General Welfare clause of the Constitution

James Madison, the man who wrote the Constitution, would disagree that the “General Welfare” clause means that the government’s job is to take care of us:

I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. —  James Madison

With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” –James Madison

If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated is copied from the old Articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers.” James Madison, letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792

Energy Secretary Dr. Steven Chu says we are “teenage kids”

The American public…just like your teenage kids, aren’t acting in a way that they should act. The American public has to really understand in their core how important this issue is. Dr. Chu, September 21, 2009

When government runs and funds sciences, the sciences are lost.  No more scientific inquiry.  Too much time licking the boots of their masters.  Remember there can be no scientific inquiry when the government controls you.  Government scientist is a contradiction in terms.  Let’s make a few points clear here:

1. You first, Dr Chu.  Then Al Gore, Prince Charles and all the other blow-hards running around in private jets, multiple huge houses (and so many some Members of Congress “forget” about them). You try it first.

2. It is none of your business what we do, this was founded as a free country with strict Constitutional limits of the powers of government.  Dr. Steven Chu needs to read his American History before he continues to spout fascist-socialist nonsense.

3. Fascism, statism and socialism are not what we want here.

4. Double-speak, thought police, might be acceptable in a totalitarian regime, but not in the United States.

5. Look at sunspots.  Read this [Climate modeling], and this [Al Gore’s house], and this [each leader at U.N. Climate Summit has convoy of vehicles].  “Do as I say, not as I do,” seems to be the motto.

We are not children, Dr. Chu.  We are a country of free individuals and taking orders from crack-pots is not in the plan.

Dr. Steven Chu needs to start with examining his history, his facts, and the Constitution.  After he is done all that, come back and talk to us again.  But the next time Dr. Steven Chu speaks to or about the American people, Chu better do it as equals.  An elitist, authoritarian, imperial set of rulers in Washington?  Is that what you want?

What it’s saying is…that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore.

What it’s saying is…that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore. President Obama, September 20, 2009

Tell that to the top 1% of taxpayers who paid nearly 40% of all Federal Taxes in 2006 and the top 10% who paid more than 70% of all taxes.

Mr. President, the solution is not to impose a tax on everyone (yes, it is a tax, even state-controlled AP agrees).  The solution is freedom.  With each person having the freedom to buy the policy that they need or want, doing things such as removing the mandates using carrots for people to buy coverage.

We must give credit where credit it due, if the Obama administration really believed that “we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore” and implemented a policy based on liberty and individual rights and individual responsibility, they would go a long way to having a successful presidency.  Going the opposite direction, towards authoritarian, statists, fascist, socialist systems is the way to fail.  And not just fail in terms of a political agenda, but fail in terms of losing liberty and ensuring that the long slide towards collectivism accelerates, perhaps to the point where it is unrecoverable.

Race not overriding issue.

Are there people out there who don’t like me because of race? I’m sure there are.  That’s not the overriding issue here. – President Obama in CNN interview, September 18, 2009

Giving credit where credit is due here.  Unlike former President Carter, at least President Obama has a clue on this.  Race may be an issue to a small minority, but for the vast majority it is disagreement on freedom vs statism.

Who is being sold out? The unemployed and the rest of the country!

“If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all.” President Obama, September 16, 2009

Now, in Washington-speak “undocumented” means that they are here illegally – they broke the law of the United States to get here.  So 12 million people came here seeking freedom and opportunity that they didn’t have in their own country, but their first act here was to break the law.

Now consider that approximately 13.2 million people were unemployed in April 2009 and around 14.9 million in August 2009 for a 9.7 percent unemployment rate.

14.9 million minus 12 million equals 2.9 million.  What is the unemployment rate then?

There is nothing wrong with immigration, but make it legal.

Harry Reid (Racist-NV), Says Health Insurance Reform too Expensive

I thought that health care “reform” was going to decrease costs – except in Harry Reid’s Nevada (D) it will increase them (“Our state cannot afford to shoulder the second highest increase in Medicaid funding,” according to Reid yesterday), – and increase access (except that up to 45% of Doctors may quit according to a poll yesterday).  So, health reform is “too expensive” for Nevada, but will cut costs everywhere else?  And we have a bridge and some swamp land in Florida to sell you.

All this within hours the latest attempt by Senate Finance Committee chairman Baucus (D-Montana).  Government death panels, higher costs, monopoly government control, fewer doctors, fewer freedoms, socialism, care for others subsidized by the young, special plans for the Royal Congress, higher costs (as in 40% higher in Massachusetts’ version of this): sounds like a winner.

