Connect with us

Opinion

The Next Amendments of the Constitution: What an Article V Convention Should Address

Here is a list of proposed amendments for an Article V Convention to rein in the federal government overreach America has been experiencing.

Published

on

Dedication: This article is dedicated to The Great One, Mark Levin: Thank you, Mark, for your patriotism and your ceaseless efforts to educate your fellows upon the topic of the US Constitution and the blessings of living in a free republic.  Zei gesunt!
“The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”  —Article V of the US Constitution
An Article V Convention
In the interest of keeping a free republic (https://www.amazon.com/Keeping-Free-Republic-Blueprint-Constitution/dp/1724679082/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1536373542&sr=8-1&keywords=keeping+a+free+republic&dpID=41at7ePg2dL&preST=_SX258_BO1,204,203,200_QL70_&dpSrc=srch), here is a list of proposed amendments for an Article V Convention to rein in the federal government overreach America has been experiencing.  Of course, the amendment numbers used for the purposes of this article would likely change, if any or all of them were ever actually ratified, since it would be the order of their ratification that would determine the numbering of the amendments.  Also, many of these could easily be rewritten or combined.  Keep in mind that, any amendments proposed by an Article V Convention would be subject to ratification by 38 of the 50 sovereign states that make up the Union.
None of the amendments proposed are meant to construe any new power of the federal government, but only to constrain that power.  These amendments are to ensure the rights of the people remain strong and cannot be infringed as easily by manipulative leaders.  (The attempt by the Obama Administration to repeal the Second Amendment by passing such repeal as a treaty with the United Nations—the Small Arms Treaty—is one example, and its attempt to repeal the First Amendment by passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership—thereby allowing Islamic Law into the Constitution—is another.)  The Founders of the American republic could not think of all the unprincipled manipulations that a bad president or corrupt Congress might instigate.  While there are certainly other good ideas out there, among the people, the ideas expressed here are meant to act as a spur to get more people thinking and talking about what is needed to ensure individual liberty and constrain government power.
Amendment XXVIII
Section 1.
No person shall hold any level of security clearance under the United States while not serving as an elected or appointed official under the United States.
Section 2.
No person who holds a security clearance under the United States shall benefit by disclosure of top secret, secret, confidential, or otherwise classified categories of information during his term in office or during any special appointment under the United States after having left office, nor shall any benefit accrue to such person within five years of leaving his post.
Security clearances are to be given only to individuals who work for the benefit of the United States.  Individuals may not retain security clearances while they are not working for the United States.  Additionally, such persons may not benefit from any secrets they know until at least five years have passed after concluding any work relationship with the United States government.  (Of course, the five years may be extended in some cases by the signing of non-disclosure agreements not mentioned in the wording of this amendment.)
Amendment XXVIX
The right of the people to negotiate prices among themselves in a free market shall not be infringed.  No government official under the United States shall pass, enact, or issue any policy or law to control the price of any material or virtual good, service, or labor.
The people are allowed to negotiate among themselves what is deemed fair in the way of prices and wages on the free market.  The government has no right to fix the prices of goods and services or to give unearned pay raises to workers.  The government shall not infringe the Natural Right of the people to enter into freely made agreements negotiated between parties.
Amendment XXX
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to have their votes count shall not be denied or abridged by any State, District or other jurisdiction or precinct of these United States by having their Electoral Votes awarded to the winner of the popular vote of the nation as a whole or to the winner of the popular vote of any other State, District, jurisdiction or precinct.  Nor shall the Electoral Votes of a sovereign state be awarded by any method that may act to deprive a legitimate plurality or majority of its electoral preference or preferences.
Section 2.
The right of the citizens of the United States to choose their own elected officials shall not be denied or abridged by any State, District, or other jurisdiction or precinct by permitting non-citizens of the United States to participate in any election, caucus, primary, or other electoral process in which federal or state officials are on the ballot.
Citizens have the right to protect their elections from being fraudulently hijacked by corrupt officials who wish to award a national candidate who did not win in their state the Electoral Votes thereof, or who make promises to non-citizens that, in exchange for their votes, they will entitle them to special privileges not customarily available to non-citizens.  Citizens of the United States are guaranteed under their Constitution that they will enjoy a republican form of government and that their states, upon entering the union, will guarantee the same.
Amendment XXXI
Section 1.
The Congress shall have power to make only the laws which shall be necessary and proper expressly for carrying into execution its Enumerated Powers, per Article I, Section 8, of this Constitution and shall continue to retain all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Section 2.
The Executive, with Congressional oversight and approval, shall have power to establish executive departments to aid in the faithful execution of the laws of the United States, so long as these departments align expressly with the Enumerated Powers of the Congress, per Article I, Section 8 only.  All other executive departments shall be disestablished upon the conclusion of the Congressional term in which this amendment has been duly ratified, and their enforcement roles shall devolve upon the sovereign states.
