Debating Liberty Amendments (by Mark Levin)

Welcome to Tony Island blog!

Mark Levin's latest book, The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic , proposes and discusses 10 Constitutional amendments that Levin believes will restore a more balanced constitutional republic. Each chapter opens with the proposed amendment and then goes on to discuss the merits of the amendment, including historical facts to bolster his case. I assume that Levin would want these to be added to the Constitution as written, but he could also be setting them out as discussion points. While I disagree with his amendments (see below), I do strongly recommend the book for the historical and contemporary information used to discuss the proposed amendments.

I want to take a moment and remind our readers that any tinkering with the Constitution is fraught with peril. One only needs look at the Prohibition mess and react with horror anytime an amendment is proposed.

Let's take a look at each amendment (briefly) and why I do or don't think it should be part of the Constitution.

1) Term Limits - disagree - the first amendment proposal is a 12 year term limit for Congressmen. This seems to be a favorite of conservatives (and perhaps progressives, too). Whenever something doesn't go their way, political talking heads immediately resort to term limits as though limiting one particular person will rid Congress of a particular "roadblock" or other obstruction to getting the people's work done. Does anyone stop to think that the next guy running in place of a termed out Congressman may be even worse (either further to the Left or further to the Right)? While I can see some merit to term limiting the President, look at the generally disastrous results we've gotten since that amendment was passed over 60 years ago. The second administration of each President since passage has basically been a disaster, from Nixon's Watergate to Reagan's Contra affair to Clinton's sexual dalliances to Obama's health care rollout fiasco. The voters will naturally cleanse themselves of poor choices over time. Yes, there will be entrenched Congressmen, but at least they will always be answerable to the people if they have to face re-election every few years. Make them lame ducks and I think the situation will only be worse. A far better idea, in my opinion, is to increase the size of the House to at least double the current number of Members. This will have the affect of decreasing the influence of money and allow a broader set of voices (ie, political parties) to be heard.

2) Restore State Legislatures choosing Senators - agree - the second proposed amendment is to basically repeal the 17th Amendment and add a few features to ensure each state is properly represented in the Senate (apparently there were short periods in the past when states didn't have representation in the Senate - check the book for the history behind the 17th amendment).
 I can certainly agree and support this amendment. It's time to go back to basics with this one. We always talk about all the money being sloshed about in political campaigns. Let's get rid of the popular vote for Senator and allow the state Legislatures to choose 2 Senators. Senators will be more in line with their states' wishes instead of their parties' wishes.

3) Term Limits for SCOTUS and Congressional override of SCOTUS decisions - disagree - This third proposal is a complicated one of splitting the SCOTUS into three classes based on years of service and then term limiting the Justices to a 12 year term. Another part of the amendment allows Congress to overturn a SCOTUS decision with 3/5s of each House supporting an override. I feel this is just overly complicated and reactionary. It's a conservative's dream to believe that if such an amendment had been in place, then the abortion decision by the SCOTUS (or perhaps the Obamacare one) would have been overturned by Congress. It's a pipe dream. Having Congress vote in the heat of emotion after a SCOTUS is just bad governing. We see this all the time when we are attacked (ie, 9/11) or similar situation. We need to step back, read the decision, think about it, then take action. I don't necessarily disagree that SCOTUS has run amuck with its powers and perhaps needs to see some revisions in the way it works, but I don't think this amendment is the one to do that.

4) Two amendments to limit taxing/spending - disagree - This set of amendments basically calls for a balanced budget and taxing limits. My personal belief is that the Constitution should contain one of two kinds of amendments - either granting the people MORE freedoms or limiting the government's ability to restrict said freedoms. I generally don't like "economic" amendments being added to the Constitution. There are slimy ways around these kinds of amendments and even if they were "ironclad" what would happen if Congress and the President openly disregarded their provisions? Why put into writing something that basically has no teeth? Ironically, I do believe in the "line item" veto amendment. I know there are some caveats to that idea too so I wouldn't strongly advocate it until I've read enough about it, but in general granting a line item veto to the President is something I support.