WASHINGTON – No sooner than the Senate Finance Committee’s chairman released his long-awaited health care bill today than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said it’s not good enough for Nevada.
Reid is concerned about the cash-poor state’s inability to boost Medicaid spending as would be required under the bill.
“While this draft bill is a good starting point, it needs improvement before it will work for Nevada,” Reid said in a statement. “During this time of economic crisis, our state cannot afford to shoulder the second highest increase in Medicaid funding.”

House of Representatives Limits free speech!

You have to enjoy the irony of the Chairwomen Louise M. Slaughter, Committee on Rules U.S. House of Representatives giving a summary of decorum in the House and in Committees today.

In part Slaughter states you should not “allude to personal misconduct.”  One has to question, first, the Constitutionality of these rules.  For example, could the House not have alluded to personal misconduct of President Nixon in the alleged Watergate coverup.  Or could not allude to Andrew Johnson’s violation of the Tenure in Office Act – itself probably Unconstitutional due to separation of powers – because it was alleged to be personal misconduct.  Likewise, one would have to conclude that the House could not allude to President Clinton committing perjury.  In short, it would make the President immune to criticism.

However, the saving point is that it is fascinating that Slaughter uses the word “allude” which means to “suggest or call attention to indirectly” or “hint at.”  Given the plain language from Rep Slaughter, as long as one states plainly that “President Obama lied when he stated the government will not take away your health care,” one does not violate the rule.  There is no “alluding” going on.  It is stated plainly and clearly.

A Member of the House that chooses to follow these rules is violating his or her oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, particularly the First Amendment.  The Founders intended robust debate and any rules to the contrary must be ignored.  Anything else makes a mockery of the concept of free speech.

Other statements that seem to be allowed:

“President Obama misrepresented the facts when he discussed his health care nationalization proposal.”

“President Obama misinformed you when he gave a speech on socialized medicine.”

In short it seems one can use words like these:

fib, dissemble, dissimulate, prevaricate, stretch the truth, mislead, exaggerate, whopper, falsified, invented, used a piece of fiction, distort, skewed, or misreported.

Likewise, as long as you state something outright, you are not going to run afoul of Rep Slaughter’s speech controls.
Continue reading House of Representatives Limits free speech!

The “time for bickering is over”? No, it is not.

President Obama stated last night that the “time for bickering is over.”  What this really means is: forget your principles, give up your freedom and do it my way.  It is as if King George told the Colonists, the time for bickering is over.  “The time for bickering is over.  Pay your taxes, forget your freedom and shut your mouth.  It is time for action.” Not likely.

It is a nice technique, to disparage your opponent’s principled disagreements as “bickering,” “politics,” or “partisanship” knowing you won’t be called on it by the press.  But the intent is the same, to dismiss arguments as below you instead of responding to them.

Rancor in politics means not compromising on freedom

The Politico states that Obama’s “gift for healing words would combine with the power of his biography to transcend the rancor of modern politics.” (   Rancor in politics is caused by one group attempting to gain power over another and that group fighting back.  To take freedom and turn the United States into a socialist paradise.  To take our liberty for what they claim as a good purpose.  The Founders knew this which was why they enumerated powers in the Constitution.  The authoritarians knew this too and since at least the 1930s have attempted to pit one group against another for the aggrandizement of their own power.  Group politics and group envy is the basis of those power hungry groups who only care about one thing – their own power.

Should the North avoided “rancor” with the South in April of 1861?  Should Roosevelt should have avoided “rancor” with Japan on December 8, 1941?  Should the Africans who were being sold into slavery by their own people to the Europeans have fought or should they have avoided “rancor” in politics?

Anyone who is being sold into serfdom should fight back to preserve their freedoms.  Rancor is perfectly fine. Rancor is good, it means you are engaged and care about being free or being serf.  Rancor means not compromising when it comes to protecting your freedoms.  Rancor means that power-hungry authoritarians are not getting their way.  Rancor means that the line of liberty in the sand is drawn and defended.  Rancor means that the defenders of liberty are not willing to compromise their liberty away bit by bit.

Freedom implies free markets.  Freedom implies free minds.  Freedom implies the freedom to make good, and bad decisions.  Every compromise is a grain of sand dripping out of the hour-glass of freedom.  It may only seem like a single grain, but given enough time eventually the top of the glass will be completely empty.

Individual Rights and Today's Issue