RFK Jr.: Food Insecurity Will Be A Top Priority
“Protect and enrich.” This is a perfect encapsulation of the Clinton Foundation (TWO GAMER LAWYERS - OWNED BY GEORGE SOROS) (WHAT ABOUT THE CHINA BIDEN PENN CENTER?) and the Obama (TWO GAMER LAWYERS - OWNED BY GEORGE SOROS) book and television deals. Then there is the Biden family (FOUR GAMER LAWYERS - JOE, HUNTER, JAMES, FRANK - OWNED BY GEORGE SOROS AND LARRY FINK OF BLACKROCK) corruption, followed closely behind by similar abuses of power and office by the Warren (GAMER LAWYER) and Sanders families, as Peter Schweizer described in his recent book “Profiles in Corruption.” These names just scratch the surface of government corruption (ADD GAMER LAWYER KAMALA HARRIS (WANTS TO BE OWNED BY GEORGE SOROS) AND HER LAWYER HUSBAND AND THE BANKSTERS’ RENT BOY, LAWYER CHUCK SCHUMER, OWNED BY LARRY FINK OF BLACKROCK WHO OWNS A BIG PIECE OF THE ‘BIG GUY’ JOE, AND GEORGE SOROS’ RENT BOY (GAMER LAWYER) TONY BLINKEN, AS WELL AS CON MAN (GAMER LAWYER) ADAM SHIFF) AND HIS CORRUPTNESS (GAMER LAWYER) BOB MENENDEZ STILL EVADING PRISON.
BRIAN C JOONDEPH
Unless voters have the ability to recall congressional members, representation of American citizens will continue to erode. Money and corporatists will dictate government policy, often at the expense of voters. Consequently, constituents will become increasingly disillusioned, which in turn will dissuade them from voting and thus denigrate the very foundation of the American concept.
Time to Recall Members of Congress
Our Non-Representative Congress
The voting numbers of the Congress show that we no longer have a representative democracy. Nor are we Republicans and Democrats. We are Nationalists and Globalists.
Based on their voting, the Globalist Party consists of 69 percent of the Senate and 65 percent of the House. Constituents, however, voted for 49 percent of the Senate and 51 percent of the House.
Had their representatives voted as their constituents wanted, Biden policies would have been stopped. The fact that these policies have not been stopped has not only disappointed but angered an increasing number of legitimate voters.
Why do these elected officials betray their constituents?
The answer lies in money. Voters for senators and representatives all come from a particular state. However, on average, in-state contributions to House members amount to 60 percent of their totals and out-of-state contributions amount to 40 percent. In the Senate, on average, in-state contributions are 34 percent and out-of-state contributions are 66 percent.
Worse, only 11 of the 533 members of Congress receive the majority of their contributions from small donors while 522 get over 50 percent of their funding from big donors. One in ten members of Congress receive less than one percent of their contributions from small donors.
Worse still, of 533 Congressional members, the mean amount of contributions from big donors is 93 percent and only 7 percent from small donors.
According to James Gimpel and Freances Lee, large individual donations from out-of-state are, not individual at all, but “instead extensions of the modern parties’ organizations into the electorate.”
In short, the overwhelming number of congressional members only need their constituents to vote them into office. The rest of the time these members are beholden to corporate lobbyists or other large donors who provide financial incentives to members.
No wonder members of Congress do not represent their people.
The Inadequate Way to Expel a Congressional Member
So what can be done about this unbalanced situation? The answer is “recall.”
Unfortunately, the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, section 5) states that "Each House [of Congress] may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member."
Scholars would argue that if economic or social change occurred during a member’s term in office, that member would know what was best for the country more than his or her constituents. These so-called experts also believe that voters are not well enough informed to hold their representatives accountable.
Consequently, the only way to expel a member of Congress is for a two-thirds vote of the member’s chamber.
The problem with this expulsion rule is that it is far too limited. Not only that, but the chances of a representative being discharged for not representing his or her constituency is practically nil. Why? Because if voters voted for a nationalist and that member turned out to be a globalist, as most are in Congress, the two-thirds required for expelling a member would never be reached.
