Thomas Jefferson was convinced the Constitution would require  rewriting by the government every 19 years, roughly every generation, to remain current and fair to the people.

“Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only . But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:459, Papers 15:396

In Billionaires and Bagmen, Sean Cogan has had enough of a system gone bad. He believes the time to rewrite the rules is long overdue, but anything less than a radical action would fail to gain momentum toward real change.

With a small band of friends Cogan takes on the corrupt government in a big way. They soon discover the resources and reach of the government are endless when politicians feel threatened, and that some will stop at nothing to protect their best interests.

 

 

What would it take to change the way things are done in D.C.?

Join the Discussion

“If people always just obeyed the rules, Americans would be toasting the Queen from segregated lunch counters.” ~Ray Bourhis

“Sometimes,” confirmed Giller, “on especially sensitive projects, we work with a private organization, a private company, run by a guy, by a highly connected D.C. big hat. It gets involved in projects so controversial there’s a need to avoid all oversight. Because it’s private, it reports to no one.”

“Why are you telling me this?”

“Because I’ve grown very concerned. I recently learned that the government maintains detailed personal files-not just on people suspected of criminal activities-but on all kinds of people. Even its own,” Giller paused, “its own intelligence agents for example. People like me.

”I was anonymously sent a copy of my file. And I couldn’t believe it. Bank records, prescription drug records, video surveillance, a political profile, lists of books purchased, transcripts of conversations in my car recorded from the speaker system for my cellphone, wiretaps of conversations with my ex, with my kids, with friends, with my family therapist, with accountants, attorneys, doctors . . .”

“Conversations you had in your car?”

“Yeah. They know everything that goes on in your car. They can even take satellite control of it through the computer systems installed by the manufacturer.”

“But why? Why would the government do that?”

“One can only guess. But in some countries we used to do it to build dossiers on people so that if it ever became necessary, the government would know just who to round up. So it could put people where they couldn’t cause problems, or so they could just disappear. It was one thing for us to be doing some of these things overseas. But here? Now?”

~ excerpt: Billionaires and Bagmen, Ray Bourhis

 

Stifling the Voice of The People – The American Way

Before we go spouting off about freedom, democracy, and the right to vote for our leaders, let’s take a look at what the Founding Fathers actually had in mind…

The great men who designed our nation’s election system were tasked with freeing us from tyrannical rule by royalty. They were certain that a) eliminating influence by special interest (including the British), was imperative; b) our Leaders should be elected by chosen electors that held particular values dear; c) political parties were to be avoided; d) candidates should not campaign for election; e) State’s Rights, a hot topic around the churches and pubs, could cause loss of control over the nation, and f) the balance between Congress and the Presidency was vital to protecting liberty and avoiding totalitarianism.

In other words, The People did not know what was best for them, and politics were to be played carefully to build the new nation—in a manner that was far from a democracy. More important than the ability to follow the will of The People, a candidate’s valued traits were prudence, financial success, vested interest, gender, race, and apparently, good connections. Basically, an all-around solid guy that met the criteria and supported their goals.

“Depend upon it, Sir, it is dangerous to open so fruitful a source of controversy and altercation as would be opened by attempting to alter the qualifications of voters; there will be no end to it. New claims will arise; women will demand the vote; lads from 12 to 21 will think their rights not enough attended to; and every man who has not a farthing, will demand an equal voice with any other, in all acts of state. It tends to confound and destroy all distinctions, and prostrate all ranks to one common level. ~ John Adams

The Constitution had been put into place to preserve liberty, protect freedoms, and limit the powers of government. Period. It was never intended to give The People a fair voice.

Electing the President

The Electoral College, a group of hand-picked gents that were held in high-esteem by the current leaders, decided who would take the seat of office. The purpose of the system was, most simply, to limit the power of the democracy and to protect The People from themselves, as well as foreign influences.

With this, they would avoid the potential of The People erroneously electing a dictator, or placing another Royal Family in charge of the country. Or making poor choices as The People tend to do.

Until 1796 only one candidate was chosen, eliminating the potential need for campaigning. The People simply voted one candidate into office, with a blessing of sorts.

Until then, it was said, and widely believed that, “The office should seek the man, the man should not seek the office.”  But Jefferson contested the Federalist incumbent on the Republican “ticket,” creating the first Two-Party election, and a new way of seeking the presidency began. For better or worse.

As the new government gained breadth and girth, people really started questioning the principles of democracy, and how this election method supported the Will of the People. Granted, the electoral college system helped to avoid some issues caused by the wide spread of population, but that also favored the electorate by allowing the more populated (and modernized) states an increased presence.

“Each State shall appoint, in such a Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed as an Elector. ~ Article II, Section I U.S. Constitution

 

Over the next decade of elections it became apparent The People wanted more of a say in the decision. The fundamental principles of the country started to evolve away from Liberty (free from oppression) and toward Democracy (controlled by the citizen majority).

