Texas has the opportunity to take matters into its own hands.
Opposition to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, with its embedded health insurance mandates, has stirred a widespread revival of interest in the Tenth Amendment and state sovereignty issues.
The passage of the health care act opened the eyes of many previously apathetic citizens, making them aware of the rapidly expanding scope and influence of the federal government and its intrusiveness into their everyday lives. They intuitively understand that requiring them to purchase health insurance falls far beyond the powers granted to Congress by the Constitution. Suddenly awake and alarmed by the fact that the federal government has grown so far out of control, and frustrated by what they see as the lack of responsiveness by politicians in D.C., many Americans find themselves looking for answers.
And they are turning to their states.
Fourteen states have sued, seeking to block implementation of the unconstitutional health care act. Twelve states, led by Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum filed in federal court in Pensacola.
“The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage,” the lawsuit states.
But some states are asserting their own authority to block unconstitutional acts, recognizing that federal courts don’t stand as the sole arbiter of constitutionality.
On Nov. 16, Texas Representative Leo Berman (R-Tyler) filed a bill in the Texas House of Representatives that would nullify federal health care legislation in the the Lone Star State. HB-297 asserts:
The federal Act is not authorized by the United States Constitution and violates the Constitution’s true meaning and intent as expressed by the founders of this country and the ratifiers of the Constitution.
The federal Act:
(1) is invalid in this state;
(2) is not recognized by this state;
(3) is specifically rejected by this state; and
(4) is null and void and of no effect in this state.
The bill takes things a step further, making it a crime for any official, agent, or employee of the United States or an employee of any corporation to enforce any part of the health care act in Texas, and imposes fines up to $5,000 and/or five years in prison for anyone convicted of doing so.
While some might call this legislation radical, it rests squarely within the scope of state power as understood by the framers of the Constitution. James Madison wrote in the Virginia Resolution of 1798 that states not only have a right, but a duty to step in when the federal government oversteps its authority.
That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.
Tenth Amendment Center founder Michael Boldin said that Berman’s bill does not represent an extreme viewpoint and insists each state should determine the best path for its own citizens.
“There is nothing more extreme than having a federal government that refuses to abide by the laws that we the people of the several states delegated to it in the Constitution,” he said. “The important point here is that it’s up to the people of each state to determine what the best response may be. One state, as Wyoming did with its Firearms Freedom Act, may decide that penalties on federal agents is the rightful response. Another, such as California with medical marijuana, may choose to create an environment conducive to non-compliance by masses of people. Either way – or somewhere in between – that’s the beauty of the American system. We can have widely varying actions, responses and viewpoints in different states while all living together in peace. One-size-fits-all solutions are actually the problem, and state-by-state decision-making is the natural response.”
Berman said that his bill faces an uphill battle as long as the current Texas House leadership remains in place. The legislation will likely end up bottled up in committee.
“The best chance for passage is to get rid of the current Speaker,” Berman said.
That speaker is Rep. Joe Straus (R – San Antonio)
Straus did not respond to an email request for comment.
Despite the fact that the bill faces long odds for passage, Boldin said introducing this type of legislation remains important,
“Whether or not there’s any guarantee of getting something passed is no reason to not do what’s right,” he said. “Champions look at insurmountable odds and take them on with passion, and that’s what We the People need to do in defense of our liberty.”
And its about baby steps. Boldin said he views the dismantling of an overreaching, bloated federal government a long-term project.
“Dealing with a constitutional monstrosity like Obamacare is going to take time. In the mid-90s, people around the country were saying that it was absurd for California to go it alone and try to pass a medical marijuana law. But they did, and today, we see 15 states openly defying the federal government on this issue,” he said. “The blueprint is straightforward – when enough people say no to the federal government and enough states do so as well, there’s not much that the feds can do to enforce their unconstitutional ‘laws’ on us.”
Madison agreed, Writing in Federalist 46, he laid out the blueprint for constraining overreaching federal power.
“Should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union, the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassment created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, very serious impediments; and were the sentiments of several adjoining States happen to be in Union, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”
Texas has taken the first step. Now the people of Texas need to rise up and insist on passage of the bill. Ultimately, the people’s voice will carry the day.
The question remains, will they speak?
special thanks to:
Michael Maharrey
To restore and uphold the sovereignty and rights of the individual States as guaranteed by the tenth amendment of the United States Constitution, which states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Bill Maher: Real Time With Real Lib
We've got digital media files from 'Real Time With Bill Maher", and although we're not exactly sure why he has his own show we do know that he is a citizen of Libtardia, and on the topic of science, a very uneducated citizen at that. Fortunately for us we have Mike Church, an educated citizen in all things Constitution and Patriotic; something Bill Maher apparently knows nil of. According to the philosophy of the Libtard, if you're a scientist that doesn't work for the government you must not be trusted for you are corrupt. We say: Bill, nobody is denying climate change, of course there is. The planet moves through space and is affected by cosmic forces we have no control over like the Sun and other planets. According to the third grade science project all of America had to take part in, we learned the solar system revolves around the Sun not the Earth, but then again we're using a combination of intelligence, evidence and common sense, something we clearly cannot expect from everyone.
Mr. Maher, we'd like to ask of you to grow a set of nads, then call for what is that you're asking people to follow you to, which is the end of days. Give up your private property, fancy cars, fancy house, retirement funds and so on then maybe we'll discuss issues more pertinent than the solar system.
Climate Change Is Simple
Begin Mike Church Show Transcript
Mike: So you’re not convinced out there, obviously. So Dylligan Ratigan and Ted Rall didn’t convince you. Lawrence O’Donnell, out of the closet now, socialist, and Glenn Greenwald, who’s arguing that somehow Nancy Pelosi is not radical enough, and neither is Barack Hussein Obama – mm, mm, mm. So we need some real revolutionistas, real revoluciones. Listen to Bill Maher here from his monologue on Saturday night. Wasn’t O’Reilly on with Maher on Saturday night?
Mike: I’m pretty sure O’Reilly was in there because I heard him play a digital media file last night from his appearance with Maher, and he really got Maher [chuckling], when Maher said, “Well, Bill, I don’t know why I keep inviting you back on this show,” and O’Reilly said, “Because you want to get better ratings?” [Laughing] Funny stuff. Listen to this delusion here. And by the way, ladies and gentlemen, I don’t know, I don’t know how this got started. But somehow it has become another rite of passage for the revoluciones out there that, if you’re a scientist, and you do not work for the government, then everything you say is not to be trusted, and you cannot possibly have any brain cells to rub together. You have to be in the pay of someone else. You must be crooked, then. You must be corrupt. So only government can provide science now. This is what Maher’s argument on climate change is going to be.
Let me tell you something, Mr. Maher. Why don’t you invite an actual climate scientist on that program of yours, like Dr. Roy Spencer. Why don’t you invite my friend, David Archibald from Australia. He’s quite a funny guy, and he’ll blow you out of the water. Why don’t you invite Marc Morano on your little show there, on “Real Time,” and have an actual discussion about the science behind climate change. Nobody denies, Bill, that there isn’t climate change out there. Of course there’s climate change. The planet moves through space. It is affected by cosmic forces that we have no control over whatsoever, including our sun, and including the movement of other planets, you nitwit. You’re the anti-scientist, you alchemist freak. You think all these giant celestial bodies moving about in space don’t have an impact on this planet? What are you, nuts? Oh, yeah, yeah. What are you, Copernicus now? Everything revolves around Earth?
Don’t be so arrogant and so shallow and stupid, Mr. Maher. You’re the imbecile, and you’re the one that’s not looking at science. I would think that a reasoned people, and people that use reason to think, would probably be safer in concluding that, because we don’t know what’s out there, and because we don’t know all of the effects of the bazillions of planets and stars and galaxies that we continue to discover with all our vaunted technology, we can’t possibly know what effect they have on us. We can’t possible know what their movements have on us. We can’t possibly know what the turning up or down of their thermostats have on us. The stars do fluctuate, do they not? What, do we live in a vacuum here? We’re insulated because we’re Americans and because we have a sign that says, oh, I took a temperature, man, it’s hotter than it was yesterday. So? That’s effect, that’s not cause. There are two parts of hypotheses, sir, cause and effect. You’re telling me the effect, you’re not telling me the cause. Play your digital media file because Dr. Spencer heard this. What happened was that an actual climate scientist had heard this, and has responded it to it already. Roll the digital media file.
[Clip] Bill Maher: But the message of the rally, as I heard it, was that if the media would just stop giving voice to the crazies on both sides, then maybe we could restore sanity. It was all nonpartisan and urged cooperation with the moderates on the other side, forgetting that Obama tried that and found out there are no moderates on the other side.
Mike: Eh heh, eh heh. You mean the moderates that grew the debt twice?
[Clip] Bill Maher: When Jon announced his rally, he said that the national conversation is dominated by people on the right who believe Obama is a socialist, and people on the left who believe 911 was an inside job. But I can’t name any Democratic leaders who think 911 was an inside job. But Republican leaders who think Obama is a socialist? All of them. McCain, Boehner, Cantor, Palin, all of them. It’s now official Republican dogma, like tax cuts pay for themselves and gay men just haven’t met the right woman.
Mike: Eh heh, eh heh, eh heh, so funny. Ha ha ha ha, I’m laughing.
[Clip] Bill Maher: As another example of both sides using overheated rhetoric, Jon cited the right equating Obama with Hitler and the left calling Bush a war criminal. Except thinking Obama is like Hitler is utterly unfounded, but thinking Bush is a war criminal, that’s the opinion of General Anthony Taguba, who headed the army’s investigation into Abu Ghraib.
Mike: Pause this. Pause this madman for just a second here. HBO is irresponsible. I should cancel my HBO subscription when I get home tonight. Number two, who accuses Obama of being like Hitler? Who? I’ll say it right now to your face, Bill. He’s not like Hitler because he doesn’t have the ‘nads that Hitler had to actually come in and use the military, thank the Lord he doesn’t have the ‘nads, to get his way. He doesn’t have the ‘nads to actually be a national socialist like Hitler was, like you want him to be, Bill, and to come in and take the remaining wealth that remains with the American public and expropriate it and use it the way you think he ought to use it. Right?
