Monday, February 1, 2016

The 26' Tall Wall of Debt

The 26' Tall Wall of Debt

This article is for the "numbers people" out there.  Our national debt would make a 26 foot tall wall, around the world at the equator, of dollar bills (laid end-to-end and stacked flat).  As unbelievable as it sounds, I have decided to prove the numbers.

The equator is 24,902 miles long.  With 5,280 feet in a mile, this equals 131,482,560' around the world.

A dollar bill is 6.1" long and .0043" thick.  1.97 dollar bills reach a foot in length.  233 stacked dollar bills are one inch thick.

1.97 (dollar bills) X 131,482,560' (around the world) = $259,020,643 for one lap.

$259,020,643 X 233 (number to equal 1" thick stack) = $60,351,809,120 for a 1" high wall.

$19,000,000,000,000 (U.S. debt on 2/01/16) ÷ $60,351,809,120 = 314.82"

314.82" ÷ 12" = 26.2'  (rounded to 26')

Our current U.S. national debt is equal to a wall of stacked dollar bills that would stretch around the world, at the equator, twenty six feet tall!

If you are having trouble wrapping your head around the 26' tall wall, maybe this will help you grasp the enormity of the debt crisis:

1,000,000 (million) seconds = 11.57 days
1,000,000,000 (billion) seconds = 31.71 years
1,000,000,000,000 (trillion) seconds = 31,710 years

Our debt is 19 trillion dollars.

19,000,000,000,000 seconds = 602,490 years

If our national debt were paid off $1 per second (without any more increases and no interest), it would take 602,490 years.  But, instead of paying it off, we have added over $800,000,000,000 to the total since last fall (per the US Treasury web site). 

Folks, WE have a problem! 

Saturday, August 29, 2015


This week we have suffered additional senseless and tragic shootings of innocent people here in America. 

This past Wednesday, Vester Flanagan II (aka:  Bryce Willisams) executed two, former co-workers from WDBJ-TV in Roanoke, VA.  Flanagan had a history of anger issues mostly stemming from his being both a black man and gay.  It appears his anger continued to grow over several years and between multiple jobs.  He had reached a point where common sayings or items and street names were viewed as racial attacks and taunts against him.  His hate grew right along with his anger and this week it reached a boiling point.

It has been reported that he considered the following as racial attacks:  seeing a watermelon on top of an ice chest at work, someone stating that it was time to “go into the field” before going out on location for their job, and someone saying the name of a street “Cotton Lane”.  He had filed a discrimination suit against another former employer claiming he was harmed due to being gay.  When that was dismissed and it was shown that there are other gays at the same employer, he changed the suit to racial discrimination. 

Flannigan approached, after what appears to have been a planned attack, reporter Alison Parker and her cameraman Adam Ward while they were conducting a live interview of another person (all white) out in public for the morning show on the station.  He had taken issue with each of these two while he worked at the station, prior to being fired over his anger.  Video footage has been made public from not only the cameraman but also the shooter, who filmed the attack.  The shooter walked up and stood slightly behind and to the left of the cameraman.  The three people standing in front of him were all absorbed in the interview and did not notice him.  He pulled out his semi-automatic pistol and aimed it at Alison.  Then, it appears that he noticed that Adam had directed his camera away from the two ladies and was shooting a scene to the side.  Flanagan lowered his gun and waited for the cameraman to get the ladies back on camera before raising the gun again and beginning to shot.

He ended up shooting 17 rounds, murdering both the reporter and cameraman and wounding the lady being interviewed.  Even though he had no beef with the third person, he shot her in the back while she was lying on the boardwalk.  He was later found dead from a self-inflicted gunshot after crashing his get-away car during a police chase. 

He had planned the senseless crime and posted the video of his deeds on social media and sending his manifesto to a news station prior to the police locating his car and chasing him down.

Flannigan had never been diagnosed as being mentally ill, as far as has been reported.  He purchased the gun legally earlier in the year.  He had no police record that would have been a red flag or stopped him from having a gun.  His problem was not that he was a criminal or mentally ill, he was just an angry man full of hate.  This is not something that can be solved with more laws or regulations; it is an issue with the private soul of the man.  This is evil incarnate!


Then, last night an on-duty and in-uniform Harris County Sheriff’s Deputy in Texas was executed while pumping gas.  He, a white man, was approached from the rear by a black man who opened fire and shot the officer in the head and back several times, killing him on the spot.  So far, there is no known connection between the two and it appears to be only due to the victim being a white cop.


These two events and others like them over the recent past, appear to be part of a pattern across the nation.  Recently, several Black activist groups (I will not name them due to some of their names being vulgar) have called for the lynching and hanging of white people and cops.  They want to kill people who are white and cops in order to send a message against the killing of black people. 

One show, which appears to be an online radio show, posted a screen shot stating, “Find one person alone kill him take a picture send it to people”.

Yes, we can blame the media, politicians and racist individuals or groups for some of this.  But, for the vast majority of these situations, they have nothing to do with mental illness.  They are pure and simple examples of hate and out of control anger.  Some of it is justified and much not.

