Forget all the self-serving diatribes by Republicans about Obamacare. They are for government enforced health care. “Republicans were for President Barack Obama’s requirement that Americans get health insurance before they were against it,” the Associated Press reports this morning.
Republicans trumpeted the “obligation” (at gunpoint) that Americans buy health care insurance from large monopolistic corporations for decades, long before Hill and Bill attempted to foist their version on the plebs.
Republican statists view health care at gunpoint as a “free-market route to guarantee coverage for all Americans — the answer to liberal ambitions for a government-run entitlement like Medicare.”
Of course Republicans don’t support Medicare. It does not fit the narrow confines of their partisan political ideology. Medicare was included as part of the Social Security Act of 1965, signed into law by president Lyndon B. Johnson, a Democrat.
Republicans are miffed because Obama and the Democrats co-opted their original concept, minus a mechanism they proposed for controlling costs. Republicans are not opposed to totalitarian care, they are simply opposed to the Democrat version.
If you believe Republicans are serious about controlling costs, look no further than Bush’s $3 trillion budget proposal in 2008 (a record at the time). When Bush took office, the national debt was $5.73 trillion. When he left, it was $10.7 trillion.
Mitt Romney — who was billed as the man who would save us from Obama and the “socialists” during the selection, er election — forced the residents of Massachusetts to buy health insurance. Lord Romney said government mandated health care is “a personal responsibility principle.”
Government invariably demands “personal responsibility” on the part of the plebs while it engages in corruption, starts wars under false pretense and kills millions of people, and enslaves future generations to bankster debt.
Romney’s health care at gunpoint was backed by Scott Brown, the Republican that had Democrats and the usual suspects at MSNBC and CNN chattering about a fascist rightwing takeover of Congress.
Brown replaced the late Democrat Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. It was said his appointment would almost certainly lead to the collapse of Obamacare. Brown says his opposition to the new shakedown for large insurance corporations is over tax increases, Medicare cuts and federal “over-reach” — because Democrats are doing the reaching — on a matter that should be left up to states. It was a different story when his buddy Mitt was forcing gunpoint healthcare down the throats of Massachusettans.
In the case of states’ rights, Brown might want to look at the example set by the former leader of his party, George W. Bush. The Bush administration violated the Tenth Amendment by repeatedly meddling in the states in regard to medical marijuana, the federalization of education, and state control of the National Guard.
“The idea of an individual mandate as an alternative to single-payer was a Republican idea,” health economist Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School told the Associated Press. In 1991, Pauly published a paper explaining how a “mandate” (government coercion) could be combined with tax credits to force the commoners into compliance. Pauly’s paper was embraced by the George H.W. Bush administration.
Republicans like to tell you they are opposed to taxation. Instead, they use taxes as a carrot and a stick to force government mandates down your throat.
Nixon before Bush backed the idea of a mandate that employers provide insurance. Even the Heritage Foundation back in the day supported this government imposed “individual requirement.”
Later today in Nevada, the Republican Tea Party will gather and demand the ouster of Democrat Sen. Harry Reid and the Democrats for passing Obamacare. The event will be led by the darling of the establishment Tea Party, former Alaskan governor Sarah Palin. On Friday, Tea Party Sarah threw her support behind the establishment stalwart John McCain.
McCain’s latest authoritarian outrage is the “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010″ that, if passed, would turn the country into a military dictatorship. It was introduced with the participation of the notorious warmonger Joe Lieberman. Apparently the legislation is backed by Tea Party Sarah.
The Nevada event was organized by the Tea Party Express, an organization in bed with Our Country Deserves Better PAC, which is closely affiliated with the Republican-affiliated consulting firm Russo Marsh & Associates. In other words, the event in Nevada will be strictly an establishment Republican affair. The objective is not to get rid of government enforced health care, but to get of rid of Reid and put in a Republican. It is another example of the false right-left paradigm in action.
In January, the Tea Party Express supported Scott Brown. As noted above, Brown supported Romney’s version of Obamacare in Massachusetts.
Republicans will shamelessly exploit the compromised Tea Party and the efforts of the states to repeal Obamacare in order to win seats in Congress during the mid-term elections. If they manage to overturn the Democrat majority in Congress, they will not work to repeal Obamacare. They may nibble around the edges of the bill but will leave it largely intact. Republicans have no problem with the government forcing you to shell over your money to large insurance companies. Republicans are enforcers for the global elite and transnational corporations.
Both Republicans and Democrats need to be trounced in November. Obamacare needs to be challenged on Constitutional grounds. The establishment controlled Supreme Court, however, cannot be counted on to repeal the bill. It may take civil disobedience on the part of millions of Americans before this bill ends up in the dust bin of history where it belongs.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Forget all the self-serving diatribes by Republicans about Obamacare. They are for government enforced health care. “Republicans were for President Barack Obama’s requirement that Americans get health insurance before they were against it,” the Associated Press reports this morning.
Bill Murphy, Chairman of the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee delivers his testimony about a whistle-blower in the gold price suppression scheme to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission on 3/25/10.
Do we have another Harry Markopolos here, describing in detail the manipulation of the silver markets by J.P. Morgan to the CFTC? How does this square with the testimony today from the CFTC Commissioners, who seem to indicate that the markets are functioning extremely well, and that investor can have full confidence in them?
I am led to understand that Mr. McGuire had offered to testify before the CFTC today, and that he was refused admittance. I do not know him, or the position he is in within the trading community. I cannot therefore assess his credibility or the validity of any evidence which he may present or possess. But I have the feeling that nothing will come of this.
Remember, there was no action on the Madoff scandal until AFTER his fraud collapsed, and the government was forced to acknowledge Markopolos’ existence. He had been ignored and dismissed by the bureaucrats at the SEC for years because of Madoff’s power and standing with the trading establishment. And of course by those who had an interest in hiding Madoff’s scheme, if nothing else, to promote ‘confidence’ in the markets.
