The relentless encroachment of socialism upon America’s economic, cultural and governmental landscape is like a bad dream to most red-blooded Americans. When society changes it can seem like the ineluctable drift of evolution or chance. But in the case of America’s ongoing continued expansion of government powers, spiking taxes, and shrinking military, it’s all part of a planned elitist push into socialism. And one need not believe in conspiracies when contemplating this shift. In fact, for those paying attention, it was all outlined long ago by the Fabian Socialist society, and other groups such as the Frankfurt School, as explained below.
CONTINUED: http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/print-friendly/46002
Showing posts with label control. Show all posts
Showing posts with label control. Show all posts
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Sunday, November 21, 2010
URGENT: The Hill
FCC may regulate Internet lines days before Christmas
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/130197-fcc-may-regulate-internet-lines-days-before-christmas?tmpl=component&print=1&page=
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/130197-fcc-may-regulate-internet-lines-days-before-christmas?tmpl=component&print=1&page=
Monday, October 18, 2010
Renew America--Henry Lamb
"A Republic, ma'am, if you can keep it"
By Henry Lamb
Except for a brief period during the Reagan years, America has been moving steadily toward becoming a social democracy rather than the republic our founders gave us. There is a very good reason why this is happening.
Since 1933, http://www.dflorig.com/partycontrol.htm Democrats have had complete control of government — Presidency, House and Senate — for 34 years. Republicans, on the other hand, have had control of government for a total of four years (108th and 109th Congress). Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for 56 years, while Republicans controlled both houses for only 12 years. For 22 years, the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate; none for the Republicans.
Clearly, Democrats have steered the ship of state since the Roosevelt era. While Democrats loudly blame the Republicans for all the nation's woes, it is the Democrats who must accept responsibility for the state of the nation.
As bad as things are in the United States at the moment, the United States is in far better shape than most of the rest of the world. But the nation is nowhere near as good as it would have been had the republic — and its free market — been allowed to prosper.
The "Progressive" era that arose from the writings of Marx, Lenin, and others, embraced fully by Woodrow Wilson's administration, infested the Democrat Party, and since Franklin Roosevelt, has promoted policies that advance Marxism and erodes the republican form of government designed by our founders.
The republican form of government created by our founders consists of three primary pillars: the election of representatives who make policy; the election of a president through the Electoral College; and the election of Senators by state legislatures.
All three of these pillars are under severe attack. Increasingly, state and local policies are being decided by direct vote of the people, instead of by representatives elected by the people. This is direct democracy, not the way a republic functions. Our founders carefully avoided the possibility of a direct democracy, well aware of the inevitable anarchy that always follows democracy.
The Electoral College is under severe attack. In addition to Constitutional amendment proposals being introduced into Congress that provide direct vote of the people to elect the president, there is also a powerful movement afoot at the state level to award electoral votes to candidates on a percentage basis rather than on a winner-take-all basis. This proportioned vote distribution is certainly more democratic than the winner-take-all basis. But our founders were not trying to create the most democratic process. They were creating a republic, not a democracy.
The Woodrow Wilson crowd erased one of the three pillars altogether, when it promoted and adopted the 17th Amendment. This amendment took from the states the power to elect Senators and put that power into the hands of the public. Again, singing the progressive song of advancing democracy, the voters adopted the amendment in 1913, right after the 16th amendment which gave the federal government authority to tax income. These two amendments leave the republic a faint shadow of what our founders created. Marxist-driven progressives in the Obama administration are hell-bent to completely destroy what is left of the republic.
The philosophical foundation of a republic includes the idea that people are sovereign, and the government which people create derives its power from the consent of the governed. A social democracy thrives on the idea that the government is sovereign, and may grant or deny freedom to the people as it may please government.
In a republic, the primary function of government is to protect the rights endowed to people by their Creator and to defend the people from all enemies foreign and domestic. In a social democracy, the function of government is to manage the people's behavior and activities to achieve whatever goals the government defines.
A republic recognizes that the less involvement government can have in the market place, the more prosperous that market place will be. In a social democracy, government manages the market place to achieve social objectives rather than prosperity.
Since Woodrow Wilson, the Democrat Party has led this nation further away from the republic our founders created, and steadfastly toward the Marxist utopia embraced by communists, socialists, and social democrats around the world.
The only way to retain what's left of the republic our founders gave us is to rid Washington, and state and local governments of the progressives — and replace them with people who respect, understand, and embrace the Constitution.
© Henry Lamb
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/lamb/101018
By Henry Lamb
Except for a brief period during the Reagan years, America has been moving steadily toward becoming a social democracy rather than the republic our founders gave us. There is a very good reason why this is happening.
Since 1933, http://www.dflorig.com/partycontrol.htm Democrats have had complete control of government — Presidency, House and Senate — for 34 years. Republicans, on the other hand, have had control of government for a total of four years (108th and 109th Congress). Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for 56 years, while Republicans controlled both houses for only 12 years. For 22 years, the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate; none for the Republicans.
Clearly, Democrats have steered the ship of state since the Roosevelt era. While Democrats loudly blame the Republicans for all the nation's woes, it is the Democrats who must accept responsibility for the state of the nation.
As bad as things are in the United States at the moment, the United States is in far better shape than most of the rest of the world. But the nation is nowhere near as good as it would have been had the republic — and its free market — been allowed to prosper.
The "Progressive" era that arose from the writings of Marx, Lenin, and others, embraced fully by Woodrow Wilson's administration, infested the Democrat Party, and since Franklin Roosevelt, has promoted policies that advance Marxism and erodes the republican form of government designed by our founders.
The republican form of government created by our founders consists of three primary pillars: the election of representatives who make policy; the election of a president through the Electoral College; and the election of Senators by state legislatures.