The Congress has gone far beyond its Enumerated Powers in making law, and this requires that restraints be imposed by the people by means of new language, the necessity of which has come about due to the Supreme Court’s reading of “necessary and proper,” in its 1819 hearing of McCulloch v. Maryland, which redefined these words to remove their meaning as a restriction on the Congress.  The Court remade the legal meaning of “necessary and proper” to mean, instead, that the Congress was actually endowed with an enlargement of power that it had perhaps been too shy to exercise.  Chief Justice John Marshall opined about the Necessary and Proper Clause that “it purport[s] to enlarge, not to diminish the powers vested in the government.  It purports to be an additional power, not a restriction on those already granted.”  By writing these words, Justice Marshall reinterpreted the restrictive nature of the Necessary and Proper Clause in a lawyerly way that twisted its application into a considerably more permissive realm of government action, and, as a result of Marshall’s rewrite, the Necessary and Proper Clause has been used in conjunction with the Commerce Clause to provide a Constitutional basis for the passage and enforcement of many coercive federal laws.  For example, during the days of FDR’s New Deal reforms, many of the measures being passed were justified as “necessary and proper” with respect to the state’s ability to regulate interstate commerce.
Amendment XXXII
The right of the people to exercise freedom to decide their own purchases shall not be denied, abridged, or otherwise infringed.
No mandate by the government requiring any individual to make a purchase of an unwanted good or service shall be allowed.  The individual mandate that every person buy health insurance was such a rule.  Although invalidated by a Supreme Court ruling, the only permanent guarantee of this freedom is by means of a Constitutionally-guaranteed right.
Amendment XXXIII
The right of the people to be taxed only for such services as promote the general welfare, and not to support programs or purposes that do not offer each and every taxpayer alike the same benefits, is hereby affirmed.
Laws taking money from one individual to provide goods and services to others, while not providing them to the individual being taxed, do not offer equal protection and should, therefore, be un-Constitutional.
Amendment XXXIV
No subsidies from the funds of the public treasury shall be given to individuals or institutions, including all public or private institutions or companies, for-profit, non-profit, and not-for-profit entities notwithstanding.  Government may not fund or invest in any publishing or broadcasting enterprise or any social or communications platform.
Equal protection under the Constitution shall be enforced for every individual or group of individuals.  No person or group shall be given the privilege of being awarded money collected by the government from others.
Amendment XXXV
No corporation or any other public or private entity may benefit by use of the public Internet, for business, communications, or other purposes, unless such entity follow the First Amendment and honor the entire Bill of Rights and all federal civil rights laws in every respect.  And no social media platform, or any other corporation, enterprise, or entity, shall be empowered to use any algorithm to determine what speech is allowed and what speech is disallowed on the Internet.
The Internet was developed and built by taxpayer money.  All taxpayers having paid for it, no taxpayer may be deprived of freely expressing himself while using it.  Companies whose business models use the Internet to their profit may not un-Constitutionally deny citizens of the United States their rights under the Constitution.
Amendment XXXVI
The rights of citizens to attempt to solve problems at the governmental level wherein the problem was created, before going to any higher level of government for adjudication, is hereby affirmed.
People have the right to solve problems as close to their sources as possible.  Therefore, a problem at the township level must not be appealed to the county or state, before seeking a solution locally.
Amendment XXXVII
The plain textual language of the Constitution is hereby affirmed as the sole legal basis for ruling any law Constitutional or un-Constitutional.  If an ruling be issued by the judiciary branch that cannot find its meaning in the plain language of Constitution, even if such a ruling be made by the Supreme Court, the executive and legislative branches may expressly ignore such a ruling, by citing the actual text of the Constitution as support or by pointing out the lack of any text to support the ruling in question.
This rule is an affirmation of Constitutional Supremacy above Judicial Supremacy.  The Constitution never says anywhere within its text that only the Supreme Court may interpret the meaning of the Constitution.  The separation of powers means that not only may the executive branch not dictate to the judiciary how to behave, but the judiciary likewise may not tell the executive how it shall act.  If members of the other branches do not decide Constitutional matters fairly in the eyes of the people, they may be fired at the ballot box.  Ultimately, it is the people’s Constitution and the people, therefore, who shall have the final say.
Amendment XXXVIII
Amendment XVI of this Constitution, which gives Congress power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration, is hereby repealed, to be replaced with a law that allows a federal income tax not to exceed ten percent, with all citizens, corporations, or other taxable enterprises to be taxed at the same percentage rate without prejudice with regard to income level.
The income tax as a graduated tax is repealed and a new permission to tax individuals and corporations only up to ten percent is hereby instituted.  All people, corporations, and other taxable entities must be taxed at the same rate.  This will force taxes to be collected locally for local projects or by the state for state expenditures, bringing down costs and the chances for corruption.  Also, no one shall be punished for being successful by having to pay a higher rate of taxes at the federal level.
Amendment XXXIX
Amendment XVII of this Constitution, which stipulates that the Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years, and that each Senator shall have one vote, is hereby repealed and the original language, per Article I, Section 3, reinstituted, so that the Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.
