Every social program ever provided for by the Congress of the United States is un-Constitutional.
Has a bolder statement regarding the administration of the Federal government ever been made? Yet, it is true. It begins with the introduction of Social Security by President Roosevelt (FDR) in 1935 and continues on into the 21st century. How can this be? Doesn't Congress have the right to create and administer any program it chooses? Actually a strict reading of Article 1 (Section 8) of the Constitution and a simple view of the intent of the framers must argue that, "no", they don't have such a right. This portion of the Constitution which speaks specifically to the duties of the House and the Senate is very specific in its purpose and its intent. Its provisions are set forth below:
Powers of the Congress – (Section 8)
Lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay debts and provide for the common defense and General welfare. (Raising of Revenue arises from the House).
To borrow money
To regulate commerce with foreign Nations and inter-state
To establish a uniform law on naturalization and bankruptcy
To coin money
To provide for punishment for counterfeiting
To establish post offices and provide roads
To promote science and the arts by instituting copyright and regulating patents
To establish lower courts
To define and punish federal crimes
To declare war
To raise and support the armed forces
To oversee the District of Columbia
To make laws necessary for the execution of the foregoing powers
To introduce Impeachment – (Specific to the Senate)
So, given these duties, how could every social program ever devised by Congress (e.g. Social Security, Heath and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, etc.) be un-Constitutional? The common thread of the responsibility of Congress is as follows; all of these duties/responsibilities reflect an obligation to the GENERAL welfare – NONE to benefit specific individuals within the population. It begins with the pre-amble to the Constitution which states, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, 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." The Declaration of Independence both pre-sages and echos this same sentiment in its introduction, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
There is no provision in the Constitution for Congress to give the revenue it raises through taxes to any INDIVIDUAL person. Both the preamble and the specific duties of the Congress are very explicit in stating their "common" and "general" provisions. Could the intent of the framers be more clear? Any other framework would necessarily result in a society in which wealth is redistributed from those who pay taxes to those individuals who receive funds from the federal government and there is absolutely no provision in the Constitution for that.
Listed below are a few provisions/programs/departments provided for by Congress which are un-Constitutional because they provide funds that benefit individual citizens and not the common or general welfare as required:
SSA (Medicare) - Social Security Administration, including Medicare
HUD - Housing and Urban Development
EEOC - Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
HHS - Health and Human Services
These programs MAY be provided by the states depending on their individual constitutions, but they are un-Constitutional at the Federal level. This point just serves to highlight how fundamental and broad the rights of states were in the eyes of the framers as opposed to those of the Federal Government. The predominance of states' rights begins to be undone with the New Deal provisions of the mid-30's and once that ball starts to roll, it's almost impossible to stop it.
Can these mistakes be undone? Yes, they could, but it would take first, the recognition by a complacent population in the ease of the current nanny-state that there even is a problem, and then a leader with vision and ability unprecedented in American history to change it. It would require taking us back to a strong states-rights form of republic, and at this point in history undoing the behemoth of the Federal Government seems unlikely. It is this writer's opinion that the tree of the Federal Government will eventually collapse of its own weight and you can look to the 30's and the institution of the New Deal as the root with the un-Constitutional social programs developed by Congress throught the ensuing decades as the fruit-holding branches. Shame on us for permitting it.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
No Announced Democrat Is Electible
Yesterday, I said that I would explain why none of the Democratic candidates, although getting mondo play in the press is electable in the general election.
It seems that the press has all but coronated Hillary Clinton with the Democratic nomination. Of course it's months until the primaries begin in earnest, so anything can happen, but all things being equal she is the likely nominee based on consistent polling data showing her with a double-digit lead over her closest rival. What an incredible break for the Republicans that would be! According to the latest polling, about 45% of likely voters say they would not vote for her under ANY circumstances! Some polls show that number as high as 48%. That means she would need to get at the least, 90% of the REMAINING voters to have any sort of chance to win. That is just a HUGE hurdle to overcome, and why Karl Rove has described her as "fatally flawed". I don't think there's a single serious conservative voter who would consider her, no matter how she tries to reinvent herself, and when you consider how close the last two elections have been in terms of the popular vote, her chances are very, very slim. She may have a huge lead in the primaries, but that's all Democratic voters. With a strong Republican candidate or a non-conservative third party candidate (even a Ralph Nader), she doesn't stand a chance.
