Search This Blog
De Omnibus Dubitandum - Lux Veritas
Tuesday, October 28, 2025
Carthage Must Be Destroyed!
Friday, March 22, 2024
Saving America by Accepting the Most Acceptable Imperfection
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”– Alexis DeTocqueville
By Rich Kozlovich
On March 18th Paul Engel published what I think is an excellent article explaining what's needed to be done to fix the mess the federal government has turned America into, Uncle Sam has become all too powerful thanks to the 16th Amendment. He starts with a well done history of taxes in America saying:
The income tax didn’t start with the 16th amendment; it started in 1862 to fund the Civil War. Since it was a consistent revenue stream, the income tax was sold to the people with a warning that it was necessary, the promise that it would be limited by a person’s income, and was scheduled to expire in 1870. However, that did not make it constitutional. Most likely due to the urgencies of the war, though, this tax was never challenged in court...
He goes on to explain the founding fathers view of federal tax collection saying:
Yes, Congress can collect taxes. Duties, imposts, and excises are simply different types of taxes that Congress can collect. Notice, however, that there are only three things Congress can collect taxes for:
- To pay the debts of the United States.
- For the common defense of the United States.
- And for the general Welfare of the United States.
Three things, that's it! All else was supposed to fall under the domain of the states, aka, the 10th Amendment. He has a lot more to say that's worth reading, so I suggest reading the entire article.
I've said so often, as long as you feed the beast it will continue to grow, that's the 16th Amendment, and the 17th Amendment made the 10th Amendment meaningless. That made the Commerce Clause the bludgeon used to impose government mandates and directives on everything that goes on in America. That and all the environmental laws passed by Ricard Nixon.1913 was a seminal year in American history passing the 16rh, and 17th Amendments and creating the FED. Teddy Roosevelt, who like Wilson, believed the Constitution was an impediment to human progress, along with his progressive pals, (Romney and his ilk are their philosophical progeny) had a lot to do with bringing all that into being, with the clear intent of undermining the Constitution.
I list who I think are the worst six Presidents of the 20th and 21st centuries in this order, and why:
- ) Teddy Roosevelt, as he gave credibility to the progressive movement, which gave,
- ) Woodrow Wilson the foundation to create a fascist government, and WWI gave him the excuse.
- ) Franklyn Roosevelt as he turned Wilson’s fascist regime into the New Deal and created the massive Deep State we deal with now.
- ) Richard Nixon as he took all that and made federal agencies all powerful by creating a ton of environmental laws, including that nightmare Endangered Species Act, and created the EPA and OSHA.
- ) Jimmy Carter because of his stupid geopolitical meddling we now have a worldwide Muslim jihadist movement that's the greatest threat to western civilization since the fall of the Roman empire to Islam. And his even dumber meddling in economics that caused the mass economic downturn in 2008 due to his 1977 Community Investment Act.
- ) Followed by the almost 12 year Obama/Biden administration, as I view all
that Biden is doing is at the direction of Obama and his myrmidons. As bad as the others have been, they didn't want to destroy America, Obama/Biden does.
You will notice I didn't list Clinton, and the reason why is compared to them, he wasn't that bad. Compared to Reagan, not so good, but he wasn't much worse than all the other presidents, and a legitimate argument can be made he was better than either Bush.
There were only three conservative Presidents in the 20th century, Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, and Ronald Reagan, and Coolidge was the best of them all. Philosophically I find Calvin Coolidge and Donald Trump have much in common, albeit their character and personalities are night and day. But they knew what had to be done and were unafraid to do it. However, I don't see anyone with the guts, or the ability, to create a movement for a Constitutional change to repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments.
So, where does that leave us? Accepting the most acceptable imperfection!
My grandfather was one of the world's great economists. He said if
you spend more than you make, you'll go broke. What did he do for a
living? He was a coal miner and a farmer. Economics isn't all that
difficult, unless you're an economist, a politician, or a government bureaucrat.
Having said that, meaningful changes can be made, and those changes start with this one foundational concept. Stop borrowing, and stop spending, and do it now! Not spread out over time, as that can, and will, be curtailed by some future Congress, and do it massively!!!!!
“This is no small thing, to restore a republic after it has fallen into corruption. I have studied history for years and I cannot recall it ever happening. It may be that our task is impossible. Yet, if we do not try then how will we know it can’t be done? And if we do not try, it most certainly won’t be done. The Founders’ Republic, and the larger war for western civilization, will be lost.”