You don’t have the ‘nads to ask him to be like Hitler, Bill. That’s the big thing that’s missing. You’re the sissy, sir. Why don’t you get off your little throne there in Hollywood, and why don’t you send a letter to the President, and why don’t you tell him that you and all your little buddies out there in Tinseltown, in Hollywoodland, will absolutely support him if he calls up the 101st Airborne and starts sending them out into the hinterlands and into the neighborhoods to do exactly what Hitler did, serve notice to the people that your private property is not yours anymore because we have a national problem to fix and because we need some manufacturing jobs, so we’re just going to start confiscating all the steel that’s left in your tractors out there. Why don’t we try that? Oh, wait, Mike, that was Stalin that did that. Oh, gosh, wrong henchman. Why don’t you grow a set, Bill? You and your buddy Dylan Ratigan.
And why don’t you actually call for what it is that you’re asking people to follow you to, which is Hades, which is the end of days? Hmm? Hmm? Why don’t you have the courage of your convictions, sir? How about giving your private property up first? How about giving up your big fancy car? How about giving up your big fancy house? How about giving up any retirement funds that you have? What makes you exempt from the confiscation of wealth, Mr. Maher? Hmm? I love these limousine liberals, like George Carlin called them once, who think the only problem with this country is that we don’t have enough bicycle paths. Why don’t you lead the way? Why don’t you get with your buddies, with your buddies on the left there, so desperately want to see all of these things go away?
Because at the end of the day it’s those pesky little individuals that get in your way, Mr. Maher. It’s those pesky individuals that refuse to be knuckled-under and steamrolled by their government and refuse to surrender what little wealth they have left and what little liberty they have left that stand in your way. Well, we’re not going to get out of your way, Mr. Maher. Let me inform you of something, sir. Bring it on. You and all your little crook friends. You’re the one that’s on the wrong side of history, and you’re the one, despite your little rhetoric and your little comedy bits and all your little sycophants out there going “Yay, Bill, yay, you’re funny, yeah.” O’Reilly may want to sit down and hang out with you and think it’s funny for ratings because, oh, he’s such a fair guy. Well, I’m fair, too. Grow a set, Bill. Grow a set, Mr. Maher.
End Mike Church Show Transcript
Now, I ask you hows that for telling it like it is and not pulling any punches??
Mr. Maher, we'd like to ask of you to grow a set of nads, then call for what is that you're asking people to follow you to, which is the end of days. Give up your private property, fancy cars, fancy house, retirement funds and so on then maybe we'll discuss issues more pertinent than the solar system.
Climate Change Is Simple
Begin Mike Church Show Transcript
Mike: So you’re not convinced out there, obviously. So Dylligan Ratigan and Ted Rall didn’t convince you. Lawrence O’Donnell, out of the closet now, socialist, and Glenn Greenwald, who’s arguing that somehow Nancy Pelosi is not radical enough, and neither is Barack Hussein Obama – mm, mm, mm. So we need some real revolutionistas, real revoluciones. Listen to Bill Maher here from his monologue on Saturday night. Wasn’t O’Reilly on with Maher on Saturday night?
Mike: I’m pretty sure O’Reilly was in there because I heard him play a digital media file last night from his appearance with Maher, and he really got Maher [chuckling], when Maher said, “Well, Bill, I don’t know why I keep inviting you back on this show,” and O’Reilly said, “Because you want to get better ratings?” [Laughing] Funny stuff. Listen to this delusion here. And by the way, ladies and gentlemen, I don’t know, I don’t know how this got started. But somehow it has become another rite of passage for the revoluciones out there that, if you’re a scientist, and you do not work for the government, then everything you say is not to be trusted, and you cannot possibly have any brain cells to rub together. You have to be in the pay of someone else. You must be crooked, then. You must be corrupt. So only government can provide science now. This is what Maher’s argument on climate change is going to be.
Let me tell you something, Mr. Maher. Why don’t you invite an actual climate scientist on that program of yours, like Dr. Roy Spencer. Why don’t you invite my friend, David Archibald from Australia. He’s quite a funny guy, and he’ll blow you out of the water. Why don’t you invite Marc Morano on your little show there, on “Real Time,” and have an actual discussion about the science behind climate change. Nobody denies, Bill, that there isn’t climate change out there. Of course there’s climate change. The planet moves through space. It is affected by cosmic forces that we have no control over whatsoever, including our sun, and including the movement of other planets, you nitwit. You’re the anti-scientist, you alchemist freak. You think all these giant celestial bodies moving about in space don’t have an impact on this planet? What are you, nuts? Oh, yeah, yeah. What are you, Copernicus now? Everything revolves around Earth?
Don’t be so arrogant and so shallow and stupid, Mr. Maher. You’re the imbecile, and you’re the one that’s not looking at science. I would think that a reasoned people, and people that use reason to think, would probably be safer in concluding that, because we don’t know what’s out there, and because we don’t know all of the effects of the bazillions of planets and stars and galaxies that we continue to discover with all our vaunted technology, we can’t possibly know what effect they have on us. We can’t possible know what their movements have on us. We can’t possibly know what the turning up or down of their thermostats have on us. The stars do fluctuate, do they not? What, do we live in a vacuum here? We’re insulated because we’re Americans and because we have a sign that says, oh, I took a temperature, man, it’s hotter than it was yesterday. So? That’s effect, that’s not cause. There are two parts of hypotheses, sir, cause and effect. You’re telling me the effect, you’re not telling me the cause. Play your digital media file because Dr. Spencer heard this. What happened was that an actual climate scientist had heard this, and has responded it to it already. Roll the digital media file.
[Clip] Bill Maher: But the message of the rally, as I heard it, was that if the media would just stop giving voice to the crazies on both sides, then maybe we could restore sanity. It was all nonpartisan and urged cooperation with the moderates on the other side, forgetting that Obama tried that and found out there are no moderates on the other side.
Mike: Eh heh, eh heh. You mean the moderates that grew the debt twice?
[Clip] Bill Maher: When Jon announced his rally, he said that the national conversation is dominated by people on the right who believe Obama is a socialist, and people on the left who believe 911 was an inside job. But I can’t name any Democratic leaders who think 911 was an inside job. But Republican leaders who think Obama is a socialist? All of them. McCain, Boehner, Cantor, Palin, all of them. It’s now official Republican dogma, like tax cuts pay for themselves and gay men just haven’t met the right woman.
Mike: Eh heh, eh heh, eh heh, so funny. Ha ha ha ha, I’m laughing.
[Clip] Bill Maher: As another example of both sides using overheated rhetoric, Jon cited the right equating Obama with Hitler and the left calling Bush a war criminal. Except thinking Obama is like Hitler is utterly unfounded, but thinking Bush is a war criminal, that’s the opinion of General Anthony Taguba, who headed the army’s investigation into Abu Ghraib.
Mike: Pause this. Pause this madman for just a second here. HBO is irresponsible. I should cancel my HBO subscription when I get home tonight. Number two, who accuses Obama of being like Hitler? Who? I’ll say it right now to your face, Bill. He’s not like Hitler because he doesn’t have the ‘nads that Hitler had to actually come in and use the military, thank the Lord he doesn’t have the ‘nads, to get his way. He doesn’t have the ‘nads to actually be a national socialist like Hitler was, like you want him to be, Bill, and to come in and take the remaining wealth that remains with the American public and expropriate it and use it the way you think he ought to use it. Right?
You don’t have the ‘nads to ask him to be like Hitler, Bill. That’s the big thing that’s missing. You’re the sissy, sir. Why don’t you get off your little throne there in Hollywood, and why don’t you send a letter to the President, and why don’t you tell him that you and all your little buddies out there in Tinseltown, in Hollywoodland, will absolutely support him if he calls up the 101st Airborne and starts sending them out into the hinterlands and into the neighborhoods to do exactly what Hitler did, serve notice to the people that your private property is not yours anymore because we have a national problem to fix and because we need some manufacturing jobs, so we’re just going to start confiscating all the steel that’s left in your tractors out there. Why don’t we try that? Oh, wait, Mike, that was Stalin that did that. Oh, gosh, wrong henchman. Why don’t you grow a set, Bill? You and your buddy Dylan Ratigan.
And why don’t you actually call for what it is that you’re asking people to follow you to, which is Hades, which is the end of days? Hmm? Hmm? Why don’t you have the courage of your convictions, sir? How about giving your private property up first? How about giving up your big fancy car? How about giving up your big fancy house? How about giving up any retirement funds that you have? What makes you exempt from the confiscation of wealth, Mr. Maher? Hmm? I love these limousine liberals, like George Carlin called them once, who think the only problem with this country is that we don’t have enough bicycle paths. Why don’t you lead the way? Why don’t you get with your buddies, with your buddies on the left there, so desperately want to see all of these things go away?
Because at the end of the day it’s those pesky little individuals that get in your way, Mr. Maher. It’s those pesky individuals that refuse to be knuckled-under and steamrolled by their government and refuse to surrender what little wealth they have left and what little liberty they have left that stand in your way. Well, we’re not going to get out of your way, Mr. Maher. Let me inform you of something, sir. Bring it on. You and all your little crook friends. You’re the one that’s on the wrong side of history, and you’re the one, despite your little rhetoric and your little comedy bits and all your little sycophants out there going “Yay, Bill, yay, you’re funny, yeah.” O’Reilly may want to sit down and hang out with you and think it’s funny for ratings because, oh, he’s such a fair guy. Well, I’m fair, too. Grow a set, Bill. Grow a set, Mr. Maher.
End Mike Church Show Transcript
Now, I ask you hows that for telling it like it is and not pulling any punches??
Healthcare Plan vs. Iraq War: They're Both Unconstitutional
Let's say you happened to stumble across a 'magic coat rack', and when you hung your coat on the rack a whimsical genie appeared and told you that you'd be receiving 1.8 Million dollars a week for the foreseeable future. After your initial shock wears off and you realize the monetary Goliath that you have on your hands... we propose the question: what would you spend it on? and could you spend it all per week? If you said 'no' to the latter then consider yourself more fiscally responsible than the Federal Government. If you said you'd spend the money on military, in particularly in Afghanistan, then you most likely ARE the Federal Government.
Lets dwell on this further, shall we????
I offer you an interview between Mike Chrch and a caller named Katie:
Mike's got Katie of North Carolina on the line and she can't seem to apprehend why Liberals complain constantly about the cost of the war in Iraq (trillion dollars and counting) when the cost of healthcare will likely trump Iraq. Mike feels two ways about this: Firstly, Bush had no fidelity of the Constitution in declaring war in Iraq, he instead used a usurpation of the people's power claiming an "act of military authorization". Fifty United States go to war as a Union against a foreign enemy. Secondly, you can't have prosperity unless you're at peace. We're at war.
Mike: All right. To the phones we go on a Free Phone Thursday. First up here today, Katie in North Carolina. Katie, how are you? You’re on the Mike Church Show, Sirius XM Patriot channel. What’s going on?
