Protect our Constitution From Ted Cruz & House Republicans

by James Parks

The human name Ted Cruz is acting in ways that are not in line with the best interests of the American people, and he must be stopped. Check it out!

Senate holds hearings into how to change the Constitution to circumvent Supreme Court

"So conservatives in the Senate are now engaged in explorations as to how to change America's founding document in order to enforce social conservative morals, in addition to the already-understood rigorous corporatism, regardless of whether America's top courts find those things lawful or not. Ted Cruz would make an awfully fine leader, would he not? He could really bring Republicanism out of its Weimarian doldrums and into a new reich."

Ted Cruz wants to change the constitution in order to get his way, or rather to shove his ways down your throat. This isn't the first time he has suggested things that are so far right radical it causes me to label him "dangerous". He has also suggested people use their 2nd Amendment rights to defend themselves against an over bearing government. That government being lead by a black man named Obama, who's policies Cruz has vowed to fight at every turn.

This shows what the Republican think our government is for. It is like snatching the sheets off, and discovering something ugly under there. The Republicans use the government as a legal means to corrupt, greedy ends. More often than not, when a Republican puts in a bill to the congress or senate, it is about making lawful some activity that would normally be frowned upon. Things like drilling for oil in environmentally sensitive areas, when we know the area could be forever ruined. Another example is using the legal process to allow Wall Street to gamble with the money you deposit in your checking or saving account, and if they lose the money, the tax payer gets to foot the bill. You can find example after example of laws designed to allow either the polluting of our environment, the stealing of your money, the allowing of discrimination, the mixing of religion & government or some other unworthy thing. All of it brought to you by persons in government who believe that government is a tool for corporation's, or religion's exclusive use.

Now one of the parts of the tool doesn't want to work like the Republican's think it should. SCOTUS didn't agree with Ted Cruz and his despotic buddies. They didn't tow the line. So change the rules. EPA bothering you with pesky environmental rules? Disband the EPA. Laws were made in Washington that you don't agree with? Use your 2nd Amendment rights to defy the law. Voters in an area are not in your favor? Gerrymander the area until they are. All these things, and more are the dastardly methods of the despicable Republican party.

The Ted Cruz and the Republicans cry about the Constitution not being followed, HYPOCRITES! They don't give a damn about the Constitution, except as a legal tool for the allowing of unsavory acts. Acts that intrude onto your human rights, and shift wealth from the many to the few.

Ted Cruz Campaign Speech

If anything needs to be changed in the constitution it is the words dealing with the Speaker of the House of Representatives. John Boehner has proven that the Speaker has way to much power.

Government Failing the People Symptom of Broken System

"As presiding office of the House of Representatives, the Speaker holds a variety of powers over the House and is the highest-ranking legislative official in the US government. The Constitution does not spell out the political role of the Speaker. Tradition has molded the position into what it is today. The Speaker in the United States, by tradition, is the head of the majority party in the House of Representatives, outranking the Majority Leader. However, despite having the right to vote, the Speaker usually does not participate in debate and rarely votes.

The Speaker is responsible for ensuring that the House passes legislation supported by the majority party. In pursuing this goal, the Speaker may use his or her power to determine when each bill reaches the floor. They also chair the majority party's steering committee in the House. The Speaker is tasked with pushing through the agenda of the majority party, often at the expense of the minority opposition. As the highest-ranking member of the opposition party (and in effect a de facto Leader of the Opposition), the Speaker is normally the chief public opponent of the President's agenda. In this scenario, the Speaker is known for undercutting the President's agenda by blocking measures by the minority party or rejecting bills by the Senate. 

The Speaker's powers and duties extend beyond presiding in the chamber. In particular, the Speaker has great influence over the committee process. The Speaker selects nine of the thirteen members of the powerful Committee on Rules, subject to the approval of the entire majority party. The leadership of the minority party chooses the remaining four members. Furthermore, the Speaker appoints all members of select committees and conference committees. Moreover, when a bill is introduced, the Speaker determines which committee will consider it.

Because joint sessions and joint meetings of Congress are held in the House chamber, the Speaker presides over all such joint sessions and meetings. The Speaker is also responsible for overseeing the officers of the House: the Clerk, the Sergeant-at-Arms, the Chief Administrative Officer, and the Chaplain. The Speaker can dismiss any of these officers. The Speaker appoints the House Historian and the General Counsel and, jointly with the Majority and Minority Leaders, appoints the House Inspector General.

