Getting Away with Un-constitutional Laws
Richard Salbato 11-6-2009
President Teddy Roosevelt (a president I like), I cannot find anything that the
Federal Government did that was un-constitutional. The things
Teddy Roosevelt confiscated private and state land to build large dams, bridges, lakes, and national parks. None of this was legal but since he was paying for it and the states wanted it, no one challenged the Constitutionality of the take over.
This is the
reason for this article. If a law is not
challenged it cannot be overturned by the courts. I will get into that more after addressing
the problem of something seeming good and therefore it should be done even if
it is unconstitutional, as in the case of
Evidence of this goes back to Davy Crockett.
In 1830, as a
member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressman Davy Crockett had
supported a bill appropriating $20,000 for the relief of some residents of
campaigning by horseback in his
The constituent, a man named Horatio Bunce, explained:
“If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper.
“You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other.
“No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose.”
There is more
to Horatio Bunce’s eloquent argument, but this is the
heart of it. Crockett was convinced of the error of his ways by Horatio Bunce and became a much better congressman because of it. Bunce believed, as did Thomas
“I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That ” all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.” [XIIth amendment.] To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”
incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the
“The powers not delegated to the
The Tenth Amendment is ignored by our federal officials today because if it was followed, it would limit their power and authority. If they maintained the spirit of the Tenth Amendment, liberty would flourish and states would be freer to enact more of their own policies.
The power of
Our politicians in Congress exceeded their constitutional authority long ago. They have appropriated money for many purposes with no constitutional authority to do so. They have formed government corporations and agencies to dispense funds wrongly taxed from the people for causes that have no constitutional legitimacy.
They have used the people’s money for what appear to be “charitable” purposes in this nation and around the globe.
(Charity refers to free-will giving by individuals, so there is no way that money taken from the taxpayers under threat of imprisonment is charity.)
We cannot even say that the government is a good instrument of charity. The $8,000 tax credit for Cash for Clunkers cost tax payers $25,000 per car. That means we tax payers gave people $25,000 to buy a car they could have bought anyway. And because they destroyed the clunkers, used car prices went up for poor people. The same is true for tax credits on home buyers. We should remember that this system can only work with moral people.
Congress and the president have propped up corrupt dictators and pursued numerous foreign policy intrigues around the world. They have squandered the taxpayers’ money on international organizations controlled by governments that despise liberty and seek policies contrary to our national interests.
They have provided basic sustenance for those who refuse to work. They have encouraged the destruction of families through their misguided social welfare policies. They have discouraged the proper functioning of the free enterprise system by rewarding certain producers and favored industries at the expense of competitors with less political influence. I could go on, but you get the picture.
Our government has wasted our money on numerous programs that are not supported by any sound application of constitutional principles. The founders took a limited and logical approach to what government can and should try to accomplish. Those who have desired an expansion of governmental power at the expense of our liberty, beginning at some point during the first half of the twentieth century, have been winning the day.
Why do they get away with it?
The courts, the states, the people can do nothing about unconstitutional laws unless we are willing to say “No”. In order for a law to be overturned someone has to be willing to say “I will not obey an unconstitutional law.” Then go through the long and expensive process of challenging the law. Because courts, people and/or states are afraid to do this, the Feds have gotten away with this for 100 years.
There are several protections against unconstitutional laws.
1. Congress can choose not to pass unconstitutional laws.
2. The president can choose to veto unconstitutional laws.
3. Judges can rule unconstitutional laws as unconstitutional, and refuse to adhere to them.
4. The people and the states can choose to disobey unconstitutional laws.
5. Juries can choose not to convict people guilty of disobeying unconstitutional laws.
That’s a long list of things that stand in the way of unconstitutional laws. Note that once it makes it past the first filter, there’s a lot of people who will try to say it is a law nonetheless—namely, congress. If it passes the second filter, then the president will agree it is constitutional. If it passes the third, then the judges agree it is constitutional. But just because the entire federal government is united in agreeing it is a constitutional law doesn’t make it constitutional or the law.
The people and the states then have to choose to obey the law. And finally, even if the people as a whole and the states agree it is constitutional, individual juries can overturn the law by refusing to convict based on it.
Unless challenged it remains law
People simply have to refuse to obey an unconstitutional law so that they have standing in the courts. If you cannot prove that you are directly affected by the law, you cannot challenge it. It would be better if the States challenged the law, but often they are bought off by Federal money, so they do not want to challenge it. For example the Federal Government has no right to be in the school system, but because they poor billions of dollars in the system, the states are afraid to kick them out. Often the Fed gets away with things simply because no one challenges them.
A good example of this is the fact that Social Security
is unconstitutional. Wow! Who would be against Social Security? Truth is that one county in
debate over Social Security reform is reminiscent of the discussions that
Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system under which taxes collected from today's workers are used to pay today's retirees. That was sustainable in the past; for example, in 1950 there were 16 workers providing benefits for each retiree. However, today the ratio has dropped to 3 workers for each retiree, and by the year 2030 the ratio will be 2 to 1.
