Recent comments

  • Reply to: Wisconsin Lawmaker Echoes ALEC's Call for a Constitutional Convention   3 months 17 hours ago
    An Article V Convention of States is not a Constitutional Convention. In 1787 delegates were sent from the states to Philadelphia purposely to write a new Constitution, because the Articles of Confederation was too weak. Their aim was to give more power to the federal government, but ONLY that bit of extra power that they truly needed. The delegates still wanted most of the power to remain with the people in the states. Thus...they wrote the Constitution! Our Founding Fathers knew the history of past governments and the trend towards tyranny. Thus when they wrote Article V of the Constitution, which states the procedure for how Congress writes amendments, George Mason reminded his fellow delegates that the day would come when We the People would need to rein in the power of the federal government. Immediately his colleagues agreed. Thus they wrote a provision for We the People to petition the state legislatures to call for a Convention of States to propose amendments to rein
  • Reply to: Kochs Bankroll Move to Rewrite the Constitution   3 months 20 hours ago
    The very first line of this article has a glaring inaccuracy. There is ZERO chance that we will have a constitutional convention any time in the near future. Nobody is advocating for that. However, there is a increasing chance that we will see an Article V convention of the states. They are NOT the same thing. An Article V convention is called under the authority of the existing Constitution. Contrary to the statement in the article, such a convention is strictly limited by the authority of the state legislatures to the subject matter specified in the resolution. The idea that this could result in an open-ended convention that would effectively rewrite the Constitution (as the title implies) is simply a falsehood.
  • Reply to: Wisconsin Lawmaker Echoes ALEC's Call for a Constitutional Convention   3 months 22 hours ago
    This article uses the same tired, refuted arguments of "runaway convention", "1787 changed the ratification process", etc. Please read Article V and notice that it says "...a Convention for proposing Amendments..", not a 1787 type Constitutional Convention. It also says " 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...". At least get your facts straight and come up with a cogent argument.
  • Reply to: This Is Going to Hurt: What Your Doctor Doesn't Say Can Cost You   3 months 4 days ago
    My doctor informed me that if I wanted to remain his patient I had to start paying a $100.00 a month whether I saw him or not. (And this did not include the copayment I had to pay if I did see him.) His argument was he could spend more time with me and see me when I was in the hospital. Yeah, right like he ever did any of that. He just found a way he could get more money with less...I call them rip-off artists...
  • Reply to: Four States Introduce Keystone XL Resolutions, Lifting Language from ALEC and TransCanada Itself   3 months 1 week ago
    Keystone "52" special conditions are joke ,many of them you should of already been doing, obviously you haven't been doing them,that says alot about your integrity as a company & as person, which is sad.