This list of duties and the method employed to carry them out is a receipt for governments grinding to a halt. It is also a betrayal of trust to the American people. Even though a Republican should try to advance their cause, they still have to represent the whole of the electorate. A partisan Speaker of the House is incapable of that. The rabble get the Speakers ear, then the Speaker stubbornly tows a line even if it threatens the stability of the entire system.

Given such awesome powers as held by the Speaker of the House, I think we should of learned a lesson from the last few years. That lesson being, a partisan Speaker of the House is a bad idea. We should embrace the notion that our Speaker of the House of Representatives should be strictly non-partisan. The person chosen should renounce all allegiances to any party, and instead focus on the people's business in the House. That should be their over riding concern, the smooth functioning of the House of Representatives. Our nation needs to implement a Westminster Style Speaker of the House.

"Non-partisanship: The Speaker, by convention, severs all ties with his or her political party, as it is considered essential that the Speaker be seen as an impartial presiding officer"
If our nation had a Speaker of the House that were non-partisan, we wouldn't have to suffer threats of government shutdown born of political party infighting. The People of the United States deserve better than that. The people expect better performance from their elected officials. The people are disturbed by the wasting of billions of tax payer dollars on setting up programs, only to disband the program later because of political rivalry. The people are the ones most effected by government malfunction. The people are the ones the elected must answer to. The people see a major flaw in our political system, and desire to remedy that flaw. It would take nothing less than a Constitutional Amendment to get the job done. Still it must be done."

The Speaker is Not the King: Democracy Suspended in the U.S. House

"This is an out rage. Every citizen should get angry over this power grab. They have the gall to call Obama Imperial President. Boo! Boo! Hiss! SHAME ON THEM!

The Speaker of the House partisan roll is the #1 reason we have such a problem. I call on our nation to adopt a Westminster Style Speaker of the House, making that position strictly a non-partisan seat. I believe this would solve a lot of problems with our broken House of Representatives."

Protect our Constitution from people like Ted Cruz, John Boehner and the Republican/Tea Party who would use it to shove their corporatism/religion down your throat.

Bernie Sanders said "Think Big", Nothing is Bigger Than Space Colonization

by James Parks

During the banking crisis the treasury made $16 trillion in low interest loans to the very banks that caused the problem in the first place. It cost our nation $176 billion (2009 dollars) for the cost of Apollo and other space related things in the time frame of 1962 to 1972. $16 trillion could have supported 91 times the NASA effort had back during the 1962-1972 space effort.

At its peak, the Apollo program employed 400,000 Americans and required the support of over 20,000 industrial firms and universities. 400,000 X 91 = 36,400,000 jobs

12 million persons were unemployed in 2009 at the peak of the recession. I hope you see where I'm going with this. We were taken to the cleaners big time. Our nation spent all that money, fiat money, and have precious little to show for it. Well, maybe the top mega-rich have something to show for it, but not the little guy.

The pictures following is my vision of what we can do with 91 Apollo size projects going at the same time. Once it is going good, it continues to build on itself. Unlimited potential. Seems to me a better thing for our nation than throwing money down a bottomless Wall Street pit.

Our man Bernie Sanders said to think big. He said there is nothing we can not accomplish. Okay, I know we can do this, and this is as big as it gets, well at least until we take the next step, star travel.

Earth Station	Lunar Station
Mars Station	Ceres & Asteroid Station

President Kennedy's Moon Speech in the 21st Century

As presidential candidate Bernie Sanders says, "The greed of corporate America and the billionaire class has got to end, and we are going to end it for them." I am in favor of this ending of the greed culture too! Still, that is far from being enough.