Social Security Act permitted municipal governments to opt out of the system -
a loophole that Congress closed in 1983. In 1981, employees of
In 1979, many county workers were concerned about the soundness of Social Security, as many people are today. We could either stay with it - and its inevitable tax increases and higher retirement ages - or find a better way. We sought an "alternative plan" that provided the same or better benefits, required no tax increases and was risk-free. Furthermore, we wanted the benefits to be like a savings account that could be passed on to family members upon death.
Our plan, put together by financial experts, was a "banking model" rather than an "investment model." To eliminate the risks of the up-and-down stock market, workers' contributions were put into conservative fixed-rate guaranteed annuities, rather than fluctuating stocks, bonds or mutual funds. Our results have been impressive: We've averaged an annual rate of return of about 6.5 percent over 24 years. And we've provided substantially better benefits in all three Social Security categories: retirement, survivorship and disability.
The Galveston Plan was implemented just before the U.S. Congress passed a reform bill in 1983 that closed the door for local governments to opt out of Social Security. (Unconstitutional)
· Workers making $17,000 a year are expected to receive about 50 percent more per month on our alternative plan than on Social Security - $1,036 instead of $683. [See the Figure.]
· Workers making $26,000 a year will make almost double Social Security's return - $1,500 instead of $853.
· Workers making $51,000 a year will get $3,103 instead of $1,368.
· Workers making $75,000 or more will nearly triple Social Security - $4,540 instead of $1,645.
So you see,
if a State, county or person stands up and says no, the Federal Government gets
away with violating the constitution.
Over the last 100 years you would not believe how many departments have been formed in the Federal Government that are not constitutional. If you want to read a partial list read a former article I wrote about the reason for the Fourth of July Tea Parties. http://www.unitypublishing.com/Government/Fourth%20of%20July%20Tea%20Parties.htm
The Constitutional Limits of the Federal Government
On the budget, note that congress can only spend money on national defense and the “general
Welfare of the
That means all the budgets that are designed to only help out a certain class of people, or to benefit a specific company or industry, are unconstitutional.
These bailouts go directly against the constitution since
giving large sums of money to AIG isn’t the “general Welfare of the
Note also that the constitution grants three different ways to raise money.
1. Taxes, duties, imposts and excises. (But duties, imposts, and excises must be uniform.*)
2. Borrowing money.
3. Coining money.
* Duties are taxes on imports and exports. Imposts are
taxes on property. Excises are taxes on production. Note that these taxes must
be uniform. That is, congress can’t charge
Today, most of the budget comes from taxes, namely the income tax. The rest is borrowed from the Fed. Although congress has the power to print money, it has decided to borrow money from the Fed and let the Fed profit from the printing of it.
Next time your congressman complains about there being no money, point out that if congress simply prints money instead of borrowing it from a printer at interest, they could save a tremendous amount of money on interest and not inflate the currency by any more than it already is.
It is time to turn back the juggernaut of meddling, irresponsible, and bankrupting unconstitutional government and restore the vision of the framers of our Constitution. If we do not do this, we face a dark and uncertain future, one steeped in more political and governmental control of our lives and shrinking personal liberty.
We will only be successful if we convince our elected officials to follow this course.
If they do not, we MUST resolve – in every congressional district in this nation – to replace those who refuse to restore the constitutional limits to our government with those who will.
It is the duty of every citizen to do his or her part to restore our beloved republic, and it is vital that we act now to restore American liberty before it is too late to do so.
The coming unconstitutional Health Care
legislation requiring that every American have health insurance is part of all
the major health-care reform plans now being considered in
An individual mandate has been a hardy perennial of health-care reform proposals since HillaryCare in the early 1990s. President Barack Obama defended its merits before Congress last week, claiming that uninsured people still use medical services and impose the costs on everyone else. But the reality is far different. Certainly some uninsured use emergency rooms in lieu of primary care physicians, but the majority are young people who forgo insurance precisely because they do not expect to need much medical care. When they do, these uninsured pay full freight, often at premium rates, thereby actually subsidizing insured Americans.
The mandate's real justifications are far more cynical and political. Making healthy young adults pay billions of dollars in premiums into the national health-care market is the only way to fund universal coverage without raising substantial new taxes. In effect, this mandate would be one more giant, cross-generational subsidy—imposed on generations who are already stuck with the bill for the federal government's prior spending sprees.
Politically, of course, the mandate is essential to winning insurance industry support for the legislation and acceptance of heavy federal regulations. Millions of new customers will be driven into insurance-company arms. Moreover, without the mandate, the entire thrust of the new regulatory scheme—requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions and to accept standardized premiums—would produce dysfunctional consequences.
It would make little sense for anyone, young or old, to buy insurance before he actually got sick. Such a socialization of costs also happens to be an essential step toward the single payer, national health system, still stridently supported by large parts of the president's base.
The elephant in the room is the Constitution. As every civics class once taught, the federal government is a government of limited, enumerated powers, with the states retaining broad regulatory authority. As James Madison explained in the Federalist Papers:
"In the first
place it is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged
with the whole power of making and
1. the power to tax, borrow and spend money,
2. Rise and support armies,
3. declare war,
4. establish post offices and
5. regulate commerce.
