We all make decisions every day and mostly we trust ourselves to do so to our own benefit.

We decide what to eat, what clothes to wear, where to buy groceries, and working moms search out the best day care for the kids. These choices are ours to make and rightly so.

But how do “We The People” get to decide on the really big issues like illegal immigration, holding on to our right to keep and bear arms, what we teach our children, and the big tamale, trillion dollar federal deficits?

We live in a country governed by We The People, don’t we? So exactly why is it that our government seems unable to resolve our problems for us? After all, we send them to Washington to act on our behalf. Does that really happen? Not so much. What we get is a lot of re-election-itus and plenty of help for the entrenched lobbies while we get pushed aside. Under current conditions it appears that our chances of changing this situation are slim to none. We simply don’t get to decide.

But wait. Term limits could change all this. The swamp creatures would vanish, replaced by a covey of Mr./Ms. Smiths. Thank you. No more professionals needed. Smith is now there to make good things happen for us. Who knows, they might even be willing to help our president send the deep state packing. A couple of terms and back home they go to their families. Sounds great, but how can we make this happen?

Here’s how. Our Constitution makes the states sovereign and the fed power limited. The state legislators can make term limits and more happen. The states can put a stop to the runaway administrative state in D.C. Believe it. They have the power. There is a powerful grass roots groundswell building in all 50 states to have our state legislators do just that.

It’s called a convention of states. Check it out at http.//conventionofstates.com.

Tom Quarrie



Re: Linda Bishop (letter, June 15): Even our Founding Fathers were aware of the dangers of a private central bank. Thomas Jefferson wrote: “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”

Indeed, the Constitution grants the power to create the currency and credit of the country to the government, not private banks who charge interest. What’s even more insidious is that the amount of money issued does not include the interest owed. So, like a game of musical chairs, someone is always left bankrupt or foreclosed.

In other words, the debt can never be repaid. The whole ugly system can be summed up in one word: theft.

Henry Ford said: “The one aim of these financiers is world control by the creation of inextinguishable debt.” That is precisely what we face today.

Henry Ford also said, “It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”

Mark Haas



The article by reporter Denise Grant (Page A1, June 15) about the damaged guide dog, was interesting, informative and just the kind of article we need.

That said, I may have another for the Courier: the repeated fires at 831 Putnam St.

The house is owned by Ron Baney of North Baltimore and until recently it was an income-generating rental property. After some problems with his tenant, and several unexplained fires, Ron was forced to remove the tenant and to board up the property and disconnect all utilities.

Despite this, someone has broken into the property and set fires in separate areas of the structure, rendering it almost useless as a residence. The fire department deems the fires as suspicious and has an idea as to who is responsible, but has no proof.

My concern is with fires being set in a boarded-up structure that has to be entered by breaking and entering, and the number of times that this has happened. Is our neighborhood exposed to the same danger if the perpetrator tires of starting fires in an empty structure and decides to target an occupied building, resulting in more than property damage?

Publicity might at least alert the neighborhood to be more vigilant and cautious and perhaps even offer a clue to solve the problem. Just an idea.

Don Kinn