The Ruthless Truth blog

by Shamus Cooke

Global Research, March 1, 2010

It’s difficult to understand a subject when those explaining it are motivated not by truth, but profit.   In the case of health care, both Democrats and Republicans have huge financial incentives to obscure, mislead, or lie. Instead of common sense and honesty directing the debate, bags of money facilitate the conversation, funneled in from the health care industry via lobbyists into Congressmen’s pockets.  This is the real reason that Obama’s “health care summit” was full of free-market jargon, staged debate and fake rage.      

The majority of working people in this country are completely alienated from this nonsense, and are growing progressively hostile to the lies of both parties and their respective media mouthpieces.  Polls continue to show rising opposition to the Democrats’ health care shenanigans, while showing no upgrade in status for the Republicans. 

The ability for millions of people to see through the muddle in Washington points to a larger distrust of the two-party system.  Even as “progressive Democrats” and other liberal pundits bow before the health care industry by urging passage of “an imperfect” health care bill, workers, the poor and the elderly aren’t taking the bait.

And why should they?  The Democrats want millions of uninsured people to be mandated into buying crappy health insurance from the most hated companies in existence, where co-pays, premiums and other fees will prevent millions from benefiting from their new, shoddy health care.  This individual mandate is reason enough to solidly reject Obama’s health care scheme, but it’s just the beginning. 

The Democrats don’t like to talk about how their health care vision slashes Medicare. The New York Times explains in detail how Obama’s new plan attacks Medicare; here are some examples: 

“President Obama’s budget would make a down payment toward his goal of covering the uninsured, and he would pay for it in part by cutting federal payments [Medicare] to hospitals, insurance companies and drug companies.” 

Later, the article reads: “Mr. Obama said he would save $176 billion over 10 years by cutting Medicare payments to health insurance companies that provide comprehensive care to more than 10 million of the 44 million Medicare beneficiaries.” 

And:  “Mr. Obama also proposed squeezing $37 billion out of the [Medicare] payments to home health agencies over the next decade.”  (February 26, 2010).

The article fails to connect these blandly stated numbers with the gigantic human suffering that will result.  All that seems to matter is that the “uninsured will be [poorly] insured,” not that those currently receiving quality services will have their health care stripped from them.

Equally disastrous is the bi-partisan consensus over health care rationing.  The Democrats plan aims to save billions of dollars by simply providing less health care. In fact, rationing health care is the philosophical backbone of the Democrats’ plan, which amounts to boosting the profits of health care corporations by allowing them to provide less service. 

In Obama’s recently released plan, a large section is entitled “policies to crack down on waste, fraud and abuse.”   The mainstream media and both political parties have made it abundantly clear that “waste” means “excessive tests and procedures that doctors routinely perform.” In essence, this means that the “new normal” for health care will be less tests and less procedures for those mandated to pay for corporate health care.  Of course these measures will continue to be performed for those who can afford more expensive plans.   

Contrary to the foolish accusations of the Republicans, the Democrats health care bill does not represent “the government takeover of health care,” but the corporate takeover. The fact that this corporate coup is being conducted through the hands of government only proves that both political parties are wholly owned by the corporations.    

Federally run Medicare and state run Medicaid are being slashed, pushing soon-to-be mandated people into the corporate sphere, where services will be cut to push up profits.

Another way that the corporate takeover of health care will be achieved is through the tax on so called “Cadillac health care plans.”  Employers will be taxed for offering their workers quality health care after a certain threshold; the worse the health care offered, the lower the tax.  Labor unions correctly interpreted the tax to be an attack on their health care plans, since union workers typically have better health care plans than the unorganized.

Sadly, many labor leaders agreed not to fight this tax after Obama “compromised” by raising the tax threshold and delaying its implementation until 2018.  But to think that such a tax can be ignored until 2018 is a perilous delusion.  Employers will use every contract negotiation until 2018 to attack health care plans, so that the plans are below the threshold by the time the tax kicks in.  Those employers without a unionized workforce will simply drop their health care plans and force their workers into the treacherous waters of Obama’s health care mandate.  

Both political parties love this idea.  And despite the Republicans furious playacting, they are giddy that the Democrats have adopted long held conservative Republican beliefs about health care. This is what the Wall Street Journal said about the health care summit:

“To listen to President Obama and his closest Democratic allies, you’d think John McCain had won the election and their bill had been drafted by Paul Ryan, Tom Coburn and the scholars at the American Enterprise Institute [a rightwing think tank].” (February 26, 2010).

The above-described dynamics will drastically alter the health care landscape in the U.S.  The high standards of health care embodied in Medicare and union plans are being undermined, setting a much lower standard nationally.  Once these plans are killed, the corporate vultures will swoop in with their “individual mandate” to make billions of dollars, while the threshold for “quality care” will be lowered drastically with the mass rationing of health care.  

Anyone interested in saving health care must fight the Democrats’ plans, while demanding that Medicare be extended to everyone.  To ensure that Medicare is financially sound, taxes on the wealthy and corporations must be raised, while the health care monopoly corporations should be nationalized and run as public utilities. 
These ideas can be made a reality only through the united and organized effort of the Labor Movement, retiree organizations, community groups and anyone else interested in saving and extending real health care in the U.S. 

Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org).  He can be reached at shamuscook@yahoo.com

Shamus Cooke is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Shamus Cooke

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17857

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Democrats Think You’re Stupid

February 25th, 2010

CALLER: Does the president — and Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and anybody that wants to support the health care bill in its current incarnation — realize that if they ram it down the American public’s throat, they are declaring war on the American public? Or do you think they realize it and really don’t care?

RUSH: I think it’s a little bit of both. When you’re talking about Democrats… War is a little strong, but I know what you mean. They hold us in contempt. The fact they haven’t been able to pass it, they blame on us. They blame it on the tea party people, which they call “tea baggers.” They blame it on the “stupid people in this country who listen to talk radio and read blogs.” Look, Joe Klein said it recently. Bill Maher said it on Larry King. You people are just too stupid to understand all the great things and the issues the Democrats are trying to do, and because your stupidity is standing in the way of their achieving it, they have contempt for you. So they’re, in a sense, declaring war. But they also don’t care. It’s patently obviously. They’re willing to lose the House over this.

CALLER: I travel around the country, I’m an over-the-road truck driver, and I see what their actions have done to this point, and it is dismal out here to say the least.

RUSH: You’re talking about the job market and the economy overall or are you talking about people’s attitudes?

CALLER: Yes. (chuckles)

CALLER: I mean, when you look at a warehouse in LA that a year-and-a-half ago was completely full and you go in there now and it’s 80 to 90% empty? It’s just the people’s attitude. It’s unbelievable. I’ve never believed I would see something like this in my lifetime.

