http://www.constitutionparty.com RSS feeds for Constitution Party 60 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/66/That-Hope-Which-Springs-Eternal.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=66 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=66&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/66/That-Hope-Which-Springs-Eternal.aspx by James N. Clymer Chairman, Constitution Party National Committee “A straggling few got up to go in deep despair.  The rest Clung to the hope which springs eternal in the human breast”   These poignant lines from Casey at the Bat speak to the emotions that those of us who follow and cheer our favorite baseball team have experienced countless times. Philadelphia Phillies fans have a reputation for being among the most fervent in professional sports. They can be churlish and cruel, yet they will be loyal to a fault; they exude emotion and expectation yet understand practicality.   What most people don’t understand is what made them that way. Growing up rooting for a team that a few short years ago became the only team in major professional sports to have lost 10,000 games in its franchise history develops a sports character that a Yankee, braves or Red Sox fan could never understand!   Politics has many parallels with baseball.  Those who develop team loyalty see everything through the tinted glasses of their team.  So if they are Republican, the GOP can do no wrong and the Democrats can do no right and vice versa.   Take the vitriol heaped on Barack Obama by most Republicans.  He evokes more emotion among the so-called Republican Right than any president in my memory.  He is described by many as the most leftist president in history.   On the other hand, I’ve attended gatherings on more than one occasion during the Bush presidency where loyalist Republicans declared Bush to be the “most conservative president in our lifetime”, in “the last fifty years” or in “the last hundred years.”  I guess you get to pick the absurdity.   Now don’t get me wrong.  I believe the current occupant of the oval office is a Constitutional miscreant of immense proportions.  He displays greater infidelity to the Constitution than any president since at least FDR.  His lack of fidelity started with his refusal to show that he meets the Constitutional qualifications to be president.  They are, after all, quite simple. One must be at least 35 years of age, shall have lived at least fourteen years in these United States and shall be a natural born citizen.  Why would one spend what has been estimated to exceed a million dollars to keep secret the long form birth certificate that would settle this question once and for all?  But I digress.   In fact, George W. Bush showed nearly as much disdain for the Constitution as does Obama.  For all the outbursts about Obama trampling on the Constitution and turning us into a socialist state, I wonder what they were smoking while the Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress for four years of the Bush II presidency. Bush’s alleged contemptuous remark that the Constitution is nothing but a “g*d d*mn” piece of paper”, was not merely a blasphemous statement; it exemplified an attitude and a policy.   I challenge anyone to name one major fiscal, individual liberty or foreign relations policy area where there is a significant ideological difference between the practice of Bush II and Obama.  Remember, I’m not comparing the degree to which the policy is taken but rather the ideological justification for the policy.   In the cover story of the December 6, 2010 issue of The New American, Charles Scaliger presents a compelling case for how Obama, despite campaign hype to the contrary, continued the war policies of Bush in both Iraq and Afghanistan, continued the course set by Bush in relations with Russia and in calling for an expansion of NATO, along with ever greater accommodations with the United Nations.   In fiscal matters, Republicans have suddenly discovered a verbal commitment to fiscal restraint and constitutional limitations on the power of the federal government, blasting Obama for his socialized medicine capers and stimulus package bailouts.  But where were they when Bush was doing the same sorts of things now done by Obama?  After all, it was Bush who pushed through the first stimulus package, a $700 billion dollar bank bailout.  As soon as Obama got into office, he started pushing for the second one to compound the disaster but it was not significantly less “unconstitutional” or “socialistic” than the one presided over by Bush.   Scaliger notes that overall federal spending has increased about ten percent per year during the first two years of the Obama administration which is about the same annual increases that occurred during the administration of George W. Bush.   Obamacare, the gargantuan intrusion of the federal government into the healthcare decisions of every American citizen, is presented as the proof case for Obama’s desire to lead us into socialism.  Without disputing the truth of that intent, let’s look objectively at what Bush did in the federal healthcare arena with his massive overhaul of Medicare at an estimated cost of $7 trillion, called “the greatest expansion of America’s welfare state in forty years” by CBS legal correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg.       It was George W. Bush who disdained the privacy rights of individuals that the federal government is supposed to protect under the Fourth Amendment by pushing through the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security along with its progeny of new intrusions on the privacy of American citizens.  Although candidate Obama decried these violations of the Constitution, once assuming the office of the presidency, he has continued these policies and has authorized even more draconian policies such as installation of new backscatter body imaging machines that electronically undress passengers who merely want to exercise their right to travel.  