All three of these pillars are under severe attack. Increasingly, state and local policies are being decided by direct vote of the people, instead of by representatives elected by the people. This is direct democracy, not the way a republic functions. Our founders carefully avoided the possibility of a direct democracy, well aware of the inevitable anarchy that always follows democracy.
The Electoral College is under severe attack. In addition to Constitutional amendment proposals being introduced into Congress that provide direct vote of the people to elect the president, there is also a powerful movement afoot at the state level to award electoral votes to candidates on a percentage basis rather than on a winner-take-all basis. This proportioned vote distribution is certainly more democratic than the winner-take-all basis. But our founders were not trying to create the most democratic process. They were creating a republic, not a democracy.
The Woodrow Wilson crowd erased one of the three pillars altogether, when it promoted and adopted the 17th Amendment. This amendment took from the states the power to elect Senators and put that power into the hands of the public. Again, singing the progressive song of advancing democracy, the voters adopted the amendment in 1913, right after the 16th amendment which gave the federal government authority to tax income. These two amendments leave the republic a faint shadow of what our founders created. Marxist-driven progressives in the Obama administration are hell-bent to completely destroy what is left of the republic.
The philosophical foundation of a republic includes the idea that people are sovereign, and the government which people create derives its power from the consent of the governed. A social democracy thrives on the idea that the government is sovereign, and may grant or deny freedom to the people as it may please government.
In a republic, the primary function of government is to protect the rights endowed to people by their Creator and to defend the people from all enemies foreign and domestic. In a social democracy, the function of government is to manage the people's behavior and activities to achieve whatever goals the government defines.
A republic recognizes that the less involvement government can have in the market place, the more prosperous that market place will be. In a social democracy, government manages the market place to achieve social objectives rather than prosperity.
Since Woodrow Wilson, the Democrat Party has led this nation further away from the republic our founders created, and steadfastly toward the Marxist utopia embraced by communists, socialists, and social democrats around the world.
The only way to retain what's left of the republic our founders gave us is to rid Washington, and state and local governments of the progressives — and replace them with people who respect, understand, and embrace the Constitution.
© Henry Lamb
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/lamb/101018
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
Rx on Obamacare: Don't get sick | Washington Examiner
Rx on Obamacare: Don't get sick Washington Examiner
Economic experts from President Obama's own Health and Human Services Department have released a devastating report noting that Obamacare "will increase national health care spending by $311 billion from 2010-2019," according to the Associated Press. Even worse, "Medicare cuts may be unrealistic and unsustainable, driving about 15 percent of hospitals into the red and 'possibly jeopardizing access' to care for seniors." In other words, to recall the words of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Congress had to pass the bill before we could begin discovering what's in it. And what we are finding is frequently the opposite of what Obama, Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic advocates told us. Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Rx-on-Obamacare_-Don_t-get-sick-92050239.html#ixzz0mDKewjmI
Economic experts from President Obama's own Health and Human Services Department have released a devastating report noting that Obamacare "will increase national health care spending by $311 billion from 2010-2019," according to the Associated Press. Even worse, "Medicare cuts may be unrealistic and unsustainable, driving about 15 percent of hospitals into the red and 'possibly jeopardizing access' to care for seniors." In other words, to recall the words of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Congress had to pass the bill before we could begin discovering what's in it. And what we are finding is frequently the opposite of what Obama, Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic advocates told us. Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Rx-on-Obamacare_-Don_t-get-sick-92050239.html#ixzz0mDKewjmI
Monday, April 12, 2010
Obama going off the deep end
By Floyd and Mary Beth Brown
Commentary -- April 10, 2010
A recent analysis by Roger Simon of PJTV Media maintains that Obama is showing signs of mental illness. A wide variety of commentators have observed that Obama displays severe narcissism. Obama is conceited, and he is demonstrating a serious disassociation from reality.
A recent case in point was Obama's bizarre and meandering 17-minute, 2,500-word answer to the simple question about how he could justify raising taxes for ObamaCare during a recession when citizens are already overtaxed. Obama's wildly inappropriate answer left the audience stunned and led commentator Charles Krauthammer to mockingly say, "I don't know why you are so surprised. It’s only nine times the length of the Gettysburg address, and after all Lincoln was answering an easier question, the higher purpose of the union and the soldiers who fell in battle."
This lapse of delusion occurred in front of a friendly audience. Overall, Barack Obama seems to be slipping into a slightly more delusional state these days.
On Monday, following his embarrassing answer on Saturday, Obama stopped by the Washington Nationals home opener to loft an effeminate toss toward home plate constituting the ceremonial first pitch. After this display, Obama was mucking it up in the press booth talking about his love of the Chicago White Sox. The announcers asked Obama which players he supported growing up a White Sox fan. After hemming and hawing for about 30 seconds, Obama responded that he grew up in Hawaii and was actually an A's fan. Again, he avoided mentioning any players by name. Obama seems to believe that he can say whatever he wants, and not reap the consequences or be forced to defend his empty assertions. Obama behaves in a manner so disconnected from reality that he is shocked when someone has the audacity to question him. Obama acts like his word is infallible.
In March of last year Obama was on “60 Minutes” with Steve Kroft. Throughout the interview as Kroft questioned about the economic downturn and people losing their life savings, Obama just kept laughing. A one point CBS’s Kroft stopped him and asked, “Are you punch drunk?" How will the American people react to seeing their president laugh off their predicament? Obama’s inappropriate laughter clearly demonstrated he has lost touch with the pain that people are feeling.
Obama portrays himself as the larger-than-life figure towering above the political fray. At the summit when Obama was pushing his health care package through Congress, he attempted to act as if he were the chief arbiter of truth. With petty insults, he slapped down what the Republicans proposed and audaciously claimed his was a “bipartisan bill.” Obama distorts the truth with such frequency that one must start to question if Obama even realizes he is lying or is so disassociated from the truth that he believes what he says.