RUSH: Well, you are, and it’s not just you. A lot of people see it. It’s like the story I just recently told about my staffer. After I told the story, the staffer added something else, and that is: In addition to every one of these people complaining about their house being worthless, there being no help — they thought the government, Obama, was going to fix all of this and he’s fixing nothing — they say, “And there’s no jobs!” They started saying, “There’s no jobs!” and they were mad at the government. That’s Obama. Look, I think it’s even worse. I know that Obama has no experience. I know he has no executive experience. I know not one member of his administration has spent any time in the private sector as an employee or as a manager, and I know he’s been educated to think the country is unjust and immoral as it’s been founded. The fact that they keep piling mistake after mistake after mistake on this makes it more and more difficult for me to believe that this is not purposeful. And that, if you want to talk about… If people start to think this is being done on purpose for whatever reason — then there is going to be, in November, an uprising like nothing you’ve ever seen.

source: Rush Limbaugh…

Posted by Bob Filed in General Interest

1 Comment »

Lawyer who challenged Obama: Ineligibility could prove costly

February 25th, 2010

by Bob Unruh

An attorney whose legal brief in a case challenging Barack Obama’s eligibility revealed a Supreme Court can remove an ineligible chief executive now has released an analysis confirming that if Obama isn’t eligible, he could be charged under a number of felony statutes.

And that’s just on the federal level; any state charges would be in addition, as would charges against individuals who may have helped him in the commission of any of the acts, according to Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation.

Kreep has been involved in several of the cases that have raised challenges to Obama’s occupancy of the Oval Office, including two in California. One is on appeal in the state court system and names California Secretary of State Debra Bowen as defendant. The other, in the federal court system, is on appeal before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Both make claims on behalf of individuals and political candidates in California over Obama’s presence on the 2008 election ballot.

North Dakota Gov. Thomas Moodie, removed from office when the state Supreme Court found him ineligible

WND several weeks ago reported when Kreep’s legal research revealed two precedents he believes would be applicable in the Obama case. In one, state officials arbitrarily removed a candidate from an election ballot because it was not proven the candidate was qualified for office. In another, the North Dakota Supreme Court removed the sitting governor from office when it was documented he was not eligible under the state’s requirements.

Now Kreep has released an analysis of the federal laws he believes could be applied should Obama ultimately be shown to be ineligible.

“If he is not eligible, he could be charged not only under with these crimes, but potentially with crimes in a number of states where he falsely represented that he was qualified to run, as well as people who helped him,” Kreep told WND.

Further, there could be any number of challenges to virtually anything he did as president: his nominations, his executive orders and his signing of legislation.

“This is completely uncharted territory,” Kreep told WND. “It could all be challenged as invalid. There has to be a sitting president for [actions] to be valid. If he’s not qualified, if he’s not the president, it isn’t valid.”

The research, done on Kreep’s behalf by USJF staff attorney Chris Tucker, cited the following statutes that could apply:

False Personation of Officer or Employee of the United States (18 U.S.C. § 912).

It states: “Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

The USJF analysis said, “Basically this statute calls for 1) Fraudulent intent, and 2) an overt act to accomplish the inducement of one giving over a thing of value. If it were found that Barack Obama was not a natural born citizen, as required by the U.S. Constitution Art. II § 1, he will have assumed the office of president fraudulently to obtain money (among other things) by way of his annual salary. The Supreme Court has upheld convictions for False Personations in U.S. v. Lepowitch, (63 S.Ct. 914), and Lamar v. U.S., (36 S.Ct. 535).”

Conspiracy to Commit Offense or to Defraud United States (18 U.S.C. 371).

It states: “If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.”

The USJF analysis said, “As in all conspiracies, there must be two or more persons working in concert to achieve an illegal act, so the president would need a co-conspirator for this statute to apply. The state of Hawaii is being very secretive about the whereabouts or even existence of Mr. Obama’s supposed birth certificate. If the officials in charge of keeping these records know of its non-existence, then they would be co-conspirators with the objective of defrauding the United States as to the citizenship status of Barack Obama. There, however, must be an ‘in concert’ element met, meaning that these officials are withholding the proof at the direction of Mr. Obama. Is it possible that these officials love Barack Obama so much that they are withholding these documents out of the goodness of their own hearts? Yes, possibly, however unlikely. It is reasonable to infer that the Hawaiian officials are working ‘in concert’ with Mr. Obama to suppress this information, since each would face both civil and criminal suits, not to mention the loss of furthering their own political goals.”

Activities Affecting Armed Forces During War (18 U.S.C. 2388(a)).

It states: “(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or

“Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so—Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.”

The USJF analysis said: “Intent is fully at issue here; however, President Obama made it clear during his campaign that his full intent when entering office would be to scale down the conflict with Afghanistan and Iraq, eventually leading to a full withdrawal. His statements of being a natural born citizen to obtain the office of commander in chief were in effort to interfere with the attempts by the former commander in chief’s attempt at engaging the enemy in these two countries, for the purpose of national security.

“In the case of Schulze v. U.S. (259 F. 189) Petitioner was convicted under this statute, and the question of intent was at issue. The court stated, ‘It is true that in charging the offense it is unnecessary to allege the intent; the offense being one whose very definition necessarily includes intent. In such a case it is necessary only to aver in apt terms the acts done. The intent will be inferred. The charge is not unlike that of treason, the indictment for which needs go no further than to follow the language of the statute which defines the offense. (United States v. Greathouse, 2 Abb.U.S. 364, Fed. Cas. No. 15,254)…

“This means that intent is inferred from the act itself. Mr. Obama has already announced that the efforts in Afghanistan will be scaled back, and a full withdrawal is planned for 2011. Furthermore, the announcement of this strategy works to the aid of our enemy, who now knows to sit in caves and wait out the U.S. for only a year or so. This certainly works interrupt our operations and promote the success of our enemy.”

False Statement in Application and Use of Passport (18 U.S.C. 1542).

It states: “Whoever willfully and knowingly makes any false statement in an application for passport with intent to induce or secure the issuance of a passport under the authority of the United States, either for his own use or the use of another, contrary to the laws regulating the issuance of passports or the rules prescribed pursuant to such laws; or

“Whoever willfully and knowingly uses or attempts to use, or furnishes to another for use any passport the issue of which was secured in any way by reason of any false statement—Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 25 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate an act of international terrorism (as defined in section 2331 of this title)), 20 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 929 (a) of this title)), 10 years (in the case of the first or second such offense, if the offense was not committed to facilitate such an act of international terrorism or a drug trafficking crime), or 15 years (in the case of any other offense), or both.”

The USJF analysis said: “To obtain a U.S. passport one must show a valid birth certificate or some other form of identification showing U.S. citizenship. Barack Obama would have to have furnished some sort of birth certificate or other document showing he is a citizen. Of course, even if he was not a natural born citizen, he could show naturalization or some other citizenship papers. However, if these documents are spurious, then he would be guilty pursuant to the first paragraph, and to then use his illegally obtained passport, he would also be guilty under the second paragraph as well.”

