Mr. Obama Stands Alone

The framers of our Constitution created the Presidency as an office held by a single individual, rather than a group, for very deliberate and specific purposes. One such purpose is addressed by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 70 (1788) as follows –

But one of the weightiest objections to a plurality in the Executive, and which lies as much against the last as the first plan, is, that it tends to conceal faults and destroy responsibility. Responsibility is of two kinds — to censure and to punishment. The first is the more important of the two, especially in an elective office. Man, in public trust, will much oftener act in such a manner as to render him unworthy of being any longer trusted, than in such a manner as to make him obnoxious to legal punishment. But the multiplication of the Executive adds to the difficulty of detection in either case. It often becomes impossible, amidst mutual accusations, to determine on whom the blame or the punishment of a pernicious measure, or series of pernicious measures, ought really to fall. It is shifted from one to another with so much dexterity, and under such plausible appearances, that the public opinion is left in suspense about the real author. The circumstances which may have led to any national miscarriage or misfortune are sometimes so complicated that, where there are a number of actors who may have had different degrees and kinds of agency, though we may clearly see upon the whole that there has been mismanagement, yet it may be impracticable to pronounce to whose account the evil which may have been incurred is truly chargeable.

The great wisdom of this design can be clearly seen in the transparency of Mr. Obama’s failures and his attempts to distract us from them.

Here are some interesting views of Mr. Obama’s failures:

From the Left:

From the Right: Peter Ferrara on

On Foreign Policy: George Melloan at

Regards, Pete Weldon

Forty One Traitors

A traitor is someone who betrays a friend, a country, or a principle. To betray your country is to deliberately do harm to its foundational principles.

Forty one US Senators are sponsoring a proposed Constitutional Amendment that would, if enacted, deliberately do harm to our country by destroying the foundational principle of free speech upon which our strength and peaceful existence relies. We have forty one traitors in the US Senate.

The proposed amendment would grant the Federal government and each State government the power to regulate raising and spending of money and in-kind equivalents in elections, including setting limits on the amount of contributions to candidates, and the amount of funds that may be spent by in support of, or in opposition to such candidates.

In other words, these 41 US Senators are demanding that the government have the power to tell people how much money they can spend communicating their views to other people.

There could be no more clear indication that our political class is now committed to the consolidation of power in government, rather than in the people. The people need to know who these Senators are so they will know who to remove from public office. Here is the list of sponsors.

Sen. Bennet, Michael F. [D-CO]*

Sen. Harkin, Tom [D-IA]*

Sen. Schumer, Charles E. [D-NY]*

Sen. Shaheen, Jeanne [D-NH]*

Sen. Whitehouse, Sheldon [D-RI]*

Sen. Tester, Jon [D-MT]*

Sen. Boxer, Barbara [D-CA]*

Sen. Coons, Christopher A. [D-DE]*

Sen. King, Angus S. Jr. [I-ME]*

Sen. Murphy, Christopher S. [D-CT]*

Sen. Wyden, Ron [D-OR]*

Sen. Franken, Al [D-MN]*

Sen. Klobuchar, Amy [D-MN]*

Sen. Udall, Mark [D-CO]*

Sen. Johnson, Tim [D-SD]

Sen. Menendez, Robert [D-NJ]

Sen. Reed, Jack [D-RI]

Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT]

Sen. Heinrich, Martin [D-NM]

Sen. Merkley, Jeff [D-OR]

Sen. Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA]

Sen. Begich, Mark [D-AK]

Sen. Cardin, Benjamin L. [D-MD]

Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY]

Sen. Hagan, Kay [D-NC]

Sen. Mikulski, Barbara A. [D-MD]

Sen. Baldwin, Tammy [D-WI]

Sen. Markey, Edward J. [D-MA]

Sen. Warren, Elizabeth [D-MA]

Sen. Brown, Sherrod [D-OH]

Sen. Walsh, John E. [D-MT]

Sen. Durbin, Richard [D-IL]

Sen. Reid, Harry [D-NV]

Sen. Hirono, Mazie K. [D-HI]

Sen. Carper, Thomas R. [D-DE]

Sen. Murray, Patty [D-WA]

Sen. Schatz, Brian [D-HI]

Sen. Sanders, Bernard [I-VT]

Sen. Rockefeller, John D., IV [D-WV]

Sen. Stabenow, Debbie [D-MI]

Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ]


Regards, Pete Weldon

The Court Upholds Free Speech

Today’s Supreme Court ruling removing overall limits on contributions to candidates for federal office by individuals restores some measure of freedom, and specifically freedom of speech.

