Beyond the Cusp

October 9, 2017

The Saving of America


After the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama years it appeared that the schism reputed to exist between the Republicans and Democrats had narrowed to a small step-over rather than a seismic event. With Hillary Clinton appearing in the polls to be about to steamroll Donald Trump, any chance of widening that difference appeared dead. But sometimes the political world takes a lunging alteration of course and nothing could have made such more apparent than the election of President Trump, well, almost. People are painting the Alabama Special Election Primary as a Trump loss as he, in a likely peace offering to try and gain at least a modicum of support from the Republican mainstream in the Congress, backed former Alabama State Attorney General Luther Strange over the former Alabama State Supreme Court Judge and eternal misfit, Roy Moore. Well, the Alabama Republicans sent the Republican Party another message and selected, actually elected, Roy Moore to run in this fall’s election to replace Senator Sessions in the United States Senate. This was a step which may prove even more exasperating and frustrating for the Republican Party than was the election of President Trump.


Let us explain. President Trump came from a background of business dealings where you give and take and adjust to reach the closest you are able to your goal. This means you compromise to get something and you give something. Roy Moore is a staunch and opinionated proponent of absolute principles. He stands on his principles no matter the cost and compromises with nobody. He believes in these truths he holds and brandishes them as weapons to smash convention and tradition in the face if they dare disagree. He is not going to quietly fit into the groove with the Republican mainstream in the Senate and he fully supports President Trump’s drain the swamp agenda and the correcting of the glutton-like foolishness where the Congress simply bought votes with other people’s monies wasting taxpayer funds and running up enormous debts. Roy Moore will demand responsibility and stand as the adult in the play pen under the Capital Dome, well, actually to one side. The mainstays and Republican big-shots are more than a little put out especially when the first meeting Roy Moore attended upon hitting the slimy streets of Washington D.C. was Steve Bannon, the man the Republican elites took special interest in forcing from the Administration.


Mr. Bannon has a view and a plan to go with it, he wants to back more people like Donald Trump and Roy Moore who do not fit the mold we have been forced to accept for politicians, the go-along-to-get-along group. He wants rabble-rousers who will take great pleasure in upturning all of the existing apple carts. Moore is seeking people who are of a similar political set of views and the intestinal fortitude to stand firm on those principles they believe deeply about against all adversity and opposition. He is seeking conservatives, true conservatives, who have preferably no political experience and have either been standout, principled, steadfast, absolutist, honorable conservatives. Steve Bannon has a very high view of himself seeing his mission for the remainder of his life as saving the United States from the barnacled infestation created by the power creep in Washington D.C. and which has issued an ever-rising debt which will destroy the future of the United States, the Western World and any possibility of advancing freedom for our children and all posterity. Bannon, despite what his detractors’ claim, actually does love the United States and the principles upon which it was founded. He is some form of a purist, an absolutist, a Foundationalist, one who believes in the exact wording of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence (in particular) and the numerous principles and theories from the political philosophers of the era leading up to the revolution which formed the United States. He sees Washington’s establishment as a large part of the problem, and places the blame on the politicians for dereliction of their duty to the people of the United States. His belief is that the Congress has a primary duty to fight for the people by preserving their nation and protecting it and especially the Constitution, from all threats foreign and domestic. And yes, that is a piece directly from the oath that every member of Congress, the Military, the President, the Federal Judges and many of the ranking members of the Administration and within the government.


Singing of the Declaration of Independence representative as the majority were present at the date considered to be the official signing but some had returned home and would sign it before it was delivered and there were several copies such that one could be delivered to King George III in London and others delivered to the spate State Committees and other copies stored separately for their collective safety

Singing of the Declaration of Independence representative as the majority were present at the date considered to be the official signing but some had returned home and would sign it before it was delivered and there were several copies such that one could be delivered to King George III in London and others delivered to the spate State Committees and other copies stored separately for their collective safety


How will Steve Bannon bring about his marvelous revolution of his? Well, he will have to fight a good fight, as there is a man who desires nothing less than the entire destruction and downfall of the United States. This man believes the opposite of everything which Steve Bannon holds dear and desires the complete failure and crumbling of these United States which Steve Bannon desires to save. Everything which Steve Bannon desires to bring about would only make the United States a greater abomination to this individual. This person has made it his life’s work, amongst numerous other equally perverse aims, to bring down the United States by any means necessary, and this is an individual of means. His name is George Soros and in his book,

The Age of Fallibility: The Consequences of the War on Terror, Soros said, “The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States. This is a harsh — indeed, for me, painful — thing to say, but unfortunately I am convinced it is true.

