withdrawal.  For the Statist, the process is too rigorous and because of their anti-republican prejudices, their goals are probably not popular enough to be successful.  The Statists have spent well over 100 years figuring out how to shortcut their ability to pervert the Constitution.  Their answer is to attack the weakest part of our government, the un-elected judiciary.  They have aspired to seat at least five “Progressives” on the Supreme Court, to pack the Federal District and Appeals Courts and to delegate the law making powers of Congress to the bureaucracy, among other more subtle gambits.  One of the tactics of the Progressives on the Supreme Court is to misinterpret the intent of Constitutional clauses like was done on the Commerce Clause in the infamous Wickard v. Filburn case.  But the most invidious tactic is the concept of the “living Constitution” propounded  by those who want to sidestep the Constitutional amendment process.  The proponents of this travesty read words into the Constitution which they profess  the Founders meant to say; or should have said; or what the document should say now in view of modern circumstances.  In other words these people can make the Constitution say anything they want. (Sounds like Karl Marx: “the end justifies the means.”)

The Congress immediately at the end of and following the Civil War, in 1866, went to great effort to bring the former slaves into the mainstream of civil society.  To do this, they enacted the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments.  The 14th Amendment enfranchised the former salves as full citizens under the law.  Those in opposition to this amendment argued long and hard that it was too broad and would be subject to misinterpretation.  There is vast documentation of those debates.  The proponents swore to the opposition that the amendment pertained to the blacks only and with that assurance the amendment was passed.  We fast forward 95 years to the Earl Warren supreme court with its assembly of progressive justices (Warren, Black, Douglas, Brennan, White, Goldberg, Clark and Stewart), all believers in the “living Constitution” and we find that they found the SCOTUS had the power under the Constitution to court mandate the reapportionment of state legislatures.  Nowhere in Constitution is there the slightest hint that that power existed.  The Justices were making up wording that fundamentally distorted its meaning.  In the first place, the Constitution in Article I Section 1 states that the Congress will make all laws.  If the Congress had passed such a law, under the 10th Amendment, it would have been un-Constitutional.  The Supreme Court has no Constitutional authority to make laws.  So we have a situation where the SCOTUS has enforced upon the States a decision by fabricating a law where there is no law to adjudicate, because such a law would be beyond the delegated powers, and have nullified one of the Bill of Rights citing phantom non-existent wording in our most revered document .  It is preposterous to believe that any state would have ratified the 14th Amendment if it meant that the Federal Courts could reapportion its legislature.  It is inconceivable that any state would condone the nullification of one of the Bill of Rights.

The attack on state reapportionment is far more insidious and subtle than first meets the eye.  If you take the time to read the scandalous Reynolds v. Sims decision, the dissent by Justice John Marshall Harlan II elucidates what I have said about the intent of the amendment.  The decision by the majority, if we read between the lines, informs us of the true nature of their effort.  The majority makes it plain that their intent was to cleanse state legislatures of representation from rural areas and small counties as much as possible, in particular the state Senators.  Additionally, we never reflect upon the effects of the 17th Amendment, a major attack on the Republic.  Under the Founders, US Senators were picked by the Legislature.  So whichever party controlled the Legislature sent their comrade to the US Senate.  Unarticulated was the republican reason for this.  It began in the counties where the citizens elected their state legislators.  As an individual, if you help elect that legislator, who was local and knowable, he in turn would know and associate with the US Senator who was beholden to the Legislature.  If you had a problem that required Federal action, all you had to do was to contact your friend the state Senator or House member and they could contact the US Senator for action.  A simple but effective demonstration of republican government in action.  Do you now or under a democracy would you have that kind of political access?

One man, one vote means domination by urban areas … the tyranny of the majority.  We can presently see this being carried to fruition in the once great agricultural state of California.  A republic means that all entities are represented … that the inherit  diversity is enjoyed by all.  In a democracy everyone votes on everything … are you an expert on everything?  Our founders lived in a country that was as urbanized as the one we live in now … but they understood that the cities depended upon the outlanders far more that the reverse.  A little reflection will inform you that if the outlands were cut off from the cities, the cities would very quickly disappear … but the outlands can sustain themselves.  Legislators from urban areas, no matter how well intentioned, are basically clueless about the exigencies of the rural areas while rural members actively communicate with the large cities.  Rural people go to town, but city people don’t participate in the sticks.   A case in point is the ecological protection of the delta smelt by the urban dominated California Legislature.  Their solution was to wash the smelt out of the San Francisco Bay to the sea, during a sustained drought, with 850,000 acre feet of fresh water, water used to irrigate the immensely fertile Great Central Valley.  850,000 acre feet of water would put over one foot of water over most major irrigation projects.  It was a catastrophe for California agriculture.  It would never have happened under republican government.

We, in this State, are seeing this same scenario raise its ugly head here.  Very soon half or more of Our population will reside in or around one of our smallest counties.  After the next census, One County could have as many as 18 members in the House of Representatives consisting of 70 members.  That coupled with a Second County, with the possibility of a dozen more, makes the State of These Two Counties possible … interestingly, this might be more palatable for the rest of Our State, rather than being dominated by that tiny area of burgeoning population.

So where are we?  My answer strikes to the heart of the problem … an amendment to Our Constitution providing for one Senator and at least one Representative from each county.  I have thought about it a lot and this is what I came up with:

Apportionment of the Legislature

of

 Our State

Be it resolved Hereby:

That we the citizens of the Our State shall apportion our Legislature, following the model of representation in the Federal system in the Congress of the United States of America and asserting the Guarantee of a Republican form of government as delineated in Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States of America so that:

The Senate of the Legislature of our State shall consist only of one Senator from each County of this State.

And:

The House of Representatives of the Legislature of the Our State shall consist of at least 70 members and members shall be adjudicated County by County on the basis that the number of citizens in each county bears to population of the whole of Our State, provided that no member may represent the citizens of more than one county, further that each county shall have at least one representative in the Legislature and provided further that no county may have more than 10 representatives.

This solution re-enfranchises rural areas, instantly does away with the present grotesquely gerrymandered legislative districts, gives manifestly fair representation to all parties and restores our republican form of government .  It is not necessary to expand the membership of the House, although it could be. (A bad idea, I think, because deliberative bodies need to be small enough for vigorous and cogent debate.)

Our Constitution needs to be amended.  After that, it is time to assert the 10th Amendment and do our part in stopping the socialization of our Republic.

The 10th Amendment tells us that beyond the specific powers granted to the Federal government or taken from the States under the US Constitution, all power belongs to the States or the People.  No Legislator need fear that he has done wrong if he presents this to the People and lets them decide at a fair election.

This is not partisan, but it is existential … will we live in Republic or a socialistic tyranny?

 

Posted in 1 Senator, 1 Representative, Lee's Musings | Leave a comment