Katie: Hey, Mike. I love your show. Thanks for having me.
Mike: You’re welcome.
Katie: What I wanted to comment on is how liberals complain constantly about the cost of the war in Iraq, yet this fiscal orgy that we’ve had over the past two and a half years could cost much more than the war in Iraq. And if you look at the predictions for the cost of healthcare and the road we’re going down, it makes the war in Iraq look like peanuts.
Mike: Yeah, the amount of money that has been spent, well, the war in Iraq was not peanuts. It was almost a trillion dollars.
Katie: Yeah, so...
Mike: Well, that taxicab meter is still running. This is why some of this stuff, Katie, is delusional because you’ve got some of these people out there, you’ve got some of these fake phony fraud conservatives out there, all humoring and having President Bush on their radio shows and their TV shows and, you know, talking about all the things that Bush accomplished as President. One of those things is, why, he kept us safe. Why, he did this, and he did all that, and what have you there. Well, he also got us into that Iraq war.
He also claims fidelity to the Constitution, and that’s why he wouldn’t come in and take over Louisiana, which he shouldn’t have, after Hurricane Katrina. But he had no fidelity to the Constitution when it came to declaring wars. He allowed, he signed, he participated in a usurpation of the people’s power. And he participated in that when there was act of military authorization. That is not a declaration of war. Fifty United States go to war as a nation against an enemy that is foreign. That is not what happened. And that’s why that thing turned into the quagmire that it did. And President Bush is – he materially participated in it. Hell, he asked for it. So...
Katie: He did. But they always go back to that statement; and, you know, whether the war, you know, was right or wrong, that’s a whole different conversation. But the fact that that is one of their standing arguments I think is just silly. And then, you know, being from North Carolina...
Mike: Well, but look at it from their point of view, and look at it from, okay, so let’s look at what the spending of a trillion dollars in Iraq engendered then. Okay. You guys are going to get your little military hardware, you DeceptiCons, you neocon freaks. You’re going to get to go bomb Saddam back into the Stone Ages and show the wonders of the U.S. military might, even though we don’t need it, even though there are no weapons of mass destruction. In exchange for that, though, you’re going to expand the domestic spending by the same amount, over a trillion dollars, which is pretty much what happened here. The only difference is that there is a slim possibility that Iraq spending may stop someday. There is no possibility that the domestic spending ever will.
Katie: Yeah, and it was still less expensive than Medicare.
Mike: Which was?
Katie: The war in Iraq. I really – I’m sorry, I’m breaking up. But on a yearly cost analysis, you know, again, the war has been expensive, pretty much unnecessary. But comparatively speaking, if you look at the numbers, it was still less expensive than Medicare.
Mike: Okay. But Katie, Katie, Katie. And you say you’re breaking up, so I’m going to let you go. See, folks, this is the problem here.
This is why conservatives can’t get anything done, and this is why I say the nation is filled with fake, phony, fraud conservatives. I don’t mean to say that Katie’s a fraud, but denial is not a river in Egypt. Don’t tell me that the Iraq war cost a trillion dollars, and we can debate whether or not it should have been fought. It shouldn’t. But that really doesn’t matter. Medicare cost a trillion, too. What do you mean it doesn’t matter? What do you – are we insane? This is nuts.
We have a war going on in Afghanistan right now. Nobody knows, folks, who knows why – “Oh, Mike, we’re there to get the Taliban.” No, we’re not. We are there to continue the military industrial complex spending and, while we’re at it, to in an inhumane, immoral in my estimation, fashion sacrifice the lives of too many young Americans. We’re spending $1.8 billion a week there. The estimates vary. It is absolutely unconscionable what is going on there. Where are the citizens of Libtardia demanding that Obama pull those troops out? Where are they? Where’s Cindy Sheehan laying down in front of the White House, screaming and whooping and hollering about the injustice of war? These people are peaceniks of convenience. They’re only peaceniks when it benefits them politically.
Look, you can’t have prosperity as long as you’re at war, so you should always want peace. This idea here that, “Well, well, Mike, we’ve got this war against terror.” I’m going to go over this again just really quick. I’m not going to spend a lot of time on it. But let me see if you’ve bought into this hook, line, and sinker. This is not to say that there aren’t jihadis out there. There always have been jihadis out there. But maybe we should stop mucking around in their business. Maybe we should stop guaranteeing the Saudi prince a safe passage of his oil through the Straits of Hormuz? Maybe we should stop dealing in the oil business in the Middle East and free up American oil and American gas and American energy. Because we have it here.
Don’t buy this lie, this urban legend that we don’t have resources. We have more resources than any other nation on Earth. We are the Saudi Arabia of Saudi Arabia. We’ve got more oil sitting in Colorado than they have in Saudi Arabia. We’ve got more oil sitting in the Bakken Oil Reserve than they have in Saudi Arabia. There’s more oil off the coast of Alaska and in Alaska, we don’t even know how much oil is there. Don’t give me that crap, we have to have foreign oil. We have to have it because we’ve been told we have to have it. It is a convenience. Again, our federal government has mandated that we have to buy foreign oil. We don’t have to. Why? Because then you have the excuse that, well, we had to remain engaged in the Middle East because they’re our friends, and they have our oil. We don’t need their oil. And we don’t need to be involved in their affairs anymore.
But none of this seems to matter. It matters to some of us. But you go through the exercise here. So you have the protection of the Saudi prince’s oil and all the other assets and what have you. You have the commitment of the United States Navy, the commitment of the Armed Forces and what have you. You have billions of dollars a week going right out the door, engaged in an effort that actually increases the cost of energy for the American public that’s funding and paying for all this. Not only are you getting it through direct taxes, you’re getting it through increased prices for energy at the gas pump, on your light bills, your energy bills, and then everything that’s manufactured here because it all takes energy. I mean, this may be a great secret to some, but it’s not a secret to us here in Louisiana and in Texas that the world’s greatest reserves of natural gas are sitting right out there in the Gulf of Mexico. That’s where they are. We don’t need a drop, don’t need a gram, don’t need a cubic foot of anyone’s energy. Drops, oils; grams, coal; cubic feet, natural gas. Don’t need it. I thought we were so technologically advanced. Why aren’t we building more nuclear power plants, hmm? Because the government says they’re not safe. Because the government says, oh, we’ve got to cave in to these scientists and these environmental tree huggers.
Folks, these are problems of our own making, can all be solved. And we have one entity that stands between solution and between continuing the misery and the deceit, and that is the federal Leviathan. So again I ask the question, why don’t we petition for a divorce? Why do we continue this exercise that we can fix this? Why don’t we just divorce it? That’s why that word “secession” needs to be on everybody’s tongue. That’s why that word “independence” needs to be on everybody’s tongue.
A hugh thanks to my good friend Mike for his imput...
Lets dwell on this further, shall we????
I offer you an interview between Mike Chrch and a caller named Katie:
Mike's got Katie of North Carolina on the line and she can't seem to apprehend why Liberals complain constantly about the cost of the war in Iraq (trillion dollars and counting) when the cost of healthcare will likely trump Iraq. Mike feels two ways about this: Firstly, Bush had no fidelity of the Constitution in declaring war in Iraq, he instead used a usurpation of the people's power claiming an "act of military authorization". Fifty United States go to war as a Union against a foreign enemy. Secondly, you can't have prosperity unless you're at peace. We're at war.
Mike: All right. To the phones we go on a Free Phone Thursday. First up here today, Katie in North Carolina. Katie, how are you? You’re on the Mike Church Show, Sirius XM Patriot channel. What’s going on?
Katie: Hey, Mike. I love your show. Thanks for having me.
Mike: You’re welcome.
Katie: What I wanted to comment on is how liberals complain constantly about the cost of the war in Iraq, yet this fiscal orgy that we’ve had over the past two and a half years could cost much more than the war in Iraq. And if you look at the predictions for the cost of healthcare and the road we’re going down, it makes the war in Iraq look like peanuts.
Mike: Yeah, the amount of money that has been spent, well, the war in Iraq was not peanuts. It was almost a trillion dollars.
Katie: Yeah, so...
Mike: Well, that taxicab meter is still running. This is why some of this stuff, Katie, is delusional because you’ve got some of these people out there, you’ve got some of these fake phony fraud conservatives out there, all humoring and having President Bush on their radio shows and their TV shows and, you know, talking about all the things that Bush accomplished as President. One of those things is, why, he kept us safe. Why, he did this, and he did all that, and what have you there. Well, he also got us into that Iraq war.
He also claims fidelity to the Constitution, and that’s why he wouldn’t come in and take over Louisiana, which he shouldn’t have, after Hurricane Katrina. But he had no fidelity to the Constitution when it came to declaring wars. He allowed, he signed, he participated in a usurpation of the people’s power. And he participated in that when there was act of military authorization. That is not a declaration of war. Fifty United States go to war as a nation against an enemy that is foreign. That is not what happened. And that’s why that thing turned into the quagmire that it did. And President Bush is – he materially participated in it. Hell, he asked for it. So...
Katie: He did. But they always go back to that statement; and, you know, whether the war, you know, was right or wrong, that’s a whole different conversation. But the fact that that is one of their standing arguments I think is just silly. And then, you know, being from North Carolina...
Mike: Well, but look at it from their point of view, and look at it from, okay, so let’s look at what the spending of a trillion dollars in Iraq engendered then. Okay. You guys are going to get your little military hardware, you DeceptiCons, you neocon freaks. You’re going to get to go bomb Saddam back into the Stone Ages and show the wonders of the U.S. military might, even though we don’t need it, even though there are no weapons of mass destruction. In exchange for that, though, you’re going to expand the domestic spending by the same amount, over a trillion dollars, which is pretty much what happened here. The only difference is that there is a slim possibility that Iraq spending may stop someday. There is no possibility that the domestic spending ever will.
Katie: Yeah, and it was still less expensive than Medicare.
Mike: Which was?
Katie: The war in Iraq. I really – I’m sorry, I’m breaking up. But on a yearly cost analysis, you know, again, the war has been expensive, pretty much unnecessary. But comparatively speaking, if you look at the numbers, it was still less expensive than Medicare.
Mike: Okay. But Katie, Katie, Katie. And you say you’re breaking up, so I’m going to let you go. See, folks, this is the problem here.
This is why conservatives can’t get anything done, and this is why I say the nation is filled with fake, phony, fraud conservatives. I don’t mean to say that Katie’s a fraud, but denial is not a river in Egypt. Don’t tell me that the Iraq war cost a trillion dollars, and we can debate whether or not it should have been fought. It shouldn’t. But that really doesn’t matter. Medicare cost a trillion, too. What do you mean it doesn’t matter? What do you – are we insane? This is nuts.