What seems particularly twisted about this is that JPM is the custodian of the largest silver ETF (SLV). Is anyone auditing that ETF, and watching any conflicts of interest and self-trading? Multiple counterparty claims on the same bullion?
If you ever wanted to see a good reason for the Volcker rule, this is it. These jokers are one of the US’ largest banks, with trillions of dollars in unaudited derivatives exposure, and they seem to be engaging in trading practices like Enron did before it collapsed.
The McCain-Lieberman Police State Act - by Stephen Lendman
If enacted, it will advance what this writer addressed in a December 2007 article titled, "Police State America - A Look Back and Ahead," covering numerous Bush administration laws, Executive Orders (EOs), National and Homeland Security Presidential Directives, edicts, and various illegal acts targeting designated domestic and foreign adversaries, dissent, civil liberties, human rights, and other democratic freedoms.
Straightaway post-9/11, George Bush signed a secret finding empowering the CIA to "Capture, Kill or Interrogate Al-Qaeda Leaders." He also authorized establishing a covert global gulag to detain and interrogate them without guidelines on proper treatment.
Other presidential directives ordered abductions, torture and indefinite detentions. In November 2001, Military Order Number 1 empowered the Executive to capture, kidnap or otherwise arrest non-citizens (and later citizens) anywhere in the world for any reason and hold them indefinitely without charge, evidence, due process or judicial fairness protections of law.
The 2006 Military Commissions Act authorized torture and sweeping unconstitutional powers to detain, interrogate and prosecute alleged suspects and collaborators (including US citizens), hold them (without evidence) indefinitely in military prisons, and deny them habeas and other legal protections.
Section 1031 of the FY 2010 Defense Authorization Act contained the 2009 Military Commissions Act, listing changes that include discarding the phrase "unlawful enemy combatant" for "unprivileged enemy belligerent." More on that below.
Seamlessly, Obama continues Bush administration practices and added others, including:
-- greater than ever surveillance;
-- ruthless political persecutions;
-- preventively detaining individuals ordered released - "who cannot be prosecuted," he said, "yet who pose a clear danger to the American people;"
-- a secret "hit list" authorizing CIA and Pentagon operatives to kill US citizens abroad based on unsubstantiated evidence they're involved in alleged plots against America or US interests;
-- weaker whisleblower protections;
-- state secrets privilege to block lawsuits by victims of rendition, torture, abuse or warrantless wiretapping; and
-- other anti-democratic measures.
Now, the March 4 S. 3081: Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010 to interrogate and detain "enemy belligerents who commit hostile acts against the United States to establish certain limitations on the prosecution of such belligerents, and for other purposes."
On the Senate floor, John McCain explained it, saying "we still don't have a clear mechanism, legal structure, and implementing policy for dealing with terrorists who we capture in the (alleged) act of trying to bring about attacks on the United States and our national security interests at home and abroad."
These suspects have no right to "Miranda warnings and defense lawyers. Instead, the priority and focus must be on isolating and neutralizing the immediate threat and collecting intelligence to prevent" any attacks.
"I (also) believe we must establish a system for long-term detention of terrorists who are too dangerous to release, but who cannot be tried in a civilian court" because no evidence exists to convict them.
At a March 4 press conference, Senator Joe Lieberman told reporters:
"These are not common criminals. They are war criminals. Anyone we capture in this war should be treated as a prisoner of war, held by the military, interrogated for information that will protect Americans and help us win this war and then where appropriate, tried not in a normal federal court where criminals are tried but before a military commission."
S. 3081 Provisions
The bill imposes harsh police state measures, including:
-- targeting anyone worldwide, including US citizens, "suspected of engaging in (or materially supporting) hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners through an act of terrorism, or by other means...;"
-- placing such individuals "in military custody for purposes of initial interrogation and determination of status in accordance with the provisions of this Act;"
-- transporting them to intelligence officials for more interrogation;
-- determining who may be a "high-value detainee (HVD);"
-- further interrogating those individuals by a "High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HVIG)....utiliz(ing) military and intelligence personnel, and Federal, State, and local law enforcement personnel....;"
-- having HVIGs submit their determination to the Defense Secretary and Attorney General after consulting with the Directors of National Intelligence, FBI, and CIA. "The Secretary of Defense and Attorney General (will then) make a final determination and report (it) to the President and the appropriate committees of Congress. In the case of any disagreement between the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General, the President will make the determination;"
-- designating seized individuals "unprivileged enemy belligerent(s);"
-- denying them Miranda rights:
-- deciding on a "Final (status) Determination" within 48 hours, "to the extent practicable;"
-- letting the President establish HVD interrogation group operations and activities, including whether detainees "meet the criteria for treatment as a high-value detainee for purposes of interrogation....," including the potential threat held individuals pose:
(1) for an attack against America, its citizens, US military personnel or facilities;
(2) their potential intelligence value;
(3) membership in or affiliation with Al Qaeda; and
(4) "such other matters as the President considers appropriate."
Pending final determination, detainees "shall be treated as unprivileged enemy belligerent(s)," defined as:
"An individual, including a citizen of the United States (to) be detained without criminal charges and without trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners in which the individual has engaged, or which the individual has purposely and materially supported, consistent with the law of war and any authorization for the use of military force provided by Congress pertaining to such hostilities."
An "unprivileged enemy belligerent" means anyone (with or without evidence) suspected of "engag(ing) in (or materially supporting) hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners," including alleged Al Qaeda members.
