First, let us not turn this into a bashing thread, or resort to name calling. This is meant to reach across the isle and discuss the freedoms and liberties that a few want to take from us. I hope the moderators will help keep the bashing of individual politicians out of this thread. Its intent is to discuss constitutional issues and their erosion. Please, let’s keep the discussion on topic.

No matter which side of the isle you stand, you must admit that these pearls of wisdom not only make sense, but are based on the founding principles of those wise statesmen that founded this country. Today we have far too many both in and seeking office on BOTH sides that seek to take away our liberties, silence our voices and rule over us like dictators. They have taxed, regulated and nanny stated us into sheep. THIS MUST STOP!


• "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
-- Thomas Jefferson

• "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated."
-- Thomas Jefferson

• "[T]he powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its
jurisdiction."
-- James Madison, Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention [June 6, 1788]

• ...[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."
--James Madison

• "...the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."
-- Thomas Jefferson

• When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
-- Benjamin Franklin

• "No nation was ever ruined by trade, even seemingly the most disadvantageous."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Principles of Trade, 1774

• "Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, 1821

• "Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."
-- Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776

• "They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
--Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

• "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it."
-- Thomas Paine, The American Crisis, No. 4, September 11, 1777

• "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If 'Thou shalt not covet' and 'Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free."
-- John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787

• "To be prepared for war, is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace."
-- George Washington, First Annual Message, January 8, 1790

• "One single object. . . [will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Livingston, March 25, 1825

• "Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
-- John Adams, letter to John Taylor, April 15, 1814

• "To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

• " I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it."
-- Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1776

• "The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society."
-- Thomas Jefferson

• "[The purpose of a written constitution is] to bind up the several branches of government by certain laws, which, when they transgress, their acts shall become nullities; to render unnecessary an appeal to the people, or in other words a rebellion, on every infraction of their rights, on the peril that their acquiescence shall be construed into an intention to surrender those rights."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia [1782]

Nice Statements of the 1800's but forefather's probly didn't think the population would be this tremendous.... Individual rights kinda of gone down hill. But I do agree with those founders .. Its hard to keep the faith going...

The issue of socialized medicine has been around for a long time. Listen to this perspective from a few decades ago. I find it to still be relevant and something to ponder. Will it stop with healthcare? Do we really want to give the government more power over our lives?

http://www.livevideo.com/video/415EE6E634A14E2F828ED104CE605929/ronald-reagan-speaks-out-again.aspx

You know the energy bill that Congress passed and President Bush signed into law the other day? Tucked into the legislation is a provision that mandates the phase-out of the 125-year-old incandescent bulb in the next four to 12 years in favor of a new generation of trendy, supposedly energy-efficient compact fluorescent lights (CFL’s). That’s right, soon you will have no choice but these terrible dim bulbs that need a few minutes to warm up before you can even see anything in the room.

First, Australia. Then the EU. And now us. Well-intended bulb-pushers said they weren’t supporting mandates. Just “voluntary adoption” of lighting alternatives. But the road to eco-meddling is always paved with “voluntary” intentions–along with threats to your children that if you don’t volunteer to buy environmentally correct lights, Santa and his reindeer will DIE! That according to the Seattle Mayor at a tree lighting ceremony in the downtown area. The Mayor used the event to preach the evils of global warming to the kids in attendance. He warned the children that if they don’t use energy-efficient light bulbs, Santa and the reindeer will perish amid melting icecaps. Can’t Christmas be Christmas without scaring the kids?

The light bulb provision phases out traditional bulbs by gradually increasing efficiency requirements through 2020. Conveniently for manufacturers like Philips, GE, et al, which have been pushing for legislation that would phase out incandescent bulbs (and level the playing field among competitors while giving Philips the public relations credit), the compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs) already meet the 2020 requirement. Do you see where if you follow the money you can always find what the real agenda behind this stuff is?

Proponents of government intervention into the light bulb market argue the change will save consumers money – The claim is it will save $40 billion in energy and other costs in the next 22 years. But aside from mentioning that one drawback of CFLs – that their “yellowish tints” are annoying to some eyes – they fail to mention the major flaw of the new technology: mercury. Mercury, a toxic metal famously found in thermometers, helps create the increased efficiency of a CFL bulb. If the bulb breaks, the small amount of mercury can contaminate the area. I thought we had been focusing the last few years on keeping this stuff out of the environment and away from our children.