It is the authority to regulate foreign and interstate commerce that—in one way or another—supports most of the elaborate federal regulatory system. If the federal government has any right to reform, revise or remake the American health-care system, it must be found in this all-important provision. This is especially true of any mandate that every American obtain health-care insurance or face a penalty.
The Supreme Court construes the commerce power broadly. In the most recent Commerce Clause case, Gonzales v. Raich (2005) , the court ruled that Congress can even regulate the cultivation of marijuana for personal use so long as there is a rational basis to believe that such "activities, taken in the aggregate, substantially affect interstate commerce."
But there are
important limits. In
Health-care backers understand this and—like Lewis Carroll's Red Queen insisting that some hills are valleys—have framed the mandate as a "tax" rather than a regulation. Under Sen. Max Baucus's (D., Mont.) most recent plan, people who do not maintain health insurance for themselves and their families would be forced to pay an "excise tax" of up to $1,500 per year—roughly comparable to the cost of insurance coverage under the new plan.
But Congress cannot so simply avoid the constitutional limits on its power. Taxation can favor one industry or course of action over another, but a "tax" that falls exclusively on anyone who is uninsured is a penalty beyond Congress's authority. If the rule were otherwise, Congress could evade all constitutional limits by "taxing" anyone who doesn't follow an order of any kind—whether to obtain health-care insurance, or to join a health club, or exercise regularly, or even eat your vegetables.
This type of congressional trickery is bad for our democracy and has implications far beyond the health-care debate. The Constitution's Framers divided power between the federal government and states—just as they did among the three federal branches of government—for a reason. They viewed these structural limitations on governmental power as the most reliable means of protecting individual liberty—more important even than the Bill of Rights.
Messrs. Rivkin and
I hear many conservatives who say they will only
vote for people who promise to have a balanced budget. But this will not help
Study the following and memorize it.
May 17, 2009 by Kenneth Moyes
Just what are the powers granted to the federal government under our Constitution? It’s simple; the powers are laid out clearly in the Constitution in Article 1, Section 8. There is no secret here or any ambiguity in this matter. The Constitution tells the federal government what it can do and anything not covered is reserved for the States, thus the power of the federal government is severely limited and the States are superior to the federal government. Yet our federal government functions like it has unlimited power – if Congress says it is okay, it must be okay. Well this current federal / state relationship is clearly wrong and unconstitutional. Congress and the executive branch are out of control.
The federal government, particularly Congress, in words directly taken from the Constitution, is empowered to:
1. lay and collect taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
on the credits of the
3. regulate Commerce with foreign nations and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes (regulate in this case means to make function smoothly and foster trade – not to control everything and anything that is remotely managed through interstate commerce);
an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of
Bankruptcies throughout the
5. coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures (the federal government certainly has been working the coining – printing – money to its fullest, but its current economic policies have actually worked to unregulate the Value of our Money);
Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the
7. establish Post Offices and post Roads;
8. promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; (copyrights and patents)
9. constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court; (lower Fed courts)
punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high seas, and Offenses against
the Law of Nations (this specific power to punish
piracy was not readily utilized by the Obama
11. declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water (military tribunals);
12. Raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
13. provide and maintain a Navy;
14. make Rules for the Government and Regulation of land and naval forces;
calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the
16. provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress (your National Guard);
17. exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise the Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-yards and other needful Buildings; (Federal land only purchased by the consent of the State where it is in)
18. and make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof (limited to the defined powers of the federal government).
15th amendment, the
In the 16th amendment, the Federal Government was given another power: The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. (This amendment has allowed the Federal Government to use the tax code to manipulate the States and to drive social issues, but it was never intended to allow this action.)
The federal government has absolutely no other authority than what is spelled out above. Watching your Congress work would let you believe that it can do whatever it wants.
· Can you find the power to institute Cap and Trade – a tax on carbon emissions?
· Can you find in this list of powers the power to loan money to AIG and other TARP recipients?
· Can you find the power to regulate executive compensation?
· Can you find in this list the power to mandate educational requirements to the States?
· Can you find in these powers the right of the federal government to tell me what I should eat or, to make rules for national healthcare or to control healthcare – there is no interstate commerce when I visit my doctor?
Try your own test of these powers to see if other federal government regulations pass the test.
Limits on State’s Rights
Just what are the powers of the States? What
limitation on these powers does the Constitution offer? The limitations
are those rights afforded the people of the
The powers not delegated to the
“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Why have we let the federal government become what was not supposed to be – all powerful?
Why have the States rolled over when confronted with federal legislation violating the assigned powers of the federal government?
Perhaps it is time to fight back and place the federal government back into an inferior position to the States. Push, plead, and cajole your State representatives to fight back and regain their rights as States.
Fighting Back Now
State launches boycott of 'unconstitutional' federal laws and urges 49 others to join in combating government's 'abuse of authority'
Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen signed HJR 108, the State Sovereignty Resolution on June 23. According to the Tenth Amendment Center, the resolution created a committee to form a joint working group between the states to enumerate the abuses of authority by the federal government and seek repeal of imposed mandates.