5) Limit the Federal bureaucracy - disagree - there are basically two parts here - re-authorize each bureaucracy every 3 years and any regulation that results in an economic burden of $100 million or more needs to be approved by a new standing committee of Congress. Again, this is an "economic" amendment so I don't support it on face value. Of course the GAO and CBO (these two bodies would have to certify the economic burden of each new regulation) will bend to political pressure and make sure that any regulation the President's team wants comes in under the magic $100MM mark. What happens if one agency says it's over $100MM and the other says it's under? Does it go to committee? What if both agencies says it's well under and then when the regulation takes effect we find out it's well over?? It's a silly amendment that has no teeth. More conservative wishful thinking.

6) Promote Free Enterprise - possibly - this short amendment basically limits Congress in its ability to over broadly legislate using the Commerce clause as an excuse to do so as it has in the past. I like the idea behind the amendment, but just like Congress has repeatedly abused the Commerce clause, this amendment will be twisted and turned by SCOTUS decisions and render it useless. It's a worthy effort though.

7) Protect Private Property - possibly - this short amendment basically wants government to compensate property owners if government action causes the property owner to lose $10,000 or more in property value. Again, nice on the surface but wishy washy underneath. SCOTUS basically scuttled the eminent domain clause of the Constitution - what's to say they wouldn't do it here? And why not make the damages threshold $1 or more?

8) Grant States Authority to Amend the Constitution - disagree - this amendment would allow States to pass a Constitutional amendment then forward that amendment on to the other states to ratify it (instead of having to go thru Congress as the Constitution requires). There are many Constitutional amendments that are submitted by Congressmen every year. It seems most never see the light of day for whatever reason. Imagine 50 states passing tens of Amendments every year and passing them on to other states for ratification? Ugh. It would be a mess and get us no where. Or we'd have 10, 20 amendments to the Constitution every year. Crazy stuff. Best not to think about it. This one is a political nightmare and stinker.

9) Grant States Authority to Check Congress - disagree - this amendment basically formalizes the idea of "nullification" of Federal laws by the states. Apparently Levin believes that state legislatures have no other work to do than vote on overriding Federal laws. This one and the above amendment are just too much to ask of the individual state legislatures. They have their own pressing needs to address. Let's not burden them with more matters that are best left to the Federal politicians who we vote for and send to D.C.

10) Amendment to Protect the Vote - possibly - this amendment covers two things related to voting - photo IDs and the time to vote. On the time issue, Levin makes a good point that too many people are voting by mail at odd times thus creating a haphazard voting system. For example, some people may vote for a candidate after seeing a debate or some such public forum while others who wait for national election day vote (presumably) with full knowledge of the candidate's campaign behavior and positions. I think having a set standard voting for national elections is prudent (ie either no early voting or a limited early voting window closer to election day). The photo ID part of the amendment is on thinner ground. I do support having to show a proper photo ID before being allowed to vote, but I don't think we need a Constitutional amendment for this. We want amendments that can last for a hundred years or more (think "Bill of Rights"). We have no idea what kinds of technology can be used in the future to correctly identify someone before he/she votes. Why limit ourselves to photo IDs? We need to have a national conversation about "the vote" and then come to conclusions and satisfactory methods of implementing those conclusions. Until then, we can run around in 20 different directions and make no difference between the "before" and "after" concerning voter fraud.

So there you have it - Levin's proposed amendments and my counterpoints. I consider myself a Libertarian conservative for the most part. I understand where Levin is coming from, but I think some of these ideas are half-baked solutions to symptoms not problems. Conservatives (like progressives) believe that if you tinker a little here and tinker a little there, you'll get the right balance and surely the "right" solutions will bubble to the surface - that is, we'll get SCOTUS justices that hew the line on the Constitution, term limited Congressmen will be elected that only serve the public interest and right on down the line. I think we need to do lots more than that. We need to shrink government, get a robust private sector moving again and generally adhere to the founding principals and ideas put forth from the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution (including ancillary publications such as the Federalist Papers).

What do you think? Comment below!

Thanks for reading Tony Island blog!

God Bless Boston and the USA

Welcome to Tony Island blog.


"I'm Proud to be an American", by Lee Greenwood.



We are one with Boston!

Please pray for all those involved: victims, families and first responders.

Thanks for reading Tony Island blog.

Fiscal Cliff = Fiscal Joke

Welcome to Tony Island blog!

You've undoubtedly heard about the "fiscal cliff" recently - those budget cuts and tax increases that will cause the world to end if they are allowed to be enacted.

