Constitutional Amendment 28 Is Our Only Hope

The results of the 2010 mid-term election, (after congress forced The Affordable Care Act on Americans), is the best argument for Constitutional Amendment 28.  Read The Amendment and you will be convinced that it will work.

The Congress of The United States is granted power, by the people, to pass legislation and send that legislation to the President of The United States.  The President of The United States may sign the legislation, or exercise veto the veto power granted by the people.

If The President exercises veto power, the legislation will be returned to The Congress of The United States for amendment, or the necessary vote to override the veto of The President of The United States.  If The Congress of The United States does not vote to override the veto of The President of The United States, the bill is considered dead.

If the President of The United States signs legislation sent to him by The Congress of The United States, the legislation will then be posted online for seventy-two (72) hours, during which time all registered voters will have the opportunity to log into a secured website and vote to approve, or reject the legislation.

If a majority of American voters who choose to cast a vote on the legislation vote to approve the legislation, the legislation is enacted into law, on a timeline stated in the legislation.  If a majority of American voters who choose to cast a vote on the legislation reject the legislation, the legislation is returned to The Congress of The United States.  The Congress of The United States may choose to amend the legislation for further consideration by American voters, or kill the legislation.

This Amendment forbids The Congress of The United States, or The President of The United States to take any Executive Action that is not in accordance with legislation as it is approved by a majority of American voters.

After congress gave 63% of Americans the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) the House of Representatives experienced a turnover which changed the balance of power in that legislative body; too late to avoid the damage done by those who were voted out of office.  Now Americans are living with the damage done by those who were voted out of office.

The 63% of Americans who still do not want Obamacare are stuck with it, thanks to members of congress who were voted out in 2010.  There is no question that the current members of The House of Representatives would not have voted for Obamacare if they were in office in 2009.  The American people spoke loudly against Obamacare in 2010, after the damage was done.

If Constitutional Amendment 28 was ratified before 2009, the American people would have decided the fate of Obamacare, instead of .000004% of American voters.  Congress is 535 registered American voters, but they are not held accountable for their actions before they do damage to 100% of Americans.

There is a need to have a congress.  If held in check, they will provide a valuable service to the Americans who elect them.  They should write the laws, pass them, send them to the President for signature, but a majority of American voters must have the final voice before the legislation is enacted into law.  The majority of registered voters do know better than .000004% of registered American voters and that majority must have the final voice on legislation.

We can have that final voice with an online vote on all legislation passed by congress.  This takes away congressional power when a majority of American voters disagree with them.  The online vote will also take away the power of lobbyists in congress.  Lobbyists can now pressure, or buy off, members of congress, but they cannot pressure, or buy off, 150,000,000 registered voters in America.

Join the movement.  Leave your comments after you read the Amendment.  Follow on Twitter @onlinemajority.  Be part of the solution.  Leaving it up to .000004% is not working for America.

The Hillary Clinton Mini-Series

Hillary Clinton was First Lady of The State of Arkansas, First Lady of The United States of America, United States Senator from The State of New York, Presidential hopeful in 2008 and Secretary of State of The United States of America.  You have to admit, that is a pretty impressive resume.

Now CNN is planning to produce and air a documentary about her.  This has the republicans outraged.  Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman, Reince Priebus has announced that CNN will not be allowed to air any Presidential debates in 2016.  Is he cutting off his nose to spite his face?  Probably.

Does anyone believe the CNN piece will be anything less than a political commercial for Hillary Clinton?  No.  Does anyone believe she will not run for President in 2016? No.  Does anyone believe the mini-series will make or break her candidacy in 2016?  No.  Will I watch the mini-series?  Probably, but it will not persuade me to vote for Hillary Clinton if she is on the ballot for President in 2016.

Why is the RNC so concerned about the mini-series?  That is the real question.  The RNC should not be concerned about it, but Reince Priebus is terrified.  The RNC does not even have a front runner for 2016 at this time, or a viable strategy for the 2016 Presidential Election.  The only strategy Reince Priebus is willing to put forth at this time is that his party will not play in CNN's yard if he cannot have his way.