A further example of Obama’s delusions of grandeur occurred when he gave himself a “good solid B plus.” Believing that his presidency was an above average success when America is hurting is absurd. Obama went so far as to claim that he would give himself an “A” once health care was passed. Obama is not living in the same reality as the rest of us.
As Charles Krauthammer wrote, “Not that Obama considers himself divine. (He sees himself as merely messianic, or, at worst, apostolic.) But he does position himself as hovering above mere mortals, mere country, to gaze benignly upon the darkling plain beneath him where ignorant armies clash by night, blind to the common humanity that only he can see."
Obama sees himself as the greatest man to be president in all time. He truly believes it when he said "we are the ones we have been waiting for," and "this is the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and the planet began to heal." He believes that he can do anything he pleases and the people will love him for it. Obama plans to radically transform this country and go down in history as, in his mind, the greatest ever. Obama is clearly disconnected from reality.
Obama is, according to Newt Gingrich, “potentially the most dangerous (president), because he so completely misunderstands reality.” Gingrich was referring to Obama’s inept and weak stance on missile defense amongst other things. Even Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that Obama is an amateur; so much for wowing the world. Obama lives in an alternate universe where he treats our friends poorly and expects our enemies to change and become our friends. Here’s hoping that the voters help to connect this president back to reality in November.
The Browns are bestselling authors and speakers. Together they write a national weekly column distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate. Floyd is also president of the Western Center for Journalism. They can be reached at browns@caglecartoons.com.
East Valley Tribune: http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/152636
Commentary -- April 10, 2010
A recent analysis by Roger Simon of PJTV Media maintains that Obama is showing signs of mental illness. A wide variety of commentators have observed that Obama displays severe narcissism. Obama is conceited, and he is demonstrating a serious disassociation from reality.
A recent case in point was Obama's bizarre and meandering 17-minute, 2,500-word answer to the simple question about how he could justify raising taxes for ObamaCare during a recession when citizens are already overtaxed. Obama's wildly inappropriate answer left the audience stunned and led commentator Charles Krauthammer to mockingly say, "I don't know why you are so surprised. It’s only nine times the length of the Gettysburg address, and after all Lincoln was answering an easier question, the higher purpose of the union and the soldiers who fell in battle."
This lapse of delusion occurred in front of a friendly audience. Overall, Barack Obama seems to be slipping into a slightly more delusional state these days.
On Monday, following his embarrassing answer on Saturday, Obama stopped by the Washington Nationals home opener to loft an effeminate toss toward home plate constituting the ceremonial first pitch. After this display, Obama was mucking it up in the press booth talking about his love of the Chicago White Sox. The announcers asked Obama which players he supported growing up a White Sox fan. After hemming and hawing for about 30 seconds, Obama responded that he grew up in Hawaii and was actually an A's fan. Again, he avoided mentioning any players by name. Obama seems to believe that he can say whatever he wants, and not reap the consequences or be forced to defend his empty assertions. Obama behaves in a manner so disconnected from reality that he is shocked when someone has the audacity to question him. Obama acts like his word is infallible.
In March of last year Obama was on “60 Minutes” with Steve Kroft. Throughout the interview as Kroft questioned about the economic downturn and people losing their life savings, Obama just kept laughing. A one point CBS’s Kroft stopped him and asked, “Are you punch drunk?" How will the American people react to seeing their president laugh off their predicament? Obama’s inappropriate laughter clearly demonstrated he has lost touch with the pain that people are feeling.
Obama portrays himself as the larger-than-life figure towering above the political fray. At the summit when Obama was pushing his health care package through Congress, he attempted to act as if he were the chief arbiter of truth. With petty insults, he slapped down what the Republicans proposed and audaciously claimed his was a “bipartisan bill.” Obama distorts the truth with such frequency that one must start to question if Obama even realizes he is lying or is so disassociated from the truth that he believes what he says.
A further example of Obama’s delusions of grandeur occurred when he gave himself a “good solid B plus.” Believing that his presidency was an above average success when America is hurting is absurd. Obama went so far as to claim that he would give himself an “A” once health care was passed. Obama is not living in the same reality as the rest of us.
As Charles Krauthammer wrote, “Not that Obama considers himself divine. (He sees himself as merely messianic, or, at worst, apostolic.) But he does position himself as hovering above mere mortals, mere country, to gaze benignly upon the darkling plain beneath him where ignorant armies clash by night, blind to the common humanity that only he can see."
Obama sees himself as the greatest man to be president in all time. He truly believes it when he said "we are the ones we have been waiting for," and "this is the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and the planet began to heal." He believes that he can do anything he pleases and the people will love him for it. Obama plans to radically transform this country and go down in history as, in his mind, the greatest ever. Obama is clearly disconnected from reality.
Obama is, according to Newt Gingrich, “potentially the most dangerous (president), because he so completely misunderstands reality.” Gingrich was referring to Obama’s inept and weak stance on missile defense amongst other things. Even Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that Obama is an amateur; so much for wowing the world. Obama lives in an alternate universe where he treats our friends poorly and expects our enemies to change and become our friends. Here’s hoping that the voters help to connect this president back to reality in November.
The Browns are bestselling authors and speakers. Together they write a national weekly column distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate. Floyd is also president of the Western Center for Journalism. They can be reached at browns@caglecartoons.com.
East Valley Tribune: http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/152636
Monday, March 29, 2010
REPUBLIC vs. DEMOCRACY
REPUBLIC vs. DEMOCRACY
________________________________________
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands,
one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
SUMMARY
In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "democracy." I invite you to join me in raising public awareness regarding that distinction.
A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.
Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. [NOTE: The word "people" may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.]
Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. [NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.]
The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.
The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. (see People's rights vs Citizens' rights)
In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.
SOME DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS
Government. ....the government is but an agency of the state, distinguished as it must be in accurate thought from its scheme and machinery of government. ....In a colloquial sense, the United States or its representatives, considered as the prosecutor in a criminal action; as in the phrase, "the government objects to the witness." [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 625]
Government; Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626]
Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389.
Note: Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, can be found in any law library and most law offices.
COMMENTS
Notice that in a Democracy, the sovereignty is in the whole body of the free citizens. The sovereignty is not divided to smaller units such as individual citizens. To solve a problem, only the whole body politic is authorized to act. Also, being citizens, individuals have duties and obligations to the government. The government's only obligations to the citizens are those legislatively pre-defined for it by the whole body politic.
In a Republic, the sovereignty resides in the people themselves, whether one or many. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives as he chooses to solve a problem. Further, the people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government being hired by the people, is obliged to its owner, the people.
The people own the government agencies. The government agencies own the citizens. In the United States we have a three-tiered cast system consisting of people ---> government agencies ---> and citizens.
The people did "ordain and establish this Constitution," not for themselves, but "for the United States of America." In delegating powers to the government agencies the people gave up none of their own. (See Preamble of U.S. Constitution). This adoption of this concept is why the U.S. has been called the "Great Experiment in self government." The People govern themselves, while their agents (government agencies) perform tasks listed in the Preamble for the benefit of the People. The experiment is to answer the question, "Can self-governing people coexist and prevail over government agencies that have no authority over the People?"
The citizens of the United States are totally subject to the laws of the United States (See 14th Amendment of U.S. Constitution). NOTE: U.S. citizenship did not exist until July 28, 1868.
Actually, the United States is a mixture of the two systems of government (Republican under Common Law, and democratic under statutory law). The People enjoy their God-given natural rights in the Republic. In a democracy, the Citizens enjoy only government granted privileges (also known as civil rights).
There was a great political division between two major philosophers, Hobbes and Locke. Hobbes was on the side of government. He believed that sovereignty was vested in the state. Locke was on the side of the People. He believed that the fountain of sovereignty was the People of the state. Statists prefer Hobbes. Populists choose Locke. In California, the Government Code sides with Locke. Sections 11120 and 54950 both say, "The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them." The preambles of the U.S. and California Constitutions also affirm the choice of Locke by the People.
It is my hope that the U.S. will always remain a Republic, because I value individual freedom.
Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and ignorance cannot coexist.* Will you help to preserve minority rights by fulfilling the promise in the Pledge of Allegiance to support the Republic? Will you help by raising public awareness of the difference between the Republic and a democracy?
* "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson, 1816.
MORE LAWNOTES
http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm
________________________________________
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands,
one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
SUMMARY
In the Pledge of Allegiance we all pledge allegiance to our Republic, not to a democracy. "Republic" is the proper description of our government, not "democracy." I invite you to join me in raising public awareness regarding that distinction.
A republic and a democracy are identical in every aspect except one. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group.
Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. [NOTE: The word "people" may be either plural or singular. In a republic the group only has advisory powers; the sovereign individual is free to reject the majority group-think. USA/exception: if 100% of a jury convicts, then the individual loses sovereignty and is subject to group-think as in a democracy.]
Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. [NOTE: In a pure democracy, 51% beats 49%. In other words, the minority has no rights. The minority only has those privileges granted by the dictatorship of the majority.]
________________________________________
The distinction between our Republic and a democracy is not an idle one. It has great legal significance.
The Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government (Art. 4, Sec. 4). No state may join the United States unless it is a Republic. Our Republic is one dedicated to "liberty and justice for all." Minority individual rights are the priority. The people have natural rights instead of civil rights. The people are protected by the Bill of Rights from the majority. One vote in a jury can stop all of the majority from depriving any one of the people of his rights; this would not be so if the United States were a democracy. (see People's rights vs Citizens' rights)
In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Only five of the U.S. Constitution's first ten amendments apply to Citizens of the United States. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.
SOME DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS
Government. ....the government is but an agency of the state, distinguished as it must be in accurate thought from its scheme and machinery of government. ....In a colloquial sense, the United States or its representatives, considered as the prosecutor in a criminal action; as in the phrase, "the government objects to the witness." [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 625]
Government; Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627. [Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626]
Democracy. That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens directly or indirectly through a system of representation, as distinguished from a monarchy, aristocracy, or oligarchy. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, pp. 388-389.
Note: Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, can be found in any law library and most law offices.
COMMENTS
Notice that in a Democracy, the sovereignty is in the whole body of the free citizens. The sovereignty is not divided to smaller units such as individual citizens. To solve a problem, only the whole body politic is authorized to act. Also, being citizens, individuals have duties and obligations to the government. The government's only obligations to the citizens are those legislatively pre-defined for it by the whole body politic.
In a Republic, the sovereignty resides in the people themselves, whether one or many. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives as he chooses to solve a problem. Further, the people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government being hired by the people, is obliged to its owner, the people.
The people own the government agencies. The government agencies own the citizens. In the United States we have a three-tiered cast system consisting of people ---> government agencies ---> and citizens.
The people did "ordain and establish this Constitution," not for themselves, but "for the United States of America." In delegating powers to the government agencies the people gave up none of their own. (See Preamble of U.S. Constitution). This adoption of this concept is why the U.S. has been called the "Great Experiment in self government." The People govern themselves, while their agents (government agencies) perform tasks listed in the Preamble for the benefit of the People. The experiment is to answer the question, "Can self-governing people coexist and prevail over government agencies that have no authority over the People?"