Designating individuals "unlawful enemy combatants" or "unprivileged enemy belligerents" places them in legal limbo, contrary to international law, the Constitution, and three recent Supreme Court decisions:
-- Rasul v. Bush (2004) establishing US court system jurisdiction to decide if Guantanamo-held non-US citizens were wrongfully imprisoned;
-- Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) granting US citizen Yaser Hamdi and other Guantanamo detainees habeas rights to challenge their detentions in federal courts; and
-- Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) denying Guantanamo military commissions "the power to proceed because (their) structures and procedures violate both the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949."
Obama-ordered preventive detentions (against uncharged persons) and S. 3081 violate international law, the Constitution, and the above Supreme Court decisions.
Writing for the Jurist Legal News & Research, University of Utah Law Professor, Amos Guiora, calls the proposed bill "the latest example of panic-based legislation" in the wake of the (false flag) December airplane bombing and whether alleged 9/11 suspects will be tried in federal or military courts - Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others falsely charged based on tortured-extracted confessions.
Holding detainees through "end of hostilities in the terrorism paradigm is a euphemism for indefinite detention....subject(ing) an extraordinarily broad group of persons" to cruel and inhumane treatment based on unsubstantiated charges, and denying them due process and judicial fairness.
Guiora calls the proposed law:
"a fundamental miscarriage of justice created by the unconstitutional denial of the right to counsel, the right to remain silent, the right to be free from arbitrary, let alone indefinite detention, and the right to a day in court." Unfortunately, too often "legitimacy and justification take a back seat" to expediency and the political climate of the times.
As a result, innocent victims are unjustly arrested, called terrorists, interrogated, tortured, indefinitely detained and denied all rights despite constitutional and international law protections.
"Republicans and Democrats alike have failed to articulate, create and implement a lawful interrogation, detention and trial regime for post-9/11 detainees. That is shameful and reflects negatively on two Presidents, the Congress and the Supreme Court."
The major media also. Their reports hype the threat, pre-determine guilt, and influence public opinion to believe government-charged individuals are dangerous, guilty, and should be confined to deter "terrorism."
Yet the Constitution's Fifth Amendment states:
"No person shall....be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law....;" and
The 14th Amendment reads:
No "State (may) deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Yet in a climate of fear and intimidation, everyone is potentially vulnerable to legislative lawlessness if congressional timidity lets S. 3081 pass in an election year.
According to Guiora, it comes down to "the rule of law or the rule of fear." Protecting American citizens and national security is one thing. Discarding core legal principles to do it reflects the worst elements of police state justice.
I recently wrote what I had hoped was a satirical article, poking fun at the fact President Obama could not feasibly have read all the legislation he has signed into law, centering on the on the mammoth 2,700 page Healthcare Reform Bill. And although some people appreciated the article, a couple of readers did not.
One lady reader condemned the piece as being negative, with no discernible point; while, she invested no more of her own thought in it than that. A male reader (who showed some thought) bought the truth that while Obama probably didn’t read the Healthcare bill – due to time constraints – he was certainly briefed with a detailed summary of it, highlighting the bill’s major points.
This gentleman, like many others, does not see the absurdity of legislation that is so long it could take weeks or months to read; after all, our Constitution was handwritten on about four or five pages.
Our Declaration of Independence was handwritten on one sheet of paper.
Our lawmakers and president should not be briefed on proposed laws, they should scrutinize every line, of every proposed law, as it is that important to the American people. And the American public should be given the opportunity to do the same, as President Obama promised.
Our presidents should veto any bill they cannot comfortably read and understand in one sitting. In fact, if there are legislative passages the average, literate Americans cannot understand, those too should be vetoed. Convoluted, long passages in legislation is simply an effort to hide tyrannical intentions. And with “voice votes” becoming popular, in congress, we are even denied the knowledge of knowing just who supports tyranny.
All points of legislation should be debated in Congress, by senators and representatives, not given “talking points” by unseen agents of the International Monetary/Banking Cartel, to memorize and parrot to the corporate media.
In response, I asked the gentleman, above, who seemed to think a briefing was adequate, to consider what a colossal briefing Mr. Obama would have to have had to cover all 2,700 pages of just that one bill – the mislabeled Healthcare “Reform” Act.
If Mr. Obama was briefed in detail on the steady stream of hundreds of thousands of legislation pages proposed in congress, he’d be spending every waking moment being briefed, without doing any of it real justice.
Divinity students spend years in college studying the detailed summaries that highlight the major points in the 1,300 page Bible, and still not cover it all. Does the gentleman really think Obama can be briefed on something the size of ten novels, or two Bibles, in a month or so, especially considering all the other thousands of pages of Executive Orders (written for him) that he signs, or the thousands of pages of regulations that are annually issued by Executive Branch agencies?
Sadly, Mr. Obama – and our lawmakers – do no more than read (from teleprompters) or repeat “talking points” given to them by shadowy sources -the minions of the Shadow Government, that are beholden to the International Monetary/Banking Cartel.
Mr. Obama, and most all other politicians, avoid the subjects of who reads or writes the thousands of pages of legislation, regulations, directives, and executives orders that pour out of Washington annually, as they do not know who writes it all, and do not want to have to admit they don’t read much of any of it in any case. With one exception.
That exception, that was probably read by Obama, et al, was written into the Healthcare Reform Act as a loophole for the privileged: The president, his staff and family, Joe Biden’s staff and family, Nancy Pelosi’s staff, Harry Reid’s staff, and many other insiders are all exempted from the mandates of Obamacare. How nice, they’ve given it all to us taxpaying Americans to have, to hold, and to pay for.
It would seem to me that if most of the tenets of the world-wide Christian religion are contained within 1,300 pages of the Holy Bible, America does not need 900,000 to millions of pages of legislation, orders, directives, and regulations to be governed. How can we obey those laws if we don’t even know what they are?
But, the critical questions all thinking Americans will ask themselves run along the lines of who wrote the hundreds of thousands of pages of US legislation, orders, directives, and regulations that so severely affect our lives. That Madame and Sir was the point of my satirical piece, and is the important point of this article.