The Financial Post reported in April that a broken CFL bulb cost a Maine woman more than $2,000 to clean when the state Department of Environmental Protection referred her to a cleanup company. At $5 in energy savings per bulb per month, one broken bulb could eat up 33 years’ worth of savings!

The federal EPA doesn’t recommend professional cleanup for a broken bulb. It recommends you open a window, leave the room for 15 minutes, then put on some rubber gloves, scoop up the broken bits and seal them in a plastic bag, then put that bag in another plastic bag before throwing it out. Then wash your hands.

Even if the bulb doesn’t break, CFL users are supposed to dispose of used bulbs through state-run household hazardous waste programs, which aren’t nearly as simple or convenient as tossing a burnt bulb in the trash. Some states, like Maine, tell residents to hold hazardous materials in their homes until designated collection days. Many others, like Virginia, require participants to take the bulbs to waste disposal sites for special processing.

What happened to keeping government out of our bedroom? And our bathroom? And our utility closets?
In a little over a year -- January 2009 -- this major change will be introduced and will have a significant impact on domestic and industrial users, as well as lighting installers and manufacturers.

No guidelines or informative advice have been published regarding the changeover. Yet again, the long-suffering public will be left to shoulder the added cost. It will also have to endure the hassle of yet another quick and easy knee-jerk government measure aimed at cheap, "green" feel-good publicity rather than a carefully thought through measure.

Do you know the story of the Incredible Disappearing Border Fence? It's an object lesson in gesture politics and homeland insecurity. It's a tale of hollow rhetoric, meaningless legislation and bipartisan betrayal. And in the run-up to the Iowa caucuses, it's a helpful learning tool as you assess the promises of immigration enforcement converts now running for president.

Last fall, Democrats and Republicans in Washington responded to continued public outrage over border chaos by passing the "Secure Fence Act." Did you question the timing? You should have. It's no coincidence they finally got off their duffs to respond just before the 2006 midterm elections. Lawmakers vowed grandiosely to keep America safe. The law specifically called for "at least 2 layers of reinforced fencing, the installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras and sensors" at five specific stretches of border totaling approximately 700 miles.

GOP leaders patted themselves on the back for their toughness. President Bush made a huge to-do in signing the bill into law. Never mind the lack of funding for the fence and the failure to address many other immediate reforms that could have been adopted immediately to strengthen immigration enforcement, close deportation loopholes and provide systemic relief at the border without the need for a single brick or bulldozer.

On the very day the bill was signed, open-borders politicians were already moving to water it down. Texas Republican Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn pushed for "flexibility to choose other options instead of fencing, if needed." Six months after passage of the Secure Fence Act -- now interpreted by Washington as the Flexible Non-Fence Act or, as I call it, the FINO (Fence in Name Only) Act -- 700 miles shrunk to "somewhere in the ballpark" of 370 miles. A 14-mile fence-building project in San Diego was stalled for years by environmental legal challenges and budget shortfalls. The first deadline -- a May 30, 2007 requirement for installation of an "interlocking surveillance camera system" along the border in California and Arizona -- passed unmet. GOP Rep. Duncan Hunter, one of the few Republican presidential candidates to walk the talk on border security, blasted the Bush administration for suffering from "a case of 'the slows' on border enforcement."

More than a year after the law's passage, the citizen watchdog group Grassfire reports that just five miles of double-layer fencing has been built in the first 12 months of implementation of the act. Five lousy miles. The Government Accountability Office claims 70 miles were erected -- but most of that fencing failed to meet the specifications of the law.

Is Congress up in arms? Will there be accountability? Don't make me snort. Instead of demanding that the law be enforced, the pols are sabotaging the law. As part of the omnibus spending package passed this week, House Democrats incorporated Senate Republicans' provisions to remove the two-layer fencing requirements and the specific target list of fencing locations.

GOP Rep. Peter T. King, who sponsored the Secure Fence Act, told the Washington Times: "This is either a blatant oversight or a deliberate attempt to disregard the border security of our country. As it's currently written, the omnibus language guts the Secure Fence Act almost entirely. Quite simply, it is unacceptable." But so totally, totally predictable.

