Michael Wolfe

Study up. Stand up. Speak up. Pray up!

Posts Tagged ‘Constitution’

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »

None Dare Call It Socialist: HR3590 “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”

Posted by americana83 on April 7, 2010

Are the claims of socialism new? Have government intrusions into medicine been opposed before Obama tried them? Does it matter whether Obama scoffs at those who call his plan “socialist?”

First, I will say that this bill does not create “single payer” government run healthcare. However, it does pave the way by extending current government “care” systems (and their under-reimbursement of health care providers), subsidizing insurance using tax payers’ money, and enacting a whole list of mandates on insurance companies, individuals, and employers. These mandates will increase the cost of insurance, possibility to the point of unsustainability, paving the way for the government to “save the day” by stepping in and seizing outright control of the entire medical industry. This, coupled with the push to legalize millions of illegal aliens, many of which would then qualify for coverage and the decreasing incentive for people to study to become doctors will combine to create the one thing everyone said would never come: health-care rationing.

Recently, the APHA (the American Public Health Association) made the following assertions about the recently rammed, bribed, blackmailed, forced through Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka ObamaCare) and its subsequent reconciliation (and college loan take over) package:

Not only will the law extend health insurance coverage to an additional 32 million uninsured Americans, provide subsidies to help individuals purchase health insurance, prevent insurance companies from discriminating against individuals with pre-existing conditions and strengthen the Medicare program, it will also provide billions of dollars of funding for public health and prevention when it is fully implemented. In fact, the new Prevention and Public Health Fund created by the law will provide $500 million for prevention, wellness and public health activities beginning this year.

Lets look at some of these elements individually:

extend health insurance coverage to an additional 32 million uninsured Americans.

Since this number seems to fluctuate, that is not so much the issue, however this bill will force those who do not want insurance, typically the young and the healthy to purchase a product they neither want nor need. If you make $13 per hour and live in Ohio, the government already deducts about 25% of your pay (not counting sales taxes, gasoline taxes and other non-payroll taxes). 1 out of every 4 hours you work, you are working on behalf of the government. Now they are telling you how to spend your hard earned money, whether you want to or not. Sure the penalties are fairly small right now, but remember, the Federal Income Tax started out as a paltry 1% tax! My how big and hungry the tax beast has grown, and the more you feed it, the hungrier it becomes! (oh, and the whole “federal government forcing you to buy something” is UNCONSTITUTIONAL).

But wait, there’s more:

…provide subsidies to help individuals purchase health insurance…

More of your tax dollars are going for NEW entitlement programs! (Never mind that current ones are unsustainable in their funding levels!). Charity has its place, and it is the VOLUNTARY donations from people who WANT to help to organizations that do more than just give out free goodies. Self proclaimed communist Van Jones’ railing demand of “give them the wealth!” can almost be heard echoing through the pages of this bill. Just like other government social programs, the costs associated with this will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimates and will help much less than the vaunted 32 million uninsured.

And now, we make insurance more expensive with this, causing more people to need to rely on Big Brother to help them:

prevent insurance companies from discriminating against individuals with pre-existing conditions and strengthen the Medicare program

While this sounds nice, it will raise the cost of everyone’s insurance. They can’t be charged more than everyone else, so the costs are spread to everyone. Again this is not charity. This is taking more money from hard working men and women.

it will also provide billions of dollars of funding for public health and prevention when it is fully implemented. In fact, the new Prevention and Public Health Fund created by the law will provide $500 million for prevention, wellness and public health activities beginning this year.

I do not want the government spending my money on condoms and telling me what to eat or how to exercise. Most areas already have local public libraries and charitable organizations that offer health information. It is about control. As the government foots more and more of the bills for health insurance/health care, it will demand more and more control and say in how and what individuals eat, when they exercise, and just about every field that is touched by health.

Also, with the president and other people who are part of the problem complaining about the deficit, where is this 500 million dollars going to come from? Well, the 10% tanning tax for starters. Then, in the spirit of promoting better insurance plan offerings (sarcasm), ObamaCare gives us a 40% tax on the best health insurance plans, with a few years delay for unions, who’s members generally have good plans and who might otherwise revolt against the leaders of their international unions.

Now lets look some bitter pills scattered throughout this bill (this is just a small sample of all the things hidden throughout the bill’s 2409 pages + 900 (amendment).

Full bill text: http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3590/text

SEC. 3308. REDUCING PART D PREMIUM SUBSIDY FOR
14             HIGH-INCOME BENEFICIARIES.
15     (a) INCOME-RELATED INCREASE IN PART D PRE-
16 MIUM.—

The title for this section actually says it all. It doesn’t matter that you’ve paid the same amount into the system as everyone else, now you get to pay more. More spreading wealth around, just like Obama promised.

Section 4201:

(B) ACTIVITIES- Activities within the plan may focus on (but not be limited to)

(i) creating healthier school environments, including increasing healthy food options, physical activity opportunities, promotion of healthy lifestyle, emotional wellness, and prevention curricula, and activities to prevent chronic diseases;

Ok, our schools are already failing academically, now we are supposed to sacrifice more class time so kids can run and jump around? More time telling them how wonderful they are (building up their self esteem/emotional wellness), and more telling them how to eat and what to eat? Every time federal control over the public schools increases, the quality of the education declines. Soon parents won’t have to take responsibility for anything, the state will raise their kids from cradle to graduation. Oh, and the federal constitution does NOT give the federal government authority over education, that is a right reserved to the states, respectively  or the people.

(ii) creating the infrastructure to support active living and access to nutritious foods in a safe environment;

(iii) developing and promoting programs targeting a variety of age levels to increase access to nutrition, physical activity and smoking cessation, improve social and emotional wellness, enhance safety in a community, or address any other chronic disease priority area identified by the grantee;

(iv) assessing and implementing worksite wellness programming and incentives;

(v) working to highlight healthy options at restaurants and other food venues;

(vi) prioritizing strategies to reduce racial and ethnic disparities, including social, economic, and geographic determinants of health; and

What does this mean? It sounds like an opportunity to spread more wealth around, that is until the feds run out of our wealth to spread around…

(vii) addressing special populations needs, including all age groups and individuals with disabilities, and individuals in both urban and rural areas.

I would encourage anyone interested in the realities of socialism and how it has come to the point where the federal government feels it has the authority (it doesn’t) to mandate individuals to purchase insurance to borrow, buy or check out the book: None Dare Call It Treason by John A. Stormer. It recounts the heartbreaking saga of betrayal of the nation’s most cherished ideals and laws in the 20th century.

Here are a couple of very relevant exerts from this book published way back in 1964:

Magruder’s high school text, American Government, as mentioned earlier uses nearly every classical propaganda trick to confuse students into accepting socialism. Consider this non-sequitur under the heading, Medical Service Under Our System of Free Enterprise:

In a democracy we believe in evolutionary methods rather than the revolutionary methods of a dictatorship; and under our system of free enterprise, competition improves the standard of service and tends to reduce the cost. Therefore, instead of jumping right into socialized medicine, why not have the Government support projects such as the following. (pg 670).

If free enterprise medicine works so well, and Magruder acknowledges that it does, why consider socialized medine at all, either immediately or by the backdoor approach Magruder recommends. He advocates approaching socialized medicine through such steps as federal aid for training doctors, federal funds for hospital construction, and government payment of hospital costs for lengthy illnesses.(pg 110).

Then, on page 169, Stormer quotes approvingly this statement:

Compulsory social insurance is in its essence undemocratic and it cannot prevent or remove poverty. The workers of America adhere to voluntary institutions in preference to compulsory systems, which are held to be not only impractical, but a menace to their rights, welfare, and their liberty. Compulsory sickness insurance for workers is based on the theory that they are unable to look after their own interests and the state must use its authority and wisdom and assume the relation of parent and guardian.

and this one:

I want to tell you socialists that I have studied your philosophy…I have heard your orators… I have kept close watch upon your doctrines for 30 years and know how you think and what you propose. I know too what you have up your sleeve. Economically, you are unsound; socially, you are wrong; industrially, you are an impossibility.

