An Indictment of America’s Constitutional Republic?

The stopgap federal budget passed today is a significant marker, one that makes certain conclusions clear as sunlight.  This budget changes nothing that Trump and his supporters demanded be changed.  Sanctuary cities are still funded, along with Klan Parenthood.  Immigration reform is not in this budget, nor are funds for a border wall — this budget specifically restricts construction of that wall, no less.  And Obamacare remains in force and funded.

Since inauguration day, no significant new legislation has been sent to the floor nor has any been enacted.  The only federal policy changes have been made via executive orders, which merely nibble around the edges.  The Senate (Republican-controlled and backed up via the “nuclear option”) and the House (Republican-controlled) have done nothing of merit other than posture.  Trump supporters are asking, “What in hell is going on”?

The answer is revealing:  It is now absolutely clear that our federal government is not run by elected officials.   It is run by an informal and largely-invisible alliance of unelected career bureaucrats, appointed judges, and K Street lobbyists.  This coalition writes skeletal legislation, pays its lackey congressmen and senators to support it, pays the bureaucracy to write the regulations that determine how legislation will impact the citizenry and the economy, and pays the judiciary to endrun laws as necessary to enforce the implementation.  It matters not who you and I elect to represent us, because the majority of the people who hold the tools of government and law are not elected.  The lawmakers and enforcers are paid hires, representing global industrial segments and corporations, the finance and securities industries, and coalitions of minority client groups: PROGRESSIVES to the last man and woman.

And is there an over-arching agenda guiding the laws and regulations coming from this unelected coalition?  Yes:  It is the agenda of the global elite, the worldwide uniparty, aided and abetted by the supporters and proponents of Islam, and given 24/7/365 media coverage by their paid toadies in the MSM.

Just consider the national-level policies in effect today, both in the USA and much of Europe:  They outline a progressive agenda, implemented and managed for the enrichment of those in power.  Consider the policies demanded by Trump / LePen / Brexit supporters, and ask yourself why they are thwarted and opposed by nearly everyone in positions of power:  They run counter to the progressive agenda, and thus will be stopped.

And those of you who deem me to be a “conspiracy nut” for making these statements?  Show me where I’m wrong.  Just follow the money, friends.  Who determines who can tap the federal treasury?  Who controls the stability of the global multi-hundred-trillion-dollar currency deficit?  Who benefits from the direction this world is turning?   Is it your elected President?  Or is it the uniparty’s puppets, folks like Smidge McConnell, Paul Ryan, Chuck Schumer, Barack Obama, John Roberts, and those unnamed K Street wingtip lobbyists?   And the banks and investors who are pulling their strings?

Let me state this another way to Trump supporters (a group that includes me):  Donald is not on the payroll.  The uniparty cannot tell Trump “You’re fired!”, but they sure as hell can castrate his pen and his phone.

It’s hip right now for elected Democrats to worry that the extremism of their party will hurt them in upcoming congressional elections.  The truth is, it does not matter.  Elect Democrats, and the progressive agenda moves forward with alacrity.  Elect Republicans, and the progressive agenda moves a bit more slowly and stealthily … but it still moves forward.

I would propose to our readers that any Constitutional system of government which is so readily hijacked, is a failed system.  The Framers and Founders stated their assumption that our nation would be governed by moral men and women.  They did not foresee, nor did they provide a means of redress for, the complete corruption of their plan by immoral, greedy, power-hungry, deceitful men and women who fear neither the wrath of the citizenry nor of God.  They did not foresee the creation of a judiciary that is bought and sold by private monies.  Nor did The Founders foresee the creation of a “fourth branch” of government populated bu unelected regulators who are paid to enforce the demands of the few at the expense of the many.  They could not foresee technology which would enable elitists worldwide to band together to control huge segments of the global economy and social contract, national borders be damned.  And the Framers and Founders certainly did not foresee that their nation’s schools could or would be turned into progressive indoctrination centers.

The Founders designed a brilliant system of self-government, the only one in human history built on two precious concepts:  God-given individual rights and the right for individuals to own property.  Their system assumed that the citizens making decisions and writing legislation would be trained by (and held accountable to) teachers, preachers, and fathers. Today, many teachers are propagandists; preachers are castigated as practitioners of “hate speech”; and in nearly one half of American families, fathers are run off after donating their sperm.

Our Constitution, I suggest, is not written as a blueprint for fools and self-centered greedy asshats to use for successful self-governance.  We have been hijacked by devious progressives obsessed with money and power, aided by an electorate half of which is more interested in its Facebook profiles and the goings-on in its underpants, than it is in freedom.