GOP Majority Leader John Boehner tried to blame the House Democrat majority: "The fact that this was buried in a bloated, 3,500-page omnibus speaks volumes about the Democrats' unserious approach on border security and illegal immigration," he said. "Gutting the Secure Fence Act will make our borders less secure, but it's consistent with the pattern of behavior we've seen all year from this majority." But it's border state Republicans who've been gunning to undermine the law while the ink was still fresh.

To add insult to injury and homeland insecurity upon homeland insecurity, Congress failed to adopt a ban on federal aid to sanctuary cities that prevent government employees and law enforcement officers from asking about immigration status; voted to stall implementation of stricter ID standards at border crossings; and miraculously found enough money to provide $10 million in "emergency" funding for attorneys of illegal aliens. How much longer are you willing to put up with this?

Did you ever wonder maybe our politicians don't want the border fence simply because they have in mind to take over the other side of the fence too, working on that One World Order, which I am convinced they will not be able to pull it off now, because Russia and China and Iran, etc are glaring at US and Israel ,and saying like DIRTY HARRY used to say:MAKE MY DAY!!! I don't think there will be a fence .I think they might use it as an excuse to try to enforce ID cards, which is only for tax purposes, and nothing else.

“Elections should be held on April 16th- the day after we pay our income taxes. That is one of the few things that might discourage politicians from being big spenders.” - Thomas Sowell

"By far the best presentation as a candidate, among all the candidates in both parties, is that of Barack Obama. But if he actually believes even half of the irresponsible nonsense he talks, he would be an utter disaster in the White House." - Thomas Sowell

“Men are so simple and so much inclined to obey immediate needs that a deceiver will never lack victims for his deceptions” - Niccolo Machiavelli

"There is nothing wrong with your thermostat. Do not attempt to adjust the temperature. We are controlling your power consumption. If we wish to make it hotter, we will turn off your air conditioner. If we wish to make it cooler, we will turn off your heater. For the next millennium, sit quietly and we will control your home temperature. We repeat, there is nothing wrong with your thermostat. You are about to participate in a great adventure. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to... BIG BROTHER!"*

Building codes and engineering standards are generally good things. Updating and improving codes and standards better protect us against earthquakes, for example, as we better understand the weak points and failure modes of existing construction techniques. Requirements that ensure proper handling of sanitary wastes can be largely credited with the increased life spans in industrialized countries through the reduction of communicable diseases.

In California, there is the 236 pages of state-mandated standards for building energy efficiency, known as Title 24. This prescribes methods for calculating the sizes of your home windows, the capacities of your air conditioner and heater, the thickness of the insulation in your attic. A small cottage industry has sprung up to perform these engineering calculations that are required for any new commercial or residential construction or major change to existing structures. It is now just part of the mandated paperwork involved in the construction business these days in California.

A new revision to Title 24 is in the works for 2008, (*1), and it includes a number of improvements and enhancements that are largely good sense items and should be non-controversial.

For example a new swimming pool will probably need larger diameter pipes between the pool, the filter and the pump than was former practice. This will reduce the fluid friction losses that your pump must overcome and hence reduce the pump's consumption of electricity, albeit at a minor increase in first cost for the larger pipes and fittings.

Another good idea is a requirement for lighter colored shingles, the "Cool Roof Initiative." That is intended to reduce heat loss over cold winter nights by emission and heat gain on summer days by absorption.

What should be controversial in the proposed revisions to Title 24 is the requirement for what is called a "programmable communicating thermostat" or PCT (*2). Every new home and every change to existing homes' central heating and air conditioning systems will required to be fitted with a PCT beginning next year following the issuance of the revision. Each PCT would be fitted with a "non-removable " FM receiver that will allow the power authorities to increase your air conditioning temperature set point or decrease your heater temperature set point to any value they chose. During "price events" those changes are limited to +/- four degrees F and you would be able to manually override the changes. During "emergency events" the new set points can be whatever the power authority desires and you would not be able to alter them.

In other words, the temperature of your home will no longer be yours to control. Your desires and needs can and will be overridden by the state of California through its public and private utility organizations. All this is for the common good, of course.

In some technocratic worldview, it does have a justification. California's population growth and its affluence have strained the state's electric and natural gas resources. Famously, rolling blackouts have occurred due to shortages of electrical generation during peak periods. Unbeknownst to most citizens, short supplies of natural gas during cold weather have resulted in curtailments of delivery to industrial and large commercial customers. Those last kilowatts tend to be very expensive kilowatts and tend to drive up the average cost of electricity for all.