Our society, in general, seems to have lost a moral compass.  To many, there no longer exists a “right and wrong”, only what is right in a man’s own eyes.  This is a social issue in general and a heart issue individually.  Apart from God, this will not be solved.  People need Jesus!  Only when they find grace, mercy and love from God will they be able to show that love to others.  Our society has turned away from God to a large degree and we are experiencing the predictable results.  As a nation and as individuals, we must repent and seek forgiveness from God and then He may heal this land. 

Sunday, November 2, 2014



By:  Mike Foil


I’m afraid we have done it again.  The Left has been allowed to define the “independent voter” group and the Republicans have bought it; hook, line and sinker.  For some reason, it is commonly accepted that the “independent voter” is to be found somewhere between the Republican and Democrat platforms.

Every two years, during the campaigns, we see Republicans running as conservatives during the primary elections and then moving to the left for the general election.  Their explanation is always that they have to run more “moderate” or “to the center” in order to get the votes of the “independent voters”. 

The Democrats are constantly reminding the Republicans (out of the goodness of their hearts) that they better abandon the “right wing” policies or they will never win the much needed independent voter group. 

So, where is that middle gap between the parties?  The Democrat Party has gone to the far left and the Republican Party has gone to the left, filling in the space vacated by the Democrats.  Sure, not all Democrats are far left, but their party is.  Not all Republicans are middle-of-the road, or moderates, but their party is.

The Democrat Party is controlled by hard-core Liberal/Socialists.  The Republican Party is controlled by soft-core Liberals.  There is not a big gap between the parties.  It is a myth that the “independent voter” will be won by the Republicans acting like the right wing of the Democrat Party. 

By using the term, “independent voter”, I am not just referring to those registered as “Independents”; but to many of the voters who align themselves with neither, major party.  The last time the Republicans ran an honest conservative, who was able to articulate the conservative platform, was Ronald Reagan.  If you remember, he won by a landslide.  We have not had a major victory like that since then and we continue to repeat the same process of nominating one moderate after another.  The Republican Party leadership keeps telling us the same thing the Democrats tell us, that a conservative cannot win a presidential election.  Since history tells us otherwise, maybe the two voices which act in unison have the same agenda.

When I hear people like Sean Hannity leave the Republican Party and register as a Conservative and Mark Levin saying that he is tempted to leave the Republican Party if they blow this election and become an Independent, I realize that the non-Republican and non-Democrat voters are more than likely found to the right of the Republican Party than to the left. 

The hard-core socialists have a party.  The soft-core socialists have a party.  It is the voter who is traditionally conservative that has no home.  I believe that Republicans would fare much better in general elections by standing up as strong and proud conservatives. 

Not every Latino, not every woman, not every black and not every gay has a personal agenda that aligns with Socialism.  These “target” groups are made up of individual, free-thinking people.  Many of them come from traditional backgrounds and are looking for opportunity and freedom, not dependency. 

The “independent voter”, at least those who are engaged and care about the future of this country and their families, is more likely to be found to the right of the Republicans.  Those who are not interested are not the group who will be voting in any large numbers to begin with.


Tuesday, September 23, 2014





President Obama and his administration have been adamant that he is not taking America back to another war in the Middle East.  Earlier this month, Secretary of State John Kerry stated, in a CNN interview, that our planned attack on the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is not a war but is a “…very significant counter-terrorism operation…”

We have begun air strikes on ISIS in Iraq and now in Syria.  We are training and arming those who we hope will fight against ISIS in Syria and Iraq.  Some of our military generals are openly speaking out that air strikes cannot defeat ISIS and we will need to put troops on the ground if we are serious about defeating this threat against, not only our country, but many other countries around the world.

So, the question is, are we at war?

The Merriam-Webster dictionary has as the leading definition for “war” as:  “a state or period of fighting between countries or groups”.

Does a country have to agree to be at war in order to actually be at war?  The answer is, no!  If your enemy has declared war on you, you are at war whether or not you acknowledge the fact, whether or not you have formerly declared war in Congress, or whether or not you even know that the enemy has declared war on you.  It does not take both sides to agree to have a war.  If one side decides that they are going to declare war, formerly or just by their actions, their attack puts you at war with them.  You may not be fighting or opposing them.  You may not formerly agree to be at war with them.  You may, as in our case, openly state that we are not at war with the declared enemy.  But, nonetheless, you are at war!

Sunday, September 7, 2014

The Federal Wall of Debt

At the end of this month (September 2014), the "wall of debt" will be 24.5 feet tall. 

I have written about the ever increasing height of the wall of debt.  (You can get the basis for the calculations on my blog entry in June 2011 "The 20' Wall of Debt".)  Link:

If you lay dollar bills end-to-end and flat on the ground, around the world at the equator; our national debt would create a wall of dollar bills 24.5 feet tall.

Think about that!  24.5 feet tall is about the height of a telephone pole in a residential neighborhood.  Now picture in your mind a stack of dollar bills that tall surrounding your neighborhood.  That would be a lot of money.  Now stretch your imagination to picture that wall ALL THE WAY AROUND THE WORLD!  Now we are talking serious money!