One of these men will succeed, and only one, as their aims for the future are diametrically opposed. What is more probable is one of these men’s aims will have their cause win out, but it may not be due to their efforts actually succeeding. Obviously one of these views must come about, as the United States will either survive to the end of time or crumble at some point in the future to either its own rust or the cruel cudgel of invasion. What is the only consequential reality is the immediate future where the efforts of these two adversaries will play out. What is the sad part is that people such as many members of Congress and the political swamp which sustains their careers and everything which contribute to the ooze and the slime, all of this is aiding George Soros and may be partially why he feels as he does and is the more likely victor. The money and the momentum are behind this direction and the eventual drowning of the United States in its own debt and futility.


The battle Steve Bannon is fighting is one that we here at BTC are very familiar and may have indirectly assisted in its birth. We reacted to the idiocy of our Congress woman who when we wrote telling her we opposed the addition of a special tax on Internet providers use of telephone lines, way back in the time of modem-phone Internet interface, because we did not desire paying even more for access to the Internet. This was a big issue back then and we were quite animated over the issue. She replied, and this is a paraphrasing, ‘Your rates are not affected by the tax as this tax is on the phone use by the provider and not the end user.’ Like any tax goes no further than the people, the corporations, upon whom the tax is levied. These corporations and industries would never pass along the additional cost along to their customers who use their goods and services, that would never happen. Well, in our Congress woman’s world, that is how it would work. We were incensed enough with the disrespect, the assumption of the public’s ignorance, and the belief that we would accept such a preposterous answer that we ran for office against her and everything else. Our communicating of our idea and ideals that the government required being brought back to serving the people and not itself or the mega-corporations and that the basics which founded the United States were being threatened and trod asunder and only required the people realizing the dangers and standing up to bring their desires to the fore. We were able to speak to maybe close to one thousand people but received many times that many votes. Our strongest support, despite being rebuffed by the NRA as too inconsequential for their consideration, were gun owners who arrived in numbers Election Day requesting posters and pamphlets as they struck out to the polls and even donated a final contribution to our campaign in the maximum amount permitted by law. Here we are a decade and a half later and we have had the Tea Party and now a simply we are fed up revolt by voters; if only we had waited we might have had more financial backing.


The problem for Steve Bannon is he will have great difficulty finding people who believe and are willing to stand against the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. There will be many who will believe in his cause and still choose when challenged not to do while a very courageous few will be willing to do. So, to be or not to be, that is the question, and whether to stand against the moneyed interests and their character assassination will be what those who consider the challenge will and must answer. To ignore the coming hardships and potential threats would be foolish. We write this from experience. How many of us actually have the fortitude to stand toe-to-toe in a debate with people whose livelihood depends on their debating skills. People who can twist words into a pretzel, still sell them as a pretzel stick, and then tell people they enjoyed it even if they used hot peppers instead of salt. Our best memory other than the support from the gun rights supporters on Election Day morning was when we were in a debate at a predominantly minority church. The question was about support or opposition of the death penalty and we went last. Both the Democrat and sitting Republican stood directly and completely opposed to the death penalty, an expected response. We stood and stated that we were not in favor of the liberal or common use of the death penalty, but that there were a certain class of criminals who were beyond the ability of our systems, medical and criminal, to repair their damaged lives and personalities. Such people are psychopaths, sociopaths, psychotics and other simply evil people who were beyond any chance for being permitted return into society. As no prison is absolutely inescapable and some of these individuals have a devious brilliance which would make them the perfect candidate to escape even the highest security prisons, and thus the only means would be the death penalty or a form of solitary confinement with limitations to their ability to move such that they were not even permitted the movement to feed themselves or any other such normative functions such that execution would actually be more merciful, for people, and we listed a half dozens or so mass murderers, are the types who the death penalty would be appropriate. The two main party candidates in their rebuttal both agreed with everything I stated in thirty seconds and it was remarkably uplifting knowing we had bested them on at least one question. Mostly we held our own sufficiently well that they formed a bi-partisan committee with members of the staff from both campaigns to work and keep me from appearing anywhere in public. That included debates before religious groups, public groups, political clubs and the televised debate sponsored by the League of Women Voters. They even had lawyers from the State’s Attorney’s Office witness against us in a court to prevent a judge from allowing us into the debate as we sued. They even had the judge refuse to allow a member of my campaign to represent me in court and demand that I defend my need to be represented in the debate with almost thirty seconds of meeting with the person who had done all of the research. We managed to lose this one, remarkable, right?