Since the publishing of this book, the American welfare state has grown exponentially. Step by step creeping socialism has consumed the private sector, followed surely by expanding government, increasing taxes, and a continuing reduction of the realm of freedom. President Obama, with his incessant push for this healthcare bill, has accomplished the greatest harm to our constitutional republic since FDR first got people hooked on government cheese using the New Deal. Every elected official who voted for this healthcare bill has joined previous public officials who have violated their oath of office for the sake of expanding government power and subverting the constitution.

The answers to my introductory questions: No, Yes, NO! It doesn’t matter what Obama calls himself, what his policies are called, or even who suggested them first. They still have the same deadly affect on our freedoms, our way of life, and the long-term viability of the American experiment. Obama does not offer “hope” for America, Obama doesn’t offer anything new, just the same tired old socialist ideas that Americans have been fighting since Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act and the income tax became law.

Oh, and one more link: the Communist Party USA’s magazine, people’s world, just offered their praise of Obama’s health care bill.

President Obama’s new health-care law is a “historic victory” that can lead to socialized medicine and “single-payer” health-care legislation, boasted Juan Lopez, chairman of the Communist Party USA in Northern California.

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

The Constitutionality of the Line Item Veto

Posted by americana83 on March 7, 2010

The last portion of article 1, section 8 of the US constitution says this about Congress:

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

All legislation crafted at the federal level is to be authored and revised by the House and the Senate. The executive branch is not to edit or revise legislation passed by congress. Therefore, the line-item veto which gives the president legislative power greatly increases the power of the presidency (eg, deleting the Stupak Amendment if the house version of the healthcare bill passed) and illegally subverts the seperation of powers written into the Constitution.

The following portion of Article II delineates the powers the president has. You will notice that conspicuously missing is the ability to legislate, as this has been reserved for Congress:

Section 2 – Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section 3 – State of the Union, Convening Congress

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

We must stop looking to “easy” answers provided to us for getting pork spending under control, whether the line-item veto, or a “balanced budget amendment.” The ONLY effective solution to this dilemma is not giving too much power to the President, but to elect legislators who will faithfully uphold and defend the Constitution. If they did that, they would not pass pork. We must not forget that the president is a politician too, who is given to the same political games that abound in congress. Hold your congressman accountable this year for ANY pork he or she has voted or lobbied for, regardless of what party’s letter they have beside their name.

Giving the president such power would allow an unscrupulous politician of a president to strip out key portions of a bill that may defend our rights or limit spending. We must not allow any line item veto powers to be unconstitutionally vested in the president of the United States.

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Meet the Candidates Night: 15th Congressional District

Posted by americana83 on February 27, 2010

Recently, nearly all the candidates for Ohio’s 15th congressional district were invited to participate in a “meet the candidate night.” Of these, Dave Ryon, Steve Stivers and John Adams filled out the questionnaire and participated in the Q & A. There was apparently one other candidate who showed up, but had not filled out the questionnaire, or have knowledge of what 9/12 was (The Union County 9/12 and Central Ohio 9/12 groups were hosting the event). Mary Jo Kilroy, the current representative, ignored the invitation, though her presence was made known throughout the night as candidates explained how they would strive to bring responsive, constitutional representation back to the 15th congressional district.

All of the candidates were asked if they would sign a “fiscal responsibility pledge.” All candidates were then provided with one, and all appeared to sign it. There was an addendum on the pledge about “ear mark reform transparency and up or down votes.

NOTE: If a candidate, agreed with another candidate on an answer, go to the same number under that candidate’s responses. I have added some notes following certain questions. I have done a minimal amount of editing to the following transcribed answers to make it more readable. If you see any errors, please contact me.

The questions were as follows:

  1. What does the oath of office mean to you?
  2. What type of tax system do you think would be ideal?
  3. What is wrong with our current healthcare system. And how would you fix it?
  4. Earmarks (that you are against) in a bill you and your constituents are in favor of, how would you vote on that bill and why – best interests of the country, or your special interest?
  5. “Putting the axe to government” What are to 2 steps to shrink deficit
  6. What do you plan to do to beat [Kilroy] in the general election. How’s your war chest (Campaign cash)
  7. How would you handle unemployment: what role does the fed government actually have?
  8. What is your solution to illegal immigration? (Est 20 Million illegals burdens infrastructure).
  9. How do you feel about gun rights and the second amendment, and… (two part)
  10. who do each of you turn to for advice and favorite person. “you admire” (alluding to the statement Anita Dunn made about who she turns to for political wisdom, Mother Teresa and Mao Tse Tung).

Dave Ryon

  1. “The oath of office … is to listen” “if you listen to the people you have more answers” I will listen to article 1 section 8” “You can take that to the bank. PLEDGE: No vacations if I am elected, will be on call” “You will here back from me right away”
  2. “Wouldn’t mind seeing it a lot flatter, 0%, repeal 16th amendment. 1.2 trillion over seas every year, Feds collect 1.2 trillion dollars from individuals like your self. “Have you pay the state revenue department to decide how to distribute federal tax dollars.” “Can hold back the dollars those federal programs are spending now, and giving the power back to the states”
  3. Agrees with Stivers, health care tax deductions. “Steve gave a good answer”
  4. “Is it moral, is it constitutional, do we need it, and can we afford it” If the answer is no to any of these 4 questions, then I will vote no. If I vote yes, “I have read the entire thing”
  5. Would not support increasing debt ceiling. Next move is a balanced budget amendment.”Federal Government should too”
  6. “I am offering you a constitutional conservative that is running. Pro life, pro 10th amendment. Pledge to follow Art 1 sec 8. “if women have a right to an abortion, what we are saying is that the children in their womb are property.” “That is slavery… was abolished long ago.”
  7. Go back to the fundamental promise. “we need to deregulate” “Forcing companies to put out so much money… they have to drop jobs” Monetary policy is terrible in this country” -Fed Reserve. Devalued $ = job loss. “once we have a strong dollar, you will see a boost in employment”
  8. Agree with Steve. “There was talk of outsourcing port security” If you are here illegally, you should be sent back immediately.
  9. “Against any legislation that would diminish right to bear arms.” “the man who inspired me to run for office was congressman Ron Paul.” [Paul] has a finger on the “constitutional pulse” “He’s my inspiration to be running today.”

Steve Stivers

  1. “Very Seriously” “Privilege” “Stand up for the folks that sent you there” “I take that pledge very seriously as a member of the armed forces…very seriously…”
  2. What kind of tax reform would be appropriate. “I support a flatter, more simple tax system than we have now.” “Close loopholes” “Won’t have to pay as many people to work for”
  3. “First, scrap the bill in front of Washington right now” “Start from scratch” “best health care in the world” first problem- “healthcare not portable, no one knows what anything costs.” 5 stitches: $1750. give incentive to healthy living – Defensive medicine, tort reform “Insurance across state lines” There are “billions dollars of waste in Medicare and Medicaid we have to go after”
  4. “I like the way David answered it.” “the public needs to have time to understand them”
  5. 1st balanced budget law immediately. 2nd balanced budget amendment. LINE ITEM VETO. Performance based budgeting. And move to a 2 year budget cycle from a 1 yr budget cycle. “congress only made it through 2 of their budget bills” NOTE: A line item veto is unconstitutional, as it would transfer legislative power from Congress to the president. Congress already ignores laws, they would almost certainly ignore any sort of balanced budget law.
  6. He is a “Battle tested candidate” My focus is to beat Mary Jo Kilroy. I will make sure that happens” “I will make sure MJK not in congress. His war chest is over 600,000 by end of December. 515,000 on hand. Raised 2.3 Million last time. About 3K volunteers. MJK is on record on “cap & trade” HK bonuses, GM, “I’ll have the money and resources and the man power” Like John said, Mary JO must Go. NOTE: Was the only candidate that appeared to answer the question about their financial status.
  7. “Government’s role is to provide a sound climate for business. Government doesn’t create jobs” “Role of government is to keep taxes low.” NOTE: This is great.
  8. what “we absolutely have to NOT do is give amnesty. we can’t allow people to commit illegal acts and not have there be no consequences.” “you don’t have a border unless you secure your border.” “active and passive measures” “if someone is here illegally and we capture them, they should go home.” “Eventually, we need to do immigration reform” “Should be based on what our economy needs” “help, not hurt the country.” “We cannot continue to thrive and prosper unless we deal with this issue…its costing trillions in additional resources
  9. Co-sponsored concealed carry, castle doctrine. Endorsed by NRA in 2008 and is a member. “I have been and will always be a supporter of the 2nd amendment of the constitution.”
  10. My wife and James Madison, “one of the smartest men that set up our constitutional framework.

