Hi Patriots, From Day One: Tea Party Express VI National Bus Tour

By Lloyd Marcus

Proud Unhyphenated American

April 28, 2012

Lloyd Marcus reporting in from Tea Party Express VI national bus tour, day one. We did rallies in Pittsburgh, PA and Cleveland, OH. We have a 4 hour ride to spend the night in Cincinnati, OH, estimated time of arrival 11pm. We depart 8am for a 9:45am rally in Madison, IN. This is way too early in the tour for my butt to be sore, but it is. No time to stop, I nuked a burrito on the bus.

While the pace and discomfort is challenging, touching, encouraging and seeing the looks on the faces of the patriots who attend our rallies make it all worthwhile. The fellowship is more rewarding than I can express.

I am continuously inspired by all of you in the Tea Party movement – everyone still doing their part – using your gifts, talents and resources to STOP Obama's evil agenda. With diesel fuel over $4.50 per gallon, I give a shout-out to Patriot Mark who is following our buses in his truck.

Awesome Ohio tea party organizer, Lisa Woods is ill. Lisa still came to our rally from the hospital. Wow, talk about commitment.

I have introduced a new song on this tour titled, “We Are Americans”. My lyrics remind us of who we are. We are NOT a nation of deadbeats seeking hand-outs from Obama's stash – we are Americans! In the song, I also call for our nation to repent from the things we know are wrong. It is a bold message. But, I am convinced God inspired me to write the song. So far, audience response has proved me correct.

“We Are Americans” is not available for purchase yet. I am planning a national release after this tour.

Please check our schedule on TeaPartyExpress.org. Please attend if we come to your area. I am really looking forward to taking a picture, shaking your hand and fellowship with you.

God bless,
Lloyd Marcus, Proud Unhyphenated American
Chairman – www.CampaignToDefeatObama.com

Read More

AGU: Your Candidates Are Winning!

In February American Grizzlies United debuted the AGU: 2012 Primary Candidates list. We are very proud of all the candidates. Bold patriots willing to put it all on the line for our country is part of what makes America great. Because of your help, and your citizen activism, many of these brave patriots have been victorious. Because of you they are now your common sense, Constitutional, conservative nominees. Here are a few success stories of your courageous candidates who won their primaries and will march on to the General Election in November.



On Saturday April 21, 2012; Mia B Love won the GOP primary for Utah-4 United States House Representative. From Mia's Campaign Website: In November 2011, Mia Love filed to run for Utah’s newly formed 4th Congressional District based on her demonstrated leadership on conservative principles. She credits her parents with providing the foundation for her ideals. After many years of living in the unstable, regime-torn socialist island country of Haiti, her parents immigrated legally to the United States with $10 in their pockets in hopes of achieving the American Dream... Mia graduated from the University of Hartford with a degree in fine arts. She found faith. Then she found Jason. And then she found herself in Utah ready to give back. Mia served two terms on the city council of Saratoga Springs, one of Utah’s fastest growing cities. As City Councilwoman and eventually Mayor, Mia led the city through a period of 1700% population growth in a decade. Under her leadership, the city was able to successfully navigate the drastic transition from agricultural fields to a booming residential community. When the citizen growth necessitated fire and police services, Mia fought to make sure the city’s first ever residential tax implementation would only pay for those essential services, and she structured it in such a way that the tax decreased as a percentage of property value...

Learn more about Mia B Love: http://www.love4utah.com/
Donate to Mia's campaign: Contribute
Volunteer for Mia: Get Involved

 

Earlier this month Ken Timmerman won his GOP primary for Maryland-8 United States House Representative. From Ken's Campaign Website: For those who haven’t yet met Ken, he and his wife Christina are long-time residents of Kensington, Maryland. All of their five children have attended Maryland public schools or universities. Timmerman is a recognized authority on defense and intelligence issues who has testified as an expert witness in terrorism trials in U.S. federal courts and before Congress... But the Kensington conservative has also been a strong advocate for Maryland citizens as head of the Maryland Taxpayers Association where he urged the adoption -- back in 2000 -- of a Return-the-Surplus-Amendment. His was a pioneering effort to forestall today’s Annapolis spending disaster. Ken also was at the forefront of the Divest Terror movement to prevent Maryland pension funds from being invested in companies doing business with terrorists. His books (see them here) range from exposing Jesse Jackson to a thriller on today’s persecuted Christians of Iraq...