I am an un-insured American. I guess I am supposed to be dancing in the streets today, what with this legislation about to be signed into law supposedly being on behalf of persons like myself. My near-sightedness, my sleep issues, my dental concerns—heck, even my bowel movements—have just been elevated to a subject worthy of federal legislation. And yet, somehow, I am decidedly not in a celebratory mood. Indeed, my feelings on the matter fall somewhere between “pissed off” and “re-secede from the Union.”
I know, I know, that’s extreme. But it’s an extreme action the President and the majority in Congress has taken. We’ll come back to that momentarily. But for now, I’ll establish why I am not feeling euphoric. Despite the fact that I am completely broke, and despite the fact that when I do get sick (which I recently was), it ends up involving debt and aggravation, I simply don’t want anything from government—federal, state, and local—other than for them to leave me the hell alone.
Most of the modern activities of government I have no desire whatsoever to participate in, much less to pay for, and, frankly, I resent the pretence that they are all carried out on my behalf. Bailing out the banks two years ago surely wasn’t for my benefit or yours; neither was that little scheme concerning weapons of mass destruction in Mesopotamia seven trips around sun ago. Why should government run healthcare be any different? Not to mention the blatantly obvious, but the bill just passed includes compulsory provisions that will fine the uninsured (like myself) if we don’t get coverage by such-and-such a date.
Dearly beloved, I am officially calling caca-del-torro on that provision. The company I work for offers decent plans, as I understand it, even for part-timers; but I let open-enrollment pass by without jumping on the bandwagon because I did not want additional money (such that it is, but that’s a separate subject) taken out of my check. Even for a good plan, it struck me as unaffordable with everything else that I am supposed to take care of (but sometimes can’t). Opting out was my choice. I made the intentional decision to bring home more money in lieu of insurance coverage. That is a textbook example of something economists call “cost-benefit analysis.”
At this stage my life, the cash is more immediately useful to me. Again, for emphasis, it was my choice. So this bill—this supposedly glorious, cure-all bill—would preemptively deny me the choice to sit it out and bring home the cash. The options available to me would be get coverage, or pay the stinking federal government a big fat fine—both of which, I suppose, I would have to pay for with funds magically created from sunshine and farts since my whole reason for not being covered is the fact that I can’t spare the extra money to begin with.
That being said, I’m just going to go ahead and say that I have no intention of getting any coverage whatsoever until I can actually afford it; and, I’ll go ahead and add this, since I’m broke as hell anyway, and I have no intention or ability to pay some jackass fine, I’m not going to pay it. It strikes me every bit as onerous and ridiculous as the old debtors prison system; I’m sure if I got locked up in Georgia, General Oglethorpe would be spinning in his grave across the pond.
There are provisions in that steaming-turd of a bill to allow the IRS to garnish wages to pay for coverage—and I suppose if I want to keep working, I can’t keep my company from hitting my paycheck. But you know, if you think it through, forcing any private individual or firm to collect taxes on behalf of government is tantamount to involuntary servitude. So much for the Thirteenth Amendment; but with the way sales and payroll taxes are collected, and with the draft last century, we’ve been ignoring the constitutional safeguards against having the will of others imposed upon our persons anyway.
Now, I could make a pretty strong constitutional case against this bill. It is federal usurpation on the grandest scale, a clear assumption of powers not delegated by the States or the people thereof to the central government, making it a swipe at the reserved powers of the States and the people. I could make that case, and I could easily go onward for many, many pages. But I won’t. Damn near every action of the federal government in the present day is some sort of blatant violation of the Ninth and Tenth amendments, so belaboring the point won’t serve much of a purpose. That and I think the moral argument in this case is stronger than the constitutional argument.
Your health is something that is fundamentally and basically yours. Your well-being belongs to you, and no one else, and if you are physically and mentally able and are no longer child, preserving it is your responsibility and no one else’s. That has everything to do with I quit smoking and drinking, and why I am trying to get the weight off—my own body is mine to take care of. Now, if some other entity, be it a company or a government, or even a spouse, takes control over how I take care of it (or don’t) I am no longer free regarding my own body. Now, to a wife, sure, I’d be willing to cede some of my autonomy. But see, that’s a voluntary partnership that is worlds apart from some bureaucrat telling me what treatments I can and can’t get at my age, or what doctors I can visit, etc. What I am stabbing at here is simple really: your health, being so basic to your existence in this life, is such that whoever controls your ability to maintain it effectively owns you.
I don’t know why that is so difficult to understand. I guess if you are comfortable with the idea of being owned, well, more power to you. I wish we could depart in peace. But that’s just it. No one can be allowed to opt out of participating and paying, because if that were a path open to any of us, who would remain in and pick up the tab?
Which comes to crux of the matter: Taxation comes with the implied threat of force. You are compelled to pay, and if you were to resist with a sufficient amount of, shall we say, chutzpah, the government, in claiming a monopoly on the use of force posits a right to kill you. So, therefore, we are seeing erected a healthcare system based not on the doctor patient relationship as in the days of old, or upon the damnable corporatist model presently existing, but upon the implied threat of force. The federal government will engage in banditry supposedly on behalf of the uninsured, and will serve as an engine of redistribution, and if you say “hell no” and fight back, they claim the right to pull the trigger in your direction.
Fine; perhaps such is unstoppable. That American healthcare would come to be based upon the implied threat of force should surprise no one, given that since at least the end of the War Between the States, the organizational principle of the federal government is the implied threat of force. But really, Mr. President, can you and your party spare us the pious rhetoric that pretends this is for the poor? We’re not as stupid as you and your predecessor in office think we are. We can look at this and ask the question “qui bono?” (who benefits?), and, as plain as the nose on my face, it can be shown, unequivocally, that the insurance and pharmaceutical industries supposedly to be punished by the measure are, in fact, poised to be its primary beneficiaries. If the government means to force everyone to get a coverage plan, and those plans are to be offered by these companies, then who the hell else could possibly stand to reap the windfall?