The citizens of the United States are totally subject to the laws of the United States (See 14th Amendment of U.S. Constitution). NOTE: U.S. citizenship did not exist until July 28, 1868.
Actually, the United States is a mixture of the two systems of government (Republican under Common Law, and democratic under statutory law). The People enjoy their God-given natural rights in the Republic. In a democracy, the Citizens enjoy only government granted privileges (also known as civil rights).
There was a great political division between two major philosophers, Hobbes and Locke. Hobbes was on the side of government. He believed that sovereignty was vested in the state. Locke was on the side of the People. He believed that the fountain of sovereignty was the People of the state. Statists prefer Hobbes. Populists choose Locke. In California, the Government Code sides with Locke. Sections 11120 and 54950 both say, "The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them." The preambles of the U.S. and California Constitutions also affirm the choice of Locke by the People.
It is my hope that the U.S. will always remain a Republic, because I value individual freedom.
Thomas Jefferson said that liberty and ignorance cannot coexist.* Will you help to preserve minority rights by fulfilling the promise in the Pledge of Allegiance to support the Republic? Will you help by raising public awareness of the difference between the Republic and a democracy?
________________________________________
* "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -- Thomas Jefferson, 1816.
________________________________________
MORE LAWNOTES
http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm
Friday, March 26, 2010
Obama Just Got His Private Army
Obama Just Got His Private Army
By: Nancy Matthis at American Daughter
Remember when Obama said he wanted a “national security force?” Not the national guard, but a civilian one that has not sworn to uphold the Constitution? On July 2, 2008 in a speech in Colorado Springs, Barack Obama called for a police state.
Remember that first alarming glimpse of what that army might look like? Notice how much these “Hitler youth” type young men talk about health care!
Obama just got his private army…
…And no one seems to have noticed. It is buried in the Senate revisions to the health care bill.
Subtitle C–Increasing the Supply of the Health Care Workforce Sec. 5201. Federally supported student loan funds. Sec. 5202. Nursing student loan program. Sec. 5203. Health care workforce loan repayment programs. Sec. 5204. Public health workforce recruitment and retention programs. Sec. 5205. Allied health workforce recruitment and retention programs. Sec. 5206. Grants for State and local programs. Sec. 5207. Funding for National Health Service Corps. Sec. 5208. Nurse-managed health clinics. Sec. 5209. Elimination of cap on commissioned corps. Sec. 5210. Establishing a Ready Reserve Corps.Subtitle D–Enhancing Health Care Workforce Education and Training
See the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act, page 1312:
SEC. 5210. ESTABLISHING A READY RESERVE CORPS.Section 203 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 204) is amended to read as follows:SEC. 203. COMMISSIONED CORPS AND READY RESERVE CORPS.(a) ESTABLISHMENT–(1) IN GENERAL.–here shall be in the Service a commissioned Regular Corps and a Ready Reserve Corps for service in time of national emergency.(2) REQUIREMENT.–All commissioned officers shall be citizens of the United States and shall be appointed without regard to the civil-service laws and compensated without regard to the Classification Act 2 of 1923, as amended.(3) APPOINTMENT.–Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall be appointed by the President and commissioned officers of the Regular Corps shall be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.(4) ACTIVE DUTY.–Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall at all times be subject to call to active duty by the Surgeon General, including active duty for the purpose of training.(5) WARRANT OFFICERS.–Warrant officers may be appointed to the Service for the purpose of providing support to the health and delivery systems maintained by the Service and any warrant officer appointed to the Service shall be considered for purposes of this Act and title 37, United States Code, to be a commissioned officer within the Commissioned Corps of the Service.(b) ASSIMILATING RESERVE CORP OFFICERS INTO THE REGULAR CORPS.—Effective on the date of enactment of the Affordable Health Choices Act, all individuals classified as officers in the Reserve Corps under this section (as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of such Act) and serving on active duty shall be deemed to be commissioned officers of the Regular Corps.
[Note here that those personally appointed by BO -- without advice and consent of the Senate -- automatically become a part of the Regular Corps. Ed.]
(c) PURPOSE AND USE OF READY RESERVE.–(1) PURPOSE.–The purpose of the Ready Reserve Corps is to fulfill the need to have additional Commissioned Corps personnel available on short notice (similar to the uniformed service’s reserve program) to assist regular Commissioned Corps personnel to meet both routine public health and emergency response missions.(2) USES.–The Ready Reserve Corps shall–(A) participate in routine training to meet the general and specific needs of the Commissioned Corps;(B) be available and ready for involuntary calls to active duty during national emergencies and public health crises, similar to the uniformed service reserve personnel;(C) be available for backfilling critical positions left vacant during deployment of active duty Commissioned Corps members, as well as for deployment to respond to public health emergencies, both foreign and domestic; and(D) be available for service assignment in isolated, hardship, and medically underserved communities (as defined in section 399SS) to improve access to health services.(d) FUNDING.—For the purpose of carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the Commissioned Corps under this section, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to the Office of the Surgeon General for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014. Funds appropriated under this subsection shall be used for recruitment and training of Commissioned Corps Officers.
How many of you, dear readers, were aware of the fact that the health care bill created another army?
See more:
By: Nancy Matthis at American Daughter
Remember when Obama said he wanted a “national security force?” Not the national guard, but a civilian one that has not sworn to uphold the Constitution? On July 2, 2008 in a speech in Colorado Springs, Barack Obama called for a police state.
Remember that first alarming glimpse of what that army might look like? Notice how much these “Hitler youth” type young men talk about health care!
Obama just got his private army…
…And no one seems to have noticed. It is buried in the Senate revisions to the health care bill.