Of course, as with anything coming out of Washington, D.C. these days, it's a bunch of hooey. The tax increases won't cause the world to end and the budget cuts are mere trims - $110 billion per year evenly split between defense and non-defense spending - the overall budget is somewhere in the $3 trillion range. You'll hear about the "ten year" $500 billion cuts to defense...really? Over ten years? That's nothing. Same with the non-defense side.

The big hoax is that we are a nation of laws and as such this "law" can be repealed and/or worked around. It's not a Constitutional amendment - it's a law.

Then, why all the nail-biting, hand wringing going on? Politics, pure and simple. The Democrats want to scare the country (and the Republican party) into tax increases on "the rich"...as though that will solve the problem - it won't and they know it. They merely want to demonize successful people in order to pump themselves up with the underclass, who are good for voting Democrat. All of these social programs, from Social Security to Medicare, are NOT intended to solve any particular problem (or they wouldn't be insolvent) BUT to cement the Democratic party's power. The hope is that every time you cash your Social Security check, you'll pull the Democrat lever in the voting booth.

I hope the Republicans hold their ground and resist tax changes unless there are strong entitlement overhauls. These programs can't go on like this without substantial change. Of course, the Democrats are resisting any change to social programs and the country believes that Republicans ("as usual") are stonewalling simply not to raise taxes on the rich when the real reason is that tax increases, in the past, have ALWAYS resulted in MORE spending and NEVER any cuts. Obama hasn't even proposed any serious cuts or reforms, which shows you how this is all politics.

Sad.

Please leave your comments about the "fiscal cliff" below.

Share this post with friends, family and the world via Facebook and Twitter!

Thanks for reading Tany Island blog! Share us with the world and come back soon for more!

Not TERM limits, but SESSION limits

Welcome to Tony Island Blog!

I've been thinking about something lately - let's pretend that we elect a "Tea Party" Congress in 2012. Both houses are firmly in the hands of spending cutters - they take a large axe to much (if not all) of the Federal budget and manage not only to balance it, but to have a surplus that goes toward the debt.

Then what happens after that? How many more Congresses will the people elect that will continue to cut and not spend? Stop wars and not start them? Stop "investing" and start saving?

And my answer to that is...probably very few. It's hard to imagine sending a politician to Washington and have him/her do NOTHING! Think about it - if you sent your rep or Senator to Washington and he reported back to you that he did absolutely nothing - would you re-elect him? Would you seriously re-elect that person?

And I think the answer is: NO! "We sent you there and paid you, now do something for us - send us some Federal tax money for new roads or a new school. Create "green" jobs. "Invest" in infrastructure."

Admit it - you would be the first one to demand that your rep (or Senator) do something while in Congress. And what does she do? Spend, spend, spend.

Most people think the solution to cure Congress' ills is Term Limits, like we have with the President. I am against Presidential Term Limits (but luckily they are there so there will be an end to Obama at some point) as more times than not a President's second term has created all sorts of mischief over the past 60 years or so. Creating a "lame duck" congressman does much of the same thing - if you're not up for re-election there's a large danger you will just vote to spend and spend and spend.

Instead, I would propose session limits. A Congressional session would run from May 30th to Sept 1 (essentially Memorial Day to Labor Day , ie "the summer"). By being in Washington, DC for the hottest part of the year and for a limited time, Congress would be straight jacketed in what it could do. Filibusters lasting a few days could possibly knock legislation to the backburner as time would run out. There would be limited opportunity to create mischief with pork barrel bills, etc.

Of course, there's always the danger that more and more bills would be passed without being read or debated thoroughly - but that happens now, too. Perhaps there would be fewer bills overall with a smaller legislative window.

It's worth some discussion. (Apparently, Nevada has a limited session legislature and things seem to work out there.)

What are your thoughts? Would session limits work better than term limits? Tell us what you think by leaving a comment!

Thanks for reading Tony Island Blog!

China's First Aircraft Carrier Begins Sea Trials

Welcome to Tony Island Blog!

Take a moment to read this news article (complete with pictures!) about China's first aircraft carrier. While we bicker how about much more in debt we need to go (which is essentially what raising the debt ceiling is all about), China is developing its military muscle

I don't want to sound like a "tin-foiled" alarmist, but I really found that article ominous. I don't think China's going to start a world war or anything, but I do think they will eventually combine their increased economic power with their increasing military power to throw their weight around the world - much like the US did for the latter half of the 20th century (and into the 21st). There won't be anyone to stop their increasing ambitions as the US will be straight jacked with our ever deepening debt problem.