Those who refuse to have the naked features of their bodies viewed by strangers must face an enhanced groping “patdown” that would constitute a felonious sexual assault if done by anyone other than a government agent in a non-medical circumstance.       So Republicans have gained a substantial majority in the House of Representatives.  The pundits are buzzing about the opportunities this new crop of Republicans will have and hope again springs eternal that sanity will be restored in Washington.  But if the past is prologue, just as there was no joy in Mudville because mighty Casey had struck out, those pinning their hopes on Republican promises will see their hopes dashed once again. There are already emerging signs that the GOP really only wants to be a better caretaker of the welfare state than the Democrats.  I have no confidence that it has any intention of derailing the train to socialism.   Webmaster Fri, 28 Jan 2011 01:00:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:66 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/67/Response-to-the-Presidents-State-of-the-Union-Address.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=67 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=67&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/67/Response-to-the-Presidents-State-of-the-Union-Address.aspx by Darrell Castle Constitution Party Vice-Chairman Last night President Obama delivered his State of the Union address, as he is required by the Constitution to do once each year. Although he covered many different areas, he concentrated on only three: the domestic economy, which includes what he called job creation, domestic policy topics such as education and energy, and foreign policy, which includes military and defense issues. The President told us that the nation is doing well economically and is on its way to recovery from recession. Evidence of this recovery, according to the President, is the “booming stock market.” My response is that it is utterly ridiculous to say that we are well into recovery because the stock market is booming. Tell that news to the 43 million plus who have to use food stamps to eat. Tell that to the 15 million plus unemployed people. That number would be much higher than 15 million if the government kept honest numbers and counted the people who are no longer looking for jobs. Tell that to the millions of underemployed who used to have good jobs in manufacturing with benefits and who now work in service-related jobs with no benefits. The President said that we can’t live in the past with regard to our economy. For example, it used to take about 1000 jobs to operate a steel mill, but now it only takes 100, so we must adjust to that reality and innovate. What he didn’t say is that any jobs in steel are being performed in Korea and other countries and no amount of innovation will change that. What then is the answer to our economic problems? First, do no more harm with bailouts. Stop all bailouts and recover any money previously committed to bailouts that has not already been spent. Withdraw from all so-called free trade agreements such as NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, and GATT which have been largely responsible for the destruction of America’s manufacturing base. Remove the regulations and restrictions that prevent businesses from doing business in America and from hiring the people they need to make the things that people want to buy. Finally, the economy cannot recover until the debt and deficit are resolved through de-leveraging of debt and control of spending. Stop spending more than you take in. It is a simple concept that Americans understand but that apparently their politicians don’t. Once the debt and deficit are under control, the President should endeavor to drive a stake through the heart of the entire Federal Reserve system and return to a monetary system based on sound money principles. Stop the destruction of our currency immediately. The President also told us that educationally we are doing well, but we can do better, so he launched a program called Race to the Top in all fifty states to replace No Child Left Behind. This is also total nonsense. The United States continues to lag behind other nations in math, science, and reading skills. Our system of education, controlled and paid for by the federal government, is a failure and should be scrapped and replaced with state and local control, with primary responsibility left to parents. There is no role for the federal government in education whatsoever. The nation’s energy needs could be met largely by domestic production if we were to allow our own domestic sources of energy to be exploited by repeal of harmful laws that unnecessarily restrain production. Technology will now allow energy exploration and production with minimal damage to the environment. This would prevent the US government from exploring for oil in the Middle East through military force and help foster a more peaceful world. Finally, the President talked about “shaping” a better world through strengthening NATO and rebuilding our relationship with Russia. He stated that 100,000 of our troops have come home from Iraq with their heads held high. That is also complete nonsense. It’s not his job to shape the world, it’s his job to protect and defend the Constitution and the American people. Many of those 100,000 troops didn’t come home but went to Afghanistan instead. Thousands of others did come home but in boxes or in rehab hospitals. What then is the foreign policy answer? Issue an order to General Patraeus and the other commanders to execute an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. Then order a military withdrawal from the other 100 nations around the world where we have over 700 foreign bases. That would save many lives, much money, and would create far fewer enemies than we are creating now. We simply must stop acting as if we own the world or as if we are responsible for it. That would not be isolationism but instead a lack of military domination. The US would trade with all nations who were willing to trade with us. Creditor nations would probably appreciate our new monetary policy whereby they were paid with real instead of counterfeit money. If the President were to dedicate himself to the ideas proposed in this response to his speech, we would be well on our way to the most dynamic period in American history. Webmaster Wed, 26 Jan 2011 01:01:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:67 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/69/Is-the-Cold-War-Back-On.