Learn more about Ken Timmerman: http://timmermanforcongress.com/
Donate to Ken: Contribute
Volunteer for Ken: Get Involved

 

On April 03, 2012; Dan Bongino won the Maryland GOP primary for United States Senator. From Dan's Campaign Website: Daniel has both the academic and real world experience to immediately lead in these difficult times. His extensive studies in Psychology and Economics combined with his real world experiences in the inner cities of Baltimore and New York City give him a unique perspective regarding the problems of the citizens of Maryland. Daniel believes in real answers and straight talk and plans to challenge the political establishment directly on the important issues of the day.

Learn more about Dan Bongino: http://www.bongino.com/home.html
Donate to Dan: Contribute
Volunteer for Dan: Get Involved



Last month, 35 year old, Josh Mandel reported for duty and won the Ohio GOP primary for United States Senator. From Josh's Campaign Website: Josh Mandel is the 48th Treasurer of the State of Ohio, having been elected as the top vote-getter of all statewide executive candidates, winning 80 of Ohio's 88 counties. Treasurer Mandel is a Marine Corps veteran who served two tours in Iraq and served as State Representative from the 17th Ohio House District. He was first elected State Representative in 2006, knocking on 19,679 doors and wearing out three pairs of shoes. In 2008 he was re-elected to a second term, representing a district with a 2:1 Democrat to Republican voter ratio. Treasurer Mandel has a record of advancing the free enterprise system, advocating for limited government, and standing up to bureaucrats who treat businesses as if they're "guilty until proven innocent"... Treasurer Mandel's previous elected experience includes service as a Lyndhurst City Councilman, where he was elected in 2003 with more votes than any candidate for Council or Mayor. As Councilman, Josh introduced and led the fight for the first municipal property tax rollback in Lyndhurst history, which currently remains one of the only municipal property tax rollbacks in Ohio history. Inspired by a strong sense of duty to country, Treasurer Mandel enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserves in 2000, where he graduated first in his class from Marine Corps Boot Camp and first in his class from Marine Corps Intelligence School. His Marine Corps career spanned eight years, including two tours in Anbar Province, Iraq. During both tours he was awarded the Navy & Marine Corps Achievement Medal for "superior performance of his duties"...

Learn more about Josh Mandel: http://jobs.joshmandel.com/index.php
Donate to Josh: Contribute
Volunteer for Josh: Get Involved



The common sense, Constitutional, conservative nominees above won their primaries because of you. It was you who answered the call. You knocked on doors, you walked precincts, you worked phone banks, you waved signs, you got the message out to voters that there is an alternative to Obama's arrogant power grabs against our founders intent.

These nominees still need your help.

It will be you who gets these patriots elected along with other like minded conservative candidates.

We still have many races coming up in the next few months where your help is needed. Please check out our AGU 2012 Primary Candidates List and see which candidates you feel moved to help.

The restoration of our founding principles must happen at all levels of government. In November we need to seize the Senate, and retain the House to ensure that the next President has a congress of common sense, Constitutional conservatives who put country first.

Please join our cause.



TEXT: PALIN to 90210

or Register HERE

To donate to American Grizzlies United: CLICK HERE

Our work continues...



Thomas S Schmitz

American Grizzlies United; Chairman

American Grizzlies United Website: http://americangrizzlies.com/

Follow AGU on Twitter: @AGUGrizzlies

Follow O4P on Twitter: @O4Palin

Follow S4P on Twitter: @_Students4Palin

Follow Thomas on Twitter: @ThomasSSchmitz

Follow AGU on Facebook: American Grizzlies United (AGU)

Subscribe to the AGU You-Tube Channel: AmericanGrizzliesU

Read More

July Documentary Asserts That Communist Frank Marshall Davis Is Barack Obama's Real Father

Film:  President's Father Not Barack Obama

By Jerome R. Corsi

WND.com

April 25, 2012

“Who’s your real Daddy?” is a question that remarkably continues to dog Barack Obama, even as he proceeds into his fourth year as president.

With the release this July of Joel Gilbert’s full-length documentary, “Dreams from My Real Father: A Story of Reds and Deception,” the mystery deepens regarding who Obama really is.

“The film provides the first cohesive understanding of Obama’s deep-rooted life journey in socialism, from his childhood to his presidency,” Gilbert told WND.