John Adams

Note: At the beginning, when candidates were supposed to introduce themselves, John launched into an attack on Steve that took him well past the 10 minutes allotted to each candidate to introduce themselves. He jibed Steve: “We can not defeat her [Mary Jo Kilroy] with a [sorry Steve] moderate.” and used some of Kilroy’s attack ad points to attack Steve Stivers. While there are appropriate venues to do so, this was setup to introduce the candidates and get them to answer questions submitted to the Union County 9/12.

  1. “So help me I do, I would take that oath… Solemn oath…There to serve the people” “all politics is local. take that seriously” “Trying to find the word here, I’m 64…”
  2. “You reduce taxes at same time (you) reduce the size of the federal government.” “hundreds of thousands more employees [Feds]. “Reduce it, make it work smarter”
  3. “The first thing we have to do is stop government run healthcare.” “That’s not America” “Encourage free market system” Insurance should be allowed to sell “anywhere in the United States” “Tort reform “vast amounts of money for insurance [doctors]” “Real tort reform” “millions of people out of work…how do you buy health insurance if you don’t have a job?”
  4. “No way.” “They [issues] should be separated out”
  5. First step. “fire Obama.” [shrink it “in a gradual way” “realistically we could bring it down with a new congress -10%” Cut congress pay 10%. 10% per year. “not wasting the people's money
  6. “Focused on Mr Stivers right now. I go no where after may 4th if I don't win” Kilroy is a “socialist progressive” “She's a rubber stamp for that crowd [obama-reid-pelosi]” would address abortion issue with Kilroy. Roe V Wade “one of the worst decisions we have made in our country.” “abortion must come to a stop”
  7. “we start working on our own energy sources” We have vast amounts of oil reserves nationwide. Coal oil natural gas. “2000 years of our own resources.” “energy = your economy” Work on domestic energy to put people back to work. “we could become a net exporter [of energy]”
  8. We need to seal our border “still porous” “Free transportation back to where they came from” Should have to come like “every other immigrant.
  9. “Absolutely support 2nd amendment.
  10. “My wife – she is my inspiration…”

Final thoughts: I felt Steve and David performed quite well. Both behaved respectably and followed the rules and for the most part answered the questions. I felt that John, despite his newness to the area, handled himself most like a traditional politician, launching into attacks and providing formula answers. David Ryon appeared to have the strongest grasp of constitutional limitations, in the rapid fire questions, he was the only one not tripped up by the hypothetical “national right to work” law, which would go beyond the article 1, section 8 limitations on congress. Steve Stivers also responded very professionally to the attacks unexpectedly launched by Adams. Adams, apparently dissatisfied with the forum, has removed all references to tea parties and 9/12 from his website. A Google cache from February 23rd still shows the sections referring to Tea Parties and 9/12. If this is not the case, I invite comment.

The candidates’ websites are listed below:

Dave Ryon: http://www.ryonforcongress.com/

Steve Stivers: http://www.stivers4congress.com/

John Adams: http://www.johnadams2010.com/

The Union County 912′s homepage:

http://912unioncounty.org/

The Union County 912 meetup:

http://www.meetup.com/We-Surround-Them-ULC/

Disclaimer: This review and commentary is not endorsed by the Union County 9/12 and contains the work and opinions of Americana83.com.

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

The Parental Rights Amendment: A trojan horse

Posted by americana83 on February 18, 2010

Here is the amendment, which purports to protect parental rights and, on a glance actually appears to do so.

Section 1. The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children is a fundamental right.

Section 2. Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.

Section 3. No treaty may be adopted nor shall any source of international law be employed to supersede, modify, interpret, or apply to the rights guaranteed by this article.

Sections one and three are very good, and would appear to protect the rights of parents to train up their children according to the dictates of their conscience.
However, look again at section 2:
Section 2. Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.
Notice how it does not make an exception for the life or abuse of the child, but for “governmental interest.” This amendment would give, for the first time, Constitutional authority for the government- federal, state or local- to seize ANY child for ANY reason. Section 2 with the nebulous terminology “governmental interest” effectively makes sections one and two non-existent. Considering the current congress and president’s obsession with “hate crimes” is it really that far fetched for such a administration, or a succeeding one, to deem a “governmental interest” in ensuring that children do not grow up with “divisive” and “disruptive” intolerant views on sexuality and gender identity, or perhaps “backwards and antisocial” views on private property and capitalism? This amendment, under the right regime, could be used to enact a defacto ban on home or private schooling if it was decided that such activities do not serve the “highest order” of the government’s interest. This amendment must be opposed at all levels
This amendment, if added to the Constitution will deal a severe blow to parental rights, surrendering a great portion of parental authority to the government. Here is the official explanation of this section from the amendment’s website, parentalrights.org:

SECTION TWO

Neither the United States nor any State shall infringe upon this right without demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person is of the highest order and not otherwise served.

SUMMARY: While parental rights do not include a right to commit child abuse or neglect, they are due the same high legal protection as other fundamental rights.

Notice that the summary they provide  includes specific examples: abuse/neglect. “Governmental interest,” while it COULD mean those things, cannot be logically or honestly claimed to be limited to those things. We are talking about politicians that have difficulty interpreting easy to understand phrases as “right to bear arms.” They will have a heyday with “governmental interest.” Just look what they’ve done with the commerce clause:

“…demonstrating that its governmental interest as applied to the person…”
Because fundamental rights are so important to our freedom as Americans, the government must meet a heightened burden of proof in order to restrict those rights. In legal terms, the government’s case begins with a positive demonstration – they must prove that there is a government interest in restricting the right, and that the government has a specific interest in restricting the right of the particular parents whose actions are being challenged. In early 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court used this very language when talking about violations of religious liberty. According to the Court, the government must “demonstrate that the compelling interest test is satisfied through application of the challenged law ‘to the person’–the particular claimant whose sincere exercise of religion is being substantially burdened.” Gonzales v. O Centro Espirito Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal, 548 U.S. 418, 430-431 (2006). The text of this proposed parental rights amendment merely takes this well-established principle of law, and applies it explicitly to the fundamental right of parents.

Yes, it is called due process. Life liberty or property shall not be taken without due process, regardless of the “governmental interest.” This amendment does not provide any such “heightened burden of proof,” merely that the government thinks its interest in the child is greater than the parent’s and is not being served by the parents. It sets a very low bar, and leaves parental rights at the mercy of liberal bureaucrats and other social engineers.

“…of the highest order and not otherwise served.”
In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court held that in order for the state of Wisconsin to override the rights of Amish parents, the government had to show that it had a compelling interest in requiring students to stay in school until age 16. Speaking of the right of the parents, the Court said that “the essence of all that has been said and written on the subject is that only those interests of the highest order and those not otherwise served can overbalance legitimate claims to the free exercise of religion.” Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215 (1972) (emphasis added).

The Supreme Court has required the government to follow this standard whenever there is a violation of a fundamental right. Prominent examples of this are cases that deal with racial discrimination (see Adarand v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 227 (1995): “All racial classifications, imposed by whatever federal, state, or local governmental actor, must be analyzed by a reviewing court under strict scrutiny. . . . Such classifications are constitutional only if they are narrowly tailored measures that further compelling governmental interests”), restrictions on free speech (see Widmar v. Vincent, 254 U.S. 263, 269-270 (1982): Whenever discriminating against speech on the basis of its content, the government “must show that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end”), and invidious discrimination against religion (see Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc., v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 546 (1993): “To satisfy the commands of the First Amendment, a law restrictive of religious practice must advance ‘interests of the highest order’ and must be narrowly tailored in pursuit of those interests.” In all these cases, the government must prove that it has a compelling interest, before the fundamental freedom at stake can be limited.

Again, this amendment does not spell out what “governmental interest” actually means, and leaves the door open to great federal abuse of this newly codified interest. The focus on religious practice here readily suggests that section 2 could be used to remove children from christian or other families that believe homosexuality or other behaviors are immoral and against God. The reason that would be cited is a “governmental interest” of the highest order in “promoting diversity and inclusiveness” and fostering a “tolerant society.”