We have a war going on in Afghanistan right now. Nobody knows, folks, who knows why – “Oh, Mike, we’re there to get the Taliban.” No, we’re not. We are there to continue the military industrial complex spending and, while we’re at it, to in an inhumane, immoral in my estimation, fashion sacrifice the lives of too many young Americans. We’re spending $1.8 billion a week there. The estimates vary. It is absolutely unconscionable what is going on there. Where are the citizens of Libtardia demanding that Obama pull those troops out? Where are they? Where’s Cindy Sheehan laying down in front of the White House, screaming and whooping and hollering about the injustice of war? These people are peaceniks of convenience. They’re only peaceniks when it benefits them politically.
Look, you can’t have prosperity as long as you’re at war, so you should always want peace. This idea here that, “Well, well, Mike, we’ve got this war against terror.” I’m going to go over this again just really quick. I’m not going to spend a lot of time on it. But let me see if you’ve bought into this hook, line, and sinker. This is not to say that there aren’t jihadis out there. There always have been jihadis out there. But maybe we should stop mucking around in their business. Maybe we should stop guaranteeing the Saudi prince a safe passage of his oil through the Straits of Hormuz? Maybe we should stop dealing in the oil business in the Middle East and free up American oil and American gas and American energy. Because we have it here.
Don’t buy this lie, this urban legend that we don’t have resources. We have more resources than any other nation on Earth. We are the Saudi Arabia of Saudi Arabia. We’ve got more oil sitting in Colorado than they have in Saudi Arabia. We’ve got more oil sitting in the Bakken Oil Reserve than they have in Saudi Arabia. There’s more oil off the coast of Alaska and in Alaska, we don’t even know how much oil is there. Don’t give me that crap, we have to have foreign oil. We have to have it because we’ve been told we have to have it. It is a convenience. Again, our federal government has mandated that we have to buy foreign oil. We don’t have to. Why? Because then you have the excuse that, well, we had to remain engaged in the Middle East because they’re our friends, and they have our oil. We don’t need their oil. And we don’t need to be involved in their affairs anymore.
But none of this seems to matter. It matters to some of us. But you go through the exercise here. So you have the protection of the Saudi prince’s oil and all the other assets and what have you. You have the commitment of the United States Navy, the commitment of the Armed Forces and what have you. You have billions of dollars a week going right out the door, engaged in an effort that actually increases the cost of energy for the American public that’s funding and paying for all this. Not only are you getting it through direct taxes, you’re getting it through increased prices for energy at the gas pump, on your light bills, your energy bills, and then everything that’s manufactured here because it all takes energy. I mean, this may be a great secret to some, but it’s not a secret to us here in Louisiana and in Texas that the world’s greatest reserves of natural gas are sitting right out there in the Gulf of Mexico. That’s where they are. We don’t need a drop, don’t need a gram, don’t need a cubic foot of anyone’s energy. Drops, oils; grams, coal; cubic feet, natural gas. Don’t need it. I thought we were so technologically advanced. Why aren’t we building more nuclear power plants, hmm? Because the government says they’re not safe. Because the government says, oh, we’ve got to cave in to these scientists and these environmental tree huggers.
Folks, these are problems of our own making, can all be solved. And we have one entity that stands between solution and between continuing the misery and the deceit, and that is the federal Leviathan. So again I ask the question, why don’t we petition for a divorce? Why do we continue this exercise that we can fix this? Why don’t we just divorce it? That’s why that word “secession” needs to be on everybody’s tongue. That’s why that word “independence” needs to be on everybody’s tongue.
A hugh thanks to my good friend Mike for his imput...
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Michelle Obama Diden't Want To Live In Fear: She Should Talk To Chrysler's Hedge Fund Managers
Once again, ladies and gentlemen, we are being gamed. We’re being lied to. We’re being played here. This massive takeover of the financial system, this massive effort here by the brown-shirted Obama jack-booted White House thugs to run around and to demonize and to personally endanger the lives of American citizens .
And I’m not talking about the ones that are fighting in Afghanistan, a war that’s not supposed to be going on, but is. I’m talking about the executives at AIG. I’m talking about the executives at the hedge funds that were called to the mat by name by the President of the United States for personal retribution. You ought to see some of the headlines here today, ladies and gentlemen. “Chris, that could never happen in America.” Oh, really. Really? Not only could it, it is.
The Business Insider reports, last night this was posted, “Hedge Funds Outraged At Obama Bullying But Also Cowering In Fear.” Well, that’s one way to make sure that the economy is vibrant. “Hey Chris, that’s one of the ways that you fix an economy is you beat the people up that have the money, and then they give it to us.” Have you see the commercials for DirecTV where the cable board of directors is sitting around, the one specifically where they’re sitting around, and the guy gets the bright idea that’s running the cable company, hey, people have this thing called disposable income. I know what we’ll do, we’ll raise prices. Yeah. And we’ll get them to dispose it to us. We’ll get them to dispose of the income to us.
I tell you, that’s got to sound a lot like an Obama economic advisor meeting to me. You have the most amazingly amazing economic team in the history of amazingly amazing economic teams. We are going to fix the economy. Now, I seem to recall, ladies and gentlemen, I seem to recall that this President was elected on the promise that he was going to fix the economy. I am not a leftie, he proclaimed. I believe in big business. I believe in free markets. I believe in this and I believe in that. We’re going to give a tax credit to 800 bazillion people across the world. Everybody’s going to get a tax cut. Why, you wait and see. When I get done with the markets, everything’s going to be right as rain. He’s going to fix this; he’s going to fix that.
And what has he done? He has systematically worked tirelessly night and day to try and eradicate the exchange of private capital and to try to bring it under the direction, guidance, and control of the White House. This is unprecedented in the history of the republic. It’s almost unprecedented in the history of the world. Matter of fact, if the Castro brothers hadn’t done it, if Hugo Chavez hadn’t done it, if Mussolini hadn’t done it, if Hitler hadn’t done it, if Mao hadn’t done it, if Brezhnev and Stalin and Lenin hadn’t done it, why, no one else in the world would ever have tried this. Gee, I wonder how it’s going to turn out. Gee, I wonder how it’s going to work. This is shocking.
Heres that commercial I was thinking about, see if this rings a bell...
[Clip] “TV is doing very well in customer satisfaction. What do we do?”
“I learned this in business school. We can’t improve our service. But we can improve the price. We can make it higher.”
“You know what? That’s not a bad idea.”
“We’ll get the people with disposable income, and they can dispose of it to us.”
“And they don’t watch TV. They're workaholics.”
“They wouldn’t know HD if it sat in their lap and called them ‘Mama.’”
All right, that’s [laughing] what it sounds like inside the White House. That’s what Larry Summers and Joe, not only is he the Vice President, but he’s also a member of the Hair Plugs for Men Biden. And you got Tiny Tim Geithner. And they’re all sitting around the table, [mimicking Obama] “All right, how are we going to screw the economy up?” And you hear that. We’ll get the guys with disposable income. We’ll get them to dispose of it to us.
This is no joking matter, though, here, folks. Entire generations are being threatened with this. This train is off the tracks, and I seem to not be able to make people understand this. I’m speaking of the people that you have barbecues and crawfish boils and cocktail parties and weddings and stuff, and you go bowling and hang out and play darts with and what have you. They're just goofing around here. I think what it is, it is what is – it’s what’s known as living in denial. Happens all the time. People don’t want to admit that there’s bad, there’s bad things about, that there’s problems. It’s much easier while you can to just ignore them. And unfortunately that’s what’s going on out there, a lot of people ignoring them. They want to believe in this young, handsome President, that he could fix these things. Well, let me tell you, the jury should be in by now. Not whether he – but this is the worst part of it, the worst part of the deception. Not only is he not going to fix it, he’s not trying to fix it. He is trying by definition of his actions to break it, to exacerbate it and make it worse.
So back to Mr. Asness. “I run an approximately $20 billion money management firm that offers hedge funds as well as public mutual funds and unhedged traditional investments. My company is not involved in the Chrysler situation, but I am still aghast at the President’s comments. Of course these are my own views, and not those of my company,” he writes. “Furthermore, for some reason I was not born with the common sense to keep it to myself, though my title should more accurately be called "Not Afraid Enough" as I am indeed fearful writing this.” Now, can you imagine this? Man is sitting there in his office, a capitalist. And he’s scared to death that if he puts pen to paper, that the brain-dead, Obamabot zombie, Acorn-sponsored, jack-booted, brown-shirted with the little “o” insignia on their sleeve thugs are going to come after him? Show up at his house? Show up at his place of business? Demonize his investments? Single him out for retribution? This is how freedom works??
Anyways, back to Mr. Asness. “It’s really a bad idea to speak out,” he concludes. “Angering the President is a mistake, and my views will annoy half my clients. I hope my clients will understand that I’m entitled to my voice and to speak it loudly, just as they are in this great country. I hope they will also like that I do not think I have the right to intentionally ‘sacrifice’ their money without their permission.” Now, I told you two days ago that this was the crux of the argument here. These hedge fund guys weren’t holding out for a bailout or whatever the hell Obama said they were. They were holding out to protect their private investors, you and I, should our money be in their mutual funds or their hedge funds. They were trying to protect private property. Now, the Chrysler UAW guys don’t have any private property. They have taxpayer-subsidized property. And the President says, famously, “I stand with them.” Oh, really. So it sounds to me like Mr. Asness is living in fear. Now, let’s hear what Dear Leader First Lady Obama said way back in the campaign about living in fear.
[Clip] Michelle Obama: I am tired of living in a country where every decision that we’ve made over the last 10 years wasn’t for something, but it was because people told us we had to fear something. We had to fear people who looked different from us, fear people who believed in things that were different from us. Fear of one another right here in our own backyards. I am so tired of fear. And I don’t want my girls to live in a country and a world based on fear.
I will personally take a fund up and chip in for the one-way airfare for Michelle Obama and the girls to go live in a country where there is no fear, where there’s nothing but national healthcare and Utopia. It’s called Cuba. What? I didn’t say anything radical. She said she didn’t want to live in fear. I’m trying to help her out here. Now, back to Mr. Asness, “Hedge Funds Outraged At Obama Bullying But Also Cowering In Fear.” Because we can’t have fear, remember? This was the reason for electing Dear Leader, the Obamabot brain-dead zombies said. The hopie-dopie-changie crowd said, “Chris, he is post-partisan. He is post-racial. This guy is not going to bring fear. He’s going to bring sunshine.”