Barrack Obama is unlikely to get the nomination, but even if he does, a serious Republican candidate will cut him to shreds in debate. His recent gaffes on foreign policy - summarized nicely by Mitt Romney as "talking to our enemies and bombing our friends", would sink him in the general election. To anyone who thinks such gaffes don't matter, I would say, you have misunderestimated the American voter. Our collective conscious seems to mostly get it right, even if we are selecting the lesser of two evils as so often seems to be the case. What America wants and will elect is a SERIOUS candidate. That was proven in 2000 and 2004 as the losing candidates in those elections have shown in the days since. Obama is not a serious candidate. That's not to say he's not a formidable candidate. It's to say that he himself is not a serious enough person at this point in his political career for Americans to choose as their president. He's a smart guy, but he's not experienced enough to get the nod - or maybe better, we don't have enough experience with him to give him the nod. There just isn't enough of a track record. He may have some interesting twists on things, a fresh look, etc. but that will not be enough. Neither will emotionally appealing sound-bites. It's not that he's too black or not black enough either. In fact, he's just too green for Americans to trust with the security and prosperity of the greatest country on earth. Step back and take a good look at him next to a Giuliani, a Romney, or even a Thompson. It appears to me, at this point, to be "no contest".
Finally, John Edwards. What can I say - a distant third, for sure, and I think quickly becoming a national joke. Between the $400 haircuts, the Katrina foreclosures, the News Corp book deal, etc. you've got to be kidding me. This man simply drips hypocrisy. He may be right that there are two Americas - he's just living in the wrong one to try to appear as Mr. Everyman. Americans won't elect a hypocrite. Edwards is as hypocritical an ambulance-chasing, panderer as I have ever seen on the American political landscape.
The political pundits and the media may think this is a strong field, and among Democrats, they might be right. In the general election, however, they are dead wrong. Giuliani and Romney at the least, are much stronger candidates than any of the Democrats. I'll save an analysis of the Republican slate for another day, but one final point as to why these two are stronger. Clinton, Obama, Edwards - none of them have ever RUN anything. Americans like Presidents who have actually run something. It's why we have elected ex-Governors ever since Kennedy in 1960! And yes, that makes Thompson a weaker candidate than he might otherwise be. The Presidency of the United States is not a place for on-the-job training. We like experience. The pundits may focus on image and star-power, but what America will elect is a serious candidate who has actually run something and that does not include any of the leading Democrats. Remember folks, you heard it here first.
It seems that the press has all but coronated Hillary Clinton with the Democratic nomination. Of course it's months until the primaries begin in earnest, so anything can happen, but all things being equal she is the likely nominee based on consistent polling data showing her with a double-digit lead over her closest rival. What an incredible break for the Republicans that would be! According to the latest polling, about 45% of likely voters say they would not vote for her under ANY circumstances! Some polls show that number as high as 48%. That means she would need to get at the least, 90% of the REMAINING voters to have any sort of chance to win. That is just a HUGE hurdle to overcome, and why Karl Rove has described her as "fatally flawed". I don't think there's a single serious conservative voter who would consider her, no matter how she tries to reinvent herself, and when you consider how close the last two elections have been in terms of the popular vote, her chances are very, very slim. She may have a huge lead in the primaries, but that's all Democratic voters. With a strong Republican candidate or a non-conservative third party candidate (even a Ralph Nader), she doesn't stand a chance.