False Personation of Citizen of the United States (18 U.S.C. 911).

It states: “Whoever falsely and willfully represents himself to be a citizen of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

The analysis said: “If Mr. Obama is not a natural born citizen, then he must have other proof of United States citizenship. If he has neither of these, then as acting head of state he is holding himself out to be a citizen of the United States, and is therefore liable under this section as well.”

Perjury (18 U.S.C. 1621).

It states: “Whoever—(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or

“(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.”

The USJF analysis said: “Mr. Obama has taken the oath of office of POTUS, in front of Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Roberts, in which he promises to ‘defend the Constitution’. As an illegal alien, or even a non-natural born citizen, he would be acting as an ineligible president. Furthermore, as an attorney, and a former professor of constitutional law, Barack Obama would have full knowledge of the requirements for an eligible candidate for the office of POTUS. This shows that he has willfully stated that he will and is acting contrary to his presidential oath.”

read the rest of the story here: World Net Daily…

Posted by Bob Filed in Court Eligibility Cases, Eligibility Attorneys

8 Comments »

Arizona Lawmakers want verification of Obama citizenship

February 24th, 2010

PHOENIX (AP) – Nearly half of the Arizona Legislature wants to force President Barack Obama to show his birth certificate to state officials if he runs for re-election.

A state House committee on Tuesday approved the measure sponsored by 40 of the state’s 90 legislators. It would require presidential candidates who want to appear on the ballot in Arizona to submit documents proving they meet the requirements to be president.

All 40 co-sponsors are Republicans, comprising 75 percent of the GOP caucus. Two of them have since resigned to run for Congress.

The idea was proposed by Skull Valley Republican Rep. Judy Burges. She says if people have to prove their citizenship to apply for a job or get a passport, they should have to prove it to run for president.

source: http://wmal.com/Article.asp?id=1709997&spid=28718

Posted by Bob Filed in Anti-Obama Press, Constitution

8 Comments »

New home sales drop 11 percent in January, new low

February 24th, 2010

WASHINGTON (AP) — Sales of new homes plunged to a record low in January, underscoring the formidable challenges facing the housing industry as it tries to recover from the worst slump in decades.

The Commerce Department reported Wednesday that new home sales dropped 11.2 percent last month to a seasonally adjusted annual sales pace of 309,000 units, the lowest level on records going back nearly a half century. The big drop was a surprise to economists who were expecting a 5 percent increase over December’s pace.

While winter storms were partly to blame, home sales have fallen for three straight months despite sweeping government support. Economists were already worried that an improvement in sales in the second half of last year could falter as various government support programs are withdrawn.

“There is no doubt that January and February are going to be messy months for housing, given the severe weather conditions, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that the housing sector has taken another big step back, even with the government aid,” Jennifer Lee, a senior economist at BMO Capital Markets, said in a research note.

A rebound in housing in the second half of last year helped to boost overall economic growth back into positive territory. Each new home built, for example, creates about three jobs for a year and generates about $90,000 in taxes paid to local and federal authorities, according to the National Association of Home Builders.

However, economists are worried that if housing falters in coming months, that will be one more headwind the recovery will have to overcome. The decline to an annual purchase rate of 309,000 in January was 6 percent below the previous record low set in January last year.

“I don’t think we are going to have a double-dip recession in housing, but it is going to take us longer to recover from a very deep hole,” said Patrick Newport, an economist at IHS Global Insight.

January’s weakness was evident in all regions except the Midwest, where sales posted a 2.1 percent increase. Sales were down 35 percent in the Northeast, 12 percent in the West and almost 10 percent in the South.

The drop in sales pushed the median sales price down to $203,500. That was down 5.6 percent from December’s median sales price of $215,600, and off 2.4 percent from year-ago prices.

New home sales for all of 2009 had fallen by almost 23 percent to 374,000, the worst year on record. The National Association of Home Builders is forecasting that sales will rise to more than 500,000 sales this year, an improvement from 2009 but still far below the boom years of 2003 through 2006 when builders clocked more than 1 million new home sales per year.

January’s data increased concerns that the housing rebound could falter in coming months as the government withdraws the support it has used to try to bolster the housing market. The real estate crisis was the epicenter of the country’s overall recession, the worst downturn since the 1930s.

The Federal Reserve has been holding down mortgage rates by buying $1.25 trillion in mortgage-backed securities, but that program is set to end March 31. And temporary tax credits to bolster home buying are scheduled to expire at the end of April.

---

Comment by American Grand Jury:

How’s that Obama economy working out for you? Housing is the backbone of our economy. Tax and spend isn’t going to get the job done. Government waste, welfare and corruption only amplify the problems. When is America going to wake up? Socialism, Unions, bailouts, payoffs, entitlements and government waste are not going to correct our economy. The sooner the country throws the the Democrats out of office and reduces Obama to a lame-duck president the better. Lower taxes, limited government, capitalism and conservative leadership is what is going to save our country.

Posted by Bob Filed in General Interest

4 Comments »

Congressional Performance – 71% Give Congress Poor Rating

February 24th, 2010

Voter unhappiness with Congress has reached the highest level ever recorded by Rasmussen Reports as 71% now say the legislature is doing a poor job.

That’s up ten points from the previous high of 61% reached a month ago.

Only 10% of voters say Congress is doing a good or excellent job.

Nearly half of Democratic voters (48%) now give Congress a poor rating, up 17 points since January. The vast majority of Republicans and voters not affiliated with either party also give Congress poor ratings.

Seventy percent (70%) of voters say Congress has not passed any legislation that would significantly improve life for Americans, up 10 points over the past month and the highest level of dissatisfaction measured in regular tracking in over three years. Only 15% say Congress has passed such legislation.

Forty percent (40%) of voters nationwide now say it is at least somewhat likely Congress will seriously address the most important issues facing the nation. That’s down from 59% last March. Only 9% say it is Very Likely Congress will address these issues.

These numbers are consistent with the analysis provided in Scott Rasmussen’s new book, In Search of Self-Governance. Scott notes that “Today, Americans are united. United in the belief that our political system is broken, that politicians are corrupt, and that neither major political party has the answers.” He adds, “Some of us are ready to give up; some of us are ready to scream a little louder. But all of us believe we can do better.”

rasmussenreports.com/public_content/

Posted by Bob Filed in Public Sentiment

No Comments »

Missile Defense Agency, Obama and the Crescent Moon of Islam

February 24th, 2010

The Internet is abuzz with comparisons of the “strikingly similar” logos of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency and the ubiquitous Obama 2008 campaign.