Additionally, in a sense, it’s to be a type of jobs bill as well, in all the new agents that will have to be hired for various agencies (including the pernicious IRS) to be employed in an enforcement capacity.
Now, examine if you will who owns the largest insurance companies, and who holds significant stakes in the pharmaceutical industry. GASP! Some of the same damn banks which were bailed out two years ago. Surprise! Could it be? Could it really be that some politicians would or could cynically use the issue of our health as a means to foist a system that would loop through the back door a continuing revenue stream to these same criminals?
Say it ain’t so!
While I agree with the sentiment, lawsuits in the federal courts aren’t going to do a bit of good, a fact arising from the sheer stupidity committed by an earlier generation of Americans who came to think it would be just a peachy idea for one branch of the federal government to be trusted with exclusively deciding the extent of the powers of said government.
The states and their ability in their organized capacity as bodies political to interpose between the individual citizens and unjust, unwarranted, and unconstitutional actions have been severely crippled. It’s time to resurrect that the old understanding of Sovereignty, that We, the People, are supposed to be ABSOLUTE RULERS of ALL OF OUR GOVERNMENTS, and as far as the federal government is concerned, that We, the People, in our organized capacity as THE STATES, are SOVEREIGN ABOVE IT. It was not meant to own us; we were not meant to serve it. It was designed to be a servant of the people and the States. In essence, I am suggesting, strongly, that it is time to rediscover the authentic and original, pre-Civil War conceptualization of federalism and popular sovereignty, and to invoke as vigorously as possible the principles enunciated in Mr. Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolution of 1798:
“Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that when-so-ever the general government assumes un-delegated powers, its acts are un-authoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.”
Now, the fact that I assert that the time has come for nullification and interposition opens up a whole different can of worms. And I’ll answer that right out of the gate: States Rights arguments have been abused in the past relative to racial issues. I don’t deny that. It is sad and unfortunate, and I regret the fact that earlier generations couldn’t see the error in tangling sound, constitutional principles with unsound, immoral, and unjust assertions about race.
I couldn’t care a damn less about the race of the President. I heard Wanda Sykes the other evening state that the only reason anyone was opposing the plan is that President is black. Bull. Fiscal insanity is fiscal insanity, regardless of the color of the individual proposing it. And to tell the truth, when it was clear Ron Paul mathematically would not be able to take the Republican nomination, based strictly on his then asserted pledge to leave Iraq within a year (a promise already well-broken), I considered voting for the guy now in office (I didn’t vote for him, but I considered it). And, taking into account that Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi are equally as responsible for spearheading this bill through, and that they are whiter than I am, attempting to make a race issue out of this would be profoundly ignorant and remarkably silly.
I will go ahead and tie this shut by saying all I want to do is to live my life as peaceably as possible. I’d like to live it out as I see fit, earn enough to take care of myself, and, if I can ever find a woman who’ll put up with me, a wife a few kids. And I’d like to be able to do that without having to concern myself with whether or not some damn lying politician is going to hatch a big idea he or she wants me to help pay for, or which will leave my hypothetical children less free than they otherwise would have been. All the flag-waving, chest thumping, swaggering, and jawing about how we’re the greatest and freest country ever doesn’t and won’t change the fact that we’re not as free as we used to be or could be.
And we won’t be, so long as others presume to plan our lives one way or another for us.
As I pointed out in an article here a few months ago, there is a specific “lawful” procedure, a specific set of steps that must be followed in order to satisfy lawful service, and peacefully stop unlawful federal mandates including this Obama-care travesty. I describe this procedure much like the final moves in a chess game. The states must pass the 10th Amendment Resolution first, which demands that the federal agency show chapter and verse, to the satisfaction of the state, as to the constitutionality of any federal mandate. This resolution puts the federal government on notice that the states are perfectly capable of understanding the Constitution and the 10th Amendment and know exactly what they mean. This informs the federal government that it’s King in check. Once 38 of the 50 states have independently informed the federal government of this condition, the feds can continue their little game… or they can resign it.
If the FEDS choose to continue, then the states independently put forth the Constitutional State Sovereignty Act which spells out the specific mandate or mandates that they wish to address, or can retroactively review all federal mandates at will. This bill when enacted into law within the state, emphasizes with real law that the state no longer recognizes any power exerted by the federal government, that has not been determined by the state legislature to be within the prescribed parameters set by the Constitution regarding federal power. This power was reserved by the states in the 10th Amendment and gains its power by the rights reserved to the People in the 9th Amendment. Thus, without state review affirming a federal mandate, it cannot become law within the state.
In effect this shuts down federal power within the state over and above that which is spelled out in the Organic Constitution, or that the state determines by law, to be within the bounds of the Constitution. This opens to state scrutiny, all federally enacted “law,” including all constitutional amendments and subsequent statutory interpretation that has been enacted since the ratification of the organic Constitution on December 15, 1791. In effect… “Checkmate!” The FED’s game for total control is lost. All it takes is 38 states working Independently in communication with other states to effectively shut down the foreign usurpers, “LAWFULLY.”
Each of these state resolutions, and each of the sovereignty acts, must be done within the state alone with some communication between states of course, but not by some kind of convention. I’m sure you all understand why. The flurry of constitutional amendments that exploded in the confusion after the civil war and the Lincoln assassination, from 1865 until the present day, are precisely the method that has been used by the rogue federal government to exploit the states and the people to seat itself in primacy in 1871. As a result over time their plan has rendered us debtors and paupers in the richest land on planet Earth.