I have no idea who I will vote for in 2016, for two very good reason; I haven't seen who is on the ballot yet and have not heard from those who will eventually be on the ballot.  A mini-series that flatters Hillary Clinton will not persuade me to vote for her, assuming she is the eventual democratic candidate for President.  If she is the eventual candidate I want to hear from her, in her own words, her plan for America.

I will listen to Hillary, if she is the eventual candidate for the democrats and decide to pull the lever for her if I believe she is the best candidate for the job.  On the other hand, I will also listen to the candidates for all other parties and decide to pull the lever for one of them if I feel one of them is the best candidate for the job.  That is my right as a voter and I believe it is the best approach for me.  I want the best person on the ballot to sit in the Oval Office after the 2016 Presidential Election.

I like to hear candidates talk about what they offer, not what their opponents do no offer.  When a candidate spends time talking about an opponent's weaknesses, it tells me that the candidate has no plan.  Campaigns are the perfect time to earn voters support based on what a candidate offers.  Unfortunately, most candidates today use that time to politically assassinate opponents.

If you are a political hopeful reading this blog; just tell me what you will do if you are elected.  I will hear, or not hear, the same from your opponent.  I'm not the sharpest tool in the box, but I can listen to both sides and decide for myself who I believe is the best candidate for the job.  If you are a candidate do not take the approach of cutting and running from debates on any news network because that network plans to air a mini-series that will probably flatter your potential opponent.

Let's be honest CNN will always lean to the left and Fox News will always lean to the right.  We all know that.  Therefore, a better job of selecting moderators is important.  Moderators should be impartial and I believe all of the networks do have people who can moderate impartially.  However, the moderators in 2012 did inject themselves and their personal political positions into the debates, and that was wrong.

The bottom line is that Reince Priebus is doing his party's eventual candidate in 2016 a disservice.  Reince is spending far to much time complaining.  He is stating all the things he feels are wrong with CNN and the decision to air a Hillary Clinton mini-series.  His concern and outrage will most likely drive more people to view the mini-series, to see why Reince is so concerned about it.  Reince is the best advertising for the mini-series and CNN does not have to pay a dime for the advertising.

Reince should spend his time stating the his party's plan for America.  Right now, I am left to assume that his party has no plan.

John Layfield and Fox News

My issue with WWE is that many of the characters on WWE hold themselves up to be body builders, when they are in fact nothing more than body enhancers, who us performance enhancing drugs to bulk up.  Many of these men and women insist that they are role models for children.

John Layfield, who once performed in the ring as JBL is now a commentator on Fox News.  He offers financial advice and analysis on Sunday mornings.  John also mentors children in Bermuda.  How do I know this?.  He talks frequently about his mentoring on Fox News.

It is hypocritical of Layfield to tout his mentoring of children on the Fox News program, while also earning a paycheck from an industry that is rampant with men and women who use performance enhancing drugs.  The kids who see John Layfield and other WWE performers want to be as big and strong as the performers they see as role models.

Many of these kids will turn to performance enhancing drugs.  Why?  Because their role models use performance enhancing drugs.  Use of performance enhancing drugs may cost the kids college scholarships and professional careers in legitimate sports.  Even worse, use of performance enhancing drugs may cost them their lives, just like the use of these drugs have cost WWE performers their lives.

Fox News, to its credit, does take a stand against the use of performance enhancing drugs.  However, the network should also drop John Layfield as a commentator unless he drops WWE.  Fox News is hypocritical environment by when the network allows John Layfield to tout himself, on Sunday mornings, as a role model for the children he mentors, then appear ringside the following night on WWE and promote fake wrestling performers who bulk up by using performance enhancing drugs.

Fox News should be fair and balanced, giving both sides of the argument with respect to performance enhancing drugs, but the network should not pay a commentator to hypocritically sit on one of its programs and hold himself up as a role model for children, then go out the next day and support an industry that encourages the use of performance enhancing drugs.