Subtitle C–Increasing the Supply of the Health Care Workforce Sec. 5201. Federally supported student loan funds. Sec. 5202. Nursing student loan program. Sec. 5203. Health care workforce loan repayment programs. Sec. 5204. Public health workforce recruitment and retention programs. Sec. 5205. Allied health workforce recruitment and retention programs. Sec. 5206. Grants for State and local programs. Sec. 5207. Funding for National Health Service Corps. Sec. 5208. Nurse-managed health clinics. Sec. 5209. Elimination of cap on commissioned corps. Sec. 5210. Establishing a Ready Reserve Corps.Subtitle D–Enhancing Health Care Workforce Education and Training
See the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act, page 1312:
SEC. 5210. ESTABLISHING A READY RESERVE CORPS.Section 203 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 204) is amended to read as follows:SEC. 203. COMMISSIONED CORPS AND READY RESERVE CORPS.(a) ESTABLISHMENT–(1) IN GENERAL.–here shall be in the Service a commissioned Regular Corps and a Ready Reserve Corps for service in time of national emergency.(2) REQUIREMENT.–All commissioned officers shall be citizens of the United States and shall be appointed without regard to the civil-service laws and compensated without regard to the Classification Act 2 of 1923, as amended.(3) APPOINTMENT.–Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall be appointed by the President and commissioned officers of the Regular Corps shall be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.(4) ACTIVE DUTY.–Commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corps shall at all times be subject to call to active duty by the Surgeon General, including active duty for the purpose of training.(5) WARRANT OFFICERS.–Warrant officers may be appointed to the Service for the purpose of providing support to the health and delivery systems maintained by the Service and any warrant officer appointed to the Service shall be considered for purposes of this Act and title 37, United States Code, to be a commissioned officer within the Commissioned Corps of the Service.(b) ASSIMILATING RESERVE CORP OFFICERS INTO THE REGULAR CORPS.—Effective on the date of enactment of the Affordable Health Choices Act, all individuals classified as officers in the Reserve Corps under this section (as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of such Act) and serving on active duty shall be deemed to be commissioned officers of the Regular Corps.
[Note here that those personally appointed by BO -- without advice and consent of the Senate -- automatically become a part of the Regular Corps. Ed.]
(c) PURPOSE AND USE OF READY RESERVE.–(1) PURPOSE.–The purpose of the Ready Reserve Corps is to fulfill the need to have additional Commissioned Corps personnel available on short notice (similar to the uniformed service’s reserve program) to assist regular Commissioned Corps personnel to meet both routine public health and emergency response missions.(2) USES.–The Ready Reserve Corps shall–(A) participate in routine training to meet the general and specific needs of the Commissioned Corps;(B) be available and ready for involuntary calls to active duty during national emergencies and public health crises, similar to the uniformed service reserve personnel;(C) be available for backfilling critical positions left vacant during deployment of active duty Commissioned Corps members, as well as for deployment to respond to public health emergencies, both foreign and domestic; and(D) be available for service assignment in isolated, hardship, and medically underserved communities (as defined in section 399SS) to improve access to health services.(d) FUNDING.—For the purpose of carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the Commissioned Corps under this section, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to the Office of the Surgeon General for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014. Funds appropriated under this subsection shall be used for recruitment and training of Commissioned Corps Officers.
How many of you, dear readers, were aware of the fact that the health care bill created another army?
See more:
Thursday, March 25, 2010
State AGs Miss Target with Health Care Lawsuit says the Tenth Amendment Center
State AGs Miss Target with Health Care Lawsuit says the Tenth Amendment Center
Thu, 03/25/2010 - 2:14pm posted by Brett Bittner
I received this press release yesterday from the Tenth Amendment Center, and I think that it gives calls attention to the long-forgotten ideas of nullification and interposition with regard to ObamaCare:
“Prominent founders such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison warned us that if the federal government ever became the sole and exclusive arbiter of its own powers, those powers would continue to grow, regardless of elections, courts, separation of powers or other much-vaunted checks and balances in our system,” said Michael Boldin, founder of the Tenth Amendment Center.
Nullification, according to the Center, is the rightful remedy to an unconstitutional act, as it considers the recently-signed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to be. When a state nullifies a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or non-effective, within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.
Today, the Tenth Amendment Center announced a different strategy for activists and state government. “We are pleased to announce model nullification legislation that is crafted to specifically address the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on a state level,” Boldin said. “We encourage grassroots activists and state legislators alike to work to get this bill passed in their home states.”
The legislation, the Federal Health Care Nullification Act, would codify in state law that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act “is not authorized by the Constitution of the United States…is hereby declared to be invalid…shall not be recognized…is specifically rejected…and shall be considered null and void and of no effect” within the boundaries of any state enacting it. It also mandates that it “shall be the duty” of the State’s legislature “to adopt and enact any and all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement.”
“The greatest problem with relying on lawsuits by state Attorney’s General for Constitutional protection is the reality that the Supreme Court has set years and years of bad precedent, allowing the federal government to control many aspects of our lives that the Founders and Ratifiers never authorized,” said Boldin. “The real question we must ask is this,” he continued, “Does the Constitution mean what the founders said it means, or does it mean what the Supreme Court says it means…until it changes its mind?”
“Like any legal document, the words of the Constitution mean today the same as they meant the moment it was ratified,” said Boldin. “The Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause have not been amended, and the original Constitutional meanings of those clauses do not permit the federal government to exercise such powers.”
According to the Center, on a political level, the new health care reform legislation not only violates conservative principles by greatly enlarging federal power and control, but also is an affront to traditional progressive principles because it requires millions of people to their money to an industry that many liberals revile, and interferes with the ability of states and local communities from enacting their own health care programs as they see fit.
“It’s time to remind the federal government that We the People are in charge and not the other way around,” said Boldin. “Following the Constitution every issue, every time, without exceptions or excuses requires us to resist federal overreach and keeping our health care decisions where the Founders assured us that they’d be and where they belong…close to home.”