Oh, I feel better already, dont you all??
And I’m not talking about the ones that are fighting in Afghanistan, a war that’s not supposed to be going on, but is. I’m talking about the executives at AIG. I’m talking about the executives at the hedge funds that were called to the mat by name by the President of the United States for personal retribution. You ought to see some of the headlines here today, ladies and gentlemen. “Chris, that could never happen in America.” Oh, really. Really? Not only could it, it is.
The Business Insider reports, last night this was posted, “Hedge Funds Outraged At Obama Bullying But Also Cowering In Fear.” Well, that’s one way to make sure that the economy is vibrant. “Hey Chris, that’s one of the ways that you fix an economy is you beat the people up that have the money, and then they give it to us.” Have you see the commercials for DirecTV where the cable board of directors is sitting around, the one specifically where they’re sitting around, and the guy gets the bright idea that’s running the cable company, hey, people have this thing called disposable income. I know what we’ll do, we’ll raise prices. Yeah. And we’ll get them to dispose it to us. We’ll get them to dispose of the income to us.
I tell you, that’s got to sound a lot like an Obama economic advisor meeting to me. You have the most amazingly amazing economic team in the history of amazingly amazing economic teams. We are going to fix the economy. Now, I seem to recall, ladies and gentlemen, I seem to recall that this President was elected on the promise that he was going to fix the economy. I am not a leftie, he proclaimed. I believe in big business. I believe in free markets. I believe in this and I believe in that. We’re going to give a tax credit to 800 bazillion people across the world. Everybody’s going to get a tax cut. Why, you wait and see. When I get done with the markets, everything’s going to be right as rain. He’s going to fix this; he’s going to fix that.
And what has he done? He has systematically worked tirelessly night and day to try and eradicate the exchange of private capital and to try to bring it under the direction, guidance, and control of the White House. This is unprecedented in the history of the republic. It’s almost unprecedented in the history of the world. Matter of fact, if the Castro brothers hadn’t done it, if Hugo Chavez hadn’t done it, if Mussolini hadn’t done it, if Hitler hadn’t done it, if Mao hadn’t done it, if Brezhnev and Stalin and Lenin hadn’t done it, why, no one else in the world would ever have tried this. Gee, I wonder how it’s going to turn out. Gee, I wonder how it’s going to work. This is shocking.
Heres that commercial I was thinking about, see if this rings a bell...
[Clip] “TV is doing very well in customer satisfaction. What do we do?”
“I learned this in business school. We can’t improve our service. But we can improve the price. We can make it higher.”
“You know what? That’s not a bad idea.”
“We’ll get the people with disposable income, and they can dispose of it to us.”
“And they don’t watch TV. They're workaholics.”
“They wouldn’t know HD if it sat in their lap and called them ‘Mama.’”
All right, that’s [laughing] what it sounds like inside the White House. That’s what Larry Summers and Joe, not only is he the Vice President, but he’s also a member of the Hair Plugs for Men Biden. And you got Tiny Tim Geithner. And they’re all sitting around the table, [mimicking Obama] “All right, how are we going to screw the economy up?” And you hear that. We’ll get the guys with disposable income. We’ll get them to dispose of it to us.
This is no joking matter, though, here, folks. Entire generations are being threatened with this. This train is off the tracks, and I seem to not be able to make people understand this. I’m speaking of the people that you have barbecues and crawfish boils and cocktail parties and weddings and stuff, and you go bowling and hang out and play darts with and what have you. They're just goofing around here. I think what it is, it is what is – it’s what’s known as living in denial. Happens all the time. People don’t want to admit that there’s bad, there’s bad things about, that there’s problems. It’s much easier while you can to just ignore them. And unfortunately that’s what’s going on out there, a lot of people ignoring them. They want to believe in this young, handsome President, that he could fix these things. Well, let me tell you, the jury should be in by now. Not whether he – but this is the worst part of it, the worst part of the deception. Not only is he not going to fix it, he’s not trying to fix it. He is trying by definition of his actions to break it, to exacerbate it and make it worse.
So back to Mr. Asness. “I run an approximately $20 billion money management firm that offers hedge funds as well as public mutual funds and unhedged traditional investments. My company is not involved in the Chrysler situation, but I am still aghast at the President’s comments. Of course these are my own views, and not those of my company,” he writes. “Furthermore, for some reason I was not born with the common sense to keep it to myself, though my title should more accurately be called "Not Afraid Enough" as I am indeed fearful writing this.” Now, can you imagine this? Man is sitting there in his office, a capitalist. And he’s scared to death that if he puts pen to paper, that the brain-dead, Obamabot zombie, Acorn-sponsored, jack-booted, brown-shirted with the little “o” insignia on their sleeve thugs are going to come after him? Show up at his house? Show up at his place of business? Demonize his investments? Single him out for retribution? This is how freedom works??
Anyways, back to Mr. Asness. “It’s really a bad idea to speak out,” he concludes. “Angering the President is a mistake, and my views will annoy half my clients. I hope my clients will understand that I’m entitled to my voice and to speak it loudly, just as they are in this great country. I hope they will also like that I do not think I have the right to intentionally ‘sacrifice’ their money without their permission.” Now, I told you two days ago that this was the crux of the argument here. These hedge fund guys weren’t holding out for a bailout or whatever the hell Obama said they were. They were holding out to protect their private investors, you and I, should our money be in their mutual funds or their hedge funds. They were trying to protect private property. Now, the Chrysler UAW guys don’t have any private property. They have taxpayer-subsidized property. And the President says, famously, “I stand with them.” Oh, really. So it sounds to me like Mr. Asness is living in fear. Now, let’s hear what Dear Leader First Lady Obama said way back in the campaign about living in fear.
[Clip] Michelle Obama: I am tired of living in a country where every decision that we’ve made over the last 10 years wasn’t for something, but it was because people told us we had to fear something. We had to fear people who looked different from us, fear people who believed in things that were different from us. Fear of one another right here in our own backyards. I am so tired of fear. And I don’t want my girls to live in a country and a world based on fear.
I will personally take a fund up and chip in for the one-way airfare for Michelle Obama and the girls to go live in a country where there is no fear, where there’s nothing but national healthcare and Utopia. It’s called Cuba. What? I didn’t say anything radical. She said she didn’t want to live in fear. I’m trying to help her out here. Now, back to Mr. Asness, “Hedge Funds Outraged At Obama Bullying But Also Cowering In Fear.” Because we can’t have fear, remember? This was the reason for electing Dear Leader, the Obamabot brain-dead zombies said. The hopie-dopie-changie crowd said, “Chris, he is post-partisan. He is post-racial. This guy is not going to bring fear. He’s going to bring sunshine.”
Oh, I feel better already, dont you all??
Sunday, October 31, 2010
The conservative path back to the Constitution
Much has been made about the “Tea Party” movement and other American’s calls to “return to the Constitution” and get “our government back” from the politicians and special interests that have stolen it. There are many thoughtful plans being promoted that should the Republican Party regain control of the House of Representatives, they should pursue. These plans offer various degrees of remodeling the federal system but do nothing to alter its inexorable course toward either an Oligarchy or acting national democratic legislature.
I offer as a counterpoint this brief list of actions that would merely begin the process of “returning to the Constitution”. The list could easily number in the hundreds of pages and resemble one of the current Congress's legislative acts in both size and scope and even that wouldn’t completely “return us to the Constitution.”
With an open mind and with an even more hopeful heart I offer this brief set of actions that would only begin the “return” process and challenge my fellow citizens to consider the magnitude of what must be done to “secure the [former] blessing of liberty to ourselves AND our posterity.
Disclaimer - I make no claim to the precise naming of all agencies, Acts and or laws cited herein.
1. Freeze all federal hiring, this includes funding requests from the executive branch to hire.
2. Repeal the Budget Act of 1974 and all it’s contingent COLA “mandates” no matter the agency or program they are applicable to.
3. Freeze under threat of rescinding funding any and all new regulations currently under review or consideration
4. Have an up or down vote on a Declaration of War with Iraq and with Afghanistan. if either fails then troop withdrawals must begin immediately.
5. Pass the Private Property Restoration Act which among other things shall forbid any federal magistrate from hearing any cases to restrict use of private property.
6. Repeal the AMT permanently by statute.
7. Repeal the capital gains tax.
8. Refuse to fund the Education Department and the Department of Energy, any programs, grants projects or construction begun under these agencies must cease. The EPA’s charter must be rewritten to make it clear that it only has jurisdiction over federal and or territorial waters and land.
9. Repeal ObamaCare and all contingent legislation. Congress must then use legitimate Commerce Clause powers to “make commerce regular” and remove from the tax code all subsidies, all claims of tax credit, any and all restrictions federal law imposes on the sale or use of major medical health insurance. This must include federal recognition of PPO, HMO or other plans created to satisfy Congress.
10. Repeal the FICA and sunset the program by Jan 1, 2030. Establish a cutoff date for continued payment eligibility such as born on or before December 31, 1959.
11. Repeal the Patriot Act of 2001, 2005 and sunset the Department of Homeland Security on or before December 31, 2012.
12. Repeal all mandates, taxes and law pertaining to the SCHIP program.
13. Announce the return of U.S. Gold and Silver bullion coins as legal tender and order the treasury to begin the purchase of bullion with the intent of eliminating paper currency in favor of gold and silver coin and gold and silver coin backed notes.
14. Pass the Debt Consolidation and Repayment Act. This Act will require the sale of all lands currently “owned” by the U.S. government which do not house “needful buildings, docks, arsenals, forts and magazines”. This is not limited to “Parks” and “National forests”. All proceeds are to be solely applicable to the repayment of the U.S. Governments outstanding debts both domestic and foreign.
15. End the federal tax designations enacted and known as 501 (c), (g), 503, 527 e.g. “non-profits”.
16. Repeal the “Income tax witholding act” and enact an immediate and deduction free, flat income tax law, payable once per year by each citizen.
17. Repeal all corporate and business interest, income and profit taxation.
18. Heed the call of 38 states that shall call an convention to amend the Constitution under Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
So, are you ready to give up all your government safety nets and entitlements??? Only then will we be truely free to live our lives as we see fit. We can either do this by choice of we can do this when we are totally bankrupted and insolvent, its your choice people.
I offer as a counterpoint this brief list of actions that would merely begin the process of “returning to the Constitution”. The list could easily number in the hundreds of pages and resemble one of the current Congress's legislative acts in both size and scope and even that wouldn’t completely “return us to the Constitution.”