Call me radical here, but wouldn’t building more power generation facilities help with the growing demand for electricity in California? For that matter, in many places around the country? California is currently one of the largest importers of electricity from out of state suppliers buying as much surplus power as they can which adds to the demand nationally contributing to the high cost of electricity. The old “Supply & Demand Theory”.

But the discomforts of compliance will fall unevenly across the state. Come the next heat wave, the elites might be comfortably lolling in La Jolla's ocean breezes or basking in Berkeley by the Bay, while the Central Valley's poor peons are baking in Bakersfield and frying in Fresno. California's coastal climate, where the elites live, seldom requires air conditioning.

How will the state ensure compliance and prevent free riders? As above, coastal elites are already free riders as they will see the benefits while paying none of the costs except for the higher first cost of a PCT. For initial construction or home remodeling, it will be one of those items a building inspector will check before signing a certificate of occupancy. Replacing one's mandated PCT with a bootleg unit from Nevada should be within the skill of most homeowners. A low powered FM transmitter might easily be devised to override the broadcast commands for low cost. Even a metal wire shield around your PCT could block its FM reception. Adding a window air conditioner or an electric space heater are other work-arounds as neither have requirements for PCTs - yet.

Another problem is that PCTs will obscure the price signals to power plant developers telling them that it will be profitable to build additional generation. As explained in an article I read (*3), a deregulated electric market will come to resemble other commodity markets, like pork bellies, where shortages cause high prices that induce new capacity and low (or obscured) prices inhibit investment. When bacon prices are high, farmers arrange dates between their sows and their boars in hopes of future, profitable piglets. When bacon prices are low, farmers are more interested in chastity for their herds. If the state "shaves" peak loads by adjusting your thermostat during "price events," generators will not receive the higher prices. This effect will reinforce electrical shortages much like rent control discourages apartment building.

The real question poised by this invasion of the sanctity of our homes by state power is -- why are we doing this? It seems to me to be the wrong fix for a problem that we don't have to have. The common sense alternative is to build new power plants so that power shortages don't occur.

Of course, they can't be coal or nuclear power plants! The coastal elites have their minds set against those undesirables. While the rest of the world has been building nuclear power generators, the elites and environmental groups have made sure we do not. The same thing can be said of creating a permanent disposal site for spent fuel rods from the existing facilities. No one wants these in their back yard, despite the safety record over the past four decades. We have vast spaces of open desert in this country where they could be built with minimal impact on the population at large. Why are we not doing this?

For natural gas, offshore drilling should be considered. While we have one liquefied natural gas terminal in Mexico supplying us with Indonesian and, in the near future, Russian, LNG, another receiving terminal to be supplied by Australian LNG was rejected by the State Coastal Commission.

Mean while, the government has wasted billions of our tax dollars on wind generation that hasn't helped to meet peak loads, passed legislation requiring bio fuel alternatives that have done little except drive up the cost of a loaf of bread and push solar energy that is far too expensive to implement to be practical to the average American.


While nowhere in the Bill of Rights is there explicitly a right to set one's own thermostat to whatever temperature one desires (and is able to pay for), the new PCT requirement certainly seems to violate the "a man's home is his castle" common law dictum.

Californians have until January 30th to send their opinions and comments on the pending revisions to Title 24 to the California Energy Commission. Thankfully, public outcry has almost killed this idea, for now. Do we need or want the government to control so many aspects of our life? Talk about your threat to personal liberty. Who do these people think they are anyway?

*With apologies to the creators of the TV science fiction series, "The Outer Limits."

*1 http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-400-2007-017/CEC-400-2007-017-45DAY.PDF

*2 http://www.energypulse.net/images/articles/Boland2.1.gif

*3 http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=214

Keep in mind next time you vote, when you keep voting for the SAME bunch all over again, THEN don't expect different results. The CAREER politicians are not planning to change any thing in your favor. Throw them OUT!!!

my three rules for whom to vote for:

#1: Would you trust them with your money?
#2: Would you trust them with your life?
#3: Would you trust them to spend the weekend with your wife/gf and not try to get her in bed?

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!

Where have all the Statesmen gone?

