patrick.net

https://forum.policiesforpeople.com/t/call-a-convention-of-the-states-to-limit-the-scope-power-and-jurisdiction-of-the-federal-government/1818

Call a Convention of the States to Limit the Scope, Power and Jurisdiction of the Federal Government

We all know the Federal government has grown far outside of the bounds of the “enumerated powers” in the U.S. Constitution. We also know that the Federal government will NEVER restrain itself. There are three primary areas to address:

I. Term Limits for Elected officials and other federal government officials and employees (this would include staffers and bureaucrats.

II. Imposition of fiscal restraints on the federal government such as a balanced budget, requirement for the government to use generally accepted accounting principles, tax and spending caps, etc.

III. Imposition of Scope, Power and Jurisdiction Restraints on the Federal Government - For example setting limits which prevent the federal government from involving itself in education, health care, agriculture or the environment within individual states, each of whom was intended to have sovereignty over these areas.

Many other government limiting amendments would fit within such a convention. This is not a pipe dream 19 of the necessary 34 states have already called for such a convention. 15 more to go. Both Kansas and North Carolina are currently close to joining. We can make this a reality. Please send the link to vote on this to everyone you know. And if you want to know more, you can go to https://www.conventionofstates.com/ Feel free to add ideas for amendments below, and I’ll take the ones that fit within this application and try to list some of them above.

Some have asked for the location where you can find the actual text of the resolutions being passed in the states. https://conventionofstates.com/files/model-convention-of-states-application/download

Patrick says

I actually don't mind this. Is there waste, 100%. I'd rather have eyes and ears on the ground as much as we can. I don't even trust all allies we have bases in. Besides overseas maybe 1-2% of people ever have witnessed war personally. I don't want it here. You don't want to witness it either.

I have no problem with defense spending. While we import more than we export to an extent, we need a powerful military for shipping lanes. It also creates trustworthy allies short term that can sell goods in a shitty area. We also don't have to answer to anyone. Leverage.

What I don't like is Laquanda going full auto on pumping babies out and I have to pay to feed her and the kids, while dad is in jail getting fed daily and the government pays his child support. This is what's happening and I live it. I just don't get the benefits outside of a kid that is my own at this point, in my mind, even though I don't get the benefits and his mom does.

From gab.ai:

Did the US government kill people by poisoning alcohol during prohibition?

Yes, during the Prohibition era in the United States, the government did knowingly allow and, in some cases, directly facilitate the poisoning of alcohol. This occurred through a program known as the "restraint of trade," which was part of the Volstead Act, the legislation that enforced Prohibition. The Volstead Act allowed the government to seize and destroy alcohol that was being produced and sold illicitly. However, in many cases, the government chose to allow the alcohol to remain on the market, even though it was known to be contaminated or poisoned. This policy was based on the belief that if people became sick or died from drinking contaminated alcohol, it would lead to increased support for Prohibition and a reduction in demand for alcoholic beverages. The government hoped that this would make it easier to enforce the ban on alcohol production and sales. In some cases, the government even directly facilitated the poisoning of alcohol. For example, during the 1920s, there were reports of the U.S. Treasury Department adding toxic chemicals to illicitly produced alcohol, in an attempt to make it less appealing to consumers and reduce demand. While the government's actions were intended to enforce Prohibition and reduce alcohol consumption, they ultimately led to thousands of deaths and injuries from contaminated and poisoned alcohol. This tragic outcome highlights the unintended consequences of government policies and the importance of considering the potential impact of such policies on public health and safety.

https://openthebooks.substack.com/p/wheres-waldo-new-report-shows-dc

Last year, we worked together with Senator Joni Ernst’s office to quantify the federal bureaucracy. We asked questions like: How many are there? What are they earning compared to the private sector? Where are they located? How do they perform? And how much vacation do they enjoy on taxpayers’ dime?

Many of the answers were pretty damning.

Our findings were documented here on Substack and at Newsweek in our joint oped, “Where’s Waldo at Club Fed?”

We found that after just three years of federal employment, workers enjoyed 44 days of paid time off. Nine weeks of vacation must be nice!

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the average real wage for a private worker (FY21) was $54,339 – but at 109 of 125 federal agencies in DC, the average salary was over $100K.

When questioned by Congress in 2023 about how many employees had returned to the office after Covid, Office of Personnel Management Director Kiran Ahuja had no idea. ...

A new report this month from Senator Ernst, aptly titled “Out of Office,” dives even deeper. Those vacation days are just philosophical at this point, as the Covid lockdown has given way to an endless era of work-from-home and telework policies. They’re “phoning it in” – literally!

Among federal buildings in DC, just TWELVE PERCENT of office space is occupied.