With an open mind and with an even more hopeful heart I offer this brief set of actions that would only begin the “return” process and challenge my fellow citizens to consider the magnitude of what must be done to “secure the [former] blessing of liberty to ourselves AND our posterity.
Disclaimer - I make no claim to the precise naming of all agencies, Acts and or laws cited herein.
1. Freeze all federal hiring, this includes funding requests from the executive branch to hire.
2. Repeal the Budget Act of 1974 and all it’s contingent COLA “mandates” no matter the agency or program they are applicable to.
3. Freeze under threat of rescinding funding any and all new regulations currently under review or consideration
4. Have an up or down vote on a Declaration of War with Iraq and with Afghanistan. if either fails then troop withdrawals must begin immediately.
5. Pass the Private Property Restoration Act which among other things shall forbid any federal magistrate from hearing any cases to restrict use of private property.
6. Repeal the AMT permanently by statute.
7. Repeal the capital gains tax.
8. Refuse to fund the Education Department and the Department of Energy, any programs, grants projects or construction begun under these agencies must cease. The EPA’s charter must be rewritten to make it clear that it only has jurisdiction over federal and or territorial waters and land.
9. Repeal ObamaCare and all contingent legislation. Congress must then use legitimate Commerce Clause powers to “make commerce regular” and remove from the tax code all subsidies, all claims of tax credit, any and all restrictions federal law imposes on the sale or use of major medical health insurance. This must include federal recognition of PPO, HMO or other plans created to satisfy Congress.
10. Repeal the FICA and sunset the program by Jan 1, 2030. Establish a cutoff date for continued payment eligibility such as born on or before December 31, 1959.
11. Repeal the Patriot Act of 2001, 2005 and sunset the Department of Homeland Security on or before December 31, 2012.
12. Repeal all mandates, taxes and law pertaining to the SCHIP program.
13. Announce the return of U.S. Gold and Silver bullion coins as legal tender and order the treasury to begin the purchase of bullion with the intent of eliminating paper currency in favor of gold and silver coin and gold and silver coin backed notes.
14. Pass the Debt Consolidation and Repayment Act. This Act will require the sale of all lands currently “owned” by the U.S. government which do not house “needful buildings, docks, arsenals, forts and magazines”. This is not limited to “Parks” and “National forests”. All proceeds are to be solely applicable to the repayment of the U.S. Governments outstanding debts both domestic and foreign.
15. End the federal tax designations enacted and known as 501 (c), (g), 503, 527 e.g. “non-profits”.
16. Repeal the “Income tax witholding act” and enact an immediate and deduction free, flat income tax law, payable once per year by each citizen.
17. Repeal all corporate and business interest, income and profit taxation.
18. Heed the call of 38 states that shall call an convention to amend the Constitution under Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
So, are you ready to give up all your government safety nets and entitlements??? Only then will we be truely free to live our lives as we see fit. We can either do this by choice of we can do this when we are totally bankrupted and insolvent, its your choice people.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Can we really shrink the size of government?
One of the core beliefs of the Tea Party movement is that the government is too big, too powerful, and costs too much money. Of course, this is also a core conservative belief that over the years has not necessarily been championed by the Republican Party. But now, with Republicans poised to make massive gains in Tuesday's elections and Tea Party activists motivated to exert their influence past Election Day, could this be the time when we can actually shrink the size of government?
Let's face it... government is just too big, and the bigger it gets, the less freedom we have as individuals, because more of our money is going to feed the beast. But do we have the stomach to do what is necessary to shrink it? According to a new Rasmussen Reports poll about "one-quarter of Americans say they receive some form of cash benefits from the government, and most are not willing to sacrifice any of that money to help cut the size of the federal budget." Wow... talk about starting behind the eight ball! The poll reports that of those receiving cash benefits, 63% "are not willing to consider any benefit reductions."
The problem is that the left wing philosophy will take us down an unsustainable path. Just look at France. They are having riots because the people are demanding their "free lunch," and the government is realizing there is not enough money to pay for it.
The other problem is that once politicians get to Washington, they forget that is the people's money. They see a pot of cash, and they feel that it's their job to spend it. WRONG. We elect Republicans so that power can be returned to the people. We want a smaller government!
There is nothing that frustrates me more than seeing a Republican legislator go on television and talk about how Republicans took action and "slowed the rate of growth" of government. Are you kidding me? I'm not looking at a first derivative. I don't care about the rate of growth. Slow rate, fast rate, medium rate... it all means that government is growing. It means more money is going into it this year than last year. I want smaller government. Period.
In order for government to shrink, tough choices must be made. Because of the entitlement mentality that has existed for the last 70 years, much of the federal budget is tied up in pay-outs to Americans, whether it be Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. Now Obama wants to add health care to the mix as well? Cuts will need to be made, but more importantly, a new mindset must begin to take hold. The people of France are rioting in the streets, because they have long become accustomed to the government taking care of them. This, however, is America, and we take care of our own. We need to get that mindset back or we will never have the will to shrink government.
With Republicans in control of the U.S. House, we have the opportunity to put a halt to Obama's big-spending plans. Republicans are already making plans to push spending cuts in the next session.
(Republican leaders, ever more confident of their chances of winning control of the House and possibly even the Senate, have begun plotting a 2011 agenda topped by a push for more than $100 billion in spending cuts, tax reductions and attempts to undo key parts of President Barack Obama's health care and financial regulation laws.
The question is how much of the GOP's government-shrinking, tax-cutting agenda to advance, and how fast.)
If Republicans can make further gains in 2012, we can be in a position to actually reverse the process. But it will take the American people and our elected representatives having the fortitude to do what is right, otherwise this country will crumble under the weight of increasing debt.
Can we do it? Decades of data indicate no. But this is America, and if any country can do it, America can. I just hope it's not too late!
Let's face it... government is just too big, and the bigger it gets, the less freedom we have as individuals, because more of our money is going to feed the beast. But do we have the stomach to do what is necessary to shrink it? According to a new Rasmussen Reports poll about "one-quarter of Americans say they receive some form of cash benefits from the government, and most are not willing to sacrifice any of that money to help cut the size of the federal budget." Wow... talk about starting behind the eight ball! The poll reports that of those receiving cash benefits, 63% "are not willing to consider any benefit reductions."
The problem is that the left wing philosophy will take us down an unsustainable path. Just look at France. They are having riots because the people are demanding their "free lunch," and the government is realizing there is not enough money to pay for it.
The other problem is that once politicians get to Washington, they forget that is the people's money. They see a pot of cash, and they feel that it's their job to spend it. WRONG. We elect Republicans so that power can be returned to the people. We want a smaller government!
There is nothing that frustrates me more than seeing a Republican legislator go on television and talk about how Republicans took action and "slowed the rate of growth" of government. Are you kidding me? I'm not looking at a first derivative. I don't care about the rate of growth. Slow rate, fast rate, medium rate... it all means that government is growing. It means more money is going into it this year than last year. I want smaller government. Period.
In order for government to shrink, tough choices must be made. Because of the entitlement mentality that has existed for the last 70 years, much of the federal budget is tied up in pay-outs to Americans, whether it be Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. Now Obama wants to add health care to the mix as well? Cuts will need to be made, but more importantly, a new mindset must begin to take hold. The people of France are rioting in the streets, because they have long become accustomed to the government taking care of them. This, however, is America, and we take care of our own. We need to get that mindset back or we will never have the will to shrink government.
With Republicans in control of the U.S. House, we have the opportunity to put a halt to Obama's big-spending plans. Republicans are already making plans to push spending cuts in the next session.
(Republican leaders, ever more confident of their chances of winning control of the House and possibly even the Senate, have begun plotting a 2011 agenda topped by a push for more than $100 billion in spending cuts, tax reductions and attempts to undo key parts of President Barack Obama's health care and financial regulation laws.
The question is how much of the GOP's government-shrinking, tax-cutting agenda to advance, and how fast.)
If Republicans can make further gains in 2012, we can be in a position to actually reverse the process. But it will take the American people and our elected representatives having the fortitude to do what is right, otherwise this country will crumble under the weight of increasing debt.
Can we do it? Decades of data indicate no. But this is America, and if any country can do it, America can. I just hope it's not too late!
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Our Constitution Means What It Says, and is not open to interpretation!
Written Constitutions mean exactly what the writers and ratifiers say they mean and nothing else in the form of this essay from MI Supreme Court Judge Thomas McIntyre Cooley.
Cooley's books on the subject is also posted here for purchase at amazon.com and for instant reading here at Google books.
A cardinal rule in dealing with written instruments is that they shall receive a unvarying interpretation, and that their practical construction is to be uniform. A constitution is not to be made to mean one thing at one time, and another at some subsequent time when the circumstances may have so changed as perhaps to make a difference rule in the case seem desirable.
A principle share of the benefit expected from written constitutions would be lost if the rules they established were to be so flexible as to bend to circumstances or be modified by public opinion. It is with special reference to the varying moods of public opinion, and with a view to putting the fundamentals of government beyond their control, that these instruments are framed; and there can be no such steady and imperceptible change in their rules as inheres in the principles of the common law. Those beneficent maxims of the common law which guard person and property have grown and expanded until they mean vastly more to us than they did to our ancestors, and are more minute, particular, and pervading in their protections; and we may confidently look forward in the future to still further modifications in the direction of improvement.
Public sentiment and action effect such changes, and the courts recognize them; but a court or legislature which should allow a change in public sentiment to influence it in giving construction to a written constitution not warranted by the intention of its founders, would be justly chargeable with reckless disregard of official oath and public duty; and if its course would become a precedent, these instruments would be of little avail. The violence of public passion is quite as likely to be in the direction of oppression as in any other; and the necessity of bills of rights in our fundamental laws lies mainly in the danger that the legislature will be influenced by temporary excitements and passions among the people to adopt oppressive enactments.
What a court is to do, therefore, is to declare the law as written, leaving it to the people themselves to make such changes as new circumstances may require. The meaning of the constitution is fixed when it is adopted, and it is not different at any subsequent time when a court has occasion to pass upon it."
I have added a discussion between Mike Church and Dr. Kevin Gutzman shortly after obamas` 1st nomination of a female,latin supreme court judge.....
Mike: Dr. Kevin Gutzman on the line here. But he watched the hearings. So we’ll get the Doc’s take on this. How are you today, Kev?
Dr. Kevin Gutzman: I am very well, Mike. How are you?
Mike: I am fantastic. Did I miss anything? You watched the hearings, I suppose. I was on vacation. I didn’t. What did I miss?
