ELDER PATRIOT – The great question for freedom loving people in the United States is why is Constitutional governance on life support?  The answer lies with groups like the Republican Main Street Partnership (RMSP.)

There are 63 RMSP members from the U.S. House of Representatives.  When you remove all of the obligatory “feel good” speech from their mission statement you are left with this, “Main Street is aligned with the governing wing of the Republican Party and centrist policymakers.”

The true purpose of this group is to provide cover for the votes of its members.

To illustrate how this works, let’s take the case of Leonard Lance.  He’s a congressman representing the 7th District in NJ.  This is the most conservative district in NJ.  Lance, with the help of the Republican Party, runs as a conservative saying all of the right things on the campaign trail.  And, the gullible voter laps it all up.  The problem for Lance is he’s not a conservative.   If he has too many votes supporting progressive legislation how will he answer the questions about his voting record by his ever-present primary challenger.  What to do?  Join the RMSP.

The RMSP exists to push through progressive legislation while providing maximum cover for it’s liberal Republican members.  Remembering that the Democrats are in the minority, the RMSP accomplishes this by first assessing how many votes will be needed to push through a Democrat bill or addendum.  Once they have determined how many votes will be required to insure passage, the RMSP studies each of it’s members districts to determine who can best absord the vote on their member’s record.

Now, congressmen are free to vote as they see fit.  That is not in question.  What is in question is why these folks operate in a deceitful manner?  If they want to vote with the progressive movement they should at least be honest and upfront about it during their campaigns.

On the whole, congress has an abysmal approval rating but in questioning people they all love their representative.  It’s because of groups like the RMSP and the glossy mailers (at taxpayers’ expense) highlighting specific popular votes determined by savvy media strategists (at taxpayers’ expense,) that make voters believe their representative is the one good one.

Over the years, legislation has passed that has served to remove house members from their electorate.  James Madison has been widely recognized as the Father of the Constitution.  He felt that the House should be viewed as the people’s house with representatives being held to account every two years.  “The size of the territory matters, Madison argued, because in a small republic it is easy for a majority to communicate and unite on the basis of selfish interest or prejudice and thereby oppress the minority. In an extensive republic, however, there will be more people, a greater diversity of interests and views, and a greater distance over which those views must be communicated. This will make it more difficult for a majority to form on the basis of a narrow interest or harmful passion. In a large society, a coalition of the majority will be necessary in order to achieve an authoritative status, and its demands will have to pass muster with a great
variety of economic, geographical, religious, and other groups in society.”

Madison’s theory of representation was that House members should have small enough constituencies to represent them completely with a singular focus.  It was his view that a person could ably represent a farming community or a manufacturing community, but not both simultaneously.

By the time the house had grown to 435 members the people were told that it had become unwieldy to conduct debates and votes.  Since then, Representatives’ constituencies have grown to exceed 750,000.  There are senators with smaller constituencies.

The result of this has fueled both the progressive and centrist movements.  Hiding behind the need to placate one segment of their constituency over, other competing interests representatives have been free to accept lobbyists’ overtures at every opportunity.  For the lobbyists, this has been made easy by having only a small number of house members to “sway” in order to pass their favored legislation.  Obviously, their task would be made more difficult if they had 5-10,000 legislators to deal with.  As well, no representative could withstand the scrutiny of an election every two years if they were forced to vote for the very narrow interests of a small constituent base and then violated that trust.

HERE IS A LIST OF EVERY SINGLE TIME OBAMA COMMITTED AN IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE THAT DEMS & MEDIA COVERED UP “Impeach!” It’s been more than eight years since Democrats uttered that word – long enough for anyone to wonder if it was still in their vocabulary, considering the deafening silence through the dozens of serious scandals during President Obama’s administration – but now that President Trump is the man in the White House, it’s back with a vengeance. Democrats everywhere are wildly slinging the “I” word, hoping to nail Trump for high crimes and misdemeanors after the New York Times claimed a memo written by former FBI Director James Comey said the president urged him to end the federal investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. Some members of Congress are getting in on the action. They include Reps. Maxine Water, D-Calif., and Al Green, D-Texas. Even a Republican, Rep. Justin Amash, claimed Wednesday there are grounds to impeach President Trump. House Oversign Committee Chair Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, asked for the alleged Comey memo and other documents. Chaffetz tweeted that he is prepared to subpoena the information. And Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., invoked “Watergate.” Now the Democratic Party is reportedly poll testing impeachment as a 2018 election issue. More than 1 million people signed a petition calling on Congress to impeach Trump. Wasting no time Wednesday, the mainstream media sprang into action, enthusiastically echoing the left’s impeachment calls. MSNBC launched a Watergate ad implying Trump is America’s new Richard Nixon. “Watergate. We know its name because there were reporters who never stopped asking questions,” says MSNBC host Chris Hayes, who hinted that Trump is next on the impeachment chopping block. “Now, who knows where the questions will take us. But I know this: I’m not going to stop asking them.” Meanwhile, some overzealous members of the left plastered fliers around Washington, D.C., demanding all White House staffers resign Wednesday. The posters read: “If you work for this White House you are complicit in hate-mongering, lies, corrupt taking of Americans’ tax money via self-dealing and emoluments, and quite possibly federal crimes and treason. Also, any wars will be on your soul. … Resign now.” But constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley, who voted for President Obama, warned “impeachment” enthusiasts not to get ahead of themselves with President Trump. Why? At this time, there’s no evidence Trump actually committed a crime. “The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo,” Turley wrote in a May 17 opinion piece posted at the Hill. Turley explained: For the first time, the Comey memo pushes the litany of controversies surrounding Trump into the scope of the United States criminal code. However, if this is food for obstruction of justice, it is still an awfully thin soup. Some commentators seem to be alleging criminal conduct in office or calling for impeachment before Trump completed the words of his inaugural oath of office. Not surprising, within minutes of the New York Times report, the response was a chorus of breathless “gotcha” announcements. But this memo is neither the Pentagon Papers nor the Watergate tapes. Indeed, it raises as many questions for Comey as it does Trump in terms of the alleged underlying conduct. A good place to start would be with the federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. 1503. The criminal code demands more than what Comey reportedly describes in his memo. There are dozens of different variations of obstruction charges ranging from threatening witnesses to influencing jurors. None would fit this case. That leaves the omnibus provision on attempts to interfere with the “due administration of justice.” However, that still leaves the need to show that the effort was to influence “corruptly” when Trump could say that he did little but express concern for a longtime associate. The term “corruptly” is actually defined differently under the various obstruction provisions, but it often involves a showing that someone acted “with the intent to secure an unlawful benefit for oneself or another.” Encouraging leniency or advocating for an associate is improper but not necessarily seeking an unlawful benefit for him. . Obama’s Iran nuke deal Obama knew about Hillary’s private email server Obama IRS targets conservatives Obama’s DOJ spies on AP reporters Obamacare & Obama’s false promises Illegal-alien amnesty by executive order Benghazi-gate Operation Fast & Furious 5 Taliban leaders for Bergdahl Extortion 17 ‘Recess ‘ appointments – when Senate was in session Appointment of ‘czars’ without Senate approval Suing Arizona for enforcing federal law Refusal to defend Defense of Marriage Act Illegally conducting war against Libya NSA: Spying on Americans Muslim Brotherhood ties Miriam Carey Birth certificate Executive orders Solyndra and the lost $535 million Egypt Cap & Trade: When in doubt, bypass Congress Refusal to prosecute New Black Panthers Obama’s U.S. citizen ‘hit list’