This is what anybody attempting to break the political class’s hold on absolute power will face, this and far worse, because the political class has figured out that the people are mad as, well, you know. Will the American people arise and remain aroused long enough to actuate the changes necessary? Six years is the minimum to be able to change the entire Senate once and we may require three times through to manage the changes we require. Senators John McCain, Lisa Murkowski, Richard Shelby, Marco Rubio, Chuck Grassley, Jerry Moran, Roy Blunt, Rob Portman, Pat Toomey, John Thune, Mike Lee and Ron Johnson were just reelected so we are stuck with them for the next six years. These were just some of the Republicans and we saw no reason for adding Democrats who disregard the limitations of the Constitution as they promise to do that while the Republicans claim they are the protectors of the Constitution. Most of them could not even tell you most of the particulars included in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Ask your representatives for the Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate, to simply state the Tenth Amendment (see image below) and then explain what they believe it means. Then ask them if it matters at all to them. Then, if you really want to have some fun, ask them what in the Constitution was behind, and then list any number of votes they made which can be looked up on the Internet at their own sites very often. Do this when other people are listening and watch them squirm before they start to lie to you.


Tenth Amendment


Will the United States survive into the distant future? The first question is what will the United States look like in about ten, twenty, fifty years or even a century or more? We will have a simple measuring meter, the debt. Every trillion of growth in the debt is probably an additional decade of the United States as a debtor nation. Being a debtor nation is not a good thing. There will be so many, especially in the political class, who will argue that as measured against the GDP, the debt is not as terrible as it may first appear. They will tell you that you cannot even think about numbers like the level of the debt and even the GDP. One has to wonder, if we cannot even understand such numbers, what makes these supra-geniuses we vote into office have such ability, as they appear to talk about such things with a complete cavalier attitude. That should be a stumper which will leave them sputtering and attempting to backtrack before they do additional damage. The United States no longer requires a Balanced Budget Amendment, as even with such a law, the Congress would find means around such by using continuing resolution with built in increases in spending to continue the same-old-same-old. The United States requires responsible stewardship leading to budget surpluses which are required to be applied to reduction of the principle of the debt. This need be required until the entirety of the debt is reduced to nothing.


From that point forward, the budget must be balanced and should any year run into debt, then the next year must place repaying that debt at the top of the budget which must also remain as a balanced budget. There should not be any leeway allowing any debt to build up and every yearly budget should be corralled such that they not exceed some set percentage of all funds collected by the Federal Government the previous year. Should any yearly debt be incurred, then that would immediately bite into the funds for the next year, as it is required to be placed at the head of the next year’s budget in order that it be paid and not increased, as is the current habit. Should the United States continue in the current direction, then very soon the United States will no longer be capable of fielding the strongest military in the world, and will have reached the point where having a large Navy, Air Force, Army, Marines or any other military organizations beyond that required for border patrol, if that. We have watched as the European nations have almost to a nation degraded their militaries to the point that they are not meeting their obligations under treaties and are no longer capable of exerting force projection. The Europeans had a secret weapon, the United States. Whom will the United States offload their defense onto? Answer that question and you will have permitted the United States to become just another European socialist nightmare. Well, the next five elections will tell much of the story and we will continue to watch and hope along with the rest of the world. We just pray we will not need to write an article titled, “What Will the World Without America Be?”


Beyond the Cusp


April 28, 2012

Can the Deficit Bomb be Defused?

The shrill, apocalyptic discourse about the debt crisis usually will include terms which make the problem appear insolvable. We hear the same harried discourse about college loan debt, credit card debt, and indebtedness in general. Everything is weighed as being the next possible bubble to burst causing the next calamity. All this frenetic rhetoric adds little to the discussion making finding a path to sanity and a solution even more difficult. The solution is the same for our entire society as it is for the government and each sector where a problem has been identified and validated as real and is not just more fear mongering. The truth of the matter is many of us have faced this problem in our own lives at one time and found our way clear simply by doing what was necessary and acting responsibly. Responsibility is the problem as expecting our elected officials to act responsibly, maturely, and with restraint is like asking a fish to give up water. Our political class has addicted themselves to spending whatever it takes to buy their own reelection. Since many of those in the political class have been doing so little in the way of productive work beyond seeking reelection, they have become incapable of performing anything which passes as productive labor and have become the same nature of drag on our economy as any other addict. So, what are the solutions and how can we put our society and country back onto a healthy path?

The first and possibly most vital step would be to break the cycle of politicians constantly being in reelection mode. What might tend to work would be to put in place a combination of term limits and a way of minimizing the frequency the politician needs to face elections. We could place a limit of three terms on both Senators and Representatives with a slight adjustment to the terms of our members elected to the House of Representatives. Instead of having them face election every two years make the elections slightly less necessary. When a Representative is elected for their first term they serve the customary two year term. If they are reelected to a second term it lasts four years and if they are reelected to the third and final term they serve six years. This way we allow the Representatives who the people most approve of their performance get to serve longer but are still limited to a maximum of twelve years but only need to face election a total of a maximum three times. Senators we simply limit to three terms and the six year terms they currently serve should be just fine. This would at least end the near constant election mode currently imposed on Representatives. But what do we do next?