I expressed my feelings that the WWE is fake, on Twitter.  I did so in response to a tweet by John Layfield and he blocked me.  He cut and ran from the discussion.  He knows I am right and has no answer for the truth.  He will not bite the hand that feeds him, the WWE, and does not like those who point out his hypocrisy.  He wants us to listen to him, but does not allow anyone to disagree with him.

Let's see if Fox News will stand up and be counted with respect to supporting a man who, on one hand, uses the network to enhance his image, while on the other hand, works in and industry that corrupts the lives of children.  Call on Fox News to do the right thing and drop John Layfield from its program as a paid commentator. Let him go on the air and defend his position if he wishes, but do not pay him to do it.

Let's Set The Record Straight About My WWE Tweets

I recently tweeted to John Layfield that it is hard to take him seriously on a FoxNews program because he is also a ringside announcer on WWE and appears to represent that fake wrestling is legitimate.  There is no issue with him appearing on both programs, but you have to admit a former WWE star who is now a ringside announcer is hard to take seriously on a legitimate FoxNews program.

Layfield tweeted that he was proud of Fred Rosser, known as Darren Young in the ring, for coming out as the first openly gay "professional" wrestler.  I agree with Layfield with respect to Rosser.  Whether, or not you are gay, or homophobic you have to admit, Rosser's admission was courageous.  Besides, I like anyone who likes Cocoa Pebbles and Rosser likes Cocoa Pebbles.

My tweet dealt with Layfield being taken seriously as a FoxNews analyst while also being a WWE ring announcer.  Layfield quickly tweeted back to me that wrestling is scripted, then referred to me as a kid (I am 63) and blocked me on Twitter.  I truly believe he blocked me to make his response to my tweet go away before fans of WWE could see him admit WWE is fake.  How will I ever survive?


In the interest of full disclosure, I admit when flipping through the channels I sometimes watch fake wrestling events.  I find them entertaining.  There is no question that the men and women who act on the WWE programs are great stunt people, although most of them are terrible actors.  In my opinion John Layfield was a good stuntman when he was in the ring, and he was entertaining. 

Why is it important to WWE actors that we believe WWE events are real?  About three years ago I was at an event where Randy Orton , WWE performer, was a guest.  The subject of wrestling came up.  I made the comment that I believe it is entertaining, even though it is fake.  Randy quickly challenged me to get into the ring with him to prove professional wrestling is fake.  I was born at night, but not last night.  There is no question in my mind that Randy Orton could have taken apart a 60 year old, out of shape man (me).  Needless to say, I declined, so I am still here to write this blog.

As I mentioned, I find WWE events entertaining, but I do have an issue with WWE.  Many of the people who wrestle appear to be on steroids (some admit they are), which sets a bad example for young people who see wrestlers as role models.  Let's be totally honest; many of the stunt people on WWE hold themselves up as role models for young people, at least while they are playing the part of the "good guys".

I do not know John Layfield's position on steroid use, but would like to believe he is against the use of steroids.  He has a great platform to speak out against steroids in his work with young kids in Bermuda.  Do we really need steroids in a scripted, fake wrestling event where the outcome is predetermined?


If you are one who needs proof that professional wrestling is anything more than scripted entertainment, walk into any legal betting establishment in Vegas and try to place a bet on a WWE event.  You cannot do it because Vegas cannot legally accept bets on events that have a predetermined outcome.

Make no mistake about it; those who perform in the WWE know the outcome of every match before they enter the ring.  In the weeks leading up to pay per view events, the "stars" who stand in the ring and claim they will demolish their opponents on the pay per view event know who is scripted to win the event at the time they making their claims that they will win the event.

The ringside announcers, including John Layfield, most likely know the predetermined outcomes of events too. None of the ringside announcers are doing anything wrong.  It is just hard for me to view John Layfield as a credible FoxNews commentator after listening to him as a ring announcer for WWE.