We tend to read into a bill that we want to like those things that would make it likable. The reality of this would be amendment is that it opens the legal door to massive federal interference in the rights of parents to raise their children. And as far as the “UN Convention on the rights of the child,” Section 2 of this amendment makes section 3, professing to forbid treaties undermining parental authority moot- if said treaty is “in the utmost interest of the Government.”

This Amendment, as well as the UN Convention on the rights of the Child must be opposed by all who love freedom and want to raise up their children according to the laws of nature and Nature’s God.

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

Nullification: The states as Constitutional Defenders

Posted by americana83 on January 6, 2010

What power do the states have to stop the onslaught of unconstitutional measures being handed down by the “progressive” majority? The answer lies in the 10th amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The federal government is exercising powers that do not belong to it. The authority to force citizens to purchase insurance, to decree that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and writing laws to “regulate” it does not exist at the federal level. The clear list of enumerated powers do not give these incredible powers to the federal government.

Since these powers are unconstitutional, the federal government does not have authority to force the states to enforce these illegal acts. A state by exercising its 1oth amendment rights, can reject enforcing these laws and decrees. There is no room in the constitution for decrees. Proper and legal legislation is written by congress, not by an executive agency like the EPA. Further, legal legislation does not extend government powers beyond those written into the Constitution. The founding fathers made it difficult to expand government on purpose, because they experience first hand the abuses of a government with near unlimited power.

By expanding the powers of government without constitutional authority, the present and previous administrations have practically destroyed the defenses that have protected us from naked tyranny. Only by rebuilding the walls of states’ rights can we start to turn back the tide of tyranny before the elections later this year. Because the laws are illegal, the states can ignore unfunded mandates, forcing their citizens to pay health care taxes or buy insurance, or forcing their residents to buy carbon credits or pay carbon taxes (assuming the “Cap and Tax” Bill makes it through the senate.

In addition, the 9th Amendment says this:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The founding fathers, having intimate knowledge of the abuses of the power of the government to compel its subjects to purchase goods and services, intentionally declined to give the federal government such a power. It is absurd to think that they would have ever authored a document granting such immense powers to the federal government. If they had wanted such powers in federal hands, they never would have rebelled.

Therefore, it makes reasonable sense for the states to step in to protect the constitutional rights of their citizens, the 9th amendment giving added ammunition to the use of the individual states as bulwarks against an unruly expanding government that seeks to reinterpret (distort) the Constitution to deny even the enumerated rights of the people (such as the distortion that the 2nd amendment is a “collective” right even as the other rights, such as freedom of speech, are seen [rightly and literally so] as individual rights).

Constitution-minded state governments in conjunction with constitution minded individuals and congressman are the perfect remedy for bureaucrats run amok.

Originally published on TheJeffersonDemocrat.com

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

My thoughts on H.R.4173 – the “Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009″

Posted by americana83 on December 24, 2009

UPDATE 7/29/2010. The section pertaining to race is now 342. It was briefly removed all together, but made it back into the bill. The exact text is as follows, followed by my original article, which is still valid.

SEC. 342. OFFICE OF MINORITY AND WOMEN INCLUSION.

(a) Office of Minority and Women Inclusion-

    • (A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in subparagraph (B), not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, each agency shall establish an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion that shall be responsible for all matters of the agency relating to diversity in management, employment, and business activities.

      (B) BUREAU- The Bureau shall establish an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion not later than 6 months after the designated transfer date established under section 1062.

    • (1) ESTABLISHMENT-

    (2) TRANSFER OF RESPONSIBILITIES- Each agency that, on the day before the date of enactment of this Act, assigned the responsibilities described in paragraph (1) (or comparable responsibilities) to another office of the agency shall ensure that such responsibilities are transferred to the Office.

    (3) DUTIES WITH RESPECT TO CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS- The responsibilities described in paragraph (1) do not include enforcement of statutes, regulations, or executive orders pertaining to civil rights, except each Director shall coordinate with the agency administrator, or the designee of the agency administrator, regarding the design and implementation of any remedies resulting from violations of such statutes, regulations, or executive orders.

(b) Director-

    • (A) equal employment opportunity and the racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of the workforce and senior management of the agency;

      (B) increased participation of minority-owned and women-owned businesses in the programs and contracts of the agency, including standards for coordinating technical assistance to such businesses; and

      (C) assessing the diversity policies and practices of entities regulated by the agency.

    • (1) IN GENERAL- The Director of each Office shall be appointed by, and shall report to, the agency administrator. The position of Director shall be a career reserved position in the Senior Executive Service, as that position is defined in section 3132 of title 5, United States Code, or an equivalent designation.

    (2) DUTIES- Each Director shall develop standards for–

    (3) OTHER DUTIES- Each Director shall advise the agency administrator on the impact of the policies and regulations of the agency on minority-owned and women-owned businesses.

    (4) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in paragraph (2)(C) may be construed to mandate any requirement on or otherwise affect the lending policies and practices of any regulated entity, or to require any specific action based on the findings of the assessment.

(c) Inclusion in All Levels of Business Activities-

    • (1) IN GENERAL- The Director of each Office shall develop and implement standards and procedures to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, the fair inclusion and utilization of minorities, women, and minority-owned and women-owned businesses in all business and activities of the agency at all levels, including in procurement, insurance, and all types of contracts.

    (2) CONTRACTS- The procedures established by each agency for review and evaluation of contract proposals and for hiring service providers shall include, to the extent consistent with applicable law, a component that gives consideration to the diversity of the applicant. Such procedure shall include a written statement, in a form and with such content as the Director shall prescribe, that a contractor shall ensure, to the maximum extent possible, the fair inclusion of women and minorities in the workforce of the contractor and, as applicable, subcontractors.

    (3) TERMINATION-

(d) Applicability- This section shall apply to all contracts of an agency for services of any kind, including the services of financial institutions, investment banking firms, mortgage banking firms, asset management firms, brokers, dealers, financial services entities, underwriters, accountants, investment consultants, and providers of legal services. The contracts referred to in this subsection include all contracts for all business and activities of an agency, at all levels, including contracts for the issuance or guarantee of any debt, equity, or security, the sale of assets, the management of the assets of the agency, the making of equity investments by the agency, and the implementation by the agency of programs to address economic recovery.

(e) Reports- Each Office shall submit to Congress an annual report regarding the actions taken by the agency and the Office pursuant to this section, which shall include–

    (1) a statement of the total amounts paid by the agency to contractors since the previous report;

    (2) the percentage of the amounts described in paragraph (1) that were paid to contractors described in subsection (c)(1);

    (3) the successes achieved and challenges faced by the agency in operating minority and women outreach programs;

    (4) the challenges the agency may face in hiring qualified minority and women employees and contracting with qualified minority-owned and women-owned businesses; and

    (5) any other information, findings, conclusions, and recommendations for legislative or agency action, as the Director determines appropriate.

(f) Diversity in Agency Workforce- Each agency shall take affirmative steps to seek diversity in the workforce of the agency at all levels of the agency in a manner consistent with applicable law. Such steps shall include–

    (1) recruiting at historically black colleges and universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, women’s colleges, and colleges that typically serve majority minority populations;

    (2) sponsoring and recruiting at job fairs in urban communities;

    (3) placing employment advertisements in newspapers and magazines oriented toward minorities and women;

    (4) partnering with organizations that are focused on developing opportunities for minorities and women to place talented young minorities and women in industry internships, summer employment, and full-time positions;

    (5) where feasible, partnering with inner-city high schools, girls’ high schools, and high schools with majority minority populations to establish or enhance financial literacy programs and provide mentoring; and

    (6) any other mass media communications that the Office determines necessary.

(g) Definitions- For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) AGENCY- The term ‘agency’ means–

(2) AGENCY ADMINISTRATOR- The term ‘agency administrator’ means the head of an agency.

(3) MINORITY- The term ‘minority’ has the same meaning as in section 1204(c) of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act of 1989 (12 U.S.C. 1811 note).

(4) MINORITY-OWNED BUSINESS- The term ‘minority-owned business’ has the same meaning as in section 21A(r)(4)(A) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 1441a(r)(4)(A)), as in effect on the day before the transfer date.