This amount of money is not what the Federal Government is spending, it reflects what they are spending above and beyond what they are collecting in taxes.  They are currently setting records in the amount of taxes being collected. 

To paint a different word picture of the amount of debt our nation owes, it would take 562,163 years to pay it off, one dollar per second with no additional borrowing and paying no interest. 

This does not even consider the massive, unfunded liabilities of our government.

Even with this being such an enormous problem, no one in Washington seems to be that concerned about the out-of-control spending and 100's of billions of dollars in additional deficits being added each year. 

Monday, November 11, 2013

The 24' Tall Wall of Debt

At the end of this month (November 2013), the "wall of debt" will be 24 feet tall. 

For those of you who have been around awhile and have great memories, I have written about the ever increasing height of the wall of debt.  (You can get the basis for the calculations on my blog entry in June 2011 "The 20' Wall of Debt".)

Two and a half years ago, the wall was 20 feet tall and now we are at 24 feet tall.  If you lay dollar bills end-to-end and flat on the ground, around the world at the equator; our national debt would create a wall of dollar bills 24 feet tall.

Think about that!  24 feet tall is about the height of a telephone pole in a residential neighborhood.  Now picture in your mind a stack of dollar bills that tall surrounding your neighborhood.  That would be a lot of money.  Now stretch your imagination to picture that wall ALL THE WAY AROUND THE WORLD!  Now we are talking serious money!

This amount of money is not what the Federal Government is spending, it reflects what they are spending above and beyond what they are collecting in taxes. 

Saturday, October 12, 2013


Is the freedom Americans enjoy in its last stages or is it already just an illusion?  Does Liberty still exist in the U.S.A.?

Compared to most, if not all of the rest of the world, we still have remnants of freedom; but, compared to the America that existed following the Declaration of Independence, the War for Independence and the ratification of the Constitution; our freedom more resembles soft-core despotism. 

We hail our founders and show a level of respect for the founding documents, almost on the level of them being two more chapters of sacred inspiration.  But Americans, just like Christians, have been lax in their adherence to the law of the land and the Law of God.  We have allowed those with ulterior motives into the highest positions of power in our government.  We have forgotten the warnings which accompanied this country’s foundation:

John Adams – “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Benjamin Franklin – When asked what form of government they had formed by the Constitution, responded; “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

We love both quotes but failed to live by either.  We the People have abandoned morality and God and have selected men and women for the highest offices of authority who are neither moral nor religious.  They have proceeded to do just what the warning expected, taken advantage of their power to strip away areas of liberty.  We have failed to make sure our elected representatives function under a Republic and actually obey the law.  We have celebrated when politicians of our own persuasion got away with something over their opponents, even when it violated their oath of office and the law of the land.

The decline of America, as a bastion of freedom, has been on a steady pace for the past century.  The year 1913, was a stab in the back by a two-edged sword:  the ratification of both the 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution, which were the implementation of the Income Tax and the change to have direct election of Senators by the public.  Both have been a disaster and each helped set the stage for a Progressive agenda whereby the central government would become oppressive in the taking of the wages of the People and the loss of sovereignty (Federalism) by the States over the central government. 

We heard the pleas of individuals from other nations where they warned us to guard our liberty, as America is the last hope on Earth; but we proudly puffed out our chest, raised our chins and marched forward…blindly, in the wrong direction.  For some reason, we have lived much of our lives ignoring what was going on in Washington and ignorantly believing our Liberty was secure and being guarded by all of those who swore an oath to guard and protect the Constitution of the United States – when they, themselves, have no respect for nor understanding of the document. 

We have become a nation of immoral, Godless, lazy people; who rally around those who openly sin against the Word of God and who lie, cheat and steal as their standard operating procedure.  God-loving individuals are ridiculed and our government has aggressively moved to eliminate God from every area of public life.  We elect men and women to watch our country that we would not trust to watch our house or our children, much less our finances; and we do it over and over again, expecting better results each time. 

We elected and now have re-elected a President who openly defies the Constitution and believes and acts as though he is above the law.  He surrounds himself with anti-America individuals.  He uses our money to buy votes and picks the winners and losers based on who supports his campaigns.  He uses his position of power to have the administration punish those who oppose his agenda.  He is the bully in D.C. and anyone who dares to stand up to his tactics is beat down by his rhetoric and that of his allies in the media and various departments of the administration. 

The opposition leaders in Congress appear to fear the President and continue to act tough but always cave to his stronger personality.  They appear to have forgotten that Congress is a co-equal branch of government to the President.  They lack the fortitude to wage a political war and get in the trenches for the long haul of the battle.  The white flag of surrender always seems to appear just before the battle gets heated.  Experience has shown the President that he will always win as he is the only one in the battle who will not give up in the face of criticism.

We are a long ways away from the original Liberty which was won at such a tremendous cost.  The oppression we live under is far worse than what the American Revolution was fought over.  We are the “frog in the frying pan” and we have accepted a little more heat each year and it appears we will never jump out to save ourselves or our nation. 