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=69 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=69&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/69/Is-the-Cold-War-Back-On.aspx by Darrell Castle Constitution Party Vice-Chairman January 19, 2011 President Barack Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao in China This is the week of the 50th anniversary of President Eisenhower’s famous speech in which he warned the nation to beware of what he called “the military industrial complex.” He was talking about the military leaders joining with leaders of the arms industry for the purpose of expanding their budgets in order to line their own pockets and greatly expand their power over American foreign policy. President Eisenhower probably remembered the end of WWII, just 15 years before his speech, when the United States stood at the top of world power as no nation had ever stood before. With 12 million men under arms, the only nation with nuclear weapons and a proven disposition to use them, with Europe in ruins and the Soviet Union with millions of dead, who could challenge the United States? But challenged we were: just five years later we were at war again in Korea, and the Soviet Union also had nuclear weapons. By the time of President Eisenhower’s speech in 1960, we were in a life or death struggle with the Soviet Union for global supremacy. Those of us who lived through that time remember the “missile gap” and the constant stories of how much better Soviet weapons were than ours and how if we didn’t fund, fund, fund, and build, build, build, our civilization would be dead, dead, dead. The entire “free world” depended on the American taxpayer. The Soviet Union remained a faithful partner in the game until it finally imploded in 1989, but as luck would have it, Islamic fundamentalism was there to pick up the ball and carry it. Twenty years of fighting Islamic fundamentalism have certainly been rewarding for the players, but fighting a bunch of primitive people who live in caves and hovels makes it hard to justify building very many $350 million dollar plus (research and development factored in) F-22 Raptors, especially when the nation is bankrupt. The F-22 production line was, therefore, shut down after 187 were built. Permanent war fighting has its own set of rewards, but it just doesn’t create the same zeal as a real big iron showdown against a legitimate technologically advanced country. For a short time it looked as if the players of “the great game,” as Zbigniew Brzezinski called it, would have to adjust to only permanent war against Islamic fundamentalism, but they are clever and resourceful. Lo and behold, along comes China with the J-20 stealth fighter. We are told that China got its stealth technology from Russia which got it from us, but we are also told that most Russian technological systems are junk right now from lack of funding. China debuted its new fighter aircraft just in time for the summit between Chinese President Hu Jintao and U.S. President Barack Obama and at about the same time that China announced it was moving troops into North Korea. Oh how lucky can one group of people get! Look for the F-22 line to start up any day now, and, in addition, we have the Chinese in Korea again just like 50 years ago. Well, it will be extremely interesting to see how President Obama handles the summit with China. I am confident that he will handle it as well as he did the START talks with the Russians. The “great game” goes on, but if the dollar loses its reserve status, as now appears inevitable, the players will have to find a way to pay for all their big iron. - Darrell Castle Webmaster Thu, 20 Jan 2011 01:04:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:69 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/68/Staying-Focused-On-The-Big-Picture.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=68 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=68&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/68/Staying-Focused-On-The-Big-Picture.aspx by Robert W. Peck Chairman, Constitution Party of Washington As a new year begins and a new Congress comes on the stage promising reform, fiscal accountability and a return to conservative principles, I’ve got to remind us all to stay focused on the big picture. Too often, our attention is diverted from the real and weighty issues that determine the future of our country, our liberty and our prosperity. Like the illusionist who diverts our attention from what is really going on, the political powers that be, along with the dominant media and political pundits, direct our attention to whatever is being billed as the major political battle of the day. But more often than not, those battles are being waged over what amounts to minutia or only minor differences in policy when compared to what I consider to be the big picture. A CASE IN POINT The recent battle over extending the Bush tax cuts is a good case in point. Both Democrats and Republicans decried each other’s position as disastrous, ruinous, or downright evil. Both told their supporters that they were here to save them from the other party. Conservative commentators told us that the Democrats would destroy the economy and crush us under an unbearable burden of increased taxation. When the dust settled and the Republicans claimed victory, conservative leaders engaged in an orgy of self congratulation patting themselves on the back for ushering in the new age of conservatism that will save the country from the liberals. The casual observer would think it is now safe to go back to sleep confident that small government, low taxes, Tea Party Republicans are in charge now and all will be well. But was the extending of the