(5) OFFICE- The term ‘Office’ means the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion established by an agency under subsection (a).

(6) WOMEN-OWNED BUSINESS- The term ‘women-owned business’ has the meaning given the term ‘women’s business’ in section 21A(r)(4)(B) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (12 U.S.C. 1441a(r)(4)(B)), as in effect on the day before the transfer date.

UPDATE 5/22/2010: This bill has now passed the senate. Four RINOS sided with the other liberal to pass a bill that is socialist and racist in nature. This is truly a blow to the dream that one day all men would be judged by the content of their character and not their skin.

SOURCE: OPENCONGRESS.org and FULL BILL TEXT.

View the latest actions on the bill

The list of GOPpers voting for this racist bill is as follows:

Sen. Scott Brown [R, MA]
Sen. Susan Collins [R, ME]
Sen. Charles Grassley [R, IA]
Sen. Olympia Snowe [R, ME]

So Scott Brown joins Olympia Snowe. Nothing like a slap across the face to the tea party grassroots that put you over the top, dashing hopes that we had actually gotten rid of Arlin Specter.

Section 1801 of this bill includes some very interesting language, especially since the government is already an “equal opportunity employer” that is not allowed to discriminate on the basis of age, race, gender, national origin, religion and others. This bill, thanks to the following language creates an entire race based bureaucracy throughout the agencies of the Federal government, even though it is not needed, and will increase the cost of government during a time of great financial strain (HR4173 text source):

SEC. 1801. INCLUSION OF MINORITIES AND WOMEN; DIVERSITY IN AGENCY WORKFORCE.

1(a) Office of Minority and Women Inclusion

(1) ESTABLISHMENT- Not later than 180 days following the enactment of this title, each agency shall establish an Office of Minority and Women Inclusion (hereinafter in this section referred to as the ‘Office’) that shall advise the agency administrator of the impact of policies and regulations of the agency on minority-owned and women-owned businesses, and shall be responsible for all matters of the agency relating to diversity in management, employment, and business activities, including the coordination of technical assistance, in accordance with such standards and requirements as the Director of the Office shall establish.

I would assume that any policy that would adversely affect a minority or woman owned business would also negatively impact any other business, since it is already ILLEGAL for the government to discriminate by race and gender. Extra bureaucracy we can’t afford, and do not need.

(2) CONSOLIDATION- Each agency that has assigned these or comparable responsibilities to existing offices shall ensure that such responsibilities are consolidated within the Office.

So, if a government office already has “diversity responsibilities” being handled as part of another job they need to “consolidate” those responsibilities into a NEW position, a mini race Czar. Last time I checked, consolidation involved a reduction or streamlining process, not the creation of a new position and extended bureaucracy.

(b) Director

And here are the chief Race Czars

(1) IN GENERAL- For each Office, the President shall appoint, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a Director of Minority and Women Inclusion (hereinafter in this section referred to as the ‘Director’), who shall also hold a title within such agency comparable to that of other senior level staff who are, as applicable, either appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, or act in a managerial capacity that requires reporting directly to the agency administrator.

(2) DUTIES- Each Director shall

(A) ensure equal employment opportunity and the racial, ethnic and gender diversity of the agency’s workforce and senior management;

I believe in equal opportunity. This legislation however, mandates diversity.  You cannot offer equal opportunity and demand equal outcomes. Every individual is different, and possesses their own skills and abilities. The best of the best should be offered the position, whether they be black or white or Asian or Hispanic, or any of the other diverse colors of humanity. Equal opportunity employment ensures that. However, if the thoughts expressed previously are any indicator, the current administration doesn’t concern itself with individuals, but rather collective identities.

(B) increase the (sic) partcipation of minority-owned and women-owned businesses in the programs and contracts of the agency;

C) provide guidance to the agency administrator to ensure that the policies and regulations of the agency strengthen minority-owned and women-owned businesses; and

(D) conduct an assessment, as part of the examination process for the entities regulated or monitored by the agency of the diversity and inclusion efforts by such entities.

It is not the government’s job to strengthen ANY business. It is a business’s job to strengthen itself by offering the best product or service at the best price, or to differentiate itself by offering services that are above and beyond its competitors, thereby allowing it to charge a premium for its goods or services. Government race-based initiatives subvert and undermine the free market, and treat race as if it is a handicap to overcome. This is an insult to the American people, and creates a scenario where race can readily become a deciding factor in denying the best business the task. It is absurd.

But there’s more. Going back in the bill we find this gem in section 1604 giving the government control over companies they (the President) deems in danger:

(b) Determination by the Secretary- Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law or the law of any State, if, upon the written recommendation of the Federal Reserve Board and the board of directors or commission of the appropriate regulatory agency as provided for in subsection (a)(1), the Secretary (in consultation with the President) determines that–

    (1) the financial company is in default or is in danger of default;

    (2) the failure of the financial company and its resolution under otherwise applicable Federal or State law would have serious adverse effects on financial stability or economic conditions in the United States; and

    (3) any action under section 1604 would avoid or mitigate such adverse effects, taking into consideration the effectiveness of the action in mitigating potential adverse effects on the financial system or economic conditions, the cost to the general fund of the Treasury, and the potential to increase moral hazard on the part of creditors, counterparties, and shareholders in the financial company,

then the Secretary must take action under section 1604(a), the Corporation must act in accordance with section 1604(b), and the Corporation may take 1 or more actions specified in section 1604(c) in accordance with the requirements of that subsection, except that, prior to the Secretary or Corporation taking any action under section 1604, the Federal Reserve Board or the appropriate Federal regulatory agency shall take action to avoid or mitigate potential adverse effects on low-income, minority, or underserved communities affected by the failure of such financial company.

Again, we have big government stepping in and preventing the free market from correcting itself. The effects of doing so are far more harmful in the long run because either: 1. A company is rewarded for bad behavior with government money, or 2. The government gains control of a company (and the government lacks both the skills needed to run a company efficiently, as well as the problem of a complete lack of the enumerated constitutional authority to do so) and more of our tax dollars are depleted. both the skills needed to run a company efficiently, as well as the problem of a complete lack of the enumerated constitutional authority to do so) and more of our tax dollars are depleted. The beautiful thing about a free market, is there are competitors that are ready and willing to take the place of fallen giants. Keeping the fallen giants on life support is a terrible waste of tax payers’ money and, again, a gross violation of the enumerated powers granted to the government by the Constitution. The federal government has no authority to either bail out or seize control of any company.

Also problematic is the fact that the secretive Federal Reserve is given a share of this unprecedented power, despite the fact that the Federal Reserve is completely unaccountable and has not even so much as been audited since its creation in 1913.

In conclusion, this bill subverts and perverts the concept of equal opportunity for all, allows the President and the Federal Reserve far greater control over the free market, and expands the size and scope of government while giving us nothing in return but Constitutional violations.

“Some animals are more equal than others.”  George Orwell, Animal Farm.

from my other site: thejeffersondemocrat.com

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4173/textU

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Global Warming!

Posted by americana83 on December 20, 2009

With the recent IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) email leaks, the impending global crises being cited for supporting legislation like “cap and trade” has been proven false. Until this breech, those who dared to stand against it were marginalized. They were called liars and deniers, by people who have a financial stake in global warming and others who may have been actively suppressing the voice of dissenting scientists, without out concern for the fact that the whole scientific process is based on a healthy skepticism without which progress would never be made.

UPDATE: Looks like the UN Climate Chief has a vested interest in man-caused global warming as well.

Regarding carbon credits, there is absolutely no Constitutional mandate for the federal government to create an imaginary product like carbon credits  and then force people and businesses to buy it. The founding fathers fought against punitive taxes and being forced by their government to only buy their products (the Townsend and stamp acts, which were actually much like carbon credits). With the EPA (an unelected agency under the executive branch) unilaterally declaring carbon dioxide a pollutant, thus giving it the power to write regulations in effect legislating on the production of carbon dioxide. This is a gross unconstitutional  usurpation of the powers of congress. According to the Constitution, only the congress has the power to legislate. It also violates the separation of powers, no portion of the executive branch has Constitutional authority to write legislation. The separation of powers was intended to prevent any one branch of the Federal government from becoming too powerful. The founders did not want a king or tyrant, which was why they divided the powers among three competing branches of government (legislative, executive and judicial).