The fact that Layfield took exception to my comment on Twitter indicates to me that I am not the only one who has offered the same opinion.  He was far too defensive about it.  The man could not have responded then run away any faster.  He could not block me fast enough.  Blocking me took away his admission that WWE is scripted.  He retracted his admission as quick as he made it.

Questions of credibility of those in WWE seem to be the norm.  For example, Linda McMahon, wife of WWE Chairman Vince McMahon has run for political office twice, and lost twice.  Why?  If you believe many who voted against her, it is because she wanted to be seen as a credible politician, but refused to stand up and say professional wrestling is fake.

She came close to an admission once when she said WWE is entertainment, but stopped short of admitting it is totally scripted.  A professional football game is also entertainment, but the outcome of the game is not predetermined.  Linda just could not bring herself to admit the truth and I believe that cost her enough votes to lose two elections.

Why should voters believe Linda McMahon will represent them honestly in politics when she is not honest enough to admit that her husband's business is nothing more than fake wrestling?  His business is not illegal, but denying it is fake wrestling no doubt cost Linda two elections.  It is a credibility issue.

Linda and I both paid a price for our stands with respect to WWE.  Linda lost two elections because she could not admit the truth.  She clearly paid a larger price than I paid.  I was only blocked on Twitter by one of her husbands properties, John Layfield.  He called me a kid, then went running for the hills via the "block" button.  I will try to go on.

I think I'll just have a bowl of Cocoa Pebbles cereal in honor of Fred Rosser's courage, wish John Layfield the very best and tweet on.  Someone has to be the adult here.

Constitutional Amendment Number 28

The Congress of The United States is granted power, by the people, to pass legislation and send that legislation to the President of The United States.  The President of The United States may sign the legislation, or exercise veto the veto power granted by the people.

If The President exercises veto power, the legislation will be returned to The Congress of The United States for amendment, or the necessary vote to override the veto of The President of The United States.  If The Congress of The United States does not vote to override the veto of The President of The United States, the bill is considered dead.

If the President of The United States signs legislation sent to him by The Congress of The United States, the legislation will then be posted online for seventy-two (72) hours, during which time all registered voters will have the opportunity to log into a secured website and vote to approve, or reject the legislation.

If a majority of American voters who choose to cast a vote on the legislation vote to approve the legislation, the legislation is enacted into law, on a timeline stated in the legislation.  If a majority of American voters who choose to cast a vote on the legislation reject the legislation, the legislation is returned to The Congress of The United States.  The Congress of The United States may choose to amend the legislation for further consideration by American voters, or kill the legislation.

This Constitutional Amendment forbids The Congress of The United States, or The President of The United States to take any Executive Action that is not in accordance with legislation as it is approved by a majority of American voters.

Constitutional Amendment 28 Will Give Power To The People

This movement will work and it can be done in one of two ways.  Congress can pass a Constitutional Amendment requiring a majority, online vote of the people before legislation is enacted into law.  Two-thirds (2/3) of the states must ratify such an Amendment.  Another way to pass a Constitutional Amendment is by putting it on state ballots, bypassing congress completely.  This requires ratification by a three-fourths (3/4) of the states.

Members of congress will never voluntarily give Americans the online voting right.  We the people will have to do it on our own, by passing an Amendment and ratifying it in three-fourths of the states.  Members of congress are addicted to their power and many of them truly believe they know better than the people who elected them what is best for the people who elected them.  Congress is only.000004% of all American voters and we the people are allowing this .000004% of Americans to destroy America.

Case in point; the House and Senate passed The Affordable Care Act despite outrage from a majority of American voters.  In 2010, many of those members of congress were replaced in The House of Representatives, but they were replaced too late.  The damage was done.  The Affordable Care Act was already passed.

We are now facing multiple issues with The Affordable Care Act.  The issues are so bad that members of congress have exempted themselves and their staff from the Act.  Once again, they have put their own well being over the well being of the people who elected them to office.   The final word on legislation before it is enacted must be taken away from congress and given to the people. 