By 1828, on the heels of the great financial crisis of 1820, The People really started questioning the government and the growing power it held over them. The ever-expanding executive powers were under close scrutiny and the talk of the town. The Democrat Party was born; the two-party system was validated, and the presidency became a highly-prized position. Political campaigns by the candidates were developed to help voters choose the man who best supported their ideals. The election of 1828 drove the new two-party election period into a frenzy that closely resembles the campaign roller-coaster we know today.

It was a great step forward for democracy, but, as with all politics, the campaigning also gained attention by special interest groups. The increasing costs of campaigning, as well as the benefits of investing in them, encouraged those with an agenda to gain favor and changed the system forever.

Where do The People factor into all of this? We elect those that choose the electors. We listen to speeches and debates; we watch commercials and read media coverage from all sides of the mountain. We protest and comment and blog; we complain and yell and scream our frustrations, and we wind up voting for the lesser of two evils because we feel we have no choice. Then we vote and rush home to see what the electors have decided.

In the end, we are right where we have been placed and doing exactly what we were supposed to do.

What Will It Take?

Constitutional Amendments are within reach of our elected officials. What will it take for The People to wake up and demand we change this archaic method of determining our fate to a system that elects by popular vote? Or are we destined to suffer through indefinite four-year terms of a Government that makes our decisions for us and acts in its own best interest?

Join the Discussion!

 

Governor Rick Snyder, recently voted one of the WORST U.S. leaders in history, used his corporate experience, and Michigan’s Emergency Financial Manager Law, to boot Flint’s elected officials out of office and place his financial “expert” in control…of everything.

Flint was in financial trouble. Among the highest expenses was the public water source, supplied through a contract with Detroit. The city was defaulting on the contract, which was coming close to renewal, and Detroit had already shut down services as a warning measure. Forced to restart under public outcry, they sent a renegotiated contract for Flint’s review.

Snyder’s installed Emergency Financial Manager (EM), was in full control of Flint by that time. He had stripped local elected officials from their duties, and personally decided not to renew the costly Detroit contract. Instead, he overrode prior vetoes by the city to switch sources to the Flint River, and gained the Governor’s approval. Although it was well-known by residents that the river had been polluted for years, the Governor approved the change without further concern.

Chemicals from the river caused corrosion through the city’s aging pipes. Failing to follow Federal Law, which mandates the use of anti-corrosive counter-agents in all water supplies, the EM’s decision caused grave consequences. The acidic water flushed extraordinary levels of lead into the taps of homes and businesses, turning the public water source into poison. Complaints by residents were met with assurance that “everything was fine.” The EM was heralded by his cohorts for improving the bottom line with a single stroke.

At this time, neither Snyder nor his EM claims responsibility for the results of this decision.

Dictatorial control and sweeping changes that negatively affect the lives of people are nothing new to Snyder, a seasoned CEO and Venture Capitalist. As with Gateway’s out-sourcing of U.S. jobs under Snyder’s temporary leadership, his decisions were driven by his goal to prompt massive growth and profits as quickly as possible. To his glory, the company made money, for a while.  Then things changed. The company quickly hit the red due to over-growth and quality degradation. Gateway eventually sold out to Taiwan, leaving even more Americans jobless and vendors on the lurch.

Amazingly, Snyder is proud of the results of his service to the company.

This style of profit-based leadership is dangerous where the public’s well-being is of concern. Many Michigan cities that improved profitability under Snyder’s Emergency Managers have fallen back into distress due to lack of long-term rehabilitative measures that would have negatively affected the short-term budget goals.

The CEO mentality was highlighted in a New York Times interview by Jonathan Maher.  Maher discussed the EM role with Joseph Harris, Snyder’s appointee to troubled Benton Harbor.

“Blissfully free of the checks and balances of democratic governments, he is living the dream of every frustrated city administrator. ‘I believed I could fix Detroit,’ Harris told me. ‘But almost every time I made a recommendation to the mayor, politics got in the way. Here, I don’t have to worry about whether the politicians or union leaders like what I’m doing. I have to worry about whether it’s the right thing to do. That’s the only thing that should matter. I love this job.”

Politics didn’t get in the way of Flint’s EM either. But “politics” are the often voice of the people, or their representatives, and with good purpose. While saving the state from bailing out Flint, Snyder’s EM trimmed the budget, but handed the state a massive clean-up bill, long-term expenses far beyond the State’s budget; and caused disastrous lifelong consequences to its residents.

The bottom line: CEOs make bad political leaders. Looking toward November, we should remember Snyder’s failing reign, as well as the poor track records of several CEOs in public office in recent years. Can we afford to elect a candidate whose sweeping actions have consistently turned a blind eye to the welfare of others?

 

“If you would like to see how Fairview dealt with overreach of the government, pick up your copy of Billionaires and Bagmen today!”