State Rep. Susan Lynn recently wrote a letter to the other 49 state legislatures, inviting them to join the group and warning that the role of the federal government has been "blurred, bent and breached."
"The national government has become a complex
system of programs whose purposes lie outside of the responsibilities of the
enumerated powers and of securing our natural rights; programs that benefit
some while others must pay,"
"Forcing from employers to provide healthcare, legislating what individuals are and are not entitled to, and using the labor of some so that others can receive money that they did not earn goes far beyond securing natural rights, and the enumerated powers in the Constitution."
"The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the federal government, and also that which is absolutely necessary to advancing those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States," she wrote. "The rest is to be handled by the state governments, or locally, by the people themselves."
She noted that the Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws, nor does it give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters. Attempts to include such provisions in the Constitution were rejected by the Founding Fathers.
"With this in mind," she wrote, "any federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress' authority is a usurpation of state sovereignty – and unconstitutional. Governments and political leaders are best held accountable to the will of the people when government is local. The people of a state know what is best for them; authorities, potentially thousands of miles away, governing their lives is opposed to the very notion of freedom."
example of Tennessee's battle against federal government policies, federal
gun regulators wrote to gun around
The letter was distributed to holders of Federal Firearms Licenses.
In it, Carson W. Carroll, the assistant director of the Bureau of Alcohol, , Firearms and Explosives, told dealers the Tennessee Firearms Freedom Act, adopted this year, "purports to exempt personal firearms, firearms , and ammunition manufactured in the state, and which remain in the state, from most federal firearms laws and regulations."
The exemption is not right, the federal agency letter contends.
the state of
reported, the action was filed by the Second Amendment Foundation and the
Montana Shooting Sports Association in
The law provides guns and ammo made, sold and used in Montana would not require any federal forms; silencers made and sold in Montana would be fully legal and not registered; and there would be no firearm registration, serial numbers, criminal records check, waiting periods or paperwork required.
The idea is spreading quickly. Similar plans have been introduced in many other states.
The law cites
the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that guarantees to the states and
their people all powers not granted to the federal government elsewhere in the
Constitution and reserves to the state and people of
"The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in 1889," the law states.
attorney for the plaintiffs' litigation team is Quentin Rhodes of the
"We're happy to join this lawsuit," said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the SAF, "because we believe this issue should be decided by the courts.
"We feel very strongly that the federal government has gone way too far in attempting to regulate a lot of activity that occurs only in-state," added MSSA President Gary Marbut. "The Montana Legislature and governor agreed with us by enacting the MFFA. We welcome the support of many other states that are stepping up to the plate with their own firearms freedom acts."
Un-constitutional Executive Orders
Here are just a few Executive Orders that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. These Executive Orders have been on record for nearly 30 years and could be enacted by the stroke of a Presidential pen:
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10990 allows the government to take over all modes of transportation and control of highways and seaports.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10995 allows the government to seize and control the communication media.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10997 allows the government to take over all electrical power, gas, petroleum, fuels and minerals.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 10998 allows the government to take over all food resources and farms.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11000 allows the government to mobilize civilians into work brigades under government supervision.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11001 allows the government to take over all health, education and welfare functions.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11002 designates the Postmaster General to operate a national registration of all persons.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11003 allows the government to take over all airports and aircraft, including commercial aircraft.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11004 allows the Housing and Finance Authority to relocate communities, build new housing with public funds, designate areas to be abandoned, and establish new locations for populations.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11005 allows the government to take over railroads, inland waterways and public storage facilities.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11051 specifies the responsibility of the Office of Emergency Planning and gives authorization to put all Executive Orders into effect in times of increased international tensions and economic or financial crisis.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11310 grants authority to the Department of Justice to enforce the plans set out in Executive Orders, to institute industrial support, to establish judicial and legislative liaison, to control all aliens, to operate penal and correctional institutions, and to advise and assist the President.
Here are the later Executive Orders:
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11049 assigns emergency preparedness function to federal departments and agencies, consolidating 21 operative Executive Orders issued over a fifteen year period.
11921 allows the Federal Emergency Preparedness Agency to develop plans to
establish control over the mechanisms of production and distribution, of energy
sources, wages, salaries, credit and the flow of money in
EXECUTIVE ORDER 12148 created the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that is to interface with the Department of Defense for civil defense planning and funding. An “emergency czar” was appointed. FEMA has only spent about 6 percent of its budget on national emergencies, the bulk of their funding has been used for the construction of secret underground facilities to assure continuity of government in case of a major emergency, foreign or domestic.
