Understanding what America is 
This country is going through one of the most trying times of our lifetime.  Unrest is everywhere.  Race relations under this current Administration has set back the progress made over the last 50 years by more than that..  Our children are not learning about the great heritage of this experiment called the United States and are being taught that this nation was an aggressor.
Socialism is on the rise, people see nothing wrong with wanting something for nothing.  That those who work hard and are successful are the bad guys and should be willing to give up their earnings to those who choose not to participate in our capitalist system.  Things are upside down.
There are two places where you can learn about this country, our heritage and the founding fathers.
Take the time to visit these two web sites, you will be glad you did.


Reviving a Constitutional Congress 
Christopher Demuth Sr.
Distinguished Fellow, Hudson Institute

Our Constitution is often treated as a reliquary, worthy of reverence but no longer of much practical use.  Yet the Constitution reflects, in many deep and subtle ways, the character of the people who established it and have lived and prospered under it for centuries. this is particularly true of its structural features of federalism and separated powers, which vindicate Americans' democratic nature, our distrust of power, and our taste for open competition.
     The struggle for power and advantage is a constant of human society.  In democracies, that struggle is organized and advertised through political campaigns and elections.  It is equally present within government, but there it is not always observable.  In the parliamentary systems of Europe, open competition ends with the election returns and formation of a government.At this point legislative and executive powers are fused.  Struggles over policy continue, but they work,themselves out in private within ministry offices and leadership councils.  A well-led government can present, at least for a time, a unified, dignified, self-confident public face.That is seldom possible in the American system, where competition in government is exposed for all to see.  The two political branches possess separate electoral bases and are assigned powers that are partly shared and partly independent. They are co-dependent and must work out their differences in public.  Presidents, executive officials, and members of Congress may bring astute tactics and compelling rhetoric to the task, but in the heat of contention they are also prone to diatribes, bluffs, missteps, backtracking, and humiliations. Dignified the process is not.
     Parliamentary systems have their strengths, but open competition is the American way.  Checks and balances are important means of policing the corruption and abuse that arise whenever power is monopolized.  They are also means for pursuing two things that Americans care about especially: limited government and humble leaders.  The sheer cumbersomeness of our constitutional structure usually requires extended negotiations leading to a substantial consensus before the government can act.  And the spectacle of continuous public extemporizing makes it difficult for our leaders to pretend that they command events.
     Yet our system depends on a reasonable balance of power among the three constitutional branches, and we are losing that.  In recent decades power has shifted dramatically away from Congress - primarily to the executive but also to the judiciary.  
      Part of the shift has resulted from presidents, executive agencies, and courts seizing congressional prerogatives.  This part of the story has been much in the news.  President Obama has effectively rewritten important provisions of the Affordable Care Act and immigration law, while circumventing the Constitution's requirement of Senate approval for senior executive appointments.  The Environmental Protection Agency has contorted the Clean Air Act beyond recognition to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses - and has done so after Congress declined to embark on such regulation.  The Supreme Court has acquiesced in most of these executive usurpations, while taking for itself the authority to decide live political controversies.  It played both roles last June, first approving the Obama administration's unilateral extension of tax credits to persons who purchase health insurance on the federal Obamacare exchange, the declaring same- sex marriage a constitutional right.
      But the most important part of the story has an opposite plot: Congress itself, despite its complaints about executive and judical poaching, has been giving up its constitutional powers voluntarily and pro-actively for decades.  Since the early 1970's, Congress has delegated broad lawmaking authority to a proliferating array of regulatory agencies, from EPA to OSHA in the early years to numerous executive councils, boards, and bureaus under Obamacare and Dodd-Frank in 2010.  In the new dispensation, members of Congress vote bravely for clean air, affordable health care, and sound finance, while leaving the real policy decisions to executive agencies.
      In recent years, Congress has even handed off its constitutional crown jewels- its exclusive powers, assigned in Article I, Sections 8 and 9 to determine federal taxing and spending.  Several executive agencies now set and collect their own taxes or generate revenues in other ways, and spend the proceeds on themselves or on grant programs of their own devising, without congressional involvement. Most members of the current Congress cannot even remember the days when that body passed annual appropriations, agency by agency, often with riders directing how the agencies may and may not spend funds.  More recently, following its hapless efforts to use the debt ceiling to force policy concessions from the administration, Congress washed its hands of the borrowing power, too, telling the Treasury that it may borrow as needed to pay the government's bills for a set period of time.
      Today the consequences of congressional self-enfeeblement are vividly on display.  Congress is under management of conservative Republican majorities in both House and Senate, and is facing a left-progressive President with a big agenda. One would think that Congress would be busily reclaiming its contitutional authorities and exercising them to moderate - no checki, but at least balance - the President's actions. But that is not happening.
      A harbinger of the current disarray came shortly after last year's elections, when President Obama announced unilateral revisions to immigration policy.  Congressional Republicans promptly announced that the new Congress would forbid those changes with a rider to the appropriations of the Citizenship and Immigration Services agency.  A few days later came an embarrassed retraction:  staff had discovered that the CIS finances itself through fees and is independent of congressional appropriations.
      Congress could have put the agency back on regular appropriations, but as things have turned out even that wouldn't have helped, because Congress is unable to pass any appropriations bills (there are supposed to be 12 of them, covering various sets of executive agencies). Instead, it is obliged to resort once again to a Continuing Resolution (CR) - a last-minute blunderbuss statute that extends the previous year's entire federal budget with broad percentage adjustments.
      The CR surrenders Congress's power of the purse.  When Congress is appropriating individual agencies, it can adjust program spending and policy elements on a case-by-case basis.  It doesn't always get its way in the face of a possible presidential veto, but at least Congress is in the game, with a multitude of tactics and potential compromises in play.  In contrast, the threat of shutting down the government is disproportionate to discrete policy disagreements.  The tactic would be plausible only in the rare case where congressional opinion amounted to vet-proof majorities in both chambers.  Even when Congress thinks it has the President cornered with an unpopular position, as in the wake of the horrible Planned Parenthood revelations, the game of CR chicken always comes down to a national crisis where the President-always at the center in time of crisis and able to control the terms of public debate - has the upper hand.
      President Obama's current strength is complementary evidence of constitutional drift.  Since his party lost control of the Senate last November, he has launched a fusillade of aggressive executive initiatives, such as subjecting the Internet to comprehensive regulatory controls.  I think he was within his constitutional rights on the Internet matter; but such a monumental change in national policy, almost certainly opposed by majorites of the relevant House and Senate committees, would have been inconceivable in the  recent past.
      The fact that President Obama is not a lame duck is not due to his popularity.  His public approval ratings have been in the mid - to- high 40s and lower than his disapproval ratings, and he is widely disliked in Congress by members of both parties.  It is rather that the nature of the presidency has changed since the Twenty-Second Amendment limited the presidents to two terms. In Presidential Power, a landmark study written during the Eisenhower administration, political scientist Richard Neustadt argued that presidents occupy an inherently weak office, and must devote themselves to continuous persuasion, popularity seeking, and cultivation of Congress in order to advance their agendas.  This book became the operation manual for President Kennedy and all subsequent presidents - until now.  The evolution of executive branch autonomy has transformed the presidency into an inherently powerful office, regardless of whether its occupant is well liked. President Obama hand his advisers are the first to have realized that Neustadt is obsolete- that whatever his polls, the President has the wherewithal, using executive agencies to make law and policy on his own through noon on January 20, 2017.

For the rest of this article click on the link below;

"Reprinted by permission from Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College."


Charles R. Kesler, is the Dengler-Dykema Distinguished Professor of Government at Clarement McKenna College and editor of the "Claremont Review of Books".

In a speech that he gave at Hillsdale College's Allan P. Kerby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D. C. on October 13, 2013 he talked about "The Tea Party, Conservatism and the Constitution".  He was, of course,  discussing the National Tea Party and their attempt to change the status quo. Over time we have seen that their impatience with the legislative process that the Constitution prescribes, and by trying to go over the heads of party leaders and constitutionally elected officeholders, so it could create its own mandate, has not been successful.
That is especially true here in Kaufman County.  I would venture to say that most people agree with the overall ideas espoused by the National Tea Party, a return to limited, more constitutional government and lower taxes, but disagree with their means of reaching those goals. In the national debate as well as locally the Tea Party needs an overall strategy to allow it to achieve its worthy ends.  What are those ends? What do they mean by limited government, limited to what? And limited by what?
Dr. Kesler states,"At this point we should note the paradoxical character of the Tea Party: It is a populist movement to defend the Constitution, but the Constitution is meant, among other things, to limit populism in our politics - to channel, moderate, and refine popular passion through consitutional forms, such as elections, officeholding, and the rule of law. The point was to ensure, as "The Federalist" put it, that reason, not passion, of the public would control and regulate the government." 
The Kaufman County Tea Party is very Passionate!  They proclaim in all their bluster, to be acting for the best interest of the County, but I would ask them the questions quoted above What are your ends? What do you mean by limited government, limited to what? And limited by what?
If you look at the results of the last County election, you will see that there were some good canidates elected and some not so good. Some of those elected have questionable credentials and backgrounds.  In the upcoming election, I would ask the voters of Kaufman County to make sure before they vote, that the candidate they choose, is the most qualified for that position and not just take the word of any group handing out flyers at the polls.
Get to know the candidates, listen to their reasons for wanting that particular office.   
Be an educated voter 


Kaufman Tea Party Strikes Again

On October 9, 2015 the Kaufman Tea Party posted a story on their website regarding a proposed memorial at the Sheriff's office.  A private individual planned to donate all materials and labor plus volunteers to maintain the site.  Granted, mistakes were made in the process, for which Sheriff David Byrnes apologized, but the Tea Party was sure that there was a concerted effort to be dishonest. They accused Judge Bruce Wood and Commissioner Precinct 4 Jakie Allen of hiding it from the other three Commissioners. Read the complete article at http://www.kaufmancountyteaparty.org
"More County Mischief  "

At Commissioners' Court on October 12, the donors were personally attacked and accused of using the donation for political reasons. Due to the lack of support from the three Tea Party backed Commissioners and the acrimony shown by the Tea Party, the donation was rescinded. 

Because of certain accusations, Judge Wood demanded and received an apology.  But in the next few paragraphs, continue to attack him.See http://www.kaufmancountyteaparty.org,   Commissioners Court, October 12, 2015.

For another perspective, with comment,  see the October 13th issue of the Dallas Morning News Metro Section "Donor rescinds offer for Kaufman County fallen officer's memorial". http://www.dallasnews.com/news/metro/20151012-donor-rescinds-offer-for-kaufman-county-fallen-officers-memorial.ece

This action by the Kaufman County Tea Party falls on the heels of another story regarding their return of a donation from Congressman Jeb Hensarling. http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com

The citizens of Kaufman deserve better representation that this.  It is an embarrassment for our citizens and our County. 

They have presented themselves as a part of the National Tea Party Patriots, but according to Myers himself "Where were you guys when we need you?"  And boasts of kicking out several elected officials, local and state.  But look at what we have now, Divisive, ineffectual officials who are doing more harm to our county than good.

 BEWARE Citizens of Kaufman County 

This radical group has been around a long time, stirring up unfounded allegations against County Officials who won't bow to their intimidation and manipulation. 

If the Tea Party is so into transparency, why is the author of these two articles name "Bourgeois", let the real author be named.

It is time we let them know they are not the voice of the voters of Kaufman County!

 Disclaimer:  This website is not affliliated with the Kaufman County Republican Party. 
 This website was created in 2004.