The Constitution says that “no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”  But, with the passage of Amendment XVII of the Constitution, that is exactly what happened.  The sovereign states, having lost their representation when Amendment XVII was ratified, would get back their representation.  Currently, US Senators are merely super-representatives of the people, elected statewide.  The people’s interests, however, are already represented in the House of Representatives.  The state legislatures operate differently in terms of trying to safeguard the state as a whole and used to vote to appoint senators to the Congress with more of a unified statewide agenda.  The disparate agendas of so many different regions within the state are already being represented in the House.
Amendment XL
Section 1.
Congress shall make no law for the people by which the members of Congress are not equally bound.  Nor shall the Congress be differently affected than the people are by any government policy.
Section 2.
Judges must issue all legal opinions in accordance with the plain meaning of the text of the Constitution or of the state or federal statute entered upon.  Jurists varying from this standard are considered as having ruled in bad behavior.  Application of existing law any new cultural context may not be used as justification to change the meaning of the original law.
The Congress is not allowed to be exempt from the laws they make for others—such as Congressmen’s exempting themselves from Obamacare.  Legislating from the bench is officially considered as bad behavior, and judges doing so may be impeached for as much.
Amendment XLI
An impeachable offense, constituting treason, bribes, high crimes, or misdemeanors, shall be for the misapplication of an officeholder’s power during the officeholder’s term in office.
Is it really fair that a president, judge, or any other government official be held responsible for actions he did not commit as a part of his official duties while in office?  Having been elected duly to office by voters who already have vetted the candidate to their satisfaction, no issue prior to the election can be legitimately viewed as valid for the purposes of impeachment.
Amendment XLII
The right of the people to direct representation during the consideration, debate, and passage of the laws shall mean that all laws written, described, or issued by any other means than what is prescribed in this Constitution shall not enjoy the weight of law under the United States and shall be null and void by the end of the Congressional term in which this amendment is ratified.
All administratively written rules that carry the force of law will be considered inoperable upon expiration of the Congressional term in which the passage of this amendment shall have taken place.  If the Congress did not write the law, then it is not a rule any citizen of the United States is compelled to follow.  Citizens are not represented when the bureaucracy writes rules in the place of their duly elected representatives; this violates their right to representation.  In fact, so many laws now exist that no one can know when they might be breaking a law that is unknown to most people.  This is a state of affairs that is beyond unfair and desperately in need of repair.  Judges like to say that ignorance of the law is no excuse, but with tens of thousands of pages of federal law now on the books, how can anyone be expected to know all the rules.  Not even a lawyer can know them all.
Amendment XLIII
Section 1.
The rights of the people under this Constitution shall not be infringed, abridged, or repealed by any language, stipulation, or interpretation of any treaty, deal, or agreement made by the United States with any other nation, group of nations, or treaty-making entity.
Section 2.
The rights of the people under this Constitution shall not be repealed, abridged, or infringed by any provision or provisions of any treaty, deal, or agreement duly ratified by the United States.
Section 3.
Secret provisions or codicils to treaties that are unavailable for inspection by the American people and by their representatives in the Senate are illegal and not binding on the United States.
This amendment would bar the United States from changing the Constitution by the signing or ratifying of a treaty, such as the Small Arms Treaty with the United Nations, that would then become a part of the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land, as all treaties must, according to Article VI, Clause 2: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”  Ratification of the Small Arms Treaty would endanger the right of the people to keep and bear arms, just as the Trans-Pacific Partnership treaty, by admitting Sharia-compliant finance law into the Constitution, per provisions brought by the Muslim country of Brunei, might endanger the First Amendment freedom of speech (since the Sharia bans criticism of Islam, Muhammad, and many other ideas supportive of freedom).  Also, secret provisions of treaties, as existed as a part of the Iran Deal, are not allowed.
 ++++++++
Paul Dowling is an American patriot whose mission in life is to educate and enlighten his fellow citizens about the correct principles for facilitating a life of freedom and a culture based upon the Golden Rule, as well as to do whatever is in his power to help protect his countrymen from their government.  Paul believes that individual freedom is more important than majority rule and, therefore, values the fact that America was not founded as a democracy, but as a republic.  (In fact, the word “democracy” is nowhere to be found within the text of the US Constitution.)  Paul has written a book on the Constitution, explaining the republican values on which it is based and how they protect individuals and minorities from the dangers of a naïve majoritarian system of governance that can easily lead to oppression, and even persecution, of unpopular individual and minority voices.  The book is called Keeping a Free Republic: Learning the Blueprint for Liberty in the Constitution & the Bill of Rights.  It is on sale right now at Amazon, for $6.25 in paperback and $0.99 as a Kindle download, the lowest prices allowed by the publisher for this 130-page book.  (Click here to find Keeping a Free Republic at Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Keeping-Free-Republic-Blueprint-Constitution/dp/1724679082/ref=sr_1_1_twi_pap_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1536890421&sr=8-1&keywords=keeping+a+free+republic.)
Don't forget to Like The Washington Sentinel on Facebook and Twitter, and visit our friends at The Republican Legion.