12656 appointed the National Security Council as the principal body that should
consider emergency powers. This allows the government to increase domestic
intelligence and surveillance of
Following, in alphabetical order, is a list of some of Obama’s friends, advisors and people charged with enacting his policies:
William Ayers—Now a professor of education at the
University of Illinois at Chicago, Ayers spent 10 years as a fugitive in the
1970s when he was part of the domestic terrorist organization known as the
Weather Underground. In the early 1970s the Weather Underground was responsible
for bombing the U.S. State Department in
Carol Browner—Obama’s Director
of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy, Browner is an
avowed socialist. She served as one of 14 leaders of Socialist International’s
Commission for a Sustainable World Society, which calls for global governance
and says rich countries must shrink their economies to address climate change,
according to an article in The Washington Times. The group supports
socialism and has been harshly critical of
Frank Marshall Davis—You
Anita Dunn—As White House Communications advisor, Dunn
has been seen a lot lately as the face of the Obama
· Ezekiel Emanuel—The president’s Special Advisor for Health Policy, Ezekiel is brother to White House Chief of Staff Rham Emanuel. Ezekiel is the source of Sarah Palin’s death panel idea. This Emanuel has written that he believes many healthcare treatments should be denied to those under 15 and over 65 to save money, the rationale being that only people between 15 and 65 are beneficial to society.
White House Chief of Staff, Emanuel is a thug
· Chai Feldblum—Nominated by the president to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Feldblum signed a radical 2006 manifesto which endorsed polygamous households and argued traditional marriage should not be privileged “above all others,” according to a report in Catholic News Agency. According to a statement from the White House, Feldblum has worked on advancing lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights…” She is co-director of Workplace Flexibility 2010, which she described at a UCLA symposium as a homosexual rights group that aimed to change the American workplace and revolutionize social mores, according to a report on the WorldnetDaily website.
· Patrick Gaspard—White House Political Director, Gaspard was formerly a lobbyist for Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the organization that sent its thugs out to disrupt Tea Party protests and stir up trouble at town hall meetings in August. Prior to that, Gaspard worked as national field director for American Coming Together (ACT), a sub-group of the Association for Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). ACT was fined $775,000 in civil penalties by the federal government for various voter fraud offenses. You can read more about ACORN here.
Eric Holder—The Attorney General of the
Valerie Jarrett—The New York Times
called Jarrett, Obama Senior Advisor and Assistant to the President for Public
Engagement and Intergovernmental Affairs, the ultimate Obama insider. She has
also been called the other half of Obama’s brain.
She’s another one of those
former school teacher and long-time gay rights activist was named Obama’s Safe Schools Czar. He has accused Baptists, the Boy
Scouts and sports fans of anti-gay bias, and advocates a special high school
for gay teens and gay-straight alliance clubs for every high school in
· Van Jones—Once Obama’s White House Environmental Advisor, Jones was fired in the dead of night on a holiday weekend after a video surfaced in which he called Republicans a bodily orifice, and after a controversial document he signed was revealed. That document accused former President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney of either planning or knowing about ahead of time the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. In addition to being a 9/11 Truther, Jones is an avowed Communist. He was appointed to his position by Valerie Jarrett, who has been seen on video praising Jones and saying she and Obama had been watching Jones for a long time.
Mark Lloyd—FCC Diversity Czar, is also known as the man
who wants to stifle free speech in
Cecelia Munoz—Now White House Director of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Munoz was previously Senior Vice President of The
National Council of La Raza, the largest Hispanic
lobbying organization in the country, which has called national
anti-immigration groups “hate groups.” La Raza, which
literally translates The Race, funds extremist groups and supports illegal
immigration as a way of obtaining political power. The group advocates taking
· Cass Sunstein—Recently confirmed by the U.S. Senate as Administrator of the White House Office of Administration and Regulatory Affairs, Sunstein is a Harvard Law School professor and dingbat who has—in writings and speeches—called for a ban on all hunting and claims that animals should be represented by lawyers in animal abuse cases. He is a socialist who has advocated for gun control and heavy regulation of the Internet. He also wrote in his 2008 book, Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness, that he believes people’s organs can be harvested without their consent. Sunstein would like to see personal email communications regulated by the government and believes the Internet is anti-democratic because of the way users can filter out information of their own choosing.
· Rev. Jeremiah Wright—Obama sat in Wright’s church for 20 years yet claims to have never heard any of the hate-filled racism that crossed his lips. Wright’s anti-Semitic, anti-American sermons came to light during the campaign. Among his claims: the U.S. government was responsible for infecting blacks with the virus that causes AIDS, America was responsible for the 9/11 attacks—“the chickens have come home to roost”—and Jews are responsible for ethnic cleansing in Gaza and are pressuring Obama associates to keep Wright and Obama separated.
These are just a few of the folks who have occupied or currently occupy Obama’s inner circle. He was passed off by the mainstream media as being a centrist and moderate, but many of friends are anything but that, and some are quite radical. And when you parse some of his words or find video or audio from several years ago you know that Obama himself has some radical views.
But the media ignored Obama’s ties to radicals and communists. That, and Obama’s soaring rhetoric led many otherwise thoughtful and good people down the primrose path, and they voted for him without realizing what they were getting.
But as the truth gets out about his associates, the cover is coming off. He’s becoming known by the company he keeps, as well as his own deeds.
Billionaire hedge-fund financier George Soros has decided to spend $50 million to fund a new institute designed to undermine the free-enterprise system, Jerome Corsi's Red Alert reports.