“But I tell you this: We will not go gently into that bloody
collectivist good night. Indeed, we will make with our defiance such a
sound as ALL history from that day forward will be forced to note, even
if they despise us in the writing of it.”
Monday, February 13, 2023
More Evidence of the Need for A 28th Amendment, II
By Rich Kozlovich
First off, Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana humiliated a Biden judicial nominee, Charnelle Bjelkengren, by asking her:
“Tell me what Article V of the Constitution does,” Kennedy asked as he began his round of questioning. “Article V is not coming to mind at the moment,” Bjelkengren replied. “How about Article II?” Kennedy asked. Bjelkengren replied that didn’t come to mind for her either.
Okay, let's be clear, the average American might know what Article V is about as it's been in the news a lot over the last ten years, but most probably wouldn't the able to answer the Article II question. But that's not the job of average Americans, and a condemnation of our education system, but it is part and parcel of America law. So, let's do a little review.
How many Articles are there and what do they do? There are seven. First off, we need to understand the Constitution was set up to balance the power between the three branches, and the states. All of which has been destroyed by the 16th and 17th Amendments.
Article I establishes the Legislative Branch to make laws governing the nation, and more. All money bills must start in the Congress, starting with the House of Representatives, including the borrowing of money, and only Congress can declare wars, all of which has been usurped in one way or the other.
Article II establishes the Executive branch, with the goal of managing the affairs of the nation and the laws passed by Congress, via agencies of the government. The President is the nation's chief executive officer. However, the founders never wanted the Executive to have the power we're seeing today, and would be horrified. The oath where the President of the United States takes to '"faithfully execute" the responsibilities as President and to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States", has become a joke under Biden, and he's not alone, he's just the worst of the worst.
Article III establishes the Supreme Court, and is the only Constitutionally mandated court. All others are creations of Congress and can be dismissed, and many years ago, Congress did such a thing. The founders, after much debate, made the mistake of giving federal justices lifetime tenure. However, it also gave the Legislature the power to determine the jurisdiction of all federal courts, including the Supreme Court, which, as far as I can tell, they've failed to exercise since the late 19th century, so now the federal judiciary thinks it can not only self-determine where their jurisdiction lies, they outrank the Legislature and the Executive, and can, and do, legislate from the bench.
Article IV is called the Full Faith and Credit clause in order to shape and form a united nation. It's become a problem because the nation is no longer a unified nation with unified values and principles, so coupling that with the Commerce Clause of Article I, has made virtually everything a federal issue, including how much water can be flushed down your toilet.
Article V describes the legal means of altering the Constitution, including a Convention of States. Now, this has been a very public issue for years, and I'm willing to bet a huge number of people in America know what Article V is all about, even if it takes a bit of memory jabbing. For a member of the judiciary at any level not to know what Article V is all about is disgraceful testimony to their incompetence, and their unfitness to be a federal jurist, or for that matter, a jurist at any level.
Article VI is about debts, supremacy, oaths, and establishes the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and requires all:
"Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
That's also become a joke as there has never been a more anti-American, anti-Constitutional leadership in the existence of this nation, all of whom represent a very real existential threat to this nation.
Article VII – Ratification. This article details all those people who signed the Constitution, representing the original 13 states.
Okay, if asked on the street, would have been able to answer what the first five were, but I would have been stumped by six and seven. But I'm a bugman, who writes articles, not an attorney, so I know about the first five because I've written about them in one way or the other. But for graduate of university specializing in law to not know all seven of those articles is disgraceful. Every first year law student should absolutely know the answers Senator Kennedy asked this nominee.
Below is a speech about the insane picks by the Biden administration for the federal judiciary by Ted Cruz that may be one of the greatest speeches ever made by a member of the Senate.
"Some of these nominees that have been forced in the last two years have no business being anywhere near a federal bench – they don't have any business being anywhere near a park bench." "I don't ask the nominees, 'Do you support this precedent or you support that precedent?' I asked them to tell me about the law, tell me what the Constitution says, tell me about the relationship between the federal judiciary and our administrative agencies. These are all very basic questions."
His goal has been to ether demonstrate just how incompetent and stupid these nominees are or how qualified. In almost every case we're finding their intelligence must be seriously called into question, their understanding of the law must be called into question, their integrity must be called into question, and their values have been shown to be absolutely destructive to the nation. Once these nitwits and misfits are appointed, there's not much that can be done about them.....and that needs to change.
It's time to fix the one really big error made by the Founding Fathers, lifetime tenure of the federal judiciary. It's time to pass a 28th Amendment creating age and term limits for the federal judiciary, and if possible, all federally elected officials. If we can't have both, at least get age and term limits for the federal judiciary.
