There has been a lot of talk this last year about "health care reform." This phrase is misleading at best. What is really meant is a "reform" of the health insurance industry due to "high profits" and "outrageous premiums." In one of the bills that is being debated, there would be a provision that if you do not buy health insurance, you will be fined by the government. This power grab by our 535 elected nitwits and the President is completely unconstitutional but why should that stop them now. There may be some that will claim they have the power using the Commerce Clause or the Welfare Clause. By using either one of these "clauses," those who use them are trying to revise the Constitution to mean what they want after the fact. The "Commerce Clause" says "among" the States not within the States. The "Welfare Clause" says "promote the general welfare" not provide the general welfare.
With the Congress and President thinking they can take more and more power "to help the people" and "help the economy," when do we say enough is enough. When do we take a stand and tell them, "Stop." When do we draw a line in the sand and tell them, "This is a line you may not cross."
If we are required to have health insurance or pay a fine, I will drop my health insurance and if they try to fine me I will take it to court. I will not settle for a plea bargain. I will not back down. How many of us are willing to put up with more government intrusion allowing our liberties to be eroded in the name or progress or compassion? If you're willing to allow this government intrusion, when do you take a stand? Is there any point that you can't cross? When will you tell the government to back off? At that point, will there be anyone else to stand with you or are you going to be standing alone?
"Those who would give up a little liberty for security deserve neither."
"The government which is benevolent enough to give you everything is big enough to take everything from you."
Friday, October 16, 2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
President vs. Congress
Everyone thinks that the office of the President of the United States is one of enormous power but that is not so. What power does the President really have. In Article II of the Constitution section 2 it spells out the power that the President. Besides being the commander-in-chief of the military, the power to pardon for "Offenses against the United States, and the power to fill positions that were vacated when Congress is in recess; Presidential power is tied directly into Congress. He can appoint cabinet members, judges, and ambassadors but the Senate has to confirm the appointment. When it comes to treaties, the President can make treaties but Congress must pass it in order for it to be legally binding. The President can suggest legislation but Congress must pass it. The one thing that the President can do is to sign legislation into law or veto it and send it back to Congress. In those cases, Congress can try to override the President's veto, rewrite the bill, or do nothing. Of course the President does have the ability to issue executive orders but if they are unconstitutional, they will be overturned.
If you look at Article I of the US Constitution, you will notice that the powers given to Congress, while they are wider, are still limited. Why is it that we allow Congress and the President to get away with so much instead of taking a stand against them when they make a power grab.
There are some that say that this started in the 1930s with FDR's New Deal. Others say that it started in 1913 with Wilson. I say that it started in 1861 with Lincoln but I will write on this later. No matter when it started, FDR's New Deal kicked it into high gear.
One of our founders said that a government benevolent enough to give you everything is powerful enough to take everything away. We are there and have been there for decades. Look at the power of the IRS. In a court of law the burden of proof is on the government. With the IRS they make a claim and then you have to prove them wrong. Where did we go wrong? We must work to elect people who will go to D.C. to repeal. Repeal must be on our minds and the minds of our elected officials. They need to sign a contract or pledge saying that they will work to begin the dismantling of the federal leviathan.
If you look at Article I of the US Constitution, you will notice that the powers given to Congress, while they are wider, are still limited. Why is it that we allow Congress and the President to get away with so much instead of taking a stand against them when they make a power grab.
There are some that say that this started in the 1930s with FDR's New Deal. Others say that it started in 1913 with Wilson. I say that it started in 1861 with Lincoln but I will write on this later. No matter when it started, FDR's New Deal kicked it into high gear.
One of our founders said that a government benevolent enough to give you everything is powerful enough to take everything away. We are there and have been there for decades. Look at the power of the IRS. In a court of law the burden of proof is on the government. With the IRS they make a claim and then you have to prove them wrong. Where did we go wrong? We must work to elect people who will go to D.C. to repeal. Repeal must be on our minds and the minds of our elected officials. They need to sign a contract or pledge saying that they will work to begin the dismantling of the federal leviathan.