The Soros-funded "Institute for New Thinking" is designed to make research grants and fund symposiums on the need for central government control of the economy, advancing an argument from the political Left that the private economy is in need of the re-regulation to prevent the occurrence of another global economic recession.
reinforces a Democratic Party argument that the Bush
"In his many books, billionaire hedge-fund manager George Soros has made clear he views economic globalism as an accomplished fact," Corsi noted.
markets became "truly global in the early 1990s after the collapse of the
Soros acknowledged that the formation of international institutions of governance has lagged behind the development of global markets: "The development of international institutions has not kept pace with the growth of global financial markets. Private capital movements far outweigh the facilities of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank."
Soros has offered many different proposals for overhauling the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization. Yet, Corsi said his conclusion is always the same: Global financial markets require international regulation from a new generation of world governance organizations capable of imposing global political control over global economics.
"From this lofty perspective, Soros demands we transcend nation-states to somehow become global citizens," Corsi wrote.
In an explanation he frequently repeats, Soros argues that sovereignty "became the cornerstone of international relations with the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648." Then, Soros continues, after 30 years of religious wars, "it was agreed that the ruler had the right to determine the religion of his subjects."
In Soros' version of world history, all this changed when the French Revolution overthrew King Louis XVI "and the people seized sovereignty." In principle, Soros insists, "sovereignty has belonged to the people ever sense." Yet, in Soros' view, the sovereign people are the people of the world, not the people of any particular nation-state, Corsi noted.
"The world order needs a major overhaul," Soros has proclaimed. "I am not advocating a radically new world order," he explained, "only a change of attitude; from the single-minded pursuit of national self-interest to showing some concern for the common interests of humanity."
That Soros derives his perspective from globalism is indisputable, Corsi contends.
"Globalism has made the world increasingly interdependent," he insists. And again, "Although it would be utopian to replace the people's sovereignty with something else, that principle, on its own, is inadequate for today's increasingly interdependent world."
Keeping with the theme, Soros characterizes himself as a "stateless statesman."
Much of Soros' intellectual framework is based his education at the London School of Economics, where he was deeply influenced by philosopher Karl Popper's call for an "Open Society." While Popper refused to give his call for an "Open Society" a precise definition, Popper railed against ideologies which proclaimed a person could only become free by becoming a true believer. Popper identified Hitler's Nazism and Stalin's communism as enemies of the "Open Society." The "Open Society" is best understood as a type of intellectual and political freedom in which all ideas are constantly able to be challenged, based on the premise that there is no "political truth" as such, only a value relativism in which all ideas must be subject to constant challenge.
In a revealing
passage, Soros identifies his antipathy to George W.
Bush in terms fashioned from Popper's Open Society philosophy: "When I
heard President Bush say, 'Either you are with us or you are with the
terrorists,' I was reminded of Nazi propaganda." Fundamentally, Soros criticized the "Bush agenda" as being
"nationalistic," too focused on pursuing narrowly defined
Asking how he came to have a position of influence on world affairs, Soros honestly admitted, "I have made a lot of money." Nor has Soros been shy about spending his money to advance his political agenda. Since founding the Open Society Institute in 1979, Soros has spent hundreds of millions of dollars funding this flagship organization, which in turn has funneled millions to organizations dedicated to advancing causes of the political Left, including MoveOn.org and the Center for American Progress, Red Alert reports.
In 2004, Soros admittedly spent several hundred million dollars in an attempt to prevent George W. Bush from having a second term as president.
Soros was an early supporter of Barack Obama, holding a fundraiser for Obama at his home and donating the maximum legal amount even before Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate.
In 2006, Soros urged Obama to run for president. When Obama declared his candidacy, Soros organized a meeting with other financiers in Soros' Wall Street office. His strong and early financial support of candidate Obama has given Soros a strong voice in the Obama White House.
Soros profits from global economic panic of 2009
having a very good crisis," Soros told
McCain won the 2008 presidential campaign, George Soros
would have had influence at the White House, exactly as Soros
has now, after promoting and funding candidate Barack
Obama since Obama first came on the national political scene with his speech at
the 2004 Democratic National Convention that nominated Sen.
Soros has been outspoken about his views. He began his 2008 book, subtitled "The Credit Crisis of 2008 and What It Means," by proclaiming, "We are in the midst of the worst financial crisis since the 1930s." Soros went on to explain that the 2008 credit crisis "marks the end of an era of credit expansion based on the dollar as the international reserve currency." He insisted the current crisis was "the culmination of a super-boom that has lasted for more than twenty-five years."
Consistently, Soros has
proclaimed the dollar is under selling pressure and "may eventually be
replaced as a world reserve currency, possibly by the International Monetary
Fund's Special Drawing Rights." Soros told Reuters that
Corsi noted, "Regardless of
whether Sen. Obama or Sen. McCain won in 2008, Soros
would still have been betting against
author, whose books "The
Obama Nation" and "Unfit for Command" have topped the New
York Times best-sellers list, received his Ph.D. from
For financial guidance during difficult times, read Jerome Corsi's Red Alert, the premium, online intelligence news source by the WND staff writer, columnist and author of the New York Times No. 1 best-seller, "The Obama Nation."