Become an insider!

Sign up for the free Washington Sentinel email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Advertisement

Opinion

California Shutdown: Rogan Makes The Case For Moving To Texas

Published

on

By

Joe Rogan says he is sincerely considering relocating from California to Texas in response to the state’s overly “restrictive” response to the and its “ridiculous” taxes.

“Here’s the thing, if California continues to be restrictive, I don’t know if this is a good place to live. First of all, it’s extremely expensive — the taxes here are ridiculous.”

TDW:

On his popular podcast show Wednesday, host and comedian Joe Rogan said he is seriously considering relocating from California to Texas in response to the deep-blue state’s overly “restrictive” response to the and its “ridiculous” taxes.

“I might move to Texas,” Rogan said, citing serious previous discussions he’s had about it (video below).

“Here’s the thing, if California continues to be restrictive, I don’t know if this is a good place to live,” said the popular podcast host. “First of all, it’s extremely expensive — the taxes here are ridiculous.”

“And if they really say that we can’t do standup until 2022, or some sh** like that, I might jet,” he continued. “I’m not kidding. I’m not kidding. This is silly. I don’t need to be here.”

“The only reason why I’m here is because I’m close to people like you,” he added. “A lot of my friends live here, the [Comedy] Store is here. But if they won’t let us do the Store, but we can do stand up in other places, why would we stay here?”

Asked where in Texas he would consider moving, Rogan cited Austin and Dallas as potential landing spots. “I like Austin a lot, I like Dallas a lot. I like Houston, but I don’t know if I’d live in Houston,” he said, noting the humidity in the area. More

If you decide to leave your poorly run state, please have enough humility to recognize that the political, economic, and social ideas of that state are what caused the problems that you are fleeing. Please don’t bring those ideas with you.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Toy Gun Causes Chaos After Zoom Class: ‘My Poor Kids Thought We Were Going To Be Arrested.”

Published

on

By

Sheila Perez Smith told the Todd Starnes Show that she was astonished when the police showed up at her home after a zoom class another parent had been “very uncomfortable” with a toy gun in plain sight during the class.

Karen’s gonna Karen.

Townhall:

There’s really nothing worse than neighbors ratting out neighbors. But that’s what Democrats are urging citizens to do across the country. And more often than not innocent Americans are getting caught in the crosshairs.