Bush tax cuts the epic struggle for our economic survival that it was billed to be? Or was it a distraction that diverted our attention from the big picture? During that debate we were inundated with plenty of minutia from political pundits and talking heads discussing whether the Bush tax cuts increased GDP, decreased federal revenues, or increased the federal deficit and by what percentage of GDP adjusted for inflation as based on CBO projections for the year 2018 and how that will effect couples filing jointly with 2.3 children and a medical insurance co-payment of . . . . . blah, blah, blah, ad infinitum, insert endless stream of baffling BS here. Ultimately, there were really only two relevant questions; 1) How much of our personal income is being taken for the cost of government and; 2) Exactly how much did the Bush tax cuts reduce that burden for the average American? With that in mind, I set out looking for answers and found the following. OVERALL TAXATION What is known as the ’Bush tax cuts’ is actually a collection of various changes in federal tax laws, rates, rules, etc, assembled into two different bills passed by Congress and signed by President Bush in 2001 and 2003. To see exactly how much these tax cuts directly affected our lives and our standard, the following gives a sampling of what percentage of gross income the average American paid in taxation (local, state and federal combined) during the last 10 years. 2000 32.98% Last year of Clinton Presidency 2004 28.53% First year that all Bush tax cuts were fully implemented 2006 31.16% Last year of Republican controlled Congress 2008 28.99% Last year of Bush Presidency 2010 26.89% Current rate under Obama and Democrat Congress (source: http://www.taxfoundation.org) TOTAL COST OF GOVERNMENT The actual cost of government is considerably higher as it takes into account total spending, fees (not counted as taxes) and the cost of complying with government regulations. According to Americans for Tax Reform (www.costofgovernmentday.com), in the last decade, Cost of Government Day, the day at which Americans stop working to pay for the cost of government and start keeping what they earn, has fallen on: 2000 June 29 Last year of Clinton Presidency 2004 July 10 First year that all Bush tax cuts were fully implemented 2006 July 10 Last year of Republican controlled Congress 2008 July 16 Last year of Bush Presidency 2010 Aug 19 Current Cost of Government Day According to the above, while taxes may have gone down by as much as 3% during the time of the Bush tax cuts, the cost of government went up. In other words, our standard of living didn’t really change, but we did acquire a lot of new debt, over $4trillion during the Bush Presidency. THE DISTRACTION First of all, the battle over extending the Bush tax cuts was not really about lowering taxes, it was about maintaining the current level of taxation. And it wasn’t a battle over the whole 3% that those tax cuts appear to have represented, seeing as Democrats already planned to retain most of those cuts. The ’Great Battle’ was over one element of the Bush tax cuts that was directed at individuals earning over $200,000 per year. To win this ’Great Victory,’ Republicans acquiesced to nearly $1 trillion in new spending (i.e. debt), $313 billion of which their own budget point man concedes is unnecessary. By the way, all of this was done to gain only a two year extension, after which time we’ll be watching this movie all over again. While everyone was paying attention to the Republican versus Democrat battle being waged over extending that one element of the tax cuts, we were all successfully distracted from looking at the big picture – the fact that regardless of which party is in power, over half of all that we produce continues to be devoured by the government behemoth (63% currently and about 52% under Bush and the Republican Congress). It isn’t that the extending of the tax cuts doesn’t matter. It’s that issues like this often manage to distract us and cause us to lose sight of the bigger picture. Our party of preference wins the battle of the day and we all go back to our homes singing the victory, oblivious to the fact that taxpayers continue to lose the war as the establishment maintains the status quo. THE BIG PICTURE In 2011, let’s not get distracted by the minutia offered up by party leaders, political pundits and the 6 o’clock news. Let’s stay focused on the big picture – the weighty issues of life, liberty, property, the clear limits placed on government by the U.S. Constitution, the 63% of all our income that is being consumed by government, the $3.5 trillion per year being spent by the federal government and $1.2 trillion per year in new debt that is being heaped on the backs of the next generation. If the Republicans in Congress want to claim to represent Tea Partiers, Constitutionalists and traditional conservatives, they need to step up to the plate and wage a real war to rein in out of control spending and put the federal government back in its Constitutionally prescribed box. In 2011, the big picture is the fact that the Republican controlled House of the 112th Congress has it within their power to rein in most of the federal government’s un-Constitutional activities (by defunding them), end deficit spending and balance the budget. You see, Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution states that “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.” In other words, the federal government cannot, and will not, spend a penny more than what the controlling party in the House (the Republicans) decides it will spend. Now you may be thinking “Oh my, the Democrats would scream bloody murder – there would be gridlock – the government could shut down.” Yes! You’re catching on! That’s exactly the idea and it’s exactly what the framers of our Constitution intended. They intended for the people’s direct representatives (the House) to be able to hold the rest of the government in check by holding the purse strings and thereby be able to “compel the Senate to agree to a reasonable measure, by withholding supplies till the measure is consented to,” as James Iredell argues in connection with the Constitution ratification debates. As for a “reasonable measure,” I think balancing the budget and denying funding for any activity or agency not clearly authorized under the U.S. Constitution is quite reasonable. The next reasonable measure that I would like to see, is to get the total cost of government (local, state and federal) back to its 1910 level of 5% of income as opposed to the current 63%. If, in the coming two years, under a Republican controlled House, even one un-Constitutional program receives funding or one dollar is added to the deficit, or Cost of Government Day comes any later than January 19 (as it did in 1910), it will not be because Republicans are powerless. It will not be because of ’the big bad liberals.’ It will be because the Republicans in the House want it that way. The only other possible explanation would be that we the people have elected to high office weak-kneed, limp-wristed, panty-waists who are afraid of a fight. No, I didn’t call the Republicans panty-waists, I said we’re going to give them two years to show us whether they are or not. A CALL FOR TRUE GRIT With the remake of one of my favorite movies in mind, True Grit, I have to ask, where are the national leaders with grit? Men who without fear for their popularity or political careers, will stand up to the criminal violators of our Constitution, take the reins in their teeth and a gun in each hand and charge at the oppressing oligarchs who seek to tax us into oblivion. Oh for a handful of national leaders with True Grit! __________________________ If you agree with the content of this article, please forward, post and publish far and wide. If you don’t, who will? © Robert W. Peck Webmaster Thu, 20 Jan 2011 01:03:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:68 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/70/Lame-Duck-or-Just-Lame.aspx#Comments 0 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/RssComments.aspx?TabID=130&ModuleID=511&ArticleID=70 http://www.constitutionparty.com/DesktopModules/DnnForge%20-%20NewsArticles/Tracking/Trackback.aspx?ArticleID=70&PortalID=0&TabID=130 http://www.constitutionparty.com/NewsRoom/CPCommentary/tabid/130/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/70/Lame-Duck-or-Just-Lame.aspx by Darrell Castle Constitution Party Vice-Chairman “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” (United States Constitution, Article I Section 1.). This section of the Constitution places all legislative or law-making power clearly in the hands of Congress, and therefore denies them the right to transfer that responsibility to the president. In light of the Constitutional responsibilities of Congress, then, let’s take a brief look at not only what this lame duck session has accomplished, but also what has been accomplished in recent years. The lame duck session passed 3 of the 4 major items on its agenda. The three were the START treaty, the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT), and the “deal” to extend the Bush tax cuts. The only thing they were denied was President Obama’s DREAM Act (AIM: amnesty for illegal minors). I won’t go into detail about any of these because we have so many accomplishments to list, except to say that the tax cut extension was really Stimulus II or, in other words, a deceitful way of pumping more money into the economy which the American public clearly rejected in the November elections. The total cost of the “deal” is estimated at $990 billion or just short of a trillion dollars, and two thirds of that money had nothing to do with tax cuts, middle class or otherwise. With the lame ducks out of the way, what else can Congress be proud of? Here’s just a few: Allowing the president to wage trillion dollar wars of aggression all over the world; Bankrupting the richest nation on earth; Destroying two-thirds of the manufacturing base of the greatest manufacturing nation on earth; Plunging future generations of Americans into debt peonage; Obamacare with its health mandates that deny the right to exit the system – a system, by the way, to which Congress is not subject; Return of death panels despite the assurances that they would not return; The Food Safety Bill, or the bill to make Monsanto our food controller; Genetically modified foods; irradiated foods; imported and uninspected foods; Net neutrality talks well under way; A controlled press, and destruction of the best education system in the world. I could go on with this for pages and pages but I think you get the idea. In light of all this I have a Christmas gift (winter holiday gift as they say in Washington) suggestion that Congress could give the American people to partially repent for what it has done. The gift is this: Just stay on your Christmas vacation forever. Congresspersons just stay permanently away from Washington. If you can’t bear to stay permanently away then give us one of those compromises you are so good at and stay away for a year. What a wonderful, glorious, happy time that would be for all Americans and indeed for the whole world for us to know that we were safe from your efforts to destroy our lives and property for a whole year. If you think about it you will see that we don’t need you. What bills could you pass that are not harmful? What have we lived without for almost 250 years that we can’t live without for just one more year? If Congress actually decided to give us a break and stay away for a year, a shout of joy and freedom would ring out around the world that has not been heard since the end of World War II. Not that you earn it or deserve it, but we would be willing to let you keep your salaries. It would be well worth it for the year of safety we would enjoy without your strutting, preening presence on our televisions. We might even be willing to make the day of the announcement a national holiday so we could have a day off too. But wait, that would require you to come back to Washington for a vote, so never mind. Webmaster Mon, 03 Jan 2011 01:05:00 GMT f1397696-738c-4295-afcd-943feb885714:70