We're going to lose the global supremacy war and who knows how a global China will be to live under? Again, I don't think she'll invade the US, but she will certainly use her economic lever to hem us in with a resulting deterioration in our standard of living (which already is artificially propped up with inflated currency).

We really, really need to solve our debt crisis (even the Chinese have said so!) if not for our economic health but our security as well. We can't afford not to.

What are your thoughts on China's increasing military might? Embrace it or be scared by it? Leave your thoughts below.

Thanks for reading Tony Island Blog!

Cool Presidential Approval Tracker

Welcome to Tony Island Blog!

I found this cool Presidential Approval Tracker (based on Gallup polling) on USAToday.com:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/presidential-approval-tracker.htm

You can compare Presidents' approval ratings or isolate one President. It's fun - try it out and leave your thoughts below!

Thanks for reading Tony Island Blog!

Tax Cuts Don't Cause Deficits, Spending Does - (Proof Provided!)

Welcome to Tony Island Blog!

Radical Leftists claim that the Bush tax cuts all but created the current debt crisis. Sane rational people maintain that tax cuts alone don't cause deficits - it's the combination of tax cuts and continued (or increased) spending that causes deficits. Actually, it's always spending that causes a deficit - correction - it's always over-spending incoming revenue that causes a deficit. It's impossible to have a deficit without spending.That's the definition of a deficit - over spending incoming revenue.

But, surely, you say, tax cuts must some how contribute to deficit spending, no? Well, actually, no. They only contribute to deficit spending when you don't account for the lower revenue they produce and continue to spend at the same rate you spent before you cut taxes. To prove this, let's take a quick trip to Fantasy-Land - a land where everything is milk and honey and the streets are paved with gold.

In Fantasy-Land, the following holds true:

1) the government collects taxes but does not spend them - that is, annual outlays are zero. All government functions are carried out by non-unionized citizen-volunteers.

2) All citizens pay a flat 50% income tax

3) The tax base is $1billion thus the government collects $500 million per year in (unused) taxes.

All is well, until the citizens of Fantasy-Land elect far right conservative Jorge Push. President Push decides that the tax rate should be lowered to 25%. The far left radicals decry such a position as a threat to the nation's economic well being. Surely the sky will fall and the deficit (of zero) will rise immeasurably, if taxes are lowered! Push gets his 50% tax cut. The government revenue stream drops to $250 million per year (see, say the leftist radicals, income does drop when you cut taxes!!) and YET the deficit remains at ZERO!

So, therefore, lowering taxes in of themselves does NOT produce a deficit. Why is the radical Left so opposed to cutting taxes? Only they can tell you that - I haven't got a clue on that one. But one thing is sure - simply cutting taxes does not produce a deficit. Overspending incoming revenue produces a deficit - and over spending incoming revenue happens with high tax rates or low tax rates. So stop the pandering to your base and "man up". Leave taxes alone and CUT SPENDING!

A penny for your thoughts. Leave them below.

Rate this post.

Thank you for reading Tony Island Blog!

Obama’s and Bush’s effects on the deficit in one graph

Welcome to Tony Island Blog!
Please study the graphic below carefully before reading the analysis that follows:



Before I begin my analysis of this graphic, I'd like to mention that it came from a New York Times editorial. Enough said.

OK, where do I begin? I must say two things about this graphic off the bat:

1) it's absolutely brilliant! It takes a confusing subject (deficit, debt, budgeting) and confuses it even further. It places Vaseline over the lens of the budget debate to "soften the image" and thus make Obama look better.

2) it does show how fiscally irresponsible President Bush was. Liberal Loons run around calling Bush conservative - this graphic should show them he was anything but. Perhaps he was a social conservative, but he didn't seem to be a fiscal conservative.

Now onto some of the gritty details.

At first glance, you can easily fall into the Liberal trap that has been set - namely, that Bush's policies all but created the current increase in the deficit and Obama's policies have only been a drop in the bucket. But that would be wrong. Why do I say that? Well, look at how the graphic is structured. It covers only policy changes spending, not actual or projected spending.