About the Tenth Amendment Center: The Tenth Amendment Center, a Los Angeles-based think tank founded in 2006, acts as an educational forum on issues related to the 10th Amendment and Constitutional governance. http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/
If the ideas this proposal interest you, I STRONGLY recommend seeking out work done by Thomas Woods of the Ludwig von Mises Institute with regard to the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. Also, he will be releasing a book on the subjects of nullification and interposition this year.
http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/5375-state-ags-miss-target-with-health-care-lawsuit-says-the-tenth-amendment-center
Thu, 03/25/2010 - 2:14pm posted by Brett Bittner
I received this press release yesterday from the Tenth Amendment Center, and I think that it gives calls attention to the long-forgotten ideas of nullification and interposition with regard to ObamaCare:
“Prominent founders such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison warned us that if the federal government ever became the sole and exclusive arbiter of its own powers, those powers would continue to grow, regardless of elections, courts, separation of powers or other much-vaunted checks and balances in our system,” said Michael Boldin, founder of the Tenth Amendment Center.
Nullification, according to the Center, is the rightful remedy to an unconstitutional act, as it considers the recently-signed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to be. When a state nullifies a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or non-effective, within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.
Today, the Tenth Amendment Center announced a different strategy for activists and state government. “We are pleased to announce model nullification legislation that is crafted to specifically address the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on a state level,” Boldin said. “We encourage grassroots activists and state legislators alike to work to get this bill passed in their home states.”
The legislation, the Federal Health Care Nullification Act, would codify in state law that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act “is not authorized by the Constitution of the United States…is hereby declared to be invalid…shall not be recognized…is specifically rejected…and shall be considered null and void and of no effect” within the boundaries of any state enacting it. It also mandates that it “shall be the duty” of the State’s legislature “to adopt and enact any and all measures as may be necessary to prevent the enforcement.”
“The greatest problem with relying on lawsuits by state Attorney’s General for Constitutional protection is the reality that the Supreme Court has set years and years of bad precedent, allowing the federal government to control many aspects of our lives that the Founders and Ratifiers never authorized,” said Boldin. “The real question we must ask is this,” he continued, “Does the Constitution mean what the founders said it means, or does it mean what the Supreme Court says it means…until it changes its mind?”
“Like any legal document, the words of the Constitution mean today the same as they meant the moment it was ratified,” said Boldin. “The Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause have not been amended, and the original Constitutional meanings of those clauses do not permit the federal government to exercise such powers.”
According to the Center, on a political level, the new health care reform legislation not only violates conservative principles by greatly enlarging federal power and control, but also is an affront to traditional progressive principles because it requires millions of people to their money to an industry that many liberals revile, and interferes with the ability of states and local communities from enacting their own health care programs as they see fit.
“It’s time to remind the federal government that We the People are in charge and not the other way around,” said Boldin. “Following the Constitution every issue, every time, without exceptions or excuses requires us to resist federal overreach and keeping our health care decisions where the Founders assured us that they’d be and where they belong…close to home.”
About the Tenth Amendment Center: The Tenth Amendment Center, a Los Angeles-based think tank founded in 2006, acts as an educational forum on issues related to the 10th Amendment and Constitutional governance. http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/
If the ideas this proposal interest you, I STRONGLY recommend seeking out work done by Thomas Woods of the Ludwig von Mises Institute with regard to the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. Also, he will be releasing a book on the subjects of nullification and interposition this year.
http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/5375-state-ags-miss-target-with-health-care-lawsuit-says-the-tenth-amendment-center
WE ARE A REPUBLIC!
Congressmen and other elected officials on both sides, sometimes get angry or nasty messages, calls and letters. It is a fact of life. As a matter of fact, I got a nasty, nasty phone call from a liberal myself recently. Bush’s administration got plenty! So why is it such a big deal now, when it is the Democrats? Guilt for pushing this country into socialism? Shock that people don’t agree? Nah, we been telling em! I am sorry folks, but telling someone who just funded the murder of children and set this country on a path of destruction, that they are a piece of sh%& and that there are people who wish them ill, -- is not the same as threatening them harm!
Now I don’t condone threats or violence, even in cases of ignorance. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters -- "Clearly our democracy is about participation. Our democracy is about differing and debate, and animated debate and passionate debate -- but it is not about violence," he added. "It is about making sure that everybody in America feels free to express their opinion ... without subjecting themselves their family or others to behavior, and frankly criminal behavior, in some respects, that undermines our democracy."
How about we all contact Hoyer’s office and explain to him that we are a REPUBLIC, not a DEMOCRACY. A Republic is governed by law, a Democracy by majority.
REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER!
Lynn Childs
Now I don’t condone threats or violence, even in cases of ignorance. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters -- "Clearly our democracy is about participation. Our democracy is about differing and debate, and animated debate and passionate debate -- but it is not about violence," he added. "It is about making sure that everybody in America feels free to express their opinion ... without subjecting themselves their family or others to behavior, and frankly criminal behavior, in some respects, that undermines our democracy."
How about we all contact Hoyer’s office and explain to him that we are a REPUBLIC, not a DEMOCRACY. A Republic is governed by law, a Democracy by majority.
REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER!
Lynn Childs
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Constitutional Awakening
Constitutional Awakening
by Walter E. Williams
If there is anything good to say about Democrat control of the White House, Senate and House of Representatives, it's that their extraordinarily brazen, heavy-handed acts have aroused a level of constitutional interest among the American people that has been dormant for far too long. Part of this heightened interest is seen in the strength of the tea party movement around the nation. Another is the angry reception that many congressmen received at their district town hall meetings. Yet another is seen by the exchanges on the nation's most popular radio talk shows such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and others. Then there's the rising popularity of conservative/libertarian television shows such as Glenn Beck, John Stossel and Fox News.