Besides, a member’s voting record would never constitute ‘bad behavior,’ which is required to expel. The only person to be expelled from Congress recently was George Santos, a nationalist who voted 96 percent the way his constituents wanted and who was never indicted for a crime. Further, his voters were never allowed input. Conversely, there are both senators and representatives accused of far greater crimes who have never been investigated or considered for expulsion.
Recall enables voters to demand continuous accountability and not wait for the next two-to-four-year election to rid themselves of incompetent, dishonest, unresponsive, or irresponsible public officials.
The Advantages of Recalling Congressional Members
But if voters had the right to recall members of Congress, they would:
- Have real power over their elected officials on an ongoing basis
- Be energized to stay more informed and keep track of their officials
- Track big donor contributions and discourage elected officials from engaging in corrupt or purely political practices for financial gain
- Be able to neutralize the power of big money
How Recall can be Instituted Against Congressional Members
Recall enables voters to demand continuous accountability and not wait for the next election to rid themselves of an incompetent, dishonest, unresponsive, or irresponsible public officials.
Just as the Constitution gave Congress the power to expel its own, it also gave constituents the power to recall their representatives and senators. It is part of the First Amendment -- the Right to Petition Government: the right of the people to petition the government for change.
This right is the right to complain to the government to seek assistance without fear of punishment. The Petition Clause, states that “People have the right to appeal to government in favor of or against policies that affect them or in which they feel strongly. This freedom includes the right to gather signatures in support of a cause and to lobby legislative bodies for or against legislation.”
Such petitioning has been used to end slavery and ignite women’s suffrage. When policies are enacted by representatives who are not reflecting the desire of their constituents, petitioning to recall these representatives should also be an integral part of petitioning.
When asked what types of things did people petition the government for historically, law professor Maggie Blackhawk said, “Anything. It had to be within the jurisdiction of the Congress, so it had to be part of a federal question, but they could actually expand the jurisdiction of the Congress by petitioning for something and making it a part of what Congress could do.”
The petitioning process can follow normal state recall procedures. For example, a) circulate an imitative or referendum that would require a minimum set of signatures, say, 6,000; and b) submitting the referendum to the Speaker of the House to take appropriate action within a specific period of time.
Unless voters have the ability to recall congressional members, representation of American citizens will continue to erode. Money and corporatists will dictate government policy, often at the expense of voters. Consequently, constituents will become increasingly disillusioned, which in turn will dissuade them from voting and thus denigrate the very foundation of the American concept.
It’s time to recall members of Congress.
Image: Eden, Janine and Jim
Marlow: ‘The Bidens Were Clearly Given Millions of Dollars from Entities All Over the World’
Breitbart Editor-in-Chief and New York Times bestselling Breaking Biden author Alex Marlow said Monday Real America’s Voice’s “Stinchfield Tonight” that President Joe Biden and his family were “clearly given millions of dollars from entities all over the world.”
While discussing FBI informant Alexander Smirnov being charged with making false statements, anchor Grant Stinchfield said, “Why should I even believe the FBI? They now have a history of lying to us about just about everything. Why do I believe them that this guy is lying?”
Marlow said, “Yeah I love this point. I don’t necessarily believe them either. It is kinda too soon to know for sure who is telling the truth here. But it is a total distraction. Remember the lawyer for the Clintons that gave false information to the FBI for Alfa Bank? He was charged with lying to the FBI and then he was acquitted. So who knows if this thing is going to get turned over.”
He continued, “All of this is a media hoax that is going on trying to make it so there is some indication there is no evidence against the Bidens. The Bidens were clearly given millions of dollars from entities all over the world. You were correct to play the Burisma example, the clearest one. Bribery on tape clear as day.”
Marlow added, “We still have a man with close ties to the Chinese government and military, sent the Biden family companies millions of dollars. He and Hunter have been frequent collaborators at the CEFC example. The energy executive also gave Hunter some ice, he gave him some diamonds. No one has explained this to us.”
He concluded, “None of these have anything to do with whether or not the FBI is telling the truth or whether or not one informant fibbed.”
Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN
No comments:
Post a Comment