The Framers and Founders did provide the citizenry with two means of redress when and if the people determine that their government has become corrupt and unresponsive to their demands.  The first is the ballot box.  I suggest that, above the local level, this means no longer works.  Donald Trump was elected by a slim popular majority — by people who do indeed subscribe to teachers, preachers, and fathers holding sway.  But as stated above, nobody gets the chance to elect lobbyists, career bureaucrats, or federal judges.  The second means of redress provided is guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

Bernie Sanders, lunatic curmudgeon that he is, is correct in one way.  He claims that capitalism operating within a constitutional republic is a failure, and that the solution to this failure is socialism / communism.  Bernie’s solution is wrong, but his claim is accurate.  Any system of government which is weak enough as to be hijacked as ours has been, is flawed.  Seriously flawed.  The remaining question:  Is this a fatal flaw?  Or are there enough sufficiently aware and motivated Americans to save this Republic?  Keep your powder dry, friends.

— SafeSpace —



Tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to An Indictment of America’s Constitutional Republic?

  1. The Night Wind says:

    Our Constitution is working perfectly. It was designed to represent the popular will; and as our population has become dominated by greedy, ignorant, entitled, narcissistic, and generally immoral people prone to violence, the Government reflects that.

    Our Founders warned us against this very thing. They said that our form of government was not fit for an uneducated and immoral people and we would descend into tyranny if we became either. They were right. Ultimately, then, change must come from within.

  2. GunnyG says:

    Don’t forget that this budget was hammered out prior to 1 Oct 2016 for FY 17. I’m withholding judgement until Aug/Sep 2017 to see what Trump’s first budget looks like.

    • SafeSpace says:

      My point is that it has become almost irrelevant what ANYone’s budget looks like. The priorities and spending are being set by people who do not respond to public pressure. Hell, nobody even knows who they are by name. I fear we are getting to a point where we either amend the Constitution to address the “fourth branch” of government and its financiers, or we institute voting qualification tests to screen out the imbeciles and paid droids who are throwing elections.

      • R.S. HELMS says:

        Watch how they (Republicans) vote and who they follow, and the people need to vote them out at the Primaries … replacing them with real conservatives not more RINOs…

  3. SafeSpace says:

    Yesterday Rush Limbaugh weighed in on this situation. He’s discovered the UniParty and is finally calling them out by name. This is a good thing:

    • Hardnox says:

      As smart as Rush is he is slow on the uptake. We nailed the UniParty 8 years ago and have been calling them out. Glad to see Rush finally got the memo.

  4. comcast536 says:

    There’s one promise that President trump will not be able to keep, even though it’s a great ideal, that is “Clear the Swamp”. Who voted themselves in to the present term limits, the many benefits, and perks of serving just one term in congress, it wasn’t the people? The founding fathers warned of government over-reach and these self-serving elected officials made these amendments to the Constitution in secret. I have forwarded in email what is called “The Trump Doctrine”, which addresses those very things. Because of these very attractive benefits, the Career Politician was born. On another note, there’s one bill I disagree with the President and all the Pro-Life advocates. Plan Parenthood was a viable concept in the beginning and it only hit the spotlight because of a doctored video, but the whole nation got on this bandwagon about fetuses being destroyed. I like to point out that the great majority of Pro-Life advocates are beyond child-baring capabilities (probably said that all wrong), to old to have children. They are taking away a woman/girl right to choose if they want to bring that fetus to term. That decision should be between her, the family, and God and not the government. I have seen to many unexpected pregnancy reek havoc on a family. There are to many orphans in this country already brought on for what ever reasons. What about rape victims and teens who make mistakes. Then there’s the girl/woman who get pregnant but suffers a miscarriage. There’s just to much grey area in my mind to over turn “Roe v Wade”.
    I received a petition from some congressman wanting to recognized that a embryo
    at conception was a viable fetus and therefore a living person. That’s as bad as saying breast feeding is not natural. Taking away a females choice is not what I
    fought for.

    • Hardnox says:

      Comcast, abortion is a delicate topic. I think we could all agree that after 12 weeks a fetus is a person. The little dude has all the attributes of a person. The left would all have us believe that it’s just tissue when that is not true. The most horrible of all abortions is late term.

      I agree, what people do is indeed between God and them. Personally and morally, I don’t want to pay for their decisions/actions. Adoption in the country is a cluster and must be streamlined. Lastly, the abortion industry aka “women’s health” has nothing to do with women’s health, it is about money and eugenics. We need an honest conversation about abortion/child murder in this country.

      We cannot be a just nation or a people if we do not protect the least of us. People get their knickers in a knot when puppies or kittens are killed but shrug at abortion. WTF! “Houston, we have a problem”.