The Missile Defense Agency, which is part of the Defense Department, now features a circular red, white and blue logo on its Web site that has been characterized in some reports as “scarily” similar to President Obama’s former campaign symbol. Others have noted that it has a crescent and star design, evoking a common symbol for Islam.

The logo, which first appeared on the Missile Defense Web site in the fall, was designed by TMP Government, a marketing and communications firm that has managed Web site redesigns and logos for numerous government agencies, including recovery.gov and more than a dozen Defense and intelligence-related sites.

But this particular one has caught the eye of critics of the Obama administration.

“I’m having trouble seeing past the crescent and star in the new logo,” one critic posted on WashingtonTimes.com. “Is this our signal to the muslim world that we’re not going to shoot down their missiles?”

Another poster on WeaselZippers.net likened the logo to that of a “corny science fiction movie.”

But others said it was all in the eye of the beholder, and that they saw little or no similarity between the Obama and Missile Defense logos.

Richard Lehner, a spokesman for the Missile Defense Agency, dismissed the comparison entirely.

“It’s ridiculous,” Lehner told Fox News. “It isn’t a new logo to replace the official logo. It’s a logo developed for recruiting materials and for our public Web site. Also, it was used prior to the 2008 election and it has no link to any political campaign.”

Brian Collins, chairman and chief creative officer at COLLINS:, a New York-based design and innovation firm, said both logos use the “same visual language,” complete with two circles and three stripes.

“The Obama logo is filled with messages of hope, it’s about looking toward an optimistic future,” he said. “They’ve taken those exact elements and they’ve made them more technical.”

Collins said the newer Missile Defense Agency logo simply took on more patriotic colors to convey its message more quickly and simply. But he doesn’t think the creative minds at TMP Government had Obama in mind when they produced their governmental branding.

“I wouldn’t buy the argument that it’s an evolution of the Obama identity,” Collins said. “There are similarities but I don’t see the genesis in the Obama logo.”

source: By Joshua Rhett Miller – FOXNews.com

---

Comment by American Grand Jury:

Don’t kid yourself. The Crescent Moon is there for a reason. Obama and many of the freaks that work for him are Muslims or Muslim sympathizers.

Posted by Bob Filed in Anti-Obama Press, Barack Obama

No Comments »

White House Accused of Federal Crime in Specter, Bennet Races

February 24th, 2010

“Whoever solicits or receives … any….thing of value, in consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.” — 18 USC Sec. 211 — Bribery, Graft and Conflicts of Interest: Acceptance or solicitation to obtain appointive public office

“In the face of a White House denial, U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak stuck to his story yesterday that the Obama administration offered him a “high-ranking” government post if he would not run against U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania’s Democratic primary.”
– Philadelphia Inquirer
February 19, 2010

“D.C. job alleged as attempt to deter Romanoff”
–Denver Post
September 27, 2009

A bombshell has just exploded in the 2010 elections.

For the second time in five months, the Obama White House is being accused — by Democrats — of offering high ranking government jobs in return for political favors. What no one is reporting is that this is a violation of federal law that can lead to prison time, a fine or both, according to Title 18, Chapter 11, Section 211 of the United States Code.

The jobs in question? Secretary of the Navy and a position within the U.S. Agency for International Development.

The favor requested in return? Withdrawal from Senate challenges to two sitting United States Senators, both Democrats supported by President Obama. The Senators are Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania and Michael Bennet in Colorado.

On Friday, Pennsylvania Congressman Joe Sestak, the Democrat challenging Specter for re-nomination, launched the controversy by accusing the Obama White House of offering him a federal job in exchange for his agreeing to abandon his race against Specter.

In August of 2009, the Denver Post reported last September, Deputy White House Chief of Staff Jim Messina “offered specific suggestions” for a job in the Obama Administration to Colorado Democrat Andrew Romanoff, a former state House Speaker, if Romanoff would agree to abandon a nomination challenge to U.S. Senator Michael Bennet. Bennet was appointed to the seat upon the resignation of then-Senator Ken Salazar after Salazar was appointed by Obama to serve as Secretary of the Interior. According to the Post, the specific job mentioned was in the U.S. Agency for International Development. The Post cited “several sources who described the communication to The Denver Post.”

The paper also describes Messina as “President Barack Obama’s deputy chief of staff and a storied fixer in the White House political shop.” Messina’s immediate boss is White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

Sestak is standing by his story. Romanoff refused to discuss it with the Denver paper. In both instances the White House has denied the offers took place. The Sestak story in the Philadelphia Inquirer, reported by Thomas Fitzgerald, can be found here, While the Denver Post story, reported by Michael Riley, from September 27, 2009, can be read here.

In an interview with Philadelphia television anchor Larry Kane, who broke the story on Larry Kane: Voice of Reason, a Comcast Network show, Sestak says someone — unnamed — in the Obama White House offered him a federal job if he would quit the Senate race against Specter, the latter having the support of President Obama, Vice President Biden and, in the state itself, outgoing Democratic Governor Ed Rendell. Both Biden and Rendell are longtime friends of Specter, with Biden taking personal credit for convincing Specter to leave the Republican Party and switch to the Democrats. Rendell served as a deputy to Specter when the future senator’s career began as Philadelphia’s District Attorney, a job Rendell himself would eventually hold.

Asked Kane of Sestak in the Comcast interview:

“Is it true that you were offered a high ranking job in the administration in a bid to get you to drop out of the primary against Arlen Specter?”

“Yes” replied Sestak.

source: American Spectator…

Posted by Bob Filed in General Interest

2 Comments »

How’s that ‘hope and change’ working out for you?

February 24th, 2010

From the land of Lincoln.. Illinois is in big trouble. Worse budget shortfall in the history of the State.

NBC in Chicago is calling it the “doomsday Predictions”

In order to crawl from beneath crushing debt and reach fiscal solvency, Illinois legislators must choose from a series of options that range from bad to worse, according to a prominent watchdog group.

The group says it would support a state income tax increase from 3 percent to 5 percent. It also recommends the state tax retirees’ pension and Social Security checks be taxed for the first time at the same rate as workers’ paychecks. They want another $1 increase on a pack of cigarettes and to eliminate $181 million in corporate tax breaks.

In order to implement those increases, the Civic Federation says unions should pay more toward their pensions and health care — but the unions aren’t interested.

The state’s red ink has already caused a backlog of unpaid bills to public universities and schools, transit systems and social services.

CBS in New York – more than a 1,000 transit jobs to be cut

More than 1,000 jobs are on the chopping block at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority — and they’re not just token cuts — as the agency tries to deal with its ever larger deficits.

The cuts will include 600 administrative employees, some very high up, and up to 500 subway station agents.

NBC in San Francisco – 900 pink slips for school employees, including teachers

San Francisco school officials are scheduled to vote on a plan to layoff more than 900 school employees.