Let’s get something straight. Money equals speech. I can write all day long on this blog and nobody reads it unless energy is expended trying to attract readers. The more money I spend, the more energy I can exert, and the more readers I can attract. The same is exactly true for political candidates.

The crazies (including four Supreme Court Justices) will scream that the ruling increases the likelihood that those with money will have an advantage and potentially use that money to corrupt politicians. Baloney!

The fact is that the ruling keeps in place the $2,600 per candidate per election limitations on individual candidate contributions ($5,600 per election cycle, per candidate, split between primary and general elections). The ruling means that some rich guy like George Soros is now free to give $5,600 per election cycle to every left wing progressive growth destroying candidate he can find running for federal office. He can now, for example, directly contribute a total of $560,000 to 100 different candidates for Federal Office as well as contribute $32,400 per year to each of the three  Democratic national committees.

OK, great, the Koch Brothers can do the same on the other side of the ledger and, taken together, more money will be legally available to candidates and political parties to get their message directly to the voters. Further, this change likely means more money directly supporting candidates and less money for PACs and Super PACs who cannot speak directly for candidates. MORE SPEECH IS ALWAYS BETTER.

Another factor needs to be understood here. Every voter has a vested interest in sending money to candidates and parties they support AND EVERY VOTER SHOULD DO SO!

In my small town I hear constant whining about how developers are the ones who contribute to local political candidates, supposedly swaying their decisions as elected officials. Funny thing is that my town has 17,000 voters, only about 300 people who contribute any amount to political campaigns, and typically less than 5,000 people who actually vote in local elections. If just 1,000 voters here gave $25 to a particular candidate it would make a significant difference in both who would want to be a candidate, how much they could communicate to the voters, and whose interest they would actually represent at city hall.

We need to thank our Supreme Court for affirming our right to free speech in elections. Our democracy needs to be a competition of ideas if it is to remain credible in the eyes of all voters. Let the games begin and may the best man or woman win. More speech! Please!

Regards, Pete Weldon

Preserving a Viable Democracy

Our politics and policies have regressed to a level that threatens democracy.

Political Spittle: A recent email from Jim Messina, Barack has the subject “This is some sick crap.” This guy leads Obama’s political efforts. He is not some small time leftist blogger. The tone and purpose of this stuff is to enrage the gullible and motivate their hatred of some object of scorn, in this case the Koch brothers. That this language goes out under Jim Messina’s name is the same as if it went out directly from Barack Obama.

The purpose of the spittle is to inspire hatred, resentment, and envy to motivate action.

While there is nothing new about political spittle there is something new about the number of voters dependent on government to whom the spittle is targeted.

Vested Financial Interest:

I could find no study that measures the number of people eligible to vote who also receive benefits from federal programs, but can extrapolate from the above that about 90 million voters, 40% of all voters, depend on government aid and many more have family members who depend on government aid.

Stated another way, at least 40% of current voters have a financial vested interest in voting for candidates who promise to maintain or expand federal aid programs. Now add in 20 million public sector employees and about 50% of all voters have a direct vested financial interest in growing government.

Political Spittle + Financial Vested Interest = Votes

Those with a direct financial vested interest in an election outcome easily embrace false and fabricated arguments supporting that vested interest.

Fomenting hatred and resentment among those dependent on government largess is unethical, yet it has become the standard modus operandi of Democratic politics.

A republic that is trusted by the citizenry depends on independent individuals voting based on their conscience, not their financial interest. The reason conservatives must get control of the Federal government is not to lower spending, it is to lower dependency and in the process preserve our republic.

Regards, Pete Weldon