Congress will still have a very important job; to propose and pass laws for the voter consideration.  After the law is passed by congress, and signed by The President,  the American voter must have 72 hours to log into a secure site and vote for approval, or rejection of the law.  If a majority vote of the people is for approval, the law is enacted.  If a majority vote of the people is for rejection, the law must go back to congress for further consideration.  It really is that simple and it will work every time.

Will all registered voters log into a site and vote on every law passed by congress?  No, but a large majority will, especially on legislation like The Affordable Care Act.  The majority vote of the people will be the final voice on legislation.  That majority vote must be our check and balance on a congress that does not always do the will of the people.

Would we have The Affordable Care Act today if it had to pass a majority vote of the people?  The polls at the time it was thrust upon us by congress indicate that The Affordable Care Act would not have passed a vote of the people.  The 2010 elections indicate that Americans were upset at members of congress who passed The Affordable Care Act.  Many of those members of congress were voted out of office, but voting them out of office was too late to save Americans from The Affordable Care Act.

Every American voter must have the opportunity to vote on all legislation before he/she has to live under the law.  Such a vote will also put an end to congress passing laws, then exempting themselves from the law without our approval.  It's time for this .000004% of American voters to live under the same laws all other American voters live under.

The wording of a Constitutional Amendment must be simple. Here is an example.

The Congress of The United States is granted power, by the people, to pass legislation and send that legislation to the President of The United States.  The President of The United States may sign the legislation, or exercise veto the veto power granted by the people.

If The President exercises veto power, the legislation will be returned to The Congress of The United States for amendment, or the necessary vote to override the veto of The President of The United States.  If The Congress of The United States does not vote to override the veto of The President of The United States, the bill is considered dead.

If the President of The United States signs legislation sent to him by The Congress of The United States, the legislation will then be posted online for seventy-two (72) hours, during which time all registered voters will have the opportunity to log into a secured website and vote to approve, or reject the legislation.

If a majority of American voters who choose to cast a vote on the legislation vote to approve the legislation, the legislation is enacted into law, on a timeline stated in the legislation.  If a majority of American voters who choose to cast a vote on the legislation reject the legislation, the legislation is returned to The Congress of The United States.  The Congress of The United States may choose to amend the legislation for further consideration by American voters, or kill the legislation.

This Amendment forbids The Congress of The United States, or The President of The United States to take any Executive Action that is not in accordance with legislation as it is approved by a majority of American voters.

The GOP Missed Its Only Opportunity To Defund Obamacare

Congress voted to exempt its members and staffers from the Affordable Care Act (ACA).  I do not blame them for exempting themselves, but I have to ask why republican members of congress did not hold out for extending that exemption to all Americans when they gave it to themselves?  Instead of forcing ACA on congress, why not give Americans the same exemption congress gave itself?

Where should implementation of the ACA not be left up to the individuals who will pay for it?  Why not just let Americans choose to accept, or reject the ACA on an individual basis?  Why not let the ACA be an individual selection, instead of an individual mandate? 

Democrats in congress will argue that the ACA will not work unless there is an individual mandate.  Duh... you think?  Perhaps those who do not want the individual mandate know the ACA will not work, even with the mandate.  Could it be a majority of American voters know better than congress?  Congress is .000004% of American voters, yet they are forcing the ACA on everyone... except themselves. 

What is wrong with that picture?  What is wrong with that picture is the fact that .000004% of Americans are arrogant enough to believe they know what is best for all other Americans.  What is wrong with that picture is the fact that .000004% of Americans are forcing all other Americans to live under laws from which the .000004% is exempt.  What is tragic about it; we Americans allow them to do it.

Personally, I do not want to force the ACA on congress and congressional staffers.  I believe they should be allowed the exemption, but I want the exemption for myself, along with members of congress and their staffers.  Why do members of congress, and staffers, believe they are better than those of us who pay their salaries? They believe it because we allow them to believe it.

Fox News is attempting to get all members of congress to answer whether, or not, they will exempt themselves.  I submit that Fox News should attempt to get the same answer from all congressional staffers.  Perhaps that question posed to staffers may encourage those staffers, who have the ears of congressional members, to fight for exemptions for all other Americans.  Perhaps Fox News should expose the staffers who exempt themselves, the same way the news network works to expose their bosses.