From BusinessGreen.com:

However, the recently proposed Waxman-Markey climate change bill faces staunch opposition from Republicans and some Democrats, and the endangerment finding gives the EPA the freedom to act swiftly to regulate emissions from power plants and other heavy-emitting facilities without seeking approval from Congress.

This is nothing less than circumventing the Constitutional authority of Congress by the executive branch to get what it wants. The EPA does not have this freedom, nor can an executive office give itself additional powers.

Not only is “cap and trade” unconstitutional, but it would only serve to further depress an economy already in crises. People cannot afford for energy prices to sky rocket. Business are already having trouble maintaining their work forces, when their fixed overhead costs explode, how many more business closings and job losses will be added? Will it make 10% unemployment look good? The people are facing a recession and we do not want harsh new regulations based on junk science to increase the cost of living and accelerate the loss of jobs already occurring.

The United Nations, like Al Gore and the IPCC have plenty to gain from uncritically promoting AGW. Through their Agenda 21, they press nations to cede more of their people’s wealth and sovereignty to the UN through what can only be interpreted as global taxes. Consider this exert from Agenda 21′s preamble:

1.4. The developmental and environmental objectives of Agenda 21 will require a substantial flow of new and additional financial resources to developing countries, in order to cover the incremental costs for the actions they have to undertake to deal with global environmental problems and to accelerate sustainable development. Financial resources are also required for strengthening the capacity of international institutions for the implementation of Agenda 21. An indicative order-of-magnitude assessment of costs is included in each of the programme areas. This assessment will need to be examined and refined by the relevant implementing agencies and organizations.

It is possible to deduce at least 2 new global taxes and an increase in the “dues” member nations already pay, but even that is not the worst aspect, though it effectively creates taxation without representation, and would put the UN and its subsidiaries in control of vast swaths of American society and capital. creating a basic global government with the power to control domestic affairs and collect taxes.  This treaty has been around since 1992, but is of concern now since we have a congress and president who both very likely support its “green” globalist agenda. It has been inactive in the senate, since being referred to the CFR (the Committee on Foreign Relations) in 1993.

These four senators cosponsored it:

Sen Chafee, John H. [RI] – 3/24/1993
Sen Jeffords, James M. [VT] – 9/9/1993
Sen Kerry, John F. [MA] – 3/24/1993
Sen Wellstone, Paul D. [MN] – 3/24/1993

It will be important to watch for this legislation to surface. Treaties require senate approval, and it has NOT yet been approved. Any senator who votes for Agenda 21 is voting for nothing less than the transfer of our wealth, rights and sovereignty to an unaccountable and corrupt international body that does not have the interests of America at heart (But guess who pays most of the bills?)

CNBC glosses right passed the assertion that a world government would arise from the ashes of such a crisis as if it is common knowledge- when not so long ago few would give legitimacy to one who warned of such a possibility. The mechanism (Agenda 21) is waiting for a trigger that will force the US to accept it. The US government, with its exploding deficit is racing towards that trigger of a global currency crises. When it becomes clear that the US will be unable to honor its debt, that is when the panic will start. That triggers a sell off (comparable to a major scandal at a company traded on the stock market) with all owners rushing to cash in their stock (T-Bills, Bonds, etc) at the least amount of loss, thus creating a global currency crises.

Unsustainable deficit spending must be stopped immediately. The activist’s fight against unconstitutional deficit spending and sovereignty eroding globalism I have been waging is a fight I am proud to carry on.

Originally published on thejeffersondemocrat.com

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

And the pursuit…

Posted by americana83 on December 20, 2009

There are those who insist healthcare is a right. Is it? What is a right? The proper definition from Webster’s 1828 is this:

5. Just claim; legal title; ownership; the legal power of exclusive possession and enjoyment. In hereditary monarchies, a right to the throne vests in the heir on the decease of the king. A deed vests the right of possession in the purchaser of land. Right and possession are very different things. We often have occasion to demand and sue for rights not in possession.

According to the Declaration of independence, there were 3 rights recognized as descending to us from God: The rights to: Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Thus, every man has the right to life and liberty, and to pursue that which will bring them happiness. It is very important to note that the founders did not recognize a right to happiness, but a right to the ability to pursue happiness.

For example, it might make one happy to possess the house of their neighbor, but they do not have the right to take their neighbor’s house for their own. However, they do have the right to offer of their own possessions (typically money) to their neighbor in order to purchase the house from them. Likewise, the neighbor has the right to refuse any such offer.

It is on this premise that a free market operates: men and groups of men (companies) compete for things that bring some form of material happiness through trading, purchasing, leasing, borrowing, etc. Such a system preserves the right to seek happiness both of the people providing goods or services and those seeking those goods or services.

However, there are those who seek to make specific goods and services a right. Federal mandates forced banks and financial institutions to loan money to people who had no business buying the houses they were seeking. Why? Because, in a properly operating free market, they could not afford the loans, and had no title or claim to the money the government mandated they be given.

Healthcare is comprised of goods and services provided by people. I have no right to demand that another person sacrifice life or limb or wealth to meet my needs. Likewise, when a government deems goods and services “rights” they are in fact mandating that “happiness” is itself a right. The inherent contradiction is this: the person who gains “free” or reduced goods and services may be happy, but the one being forced to give them up suffers loss. It is comparable to the previous example of a man coveting his neighbor’s house. Is it right that the government step in and force the neighbor to give up his house, regardless of the price offered? Further, not only does the government has no right to force the neighbor to give up his house, it has no right to spend money trusted to them by the taxpayers to do such a thing.

A government mandate that healthcare is a right, sets a dangerous precedent. What if the government then decrees that a job is a right? As surely as healthcare being a right would give the government (unconstitutional) authority to control the medical system, declaring that a job is a right would then give government unprecedented control of what was once a free market.

Indeed, the “Consumer Credit Protection Act of 2009 would grant the president unconstitutional powers to bailout any company he deems worthy, setting the state for dramatic government control. Also troubling are bills which would use tax payer money to pay or augment the wages of private sector workers!

Health care as a right deprives professionals of the right to exchange their services on a free market. It also subverts those who, out of their own personal desire and adherence to Christ’s teachings, would freely offer the fruits of their labor to those in need. Charity is not the duty of the government or the state, but the right of the people to engage in as they pursue happiness.

Progressives can demonize the profit (the right of people to exchange goods and services in a manner that both deem reasonable) motive as much as they want, but the truth is that the promise of profit is what drives many to innovate. People work tirelessly and researchers innovate and capitalists invest capital in hopes of getting a return that exceeds their expenses. Government bureaucrats can call profits “obscene” or “excessive” all day long, however if there was no profit, there would be no jobs, no innovation. If there had been no profit, there would have been no model T. If there had been no profit, we wouldn’t have computers, any number of products. Medicines, advanced medical technologies, and so on.

People who go into the medical field, have the right to seek whatever compensation they deem fit for their services, subject to the willingness of the public to pay for them. Not everybody is seeking profit as the primary motive, and are ready and willing to sacrifice profits for the ability to help those who cannot help themselves. When you force someone to give of their goods or abilities against their will, it is theft. Governments are not exempt from the 10 commandments, as they are headed by men and women. Theft, lying, coveting, lust, fornication and every manner of immorality runs amok in the highest levels of the states and countries. They must never be allowed to be “above the law” as far as offenses against the laws of the land go. Justice must be blind, and it must be granted for peasant and king alike.

The federal government’s role in the whole process is to ensure that the market remains free, patents are issued for the protection of inventions, and to provide redress for grievances which are referred from state and local courts.

Published first on thejeffersondemocrat.com

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Constitutional Chaos

Posted by americana83 on December 19, 2009

President Barack Obama has lamented in the past that the US Constitution did not say “what the government must do on your behalf.” The US Constitution was different from others in a sense it is a “charter of negative liberties,” in the sense that it limits the ability of the government to control the lives and choices of its citizens, who were not subjects, but were endowed with inalienable rights; not from the government, but from Almighty God. However, he focused solely on the negative while ignoring the fact that positive liberties were recognized as belonging to the people such as: Freedom of speech, Press, assembly, bearing arms, due process, and many others. He had to create a false dichotomy (eg the constitution is “negative” in order to offer what he considers to be positive things the government “must do on your behalf”).