Health Bill a Killing Machine.
While abortion was not specifically mentioned in earlier bills under consideration, H.R.3962, unveiled by Nancy Pelosi this week, does in fact state abortion is to be covered. Concerns are mounting that whatever the final form of the legislation, the procedure will become more accessible, requiring health to fund abortions.
Gualberto Garcia Jones is director of Personhood Colorado and a legal analyst
for Personhood USA, a grassroots
Christian organization that seeks to legally define every unborn baby as a
"person" protected by God-given and constitutionally protected rights,
including the right to life. His organization was set up to support personhood
"We're trying to end abortion right now," Garcia Jones told WND. "All of our laws that we're promoting are direct challenges to Roe v. Wade. If we can get a challenge up to the , then that's the ideal thing. That's what we're trying to do."
approach within the pro-life movement was sparked by a statement in the 1973
Roe v. Wade decision that opened the doors for legal abortion in the
Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in the majority for Roe v. Wade, "The appellee and certain amici [pro-lifers] argue that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal . If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of , collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."
According to the movement, if every unborn baby is defined as a person, each baby will be legally guaranteed the same right to life as all Americans.
"We believe – and a lot of the justices on the Supreme Court agree with us – that there is no right to privacy that would allow abortion," Garcia Jones said. "Since it's not mentioned directly in the 14th Amendment, we could use the 10th Amendment and the states' rights to police themselves and to pass laws regulating morality and health and safety to regulate abortion so it's not permitted. Basically it would be treated the same way as a homicide, where a state can regulate how they punish it and how they try to prevent it, but they could never allow it."
He continued, "We believe respect for life is in the Constitution, so therefore a state could never say you can kill a person."
Garcia Jones said the personhood movement is a timely approach considering the widespread success of the tea party movement, the states' rights movement and voter frustration with what they consider overreaching policies by the federal government.
He said citizens in 32 states are now acting to find sponsors for personhood statutes or constitutional amendments to include them on 2010 ballots.
The Los Angeles
Times reported Sept. 28 that while personhood measures failed in
WND columnist Jill Stanek, pro-life legislators in
"The 24-hour waiting periods and parental consent fall short," he said. "Obama's making a lot of people mad, and it's a great way for us to ride this wave of social tension and backlash against Obama so we can get as much done for the pre-born child as we can. What's coming down the pike next is an abolition against all restrictions on abortion. This is a real fight."
Mason said the grassroots personhood movement is "exploding." As WND reported, a inspired by a Zogby/O'Leary poll revealed 71 percent of Americans oppose allowing taxpayer-funded abortions in health-care reform legislation.
"Most of these efforts start with one or two people and grow into something bigger," he said. "As we press forward, I think this is going to grow, and we're seeing that happen."
The Personhood USA website lists states involved in the personhood movement and allows citizens to register with groups in their respective states.
Mandate to buy Insurance Un-constitutional
"What next? Can Congress order you to buy spinach?" asked Roger Pilon, director of constitutional studies at the Cato Institute.
He and other defenders of limited federal power foresee a constitutional challenge to the mandate to buy insurance based on the claim that Congress' power to regulate commerce does not extend to forcing citizens to buy a commercial product.
"I think the individual mandate will be challenged. And it will be a close call," Pilon said.
In recent weeks, the debate over how to bring
about affordable health coverage for all has overshadowed the novelty of a
federal requirement to purchase insurance. When the
The newly unveiled House bill would set a tax penalty of as much as 2.5% of adjusted income for people who do not have health insurance as of 2013. The Senate Finance Committee scaled down its penalty, but settled on a maximum of $750 per adult, or $1,500 for a household. A Senate version of the bill says the IRS could only enforce the penalty by subtracting it from any refund owed to the taxpayer.
In the past, Congress has used tax breaks to encourage certain purchases, such as a tax deduction for the mortgage interest paid when buying a home. However, critics of the health insurance mandate say they do not know of a similar example of a federal tax penalty for not buying a product.
"This hasn't been done for more than 200
years," said Peter Urbanowicz, a deputy general
counsel at the Department of Health and Human Services in the George W. Bush
Supporters of the mandate to buy insurance, including President Obama, point to state laws that require motorists to buy auto insurance. To register a car, drivers in nearly every state must show that they have liability insurance to cover the cost to others if they cause an accident.
The logic behind the health insurance mandate is similar, supporters say. If a person without coverage is hurt in an accident and sent to the hospital, he might run up huge medical bills that he cannot pay, which would then be absorbed by others with insurance or by taxpayers.
Many constitutional-law experts also predict that even a conservative Supreme Court would uphold a federal requirement that individuals buy health insurance. The justices have said that Congress has wide latitude to regulate economic activity, and health insurance qualifies as that.
Although the mandate to buy insurance may well face a constitutional challenge, "I don't think this is a close call," said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine law school. He said that individuals' refusal to buy insurance could have an effect on the market, and the Supreme Court has said that Congress may regulate actions that affect a market.