Where do we stand where Liberty is concerned?  We are on the edge of the cliff with the rocks crumbling and one foot already over the edge.  “Liberty” has already lost much of its meaning and is almost dead.  We are the generation that will pass America onto the next in worse shape than we found her.  For that we should be ashamed!

There is just one question left, before Liberty is dead and buried forever; are we going to do anything to try to save her? 

If you despise soft-core despotism, you will just love hard-core tyranny!  It is just around the corner and has its sights set on YOU! 

Tuesday, July 16, 2013


You know the kind of day I am talking about.  All is normal and then nothing is!  Every now and then, you are just going about your business and then the ground drops out from under you.  Today was one of those.

Well to be honest, it was not just today.  Over the past few days we have been deeply concerned over a family problem.  As this was consuming our thoughts and prayers, along with the uncertainty that accompanies such stressful situations – knowing that you are very limited in affecting any outcome apart from prayer – we were proceeding with a new day.

I arrived back home to have a message to return a call to my son-in-law in Idaho.  All I knew was that it was an emergency situation that apparently was okay, now; involving my daughter and granddaughter.  At that point, nothing else had priority.

Mark answered the phone from the emergency room.  He proceeded to describe the prior hour’s events.  Anne took the boys to swimming lessons.  She and Natalie were watching from the side and she decided to go sit on the top step.  As she stepped down onto the step, her foot slipped out from under her and she fell hard onto her butt.  Still holding the 14 month old baby and feeling somewhat disoriented from the jolt, she stood up, just to pass out.  They both fell forward into the pool.
According to others present, it only took about ten seconds to grab both and get them out of the water.  The baby was fine and responding but Anne was still unconscious and had taken in water.  The swim instructor began CPR and chest compressions which caused water to exit the lungs.  By then the ambulance and paramedics were on the way and they resumed CPR.  Anne gained consciousness and was able to call Mark from the ambulance on the way to the hospital.

Within minutes, all was well, again… except for Mark’s and my emotions. 

I don’t like those calls or close calls, but I will take them every day as opposed to the real gut-punches that take you down and you are not back up for a considerable time, if ever. 

Praise God!

Saturday, June 8, 2013

The 4th Amendment and PRISM

Amendment IV

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Clearly, many in Washington D.C. have no respect and little regard for the Constitution.  When Obama was first running for president, he stated that the Constitution is “…a charter of negative liberties.”  As a lover of liberty, that statement struck me as being more than odd.  When I, from the perspective of a citizen, read the Constitution and Amendments, I do not see a list of negative liberties; I see a document crafted to limit government and protect freedom.  To view this same document from a negative perspective, one would need to be viewing it from the group being restricted.  For your primary opinion to be one of it being a charter of negative liberties, you have to be referring to the liberties that you want government to have, not the People.

For President Obama, the Constitution is in his way.  But, do not worry yourself, he has found ways to get around those pesky restrictions on his actions…just ignore it!  He just does whatever he wants and claims some Executive “right” which I have trouble finding in the written document.

This past week, we continued to be bombarded with news stories about the utter disregard our administration has for the Rights of the People and contempt for the People themselves, unless you are on his Friends list. 

One such revelation has been PRISM.  This is an utter slaughter of the 4th Amendment.  Massive data mining, by our government, of our most private communications is a routine practice.

I have noticed, in the past, names of government bills and programs commonly use acronyms.  I took a moment to consider PRISM and it did not take long to find a possible meaning:

Phone Records, Internet, Social Media.

They designed a system to steal everything from everyone.  You have no privacy, PERIOD!

We are NOT secure in our person, houses, papers, and effects!

There is NO reasonable, probable cause!

NOTHING is beyond their grasp in snooping on each one of us! 

Thursday, April 18, 2013




By:  Mike Foil


The War for Independence had just been won.  Thirteen sovereign States were operating under the Articles of Confederation, which had already been shown to be inadequate.  The leaders called for a second constitutional convention to “fix” the Articles of Confederation. 

When these men gathered in Philadelphia, in May of 1787, it did not take long to realize that the Articles of Confederation did not need to be revised, but needed to be replaced.  During this convention, the men produced a proposed Constitution for the United States of America. 

First of all, what is the Constitution? 

The delegates to the convention drew up an agreement; which, if ratified (agreed to and adopted) by the States; would establish a Federal Government.  The Constitution lays out the rules for the operation of such a government.  That’s pretty much it.  The various articles in the Constitution detail what each of the three branches of government are permitted to do.  We refer to the list of duties or powers of the government as the enumerated powers.  In other words, this document established a new government for a few, very specific purposes. 

The Constitution was submitted to the 13 states for debate and possible ratification.  Once approved (by at least nine), a Federation would be formed including all States who ratified the Constitution.  Any State that did not vote to ratify would not be a part of the Federation.  Each State maintained the power to decide its own direction as relates to this matter.  Remember, the States are sovereign and independent. 

