The good, the bad & the ugly. Liberal excesses. Conservative successes. Clowns to the Left. Jokers to the Right. Read all about 'em in Chuck's FREE hard-hitting, no B.S. newsletter of current events and political goings-on you won't find in the "mainstream press."


Chuck Muth is President and CEO of Citizen Outreach and a professional political consultant. Mr. Muth is a professional campaign trainer, a newsletter publisher and talk-show host who regularly appears on political TV and radio programs.


News & Views, 2/7/05


“The half-time show last night was a dandy. . . . My brother-in-law said (and I agreed) that fireworks beat wardrobe malfunctions every time.”

- Rich Galen on the Super Bowl halftime show featuring Paul McCartney, “Mullings,” 2/7/05


“(Senate Minority Leader) Harry Reid (D-Nev.) looks and talks like a small-town undertaker whom you want to trust but wonder about, especially when he says the deceased would love the brass handles."

- Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan


I’m sure others have already suggested this, but I saw it for the first time in James Lileks’ column on Friday. The 2008 Democrat “dream team” - Hillary Clinton/Barack Obama. If things break their way, Lileks suggests a “40-state sweep” is possible. Lord, I hope he’s wrong...but I fear he could well be right.


Just to set the record straight: A lot of you have gotten that internet email saying members of Congress don’t pay into the Social Security system. But John McCaslin reported in his “Inside the Beltway” column on Friday that it’s not true. “In 1983, a law was passed requiring all lawmakers to participate in the Social Security system as of January 1, 1984, regardless of when they entered Congress,” he writes.


“It used to be, people were afraid to talk about Social Security. Now, I think people should be afraid not to talk about Social Security and start coming up with some solutions.”

- President Bush


“Airlines and business travelers are bristling over a Bush administration proposal to double the airport security tax created by Congress after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. When he submits his budget to Congress today, President Bush is expected to outline a plan to increase the security fee from $2.50 to $5.50 for a one-way airline ticket, and from a maximum of $5 to $8 for a trip that has multiple legs. The increase would generate an additional $1.5 billion for the Department of Homeland Security's Transportation Security Administration.”

- Washington Times, 2/7/05


“Iran is saying that they will accelerate their drive to master nuclear technology if the United States or Israel attacks their nuclear facilities. Well, that would be just fine. First we reduce Iran's nuclear capabilities to rubble. Then they spend the big bucks rebuilding. When they get to the point that they're close to being dangerous we level the facility again. Then they can start rebuilding again. Then we attack again. We get practice taking out nuclear facilities, and the Iranians get to thump their chests and spend money. Sounds like a good deal to me.”

- Talk show host Neal Boortz, 2/7/05


“Americans have been conditioned to accept the word ‘democracy’ as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe that democracy is unquestionably good. The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by our republican constitutional system, but also by their writings in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere…

“Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and created the least coercive government in the history of the world. The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government to provide national defense and little else. States, not the federal government, were charged with protecting individuals against criminal force and fraud.

“For the first time, a government was created solely to protect the rights, liberties, and property of its citizens. Any government coercion beyond that necessary to secure those rights was forbidden, both through the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of strictly enumerated powers. This reflected the founders’ belief that democratic government could be as tyrannical as any King.”

- Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), “Texas Straight Talk,” 2/7/05


“The courage and wisdom of those who birthed this Republic was nothing short of a magnificent event in the history of the world. When creating the federal government, it was imperative that the colonies (later called states) and the people be represented fairly. The method decided upon was the people would vote for their voice – a representative to serve in the House of Representatives.

“The states of the Union would each have an equal number of U.S. Senators (fixed at two), appointed by their state legislature to represent the interests of the state. Should that U.S. senator fail in their job, the legislature would recall them and appoint a new one. The decision to have the states appoint their U.S. senators was very calculated.

“All of that changed with the fraudulent ratification of the 17th Amendment. U.S. senators would now be elected. The states lost their suffrage rights, they no longer had any representation in Washington, D.C., and the federal machine has walked all over them since.”

- Columnist Devvy Kidd

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Published by:
Chuck Muth
1315 Wilson Point Road
Middle River, MD 21220


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Repeal the 17th???

In my reading of the US Constitution, Senators were appointed by State legislatures for a period of 6 years. There was no provision made for "the legislature [to] recall them and appoint a new one". Once a Senator was appointed, the State Legislature would have to live with them for their 6 year appointment just like the citizens have to live with their elected choices today. Only if the Senator resigned, died, or otherwise failed to continue his/her service would the legislature get to appoint a new Senator.

Removing my ability to directly vote for my US Senators would only mean that they would be that much farther removed from representing me - they would represent only the State, leaving me twice removed from the more powerful house of Congress. The 17th was a way to make Senators directly accountable to the people of the States, rather than the legislatures of those States.

And as an aside, we should be VERY careful when we try to read the minds of the "Founding Fathers". While it might have been laudable that they tried to apportion taxes among the states, remember that they put in provisions such as "three fifths of others" meaning we count slaves as 3/5 of a person, and of course, we would exclude non-taxed Indians! Not to mention that women were completely excluded from participating in the new republic!

What the Founding Fathers DID do that was extraordinary was that they outlined in great detail the manner in which the Constitution could be changed, and thus allowed their foundational code of law to be strong, yet malleable. It is the fact that the Constitution can be changed combined with the fact that the People have to agree in supermajority to change it that makes it remarkable. That this document remains the fundamental law of our land today, over 200 years from when it was first ratified, is a testament to it's strength and it's power.

When your computer asks you "Are You Sure?", you should always pause and consider that question. Likewise, when someone proposes amending the Constitution (or repealing an amendment), you should always pause - and consider - and really think that concept through.

February 7, 2005 at 12:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The 17th Amendment was clearly a fraud, along with its raison d'etre, the 16th Amendment, as evidenced by the irregularities in their ratifications. This suggests that there was chicanery afoot. The people themselves are the most ill informed and potentially corrupting force in the country but, prior to the 17th, the Senate was partially shielded from this influence and, consequently, so were the rest of us. Do you think the W. Virginia or Massachusetts legislatures would have kept embarrassments like Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy beyond their initial terms? No governing body likes to be a laughing stock.

February 7, 2005 at 2:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Re: The dream team, I have one question I would like answered. Was it an un-named generic Republican Candidate who swept 40 states in their calculation? With those two's records that the media has covered up, only one of the Republican party's most corrupt candidates could lose to them.

February 8, 2005 at 12:48 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home