Gilbert rejects the official story that the Kenyan-born Barack Obama was the president’s father.

Instead, he argues, Frank Marshall Davis, the radical poet and journalist who was a card-carrying member of the Communist Party USA, was the real, biological and ideological father of Barack Obama.

READ MORE . . .

Read More

Bill Ayers' Vietnam Memories May Account For Obama's Claim To Have Eaten Dog Meat

Muslims Don't Eat Dogs, But Vietnamese Do

By Jack Cashill

WND.com
April 25, 2012

It turns out that the president may have taken an unnecessary hit with the revelation last week that the “Barack Obama” character in “Dreams from My Father,” his alleged memoir, ate dogs.

As explained in “Dreams,” Obama’s Muslim stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, introduced Obama to “dog meat (tough), snake meat (tougher), and roasted grasshopper (crunchy).”

Obama defenders quickly countered by insisting, accurately it seems, that Muslims don’t eat dogs. Apparently, Muhammad “prohibited eating (the meat of) every taloned bird and every predatory animal possessing canine teeth.” This, of course, would include dogs.

Among other pundits, John Hinderaker of Powerline offered the one synthesis that makes sense of these two competing ideas: “So Obama’s claim in his autobiography that he ate dog in Indonesia may well be false – an error introduced by Bill Ayers or whoever actually wrote Obama’s autobiography.”

READ MORE . . .

Read More

But What About Justice For Zimmerman?

By Lloyd Marcus

Proud Unhyphenated American

I keep thinking of an episode of the 1973 TV show, “Kojak: The Marcus-Nelson Murders.” Homicide detective Kojak suspects that the black teenager accused of murdering two white girls is being framed by his fellow detectives.

The case gets a lot of media attention; politics and careers enter the mix. The frightened accused black kid pleads his innocence to detective Kojak who believes him. Kojak educates the defendant to the cold harsh reality of the situation. Kojak informed the kid that despite his innocence, the case had become such a political hot button and because the police held the kid in jail for so long, he must be found guilty of something.

I see this same scenario developing in the Martin/Zimmerman case.

Most Americans desire a fair and just outcome of this tragedy. But, Lord help us if the evidence proves Zimmerman to be innocent. If Zimmerman is ruled not-guilty and allowed to walk, I foresee Rodney King-type riots in the streets. Thus, is Zimmerman's fate already sealed? Will a jury decide Zimmerman must be declared guilty of something?

While Al Sharpton, New Black Panthers and all of the other racist race-hustling usual suspects clamor for justice for Trayvon Martin, I wonder if justice is even possible for George Zimmerman.

Will political correctness ensure that Zimmerman be found guilty of something regardless of the evidence?

Tragically and frighteningly, we live in a time in which the law and truth appears to be losing relevance in America.

For example. Clearly, the individual mandate in Obamacare is unconstitutional. And yet, Obama believes he can bully the Supreme Court to rule in his favor because “he” believes the mandate is a good thing. Ponder that folks, the president is pressuring U.S. Supreme Court justices to bend the truth and the law to suit his desires. Obama, the president who would be King.

For years, Democrats have been trying to abort the thorn-in-the-side stumbling block to their socialistic agenda known as the U.S. Constitution. Who could have imagined deceiving the American people into putting a black Trojan Horse extreme left liberal into the Oval Office would “Git-r-done”?

If Obama successfully forces U.S. Supreme Court justices to succumb to his politically correct interpretation of the law and rule Obamacare constitutional, setting such a precedence could mean so-called “white Hispanic” George Zimmerman is toast. It would mean facts, truth and the law are no longer relevant – only what the people/mob want rules the day.

Regardless if the evidence proves otherwise, Zimmerman will be found guilty of “something” to avoid riots in the streets. We are talking political correctness on steroids.

Folks, I am not saying Zimmerman is innocent. I do not know. I am simply saying in these morally bankrupt times in which we live, I am concerned that facts and truth are becoming irrelevant.

Since Zimmerman posted $150,000 bail, here are just a few of the shocking tweets calling for violence against him.

“Ima kill Zimmerman myself *loads semi* where he at” 

“I think imma personally kill George Zimmerman…anyone’s welcome to join (: …Leggggoooo !” 