President John F. Kennedy

Now I borrow the speech given by president John F Kennedy May 25, 1961, President Kennedy gave this historic speech before a joint session of Congress that set the United States on a course to the moon. I borrow it and expand on it for the 21st century.

````(Modified Speech)````

Now it is time to take longer strides--time for a great new American enterprise--time for this nation to take a clearly leading role in space achievement, which in many ways holds the key to our future on earth. Our presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders said we need to think big. My fellow citizens, this is about as big as it gets.

I believe we possess all the resources and talents necessary. But the facts of the matter are that we have never made the national decisions or marshaled the national resources required for such leadership. We have never specified long-range goals on an urgent time schedule, or managed our resources and our time so as to insure their fulfillment.

Recognizing the head start we have in space, we nevertheless are required to make new efforts on our own. For while we cannot guarantee that we shall one day be first, we can guarantee that any failure to make this effort will make us last, or even doom our species. We take an additional risk by making it in full view of the world, but as shown by the feat of brave astronauts, this very risk enhances our stature when we are successful. Space is open to us now more than ever before; and our eagerness to share its meaning is not governed by the efforts of others. We go into space and make human presence there permanent because whatever mankind must undertake, free men must fully share. Then our species survival can be further enhanced and assured.

I therefore ask the President, Congress and the people of the United States to raise above and beyond the decreases in funding I have seen for space activities, to provide the funds which are needed to meet the following national goals:

First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before another decade is out, of landing a human on Mars and returning him/her safely to the Earth, and before the century is out, of building civilization on Mars with a population of at least 100,000 human beings. As we do this effort we must also build bases on the moon, and space stations in orbit around the moon, Earth and Mars. No space project in this, the 21st century, will be more impressive to mankind, more lasting in human memory, or more important for the long-range exploration of space, our long term economic growth and to help assure the survival and well being of humanity into the distant future; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish, and rewarding. We propose to accelerate the development of the appropriate lunar and Mars deep space craft. We propose additional funds for other engine, and spacecraft development and for unmanned explorations. 5 trillion dollars should be allocated for the first Mars missions and starter bases.

Secondly, an additional 250 billion dollars will accelerate development of a nuclear rocket. This gives promise of speedy means of travel to Mars, and for even more exciting and ambitious exploration of space beyond the moon and Mars, to the very end of the solar system itself.

Third, an additional 500 billion dollars will make the most of our present leadership, by accelerating the use of present facilities to open enrollment into the newly founded free national educational systems envisioned by Sen. Bernie Sanders. This will provide the many skilled hands and minds needed to accomplish this great goal.

Fourth, an additional 2 trillion dollars will will be allocated for the development of asteroidal materials mining and processing.

Fifth, 1.5 trillion dollars will be allocated to the building of Earth based infrastructure needed for this project, (including national roads, bridges and other aspects of our national infrastructure, and for the retrofitting of currently operating space facilities.

Sixth, 2 trillion dollars will be provided to develop orbital solar arrays, and the ground based power collection grids we need to break the strangle hold of fossil fuels, which is becoming a dire threat to the stability of human civilization because of global warming.

Let it be clear--and this is a judgment which the Members of the Congress must finally make--let it be clear that I am asking the Congress and the country to accept a firm commitment to a new course of action, a course which will last for many decades and carry very heavy costs. If we are to go only half way, or reduce our sights in the face of difficulty, in my judgment it would be better not to go at all, and accept our fate on Earth.

Now this is a choice which this country must make, and I am confident that under the leadership of the Space Committees of the Congress, and the Appropriating Committees, that the people will consider the crucial matter carefully.

It is a most important decision that we make as a nation. But all of you have lived through the last five decades and have seen the significance of space and the adventures in space, and no one can predict with certainty what the ultimate meaning will be of mastery of space. One thing for sure is that it will be for the betterment of humanity to expand into the cosmos now.

I believe we should go to Mars. But I think every citizen of this country as well as the Members of the Congress should consider the matter carefully in making their judgment, to which we have given attention over many years and months, because it is a heavy burden, and there is no sense in agreeing or desiring that the United States take an affirmative position in outer space, unless we are prepared to do the work and bear the burdens to make it successful.

This decision demands a major national commitment of scientific and technical manpower, materiel and facilities, and the possibility of their diversion from other important activities where they are already thinly spread. It means a degree of dedication, organization and discipline which have not been seen since our research and development efforts on the extremely successful Apollo Program. It means we cannot afford undue work stoppages, inflated costs of material or talent, wasteful inter-agency rivalries, political interference or a high turnover of key personnel.

New objectives and new money cannot solve these problems. They could in fact, aggravate them further--unless every scientist, every engineer, every serviceman, every technician, contractor, and civil servant gives his personal pledge that this nation will move forward, with the full speed of freedom, in the exciting adventure of space industrialization and colonization.