Why would independent and sovereign States vote to form a general government, under a Constitution, which would preside over a confederation of the States? 

During the few years that had passed, after declaring independence, it became clear that the individual states could not do certain things separately, as well as a general government could do on their behalf.  The States formed a confederation (alliance) whereby, jointly they would be better able to perform certain aspects of running a country. 

ALL other duties, aspects and powers of government; the States and the people reserved to themselves. 

Who were the parties to the Constitution or the constitutional convention? 

The parties with the authority to call for a convention and to implement the Constitution, which would establish the general government for the United States, were the 13 States and them alone.  The Federal Government was NOT a party to the Constitution. 

It is important that we understand this issue.  The States, through ratification, agreed to the specific document that listed the limited powers of the general government that they (the States) were establishing.  The general government had no say in the convention, the wording of the Constitution, the powers granted by the States, the restrictions to the power of the general government, the debate or the approval.  It could not, as it did not exist prior to ratification by the States. 

The 13 States created the general government, which is the creature designed by the States in the Constitution.  As the creature, it does not have the authority to alter the rules and guidelines approved by its creators.  It only has the power to do those things written in the Constitution, no more. 

Who defines the limits on governmental power?

Along this same line, the creature does not have the authority to define the rules under which it operates.  Only the parties to the formation of the government have that power.  This is the reason that the government cannot add or alter amendments to the Constitution on its own.  A proposed amendment is submitted to the various States for their approval.  If the States reject a proposed amendment, there is nothing the government can do about it.  The States retained the authority over defining the power of the general government.  They approved a Federal Government to operate on their behalf in areas of granted authority, only. 

This understanding, where the States decided the power and authority of the general government, sheds light on a decision where the Supreme Court decided that they are the final authority as to what is and is not constitutional and what the powers or limits on power are as relates to itself and the other two branches of government.  What is wrong with this declaration of final authority?  The States did not produce or approve a document which would establish a government which would then set its own boundaries and dominate over them in any and all areas which the government chooses.  The Supreme Court is legally bound by the restrictions, set forth in the Constitution, as to what power it has and the limits beyond which it is not allowed to expand.  It does not have the authority to expand its own power. 

In order to make this perfectly clear, the 10th Amendment was added to the Constitution.  It states:  “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.”  The wording in the Constitution, as ratified, made this clear; but the States wanted it to be stated in writing so there would be no confusion as to the restrictions on the general government’s power. 

Notice that our country is called the United States of America.  There is a reason for the use of the word “United”.  We did not form a country where the States lost their independence or sovereignty.  We created a government to do only the things which would be done better as a whole and not as 13 individual states. 

We delegated only “few and defined” powers to the federal government. These are the “enumerated powers” listed in the Constitution. These enumerated powers concern:

  • Military defense, international commerce & relations;
  • Control of immigration and naturalization of new citizens;
  • Creation of a uniform commercial system: Weights & measures, patents & copyrights, money based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, mail delivery & some road building; and
  • With some of the Amendments, protect certain civil rights and voting rights (for blacks, women, citizens who don’t pay taxes, and citizens 18 years and older).

It is only with respect to the “enumerated powers” that the federal government has lawful authority over the Country at large!!!  All other powers are “reserved to the several States” and The People.

Why do we have the Bill of Rights?

Not only did the States want the 10th Amendment to be put in writing but they had several other issues they wanted to be in print, also.  This was intended to make it very clear to the new government that they were not to withhold or restrict the rights of the people or the authority of the States.  Almost immediately, the States ratified the Bill of Rights, which includes the first ten amendments.

“The Bill of Rights” is somewhat misleading for a name or title to these amendments.  It has the implication that these amendments granted or are the source of these rights mentioned within the amendments.  These amendments do not grant any rights to the people.  What they do is prohibit the government from messing with these rights. 

If we did not gain these rights from the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, or the Federal Government; where did the people get their rights?  When did the people gain their rights?  The answer lies in the understanding proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, which states: 

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

Did you catch that?  Our rights come from God.  They predate the government and the Constitution.  They existed prior to the Declaration of Independence.  The Bill of Rights was added to restrict government.  Examples are found in the first amendment, “Congress shall make no law…” and in the second, “…shall not be infringed.” 

Can the Federal Government restrict our rights?

Since the people did not receive their rights from the government, the government has no right to take them away or restrict them.  Notice also, in the above quote, one of the reasons the States formed the general government was “to secure these rights”.  Secure them, not attempt to restrict them on every turn. 

The Federal Government has no Constitutional authority to limit our rights in any fashion.  The Supreme Court does not have the authority to define, for us, what our rights are and are not.  We The People, through our States, created the Federal Government and it was not so that they would grow and dominate us in all things whatsoever. 

The Constitution established a government to serve the States and the people.  They work for us, not the other way around.  The ultimate political authority in our system is us, WE THE PEOPLE – we are the “pure original fountain of all legitimate political authority” (Federalist No. 22, last para). 

What is the remedy for usurpation of power by the Federal Government?