‘I WOULD KILL DA SHYT OUTTA DAT ZIMMERMAN DUDE IF I SAW HIS A** BOAAAA’ 

“Someone pass me a gun, imma go follow zimmerman, shoot and kill him and say #imstandingmyground” 

“Lets kill #zimmerman” 

“They let Zimmerman free lets kill that MF” 

“George Zimmerman Released From Jail 150,000 Bail! WTF!  Ni**a You Are About To Die, Start Writing Your Will!…”

Have you heard the slightest hint of media outrage over the threats on Zimmerman's life? Have you heard any rebuke or threat of the Obama administration taking action against these thugs? Oh I know, they are still busy investigating Ted Nugent for passionately encouraging voters to “vote” Obama out in November.

But seriously folks, the media and Obama administration’s passivity regarding the threats on Zimmerman's life is shocking and should be an eye opener to us all. Anyone on the left's excrement list can expect no justice and no peace.

If those threatening Zimmerman's life are black, Attorney General Eric Holder has pretty much given them a pass. In 2010, Justice Department whistle-blower, J. Christian Adams said word came down from above to, “Never bring another lawsuit against a black or other national minority, apparently no matter what they do.”

Where was the national media investigation, outrage and clamors for Holder's immediate resignation? Are we living in an Obama administration parallel universe bizarre-o world? Do I really need to state the obvious re-action had there been accusations of Bush's Justice Department saying they would not pursue white defendants?

No presidential call for civility toward George Zimmerman. Zimmerman is for the most part, on his own. All Zimmerman can do is hide. My fellow Americans, this is so very, very wrong. What is becoming of our great country? Lord help us!

Lloyd Marcus, Proud Unhyphenated American
Chairman – www.CampaignToDefeatObama.com
www.LloydMarcus.com

Read More

"The NRA's proud history of fighting the Klan has been airbrushed out of the record by those who were complicit with the KKK, Jim Crow and racial terror, to wit: the Democrats."

Negroes With Guns

By Ann Coulter

April 18, 2012

Liberals have leapt on the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida to push for the repeal of "stand your ground" laws and to demand tighter gun control. (MSNBC'S Karen Finney blamed "the same people who stymied gun regulation at every point.")

This would be like demanding more funding for the General Services Administration after seeing how its employees blew taxpayer money on a party weekend in Las Vegas.

We don't know the facts yet, but let's assume the conclusion MSNBC is leaping to is accurate: George Zimmerman stalked a small black child and murdered him in cold blood, just because he was black.

If that were true, every black person in America should get a gun and join the National Rifle Association, America's oldest and most august civil rights organization.

Apparently this has occurred to no one because our excellent public education system ensures that no American under the age of 60 has the slightest notion of this country's history.

Gun control laws were originally promulgated by Democrats to keep guns out of the hands of blacks. This allowed the Democratic policy of slavery to proceed with fewer bumps and, after the Civil War, allowed the Democratic Ku Klux Klan to menace and murder black Americans with little resistance. 

READ MORE . . . 

Read More

The Case for Amending the United States Constitution: An answer to Mark Levin

Mark Levin ended Ameritopia, his insightful study of the evolution of the American ideal, with questions about fixing the current state of American political affairs. He asks this about the shift in mindset of the American public from our original liberal rationalism to the empty beliefs in unworkable conscripted utopian fantasies: "The essential question is whether, in America, the people's psychology has been so successfully warped, the individual's spirit so thoroughly trounced, and the civil society's institutions so effectively overwhelmed that revival is [im]possible? Have too many among us already surrendered or been conquered?" He asks, "Are we capable of standing up to an oppressive government?"

I answer my brother in arms in part that we have been standing up to oppressive government since the Constitution went into operation in 1787, but to little effect.

The Civil War was one such fight. The Confederate States sent their children out to die by the hundreds of thousands, not so the parents could own some slaves. They fought the Federal government because they recognized that it was overreaching and destroying their freedom. They were fighting for freedom from government excess. They were willing to sacrifice their best in hopes of gaining freedom from oppressive government. (Yes, we all recognize the irony here.)

Jefferson documented the problem of Federal overreach in his Draft Declaration of Protest of Virginia, 1825 (http://www.academicamerican.com/jeffersonjackson/documents/JeffOnStatesRights.htm), and in his draft of The Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 (http://www.constitution.org/cons/kent1798.htm). He stated generally the same things the Tea Party folks are saying today. Government was and still is skewing the meanings in the Constitution so it can violate the Constitution’s limits unchecked.