Sheila Perez Smith tells the Todd Starnes Show that she was stunned when the police showed up at her home near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Mrs. Smith’s 7-year-old son had just completed a zoom class from the den of their home when she received an urgent email from her son’s first grade teacher.

It just so happened that the little boy had recently been gifted a toy gun and the child had placed his “new favorite thing” on the table next to the computer.

“Another parent had been very uncomfortable by the fact that the gun had been in view of the zoom call,” Mrs. Smith said on my radio show. “It’s such an innocent thing that someone used to make a judgment and an accusation.”

A few hours after they received the email, there was a knock at the front door. It was the police. More

As a child, I used to run around with friends playing “cops and robbers” with cap guns popping off caps everywhere. I guess today, they’d call in a SWAT team and put everyone in the neighborhood on lockdown. How very, very sad.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Dennis Prager: Our Dress Rehearsal For A Police State

‪It truly is disconcerting how easily Americans have accepted erosion of our freedoms and civil rights in the name of public safety. 

Published

on

By

Dennis Prager says this is our dress rehearsal for a police state.

“The federal, state, county and city governments are now restricting almost every freedom except those of travel and speech. Americans have been banned from going to work (and thereby earning a living), meeting in groups (both indoors and outdoors), meeting in their cars in church parking lots to pray, and entering state-owned properties such as beaches and parks — among many other prohibitions.”

TDW:

All my life, I have dismissed paranoids on the right (“America is headed to communism”) and the left (“It can happen here” — referring to fascism). It’s not that I’ve ever believed liberty was guaranteed. Being familiar with history and a pessimist regarding the human condition, I never believed that.

But the ease with which police state tactics have been employed and the equal ease with which most Americans have accepted them have been breathtaking.

People will argue that a temporary police state has been justified because of the allegedly unique threat to life posed by the new coronavirus. I do not believe the data will bear that out. Regardless, let us at least agree that we are closer to a police state than ever in American history.

“Police state” does not mean totalitarian state. America is not a totalitarian state; we still have many freedoms. In a totalitarian state, this article could not be legally published, and if it were illegally published, I would be imprisoned and/or executed.

But we are presently living with all four of the key hallmarks of a police state:

No. 1: Draconian laws depriving citizens of elementary civil rights. More

This is no dress rehearsal for a police state. In many states that is exactly what we already have. Dennis Prager is correct, the most frightening part is how quickly the American public has allowed it to happen.

 

Continue Reading

Opinion

Candace Owens Suspended from Twitter for Weighing in on Michigan Lockdown

This is the authoritarian technocracy at work, folks. 

Published

on

We need to stop thinking about social media as a place where we can freely express ourselves, and begin to ponder ways in which we can utilize these platforms to gauge tyranny.

You see, you can’t just say whatever you want on Twitter anymore.  Or Facebook.  Or even Instagram.  Your thoughts are being monitored, and if your opinions are considered “invalid”, they will be removed from the conversation.

This will occur in spite of the business and exposure that you bring to the platform as well, so don’t think that being a big-name online is going to save you from the agenda set forth by these Orwellian clowns.

Take Candace Owens, for instance.

Conservative firebrand and BLEXIT founder Candace Owens was suspended from Twitter on Saturday after tweeting that people in Michigan should open their businesses and “go to work” despite the draconian measures implemented by Governor Gretchen Whitmer (D) in response to the Chinese virus.

“Apparently [Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer] believes she is a duly elected dictator of a socialist country,” Owens had tweeted. “The people of Michigan need to stand up to her. Open your businesses. Go to work.”

“The police think she’s crazy too,” she added. “They are not going to arrest 10,000,000 people for going to work.”

Owens wasn’t even given an actual explanation.

On Saturday, Owens received a notification from Twitter informing her that her account was suspended over the aforementioned tweet.

“We determined this Tweet violated the Twitter Rules, specifically for:” read the notification, but did not further clarify which specific rules Owens had violated on the social media platform.

This is the authoritarian technocracy at work, folks.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Tucker Exposes How MSM And Dems Appear To Be Parroting Chinese Propaganda

Published

on

By

Fox News host Tucker Carlson exposed how the media and Democrats appear to be parroting Chinese propaganda.

“Many in the intelligence world with experience in China suspected right away that the story the Chinese government was telling about this virus was almost certainly a lie.”

Tucker nails it!