Kevin: Well, what I was reminded of in thinking about her comments about the superior merits of the wise Latina judge, was an experience I had in law school at the University of Texas Law School 20 years ago now. We had class protests by Hispanic and black students and people who were sympathetic with them in which they demanded that there should be particular chairs in law, that is, professorships, set aside for black and Hispanic academics.
Mike: Okay.
Kevin: And the idea was that only a black or a Hispanic academic would have the knowledge of the world that a black or Hispanic academic would have, and that there could not be a first-class legal faculty without the particular insights, I suppose, of wise black and Latina or Latino academics. So not only was it not an offhand comment that Sotomayor was pilloried for, but it was also not anything peculiar to her. This is a very widely believed notion in legal academia, and that means also among lawyers that basically when it comes to judging, there are special insights of blacks and Hispanics that white men just don’t have. And so we need to have some kind of, at least what was being proposed at UT Law School, which is one of the top five public law schools in the country, what was being proposed was a quota system in hiring professors. And of course what we see now is essentially a quota system in appointing people to federal judgeships, and apparently to the Supreme Court.
Mike: It is nothing short of – I can’t even say it’s amazing anymore because it’s not amazing. It happens all the time. I mean, it is the daily grind of the “bidness,” would you say the energetic business of government? Isn’t that what the framers – isn’t that what the federalists that were framers called – said that we needed, Dr. Gutzman, we needed an energetic government? Could they have imagined that we would have one that was not only energetic but had been injected with about 5,000 gallons of Winstrol V steroids?
Kevin: Well, they certainly said there should be energy in the executive. I’m not sure that they ever imagined the wide-ranging law-making prerogative exercised by federal judges these days. But, yeah, that was an idea that was held by a lot of nationalists in the 1780s. I have to say that I thought that the proposal my classmates were making at UT Law School 20 years ago – this is the University of Texas at Austin Law School.
Mike: Right.
Kevin: This idea that there should be particular positions on the faculty set aside that only black or Hispanic academics could apply for, I thought this sounded very South African. And in fact, I...
Mike: [Laughing] You mean like apartheid?
Kevin: I thought it was precisely apartheid.
Mike: Okay, all right.
Kevin: And in fact at the time I was president of the UT chapter of the Federalist Society. And so we put up signs all over the law school saying that these should be referred to as the P. W. Botha chairs in law. And apparently we’re now going to have P. W. Botha chairs of, I don’t know, Supreme Court Justice.
Mike: I suppose, I mean, if you’re looking for a silver lining here, and I don’t think this is a silver lining, but just the fact that she replaced another incompetent nincompoop in Justice Souter, who famously decided the Kelo v. New London case, right down the road from where you are in Western Connecticut – right? That’s a Connecticut place; right?
Kevin: Well, yes. Actually, though, I think a lot of people are saying that. But I think it’s mistaken. It seems to me that, while Souter was pretty reliably going to come out in favor of upholding left-wing precedents, he was a pretty strong devotee of the idea of what’s called “stare decisis,” that is, that what the Court had done before should not be changed without some really good reason. And that’s actually not so left-wing a position as we might fear that Judge Sotomayor might follow. The idea of quotas for minorities and so on was not one that Souter endorsed. And so far as I can tell, Sotomayor supports it. So I actually think that Sotomayor is very likely to be worse than Souter.
Mike: Yeah, but she’d have to have four others to go along with her. Not to say that there won’t be because you have Kennedy. You have Darth Vader Ginsburg. Who is the other, John Paul Stevens. So that’s four right there.
Kevin: Right.
Mike: It doesn’t portend well. But I say it doesn’t portend well. The Supreme Court was never designed to have this authority anyways, was it?
Kevin: No, that’s exactly the problem. Ever since at least ‘87 when Bork was nominated we’ve paid more attention to nomination processes for the Supreme Court than we pay to any Senate race, as if the Supreme Court were the Supreme Legislature. And of course the reason for that is that the Supreme Court is the Supreme Legislature, and this is more important than any Senate race. So think about the attention that was given to this, and compare it to the attention that was given to the difficulty in deciding who had won the Minnesota Senate election this year, and you’ll see that it’s just orders of magnitude difference. The reason is Ms. Sotomayor is now more important than Al Franken. Maybe that’s a good thing, but...
Mike: You may not want to disparage that statement just too much. Dr. Kevin Gutzman, who’s got three books out. The paperback edition of “Who Killed the Constitution” is out now. You can get that at fine bookstores and at Amazon.com. And at KevinGutzman.com, “Virginia’s American Revolution” and “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution.”
We just had another guy who called, right before you were on, Kevin, and he was asking the constitutionality. And people call me for these things all the time, you may have heard him, of how can Obama sit there, or Congressman Rangel sit there and say that they have the sovereign authority to force or to compel me to buy something that I don’t want, namely health insurance, under the threat of a tax increase or a fine if I fail to do so. And of course the short snickety answer to that is, well, that they’re a national legislature now, do whatever the hell they want. The constitutional, if there was such a thing in effect, answer would be, well, they don’t have the authority. What would you have responded to that gentleman?
Kevin: Well, that’s precisely right. You know, one provision of the Constitution that left-wingers like to point to in support of their idea that we should say that there are rights to have abortions and engage in homosexual sodomy and all kinds of things that had always been not only not rights, but illegal before, is the Ninth Amendment. They want to say that the Ninth Amendment is a general protection of rights and that judges, federal judges should be able to invent new rights under the Ninth Amendment and force them against the states. I, of course, think that’s illegitimate.
Mike: Right.
Kevin: But on the other hand, the right to hire somebody to be your doctor and pay him the amount that the two of you have agreed to actually is a longstanding right of English-speaking people. And I think it’s something that does actually fall under the Ninth Amendment. So it seems to me that you could make a legitimate argument, and of course that means it’s one that wouldn’t be accepted by a federal court, you could make a legitimate historical argument that you have a Ninth Amendment right not to have Obama tell you who your doctor will be or how much you’ll pay him. But, you know, this is America, so we have arbitrary unlimited central government. And there’s really nothing you can do about it except try to vote out the congressmen who voted to impose this on you.
Mike: Right, and this is what I – one of the things that I find, well, it’s interesting to me and it’s interesting to you because we have read these things. Unfortunately, there’s 309,999,997 – I’ll include Dr. Woods in the people that have read the Ratification Debates in Virginia of the Constitution. This is exactly, this is happening according to prophecy, is it not? Isn’t this exactly what Patrick Henry and what William Grayson and what James Monroe – mainly Henry, though – said was going to happen? Aren’t we following the course?
Kevin: We could not be any closer to what he predicted. And, you know, anybody who thinks that we have constitutional government now should just compare the predictions that Patrick Henry made about the worst possible fruit of ratifying the Constitution...
Mike: Right.
Kevin: ...to what we actually live under. And what we actually live under is his worst-case scenario. We don’t call Obama the king, but other than that it’s about as bad as any of those people had nightmares it might be. That is, the central government feels free to tell you what to do in any sense at any time of your day, and it feels free to veto any policy of state government it doesn’t like, and the executive is free to make war anywhere he wants and force you to pay for it. Besides which, they feel free to put stay laws in effect and essentially transfer money from people who have loaned money in good faith to people who’ve decided they can’t pay. So, yeah, it’s an absolute failure.
Mike: Which is...
Kevin: The only question, I think the question it leaves is, is it just because of the American Constitution, is the federal constitution shortcomings that we’ve ended up in this situation? Or is this a general problem that is always going to inhere in written constitutions? Are written constitutions just ultimately bound to fail? Or is it because our own particular Constitution has led to this point that we have this problem we have now?
Mike: Well, how...
Kevin: I don’t know the answer to that. But I do know that I can’t think of a written constitution that has worked over a long period of time.
Mike: Well, I was going to ask you, our forefathers were very reverent towards the English Constitution; right?
Kevin: Right.
Mike: Or I guess the one that came out in – I’m going to get the date wrong, so you can correct me, 1678 or whatever it was.
Kevin: 1688.
Mike: 1688, okay. So how long did the English live under their vaunted – and it was a great charter at the time; was it not? How long did they live under their Constitution?
Kevin: Well, of course the English Constitution of 1688 was unwritten. And they would argue that they live under it now. But the problem that the people who made the American Revolution had encountered was essentially that the English had decided that it did not apply to colonists living in North America. That is, that while there was a right under the English Constitution to be represented in Parliament, that didn’t apply to people who were outside the mother country and so on.
Mike: Right.
Kevin: So the point is, written constitutions were supposed to be a way to provide a firm check on the tendency of people in office to grab at more power than the people had intended to give them. And that was not an idea that was part of the English Constitution. There was a general idea that Parliament was sovereign and could do basically whatever it wanted to do. Then the Americans decided to reject that by writing constitutions that say exactly what government officials could do. But again, what we have now is a situation in which, as that last caller was complaining about, there is no limit to what federal officials feel entitled to do to you. There’s no limit to what they feel entitled to do to foreign countries in your name. There’s no limit to what they feel free to impose on your state government. There’s just no limit. And that’s exactly and the only thing the written Constitution was supposed to do was provide limitation on the power of the government.
Mike: Well, that’s what it was supposed to do.
Kevin: Yeah, yeah.
Mike: And it did for a while. But, I mean, as you pointed out in your books, the usurpations began as soon as the gavel banged down the First Congress in 1790; didn’t it.
Kevin: I fear that they certainly began trying to grab more power almost instantly.
Cooley's books on the subject is also posted here for purchase at amazon.com and for instant reading here at Google books.
A cardinal rule in dealing with written instruments is that they shall receive a unvarying interpretation, and that their practical construction is to be uniform. A constitution is not to be made to mean one thing at one time, and another at some subsequent time when the circumstances may have so changed as perhaps to make a difference rule in the case seem desirable.
A principle share of the benefit expected from written constitutions would be lost if the rules they established were to be so flexible as to bend to circumstances or be modified by public opinion. It is with special reference to the varying moods of public opinion, and with a view to putting the fundamentals of government beyond their control, that these instruments are framed; and there can be no such steady and imperceptible change in their rules as inheres in the principles of the common law. Those beneficent maxims of the common law which guard person and property have grown and expanded until they mean vastly more to us than they did to our ancestors, and are more minute, particular, and pervading in their protections; and we may confidently look forward in the future to still further modifications in the direction of improvement.