We have been fighting Federal overreach since our beginnings some 230 years ago. History and our state of affairs today are proof that our tactics have been ineffective. Despite our ongoing willingness to stand up to Federal overreach and despite our willingness even to fight to the death to deny it power over us, the Federal government is still overreaching. The source of the problem does not appear to be a failure to recognize oppression, nor is it an unwillingness to stand up and defend our rights. Some other force must be at work.

Most of today’s American citizens recognize that something is wrong with government, and we would fully and actively support a correction to the problem. We see the tens of trillions of dollars of government debt, and the amount of the debt we each owe, and the amount of debt our children owe on their birth. We go to work every day fearing we could lose our job and home due to an economy messed up by endless government intervention. We dread personal violation just to get on a plane at the airport. But before we can act, we must recognize the cause and the effect. Then we must have a clear and credible course to solving the problem. We must have a course that will not be a repeat of the same ineffective efforts used over the last 230 years. Calling to "throw the bums out" yet again will not work today, just as it has not worked in the past. That has not worked over the long run because the "bums" are not the problem. The primary cause of government excess can be found elsewhere, in a certain aspect of the structure of the contract that is the US Constitution.

When the original citizens joined with each other and created a new and experimental form of government, they inadvertently included in the Constitution a form of what is known in the legal world as an unconscionable contract. Such contracts are normally voided when brought to court, because they are inevitably sources of abuse

An unconscionable contract is one in which one party in a contract has an overpowering and unfair advantage in power over another party in the contract. This generally happens because one party has undue influence over the other, such as happens in a monopoly. Let's create an unconscionable contract between you and I, so you can see by example what I am referring to.

I am a used car salesman. For whatever reason, I am the only salesman you can buy from. You buy a car from me with a contract that states that I may extract funds from your bank account to cover installment payments for the car. The contract also states that I may make terms regarding your use of the car while you are making payments on it; you must have insurance before you can drive it, etc. The contract includes a clause saying that in case of apparent violation of the contract, I have the sole power of arbitration.

You need a car. You can't buy one anywhere else. You have to take my contract and live with it, or you can't have a car.

At this point the contract is unconscionable. The arbitrator has an obvious vested interest in the outcome of any decisions. I have way too much power over you. I decide that the price you paid was too low, and start taking more money from your account than we had agreed to. I decide to take the car from you on Sundays so I can drive it around, without your say-so. It isn't yours yet. You haven't paid for it.

What can you do about it? I have the sole power of arbitration in case of disagreements. You must take up your disagreement with me for resolution. Don't like it? Too bad. If you don't let me have my way, I've got guys working for me who will take your car away.

That characterizes the flaw in the US Constitution.

The Constitutional contract sets up two parties; the citizens, and the Federal government. The Federal government is effectively a monopoly. The contract gives government the ability to take money from us at will. It gives government the ability to make rules about our behavior. If we have differences with government, we can only take up the issue with government. Protest too much? Government has cops to throw you in jail and take your freedom away.

The theory of government at the time of the Framing was that the Judicial branch would be a neutral third party who would prevent the characteristic of an unconscionable contract. The Framers intended for the Court to be a neutral arbitrator in cases of apparent breaches of the contract. The theory was correct, certainly, but time has proved a flaw in the implementation. All of the known Federal violations of the rights of the people have been done with the Federal Court in place. Either the Court supports the violations, or the Court itself created the violation, or the process of asking the Court for arbitration has been insufficient. The Court is not neutral. It is a creation of the Legislature and Executive, so it reflects the character of those bodies. The Court does not actively police for violations. It only responds to complaints, and it tends to only hear from those with enough resources to counter the substantial resources of the Federal government.

Despite the many positive and good characteristics of our experiment in self-government-by-contract, the Constitution meets all of the technical criteria of an unconscionable contract both in its structure and in its effects. I suggest that much, perhaps most, of our governmental overreach stems from this fact.

Recall the summary of Publius' discussions on the inability of the balance of powers to keep government within its legal limits in Federalist No. 48: "The conclusion which I am warranted in drawing from these observations is, that a mere demarcation on parchment of the constitutional limits of the several departments, is not a sufficient guard against those encroachments which lead to a tyrannical concentration of all the powers of government in the same hands." The balance of powers will not save you from your government's oppression, he said. Something else is required.