That is why there's no Iraq, Afghanistan wars section on Obama's side of the ledger. He's merely continuing a policy from the previous administration. Never mind that Obama ran on a peace platform AND won a Nobel Peace prize! We're still at war, YET not one cent of the continuing drain on the Treasury (which adds to the deficit) is reflected in the graphic for Obama. Surprisingly, there's a net SAVINGS on defense - where this comes from is any body's guess. I'm assuming it's the President's projected savings from winding down the war efforts some time in 2012. Not sure, as no details are provided for what each segment means, outside the given label itself.

Next we get the Liberal bugaboo on tax cuts. $1.8 trillion of the deficit is attributed to Bush's tax cuts. Had Bush and the Congress (both parties had control during parts of Bush's presidency) CUT $1.8 trillion in spending, there would be no net effect on the deficit from the tax cuts. Liberals don't want to see this. They continually rail against tax cuts as adding to the deficit. They don't if you cut the same amount of spending. Again, let's make it clear that Bush didn't cut spending enough to offset any loss in revenue from his tax cuts, so it's legitimate to include the "Bush" tax cuts here. BUT, here's the rub - even though Obama continued the tax cuts, they don't seem to show up on his side of the ledger. And if they do, they're not called "Obama's tax cuts" or even "Bush's tax cuts continued". I have a suspicion that the Bush Tax Cuts section is both the original tax cut and the extended tax cut that Obama signed into law last fall. But who knows? Also, what's behind the stimulus tax cuts on Obama's side? Is that the payroll tax cut and Social Security tax cut and/or the extended Bush tax cuts? I dunno.

The other obfuscation in this graphic is a really remarkable one. I have to be misinterpreting this graphic somehow because not to be misinterpreting the graphic means that the creator of the graphic really really wanted to make this a truly biased graphic. Look at the date ranges, for each President, covered by this graphic. In Bush's case, the date range is in the past and "fixed"  - you can't put any more fiscal damage on him than you already have. But look at Obama's date range. His covers the future.

Are you trying to tell me or anyone else looking at this graphic that President Obama intends NOT to have any policy changes in the next 6 years that will increase deficit spending?? Are you kidding me? He's not going to propose an infrastructure bank (as he did in his State of the Union)? Or perhaps "green job initiatives"? Nothing that will add to the deficit? He's going to create new spending programs out of whole cloth using ONLY the revenues that are currently coming into the Treasury? Again, I don't think so.

And there you have it - the one element that exposes the complete bias of this graphic. Of course, since Obama hasn't proposed any new policy change spending BEFORE this graphic was created, it doesn't get included in this graphic. And if he proposes something massive tomorrow? Don't bet on the graphic being updated any time soon.

The graphic may be "accurate", but it's so biased to show what it wants to show that it's a useless but highly misleading analysis tool.

Thanks Liberals for trying to spin a better picture for Obama - it's working on your side of the aisle, not ours.

Please leave your thoughts on this graphic. Correct or enahnce my analysis. Leave a comment below.

Thanks for reading Tony Island Blog!

ps: be sure to leave a rating for this article.

I guess the Rich DO pay their taxes (and ours!)

Welcome to Tony Island Blog!

I stole this graphic from a Wall Street Journal online article:

Gee, I guess the rich do pay their taxes and basically ours. Go down to the middle class and approximately 97.1% of taxes paid are paid by these two groups. It's high time we re-balance this tax paying act and spread the tax base.

And before you all post comments suggesting that I'm "rich" ... please don't bother. I'm in the yellow box all the way through.

Your thoughts? Raise taxes on the rich? How high should it go - till they contribute 75% of revenues?

Share your thoughts below! And click a rating button to let us know how you rate this post!

Thanks for reading Tony Island Blog!

Obama at Press Conference: "We're Smarter Than You."

Welcome to Tony Island Blog!

President Obama held a news conference this morning in which he spouted more hot air that sounded good, but, when examined closely, is the same ole, same ole. Basically, the (evil) Republicans are holding him back from making a grand cut in the deficit (upwards of $4 trillion over the next so many years). He's willing to cut the budget and reform entitlements "if only" the (evil) Republicans would allow him to raise taxes, mostly by letting the Bush tax cuts expire in the "outlying years". By making all these reforms, the President, with absolutely no evil plans to expand goverment, would be able to continue making investments in America such as job re-training, "infrastructure bank" and student loans, among many other Progressive initiatives. Of course, all of these intiatives are outlined in the Constitution, thus justifying the President's spending of taxpayers money on them.