There is another Constitution, that was written much more recently than our own, which sets forth a different kind of government. One that had no negative liberties, that told explicitly what the state must do on your behalf. Before I tell you the name of the country, read through this exert and look at the broad governmental control and authority that lurks behind each of these lines:

Chapter 3: SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND CULTURE

Article 19.  The social basis of the (country name) is the unbreakable alliance of the workers, peasants, and intelligentsia. The state helps enhance the social homogeneity of society, namely the elimination of class differences and of the essential distinctions between town and country and between mental and physical labour, and the all-round development and drawing together of all the nations and nationalities of the(country name).

Article 20.  In accordance with the communist ideal–”The free development of each is the condition of the free development of all”–the state pursues the aim of giving citizens more and more real opportunities to apply their creative energies, abilities, and talents, and to develop their personalities in every way.

Article 21.  The state concerns itself with improving working conditions, safety and labour protection and the scientific organisation of work, and with reducing and ultimately eliminating all arduous physical labour through comprehensive mechanisation and automation of production processes in all branches of the economy.

Article 22.  A programme is being consistently implemented in the (country name) to convert agricultural work into a variety of industrial work, to extend the network of educational, cultural, and medical institutions, and of trade, public catering, service and public utility facilities in rural localities, and transform hamlets and villages into well-planned and well-appointed settlements.

Article 23.  The state pursues a steady policy of raising people’s pay levels and real incomes through increase in productivity. In order to satisfy the needs of (country name)’s people more fully social consumption funds are created.  The state, with the broad participation of public organisations and work collectives, ensures the growth and just distribution of these funds.

Article 24.  In the (country name), state systems of health protection, social security, trade and public catering, communal services and amenities, and public utilities, operate and are being extended. The state encourages co-operatives and other public organisations to provide all types of services for the population.  It encourages the development of mass physical culture and sport.

Article 25.  In the (country name) there is a uniform system of public education, which is being constantly improved, that provides general education and vocational training for citizens, serves the communist education and intellectual and physical development of the youth, and trains them for work and social activity.

This government, organized on communist principles took it upon itself to provide for every need of the people, and by the provision of said needs, gains absolute control over the people. Within this brief section, we see the state mandate for its duties: wealth redistribution (“eliminating class”), national health care, public schools, public jobs, state funding of culture, art, social security, sports, even shaping the mental health of the people (personality development). Ask yourself, how many of these same things do we see our own government engaging in today? Our Constitution, with its charter of negative liberties, has been ignored and subverted to grant the government the same types of power that are codified into the constitution exerted here. This constitution is none other than the constitution of the Soviet Union, as rewritten in 1977 by the Soviet Party bosses. In our quest to eliminate fear and insecurity, we almost guarantee tyranny by allowing the government to ignore and destroy the limits that have been placed on it by our Constitution.

We must immediately stop the government’s rapid lurch towards totalitarian control. The healthcare bill, the Consumer credit bill, the cap and trade bill- they are not about healthcare consumer protections or environmental stewardship, as some would lead you to believe. They are cold blooded federal power grabs, wrapped in language which conceals their true nature.

Think about what they create:

New government bureaucracies.

New government regulations.

New requirements to be lawful citizens

New products that must be bought by companies to remain lawful.

They are propped up by two lies: The free market system has failed, and carbon dioxide is a pollutant. Consider these facts:

Government regulation created the housing bubble by forcing banks to loan to people who could not afford it. Government regulation creates localized monopolies for insurance companies preventing open and honest competition. Carbon Dioxide is the gas of life, released by humans and animals and recycled by plants for oxygen. If we let them get away with such lunacy, it won’t be long until it will literally be: “Every breath we take, every child we make, they’ll be taxing us.” China was just at Copenhagen pushing for a global “one-child” policy, and this claim is echoed by “progressives” around the globe.

A few other exerts from the Soviet Constitution worth considering:

Chapter 2:11.The land, its minerals, waters, and forests are the exclusive property of the state.  The state owns the basic means of production in industry, construction, and agriculture; means of transport and communication; the banks; the property of state-run trade organisations and public utilities, and other state-run undertakings; most urban housing; and other property necessary for state purposes.

Even today, we see the state separating mineral and oil rights from our property rights. Also, consider “ANWAR” and other places where the feds refuse to issue PERMITS to tap into our own natural resources. Banking? How about the Unconstitutional granting of the powers of congress to “regulate and coin money.” Housing? How about Housing and Urban Development. Are these federal agencies and quasi agencies doing anything that is constitutional? Where in the constitution do we find the authority for the government to contract a monopoly on the money supply? Provide housing at tax payer’s expense? Forbid people to use their own resources?

Chapter 2:13.  Earned income forms the basis of the personal property of Soviet citizens.  The personal property of citizens of the USSR may include articles of everyday use, personal consumption and convenience, the implements and other objects of a small-holding, a house, and earned savings.  The personal property of citizens and the right to inherit it are protected by the state. Citizens may be granted the use of plots of land, in the manner prescribed by law, for a subsidiary small-holding (including the keeping of livestock and poultry), for fruit and vegetable growing or for building an individual dwelling.  Citizens are required to make rational use of the land allotted to them.  The state, and collective farms provide assistance to citizens in working their small-holdings. Property owned or used by citizens shall not serve as a means of deriving unearned income or be employed to the detriment of the interests of society.

Even today, we see private property rights being run over when some other use is deemed “in the interests of society.” How about eminent domain to seize private homes to build a company because it will give more taxes to the government than the private dwellings?

Chapter 2:14 The state exercises control over the measure of labour and of consumption in accordance with the principle of socialism: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work”.  It fixes the rate of taxation on taxable income. Socially useful work and its results determine a person’s status in society.  By combining material and moral incentives and encouraging innovation and a creative attitude to work, the state helps transform labour into the prime vital need of every Soviet citizen.

Even now we see consumption being controlled. Punitive taxes on cigarettes, proposed taxes on medical devices, soft drinks and so forth. The peacetime permanent federal income tax saw the beginning of regulation of incomes, small at first, it has grown to consume and redistribute ever larger chunks of our private wealth and is in the form prescribed by the Communist Manifesto:  A heavy progressive income tax.

The more power we grant government, the less freedom we have. A government, as outlined in the Soviet Constitution has unlimited power. The people under it, therefore, have no power and are little more than slaves or serfs. If we fail to check our government, if we fail to understand and stand up for our own rights, not only on election day, but every day, we will lose them to men who are working around the clock to gather to themselves absolute power.

President Barack Obama has lamented in the past that the US Constitution did not say “what the government must do on your behalf.” The US Constitution was different from others in a sense it is a “charter of negative liberties,” in the sense that it limits the ability of the government to control the lives and choices of its citizens, who were not subjects, but were endowed with inalienable rights; not from the government, but from Almighty God. However, he focused solely on the negative while ignoring the fact that positive liberties were recognized as belonging to the people such as: Freedom of speech, Press, assembly, bearing arms, due process, and many others. He had to create a false dicotomy (eg the constitution is “negative” in order to offer what he considers to be positive things the government “must do on your behalf”).

There is another Constitution, that was written much more recently than our own, which sets forth a different kind of government. One that had no negative liberties, that told explicitly what the state must do on your behalf. Before I tell you the name of the country, read through this exert and look at the broad governmental control and authority that lurks behind each of these lines:

Chapter 3: SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND CULTURE

Article 19.  The social basis of the (country name) is the unbreakable alliance of the workers, peasants, and intelligentsia. The state helps enhance the social homogeneity of society, namely the elimination of class differences and of the essential distinctions between town and country and between mental and physical labour, and the all-round development and drawing together of all the nations and nationalities of the(country name).

Article 20.  In accordance with the communist ideal–”The free development of each is the condition of the free development of all”--the state pursues the aim of giving citizens more and more real opportunities to apply their creative energies, abilities, and talents, and to develop their personalities in every way.

Article 21.  The state concerns itself with improving working conditions, safety and labour protection and the scientific organisation of work, and with reducing and ultimately eliminating all arduous physical labour through comprehensive mechanisation and automation of production processes in all branches of the economy.