In No. 49 Publius enlightens us: "But it is the reason, alone, of the public, that ought to control and regulate the government." Liberty depends on the ability of the citizens to keep their government within rational and moral limits; within "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" in other words. Without a proper check on government, we eventually become serfs to government.

Isabel Paterson described in her brilliant political book The God of the Machine (available as a free download on scribd.com, http://www.scribd.com/doc/9557730/The-God-of-the-Machine-by-Isabel-Paterson) how a machine without a braking system must eventually destroy itself, like a car with no brakes would be a rolling disaster. In successful government, she writes, the citizens have effective power of veto over government actions. The US Constitution lacks an effective mechanism to allow the citizens to apply the brake to government.

To fix the problems we have been having over the last 230 years, we must address the problem, not in ways that have been tried repeatedly, and proven ineffective over time. Effective reform will address the deeper cause of the overreach. To reform government means literally that we must change the structure of government. To change the structure of our government, the contract must be changed.

The Framers understood that their design was not perfect, so they provided not just one, but two tools to change the contract when flaws became apparent. Congress can begin the amendment process, and so can the State legislatures. An attempt at amendment organized and executed by Federal politicians would be a disaster. That would be putting the robbers in charge of designing a bank's security system. This amendment is an action is to protect the citizens from the Federal lawmakers, not to give abusive lawmakers more power over us. An Article V States’ Convention is called for.

Some people have concerns about the implications of an Article V States' Convention. The Goldwater Institute has an excellent and well researched three part series addressing the topic. Anyone with concerns about the realities of a States' Convention would be advised to start here (http://goldwaterinstitute.org/articlev) before digging through Google or the Wikepedia.

An Article V Convention would address the unconscionable characteristic of the otherwise good contract. We need an amendment, or amendments, to create a neutral third party to act as arbitrator of the Constitutional contract. The amendment would probably split the Federal Court in two, with one court acting as arbitrator between the Federal government, and the States and their citizens; and a second court acting as arbitrator between the States and their citizens. A police power would probably have to be added to the neutral party to actively look for infractions, instead of waiting passively for someone with enough resources to file suit. The judicial and policing power would be almost all negative powers, like the powers of a referee in a football game. The referee does not advance the game. He only judges and enforces the limits. An arbitrator with positive powers, such as the powers of law making or extraction of money from the citizens, would be an expansion of government, not a limiter of government. Given positive powers, the arbitrator would become a liability, not an asset.

The chief arbitrator would be an employee of the citizens, unlike the members of the Federal Court today who are employees of the government. The citizens would define how the arbitrator performs their job. The citizens would have the power to remove the office holder from office at any time. The citizens would finance the office directly and set pay rates directly. Through this office we would finally have an effective brake on government. We would finally have our power of veto over the overreaching actions of the Federal government.

An Article V Convention would need a champion with the skills to bring it together and make it happen. Such a person would be someone who understands and believes in good process, who has skills to reach out to others, and who recognizes the importance of correcting the obvious structural weakness in the Constitution.

The case for the Convention would have to be well prepared and then presented to the various State legislatures. The general intents and requirements of the amendment would have to be clearly written out and documented so the States would have a standard to apply when voting yes or no . Credible timelines and processes for putting the amendment in place would have to be detailed before the amendment was finalized. You cannot suddenly change the structure of a large body overnight, because doing so would tear the body apart. The Application of the Convention must provide enough clear language so that Congress would find it difficult to stray from the general design of the amendment, perhaps it would include a rough draft of the amendment. Before this process could begin, all of these things and more would have to be hammered out for presentation to the State legislatures.

So, to answer Levin's question more directly: The American people do still care enough about themselves and their children to want to address the problem of excessive government, and we will do so if given a credible and clear direction. But I am concerned in part because many people fight necessary change out of fear. And I am concerned in part because so few of us recognize the primary cause of the problem is not the people in government, but the structure of government. Blaming, finger pointing and factionalizing are easy, but never solve the problem. Considering drastic changes in the structure of government is hard, but necessary, and for some people, upsetting. This is what the Founding Fathers went through 230-plus years ago when ending the oppression of Great Britain and when drafting the Constitution. Our struggle is the continuation of their struggle. Just as they had to consider serious and drastic changes in the structure of government to end their oppression, so must we.

Read More