````````````(End)````````````````````

This is an expensive proposition with my very rough estimate of $10 trillion, but it is necessary to secure our nations long term future into the next century. This should be no problem for a country of our wealth. If we can find the national will to bail out greedy Wall Street bankers to the tune of $16 trillion in 2008, we can find the will to invest on a project like the one proposed here that has real returns. We can make the initial costs in fiat money, then pay it back with interest with platinum mined from asteroids.


During the banking crisis the treasury made $16 trillion in low interest loans to the very banks that caused the problem in the first place. It cost our nation $176 billion (2009 dollars) for the cost of Apollo and other space related things in the time frame of 1962 to 1972. $16 trillion could of supported a program like the one proposed here. If this had of been implemented in 2009, our nation would of been reaching its first lofty goals now. Then by 2020 the technological advancements, and material wealth from it might have started to have been realized.

At its peak, the Apollo program employed 400,000 Americans and required the support of over 20,000 industrial firms and universities. 400,000 X 91 = 36,400,000 jobs. Desperately needed jobs. Three times as many jobs as needed at the height of the recession due to unemployed. I think we could spare a few jobs to China and Vietnam then, instead of giving them the ones our people need now.

This would be an open ended project of human expansion, with unlimited potential, and returns, which would most likely have no end in sight. It would usher in a golden era for humanity.

Thomas Jefferson's Letter to his Nephew Concerning Religion 1787

All the people claiming that this nation's founders preferred to have a theocracy are so very wrong. Our founders wanted religion to have nothing to do with the mechanics of government. Through a history of papal overlordship of countries, and protestant fundamentalism, they learned of the danger of mixing the two. Let us not forget the hard won lessons of the past, and let us forget the myths that conspire to destroy us.

Letter to his nephew, Peter Carr, advising him in matters of religion, 1787
― Thomas Jefferson,

Thomas Jefferson

Religion. Your reason is now mature enough to examine this object. In the first place, divest yourself of all bias in favor of novelty & singularity of opinion... shake off all the fears & servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear. You will naturally examine first, the religion of your own country. Read the Bible, then as you would read Livy or Tacitus. The facts which are within the ordinary course of nature, you will believe on the authority of the writer, as you do those of the same kind in Livy and Tacitus. The testimony of the writer weighs in their favor, in one scale, and their not being against the laws of nature, does not weigh against them. But those facts in the Bible which contradict the laws of nature, must be examined with more care, and under a variety of faces. Here you must recur to the pretensions of the writer to inspiration from God. Examine upon what evidence his pretensions are founded, and whether that evidence is so strong, as that its falsehood would be more improbable than a change in the laws of nature, in the case he relates. For example in the book of Joshua we are told the sun stood still several hours. Were we to read that fact in Livy or Tacitus we should class it with their showers of blood, speaking of statues, beasts, &c. But it is said that the writer of that book was inspired. Examine therefore candidly what evidence there is of his having been inspired. The pretension is entitled to your inquiry, because millions believe it. On the other hand you are astronomer enough to know how contrary it is to the law of nature that a body revolving on its axis as the earth does, should have stopped, should not by that sudden stoppage have prostrated animals, trees, buildings, and should after a certain time have resumed its revolution, & that without a second general prostration. Is this arrest of the earth's motion, or the evidence which affirms it, most within the law of probabilities? You will next read the New Testament. It is the history of a personage called Jesus. Keep in your eye the opposite pretensions: 1, of those who say he was begotten by God, born of a virgin, suspended & reversed the laws of nature at will, & ascended bodily into heaven; and 2, of those who say he was a man of illegitimate birth, of a benevolent heart, enthusiastic mind, who set out without pretensions to divinity, ended in believing them, and was punished capitally for sedition, by being gibbeted, according to the Roman law, which punished the first commission of that offence by whipping, & the second by exile, or death in fureâ.

...Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it ends in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you... In fine, I repeat, you must lay aside all prejudice on both sides, and neither believe nor reject anything, because any other persons, or description of persons, have rejected or believed it... I forgot to observe, when speaking of the New Testament, that you should read all the histories of Christ, as well of those whom a council of ecclesiastics have decided for us, to be Pseudo-evangelists, as those they named Evangelists. Because these Pseudo-evangelists pretended to inspiration, as much as the others, and you are to judge their pretensions by your own reason, and not by the reason of those ecclesiastics. Most of these are lost...