Selling Our Posterity Down the River
Over this past week much of the news has surrounded the "stimulus" package that has been debated in our nation's capitol. The President has claimed that the time for debate is over as has Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D) and to some extent others in both the House and Senate. Whenever any kind of salesman tells you that you have to act now. What is your first reaction? For me, I start looking for the fastest way out of their before I get trapped into a deal that I'll regret. Why should our reaction be any different because it's a politician saying the same thing? Truth be told, when a politician tells us that "the time for debate is over" or "we have to pass this now," our reaction should be to stop them and place your hands firmly on your wallet before they take it from you.
The only thing this stimulus bill is going to do for the nation is put us deeper in debt and slide us further down into recession and closer to depression. We can tell that Wall Street and other investors aren't happy with the prospects of living under the bill. On Feb 9, 2009 the Dow closed at 8,270.87 which was down ten points from the previous day. The next morning the market opened with the Dow already down 65 points. This was only a preview of what the rest of the day was going to be like. By closing bell the Dow had dropped to 7,888.88 which was a 4.8% drop. What will the markets do in the future is anybodies guess but if 1928 is an indicator of what we have to look forward to you better brace yourself because the worst is yet to come.
I would raise my objections to the stimulus bill by asking about the constitutionality of it but I know that will only fall on deaf ears. Who wants to hear about the Constitution and enumerated powers when the government is handing out "free" money. For those who don't see a problem with this, I ask you, "Are you so selfish as to condemn your posterity to a life of bondage?" Alexander Tytler wrote;
If we are to believe what the politicians are saying, the bill must be passed or we're doomed. Didn't they say the same thing in October and November about the bailout bills and stimulus packages? They claimed that those bills were what was needed to fix the economy. All the bills did was to hurt the economy even more; prolonging the time it will take for the economy to recover. The economy can't always go up. There will always be short periods of economic downturns, that is the natural course of events. Even when there are downturns, as long as the government doesn't meddle with it, they will only last for a short period of time before the markets bounce back.
Trust in capitalism they won't let you down. The only thing you can count on when the government is in charge of the economy or business is misery and lines. Look at the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe under communism, China, and any other communist or socialist nation. All they had or have is misery, shortages, a crumbling infrastructure, and failed central planning. What makes us think that we can expect anything different.
The only thing this stimulus bill is going to do for the nation is put us deeper in debt and slide us further down into recession and closer to depression. We can tell that Wall Street and other investors aren't happy with the prospects of living under the bill. On Feb 9, 2009 the Dow closed at 8,270.87 which was down ten points from the previous day. The next morning the market opened with the Dow already down 65 points. This was only a preview of what the rest of the day was going to be like. By closing bell the Dow had dropped to 7,888.88 which was a 4.8% drop. What will the markets do in the future is anybodies guess but if 1928 is an indicator of what we have to look forward to you better brace yourself because the worst is yet to come.
I would raise my objections to the stimulus bill by asking about the constitutionality of it but I know that will only fall on deaf ears. Who wants to hear about the Constitution and enumerated powers when the government is handing out "free" money. For those who don't see a problem with this, I ask you, "Are you so selfish as to condemn your posterity to a life of bondage?" Alexander Tytler wrote;
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.I understand that we are not a democracy but are a representative republic or a constitutional republic. But the point is still valid.Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.
If we are to believe what the politicians are saying, the bill must be passed or we're doomed. Didn't they say the same thing in October and November about the bailout bills and stimulus packages? They claimed that those bills were what was needed to fix the economy. All the bills did was to hurt the economy even more; prolonging the time it will take for the economy to recover. The economy can't always go up. There will always be short periods of economic downturns, that is the natural course of events. Even when there are downturns, as long as the government doesn't meddle with it, they will only last for a short period of time before the markets bounce back.