The President was pummeled by reporters from CBS News, HuffingtonPost.com, Congress Daily, McClatchy Newspapers and American Urban Radio (has anyone heard of these besides the first two??) about why the Republicans are holding him back. Surprisingly (not), no reporter from Fox News was allowed to ask a question. Told by one reporter that a CBS News poll showed only 24% of the American people believe the debt crisis is important, the President responded that the American people aren't properly paying attention to the nuances of the debt and debt reduction. That professional politicians such as himself were hired to deal with these issues. Basically, the American people are stupid and those smart politicians in DCwill solve the debt problem, your help not needed, thank you very much. Next Question?

The President was willing to personally take a "small" tax hike as others in his and higher tax brackets should. (Though there was no mention that the President's salary is actually tax money and as such it doesn't make a difference how much is nicked by taxes - he never earned it in the first place). He did admit that, without reforms, entitlements would be in danger as no amount of tax increases would be able to save them. Odd though that he continues to push for a "small" tax high on the oil executives, jet owners and other "rich" taxpayers to pay down the debt.

Seriously, I could go on and on - I wanted to throw rocks at my TV...he talks the game, but then goes around and doesn't play the game. We'll see how things pan out.

Your thoughts?

Thanks for reading Tony Island Blog!

Why I Dislike Balanced Budget Amendments

Welcome to Tony Island Blog!

While you would think that a right-leaning blog such as Tony Island Blog would whole-heartedly support a "balanced budget amendment", in this case, you would be wrong.

I am currently reading a book (review forthcoming) that, among many issues, outlines and supports a balanced budget amendment ("BBA"). There are eleven sections (when the book was published) to this proposed amendment, some of which contain definitions of various terms used in the amendment. While the idea of a balanced budget amendment gives my heart the "warm fuzzies", my logical head tells me it's not the way to go.

So, without further ado:

Here are my 5 reasons against any constitutional balanced budget amendment:

1) The Constitution should not be filled with economic amendments - Our Constitution elegantly outlines our (limited) form of government. It doesn't contain economic theories or definitions and neither should any proposed amendment. Just like the Prohibition amendment was an embarassment  to the Constitution (morality should NOT be part of the Constitution), so would a balanced budget amendment.

2) Constitutional Amendments should not contain "escape" clauses - The proposed BBA, like similar efforts, has an escape clause to allow deficit spending in case of declared war (other BBAs allow deficit spending during recessions). What does this tell us about the amendment itself and our political leaders if we need an "escape" clause? Imagine if our Founding Fathers put an escape clause in the First Amendment? Or how about in the succession of the President? Or any other part of the Constitution? So why would we pass any amendment that contains an escape clause?

3) Constitutional Amendments should not contain man-made measurements - The proposed BBA contains a provision to cap total government spending to 18% of GDP. The problem with this is who determines GDP? Perhaps one of the sections defines GDP, but it's all too easy to expand (or contract) GDP to suit the political needs of either the Congress or President in power. Constitutional amendments should have wording that is enduring, not based on some sort of man-made measurement.

4) Constitutional Amendments should not contain binding or easily overridden provisions - One of the provisions of the proposed BBA is a three-fifths vote requirement to raise the debt ceiling. While this sounds like a "tough" hurdle to overcome (and it may well be, which is its intent), it could also be a tightly binding provision that could bite us in the ass during a "real" emergency. What if the US Congress were attacked while it was in session and 50% of the Congress were injured or dead. How then do you increase the debt limit? Do the living (but injured) Congressmen now constitute "Congress"? Do the dead Congressmen negate the ability to have a three-fifths vote to raise the debt? What's to prevent Congress, minutes before the final vote which would make the BBA law, from passing a one-time $560 trillion(or any other outrageously high number) debt limit thus effectively eliminating the need to vote to increase the limit under the new Amendment's debt increase provision? What if the Congress were to eliminate the "debt ceiling" all together?

5) Constitutional Amendments should not be unenforceable - My biggest problem with a BBA is the inability to enforce it. How do you jail 535 Congressmen if they don't follow the letter of the law? There are absolutely no provisions in this or any BBA to have enforcing legislation. I don't know what kind of self-enforcing could be built-in (perhaps the President could dismiss the Congress and call for new elections? That would open a can of unimaginable worms), but without it, the BBA becomes a toothless tiger. We already have trampled the Constitution. Why then would we add a BBA that was laughably unenforceable? That would only further erode our system of government and society. We're doing enough damage without the need for a BBA to hasten such damage.