There are three levels of the federal judiciary- the District level, the Appeals level and the Supreme Court. Each level should have a ten year limit with a review after five years requiring a majority approval by the Senate. At each level each nominee would have to go through the same process, even if nominated to a higher court before they finish their term in a lower court. If their term runs out and they’re not nominated to a higher court they may be nominated at some point in the future.
No
jurist can return to a lower court if their term runs its course at a
higher level, and no jurist can ever be appointed to a court if their
nomination to any court has ever been rejected by the Senate. No jurist
may serve after the age of seventy. And make 9 Justices a
Constitutionally fixed number to avoid the kind of court packing Joe
Biden and the Democrats are attempting to do.
Wednesday, March 2, 2022
Blast From the Past: Carthage Must Be Destroyed!
By Rich Kozlovich
Editor's Note: I originally published this on Wednesday, January 8, 2014. I've now updated this to meet today's reality. While my National Debt Counter still shows 29 trillion, the claim now is we're 30 trillion dollars in debt. Both are unacceptable and will doom the nation if not stopped and reversed. RK

For anyone trying to research just how many regulations become attached to any federal law, I wish you luck, and a lot of time. You will find it's very difficult. Take for instance the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA) passed by Jimmy Carter and ultimately the cause of the housing bubble that collapsed in 2008 causing a worldwide recession.
As best as I can tell there were 25 regulations attached to that law, but that's deceptive because under each regulation there are Subparts and Appendices, which expands the impact of each regulation. In effect, each
regulation, or rule, becomes part of a maze of rules and regulations all
presented as "explanations".
Let's assume that's that's typical for
each CRA regulation, which I'm sure it isn't, we can now multiply those
25 regulations by seven and we get 175 "explanations" Those
"explanations" are now what we are absolutely required to follow in
order to comply with one rule of one new federal law. When you get
involved with environmental laws, the numbers are off the charts, and
hard to track, and I'm sure there are far more than five Subparts and
two Appendices attached to each regulation, however, for analysis purposes, let's call this the "seven parts per regulation rule"!
In 2020 there were 178 federal laws passed with 3354 regulations. That's about 19 regulations per law, but that doesn't include the Sections, Subsections and Appendices, which no one lists. You have to actually find the law and follow the "eyes rolling back into your head" tedium to get that answer.
However, if we make a bit of a broad assumption using the "seven parts per regulation rule" for each regulation that turns those 19 regulations into 133 "explanations" that are in fact laws. If there are an average of 8 it becomes 152. Nine becomes 171. Suppose the actual number is fifteen? That translates into 285 "explanations" that "must" be followed to be in compliance with federal law. That makes them de-facto laws never passed by Congress, and the "administrative state" is now in charge, not Congress. Do you doubt that?
If you analyze this chart we find since 2003 Congress passed 3319 laws. The bureaucrats created 65,582 rules averaging 25 rules per law. If we use the "seven parts per regulation rule" we now have 459,074 explanations that are often contradictory, absolutely complicated, and invariably, more interpretations, clarifications and explanations will follow as the years go by. If we make an assumption it could be 15 parts per rule, we get a mind boggling 983,730 "explanations". All of which are in fact mandatory, and worse yet:
At least 4,450 federal crimes are embedded in those laws and regulations (with some 500 new crimes added per decade) – often for minor infractions like failing to complete or file precisely correct paperwork for selling orchids or importing wood for guitars. Neither inability to understand complex edicts, lack of knowledge that they could possibly exist, nor absence of intent to violate them is a defense, and the “crime” can bring military swat teams through doors, and land “violators” in prison for months or years.
The administrative state’s battle for dominance over the Congress and the nation is pretty much a fait accompli!
No one can fix this piecemeal because it is a foundational issue and until that foundational problem is recognized it will never be solved. So what is that foundational issue? Passage of the 16th and 17th Amendments in 1913, which laid the foundation for our doom.Monday, April 8, 2019
Save the Senate: Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment!
The Washington Examiner posted the article, "How to save the 'post-nuclear' Senate" on April 08, 2019 saying:
"In 2013, former Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., invoked the so-called “nuclear option.” That is, with a simple majority vote, he and his Democratic majority changed Senate rules to make it easier to confirm certain executive and lower court nominees. No longer would supermajorities be required to confirm judges, as they had been under President George W. Bush. Now, a simple majority would do."Well, now Mitch McConnell has done the same thing, but once this Senate rule was capriciously changed by Harry Reid, it gave McConnell the authority to invoke the nuclear option. Not only allowing for a majority vote for appointments, but to reduce the debate time over these appointments from thirty hours to two.