Article 22.  A programme is being consistently implemented in the (country name) to convert agricultural work into a variety of industrial work, to extend the network of educational, cultural, and medical institutions, and of trade, public catering, service and public utility facilities in rural localities, and transform hamlets and villages into well-planned and well-appointed settlements.

Article 23.  The state pursues a steady policy of raising people’s pay levels and real incomes through increase in productivity. In order to satisfy the needs of (country name)’s people more fully social consumption funds are created.  The state, with the broad participation of public organisations and work collectives, ensures the growth and just distribution of these funds.

Article 24.  In the (country name), state systems of health protection, social security, trade and public catering, communal services and amenities, and public utilities, operate and are being extended. The state encourages co-operatives and other public organisations to provide all types of services for the population.  It encourages the development of mass physical culture and sport.

Article 25.  In the (country name) there is a uniform system of public education, which is being constantly improved, that provides general education and vocational training for citizens, serves the communist education and intellectual and physical development of the youth, and trains them for work and social activity.

This government, organized on communist principles took it upon itself to provide for every need of the people, and by the provision of said needs, gains absolute control over the people. Within this brief section, we see the state mandate for its duties: wealth redistribution (“eliminating class”), national health care, public schools, public jobs, state funding of culture, art, social security, sports, even shaping the mental health of the people (personality development). Ask yourself, how many of these same things do we see our own government engaging in today? Our Constitution, with its charter of negative liberties, has been ignored and subverted to grant the government the same types of power that are codified into the constitution exerted here. This constitution is none other than the constitution of the Soviet Union, as rewritten in 1977 by the Soviet Party bosses. In our quest to eliminate fear and insecurity, we almost guarantee tyranny by allowing the government to ignore and destroy the limits that have been placed on it by our Constitution.

We must immediately stop the government’s rapid lurch towards totalitarian control. The healthcare bill, the Consumer credit bill, the cap and trade bill- they are not about healthcare consumer protections or environmental stewardship, as some would lead you to believe. They are cold blooded federal power grabs, wrapped in language which conceals their true nature.

Think about what they create:

New government bureaucracies.

New government regulations.

New requirements to be lawful citizens

New products that must be bought by companies to remain lawful.

They are propped up by two lies: The free market system has failed, and carbon dioxide is a pollutant. The facts are this:

Government regulation created the housing bubble by forcing banks to loan to people who could not afford it. Government regulation creates localized monopolies for insurance companies preventing open and honest competition. Carbon Dioxide is the gas of life, released by humans and animals and recycled by plants for oxygen. If we let them get away with such lunacy, it won’t be long until it will literally be: “Every breath we take, every child we make, they’ll be taxing us.” China was just at Copenhagen pushing for a global “one-child” policy, and this claim is echoed by “progressives” around the globe.

A few other exerts from the Soviet Constitution worth considering:

Chapter 2:11.

The land, its minerals, waters, and forests are the exclusive property of the state.  The state owns the basic means of production in industry, construction, and agriculture; means of transport and communication; the banks; the property of state-run trade organisations and public utilities, and other state-run undertakings; most urban housing; and other property necessary for state purposes.

Even today, we see the state separating mineral and oil rights from our property rights. Also, consider “ANWAR” and other places where the feds refuse to issue PERMITS to tap into our own natural resources. Banking? How about the Unconstitutional granting of the powers of congress to “regulate and coin money.” Housing? How about Housing and Urban Development. Are these federal agencies and quasi agencies doing anything that is constitutional? Where in the constitution do we find the authority for the government to contract a monopoly on the money supply? Provide housing at tax payer’s expense? Forbid people to use their own resources?

Chapter 2:13.  Earned income forms the basis of the personal property of Soviet citizens.  The personal property of citizens of the USSR may include articles of everyday use, personal consumption and convenience, the implements and other objects of a small-holding, a house, and earned savings.  The personal property of citizens and the right to inherit it are protected by the state. Citizens may be granted the use of plots of land, in the manner prescribed by law, for a subsidiary small-holding (including the keeping of livestock and poultry), for fruit and vegetable growing or for building an individual dwelling.  Citizens are required to make rational use of the land allotted to them.  The state, and collective farms provide assistance to citizens in working their small-holdings. Property owned or used by citizens shall not serve as a means of deriving unearned income or be employed to the detriment of the interests of society.

Even today, we see private property rights being run over when some other use is deemed “in the interests of society.” How about eminent domain to seize private homes to build a company because it will give more taxes to the government than the private dwellings?

2:14
The state exercises control over the measure of labour and of consumption in accordance with the principle of socialism: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work”.  It fixes the rate of taxation on taxable income. Socially useful work and its results determine a person’s status in society.  By combining material and moral incentives and encouraging innovation and a creative attitude to work, the state helps transform labour into the prime vital need of every Soviet citizen.

Even now we see consumption being controlled. Punitive taxes on cigarettes, proposed taxes on medical devices, soft drinks and so forth. The peacetime permanent federal income tax saw the beginning of regulation of incomes, small at first, it has grown to consume and redistribute ever larger chunks of our private wealth and is in the form prescribed by the Communist Manifesto:  A heavy progressive income tax.

The more power we grant government, the less freedom we have. A government, as outlined in the Soviet Constitution has unlimited power. The people under it, therefore, have no power and are little more than slaves or serfs. If we fail to check our government, if we fail to understand and stand up for our own rights, not only on election day, but every day, we will lose them to men who are working around the clock to gather to themselves absolute power.

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

EPA decree constitutional?

Posted by americana83 on December 9, 2009

The Washington Times reported this:

“The Environmental Protection Agency is already holding 79 surface mining permits in West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee. The EPA says these permits could violate the Clean Water Act and warrant “enhanced” review. And, (the) agency went even further in October, announcing plans to revoke a permit for the Spruce No. 1 Mine in West Virginia.” SOURCE

Obama has not made it any secret that he opposes coal, in part because of his devotion to global warming and the globalist agenda that is supported by it. From the Whitehouse website:

“Our focus is to ensure that there is a strong science and policy basis for our environmental policy, to move the nation to greater reliance on clean energy and increase energy security, to combat global warming while growing the green economy, to protect public health and the environment, especially in vulnerable communities, and to protect and restore our great ecosystems.”– Chair Nancy Sutley.

The problem is that Obama is completely ignoring that the highest levels of the international man-caused global warming promoters have been severely compromised in their integrity, with the ClimateGate emails detailing “tricks” and attempts to suppress contrary scientists.

Some automatically assume that “global warming deniers” are self serving ideologues. However, there are people who invest in “green” technology that will only become viable when conventional energy sources are taxed and regulated beyond affordability.

However, there are strong political implications for supporters of the Global Warning agenda. Namely, in the name of the “crises” of Man-caused global warming, the UN seeks broader wealth redistribution, greater power and some global taxes to fund it.

1.4. The developmental and environmental objectives of Agenda 21 will require a substantial flow of new and additional financial resources to developing countries, in order to cover the incremental costs for the actions they have to undertake to deal with global environmental problems and to accelerate sustainable development. Financial resources are also required for strengthening the capacity of international institutions for the implementation of Agenda 21. An indicative order-of-magnitude assessment of costs is included in each of the programme areas. This assessment will need to be examined and refined by the relevant implementing agencies and organizations. Source

Global Warming lecture by Dr. Wagner here.

This is heightened by the EPA stepping over the bounds of the Constitution and declaring Carbon Dioxide a pollutant, giving it the ability to regulate it. However, creating regulations is a legislative action, and the Constitution clearly says that this ability rests with the US congress, which has stalled economy crushing cap and trade legislation. Unaccountable bureaucrats have no business creating legislation.

QUOTE:  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on Monday declared emissions of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, to be a danger to human health. That clears the way for the EPA to limit emissions, initially from power plants, refineries, cement plants and other big factories. SOURCE WSJ.com

“All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” -US constitution.  The constitution clearly says ALL federal legislative powers reside with the 2 houses of Congress.

According to the government, the EPA is an “independent” agency in the Executive branch, therefore even granting the generous  assumption that such an agency is constitutional, as part of the executive branch, it has NO constitutional authority to create regulations (legislation).

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »
 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 208 other followers