The Bill of Rights begins at the 1st Amendment with the words, “Congress shall make no law…” By the time of the nefarious and usurping 16th amendment… amendments begin with the words, “Congress shall have power…”
Think about it…
As has been correctly pointed out, there is latent secession-ism, in some of these resolutions. The secessionists as I have stated before, are a provocateur group. They have their roots clear back to before the Civil War. The object of their provocateuring is to stop any possible lawful 10th amendment movement within the states aimed at reigning in Federal power. Their goal is twist it into an unlawful secessionist movement. If someone says they are for secession, then what they are really saying is they are for Vassal State Globalism, pure and simple, whether they know it or not.
Adhering strictly to the organic Constitution for the United States of America and the Bill of Rights as ratified in convention on December 15, 1791, ( the only time the Constitution was fully ratified, I might add ), as being the basis of, and for this inquiry via the 10th Amendment, the enacted law needed to accomplish this. This is why it is necessary and essential that the organic 1791 ratified Constitution SHALL BE, and must remain untouched as the supreme Law of the Land, being in itself the organic basis for the 10th Amendment and the Law empowering these Constitutional complaints against the federal government. In so doing, the 10th Amendment State Sovereignty movement remains lawful and true. Remember, the present federal government is NOT our constitutional government, it is a corporatist foreign power bent upon complete take over. Because of this, any talk of secession, the breaking of the Constitutional Agreement, or the breaking away of any state from the constitutional union, would spell disaster!
On Trey Grayson’s campaign site today is a quote from former Vice President Dick Cheney:
“I’m a lifelong conservative, and I can tell the real thing when I see it. IIndeed, Cheney– the man who helped construct the lies that sold the Iraq War, who endorses perpetual conflict and endless spending in order to maintain over 700 military bases overseas, and who still delusionally calls himself a “conservative”– came out in support of Trey Grayson, one of Rand Paul’s primary opponents.
have looked at the records of both candidates in the race, and it is clear to me
that Trey Grayson is right on the issues that matter – both on fiscal
responsibility and on national security.”
As odd as it might seem that in modern America Dick Cheney, (or anyone from the Bush administration), might still have any credibility left to anyone after the ruinous legacy that they left behind, the Grayson campaign has proudly seized the endorsement, attempting to paint Rand Paul as weak on terrorism in the same way that the Neocon establishment tried to do to his father during the 2008 presidential election.
Last week Grayson’s campaign released an ad that stated:
“Paul thinks it’s not a problem if Iran has a nuclear bomb”
Nine years after 9/11, candidates are still exploiting fear for their own political gain, painting non-interventionism as isolationism and pushing the debunked myth that Iran is close to developing a nuclear bomb when our own CIA said that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program back in 2003.
During his term as Vice President, Cheney ”ordered“ the media to “sell” a war with Iran to the American people, believing it needed only 35-40 percent of public support to do so. Even under the Obama administration the drumbeat to attack Iran has continued. Afraid that the American right might realize once again that the concept of pre-emptive war is not a conservative one, Cheney has thrown himself back into the picture, attempting to steer voters towards candidates who will continue the American pursuit of empire in the Middle East and Eurasia, and create new wars for his cronies to profit from.
There was a time when the pen was mightier than the sword. That was a time when people believed in truth and regarded truth as an independent power and not as an auxiliary for government, class, race, ideological, personal, or financial interest.
Today Americans are ruled by propaganda. Americans have little regard for truth, little access to it, and little ability to recognize it.
Truth is an unwelcome entity. It is disturbing. It is off limits. Those who speak it run the risk of being branded “anti-American,” “anti-semite” or “conspiracy theorist.”
Truth is an inconvenience for government and for the interest groups whose campaign contributions control government.
Truth is an inconvenience for prosecutors who want convictions, not the discovery of innocence or guilt.
Truth is inconvenient for ideologues.
Today many whose goal once was the discovery of truth are now paid handsomely to hide it. “Free market economists” are paid to sell offshoring to the American people. High-productivity, high value-added American jobs are denigrated as dirty, old industrial jobs. Relicts from long ago, we are best shed of them. Their place has been taken by “the New Economy,” a mythical economy that allegedly consists of high-tech white collar jobs in which Americans innovate and finance activities that occur offshore. All Americans need in order to participate in this “new economy” are finance degrees from Ivy League universities, and then they will work on Wall Street at million dollar jobs.
Economists who were once respectable took money to contribute to this myth of “the New Economy.”
And not only economists sell their souls for filthy lucre. Recently we have had reports of medical doctors who, for money, have published in peer-reviewed journals concocted “studies” that hype this or that new medicine produced by pharmaceutical companies that paid for the “studies.”
The Council of Europe is investigating the drug companies’ role in hyping a false swine flu pandemic in order to gain billions of dollars in sales of the vaccine.
The media helped the US military hype its recent Marja offensive in Afghanistan, describing Marja as a city of 80,000 under Taliban control. It turns out that Marja is not urban but a collection of village farms.
And there is the global warming scandal, in which NGOs. the UN, and the nuclear industry colluded in concocting a doomsday scenario in order to create profit in pollution.
Wherever one looks, truth has fallen to money.
Wherever money is insufficient to bury the truth, ignorance, propaganda, and short memories finish the job.
I remember when, following CIA director William Colby’s testimony before the Church Committee in the mid-1970s, presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan issued executive orders preventing the CIA and U.S. black-op groups from assassinating foreign leaders. In 2010 the US Congress was told by Dennis Blair, head of national intelligence, that the US now assassinates its own citizens in addition to foreign leaders.