The layoffs are on the agenda for the school board’s meeting Tuesday. District officials say they are needed to help balance a projected budget shortfall of $113 million over the next two years. The district, which served 55,000 students, has experienced steep reductions in state funding.

The layoff notices would come in the next few weeks and would include 318 teachers, about 10 percent of the district’s classroom employees. Also on the chopping block are the positions of 98 principals and vice principals, 22 counselors and 8 school nurses.

Dennis Kelly, the president of the United Educators of San Francisco, told the Chronicle the layoffs are, “literally a decimation of the teaching force.”

Superintendent Carlos Garcia is calling on labor unions to make concessions in pay, benefits and class sizes to avoid at least some layoffs.

Union officials say the district has yet to show the layoffs and other cuts are necessary.

Posted by Bob Filed in Obama Economy

7 Comments »

American Grand Jury

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

by Paul Craig Roberts

Global Research, January 27, 2010

Creators Syndicate - 2010-01-25

The election of Republican Scott Brown to the U.S. Senate by Democratic voters in Massachusetts sends President Obama a message. Voters perceive that Obama’s administration has morphed into a Bush-Cheney government. Obama has reneged on every promise he made, from ending wars, to closing Gitmo, to providing health care for Americans, to curtailing the domestic police state, to putting the interests of dispossessed Americans ahead of the interests of the rich banksters who robbed Americans of their homes and pensions.

But what can Obama do other then spout more rhetoric?

The Democrats were destroyed as an independent party by jobs offshoring and so-called free trade agreements such as NAFTA. The effect of"globalism" has been to destroy the industrial and manufacturing unions, thus leaving the Democrats without a power base and source of funding.

Obama and the Democrats cannot be an opposition party, because Democrats are as dependent as Republicans on corporate interest groups for campaign funding.

The Democrats have to support war and the police state if they want funding from the military/security complex. They have to make the health care bill into a subsidy for private insurance if they want funding from the insurance companies. They have to abandon the American people for the rich banksters if they want funding from the financial lobby.

Now that the five Republicans on the Supreme Court have overturned decades of U.S. law and given corporations the ability to buy every American election, Democrats and Republicans can be nothing but pawns for a plutocracy.

Most Americans are hard pressed, but the corporations have only begun to milk them.

Wars are too profitable for the armaments industry to ever end. High unemployment is now a permanent state in the U.S., thus coercing job seekers into military service.

The security industry profits from the police state and regards civil liberties as a hindrance to profits. By announcing that he intends to continue the Bush policy of indefinite detention, a violation of the Constitution and U.S. legal procedures, Obama has granted the Democratic Party’s consent to the Republicans’ destruction of habeas corpus, the main bastion of individual liberty.

Jobs offshoring is too profitable for U.S. corporations for Obama to be able to save American jobs and restart the broken economy.

Americans are being squeezed out of health care not only by the loss of job benefits, but also by corporate takeover of medical practice from physicians. Today medical doctors are wage slaves of corporate health providers that leverage doctors by turning them into supervisors of physician assistants, lower-paid people without medical degrees who perform the services that doctors once provided. As neither doctor nor physician assistant has any independence, there is no one to represent the patient’s care against the profits of the corporation.

Even environmental concerns are being used to create "cap and trade" rights to buy and sell the ability to pollute. Wall Street is licking its lips over a new source of leveraged derivative instruments.

The American public cannot even get reliable information about their plight as the "MainStream Media" has been concentrated into a few corporate hands that do not permit independent reporting. The media is as dependent on corporate money as are politicians.

How can President Obama restart an economy that has been moved offshore? Millions of manufacturing jobs are gone, as are millions of jobs for college graduates, such as software engineering, Information Technology–indeed, any intellectual skill the product of which can be conveyed via the Internet. Even those intellectual skill jobs that do remain in the U.S. are filled increasingly by foreigners brought in on work visas.

The wipeout of blue collar and middle class job growth has stopped the growth of American incomes except, of course, those of the super rich. For a decade American consumers substituted increased personal indebtedness for income growth. In order to maintain and to increase their consumption, Americans consumed their assets, such as their home equity. Americans reached their maximum debt load just as the real estate bubble burst and just as the banksters highly-leveraged, toxic financial instruments brought down the stock market and the values of Americans’ pensions.

The enormous damage done to the U.S. economy by jobs offshoring, work visas, and financial deregulation cannot be offset by government stimulus plans, which expand the debt burdens that are crushing Americans. The federal government’s massive budget deficits and the Federal Reserve’s easy monetary policy are setting the stage for an inflationary depression to follow a deflationary depression.

The Federal Reserve chairman says not to worry about inflation, because the Fed can take the money back out of the economy. But can the Fed take the money out without contracting the economy?

The Federal Reserve says not to worry about financing the federal budget deficit. Banksters are buying the Treasury bonds with the proceeds from their sales of their toxic derivatives to the Fed.

So what is happening to the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet? And when will the Fed have no recourse but to print new money in order to finance the federal deficit?

How long can the dollar retain its reserve currency role in such circumstances, and how does the U.S. pay for its imports when this role is lost?

Don’t look to Washington for answers to these questions.

Paul Craig Roberts [email him] was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term.  He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal.  He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University, and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He was awarded the Legion of Honor by French President Francois Mitterrand. He is the author of Supply-Side Revolution : An Insider’s Account of Policymaking in Washington;  Alienation and the Soviet Economyand Meltdown: Inside the Soviet Economy, and is the co-author with Lawrence M. Stratton of The Tyranny of Good Intentions : How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice. Clickhere for Peter Brimelow’s Forbes Magazine interview with Roberts about the recent epidemic of prosecutorial misconduct.

Paul Craig Roberts is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Paul Craig Roberts

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17226

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

State of the Union Junk Economics, 2010

by Prof Michael Hudson

Global Research, January 26, 2010

It’s make or break time for Democrats since the January 19 defeat in Massachusetts. At stake is Mr. Obama’s credibility as an agent for change. Exit polls show that voters see his main change to be favoritism to Wall Street, to a degree that the “old Democrats” would not have let a Republican administration get away with. Rivalry over just what party is more Wall Street friendly prompted Jay Leno to joke that Mr. Obama has done the impossible: resurrected the seemingly dying Republican Party and given it the coveted label of the “Party of Change” running against Wall Street.

Some politicians are hoping that the effect of Massachusetts has been an oxymoron, a “fortuitous calamity” in the form of a wake-up call to Washington. The question is, will the party be able to drag Mr. Obama away from the Corporate Democrats? This is the setting for what must certainly be a hastily rewritten State of the Union message. Instead of celebrating a Republican- and Lieberman-approved health care bill, Mr. Obama finds himself obliged to respond to voters who celebrated his first anniversary in office by choosing a Republican as their designated voice for change. That was supposed to be his line.