  5. SafeSpace says:

    Spot-on, ‘Nox, and eloquently stated to boot. One can make a strong argument that legislation at the federal level is appropriate in capital areas — those where human life is concerned, especially (as ‘Nox put it) the lives of “the least of us”.

    No state allows a person to go into a nursing home and kill Ole Uncle Bill because his dementia is inconvenient: That is considered homicide or murder all across the nation. So why do many states allow a person to go into a womb and kill Baby Jane because her existence is inconvenient?

    Human life is human life, and its sanctity is guaranteed to citizens in all states by the words of Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. Law at the federal level should reflect this.

  6. comcast536 says:

    Hardnox, I agree only that abortion is a delicate topic and I accept that a fetus is a person after 12 wks and late term abortions are horrible. SafeSpace, your comments and example really have nothing to do with what I was trying to convey. To me, your opinions seem to be morally based and that’s okay, but you both missed the point I was attempting to make. On are about the 10th of April, I received an email titled “Sign the petition to bypass Roe v. Wade”, by this Congressman Alex Mooney ( In it says “The time to grovel before the Supreme Court is over. Working from what the Supreme Court ruled in Roe v. Wade, pro-life lawmakers can pass a LIFE AT CONCEPTION ACT and end abortion using the Constitution instead of amending it.” In another paragraph he goes on to say, “For 43 years, a few unelected men and women on the Supreme Court have played God with human life”. That statement tripped my trigger. You and this congressman are questioning the law of land by the Supreme Court over what is a morally, in your now opinion. Where has this morality been for the past half century. You have no problem with me (in the military) giving or taking life in support of your freedoms. Law enforcement, courts with eye for an eye, and those trying to keep you safe from those that want and do kill us. The questioned here is when is the fetus or embryo a human life and I’m not buying at conception.
    They have made tremendous discoveries in biology and such and it called progress.
    When that’s proven a fact, that a fetus or embryo is a human life at conception, then I will change my mind. Also where is the female’s right to choice. And you all talk about freedom of speech being under attack. You talk about your tax dollars being misused. I go on and on about what’s morally wrong in America, but I won’t. I’m just saying.

    • SafeSpace says:

      Comcast: Please allow me to address your points one by one as courteously as I can. We differ on the basic issue here, and it’s good to have an opportunity to understand our two viewpoints.

      First, the Founders repeatedly linked religion, morality, and law. “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensible supports.” (G. Washington) … “Laws without morals are in vain.” (B. Franklin) .. “Virtue, morality and religion: This is the armor, my friend, and this alone renders us invincible.” (P. Henry)

      Second, most legal minds, both in the days of the ancient Greeks and today, agree that good law is morality codified. Plato argued that knowledge of what is just AND moral, and the ability to discern such things, depends on the “full use of human reason”. Barack Hussein Obama, no less, stated (I believe in 2009) his belief that “religious people do not have a monopoly on morality… [but] secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square…

      Good law starts as a codification of our morality, much of which is grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.” A legal scholar named Simon Revere Mouer writes that “morality is behavior that promotes the greater social good over the good of the individual.” So how does all this apply to the abortion question?

      You appear to believe that the law of the land, as interpreted and edited by nine individuals on the Supreme Court, must be accepted regardless of any moral component it may or may not possess. You ask where this morality has been for the past half century. It has been under total assault by progressive, anti-faith forces, humanists and secularists who believe in moral relativity and do not accept that there any higher moral codes, let alone anything such as a God. The morality which successfully guided this nation through its first 150+ years of existence has been subverted and discarded as inconvenient, no longer applicable, judgmental, and “on the wrong side of history”. This assault began during the Wilson regime, accelerated under FDR, and reached its current peak since my generation, the Baby Boomers, start taking control of this nation’s courts and schools about 50 years ago.

      Moral principles laid out in both Jewish and Christian religious books (but notably not found in the Qu’ran) forbid the taking of human life, with exception made only for situations of war and self-defense. You cite your service in the military (service which many of us here proudly share), which can involve killing humans who are attacking us and our allies. Such actions are by definition not immoral. But how many babies leap out of the womb, armed with AK47s and wearing burkahs?

      You take issue with the idea of life beginning at conception. If that “tissue mass” living in a woman’s womb is not a baby human, then what is it? A rosebush? A puppy? Reason tells us that a fetus is a human being in a formative state. It is the product of human DNA, nothing more and nothing less.

      Morality tells us that killing a defenseless human,that is not engaged in warlike activities — be it a child, an aging adult, or any person in between — is wrong. Laws in all 50 states prohibit the killing of ex-utero humans who have not attacked us with deadly force. Why does a fetus deserve less protection? What is the “greater social good” in doing way with the youngest humans in our society?