Tuesday, May 26, 2015

Our Religious Rights and the Battle to Retain Them

"The frustrating thing for the great majority of Americans who support and understand the special importance of religion in the national life -- the frustrating thing is that those who are attacking religion claim they are doing it in the name of tolerance, freedom, and openmindedness. Question: Isn't the real truth that they are intolerant of religion? They refuse to tolerate its importance in our lives."  ~ Ronald Reagan

The First Amendment of the US Constitution is under attack from many quarters, special interest groups, atheists and religions antithetical to the Judeo-Christian underpinnings of our nation.  If we are to retain our rights, we must address these groups and their agendas head on.  This includes activist judges and the rulings they send down from the bench.  To allow the rulings of activists and their minions to influence and subvert our rights as citizens must be overcome. 

From childhood I was taught that my rights ended at the end of my nose; that if I were to try to exceed that parameter, I was likely impinging on the rights of another.  When the rights of one are denied, the rights of all are at risk.  Does this not explain the standard by which we should expect the rule of law to pertain to the rights of all?  

Without taking sides in any of the arguments advanced to justify these rulings, I find it appalling that small businesses are threatened with ruin if they fail to adhere to these casuistic rulings.  Does not the right to refuse service that denigrates ones personal beliefs exist?  To rule in order to satisfy the whims of what appears an unsupportable demand goes beyond the pale of civility and/or the law.

Where in all the state and federal statutes does it state that one group’s beliefs are allowed to trump the beliefs and rights of another?  To my knowledge no such statute exists.  So where does an activist judiciary find the justification to allow such abuses to occur?  In the US Constitution and in many state Constitutions there exists a remedy to stop activist jurists and the rulings that force people to act against their beliefs.  It is called impeachment; must we resort to such drastic measures to rein in an out of control judiciary?  It is my hope that these judges with their unsupportable views can be persuaded to rescind these rulings without the need for such coercive action. 

Walter Mow 2015

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

A review of the improper and imperious enactment of the Affordable Care Act without proper vetting and/or open debate

The Affordable Care Act was passed over the objections of the minority party with the majority failing to even recognize the amendments offered by the minority party and in my view exceeding both the bounds of both Congressional rules and Constitution statute. This kind of specious action was decried in the Federalist Papers #10 by none other than then future President James Madison and I quote;

Among the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed Union, none deserves to more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction; that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minority party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority...                                                                                                                                                 
It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests and render them all subservient to the public good.  Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm to prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole...                                                                                                                                                              
A common passion or interest will, if there is nothing to check the inducements, sacrifice the weaker party or individual.  Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests of the people.

A simple review of this specious act is in order; the size and scope of the act with its near 2,400 pages is in and of its self too large to be understood by the supporters of the act and more importantly the populace that it will impact. When you add the near 11,000 pages of regulations that attend the act the senses are dulled to make any rational assessment of the act near impossible. To top it all off the use of 18 Executive Orders have been used to change and/or amend the act, adding even more confusion.

Statements by Senator Patty Murray that she “not only read but helped write the act”; Representative Nancy Pelosi stating that “we must pass the act to find out what’s in it”; Jonathon Gruber’s assertion that the “ignorance of the American People” helped passage of the act; and Senator Harry Reid’s out-right denial of debate on the Senate floor only add to the distrust of the act and the people who foisted the entire affair and its attendant costs on an already over-burdened American public.

The statement that the Affordable Care Act will reduce the cost of health care is a blatant lie that has been exposed for what it is.  Must we continue the charade or shall we scrap the entire act and start over?  As for me, I choose the second option and look forward to removing from office the charlatans that both supported and so thoroughly duped the American people with mendacious rhetoric.

Walter Mow 2015

Friday, May 1, 2015

Where Does the Fast Track Leave Us? Important Update from CFP

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."  Patrick Henry

While most of our members and followers know the Constitutional Freedom Party has endorsed Ted Cruz for the 2016 Presidential election, some political issues have come to our attention.  We are compelled to make our position clear, and also make others aware about these issues and why we are concerned.
People may be aware of the proposed Trans-Pacific Trade Treaty (TPP) which Obama has been working on.  Many in the GOP have jumped on board in favor of it.  We all know Obama’s and our Congress’ penchant to shove things through the legislative process, and the GOP’s habit of caving in to damaging bills. We know this is an important issue to look closer at, especially when the media and politicos are averting America’s attention to Baltimore and other ‘crises’ which can’t be wasted.