Senator Ted Cruz, while exempting himself and his staffers, is trying to defund the ACA.  He will fail, even though a majority of Americans support his effort.  He could have fought to give the same exemption to Americans that he gave to himself and his staff, but that thought never entered his mind.  Why did he and his republican colleagues in congress not fight that fight for all Americans? 

The answer is simple; Senator Ted Cruz and his colleagues were thinking about themselves when they exempted themselves and staffers.  They were not thinking about their constituents.  It is business as usual for Senator Ted Cruz.  He replaced a fight for his constituents with a fight for his personal agenda.  He is not a hero for attempting to defund the ACA.  He and his colleagues are cowards for not fighting to give all Americans the right to exempt themselves from the ACA.

The republican controlled House of Representatives had voted 40 times to repeal the ACA, knowing every time their bill would go nowhere in The Senate.  How much time did the republicans waste?  Why did those same republicans say no to exempting themselves unless the same exemption was given to all Americans?  The answer is simple; they put personal well being ahead of their constituents.

Why should congress not fight now to give all Americans the exemption they gave themselves?  It's too late now.  The House of Representatives can vote to exempt Americans from the ACA now, but such a vote will go nowhere in The Senate.  The Senate already has what it wants, exemption for its members and their staffers.  Republicans leaped to exempt themselves before they looked for a way to exempt all Americans. 

When will Americans send people to congress who will put their constituents wants and needs ahead of congressional members' personal wants and needs?  The American people have no one to blame but ourselves if we re-elect any member of congress who exempts himself/herself from the personal mandate.

Reince Priebus Has His Foot In His Mouth

Every time I here the name Reince Priebus I think about David Letterman's list of the top ten ways to mispronounce his name.  My personal favorite was "Rented Prius".

Reince Priebus was RNC chairman when Mitt Romney lost to Barack Obama, but Reince now has the way to defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential campaign.  Never mind that Hillary Clinton has not announced her candidacy yet and never mind that the republications have not nominated an opponent to tun against whomever the democrats nominate.  Priebus has put his foot in his mouth.  Unfortunately he has also put his foot in his party's mouth and the mouth of the party's candidate in 2016.

Reince Priebus is running scared of a potential candidate.  He has taken the stand that his party will not participate in presidential debates aired on CBS and CNN if those networks air a miniseries about Hillary Clinton.  Perhaps he should wait to see who the 2016 democratic nominee for president is before he formulates a strategy to avoid debating the nominee?  Right now, he just looks like he is afraid to have his candidate debate anyone on CBS or CNN.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have no idea who I will vote for in the 2016 presidential election, for a very good reason.  I have no idea who is running yet!  With respect to Hillary Clinton, I am not her most avid supporter, but let's give the lady her due.  She was First Lady, Senator from New York, Presidential Candidate and Secretary of State.  My resume is not that impressive and neither is the resume of Reince Priebus.

Maybe he is just upset because he does not have a resume worthy of a miniseries about him, unless his top ten list on The David Letterman Show qualifies him for a miniseries.  Of course, his current whining sessions will probably make it to the miniseries.  That will be an "ah shit" moment for the RNC and the Republican Party.  Reince clearly does not think before he opens his mouth.

Reince was on Fox News, The Sean Hannity Show, whining about the proposed miniseries.  Reince definitely picked the right venue for whining.  Sean Hannity is as far to the right as Chris Matthews is to the left.  Sean was happy to give Reince time to air a "bitch-fest" about Fox News competitors.  

Reince announced the republicans will not participate in presidential debates on CBS and CNN in 2016 if those networks air a miniseries about Hillary Clinton.  If CBS and CNN do not play by his rules, he will not play the game?  What if the eventual republican nominee disagrees with Reince's position regarding the debates?  How does Reince manage to remove his foot from his mouth then?