There is a need to make sure that our Representatives and Senators have some form of productive work, or at least not counter-productive work. Currently the system allows them to just seek reelection and pass legislation which, once passed, move on and never look back. One simple method to achieve this would be to make it such that all legislation contains a sunset clause which would force them to readdress each piece of legislation every ten years after it was passed into law. This would at least take away some of the time currently spent inventing new legislation, often needless legislation. We also need to do away with the ability of our elected officials to add pork and miscellaneous amendments to popular or funding bills which they are sure are going to pass simply to either sneak something through the legislative process that would likely not stand the full inspection if it stood alone or sends monies back to their home district or state to some supporter of particular note who they feel an obligation to reward. This can be accomplished simply by implementing a single subject rule for all legislation which would restrict any amendment to a piece of legislation to those which directly apply to that legislation and not some extraneous subject or unrelated expenditure.

One item that would end much of the problems we face would be for the Supreme Court to redefine the Commerce Clause and severely limit the scope and inclusiveness of the current interpretation. What is beautiful is just such an opportunity is presently being addressed by the Supreme Court. When the Supreme Court Justices reach their decision later this year, presumable sometime this summer, on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka Obama Care) they have that golden, once in a lifetime opportunity to redefine this ruinous interpretation which has allowed the Federal Government to grow beyond any measure of restraint. Redefining the Commerce Clause to a strict and narrow definition might enable not only restricting any future growth but actually lead to the imposition of Constitutional limits forcing the limiting and narrowing of the Federal Government. In the best of all cases, such a redefinition would actually allow a challenge against those departments which strict constructionists have long held are not Constitutional or are at the least are contrary to the intent of our founding Fathers. We can dream, can’t we?

The next item we need to address is the method we currently use to implement regulations. We need to no longer allow faceless bureaucrats to initiate regulations and put an end to the Congress passing bills which assign the implementation of the law to those in the Administrative branch of the government. We must have our elected officials actually take the time to flesh out the entire span and depth of the implementation of the legislations they pass. We need to have those who are held responsible through the ballot box to write the regulations rather than allow people beyond the reach or influence of the people. The problem with the current system is that the “Secretary” of a department is tasked with implementing the regulations, guidelines, penalties, fees and the rest of the items necessary to flesh out some vague legislation passed by Congress. This allows for endless growth in the numbers and scope of regulation that are implemented from any single piece of legislation. This is made all the worse due to the fact that by expanding the scope, reach and numbers of regulations under any law allows the department to hire more positions for enforcement and implementation thus giving an incentive to the people currently tasked with applying laws to make the regulations as impossible and expansive thus ensuring job security and additional positions thus growth of the department making more room for advancement. We must end giving regulatory responsibility to those who gain directly by additional and impossible over-regulation.

The final item is profligate spending. We have many redundant positions and departments within the various alphabet soup of agencies and departments who perform what is politely referred to as redundant activities. They actually get in each other’s way making both groups less efficient. I would not be surprised if an investigation of the mechanisms of our government would reveal agencies where one side implements or places some function in place and then another agency is tasked to come along behind them and remove or undo whatever was committed by the previous groups actions. Such a cycle could become very efficient at enlarging both groups as they would both be able to put in requests for additional personnel as their challenge would obviously never by minimized. We also need to allow for the people on an actual government jobsite some discretion to allow for leniency in the application of regulations so something which is obviously sufficient to satisfy the intention of some rule but is technically not covered by the exacting parameters. I have an example from my college days when I worked on a HUD house remodeling it to fit HUD regulations. The back porch did not meet code so we had to tear it down and replace the porch. The code demanded certain supports be present and this porch had no supports at all so it had to be rebuilt. A team of six college youth, myself included, worked for close to ten days with pick axes and sledge hammers breaking down this unstable porch which did not meet the HUD regulations. It took quite some time to manually chop down a porch which measure twelve feet square and eight feet tall made out of a solid block of reinforced concrete. It occurred to me that this might have not needed the wooden supports every no more than sixteen inches but the HUD inspector insisted it be rebuilt to code. This is the kind of worthless waste that probably exists in way too many places where the government enforces its arbitrary rules and regulations. Once we pull back on the spending, make our elected officials implement the particulars and regulations thus at least limiting their numbers which has to benefit businesses which would give the economy a boost, and bring the Federal Government under some control limiting its growth rate, then we can begin to whittle away on the deficit and once that is eradicated, we can then begin to pay more than just the interest on the national debt. Imagine an America without any national debt. Now there is a dream worth pursuing.

Beyond the Cusp

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: