Who am I?  I’m 27 years old, I have just received my MBA, and I own my own business.

I am doing numbers-research via the internet at 10:00 at night while chatting on Gmail, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, and my iPhone.

And I am determined to show people what I would do if I were president.  Today’s observation is the Federal Budget.  Let’s break it down real quick:

In 2008 the United States government spent $3 Trillion on General Budget expenditures.

-       $2.5 trillion was paid by FEDERAL TAX REVENUES

-       $459 billion (DEFICIT) was paid for by BORROWING

THIS IS WHERE THE MONEY GOES: (Stats from Center on Budget & Policy Priorities http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258)

Defense & Security = 21%, or $625 Billion

Social Security = 21%, or $617 Billion

Healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP) = 20%, or $599 Billion

Safety Net Programs = 11%, or $313 Billion

Interest on National Debt = 8%, or $253 Billion

Benefits for Federal Retirees & Veterans = 6%

Scientific & Medical Research = 3%

Transportation Infrastructure = 3%

Education = 2%

Non-Security International = 1%

All Other = 5%

So, not being an economist, an elitist, or a believer in Government-hand-outs (versus HAND-UPS (thank you Mr. Thompson for that analogy)), I have revised the budget as follows.

We have to shave the 18% of the budget which is borrowed spending BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT GOVERNMENT HAS TOLD US TO DO – THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW THEIR OWN RULES – And I don’t want my kids paying for these congressmen’s stupid business decisions.

So…..we have to shave off $459 billion…the END GOAL (and there would be some pain and heartache in the middle, but dangit, we can handle it) would be:

Defense & Security = 21%

Social Security = 21%

Healthcare (Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP) = 10%

Safety Net Programs = 5.5%

Interest on National Debt = 0%

Benefits for Federal Retirees & Veterans = 6%

Scientific & Medical Research = 3%

Transportation Infrastructure = 3%

Education = 7.5%

Non-Security International = 1%

All Other = 4%

What we have done here is take off 10% from Healthcare and 8% from servicing the national debt – there went our 18%.

NOW, do not fear, we have re-allocated some of our funding for “Safety Net” programs to “Education”, where we feel that we can help boost our future and our economy to the point of being able to eliminate some of that safety-net. By providing opportunities and venues for students to learn and grow (as well as eat nutritional foods that help them think), we are very confidant that we can eliminate some of this safety-net spending.

CONFIDENCE.  Something that our fore-fathers would be proud of.  RESPONSIBILITY.  Something we should all take when it comes to our health.  EDUCATION.  The true variable for sustainably growing our economy.

- Tisha Casida

What an interesting concept!  Let’s figure out ways to CUT SPENDING, specifically where we need it – in Congress!  We need representatives there for the PEOPLE, not for the MONEY and BENEFITS.

Here’s a link to the program – let us know what you think!

We will be taking a hard look at the Constitution of the United States of America and the implications of the judicial involvement within the words and interpretations of those words in the Constitution.  Our inspiration comes from a phenomenal piece by Stephen J. Markman, where it appeared in Imprimis in April of 2010.

Here we will outline, and continue in additional blog posts, the cases that are made my Mr. Markman.

1. Privileges or Immunities Clause

Proponents of a “21st century constitution” or those that believe in a “living constitution”  see the due process clause of the 14th Amendment as a way to seek additional federal oversight into  state and local laws.

2. Positive Rights

Again, using the privileges and immunities clause, proponents of the 21st century constitution may desire to change the Constitution from being a guarantor of “negative liberties” into a charter of “affirmative government” which would therein guarantee “positive rights” to people.  The Framer’s Constitution “defines individual rights in terms of what the government cannot do to you,” (Markman, 2010), NOT what the government should provide to you or guarantee you a right to (i.e. Healthcare).  This has many potential negative implications for the concept of liberty and the opportunity for prosperity (not a guarantee of prosperity).

3. State Action

The requirement of state action as a precondition for the enforcement of rights (as set forth in the due process and the privilege and immunities clause), is another barrier for 21st century constitution proponents. State powers (as re-emphasized in the 10th Amendment) protect individuals and states from federal intrusions (i.e. protecting states’ funds from being manipulated or re-distributed to other states).

4. Political Questions

Federal courts are beginning to assert themselves into decisions where the judiciary had never before been involved. In 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison explicitly stated that political questions were not to be made in court.  As recently as 2008, the Court decided upon a case dealing with foreign nationals, the military, and prisoners of war (Boumediene v. Bush).  One can see the implications from having the Court decide more and more political questions.

5. Ninth Amendment

“Many 2st century constitutionalists understand this amendment to say that there is some unknown array of unenumerated rights that lie fallow in the Constitution, waiting only to be unearthed by far-sighted judges” (Markman, 2010).  The 9th Amendment was created to emphasize the limited power of our national/federal government – not leave this an open-ended statement up for interpretation.

6. Transnationalism

This is the concept of having international law meld and mix with domestic law.  This would make domestic judges more reliant upon foreign laws to make decisions affecting the United States, and could potentially open a pandora’s box of sanctions against people of this country for “war crimes” and “violations of the Earth”.  And again, more and more decisions would be given to judges as officials and interpreters of the law.

Read the Whole Essay Here

Folks, we have so much work to do to secure the Constitution as written and interpreted by FREE MEN – The Founders and Framers of the United States of America.

- Tisha Casida

Genesis is a proprietary blend of all natural vitamins, minerals, amino acid, herbs and spices; and contains a negative-based calcium which aids in your natural soil-building program. Genesis will start decreasing salts, allowing beneficial bacteria to reproduce at the rate nature intended, also unlocking minerals that will now be available to your plants. This negative based calcium can increase foliar absorption of nutrients. In addition, this negative based calcium in Genesis will also start transporting nutrients to the feeder roots. We all know the benefits of a well-balanced meal, whether that meal is for humans, plants or animals. Other benefits of balancing the proper available calcium in your soil include:

• Decreased soil compaction
• Decreased plowpan
• Decreased hardpan
• Decreased salt content in topsoil
• Decreased fertilizer requirements
• Decreased herbicide usage
• Decreased insecticide usage
• Decreased irrigation costs
• Increase in beneficial bacteria activity
• Balancing P.H.

Proper supplementation and balancing of minerals will increase your aerobic zone, in turn increasing the cubic area of nutrient intake and root depth.

We, at Soil Works LLC, and Miramar Management and Consulting realize there are two levels of plant life. The upper level of plant life, which produces food for animals and humans. These plants enjoy a high sugar content and a properly balanced nutrient rich available source of minerals. The lower level of undesirable plant life, we call “the janitorial weeds”, enjoy a low sugar environment and an imbalance of minerals. They grow in an attempt to correct an imbalance problem.  A book by Jay L. McCaman “Weeds and Why They Grow” is a great way to verify what we have said here. We can assist you in engineering your soil to grow upper level plants that will benefit your bottom line.

If you have grown weary along with your soil in “Reacting to Symptoms” and once again want to be the “steward of your soil” as nature intends, we are here to assist you in “Correcting the Cause”. Genesis Soil Rite and Phos Rite changing the way Farmers Farm!

Read the entire article, available online at: www.goodamericanpost.com

For more information on the product, please call Donna Sneller at 785-221-8828.

In an attempt to find ways to help my dad in his battle with cancer, I fell down the rabbit’s hole of nutrition, organic eating, shopping locally and the sustainable lifestyle.  And I, in my usual mode of patience and caution (cough, cough) moved my family over to Real Food in one month.   I spent every penny of my monthly grocery budget ($400 for a family of 4) on the organically grown/harvested/low or no processed items I needed to provide us with nutrient-rich, healthy food.  I had put myself in the position of ‘sink or swim’ – this is also known in the poker world as being “all in” and let the chips fall where they may… I was “all in.”

That first month was a nightmare!  14 hour days in the kitchen became the norm as I sprouted grains to dry and grind for flour, made deep bone broths for the base of all my own sauces, soups and gravies, struggled to find the perfect recipe to turn my sprouted wheat flour into palatable pasta my family would eat and struggling to lift the 22 quart stock pot full of chicken rice soup from the stove to the counter to cool.

My shelves and counters were covered with jars of beans, legumes and grains in different stages of soaking/sprouting.  The refrigerator held pans of potatoes and rice, soaking to remove the excess starch, for easier digestion.

But I did it.  I persevered and at the end of 4 months, I could name off at least a dozen benefits/changes I could see if my everyday life – gone were the night sweats that had haunted me since my hysterectomy.   The muscle soreness and joint stiffness and low grade fevers I had struggled with for years were a thing of the past.   I had lost over 50 pounds without counting calories, hiring a personal trainer or depriving myself of sweets, carbohydrates, sugar or fats.

Would I encourage you to do what I did?  Nope, at least not the way I did it.   Especially not if you work full-time.   It would be just too much.

So, in the hopes of enticing you to get you and your family back to real food, I’ll be sharing with you transitioning steps to take you through the process gradually, without the stress, tears and heartache I went through.  In the coming months we’ll move from making simple changes in our buying choices to learning how to ‘cook from scratch’ without spending all day, every day in the kitchen.

Read the rest of the story on Page 9 of The Good American Post, National Edition – Quarter 1 (down-loadable from website).

One of the most dangerous issues of today is the progressive view that a treaty with the UN is law superior to the US Constitution and that we should make interpretations of our law based on this and how foreign courts have resolved cases of a similar nature to cases before courts in the United States. Nothing can be further from the truth, but many people in the national government believe this and are even enforcing treaty provisions for treaties that have not been ratified by the US Senate. This view is based on the ‘Dulles Doctrine’:

“Secretary of State John Foster Dulles promulgated what some call the “Dulles Doctrine” that treaties, executive agreements, and votes in the United Nations, could effectively amend the U.S. Constitution and expand the powers of the federal government without limit.”

Further, this ‘doctrine’ is supported by the current administration as seen by the opinions expressed by individuals appointed by it to high government offices.

All of this is based on the ‘supremacy clause’ of the US Constitution, which we know from our last discussion is Article VI, paragraph 2 which reads:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

The argument of the progressives is that the supremacy clause of the constitution makes the provisions of a treaty law ‘superior’ to the constitution. Many scholars have expounded this point of view. However, it is obvious to anyone with a degree of common sense that it is an argument without validity.

A logical argument against this doctrine is simply how can the law that allows for treaties to be made ‘under’ it be replaced by such a treaty. A treaty cannot be made without the law that gives the government the authority to make the treaty and no where in the US Constitution does it state that a treaty made ‘under’ it becomes law superior to it. However, let us not base our insistence on the supremacy of the constitution over a treaty on my humble argument; instead let us see what the US Supreme court has to say on the subject. In ‘Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17’ the Supreme Court held that:

“There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in “pursuance” of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary [354 U.S. 1, 17] War, would remain in effect. It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights – let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition – to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.

There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267 , it declared:

“The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the [354 U.S. 1, 18] government or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.”

This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with a treaty, and that when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null. It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument.

There is nothing in Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 , which is contrary to the position taken here. There the Court carefully noted that the treaty involved was not inconsistent with any specific provision of the Constitution. The Court was concerned with the Tenth Amendment which reserves to the States or the people all power not delegated to the National Government. To the extent that the United States can validly make treaties, the people and the States have delegated their power to the National Government and the Tenth Amendment is no barrier.”

It is clear from this decision that the US Supreme court has ruled against such an interpretation of the US Constitution and that a treaty cannot change our constitution and is null and void when the treaty, or a provision of a treaty, is in conflict with the constitution.

To further clarify the issue, what did the founders of the nation say on this subject? Well, James Madison, the father of the US Constitution, said:

“I do not conceive that power is given to the President and the Senate to dismember the empire, or to alienate any great, essential right. I do not think the whole legislative authority to have this power.

Alexander Hamilton wrote:

“A treaty cannot be made which alters the Constitution of the country, or which infringes any express exceptions to the power of the Constitution“

And Thomas Jefferson said:

“I say the same as to the opinion of those who consider the grant of the treaty-making power as boundless. If it is, then we have no Constitution”

So it is clear that the doctrine that a treaty is law superior to the US Constitution is not true and never will be. The supreme law of this nation is the US Constitution and the only way to change it is to follow the amendment process of Article V.

So what is it that we want? We want the federal government of these United States to cease immediately enforcing any treaty, or portion of a treaty, that contradicts the US Constitution and to immediately quit enforcing any treaty or provision of a treaty that has not been ratified by the US Senate because it is NOT law in these United States of America and it’s territories.

While perusing through various blogs and news-stories, a particular point was brought up on Michelle Malkin’s blog post “The shout-outs Obama forgot”.  One of Malkin’s readers stated:

“No one in the media has brought up the ultimate snub from Pres. Obama during his speech last night. He gave a shout out to Michelle Obama- twice, Joe Biden- once, but to the two officers who brought down the Ft. Hood terrorist and who were sitting right next to the First Lady, he said nothing.

Why?…You would think in one of the most tragic events that happened on our soil since 9/11, Pres. Obama would have addressed them. We all know well Pres. Bush would have.”

This made me really think about it.  The real, true heroes of our system and society are not and HAVE NOT been given any type of support, promotion, etc., at least any real substantial “shout-out” in my opinion.   The men and women who risk their lives, who give their lives, are often forgotten when there would ideally be ample viewership and readership to recognize them.

But I guess that honor, guts, glory, and citizenry does not “sell”.  Well, I actually beg to differ, but it is too bad that people with influence and power, i.e. the President of our Country, are not grateful for the millions of middle-class, hard-working Americans who make real news, in this publisher’s opinion.

References:

Malkin, M. (2010, January 28). Re: The shout-outs Obama forgot [Blog post].  Retrieved from http://michellemalkin.com/2010/01/28/the-shout-outs-obama-forgot/

We cannot preach enough, and you will hear us do it again and again, how important it is to KNOW your small business-owners, know your farmers, know your soldiers, know your teachers, and know and support your students.  This is our economy, and supporting these groups around you is so important.

We came across a very cool organization that we are investigating, and thought we would pass it onto you!

It is the 3/15 Project  http://www.the350project.net/home.html

Looking for families of soldiers to submit brief stories about their loved ones in the service.  We will feature them on our blog, as well as in the Quarter 3 National Good American Post (printed edition)!
Please email us at: goodamericanpost@gmail.com, and put in the subject line “Solider”.

Email this

From many sources comes the bashing of the big-box store Wal-Mart, and its industry practices that make it a market-leader (i.e. cutting prices and cutting what is paid to the producer, forcing producers to change and “accelerate” their practices).

What I do know, as that is only does so much good to continually harp on the culprit, what REALLY needs to happen, is consumers have to start learning about their food sources, CARING, and then paying a higher premium for local and sustainably-grown or sustainably-raised food.  That’s it – it is going to have to come from the consumer.  That is how the market, essentially, works.

So in defense of freedom of choice, liberty, and the free-market – let’s win over consumers with good marketing and sustainable practices.  This is a much more positive and productive way of changing a fairly centralized food-supply – and that is what our publication is all about.  Free Markets – New Media, Postive and Sustainable Change, through supporting local communities and building local economies.

By Tisha Casida