Have you ever wondered why very few of our leaders over the last 100 years have been regularly referred to as "Statesmen"? It is an honored title that connotes integrity, truthfulness, persuasiveness and personal strength. Names like Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Washington, Everett Dirkson, Daniel Webster, Nathan Hale, Thomas Paine, Abraham Lincoln and others come to mind when this appellation is mentioned. In our current political landscape few if any would be recognized as statesmen except in flowery introductions that no one believes anyway.

There is a reason that this is so. There is a cause of it and there is a cure.

The Reason

The reason for the dearth of leaders we can meaningfully call statesmen is that all our leaders have to pay a specific price to remain in leadership. That price is to tell the truth completely and directly only if it does not offend or embarrass any of those who elect them. They are beholden to the public which is influenced by the media. They are also indebted to the special interests that fund their campaigns and contribute to their organizations. They also must compromise with their colleagues in order to gain cooperation for their own agendas. It is what we call politics and it is the skill that all of our leaders must acquire to stay in office long enough to gain any significant power. The problem is that, by the time they actually rise to power, they are so much part of the system that they believe they must continue to act as a politician to get things done. Once in a great while, one of those who has gained power will assert themselves as a statesman and begin to act with full integrity and strength, only to have their opponents drag up all the compromises they made getting there and proving that they are not worthy of the title because of past decisions. There are very few in the last 100 years that people from both major parties and all walks of life could look to and say "I may not agree with all s/he says, but I respect and honor their integrity and trust their intentions."

The Cause

When the founders (many of whom we justly refer to as statesmen) created our system of government, they did many things to balance opposing forces and interests in ways that allowed the public to be heard as well as the interests of the union as a whole to be considered. This balance was key to the creation of the Constitution. There was a balance between the power of the Federal Government and the rights of the States and of the Individual Citizens. That balance was epitomized in the 10th Amendment (part of the Bill of Rights) which says that "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."

Another balance was that between the voice of the people and the voice of the states. The people were free to speak out about their interests and desires through their representatives - Leaders elected by the people of each representative district of approximately equal population. Thus there were more representatives in the House of Representatives from more populous states. The populations (the people) were represented.

A balance to this was needed as the founders foresaw. The people, unchecked by honest and clear debate over issues such as how to pay for government programs, tend to demand more and more from the government, thus requiring the government to take more and more from the people to pay for it. The larger states had a greater say in this house of congress because they had more people and thus more representatives. The members of the Senate (representatives of the states) were to be a balance and a limiting influence on the House of Representatives tendency to make government bigger and individual freedoms smaller. Each state was limited to two Senators which balanced the power of the larger states. The reason that they were able to stand up and speak the truth and keep the growth of government limited was that they didn't have to worry about being elected. They were appointed by the state legislatures and served at their request. Those in the state legislatures were generally informed and aware of the cost, both in money and in freedom, of unrestrained power and growth in the Federal Government. The senators were generally asked to serve by the state legislators precisely because they were wise men of integrity and persuasive ability who could debate the other members of the Senate wisely and honorably about what was best for the country and its citizens and not how to please the people into re-electing them. Because they represented the states, the best and most honorable and powerful among them came to be known as statesmen.

Near the beginning of the 20th century, the political parties and many special interest groups saw a way to increase their power. They recommended a fundamental change in the constitution, replacing the appointment of Senators with the direct election of Senators. The fact that this destroyed the balance between the interests of the people and the good of the nation as a whole and also tipped the balance more towards centralized government and less towards individual freedom was not a deterrent to those who wished the parties and the special interests to have more power.

The Cure

The specific instrument used to dismantle the precious balance in government that protected the rights of the people and the individual states was the 17th Amendment. It was proposed and pushed through as a result of a few states having been found to have granted senator status to people who were not worthy as a result of political favors. Rather than letting those states suffer the embarrassment they deserved from the rest of the country (which would have corrected the problem), those interested in gaining power used it as a reason to push the 17th Amendment through. The result is apparent 90 years later. Debates in the Senate end up being politically motivated repeats of those in the House rather than reasoned debates with the good of the country and the freedom of her citizens as the bedrock purpose. Senators are politicians always looking to curry favor with the electorate instead of doing what is right. If the people will put up with it, they can indulge themselves in any type of immorality and/or lack of integrity and still get elected as long as they bring home the bacon (pork) to their home states in more and more federal funds and programs. The political parties have so much power that no one can be heard unless they are willing to play politics and support the party first and the country second. That makes it pretty hard for anyone to become a statesmen - if they unwilling to compromise on principle in order to please the party, they never will have the power to do any good. Statesmen didn't have to worry about that - they could stand for the right and tell the truth.