My reading of last week’s election is that voters who felt duped by Mr. Obama’s promise as a reform candidate did not really turn Republican, but at least they could throw out the Democrats for failing to make a credible start fixing the debt-strapped economy. The President has begged the banks to start lending again. But this means loading the economy down with yet more debt. The $13 trillion bailout was supposed to help them do this, but they have simply taken the money and run, paying it out in bonuses and salaries, stepping up their lobbying efforts to buy Congress, and buying out other banks to grow larger and increase their monopoly power.

The contrast between Wall Street’s recovery and the failure of the “real” economy to recover its employment and consumption levels has enabled Republicans to depict Mr. Obama and his party as stalling against financial reform. Instead of fulfilling his election promise to become an agent of change, the past year has seen a continuity with the widely rejected Bush policies. Even the personnel remain the same. Over the weekend, Mr. Obama reiterated his endorsement for reappointing Helicopter Ben Bernanke as Federal Reserve Chairman.

As ex officio lobbyist for high finance, Mr. Bernanke’s money drop seemed to land only on Wall Street. Now that it has emptied out the government’s credit in an unparalleled deficit, Mr. Obama is saying, “No more. I’m drawing the line. No further deficit.” There goes any hope for stimulating the “real” economy. Treasury apparatchik Tim Geithner, backed with his armada of administrators on loan from Goldman Sachs, is unlikely to support indebted labor, consumers or their companies in any way that does not benefit Wall Street first.

Even worse has been Mr. Obama’s rehabilitation of Clinton Rubinomics deregulator Larry Summers as chief advisor, sidelining Paul Volcker until he was hurriedly flown back from political Siberia, as if to soften the leak by the Wall Street Journal on January 15 that Mr. Obama and the Democrats were not unhappy to see Elizabeth Warren’s Consumer Financial Products Agency die stillborn, despite Mr. Obama promise that the agency was “non-negotiable.”

Democrats insist that politics had nothing to do with the timing of Mr. Obama’s 180-degree turn and sudden infusion of passion for the “Volcker rule” to re-separate commercial banking from its casino capitalist outgrowth. The photo-op with Mr. Volcker was intended to provide at least a semblance of regulation of the sort that was normal before Mr. Summers and other Clinton-Gore era “Democratic Leadership Committee” operatives had backed Republicans to repeal Glass-Steagall. They are now back in the White House, and the Democrats have failed every litmus test involving finance, insurance and real estate – the FIRE sector, which remains the major campaign contributor and lobbyist for both parties.

Democrats up for re-election this November are jumping ship. On Friday, within just 72 hours of the Massachusetts vote, Barbara Boxer and other Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee came out against reappointing Mr. Bernanke. Republican leaders already had taken a head start on opposing him. Still, many Democrats have found enough born-again populism to sacrifice Mr. Bernanke, and perhaps Messrs. Summers and Geithner as well.

It is bad enough that Mr. Obama has not joined in the criticism of Mr. Bernanke for having refused to regulate mortgage fraud or slow the bubble economy even when the law required him to do so. And it is bad enough that Mr. Bernanke has been so willfully blind as to deny that the Fed was fueling the Bubble with low interest rates and a refusal to regulate fraud. What he calls the “free market” is what many consider to be consumer fraud.

The widening public perception of Mr. Obama’s first year as being a Great Continuity with the Bush Administration has enabled Republicans to position themselves for this year’s mid-term elections – and 2012 – by reminding voters how they opposed the bank bailout back in September 2008, when Mr. Obama supported it. Now that support for Wall Street has become the third rail in American politics, they may appoint a standard bearer who voted against the bailout.

This is ironic. George W. Bush ran for president saying: “I’m a uniter, not a divider,” and proceeded to divide the country (needing only 50 Senate votes plus the Vice Presidential tie-breaker to do it). Mr. Obama promised change, but then decided that he wants to be bipartisan (and insisting that he needs 60 votes; many are asking whether, if he had them, he then would say that he needed 90 votes to get the Baucuses and Bayhs, Liebermans and Boehners on board for his promised change). On Tuesday he is scheduled to invite Republicans to participate in a joint committee on the budget deficit – to get Republicans on board for tax increases to finance future giveaways to their mutual Wall Street constituency. They probably will say “no.” This should enable him to make a clean break. But then he would not be who he is.

For opportunists in both parties, the trick is how to wrap pro-Wall Street policies in enough populist rhetoric to win re-election, given that the FIRE sector remains the key source of funding for most political campaigns. The contrast between rhetoric and policy reality is the basic set of forces pulling Wednesday’s State of the Union address this Wednesday – and for the next two years. The real question is thus whether Mr. Obama’s promise to make an about-face and back financial reform will remain merely rhetorical, or actually be substantive?

Putting Mr. Obama’s speech in perspective

Spending a year hoping to get Republicans to sign onto health care almost seems to have been a tactic to give Mr. Obama a plausible excuse for stalling rather than to address what most voters are mainly concerned about: the economy. Subsidizing the debt overhead and the debt deflation that is shrinking markets and causing unemployment, home foreclosures and a capital flight out of the dollar has cost $13 trillion in just over a year – more than ten times the anticipated shortfall of any public health insurance reform or an entire decade of the anticipated Social Security shortfall.

Not only are voters angry, so are the community organizers and Mr. Obama’s former Harvard Law School colleagues with whom I have spoken. Instead of providing help in slowing the foreclosure process or pressuring banks to renegotiate, his solution is for the Fed to flood the banking system with enough money at low enough interest rates to re-inflate housing prices. What Mr. Obama seems to mean by “recovery” is that consumers once again will be extended Bubble-era levels of debt to afford housing at prices that will rescue bank balance sheets.

It is an impossible dream. American workers now pay about 40% of their take-home pay on housing, and another 15% on debt service – even before buying goods and services. No wonder our economy has lost its export markets! Debts that can’t be paid, won’t be.

The moral is that the solution to any given problem – in this case, how to make Wall Street richer by debt leveraging – creates a new problem, in this case bankruptcy for high-priced American industry. The cost of living and doing business is inflated by high financial charges, HMO and insurance charges, and debt-inflated real estate prices. This has made Mr. Obama’s Wall Street constituency richer, but as the Chinese proverb expresses the problem: “He who tries to go two roads at once will get a broken hip joint.”

Banks have not paid much attention to Mr. Obama’s urging them to renegotiate bad mortgages. Their profits lie in driving homeowners out of their homes if they do not stay and fight. What is needed is to help debtors fight against junk mortgages issued irresponsibly beyond their reasonable means to pay.