Public sentiment and action effect such changes, and the courts recognize them; but a court or legislature which should allow a change in public sentiment to influence it in giving construction to a written constitution not warranted by the intention of its founders, would be justly chargeable with reckless disregard of official oath and public duty; and if its course would become a precedent, these instruments would be of little avail. The violence of public passion is quite as likely to be in the direction of oppression as in any other; and the necessity of bills of rights in our fundamental laws lies mainly in the danger that the legislature will be influenced by temporary excitements and passions among the people to adopt oppressive enactments.
What a court is to do, therefore, is to declare the law as written, leaving it to the people themselves to make such changes as new circumstances may require. The meaning of the constitution is fixed when it is adopted, and it is not different at any subsequent time when a court has occasion to pass upon it."
I have added a discussion between Mike Church and Dr. Kevin Gutzman shortly after obamas` 1st nomination of a female,latin supreme court judge.....
Mike: Dr. Kevin Gutzman on the line here. But he watched the hearings. So we’ll get the Doc’s take on this. How are you today, Kev?
Dr. Kevin Gutzman: I am very well, Mike. How are you?
Mike: I am fantastic. Did I miss anything? You watched the hearings, I suppose. I was on vacation. I didn’t. What did I miss?
Kevin: Well, what I was reminded of in thinking about her comments about the superior merits of the wise Latina judge, was an experience I had in law school at the University of Texas Law School 20 years ago now. We had class protests by Hispanic and black students and people who were sympathetic with them in which they demanded that there should be particular chairs in law, that is, professorships, set aside for black and Hispanic academics.
Mike: Okay.
Kevin: And the idea was that only a black or a Hispanic academic would have the knowledge of the world that a black or Hispanic academic would have, and that there could not be a first-class legal faculty without the particular insights, I suppose, of wise black and Latina or Latino academics. So not only was it not an offhand comment that Sotomayor was pilloried for, but it was also not anything peculiar to her. This is a very widely believed notion in legal academia, and that means also among lawyers that basically when it comes to judging, there are special insights of blacks and Hispanics that white men just don’t have. And so we need to have some kind of, at least what was being proposed at UT Law School, which is one of the top five public law schools in the country, what was being proposed was a quota system in hiring professors. And of course what we see now is essentially a quota system in appointing people to federal judgeships, and apparently to the Supreme Court.
Mike: It is nothing short of – I can’t even say it’s amazing anymore because it’s not amazing. It happens all the time. I mean, it is the daily grind of the “bidness,” would you say the energetic business of government? Isn’t that what the framers – isn’t that what the federalists that were framers called – said that we needed, Dr. Gutzman, we needed an energetic government? Could they have imagined that we would have one that was not only energetic but had been injected with about 5,000 gallons of Winstrol V steroids?
Kevin: Well, they certainly said there should be energy in the executive. I’m not sure that they ever imagined the wide-ranging law-making prerogative exercised by federal judges these days. But, yeah, that was an idea that was held by a lot of nationalists in the 1780s. I have to say that I thought that the proposal my classmates were making at UT Law School 20 years ago – this is the University of Texas at Austin Law School.
Mike: Right.
Kevin: This idea that there should be particular positions on the faculty set aside that only black or Hispanic academics could apply for, I thought this sounded very South African. And in fact, I...
Mike: [Laughing] You mean like apartheid?
Kevin: I thought it was precisely apartheid.
Mike: Okay, all right.
Kevin: And in fact at the time I was president of the UT chapter of the Federalist Society. And so we put up signs all over the law school saying that these should be referred to as the P. W. Botha chairs in law. And apparently we’re now going to have P. W. Botha chairs of, I don’t know, Supreme Court Justice.
Mike: I suppose, I mean, if you’re looking for a silver lining here, and I don’t think this is a silver lining, but just the fact that she replaced another incompetent nincompoop in Justice Souter, who famously decided the Kelo v. New London case, right down the road from where you are in Western Connecticut – right? That’s a Connecticut place; right?
Kevin: Well, yes. Actually, though, I think a lot of people are saying that. But I think it’s mistaken. It seems to me that, while Souter was pretty reliably going to come out in favor of upholding left-wing precedents, he was a pretty strong devotee of the idea of what’s called “stare decisis,” that is, that what the Court had done before should not be changed without some really good reason. And that’s actually not so left-wing a position as we might fear that Judge Sotomayor might follow. The idea of quotas for minorities and so on was not one that Souter endorsed. And so far as I can tell, Sotomayor supports it. So I actually think that Sotomayor is very likely to be worse than Souter.
Mike: Yeah, but she’d have to have four others to go along with her. Not to say that there won’t be because you have Kennedy. You have Darth Vader Ginsburg. Who is the other, John Paul Stevens. So that’s four right there.
Kevin: Right.
Mike: It doesn’t portend well. But I say it doesn’t portend well. The Supreme Court was never designed to have this authority anyways, was it?
Kevin: No, that’s exactly the problem. Ever since at least ‘87 when Bork was nominated we’ve paid more attention to nomination processes for the Supreme Court than we pay to any Senate race, as if the Supreme Court were the Supreme Legislature. And of course the reason for that is that the Supreme Court is the Supreme Legislature, and this is more important than any Senate race. So think about the attention that was given to this, and compare it to the attention that was given to the difficulty in deciding who had won the Minnesota Senate election this year, and you’ll see that it’s just orders of magnitude difference. The reason is Ms. Sotomayor is now more important than Al Franken. Maybe that’s a good thing, but...
Mike: You may not want to disparage that statement just too much. Dr. Kevin Gutzman, who’s got three books out. The paperback edition of “Who Killed the Constitution” is out now. You can get that at fine bookstores and at Amazon.com. And at KevinGutzman.com, “Virginia’s American Revolution” and “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution.”
We just had another guy who called, right before you were on, Kevin, and he was asking the constitutionality. And people call me for these things all the time, you may have heard him, of how can Obama sit there, or Congressman Rangel sit there and say that they have the sovereign authority to force or to compel me to buy something that I don’t want, namely health insurance, under the threat of a tax increase or a fine if I fail to do so. And of course the short snickety answer to that is, well, that they’re a national legislature now, do whatever the hell they want. The constitutional, if there was such a thing in effect, answer would be, well, they don’t have the authority. What would you have responded to that gentleman?
Kevin: Well, that’s precisely right. You know, one provision of the Constitution that left-wingers like to point to in support of their idea that we should say that there are rights to have abortions and engage in homosexual sodomy and all kinds of things that had always been not only not rights, but illegal before, is the Ninth Amendment. They want to say that the Ninth Amendment is a general protection of rights and that judges, federal judges should be able to invent new rights under the Ninth Amendment and force them against the states. I, of course, think that’s illegitimate.
Mike: Right.
Kevin: But on the other hand, the right to hire somebody to be your doctor and pay him the amount that the two of you have agreed to actually is a longstanding right of English-speaking people. And I think it’s something that does actually fall under the Ninth Amendment. So it seems to me that you could make a legitimate argument, and of course that means it’s one that wouldn’t be accepted by a federal court, you could make a legitimate historical argument that you have a Ninth Amendment right not to have Obama tell you who your doctor will be or how much you’ll pay him. But, you know, this is America, so we have arbitrary unlimited central government. And there’s really nothing you can do about it except try to vote out the congressmen who voted to impose this on you.
Mike: Right, and this is what I – one of the things that I find, well, it’s interesting to me and it’s interesting to you because we have read these things. Unfortunately, there’s 309,999,997 – I’ll include Dr. Woods in the people that have read the Ratification Debates in Virginia of the Constitution. This is exactly, this is happening according to prophecy, is it not? Isn’t this exactly what Patrick Henry and what William Grayson and what James Monroe – mainly Henry, though – said was going to happen? Aren’t we following the course?
Kevin: We could not be any closer to what he predicted. And, you know, anybody who thinks that we have constitutional government now should just compare the predictions that Patrick Henry made about the worst possible fruit of ratifying the Constitution...
Mike: Right.
Kevin: ...to what we actually live under. And what we actually live under is his worst-case scenario. We don’t call Obama the king, but other than that it’s about as bad as any of those people had nightmares it might be. That is, the central government feels free to tell you what to do in any sense at any time of your day, and it feels free to veto any policy of state government it doesn’t like, and the executive is free to make war anywhere he wants and force you to pay for it. Besides which, they feel free to put stay laws in effect and essentially transfer money from people who have loaned money in good faith to people who’ve decided they can’t pay. So, yeah, it’s an absolute failure.
Mike: Which is...
Kevin: The only question, I think the question it leaves is, is it just because of the American Constitution, is the federal constitution shortcomings that we’ve ended up in this situation? Or is this a general problem that is always going to inhere in written constitutions? Are written constitutions just ultimately bound to fail? Or is it because our own particular Constitution has led to this point that we have this problem we have now?
Mike: Well, how...
Kevin: I don’t know the answer to that. But I do know that I can’t think of a written constitution that has worked over a long period of time.
Mike: Well, I was going to ask you, our forefathers were very reverent towards the English Constitution; right?
Kevin: Right.
Mike: Or I guess the one that came out in – I’m going to get the date wrong, so you can correct me, 1678 or whatever it was.
Kevin: 1688.
Mike: 1688, okay. So how long did the English live under their vaunted – and it was a great charter at the time; was it not? How long did they live under their Constitution?
Kevin: Well, of course the English Constitution of 1688 was unwritten. And they would argue that they live under it now. But the problem that the people who made the American Revolution had encountered was essentially that the English had decided that it did not apply to colonists living in North America. That is, that while there was a right under the English Constitution to be represented in Parliament, that didn’t apply to people who were outside the mother country and so on.
Mike: Right.
Kevin: So the point is, written constitutions were supposed to be a way to provide a firm check on the tendency of people in office to grab at more power than the people had intended to give them. And that was not an idea that was part of the English Constitution. There was a general idea that Parliament was sovereign and could do basically whatever it wanted to do. Then the Americans decided to reject that by writing constitutions that say exactly what government officials could do. But again, what we have now is a situation in which, as that last caller was complaining about, there is no limit to what federal officials feel entitled to do to you. There’s no limit to what they feel entitled to do to foreign countries in your name. There’s no limit to what they feel free to impose on your state government. There’s just no limit. And that’s exactly and the only thing the written Constitution was supposed to do was provide limitation on the power of the government.
Mike: Well, that’s what it was supposed to do.
Kevin: Yeah, yeah.
Mike: And it did for a while. But, I mean, as you pointed out in your books, the usurpations began as soon as the gavel banged down the First Congress in 1790; didn’t it.
Kevin: I fear that they certainly began trying to grab more power almost instantly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)