The Framers of the Constitution were very clear as to what should be done when the Federal Government overstepped its lawful authority.  This situation was answered in the Federalist papers, which is a collection of articles written by some of the same men who helped write the Constitution and were there for the debates.  They were offering explanations for the various questions and concerns presented during the ratification process.

If a new law was passed, which was a bad law, but dealt with an issue under which the Federal Government did have authority to operate; the remedy was through the courts (as the Supreme Court was given the authority to deal with issues under the Constitution).  If not solved that way, the remedy was for the people to vote in new people who would correct the injustice previously done.

If either the President or members of the Supreme Court were responsible for acts which violated the restrictions placed on them by the Constitution, it is the responsibility of the Congress to impeach the offending parties and remove them from office or the Court.  (You may be thinking that justices on the Supreme Court are appointed for life terms.  But, you would be in error.  The Constitution states that they are appointed for a term where they exhibit “good behavior”.  Violating the Constitution is not good behavior and if they have done so, they should be impeached.)

If a new law was passed, but was outside the legal authority of the Constitution, this was considered to be usurpation by the Federal Government.  Per the Founders, any such law was to be treated as no law whatsoever.  The Government does not have legal authority to make laws which are in areas reserved to the States or the people by the Constitution.  When they do so, the law is invalid.  It is also usurpation for the Government to make laws restricting our rights.

The method to be used by the States to deal with usurpation, other than through elections, is nullification.  This is a beautiful concept which is perfectly suited to be the remedy whereby the States protect and defend the People from tyranny and usurpation. 

What is nullification?

Simply stated, nullification is the process whereby a State acts to formally nullify (invalidate) a Federal law, rule, executive order, or federal court decision which that State believes to be unconstitutional.  This is the tool States are to use to keep the Federal Government from overstepping its authority and harming the People or the States in general.  This is an act which works to “secure” our rights. 

Some have argued that nullification is not a valid tool to be used by States.  If not, then how are States to deal with a general government which has over-reached and has imposed tyrannical laws on the people? 

Remember, it is the States that created the Federal Government and it is the States that have the authority to rein this government in to its proper realm of operation.  Without the weapon of nullification, States would be helpless to control the monster they created. 


For a more detailed explanation of the above issues, visit the blog by Publius Huldah at:

In her articles is a wealth of information and an education on the Constitution. 

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

The Frog in the Frying Pan

The Frog in the Frying Pan
Frog + Frying Pan + Water + Heat = Dinner

The story goes:  take a frog and drop it in a pan of boiling water and he will jump right back out.  Drop the frog in a pan of cool water and slowly turn up the heat.  It will sit right there and eventually boil to death.

Folks, we are the proverbial “frog”.  We have been “gigged” and are sitting in the pan complaining about how hot it is getting. 

A few decades ago, if we were taken from where we were to where we are right now, we would have jumped right back out and saved ourselves.  But, while we were busy catching flies for our own supper, someone snatched us out of our cool pond and placed us in the cool water of the frying pan.  The few, who noticed the difference, looked around and said to no one in particular, “This isn’t so bad, I have clean water and I am sure plenty of bugs will come within striking distance.  I’ll be just fine right here.”  As the heat increased, first came relaxation and letting down the guard.  That was followed by lethargy as it began to get hot.  Once the water began to boil, it was too late to jump out and the frog slowly boiled. 

I don’t know about you, but I am beginning to see little bubbles rising in the water around me.  I feel sweat on my hairless brow and still, for some strange reason, sit here complaining about the heat and who it must be that keeps turning it up more and more.  I converse with other frogs about how bad it is and who might come to save us, but while we all sitting here and waiting, the water just got hotter.  We are now on the verge of boiling!

Americans slept while the Socialists (and worse) were out gigging for frogs, pulling out the pan and turning up the heat.  Over the years we have been over-burdened with national debt, watched while our defensive ability has been diminished, witnessed the stoking of racial fire and class hatred, experienced the decline in our public education system, been amazed by the mushrooming welfare system and ever increasing rolls receiving benefits, suffered the continual eroding of our Rights and individual liberties, observed our nation losing the positive relationship and reputation we once enjoyed with our allies, watched the world rejoice over our sorrow and pain, and tried to keep our heads above water while our society has turned lawless.

We have a government which believes the solution to every problem is increasing the heat.  Time is of the essence!  We have to jump or boil.    

Sunday, March 10, 2013



“The belief that we are deserving of or entitled to privileges”

Have we created a monster?  We in America are guilty of falling into the same trap where the European countries find themselves.  “Social Justice” is wearing away at our very foundation and the palace is beginning to crumble around us. 

Somehow we have ended up with a large segment of our population who believe they are entitled to money or other benefits which they did not earn or pay for.  The funds to pay for such programs come from one of two sources:  taxes levied by the government on businesses and individuals, or from government borrowing.  When the money is taken, by way of taxation, it is paid by those who earned it; and in turn, distributed to those who did not.  When the money is obtained through borrowing, it is a future burden on following generations who must repay the debt and a current stealth tax because it has a tendency to devalue our currency, causing inflation (amounting to 26% from 2005 to 2012, per Office of Management and Budget for the White House – and estimated to be 41% by 2017). 