The federal government has grown from consuming 5% of the Gross National Product in 1910 to consuming over 50% in 2004. The self imposed weight of taxation and government spending threatens to destroy all security and all government programs because it has not been checked by the balance mechanisms that the founders foresaw that we would need. The fault is laid at the feet of those who proposed and supported the 17th Amendment.

THE CURE is to REPEAL the 17th AMENDMENT!

jura heat please ......

Each and every one of your posts are high sounding and lofty, but the reality is that when we go to vote, the thing we must bear in mind is the question, "Which candidates will do the least bit of damage to the country?" and vote for those individuals. We cannot vote based on "your" wonderful ideals, because there is not one single candidate who can live up to them.

I don't mean to be cynical, but I am a realist and what has happened is that the majority of our politicians have been corrupted in that they no longer care about the people.

Yes, you are right in that when our forefathers first founded this country, it was with the idea that our nation was to be governed by citizen politicians. Ordinary people were supposed to serve one term in the various public offices and then go home.

Today every single one of our elected officials with few exceptions are career politicians who no longer care about "the will of the people." Their only concern is power and self-serving interests. They no longer do the job they were elected for; they think they know better than the people who put them into power.

As a final thought, I want to answer your query "Where have all the Statesmen gone?" (Isn't that a novel by Lee Ioca?)

The Statesmen are living in ordinary places among ordinary citizens, but they do not have the money to run for office. They are not Hillary Clintons and Obamas who can garner vast amounts of money in their war chests to run for office. Additionally, they are not the Mitt Romneys or Bloombergs of the world who have vast personal fortunes and can finance their own campaigns. Therefore, "all the statesmen" are at home and will never run for office.

So once again, at the risk of being repetitive, we cannot harbor your ideals when we go to vote. We must vote for the lesser of two evils --- the man/woman who will do the least bit of damage to our country.

I am editing this to put a P.S.

What has doing away with the 17th Amendment got to do with anything? Isn't that the Amendment that allows for the election of two Senators from each State at the Federal level? What is your intent? Do you want to go back to appointing the Senators? Remember, it isn't just the Senators that are part of the problem; it is also the Representatives.

LeahMarie

The reason for the postings is to point out and discuss real issues. You are correct in saying we have no candidate that would do much of anything to improve these situations very much. But rather than bash this candidate or that, which always seems to degrade into a name calling mess, I chose to discuss problems we face here. Then it is up to you to decide who will do the least amount of damage, who might address the issues etc.

I find that most people really don’t know the issues at all, just the sound bites from the nightly news which really don’t tell you anything or at best, skew the story one way or another via SPIN.

You have a valid point about career politicians, that to is a serious problem with the status quo and a real solution to this is the subject of an upcoming post. We need real campaign finance reform that gets special interests out of the game.

Do I think my postings here will have a profound impact on the election? No, but one must start somewhere and as the saying goes… “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”.. Edmund Burke.

The point of the 17th amendment argument is that when we changed the system, we changed the balance of power. We opened the door for more career politicians currying favor to gain re-election.

Jura Heat Please ..... Again, you have made a lot of good points. I am familiar with Edmund Burke. However, I suppose what you are trying to say is summed up better by Aldous Huxley. He said something to the effect (don't remember the exact quote since it is rather long) that ..... At least two thirds of our miseries spring from human stupidity and proselytizing zeal on behalf of religious or political idols.
And that seems to be what is happening in this presidential race. As you point out, people don't know the issues or the candidates; they are deciding via the sound bites from the nightly news. Look what they initially did to Obama -- some of the commentators were actually speaking of him as if he were The Christ reborn brought here to save the world. Then Fred Thompson was supposed to be Ronald Reagan reincarnated.

Well, I suppose your positive attitude is a lot better than my cynical one. If you can get one or more people to find out what the issues are and which candidate will do something to make some real change, you will have done some good.

I am suffering from E.D. That's Electile Disfunction...non of the candidates thrill me.

Have you tried Votagra? Supposedly it keeps the poll up longer and alleviates the hanging chad problem. Makes stuffing the box more enjoyable.

OMG,, Loved it,,,

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm Hello to you my friend,,, And hugs and kiss's to the Mrssssssssssssssssssss

Muah