When Blair told the House Intelligence Committee that US citizens no longer needed to be arrested, charged, tried, and convicted of a capital crime, just murdered on suspicion alone of being a “threat,” he wasn’t impeached. No investigation pursued. Nothing happened. There was no Church Committee. In the mid-1970s the CIA got into trouble for plots to kill Castro. Today it is American citizens who are on the hit list. Whatever objections there might be don’t carry any weight. No one in government is in any trouble over the assassination of U.S. citizens by the U.S. government.
As an economist, I am astonished that the American economics profession has no awareness whatsoever that the U.S. economy has been destroyed by the offshoring of U.S. GDP to overseas countries. U.S. corporations, in pursuit of absolute advantage or lowest labor costs and maximum CEO “performance bonuses,” have moved the production of goods and services marketed to Americans to China, India, and elsewhere abroad. When I read economists describe offshoring as free trade based on comparative advantage, I realize that there is no intelligence or integrity in the American economics profession.
Intelligence and integrity have been purchased by money. The transnational or global U.S. corporations pay multi-million dollar compensation packages to top managers, who achieve these “performance awards” by replacing U.S. labor with foreign labor. While Washington worries about “the Muslim threat,” Wall Street, U.S. corporations and “free market” shills destroy the U.S. economy and the prospects of tens of millions of Americans.
Americans, or most of them, have proved to be putty in the hands of the police state.
Americans have bought into the government’s claim that security requires the suspension of civil liberties and accountable government. Astonishingly, Americans, or most of them, believe that civil liberties, such as habeas corpus and due process, protect “terrorists,” and not themselves. Many also believe that the Constitution is a tired old document that prevents government from exercising the kind of police state powers necessary to keep Americans safe and free.
Most Americans are unlikely to hear from anyone who would tell them any different.
I was associate editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal. I was Business Week’s first outside columnist, a position I held for 15 years. I was columnist for a decade for Scripps Howard News Service, carried in 300 newspapers. I was a columnist for the Washington Times and for newspapers in France and Italy and for a magazine in Germany. I was a contributor to the New York Times and a regular feature in the Los Angeles Times. Today I cannot publish in, or appear on, the American “mainstream media.”
For the last six years I have been banned from the “mainstream media.” My last column in the New York Times appeared in January, 2004, coauthored with Democratic U.S. Senator Charles Schumer representing New York. We addressed the offshoring of U.S. jobs. Our op-ed article produced a conference at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. and live coverage by C-Span. A debate was launched. No such thing could happen today.
For years I was a mainstay at the Washington Times, producing credibility for the Moony newspaper as a Business Week columnist, former Wall Street Journal editor, and former Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. But when I began criticizing Bush’s wars of aggression, the order came down to Mary Lou Forbes to cancel my column.
The American corporate media does not serve the truth. It serves the government and the interest groups that empower the government.
America’s fate was sealed when the public and the anti-war movement bought the government’s 9/11 conspiracy theory. The government’s account of 9/11 is contradicted by much evidence. Nevertheless, this defining event of our time, which has launched the US on interminable wars of aggression and a domestic police state, is a taboo topic for investigation in the media. It is pointless to complain of war and a police state when one accepts the premise upon which they are based.
These trillion dollar wars have created financing problems for Washington’s deficits and threaten the U.S. dollar’s role as world reserve currency. The wars and the pressure that the budget deficits put on the dollar’s value have put Social Security and Medicare on the chopping block. Former Goldman Sachs chairman and U.S. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson is after these protections for the elderly. Fed chairman Bernanke is also after them. The Republicans are after them as well. These protections are called “entitlements” as if they are some sort of welfare that people have not paid for in payroll taxes all their working lives.
With over 21 per cent unemployment as measured by the methodology of 1980, with American jobs, GDP, and technology having been given to China and India, with war being Washington’s greatest commitment, with the dollar over-burdened with debt, with civil liberty sacrificed to the “war on terror,” the liberty and prosperity of the American people have been thrown into the trash bin of history.
The militarism of the U.S. and Israeli states, and Wall Street and corporate greed, will now run their course. As the pen is censored and its might extinguished, I am signing off.
In what is being described as one of the most astounding power grabs in modern history by newspaper headlines around the World, President Obama has succeeded in his audacious plan to remake America into a full fledged godless communist empire barely one year into his term with the enactment into law by the US Congress of his mammoth health care plan innocuously named H.R. 3200-Americas Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 and described by one Kremlin legal expert as having “nothing at all to do with health, but everything to do with control.”
To fully grasp the full and grim implications of Obama’s power grab over the American people with his Nationalization of the United States entire health care industry and student loan programme accomplished with the passing of this new law, it must be remembered that since taking office on January 20, 2009 he has also taken over their automobile, mortgage, and banking industries too with the Internet said being next “in his sights”.
More insidious than these takeovers that have been destroying America’s once vibrant capitalistic system is the new regime these once free peoples are now destined to live under, and where under their new health care law will require all of them to carry a National ID card (page 58) and allow their government unlimited access to all of their bank accounts and personal records (page 159).
And in a chilling instance of the ancient prophecies for these time of “The Mark of the Beast” becoming reality, the National ID card all of the American people will now be required to possess (regardless of age) is to be combined with their new government ID card under their upcoming new immigration laws allowing them to work and is biometrically designed to “read” the backs of their hands.
[Note: According to the Christian Bibles Book of Revelations, the ancients warned of a future time when everyone, both small and great, rich and poor, free or slave, would receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads which without they would not be able buy or sell anything.]
Though many have tried to warn these Americans about the plans for their Nations destruction at the hands of the Obama backed communist forces who have taken over their country [including our March 2nd report “Russia Warns US Communist Threat Endangering Entire World”] the propaganda organs in the United States have rendered silent nearly all opposition and dissident views from reaching them and they remain asleep to the true dangers soon to come upon them.