As an example, he cited the court's decision
four years ago that upheld federal restrictions on home-grown marijuana in
A 6-3 majority said Congress may "regulate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce," and at least in theory, the home-grown marijuana could have been sold in the illegal drug market.
A legal challenge to the healthcare mandate may be several years away. To challenge this requirement in court, a taxpayer would have to face a penalty, and the pending legislation does not phase in the penalties until after 2013.
Both the House and Senate versions of the health-care reform
bill would force all individuals who are citizens or legal residents
CNSNews.com has asked a number of lawmakers as well as White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs about this issue in recent days, receiving varying answers, including statements expressing the belief that it is not a serious question. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.), for example, said to CNSNews.com, "Are you serious? Are you serious?," when she was asked where specifically the Constitution authorizes Congress to force Americans to buy health insurance. In response to the same question, Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D.-Vt.), said, "I mean, there's no question there's authority. Nobody questions that."
When White House Spokesman Gibbs was asked about critics who are questioning the constitutionality of forcing Americans to buy health insurance, he said, "I won't be confused as a constitutional scholar, but I don't believe there's a lot of--I don't believe there's a lot of case law that would demonstrate the veracity of what they're commentating on." Later, Gibbs said he did not know if the White House had done any legal analysis to determine if there was a constitutional basis for mandating that Americans buy insurance.
Sen. Roland Burris (D.-Ill.) cited the part of the Constitution that he said tells Congress "to provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country” as justification for forcing Americans to buy health insurance. The word "health" appears nowhere in the Constitution, however, and Burris's spokesman later told CNSNews.com that what Burris meant is that the Preamble to the Constitution authorizes Congress to mandate that individuals buy health care. The preamble says: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
In his speech at Thursday's rally, Levin focused attention on the way members of Congress have been answering the question of where Congress derives constitutional authority to do what it intends to do with the health-care reform bill.
"Having ruined the banking system, the auto industry, the housing market, energy production, the education system, having robbed the Social Security trust fund, the Medicare trust fund and the highway trust fund, now they tell us to trust them," said Levin.
"Now they have their sights on the mother of all entitlements," he continued. "They want to control you, they want to control your children, your parents, your doctor, your nurse. ... Now they want to control health care."
"They want to control what kind of insurance you can purchase. They want to control if you can purchase insurance," said Levin. "They want to decide what benefits you can and cannot have. They want to decide how much you're going to pay. And they want to ration care. And the bottom line is, they want to play God and decide who lives and who dies!
"That's pretty scary," said Levin. "And for them, when they're asked, 'Where's your authority under the Constitution?,' they laugh. The hell with the Constitution, they say. The hell with individual liberty and private property. The hell with people who want nothing to do with this, which is most of us."
In introducing Levin, Rep.
Michele Bachmann joked about him being willing to leave his “underground
bunker” to attend the rally. She also noted that Levin wrote a book
setting the stage for what is unfolding right now in
Levin’s book “
The Democrats are not done yet, Levin warned: “Having ruined the banking system, the auto industry, the housing market, energy production, the education system, having robbed the Social Security trust fund, the Medicare trust fund and the highway trust fund -- now they tell us to trust them.”
Democrats want to control you, your children, your parents, doctors and nurses, Levin warned: “Now they want to control health care. They want to control what kind of insurance you can purchase. They want to control if you can purchase insurance. They want to decide what benefits you can and cannot have. They want to decide how much you're going to pay. And they want to ration care. And the bottom line is, they want to play God and decide who lives and who dies!”
The U.S. Capitol Police do not provide crowd estimates, but various news reports put the number at several thousand people.
Cost of Health Care.
As you may know, House Democrat leaders recently introduced another massive health reform bill. This legislation (H.R. 3962) clocks in at 2,000 pages, $1.2 trillion in new spending, and over $400 billion in cuts to Medicare services for seniors. The bill also includes over $700 billion in new tax increases, clearly violating President Obama's pledge to not raise taxes on middle-class families. I wanted to share with you a list of the tax increases found in H.R. 3962:
Small business surtax (Sec. 551, p. 336)- $460.5 billion
Employer mandate tax (Secs. 511-512, p. 308)- $135 billion
Individual mandate tax (Sec. 501, p. 296)- $33 billion
Medical device tax (Sec. 552, p. 339)- $20 billion
Annual cap on tax-free FSAs (Sec. 532, p. 325)- $13.3 billion
New taxes on HSAs (Sec. 531, p. 324 and Sec. 533, p. 326)- $6.3 billion
Tax on health insurance policies (Sec. 1802, p. 1162)- $2 billion
Other tax hikes on
Other "revenue raising" provisions- $3 billion
TOTAL TAX INCREASES $729.5 BILLION
To read more about the Democrat health legislation, please visit my website at mikerogers.house.gov and click on "Health Reform Update."
Rest assured, I will continue to oppose
plans to raise taxes and put the federal government in charge of
Again, I appreciate the opportunity to contact you. You can also follow my efforts on YouTube (RepMikeRogers) and Facebook (Mike J. Rogers). Should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to call on me.