While the odds on favorite is that the Republicans will do well in the fall elections, Americans who want constitutional government should not see Republican control as a solution to what our founders would have called "a long train of abuses and usurpations." Solutions to our nation's problems require correct diagnostics and answers to questions like: Why did 2008 presidential and congressional candidates spend over $5 billion campaigning for office? Why did special interests pay Washington lobbyists over $3 billion that same year? What are reasons why corporations, unions and other interest groups fork over these billions of dollars to lobbyists and into the campaign coffers of politicians?
One might say that these groups are simply extraordinarily civic-minded Americans who have a deep and abiding interest in elected officials living up to their oath of office to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. Another response is these politicians, and the people who spend billions of dollars on them, just love participating in the political process. If you believe either of these explanations, you're probably a candidate for some medicine, a straitjacket and a padded cell.
A far better explanation for the billions going to the campaign coffers of Washington politicians and lobbyist lies in the awesome government power and control over business, property, employment and other areas of our lives. Having such power, Washington politicians are in the position to grant favors and commit acts that if committed by a private person would land him in jail.
Here's one among thousands of examples: Incandescent light bulbs are far more convenient and less expensive than compact fluorescent bulbs (CFL) that General Electric now produces. So how can General Electric sell its costly CFLs? They know that Congress has the power to outlaw incandescent light bulbs. General Electric was the prominent lobbyist for outlawing incandescent light bulbs and in 2008 had a $20 million lobbying budget. Also, it should come as no surprise that General Electric is a contributor to global warmers who help convince Congress that incandescent bulbs were destroying the planet.
The greater Congress' ability to grant favors and take one American's earnings to give to another American, the greater the value of influencing congressional decision-making. There's no better influence than money. The generic favor sought is to get Congress, under one ruse or another, to grant a privilege or right to one group of Americans that will be denied another group of Americans.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi covering up for a corrupt Ways and Means Committee Chairman, Charles Rangel, said that while his behavior "was a violation of the rules of the House. It was not something that jeopardized our country in any way." Pelosi is right in minimizing Rangel's corruption. It pales in comparison, in terms of harm to our nation, to the legalized corruption that's a part of Washington's daily dealing.
Hopefully, our nation's constitutional reawaking will begin to deliver us from the precipice. There is no constitutional authority for two-thirds to three-quarters of what Congress does. Our constitution's father, James Madison, explained, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined ... (to be) exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."
Copyright © 2010 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
http://townhall.com/Common/PrintPage.aspx?g=63ef6e7f-29e4-49ac-9c10-299ccac6327d&t=c
by Walter E. Williams
If there is anything good to say about Democrat control of the White House, Senate and House of Representatives, it's that their extraordinarily brazen, heavy-handed acts have aroused a level of constitutional interest among the American people that has been dormant for far too long. Part of this heightened interest is seen in the strength of the tea party movement around the nation. Another is the angry reception that many congressmen received at their district town hall meetings. Yet another is seen by the exchanges on the nation's most popular radio talk shows such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and others. Then there's the rising popularity of conservative/libertarian television shows such as Glenn Beck, John Stossel and Fox News.
While the odds on favorite is that the Republicans will do well in the fall elections, Americans who want constitutional government should not see Republican control as a solution to what our founders would have called "a long train of abuses and usurpations." Solutions to our nation's problems require correct diagnostics and answers to questions like: Why did 2008 presidential and congressional candidates spend over $5 billion campaigning for office? Why did special interests pay Washington lobbyists over $3 billion that same year? What are reasons why corporations, unions and other interest groups fork over these billions of dollars to lobbyists and into the campaign coffers of politicians?
One might say that these groups are simply extraordinarily civic-minded Americans who have a deep and abiding interest in elected officials living up to their oath of office to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. Another response is these politicians, and the people who spend billions of dollars on them, just love participating in the political process. If you believe either of these explanations, you're probably a candidate for some medicine, a straitjacket and a padded cell.
A far better explanation for the billions going to the campaign coffers of Washington politicians and lobbyist lies in the awesome government power and control over business, property, employment and other areas of our lives. Having such power, Washington politicians are in the position to grant favors and commit acts that if committed by a private person would land him in jail.
Here's one among thousands of examples: Incandescent light bulbs are far more convenient and less expensive than compact fluorescent bulbs (CFL) that General Electric now produces. So how can General Electric sell its costly CFLs? They know that Congress has the power to outlaw incandescent light bulbs. General Electric was the prominent lobbyist for outlawing incandescent light bulbs and in 2008 had a $20 million lobbying budget. Also, it should come as no surprise that General Electric is a contributor to global warmers who help convince Congress that incandescent bulbs were destroying the planet.
The greater Congress' ability to grant favors and take one American's earnings to give to another American, the greater the value of influencing congressional decision-making. There's no better influence than money. The generic favor sought is to get Congress, under one ruse or another, to grant a privilege or right to one group of Americans that will be denied another group of Americans.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi covering up for a corrupt Ways and Means Committee Chairman, Charles Rangel, said that while his behavior "was a violation of the rules of the House. It was not something that jeopardized our country in any way." Pelosi is right in minimizing Rangel's corruption. It pales in comparison, in terms of harm to our nation, to the legalized corruption that's a part of Washington's daily dealing.
Hopefully, our nation's constitutional reawaking will begin to deliver us from the precipice. There is no constitutional authority for two-thirds to three-quarters of what Congress does. Our constitution's father, James Madison, explained, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined ... (to be) exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce."
Copyright © 2010 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
http://townhall.com/Common/PrintPage.aspx?g=63ef6e7f-29e4-49ac-9c10-299ccac6327d&t=c
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