Well, there you have it - my 5 reasons against any BBA. Do you agree? Disagree? I love a good debate - open my mind by posting a comment below.

Thanks for reading Tony Island Blog!

Black-and-right.com - Conservatism with a different color

Welcome to Tony Island Blog!

I just wanted to share a new blog I found the other day - http://www.black-and-right.com/

As you might surmise from the URL, it's a right of center web site hosted by...wait for it...a black man! And...grab onto your socks...he hails from Massachusetts! Wow - has the world ended yet?

He's got some great stuff. I always find it fascinating to find off-beat conservatives out there- that is, ones other than "white racists" that the media loves to portray all conservatives as being. Of course, I'm sure Bob Parks, the owner of http://www.black-and-right.com/ , gets his fair share of hate mail from liberal black Democrats.

Check out his site for a refreshing take on conservatism.

Have you checked out Bob Parks' blog or a similar "non-traditional conservative" blog lately? If so, share the link with us by posting a comment! Worthy "non-traditional" Web sites/blogs will get a shout out.

Thanks for reading Tony Island Blog!

Who Killed the Constitution?

Welcome to Tony Island Blog!

If you are interested in liberty, then you have to read Woods and Gutzman's Who Killed the Constitution? Taking 12 pivotal points in American history, the authors dissect the decisions and actions taken by Presidents, Supreme Court justices and Congresses to completely kill and gut the Constitution. I won't get into the 12 scenarios dissected so you can read them freshly for yourself, but I will say it was both an enlightening and depressing read.

In the final chapter, the authors posit the question - "Can a written Constitution survive?" - any Constitution, not just ours, but of course ours is the one in discussion. It's an interesting question to pose considering ours has already been killed.

At 202 pages, the book is a quick read - there's also the complete text of the Constitution as an appendix. This book is a real eye-opener and will have you thinking as you read each page.

I strongly recommend you grab yourself a copy, set aside an hour or so and see what those who have sworn to uphold the Constitution have actually done to it.

When you're done, come back here and leave a comment below. And then, TAKE ACTION! Take our country back!

Thanks for reading Tony Island Blog!

Book Review: Roots of Obama's Rage

"Obama's dream is actually an American nightmare"

Welcome to my blog!

For our first post of 2011, I have an excellent book to recommend: The Roots of Obama's Rage by Dinesh D'Souza.

D'Souza presents a theory about Obama and then methodically backs it up with facts from Obama's own words and books. He then uses this theory to help us understand Obama's odd policy decisions and actions. Finally, he uses the theory to predict future actions the President will take - and how harmful they will be for America and her global allies.

I have been reading several similar books lately and I have to say that D'Souza's take is excellent and his theory explains Obama better than many others I have read. He really hit the nail on the head and the sound is reverberating across the globe.

I really don't want to give too much more away - I urge you to read this book. There is one section in which D'Souza explains how Obama makes his radical ideas sound "balanced" - it's such an eye-opener that I was in complete awe after reading it. While the book as a whole is excellent, that one page or so is worth the price of admission alone. The final chapter is also wonderfully written.

The book breezes by - it's a real page turner. The typeface also helps tremendously.

Grab this book today, read it and post your comments below. If you're not scared out of your pants now by this Administration, you will be after you finish The Roots of Obama's Rage.




Thanks for reading my blog!

To Save America - Join the Revolution book recommendation

Welcome to my blog!

In preparation for the November midterm elections, I am recommending various books, bumper stickers and other types of material to make you aware of what is at issue this year. Do you want a capitalist-based, freedom from the state  society or a state-run socialist freedom-inhibiting society? You'll help decide that by how you vote in November.

To help, here's this week's recommended reading:

Newt Gingrich lays down the reasons against a socialist state as personified by Obama and the Radical Left and the steps to take to avoid such a society. Highly recommended reading. Grab your copy today, read it and be ready to vote in November!



Thanks for reading my blog!

STOP SOCIALISM - VOTE Bumper sticker - Join the Revolution!