Trust in capitalism they won't let you down. The only thing you can count on when the government is in charge of the economy or business is misery and lines. Look at the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe under communism, China, and any other communist or socialist nation. All they had or have is misery, shortages, a crumbling infrastructure, and failed central planning. What makes us think that we can expect anything different.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Taking Our Country Back
Earlier this week it came to my attention that Rep. Itse of New Hampshire introduced HCR 6 in the NH state legislature which restates NH's sovereignty under the 9th and 10th amendments of the U.S. Constitution and reminds Congress that the Constitution spells out specific and enumerated powers that the States and people have only allowed them to have very limited powers and nothing more.
If the federal government wants more power then they are the ones who should be coming to the states with hat in hand and ask the States for more power, not just do a power grab and expect the States to accept it. Don't think New Hampshire is just one isolated event either. According to the web site http://www.taxtruth4u.com/eight%20states.html there are a total of seven other States that have had similar pieces of legislation introduced in their state legislatures.
The States have been quiet for far too long and allowing the feds to get away with too much, this is the case of the straw that broke the camel's back. Even if none (or even only a one or two) of the States are able to pass the legislation, this should serve as a warning to Congress that they better read the Constitution and strictly abide by it.
If we can't get Congress to listen to the States and the people, should a constitutional convention be called or should we go farther. I, for one, hope that we are able to reign in the federal government by passing legislation in the individual States.
If the federal government wants more power then they are the ones who should be coming to the states with hat in hand and ask the States for more power, not just do a power grab and expect the States to accept it. Don't think New Hampshire is just one isolated event either. According to the web site http://www.taxtruth4u.com/eight%20states.html there are a total of seven other States that have had similar pieces of legislation introduced in their state legislatures.
The States have been quiet for far too long and allowing the feds to get away with too much, this is the case of the straw that broke the camel's back. Even if none (or even only a one or two) of the States are able to pass the legislation, this should serve as a warning to Congress that they better read the Constitution and strictly abide by it.
If we can't get Congress to listen to the States and the people, should a constitutional convention be called or should we go farther. I, for one, hope that we are able to reign in the federal government by passing legislation in the individual States.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Merry Christmas
I don't know when it started, but it irritates me to no end when people say, "Happy Holidays" as they interact with others this time of year. I understand that Jews celebrate Hanukkah this time of year but why can't we just wish each other a Merry Christmas without being worried about being sued by the ACLU for discrimination. If I know someone is Jewish, I have no problem wishing them a happy Hanukkah. If you don't celebrate Christmas and someone says, "Merry Christmas," don't get offended, just return the greeting and go on your way. The phrase "Merry Christmas" is not used to put a curse on you and your family, it is the exact opposite.
So for all of you out there, have a Happy Hanukkah, a Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year.
So for all of you out there, have a Happy Hanukkah, a Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
The Return of the Fairness Doctrine
With the ascendancy of Obama into the White House drawing closer, certain parts of the left have been threatening to bring back the "Fairness Doctrine". The proponents of it claim that it is so all points of view will be able to be heard. The problem is that it would target talk radio not the broadcast or print media. Why one and not the others? Anyone who is intellectualy honest, realized that the broadcasters did nothing to hide their bias during the past election and the print media was little better. The one area that had anything critical to say about Obama was talk radio.
What would the "Fairness Doctrine" do? Essentially what the fairness doctrine does is mandates that for every hour of conservative programming, there would have to be an hour of programming. This may seem reasonable to some but what they don't realize is that liberal talk radio has been tried and has failed in almost every market that it has been tried. Those who own radio stations aren't in the business of charity, they are in the business of making money. Whether the owner is a conservative or liberal, they realize that conservative radio programs draw listeners to their station which in turn increases their profit. If these same station owners were forced to put liberal programing on, they would not only lose listeners but they would also lose money.