When homeowners do fight, they win. In Cambridge, Massachusetts, I spoke to community leaders who organized neighborhood protests blocking evictions from being carried out. I spoke to lawyers advising that victims of predatory mortgages insist that the foreclosing parties produce the physical mortgages in court. (They rarely are able to do this.) These people feel they are getting little help from Washington.

And last Friday, Nomi Prins, Bob Johnson and other financial insiders voiced fears that the “Volcker Rule” separating commercial banking from casino derivatives gambling will end up being gutted by so many loopholes (such as letting banks write their contracts out of their London branches) that it will end up merely rhetorical, not substantive. Financial lobbyists have the upper hand in detoothing and disabling attempts to reduce their power or even to enact simple truth-in-lending laws.

Two opposing lines of advice to Mr. Obama

Over the weekend Sen. John McCain suggested that Mr. Obama should reach out to Republicans in his State of the Union address. Bush advisor Karl Rove advised him to move to “the center” – what most people used to call the right wing of the spectrum. The Republicans blame Mr. Obama’s deepening unpopularity on his alleged move to the left.

It is more realistic to say that he has been perceived as being too little for change, too centrist while the economy is polarizing. It certainly seems unlikely that he will now turn on his FIRE-sector backers. His plan is that real estate prices can be re-inflated on enough credit – that is, enough more mortgage debt – to enable the banks to work out of the negative equity position into which their loan portfolios and investments have fallen.

The inherent impossibility of this plan succeeding is the main problem that we may expect from this Wednesday’s State of the Union address. Mr. Obama will promise to cut taxes further for working Americans, but his financial policy aims at raising the cost of their housing, their debt service and the cost of buying pensions. Some trade-off!

America’s debt overhead exceeds the means to pay. Rhetoric alone cannot solve this problem, even when delivered with Mr. Obama’s rhetorical élan. Its solution requires a policy alternative more radical than his current advisors are willing to accept, because the inevitable solution must be to write down debts to reflect the capacity to pay under today’s market conditions. This means that some banks and creditors must take a loss.

In the 2008 election campaign, Rep. Dennis Kucinich kept spelling out precisely what law he had introduced to Congress to effect each change he proposed. Mr. Obama never descended to this concrete level. But after spending a year treading water, he now must be asked to do so.

For starters, the litmus test for commitment to change should be to rapidly push through the Consumer Finance Protection Agency while the Democrats still have their political Viagra fillip from last Tuesday – and before Wall Street lobbyists wield their bankrolls.

There is talk in the press about the Democrats not even pressing forward with the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. The argument is that if they can’t get their health care plan by the Senate in the face of HMO and drug company lobbyists, what chance do they have when it comes on to taking on predatory Wall Street lenders?

It is a false worry – or even worse, an excuse to continue doing nothing. Republicans were able to mobilize populist opposition to the health-care bill by representing it as adding to the cost of relatively healthy young adults forced into the arms of the HMO monopolies. But it is much harder for the Republicans to buck financial reform and still strike their pose as opposing Wall Street. Proposing strong legislation against Wall Street will force politicians of both parties to show their true colors. If they don’t jump on board the best and most popular law the Democrats can draw up, they will lose their ability to pose. And what is populist politics these days without such a pose?

If the Democrats do not force the debt reform issue, we must conclude that they don’t really want financial restructuring. This is what Celinda Lake, pollster for the losing Democratic senate candidate last Tuesday, found that most voters believed to be the case: “When six times more people think that the banks benefited from the stimulus than working families, you’ve got a problem. And it’s not just a problem with what Martha Coakley did in her campaign”[1] she wrote in her day-after report. “Voters are still voting for the change they voted for in 2008, but they want to see it. And right now they think they’ve got economic policies for Washington that are delivering more for banks than Main Street.”

Mr. Obama needs to signal a change of heart by replacing his failed deregulatory-era trio of Summers, Bernanke and Geithner with advisors who will focus more on the “real” economy than on Wall Street’s shadow economy.

I don’t see him doing this. I will discuss how to pierce what I expect to be Wednesday evening’s rhetorical fog in Part II of this article tomorrow.2,370 words

Note

[1] “Pollster Lake attacks WH for Coakley,” Huffington Post, January 21, 2010,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/19/coakley-pollster-defends_n_428600.html

Michael Hudson is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Michael Hudson

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17199

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

by Timothy Baldwin

There is nothing new about the content of the article authored by Richard Latimer, entitled, A Lesson In Constitutional Law For Rep. Perry, posted on January 4, 2010. You can read the article for yourself, but Latimer attempts to “set straight” Rep. Jeffrey Perry’s method of constitutional construction concerning the general welfare clause and the tenth amendment of the US Constitution, as it relates to the federal government’s power of passing the national health care bill. This article is not an attempt to defend the honor of Rep. Perry, as correct as he may be on the subject discussed. It is not to make Latimer “see the light”, for I believe that many people who have adopted certain philosophies, world views and political ideas will never “see the light,” without an intervening act of God. I write this article to expose just a few of the flaws of the social and government philosophy that has been stressed in our society for over 100 years, and to defend the principles of a free federal constitutional republic, made up of states, for the enlightenment of those who still have an open mind to something other than what the tories/nationalists/oligarchies/globalists say.

General Welfare Clause: A Grant or a Limitation of Power?

A Grant of Power

Latimer essentially argues that the preamble (to the constitution and/or Article 1, Section 8–he is not clear on which, but for purposes of analysis, it matters not)–specifically, the “general welfare” clause–grants power to Congress and was intended “to state the broad, fundamental purposes of our democratic constitutional government in light of which all of the more specific provisions which follow must be understood.” Put differently, Latimer suggests the following method of constitutional construction of the words, “general welfare”: the specific enumerated powers granting certain limited powers to the federal government are to be constructed in light of the words, “general welfare.”

This method would go something like this. Suppose the federal supreme court needs to interpret the meaning of the words, say, “commerce among the several states”, in a case whose issue is the extent of Congress’ power to regulate commerce. If the court were to use a constitutional construction method as suggested by Latimer, the court would impose the meaning of said words that comports to whatever end would accomplish the goal of the “general welfare” of the American people, regardless of state sovereignty or limiting enumerating language to the contrary. The legal question would go, “Does this particular law passed by Congress promote the general welfare?” If yes, then Congress may regulate that commerce, and as such, the states and the people necessarily do not have the power to regulate or interfere with such law. Thus, the limit to the power is not the actual words of the delegation (“commerce among the several states”), but the end result of the law, that is, “general welfare.” Unfortunately, this is in fact the type of construction method that federal courts have used for many years (though not necessarily admitted as such). Consequently, the federal government (and those within the control of its matrix) has done a great job as feeding the ignorance and deception of the people of the states relative to what a limited federal constitutional republic is.