Some examples: SNAP (food stamp program) cost $72 billion in 2011, which was up $30 billion from 2007 and the number receiving benefits have continued to rise since 2011, to now reaching almost 50,000,000.  The total budget cost for “Food and nutrition assistance” for 2011 was estimated to be $103 billion.  Unemployment benefits cover 99 weeks, which is almost two years.  Unemployment compensation was estimated to cost $194 billion in 2010.  Housing assistance estimated at $77 billion in 2010.  Federal aid to college students amounted to $180 billion in 2012.  During the past few years, the Federal Government has taken over the student loan program.  Many expect this loan program to be a bubble that will burst in the near future, causing a massive loss/cost to the taxpayers.  The EITC – Earned Income Tax Credit had a cost, in 2008, of $51 billion for 25,000,000 families.  The TANF – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families was $28 billion in 2008.  The budget shows estimated amounts for 2011, of $320 billion for General retirement and disability insurance, Federal employee retirement and disability, and other income security (excluding Social Security). 

This does not list all social programs and has not touched on subsidy programs, other grants, etc.  It does indicate a snapshot of the problem we face.  “Social Justice”, or the redistribution of income, has created an entitlement mentality and is causing class warfare.  Those who have adopted such a mentality have lost the concept of personal responsibility and replaced the idea of the “American Dream” with an expectation of being taken care of by others.  Those with class envy no longer see the rich as an example to follow so as to also become successful. 

This situation has created a political downward spiral between the two main parties as they relate to the financial well-being for America.  Traditionally, though not exclusively, it has been the Democrats (or the Left) who have proposed and encouraged the expansion of the social programs into the modern welfare state.  Politically, this has proven to be a successful strategy for gaining a broader voter base.  One of the Founders of our country stated that a democracy will only survive until the people realize they can vote themselves benefits from the public treasury.  (This is one of the reasons our country was set up to be a Republic and not a Democracy.  Over the years, we have slipped away from Republican [not the party] principles and have transitioned into more of a functioning Democracy.)

As the entitlement segment of the voting public has continued to grow, the Left has seized upon the opportunity to gain a more permanent seat of power.  They even advertise to get more people in the food stamp program.  When people speak out against the situation in which we find ourselves, individuals who have grown dependent upon government to supplement or meet their needs worry that they will lose their benefits is Republicans ever gain control, again.  So they continue to support the Democrats with their votes.  It is estimated that half of the population is not paying Federal Income Tax and many of those are also receiving benefits. 

This presents a stacked deck against the Right ever being in power to reform federal spending.  Meanwhile, we are heading towards national financial ruin due to over spending and excessive borrowing.  The path we are on offers no scenario where it all works out well in the end.  We are in the fourth consecutive year where there is a deficit of over a trillion dollars with no relief on the horizon.  We are borrowing around 45 cents out of every dollar being spent by Washington.  We were recently subjected to a barrage of sound bites as to the “fiscal cliff” we would go over if the mandated trillion dollars of cuts (over the next ten years) were allowed to take place.  It sounded like the world would end by the very next day.  Reality is that the “cuts” are not overall cuts at all, but only a reduction in the projected increase in spending planned for the coming year.  Only in Washington do we find that a smaller increase in spending is a reason for a financial calamity.

Instead of finding a way to better educate the public as to the negative effects of our current path and the benefits of self-responsibility, many of the Republicans are trying to out-promise the Left.  This is a failed strategy if the goal is getting back to financial stability and saving the country.  Abandoning principles is not a path to victory.  The voters on the Left will not trust that you mean what you promise and will still vote for Democrats.  Those on the Right will reject the Left-leaning Republicans and support those who are more conservative.  This will split the Republican Party and the Democrats will continue to win elections and further us on this same path. 

Monday, February 18, 2013


UNALIENABLE RIGHTS:  Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

These three are listed in the Declaration of Independence as being among the Rights which were endowed by the Creator on each person.  It states that we believe that “all men are created equal…”  This is included in the very first sentence explaining why the Americans have declared themselves to be free and independent from Britain.  This sentence is the foundational reason why our Government was established by the people, “…to secure these rights…”  The proper role of the Federal Government is to protect our Rights. 

Why was it not written as “Life, Liberty and Happiness”?  The founding fathers believed that God has given each of us the right to life and the right to be free.  They did not believe that God gave us the right to be happy.  There is considerable difference between the right to be happy and the right to pursue happiness.  We hear much about equality or the right to equal outcomes.  “Sharing the wealth” and “fair share” both relate to this philosophy of equal results.  Neither God nor the Declaration of Independence tells us that we are guaranteed or promised equality in outcome.  What we do have the right to is opportunity.  We each have the right to pursue happiness, as we see fit, as long as our pursuit does not infringe on another’s rights.  Whether you succeed and become happy in your pursuit is not guaranteed or implied.  That is where the challenge enters the picture and your own determination, talents and hard work can be what causes you to succeed or fail. 