All of this is really a moot point. The "Fairness Doctrine" is unconstitutional. Amendment I of the United States Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."(Emphasis added) The fact that Congress wants to pass a law saying what programming is acceptable or the setup of the radio scheduling goes completely against the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." means that Congress cannot pass a law that would restrict the speech. What do they think that talk radio is? The speech that the founders specifically had in mind was political speech. What would they think of us today when Congress thinks that they have the authority to pass a law that would violate the freedom of speech.
Is anyone surprised that Congress thinks that they have the authority to impose the "Fairness Doctrine" when they were able to pass a law that restricted political speech under the guise of campaign finance reform which places limits on the raising of money for political candidates. Another gift that was given to us thanks to campaign finance, was the limiting of political ads as an election gets closer. Is it any wonder that we find ourselves in the position that we are in?
What would the "Fairness Doctrine" do? Essentially what the fairness doctrine does is mandates that for every hour of conservative programming, there would have to be an hour of programming. This may seem reasonable to some but what they don't realize is that liberal talk radio has been tried and has failed in almost every market that it has been tried. Those who own radio stations aren't in the business of charity, they are in the business of making money. Whether the owner is a conservative or liberal, they realize that conservative radio programs draw listeners to their station which in turn increases their profit. If these same station owners were forced to put liberal programing on, they would not only lose listeners but they would also lose money.
All of this is really a moot point. The "Fairness Doctrine" is unconstitutional. Amendment I of the United States Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."(Emphasis added) The fact that Congress wants to pass a law saying what programming is acceptable or the setup of the radio scheduling goes completely against the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." means that Congress cannot pass a law that would restrict the speech. What do they think that talk radio is? The speech that the founders specifically had in mind was political speech. What would they think of us today when Congress thinks that they have the authority to pass a law that would violate the freedom of speech.
Is anyone surprised that Congress thinks that they have the authority to impose the "Fairness Doctrine" when they were able to pass a law that restricted political speech under the guise of campaign finance reform which places limits on the raising of money for political candidates. Another gift that was given to us thanks to campaign finance, was the limiting of political ads as an election gets closer. Is it any wonder that we find ourselves in the position that we are in?
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Global Warming
Al Gore, you can call off the man made global warming scare. New Orleans, LA received its earliest snowfall ever on December 11 and it was not a little dusting, they got a few inches of accumulation. This last weekend (Starting Dec. 14) the Pacific Northwest was hammered by the first cold front that brought snow to the valley floor. I am currently trying to survive the latest cold front and still make my delivery on time. If CO2 is supposed to warm the planet, we have to get to work pumping some serious CO2 into the atmosphere. If this is just a small taste of what we can expect this winter and the winters to come, we should all be worried about what this will do to the growing season and food supply.
If you are one of the (un)lucky ones who have been dealing with these snow storms, take the Boy Scout motto to heart and Be Prepared.
It is December 23, 2008 and I am currently in southern California in the hills over Los Angeles. I only say that to state that on my way up, there was a little snow on the side of the road. This is southern California not Montana. At home yesterday when I left, there was over a foot of snow that had accumulated from Saturday morning, when this round of snow started falling. When I left, it was snowing still/again. Once again, I am looking forward to the day that I can enjoy this global warming that Al Gore and all the other enviro-Nazis are trying to push on the rest of us.
If you are one of the (un)lucky ones who have been dealing with these snow storms, take the Boy Scout motto to heart and Be Prepared.
It is December 23, 2008 and I am currently in southern California in the hills over Los Angeles. I only say that to state that on my way up, there was a little snow on the side of the road. This is southern California not Montana. At home yesterday when I left, there was over a foot of snow that had accumulated from Saturday morning, when this round of snow started falling. When I left, it was snowing still/again. Once again, I am looking forward to the day that I can enjoy this global warming that Al Gore and all the other enviro-Nazis are trying to push on the rest of us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)