Barrack Obama is unlikely to get the nomination, but even if he does, a serious Republican candidate will cut him to shreds in debate. His recent gaffes on foreign policy - summarized nicely by Mitt Romney as "talking to our enemies and bombing our friends", would sink him in the general election. To anyone who thinks such gaffes don't matter, I would say, you have misunderestimated the American voter. Our collective conscious seems to mostly get it right, even if we are selecting the lesser of two evils as so often seems to be the case. What America wants and will elect is a SERIOUS candidate. That was proven in 2000 and 2004 as the losing candidates in those elections have shown in the days since. Obama is not a serious candidate. That's not to say he's not a formidable candidate. It's to say that he himself is not a serious enough person at this point in his political career for Americans to choose as their president. He's a smart guy, but he's not experienced enough to get the nod - or maybe better, we don't have enough experience with him to give him the nod. There just isn't enough of a track record. He may have some interesting twists on things, a fresh look, etc. but that will not be enough. Neither will emotionally appealing sound-bites. It's not that he's too black or not black enough either. In fact, he's just too green for Americans to trust with the security and prosperity of the greatest country on earth. Step back and take a good look at him next to a Giuliani, a Romney, or even a Thompson. It appears to me, at this point, to be "no contest".
Finally, John Edwards. What can I say - a distant third, for sure, and I think quickly becoming a national joke. Between the $400 haircuts, the Katrina foreclosures, the News Corp book deal, etc. you've got to be kidding me. This man simply drips hypocrisy. He may be right that there are two Americas - he's just living in the wrong one to try to appear as Mr. Everyman. Americans won't elect a hypocrite. Edwards is as hypocritical an ambulance-chasing, panderer as I have ever seen on the American political landscape.
The political pundits and the media may think this is a strong field, and among Democrats, they might be right. In the general election, however, they are dead wrong. Giuliani and Romney at the least, are much stronger candidates than any of the Democrats. I'll save an analysis of the Republican slate for another day, but one final point as to why these two are stronger. Clinton, Obama, Edwards - none of them have ever RUN anything. Americans like Presidents who have actually run something. It's why we have elected ex-Governors ever since Kennedy in 1960! And yes, that makes Thompson a weaker candidate than he might otherwise be. The Presidency of the United States is not a place for on-the-job training. We like experience. The pundits may focus on image and star-power, but what America will elect is a serious candidate who has actually run something and that does not include any of the leading Democrats. Remember folks, you heard it here first.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Why Another Blog?
Why another blog? Why am I doing this? What can I possibly contribute to the vast universe of opinion that drifts about on the web? What I have been noticing over the past couple of years, is that the formation of my analysis and opinion, particularly in the political realm has become astoundingly acute - that is, some weeks, or sometimes months after my analysis and opinion is formed - which may run contrary to what is commonly expressed by pundits in the news media, etc., it begins to pop up on the Sunday news shows, and talk radio!
For example, after the election of 2006, we heard that "the Democrats were elected to get us out of Iraq". Where I think that began, actually was with some very unscientific exit polling on election day, but somehow it seemed to have stuck, largely because of it being repeated in the media over and over and over again. When I thought about it though, I thought, "that's stupid". What are the Democrats going to do? They have only one tool to actually end the war and bring home the troops and that is to cut off funding. They'll never do that. It would be political suicide - plus, they'd never get the votes. Then I thought, is the American voter that stupid? Would they know better than to think that the Dems could end the war. I was forced to answer "no". I think the American voter is smarter than that. I think the Republicans were voted out of office not because of the war, but because they did not do the people's business in the legislative branch. What the voters wanted was something on social security, immigration, etc., but what did we get on those ... nothing. Instead we got Terri Schiavo and steroids in baseball. Lo and behold, in recent weeks, I have begun to hear rumblings that what really happened in November, 2006 might not have been about the war, but about the inability of the Republican Congress to actually get anything done. It is interesting that having been swept into office, the Dems are faced with the same difficult issues, social security, health care, immigration policy and the border, but they cannot successfully address ANY of these - instead we get anti-war resolutions that are a huge waste of time, and a witch hunt to get the Attorney General. How well does that bode for the Dems in 2008? Ya gotta wonder!