Government was never intended to be an equalizer so that those who failed have similar results to those who worked harder and succeeded.  They were never supposed to take from the successful and redistribute their earnings among those who did not succeed.  Those who did well were to be an example for the rest as what is possible if you keep trying.  It was hard work that made America great, one person after another achieving their goals.  No nation will become or remain great where the successful are punished by their government and the unsuccessful are rewarded by the same.  This robs men’s souls of their initiative and drive and fosters a dependency on government. 

We were created equal, but where we end up depends on each of us.

Friday, January 18, 2013


 Can Congress legally pass a law to restrict “rights”?

We need an understanding of “rights” and the role of government.  You DO NOT have a “constitutional right” to have a gun and the 2nd Amendment did not give you the right to bear arms.

“A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” 2nd Amendment.

This does not say the government, constitution or this amendment gives you the right to keep and bear arms.  The 2nd Amendment, just like others, does not bestow a right upon the people, but prohibits the government from infringing on your rights.  Your “right” to keep and bear arms, to free speech, etc.; “shall not be infringed”! 

The 1st Amendment begins “Congress shall make no law…”  This amendment does not give the right to free speech, it prohibits the government from interfering in the rights we already had.

Neither the Constitution nor the government gave us these rights.  Our rights preceded both the document and the government.  The Constitution was written to establish a general government for a very few, specific reasons.  The Bill of Rights was added making it clear the government did not have the power to restrict “rights”.

If our rights did not come from the government or the Bill of Rights, where did we get them?  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”  (Declaration of Independence-DOI)  Our “rights” come from God.  They predate the Constitution and the government. 

God gave us “unalienable” rights.  This means that no one can take them; they are yours unless YOU relinquish them! 

The DOI goes on to say, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”  The government was formed by the people for the purpose of securing our rights. 

Our government has passed laws doing what they were forbidden to do.  They took the rights that people gave up.  The more rights we give away, the less liberty we enjoy. 

“A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever." (John Adams)

“They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Ben Franklin)

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!" (Samuel Adams)

America sends our military to fight in other countries defending their liberty.  Meanwhile, we have been asleep while our government has been stealing our liberty, bit-by-bit.  As John Adams said, once we lose liberty, we will not get it back! 

Tuesday, December 18, 2012


The country mourns the unthinkable tragedy that happened to the children and staff of a quiet little school in the Northeast. The funerals are presently taking place with undersized caskets. The pain in the hearts of Americans is indescribable, but nowhere near what is felt by those close to the victims and survivors.
Every aspect of the shooter's life, his family, his online history and his medical past will be examined in great detail. Why? Because we want to know the answer to one question. Why?
With the yellow tape still around the crime scene, the expected cries for more gun control and restrictions are loud and strong. This is the natural and predictable response to such a scene as we all just watched; albeit, from afar. From the White House to the halls of Congress to the media to the main streets of America, the voices are being raised in unison for more laws restricting access to guns.
It only makes sense that if there were fewer guns, there would be less gun violence. There are numbers going around (whether accurate or not) claiming Americans have 300,000,000 privately held guns. That is about one per person in the country. The anti-gun crowd cannot understand why so many want to own guns and especially guns that have been tagged as "assault rifles".
Make no mistake, there will be a very strong push for more laws limiting the ability to purchase guns and ammunition. With the fresh heartache on all of our minds, it will be more difficult for conservative politicians to stand up and speak out against more control of guns. So, expect some form of ban to be passed. Remember the motto of some on the Left, "Don't let a good crisis go to waste."
However, as someone has said, "Facts are a stubborn thing." If an honest evaluation were conducted about recent mass murders, you would find some interesting issues. Most happen in "gun free" zones such as schools or areas that have been posted with "No Guns" allowed signs (the Colorado theater). It appears that as a gunman plans, he chooses a location where he can expect that the population will be gun-free. In other words, he hand picks a place where the targets will most likely be defenseless. He then carries out the dastardly deed, killing one innocent victim after another until one thing happens. For the most part, these situations end while the shooter is still in possession of many more rounds of ammo and there are still many more potential victims. The shooting stops when someone else shows up with their own gun and puts a stop to the shooting. This is usually when the first of the police are able to arrive and enter the building, but only after several minutes of travel time and entry time and finding the shooter time. All the while, more of the unarmed are being slaughtered.
In an attempt to protect the public, the Left has instituted zones which are gun-free but only for the law abiding citizens. These are prime locations for the deranged shooter with a pack load of guns and ammo.
The "answer" to this carnage is not more restrictions on the law abiding citizen's rights to be armed and able to protect themselves and others; but less restrictions. If school staff were allowed to have concealed weapons with them, on campus; when something like the most recent shooting starts, the first responder would not be miles away, but steps away. The first guy to arrive on the scene, with a gun of his own, to have an opportunity to stop a shooter would be someone just down the hall. This is how to save lives, by saving minutes before another first responder can get there. The answer is for more of the good guys among us to be armed and able to deal with horrific situations. We cannot afford the time needed for the police to respond from across town.