The details of Obama’s TPP are not known, because our representatives have not seen it yet.  Sound familiar? Will they pass this too to find out what’s in it?
Recently Republicans Paul Ryan, Orrin Hatch, and Democrat Ron Wyden authored the TPA (Trade Promotion Authority) legislation (the last such TPA expired July 1, 2007.) Basically the TPA isn’t needed for Obama’s TPP Treaty but Congress has written the TPA supposedly to give them some say in the TPP before Obama uses his pen and phone to enact it.The underlying purpose of the TPA is to Fast Track international trade agreements by giving an up or down vote with no amendments, no filibuster and little debate allowed.  It appears that Congress would review the agreements made and anything they didn’t agree with, they’d have 150 "specific negotiating objectives." which are basically suggestions.  It would assume that Obama will be required to consult Congress on final negotiations (yeah, I’m shaking my head at that too).  Lastly, it’s claimed that Congress will have more power by giving Obama more power. This is disturbing on so many levels. Everything from Obamacare to negotiations with Iran, to illegal amnesty and the passing appointment of Loretta Lynch has been shoved through with virtually no chance for We the People to have any say.  Congress under the so called leadership of John Boehner and Mitch McConnell has proven time and time again they do not care about the people who voted them into office specifically to fight back against Obama and his pen.

If Obama or a future President with the powers given in this legislation sends a treaty back, the treaty will get an up or down vote. No two thirds ratification as is law under our Constitution will happen.  We the people will not have a voice of representation on issues which will affect many of us should this go through.  The powers given Congress are clearly laid out in the Constitution, but giving the President the power of Fast Track, the Constitutional powers would basically be suspended. US law will be thrown out in favor of a simple majority vote in our Houses of Congress.
With the upcoming TPP, Congress would simply vote up or down and that’s it.

Here mainly is our biggest concern- Ted Cruz is a big supporter of the TPA - He co-authored an editorial in the WSJ with Paul Ryan. Part of it can be read here.   

Sen. Cruz is all for free trade, which many support if it will protect American workers and businesses.  Yet Sen. Cruz is also supportive of the provisions of the TPP which would allow for free migration of labor between all nations signing onto the treaty.  We are already still suffering from low/under employment and illegal immigration issues.  Adding more laborers to our already poor job markets will hurt Americans even more.  TPP will also give other nations more say over how everything from the environment and energy are regulated, and would give the President power to regulate and set minimum wage. 

Meanwhile with his troubling support of TPA, it would basically shove We the People aside so lobbyists and the elite can dictate all the while Congress gives a fast tracked yes vote without debate. This is not a good thing for a sovereign America whose Constitutional law would be made null and void.
Congress should never limit itself to an up or down vote with no discussion or amendments, and especially not while Obama is in office.

The TPP is so secretive and we know that Obama will send the final deal to Congress at the 11th hour, and our so called leaders, because of the TPA, will not be able to amend it, discuss it, or do anything other than just vote it yes or no.  Can we really see Boehner, McConnell or the rest of the progressive GOP voting anything other than Yes? Our core members have been discussing and dissecting this for days trying to get a handle on why Sen. Cruz would be for such a treaty and legislation.  Our main conclusions can only be speculation until Sen. Cruz answers our questions which we have been asking his office over the past few days.

With the Senator’s recent admission that he is a proponent of Immigration Reform, that’s not enough to consider giving away our voice in Government is it?  Consider also Heidi Cruz’s involvement in the Council on Foreign Relations’ sponsored Independent Task Force on the Future of North America, which advocates a greater economic and social integration between Canada, Mexico, and the United States.  Surely the tin foil is not tight, but one can’t afford to ignore that CFR is a globalist organization, and that the elites have been working for decades to erase international borders.
Everybody is freaking out about Obama’s TPP which is bad enough, but it's really the TPA that will do the most damage, because it will fast-track everything Obama wants, and leave the door open in the future for other presidents to pass whatever they want by a weak and ineffective Congress. Ted Cruz has been a strong supporter of our Constitution and our rights throughout his career, but this issue is too big to overlook and we are still asking, why would you support giving our only voice left, away?  Surely Senator Cruz, you know we have a lawless Obama- what makes you believe that he would follow the “rules” of the TPA? 
For now, the Constitutional Party’s endorsement of Senator Cruz still stands, but we will be digging into this issue further and will not ease up in trying to get to the bottom of it.  We are still in the process of vetting other candidates who have already announced or have shown intent to run. Stay tuned for our ratings and any new developments on this situation in the coming days and weeks.

Many thanks to C.J, W.M, A.W, S.D, and K.B and others on the CFP leadership for their research and discussion

For More information:


The Bill http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/tpa_2_pager.pdf  or http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33743.pdf 

Mark Levin discussion http://www.marklevinshow.com/common/page.php?pt=podcasts  go to the show for 4/24 and FF to 94:30




Addendum - I want to make it clear that personally I have supported and have been promoting the idea of Sen. Cruz's run for President since November 2012. I have always appreciated his dedication to the Constitution and being our voice in Washington so I want people to understand how hard of a decision this has been for me, but also for other members of CFP to make our concerns public.  We want people to be aware of everything going on so they can make informed decisions for themselves.

CAE 5/02/2015