Right now he just looks like a man who is running afraid of Hillary Clinton, but there may be more to it than that.  He may just be using that as an excuse to get his candidate out of debating.  If his candidate does not agree with him in 2016, Reince may be the man whose party's nominee will not even listen to him.  Perhaps Reince Priebus should work on a campaign strategy that does not include running from debates.

There is no question that some of the 2012 debates were biased, in favor of democrats.  Reince does have a point with respect to having some say in picking the moderators for 2016.  However, I believe the moderators for 2012 debates were all approved by republicans.  Did he play any role in approving those moderators?  If so, should republicans question his judgement as their chairman?

Reince has a platform to discuss the issues now, such as the economy, jobs, the debt ceiling, etc.  I guess those things are not as important to him as a miniseries about a person who has not yet announced that she is a candidate for president in 2016.  Reince, if you do not have a plan that reaches beyond whining, bitching and moaning about a miniseries, do your party a favor and use the time to come up with more ways to mispronounce your name.  Letterman will be happy to air them.

Immigration Reform - Not Unless Current Laws Are Enforced

The Department of Justice refuses to enforce current immigration laws.  So, democrats want to pass more immigration laws.    Why will Department of Justice enforce new laws when it will not enforce current laws?  The answer is simple, Barack Obama and Eric Holder do not like the current laws.  So, let's wait until after the 2016 elections. 

Maybe a new Republican administration will enforce current laws, and we may see that those laws work.  The argument is that the current laws do not work.  My car does not work without effort on my part.  I actually have to put gas in it and turn on the key.  Yet Barack Obama and Eric Holder make no effort to enforce the current immigration laws, then claim those laws do not work.

Is that really how it works?  Does the President of The United States and The United States Attorney General really have the right to enforce only the laws they favor?  I say no.  I support their right to fight for immigration reform, but they are breaking the law by not enforcing current laws on the books while they work on immigration reform.

It's a bit disingenuous for the Obama administration to claim others are blocking immigration reform when the Obama administration blocks enforcement of current laws that are on the books.  It is a slippery slope when government employees are allowed to choose which laws to enforce and which ones to ignore.

Last week I ignored a speed limit sign and was ticketed.  The speed limit is only 30 MPH on a street that is clearly meant for higher speeds.  I believe the police officer who gave me the ticket should have refused to enforce the speed limit on that street.  Unfortunately, he did not agree with me.  I guess the police officer is more conscienuous about doing his job than Barack Obama and Eric Holder are about doing their jobs.

Let's enforce the laws on the books.  If that enforcement does not work, then we are justified in reforming the law.  The "pick and choose" position of The President and Attorney General should be met with a no vote on reform legislation. 

The Dumb-Down Version of Obamacare And The Continuing Resolution

In January, 2014 The Affordable Care Act will be implemented.  It will be a dumb-down version of the Act that was passed over two years ago.  What's missing; a way to pay for it.  The employer mandate is being delayed for another year and groups exempted are rising on a daily basis.  So, how do we pay for the dumb-down version of healthcare for those who cannot pay for that healthcare?

The answer is simple; we will increase the national debt, which is now approaching $17 trillion.  There is no question in anyone's mind that the national debt ceiling will be increased by congress when the continuing resolution is passed in September; probably the eleventh hour of the last day of September.  Has anyone heard one member of congress mention NOT raising the debt ceiling?  No, and you will not hear it. 

The people who promised they would go to Washington and reduce the national debt are hoping you have forgotten they made those promises.  There will be rhetoric and finger pointing on both sides of the aisle as to why it is necessary to raise the national debt.  Each side will blame the other for the necessity to raise the national debt.  The only spin that will be the same on both sides is the spin supporting the idea that we cannot shut down government.

How about taking another approach?  Forget raising the national debt and focus on running the government with the revenues collected by the government?  Congress says that will not work.  Why not?  Americans who are unemployed and under-employed are making it work in their households.  The people who provide the revenue for government are running their households on the money they make.  Why can members of congress NOT do the same thing with respect to running government?