Welcome to my blog!
Now is the time to start beating the bushes and getting the Revolutionaries ready for November! We need to stop Socialism in its tracks! Each week (if not more frequently), I will post a Revolutionary task - a book to read, a bumper sticker to stick, etc. Hopefully, this will get the word out and people will Vote in November!

This week's entry is a simple, yet effective bumper sticker you can start using now:

STOP this OBAMA-NATION Vote November 2, 2010 by stamped

Thank you for reading my blog!

The Scott Heard 'Round the World - Join the Revolution!

Welcome to my blog!

The video below is from the swearing in ceremony of Republican Senator Scott Brown (MA). In an historic upset special election in Massachusetts, a conservative Republican won the seat of the deceased "liberal lion" of the Senate, Ted Kennedy, effectively eroding the Democrats choke-hold on the Senate for the time being. The funny thing is that the Massachusetts state Democrats shot themselves in the foot and severely hobbled the national party's and Barack Obama's agenda. Back in 2004, when it looked like Senator John Kerry (D-MA) could win the Presidency (bwahahaha), the Massachusetts state Democrats (who have a huge margin in both houses of the General Court) quickly passed a law that called for a special election to replace a Senator instead of being chosen by the Governor (it was feared that then Republican Governor Mitt Romney would choose a Republican to replace Kerry). The law passed and Kerry lost his Presidential bid.

Fast forward several years and we see the Commonwealth headed by a Democratic Governor and a dying Democratic Senator. Once again, the General Court decides to amend the law and allows the Governor to choose a temporary replacement for a deceased Senator until his/her replacement can be voted in in a special election.

This sets up the historic Senate special election that occurred on January 19, 2010. The Democratic candidate loses in what the Democrats blame on an "uninspired" campaign - whereas the rest of the world sees it as a repudiation of the Socialist policies of the current Administration and Congress. This is the 3rd election in as many months that have gone to the Republicans from previous Democrat strongholds (the other two were Governorship changes in the November, 2009 elections).


Does Senator Brown's election foretell a sea change in November, 2010? Only time (and YOUR vote) will tell - but for now, we can get out the word out - we DON'T want to be Europe! We are Americans!

Thanks for reading my blog and Join the Revolution by Following this blog!

Anti-Obama Bumper Stickers

Welcome to my blog!

Are you tired of the massive government expansion that President Obama is proposing - from health care takeover to private enterprise takeover? Want to express your outrage over this unprecedented government expansion? Well, I picked out some bumper stickers for you! Purchase one or all three - but proudly display them EVERYWHERE!

STOP this OBAMA-NATION Vote November 2, 2010 by stamped
View other Obama Bumper Stickers

Vote for Obama? Thanks, Asshole. by TheRatFactory
View more Bumpersticker Bumper Stickers

Anti-Obama Bumper Sticker by My2Cents
View more Sorry yet Bumper Stickers

So - what do you think? Share your thoughts by leaving a comment below!

Thanks for reading my blog and be sure to Follow my Blog!

Time to Repeal Term Limits?

Welcome to my blog!

As we welcome 44 to the White House, the thought crosses my mind on what to do about Presidential term limits. Is it time to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, which limits a person to two terms as President? Passed in reaction to Franklin Roosevelt's unprecedented 4 terms, the 22nd Amendment effectively makes a second term President a "lame duck" on day 1 of his second term. We've seen over the years that much mischief results during this lame duck Presidency, especially if the incumbent won in a landslide or similar overwhelming majority. It seems that the prospect of having to be re-elected to a second term keeps most first term Presidents "honest" therefore it could be reasoned that eliminating any term limits on a President would keep his feet to the fire and thus more "honest" throughout his Presidency - for however long such a Presidency may last.

About 10 years or so ago, the idea of term limits for Senators and Representatives gained some traction but eventually died off. Perhaps it's time to reverse course and limit our Representatives and unshackle our President?

What are you thoughts? Is it time to revisit the 22nd Amendment? Let us know by leaving a comment below!

Thanks for reading my blog ... and don't forget to Follow It by clicking the link above!

Check Your Tax Savings before Voting Tuesday!

Welcome to my blog!

Just thought I'd add this little tax cut widget which compares Obama's and McCain's tax cut forecasts assuming their tax plans are put into effect.

See how much you'll save (or pay!) using the widget below and then post your comments!





More importantly, be sure to VOTE on Tuesday, Novmember 4, 2008!

Thanks for reading my blog!