The same, however, cannot be said about the rest of the World where during this past week alone, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon signed a cooperation agreement with a Russia-led security group of ex-Soviet Nations as a counterbalance to the US led NATO forces (who are currently expanding their wars against the Muslim Nations to steal their vast oil and gas wealth) and one of China’s top military officers called for his Nation to build the World’s strongest military and move swiftly to topple the United States as the Global “champion.”
To how ignorant the American people have become to the yoke of communist oppression being pressed upon them by Obama’s forces we can glimpse from a report in today’s Los Angeles Times that says “The Democratic administration of Barack Obama, who denounced his predecessor, George W. Bush, as the most secretive in history, is now denying more Freedom of Information Act requests than the Republican did.”
And as to why Obama and his communist forces would seek to keep from the American people what is really being done to them we had, also, previously warned about in our February 12th report “The “End Of Days” Are Upon Us, Warns Russian Patriarch” and wherein we had stated:
“Patriarch Cyril warns in his report though that the Motherlands efforts to halt the West’s godlessness “may be too late” as evidenced by the rising use among their political, military, banking and celebrity elite classes of the ancient Babylonian “Sign of the Horns” [formed by extending the index and little fingers while holding the middle and ring fingers down with the thumb, see photo bottom left] honoring the ancient god Marduk (Sumerian spelling in Akkadian: AMAR.UTU meaning “solar calf”).”
Now most important to remember about these ancient enemies of our human race Obama and his communist forces have aligned themselves with is how truly predictable they are; including the United States passing of their health care bill during the 2010 Vernal (Spring) Solstice [when daytime and nighttime are equal length] as a “celebration” to the ancient goddess Ēostre whose name was given to the Christian festival of Easter but whose origins stretch back into the mists of time to the mystery religions of Rome where the Cybele cult preformed their child sacrifices on what was then known as Vatican hill, but today is known as the home of the Pope.
And in these monsters predictability by aligning themselves with the ancient dates and ceremonies of old also comes the most secure protection from their destructive plans; such as the United States March 4, 2001 airing of the Lone Gunman television programmes pilot episode where an American government plot to fly remotely controlled planes into the World Trade Center was discovered, and which was exactly 6 months and 7 days from when the actual attack occurred.
It goes without saying, of course, that the propaganda media organs beholden to their godless communist masters will never inform their peoples about these things, and for those of us who do there is always great danger. But as the events in the United States are now showing to even those most in denial about what is truly happening, the time nears when hard choices will have to be made by everyone if freedom for our human race is to be saved.
Just before the House of Representatives passed sweeping health care legislation last Sunday, 41% of voters nationwide favored the legislation while 54% were opposed. Now that President Obama has signed the legislation into law, most voters want to see it repealed.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, conducted on the first two nights after the president signed the bill, shows that 55% favor repealing the legislation. Forty-two percent (42%) oppose repeal. Those figures include 46% who Strongly Favor repeal and 35% who Strongly Oppose it.
In terms of Election 2010, 52% say they’d vote for a candidate who favors repeal over one who does not. Forty-one percent (41%) would cast their vote for someone who opposes repeal.
Not surprisingly, Republicans overwhelmingly favor repeal while most Democrats are opposed. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 59% favor repeal, and 35% are against it.
Most senior citizens (59%) also favor repeal. Earlier, voters over 65 had been more opposed to the health care plan than younger adults. Seniors use the health care system more than anyone else.
A number of states are already challenging the constitutionality of that requirement in court, and polling data released earlier shows that 49% of voters nationwide would like their state to sue the federal government over the health care bill.
Rasmussen Reports will track support for the repeal effort on a weekly basis for as long as it remains a significant issue. The next update will be released Monday morning.
Sixty percent (60%) of likely voters believe the new law will increase the federal budget deficit. Only 19% disagree and say it will not. Twelve percent (12%) think it will have no impact on the deficit.
Throughout the legislative debate, advocates of the reform expressed frustration about the fact that voters believe it will increase the deficit. Many, including the president, pointed to Congressional Budget Office projections to argue that the plan will actually reduce the deficit. However, voters are skeptical of the official government projection, and 81% believe the actual cost of the program will be higher than projected.
Voters have consistently said that reducing the federal budget deficit is a higher priority than health care reform. They also believe that deficit reduction is the goal Obama is least likely to achieve as president.
Overall, 41% of voters believe the new health care legislation will be good for the country, while 49% believe it will be bad for the country.
While 64% of Mainstream voters think the health care plan will be bad for the country, 90% of the Political Class see its passage as a good thing.
Twenty-six percent (26%) of voters nationwide say the legislation will have a positive impact on them personally, while 43% expect a negative impact. Twenty-five percent (25%) say the massive overhaul of the health care system will have no impact on them personally.
A total of 24% believe it will be good for the country and good for them personally. Forty percent (40%) believe it will be bad for the country and bad for them personally.
Generally speaking, the partisan and demographic breakdowns have shifted little since passage of the health care bill. Those groups who opposed the bill tend to support repeal and those who supported the bill oppose repeal.
The president has enjoyed a bounce in his Job Approval ratings in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll following passage of the legislation. However, the bounce has come from increased enthusiasm among Democrats rather than increased support from Republicans and unaffiliated voters.
While some aspects of the new health care law are popular, most voters oppose the measures required to cover the nearly one trillion dollars in additional spending called for over the next decade. Fifty-six percent (56%) oppose the reductions in Medicare spending, a figure that includes 70% of those over 65.
The Pentagon has been accused of spying on a whistleblower website that specialises in leaking top secret documents. The US Army has already labeled the website as a security threat. Now Wikileaks – which won Amnesty Internationals news media award last year – has issued a statement claiming its editors are being investigated: WikiLeaks is currently under an aggressive US and Icelandic surveillance operation, – the claim published on Tweeter said.
Zombie America is exercising the 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech. Those who attempt to hinder this right to free speech will be held accountable for their actions in a court of law.