Daily Wire:

Fox News host Tucker Carlson aired a segment that showed how a lot of the rhetoric being used by the mainstream media and Democratic Party matches the propaganda that the communist Chinese government is using to deflect blame over the coronavirus outbreak.

Carlson began the segment by reporting on what he says U.S. government officials have told him about the coronavirus outbreak that originated in China, and by also documenting how China has repeatedly changed its story about what happened.

Later in the segment, Carlson said, “As of today, says someone in a position to know, there is ‘Almost unanimous agreement in the American intelligence gathering agencies that the virus currently destroying much of the world emerged from a lab in Wuhan.’ Almost unanimous. That is a phrase almost never used to describe any conclusion coming out of the Intel Community.” More

All hysteria aside this virus originated in China—it’s a Chinese virus period. The MSM is the most despicable group of people on the planet.

The fact that they would pick up this propaganda and spread it without looking at the facts is a disgrace and a disservice to people who want to know the truth. They don’t really care about Americans.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Doctor From MIT Warns ‘Deep State’ Using Coronavirus Fear-Mongering

Hopefully, this guy has above-average security!

Published

on

By

A scientist with four degrees from MIT believes the coronavirus pandemic is being used by the “Deep State” for its own purposes.

“As an MIT PhD in Biological Engineering who studies & does research nearly every day on the Immune System, the #coronavirus fear mongering by the Deep State will go down in history as one of the biggest fraud to manipulate economies, suppress dissent, & push MANDATED Medicine!”

TWJ:

A decorated scientist with four degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology believes the coronavirus pandemic is being used by the “Deep State” for its own purposes.

Shiva Ayyadurai said on Twitter that “fear-mongering” over the outbreak is being used to push an agenda.

It is important to note that Ayyadurai did not say the disease is man-made or a hoax.

You should follow the guidelines from doctors, federal, state and local governments and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

But what Ayyadurai did say is that some in the government are using the pandemic to frighten people into obedience.

Think about what has transpired in less than a week’s time. We have handed control of nearly everything in our lives to the government. More

It didn’t take long for me to see this as a means to ensure President Trump’s loss in 2020, but that’s not going to happen. Once again, Trump has outsmarted them all.

That’s what I’ve been saying all along! The virus is real and should be taken as seriously but I truly believe that the Deep State Democrats have a nasty surprise up their sleeves.

Continue Reading

2020

Bernie Tells Americans Exactly What Will Make Him Drop Out

The Democratic Party’s been trying to stop him for months, and now Bernie has told them exactly how to do it.

Published

on

The Democratic Party is beginning to run out of time.  They have only a few scant weeks to get their ducks in a row before the Democratic National Convention in order to avoid an abomination of a nomination.

The issue now is that the Democratic voters are clearly favoring Bernie Sanders for the nod, while the party establishment appears to be shoving Joe Biden down everyone’s throats.  The friction has been a bit ugly to watch, like a slow motion fender bender that will see you rescheduling your entire afternoon before you know it.

But Sanders, to his credit, has been fairly honest about the process.  He’s explained his expectations to his supporters explicitly, and has now told us precisely what would make him consider leaving the race altogether.

From his appearance on MSNBC earlier this week:

RACHEL MADDOW: If, at the end of the day, it turns out that Vice President Biden is going to have more delegates than you do heading into the convention, will you drop out?

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Of course I’m gonna drop out; he will win. I mean, I suspect, we will run through the process, and I think people have a right to vote. But if Biden walks into the convention, or at the end of the process has more votes than me, he’s the winner.

MADDOW: And that’s true whether or not he has a majority or a just plurality?

SEN. SANDERS: Absolutely, that’s what I’ve said. Look, here’s the story, and there’s some confusion about this. Last time around in 2016, you talked about 2016, you’ll remember that before the very first vote was cast in Iowa, Hillary Clinton had 500 superdelegates at her side. She walked into the campaign with 500 superdelegates. I thought that was totally outrageous, absurd, and undemocratic. We fought very hard in the Democratic rules process to get rid of all superdelegates. That is my preference. I think it should be the decision of the people, not Washington insiders. We lost, but what we did get is not getting rid of all super delegates at the convention voting, but that on the first ballot there won’t be any superdelegates voting.

And there you have it, Democratic Deep State:  The surefire way to make Bernie Sanders go away is to actually beat him in the primary.  Who would have thunk it?

 

Continue Reading

Latest Articles

Become an insider


Best of the Month

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!
 
Send this to a friend