As another example, while the immigration bill began to heat up in the media, the huge debate seemed to be what to do with the 12 million illegals that are here. I thought, "that's stupid". Why is everyone wasting time talking about that. I think it was at that moment, and this was months before you heard it anywhere else, I "coined" the phrase, "stop the bleeding". I thought, our society would absorb those 12 million - or even 20 million by some estimates, with ease, as long as the flow over the border was stanched. When I would discuss this issue with my wife, who is often my sounding board for all things political, I would ask, "what do you do first when you cut yourself, go figure out how you're going to get the wound to heal or just get the bleeding to stop?" To me, the answer was obvious. Seal the border and stop the bleeding. Duh. Of course as the bill and the vote came to a head a couple of months later, sealing the border became the primary issue. The other ridiculous idea that floated around then is, "how can you build a wall to seal up 1200 miles of Mexican border? It's too big a project. It's impossible". BS. Can somebody estimate for me how many miles of interstate we've got in this country - tens of thousands? hundreds of thousands? A double wall that runs the length of the Mexican border would be small potatoes compared to the interstate highway system. Even considering the construction cost, that would be small compared to what millions of illegals pouring over the border cost us every year.
So that brings me up to today. I've been ahead of the curve on the war, and ahead of the curve on the border to name just two. Let me get ahead of the curve on another topic and that is, None of the candidates the Democrats are putting up, though they are getting HUGE play in the press, are electable in the general election. I'll explain that in my next entry. Stay tuned!
For example, after the election of 2006, we heard that "the Democrats were elected to get us out of Iraq". Where I think that began, actually was with some very unscientific exit polling on election day, but somehow it seemed to have stuck, largely because of it being repeated in the media over and over and over again. When I thought about it though, I thought, "that's stupid". What are the Democrats going to do? They have only one tool to actually end the war and bring home the troops and that is to cut off funding. They'll never do that. It would be political suicide - plus, they'd never get the votes. Then I thought, is the American voter that stupid? Would they know better than to think that the Dems could end the war. I was forced to answer "no". I think the American voter is smarter than that. I think the Republicans were voted out of office not because of the war, but because they did not do the people's business in the legislative branch. What the voters wanted was something on social security, immigration, etc., but what did we get on those ... nothing. Instead we got Terri Schiavo and steroids in baseball. Lo and behold, in recent weeks, I have begun to hear rumblings that what really happened in November, 2006 might not have been about the war, but about the inability of the Republican Congress to actually get anything done. It is interesting that having been swept into office, the Dems are faced with the same difficult issues, social security, health care, immigration policy and the border, but they cannot successfully address ANY of these - instead we get anti-war resolutions that are a huge waste of time, and a witch hunt to get the Attorney General. How well does that bode for the Dems in 2008? Ya gotta wonder!
As another example, while the immigration bill began to heat up in the media, the huge debate seemed to be what to do with the 12 million illegals that are here. I thought, "that's stupid". Why is everyone wasting time talking about that. I think it was at that moment, and this was months before you heard it anywhere else, I "coined" the phrase, "stop the bleeding". I thought, our society would absorb those 12 million - or even 20 million by some estimates, with ease, as long as the flow over the border was stanched. When I would discuss this issue with my wife, who is often my sounding board for all things political, I would ask, "what do you do first when you cut yourself, go figure out how you're going to get the wound to heal or just get the bleeding to stop?" To me, the answer was obvious. Seal the border and stop the bleeding. Duh. Of course as the bill and the vote came to a head a couple of months later, sealing the border became the primary issue. The other ridiculous idea that floated around then is, "how can you build a wall to seal up 1200 miles of Mexican border? It's too big a project. It's impossible". BS. Can somebody estimate for me how many miles of interstate we've got in this country - tens of thousands? hundreds of thousands? A double wall that runs the length of the Mexican border would be small potatoes compared to the interstate highway system. Even considering the construction cost, that would be small compared to what millions of illegals pouring over the border cost us every year.
So that brings me up to today. I've been ahead of the curve on the war, and ahead of the curve on the border to name just two. Let me get ahead of the curve on another topic and that is, None of the candidates the Democrats are putting up, though they are getting HUGE play in the press, are electable in the general election. I'll explain that in my next entry. Stay tuned!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)