McConnell had been against this rule change from the beginning warning Reid and the Democrats it's going to come back to haunt them, and it has. As for this latest expansion and use of the nuclear option by Senate Republicans, this was forced on them as an act of exasperation.
Why?
The Democrats were using the debate time to stall every one of Trump's appointees, including minor appointees just to prevent Trump from being able to govern. The article goes on to state:
"Democrats have ridiculously dragged out completely uncontroversial nominations in an effort to run out the clock and prevent Trump from governing, and even having a governing team in place. In addition to inoffensive lower-court nominees, they have taken up maximum time dragging out nominations for even the most obscure executive offices. For no good reason, cloture votes have been required to confirm Trump’s ambassador to Luxembourg, his commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, his comptroller of the currency, his undersecretary of Transportation for policy, and the general counsel for the Department of Agriculture — to name just a handful of dozens of similarly low-profile positions identified by McConnell’s office. Never before had the nominees for any of these offices required a cloture vote, until this administration."Under these circumstances this expansion had to be expected, and now the Democrats are grousing about it. They believed they were going to control the Senate after the 2016 election and they let it be known they would evoke the nuclear option to get what they wanted. But now, all of a sudden, I'm reading how this is damaging the integrity of the Senate. The article states:
"The Senate’s slow and deliberative processes, and senators’ lengthy terms in office, have long kept the nation’s laws stable and constant in the face of populist fads. This is why, as resourceful as Democratic obstruction has been in the Trump era, it’s hard to think of anything the nation needs less than one more escalation to destroy the traditional curbs on the power of the Senate majority."The Senate's "slow and deliberative processes, and senators’ lengthy terms in office, have long kept the nation’s laws stable and constant in the face of populist fads." Really? Tell you what. We'll come back to that.
This "weaponization" of the Senate the writer talks about is what the Senate was created for. A weapon that allowed the States to prevent the central government from becoming an overpowering and unyielding tyrant. That ended with the passage of the 17th Amendment.
Before 1913 Senators were appointed by their States to be de facto ambassadors to the central government, representing the States. The House of Representatives were directly elected by the people because they represented the people of their states. Senators were chosen by the states because they were to represent the States. The 17th Amendment to the Constitution destroyed the balance of power in America and States Rights ceased to exist, irrespective of anything the 10th Amendment says, and that was the intent of those who promoted this change.
So, this "weaponization" of the Senate the writer is so worried about isn't anything new, and make no mistake about this. This isn't the end, and maybe it shouldn't be the end. The writer worries:
"Or it could be the Republicans who pack the court, or pack it further. Or perhaps they’d just abolish the filibuster and privatize Social Security (or abolish any number of Great Society social programs) in such a way that there will be no funds available to reconstitute it later. On either side, the sky is the limit once the escalation reaches a certain point."When you look at what the Congress, with approval of the Senate, imposed on the nation with unending regulations, taxes and such massive spending that we're now over 22 trillion dollars in debt, does anyone really think the Senate protected the nation?
The old system was largely based on shared values and belief in America and the America Way. There were differences, but none of those differences would destroy the American identity, the American culture, the American economy and the Constitution. That's no longer true. One party wants to turn the United States into a socialist state. Tell me how there can be a meeting of the minds when one party treasures America as we've known it and one party wants to destroy America as we've known it.
That's like saying anti-abortionists and pro-abortionists can find common ground. One side believes abortion is murder and the other not only doesn't think it's murder, they think it's women's right to slaughter their children, at will. How can there be common ground?
The writer delusionally believes it's possible for:
"Senators [to] establish a new and more sound, durable framework for Senate rules, to take effect at a time when no one knows who will be in power. Senators from both parties should gather now and derive a new consensus-based set of written rules which, excluding all unwritten precedents, will apply to all Senate action beginning after some future election (perhaps in January 2021, 2023, or 2025), when no one knows for sure who will control the Senate or the White House. Perhaps the new rules will look like they do now, or like they did two weeks ago, or even perhaps like they did in 2012."To be a leftist is to be insane. Leftists promise utopia and never fail to deliver dystopia. That's history and that history is incontestable. To continue to promote their leftist schemes in face of all that history is clearly insanity. There can be no consensus between the insanity and sanity. If he wants to return to a more sound, durable framework for Senate rules, let's start by repealing the 17th Amendment, and go from there.