Why do members of congress dumb-down their intelligence when it comes doing the things they ask other Americans to do?  They must hold the line on the debt ceiling and force themselves and all other members of congress to come to the table with a budget that will work within the revenues currently received from the taxpayers who are managing their budgets.

Maybe they should start with pay cuts for members of congress, and cut backs in staffing.  Why is that not a place to start?  Many of the people who elected members of congress experienced pay cuts, and companies facing hard times in today's economy were forced to cut back in staffing.  Why is government exempt from doing the same things Americans do during hard times?  Why does the cost of government continue to rise while Americans are cutting back?

The approach of cutting back on government spending will be a tough job for congress, but all members signed up for that tough job when they asked us to vote for them.  It is time for all of them to accept the job they signed up for and do that job.  Otherwise, they should resign over the congressional recess so Americans can send someone to congress who will accept the job and do the job.

There are many issues to be addressed besides the Affordable Care Act, but it is the one getting all of the attention, because it is the one that is scheduled for implementation without a plan, or a way to pay for it.
Obviously, The Affordable Care Act will add to the national debt if it is implemented in January.  The dumb-down version will not provide revenues sufficient to pay for the implementation.  So, hold the line on the debt ceiling and let those who insist on implementation offer a way to pay for it, along with every other cost of running government.

Put the dumb-down version of The Affordable Care Act on a list with all other costs of running government and decide where to cut to keep from raising the debt ceiling.  Americans who will have to pay off the national debt make cuts everyday.  It is time for congress to manage the cost of government.  Tough decisions and sacrifices must be made.  Raising the debt ceiling is not the answer.

Term Limits Is Not The Answer - May Do More Damage Than Good

Many are calling for term limits in congress, but that could cause more damage than good.  A member of congress in a final term has no incentive to keep the promises made to his/her constituents.  There will be more incentive for members of congress, in their final terms, to line there pockets from the lobbyists and push agendas that do not benefit the people who elected them.

The voters of each state should decide on the limit of terms for each member of congress at the ballot box.  Setting term limits leaves the member of congress with no accountability to constituents in his/her final term.  Term limits will definitely do more damage than good.

As it is, we have enough issues with congressional members making campaign promises, being elected, then breaking those campaign promises.  These people can be, and in many cases are, voted out of office on our next trip to the polls, but that is after the damage is done by those members of congress.  We must have a way to check and balance congress with each and every bill it passes.

I strongly believe we need a congress.  We need qualified people who will pass legislation that is good for Americans, and who is better to decide what is good for Americans than a majority vote on enactment of legislation passed by congress?  This can be done if American voters have the right to vote on enactment of legislation.  If congressional legislation passes a majority vote of the people, it becomes an enacted law.  If congressional legislation does not pass a majority vote of the people, it goes back to congress, where it can be amended, or dropped. 

This will work and it is possible if we amend the constitution.  Constitutional Amendments have changed the face of America.  Without a Constitutional Amendment women would not now be allowed to vote.  Critics who argue that a Constitutional Amendment giving Americans the online vote for, or against, enactment of legislation will never be ratified.  I remind those critics that term limits will also require a Constitutional Amendment that will have to be ratified.  Either way, we have to fight for a Constitutional Amendment.

Ask yourself this question; what would be fate of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) if Americans voted on it before enactment?  If you believe the polls 53% of American voters would vote against enacting it.  Who really knows.  The polls may be wrong.  A majority of voters may  vote to enact it, as written and passed by congress.

Personally, I would not vote to enact any legislation that adds to the national debt.  I would vote to enact only legislation that is designed to reduce the national debt, and eventually pay it off.  If America had a surplus that would cover implementation of a healthcare act, I would vote to enact such a bill in a heartbeat.  America needs a healthcare act, but it needs one that can be paid for from surpluses.

Online Majority will continue to work for a Constitutional Amendment that will give American voters the final word on enactment of legislation passed by congress.  Such an Amendment will leave terms of members of congress up to the voters who send those members to congress and it will render lobbyists irrelevant.