This method contains nothing but disingenuous political thought and standard, to where a part (“general welfare”) of the whole (the constitution) is used to defeat the very purpose of the whole. This flawed standard is analogous to saying that the federal government has no power to encroach state sovereignty (which the tenth amendment declares), but that one branch (i.e. the Judiciary) out of the three in the federal government has the power to define what state sovereignty is. If the standard of federal power was the “general welfare” and that all powers are to be judged in that light, please explain: why enumerate any powers at all? Why suggest that the federal government is a limited government? Why go through the formalities of actually writing a constitution? Why debate the extent of its powers for years before its ratification? Why suggest to the ratifiers that the federal government is strictly bound by the limitations enumerated and that the states have an inviolable line of sovereignty within their borders?

Did the founders and ratifiers spend years of intense and heated debate and discussion on the purpose of a constitution; the principles of free government; the difference between a federal verses national verses monarchy verses democratic government; the need for a limited federal government; the absolute retention of the states’ powers; the lines of sovereignty and the words which would adequately effect these ends, all to be misinterpreted and deconstructed by the virtually limitless power of the “general welfare” clause? How ludicrous and illogical a thought!–unless of course you are not concerned about the evils of human nature, the abuse of power, the limitation of government, state sovereignty as expressed in the Law of Nations (which is acknowledged in the US Constitution), federalism (which was admittedly the most superior form of government the world had ever seen), and the true character and nature of the union as modified in 1787.

A Limitation on Power

“Latimer’s method” completely ignores and excludes the other constitutional construction method relative to the “general welfare” clause–the one proposed by those who drafted and ratified the constitution. That is, instead of the “general welfare” clause defining the specific enumerations of Congress’ power, the specific powers actually define what “general welfare” is, just as all of the articles and amendments of the constitution and their limitations on the federal government shed light on what “securing the blessings of liberty” is. This method is literally Contract and Law Interpretation 101, which is well-settled that “specific contract provisions prevail over general provisions” and “the general rule of statutory construction is that a specific provision prevails over a more general one.” See, Daff v. U.S., 78 F.3d 1566, 1574 (Fed.C.A. 1996); Crooker v. BATF, 670 F.2d 1051, 1080, FN2 (D.C.C.A., 1981). I guess sound rules of construction do not apply to the most important legal document in our country.

With that said, did the term “securing the blessings of liberty” convey power to the federal government too?! After all, that clause is in the preamble preceding all the articles in the constitution, which would convey this power not only to Congress, but to all of the federal government. They might as well have said, “Congress has the power pass whatever laws they deem right and just. The President has the power to execute whatever laws it deems right and just. The Judiciary shall uphold all laws it deems right and just.” What nonsense! Generic grants of power have long been considered wholly inadequate to check the abuse of power and to limit centralized governments. As one of the authors of the Anti-Federalist Papers noted,

“Before the existence of express political compacts it was reasonably implied that the magistrate should govern with wisdom and justice, but mere implication was too feeble to restrain the unbridled ambition of a bad man, or afford security against negligence, cruelty, or any other defect of mind…Therefore, a general presumption that rulers will govern well is not a sufficient security.” Brutus and Ralph Ketcham, ed., The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates, (New York: Signet Classic, 2003), 318.

This rationale was in fact the concern raised about the “general welfare” clause in the proposed constitution in 1787. Consider James Madison’s response in Federalist Paper 41 to these concerns:

“It has been urged and echoed, that the power ‘to 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,’’ AMOUNTS TO AN UNLIMITED COMMISSION TO EXERCISE EVERY POWER which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. NO STRONGER PROOF COULD BE GIVEN OF THE DISTRESS UNDER WHICH THESE WRITERS LABOR FOR OBJECTIONS, than their stooping to such a MISCONSTRUCTION. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms ‘to raise money for the general welfare’…

“BUT THE IDEA OF AN ENUMERATION OF PARTICULARS WHICH NEITHER EXPLAIN NOR QUALIFY THE GENERAL MEANING, AND CAN HAVE NO OTHER EFFECT THAN TO CONFOUND AND MISLEAD, IS AN ABSURDITY, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter. The objection here is the more extraordinary, as it appears that the LANGUAGE USED BY THE CONVENTION IS A COPY FROM THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION. The objects of the Union among the States, as described in article third, are ‘their common defense, security of their liberties, and mutual and general welfare.’ The terms of article eighth are still more identical: ‘All charges of war and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury,’’ etc. A similar language again occurs in article ninth. CONSTRUE EITHER OF THESE ARTICLES BY THE RULES WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY THE CONSTRUCTION PUT ON THE NEW CONSTITUTION, AND THEY VEST IN THE EXISTING CONGRESS A POWER TO LEGISLATE IN ALL CASES WHATSOEVER.

“But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfare? I appeal to the objectors themselves, whether they would in that case have employed the same reasoning in justification of Congress as they now make use of against the convention. HOW DIFFICULT IT IS FOR ERROR TO ESCAPE ITS OWN CONDEMNATION!” (Emphasis added)

Madison’s response to this constitutional construction (held by Latimer) is quite strong and literally satirical and cynical, actually mocking those who would even propose such an interpretation of the US Constitution. Madison expressly notes that the enumerated powers define the parameters of the “general welfare,” not the other way around as Latimer suggests. Madison even points out that the general welfare, common defense and security of liberty provision clause in the preamble is identical to the one in the Articles of Confederation, just as about all the powers of the federal government are identical. (Sorry, nationalists: the US Constitution was in fact of the same nature and character as the Articles–a union of states, not people.) In other words, the purpose, character and nature of the federal government did not change from the Articles to the US Constitution.

Of course, this theme of constancy between the Articles of Confederation and the US Constitution is consistent throughout the federalist papers, proving in part that the method for constitutional construction is one of limitation, not expansion of federal power, and is one that maintains the inviolable line of sovereignty between state and federal. While the federal courts have completely twisted this principle of constitutional construction since the early 1800s, starting with John Marshall’s court, many supreme court justices have not bought into the nationalist-interpretation of Congress’ power. (“I challenge the broad proposition that the General Welfare Clause is a grant, not a limitation, of power.” Buckley v. Valeo, 96 S.Ct. 612, 740 (1976), Justice Burger.)

Yet, even when the most nationalist-minded founders express the following concerning the role of the federal government, we still have people like Latimer who attempt to defraud the people to believe that the federal government’s powers are more than what has been granted to them and that the states are mere subsidiaries to a mega-corporation, vis-a-vis, the Federal Government:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people; and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.” James Madison, Federalist Paper 45.

If James Madison is correct regarding the general welfare clause conferring power to the federal government, then Latimer is most certainly wrong. If Latimer is right, then we certainly do not live in a free federal constitutional republic.

Tenth Amendment: Actual or Pretense?

This leads me to the next point of discussion in Latimer’s article: the powers reserved to the states under the tenth amendment. Given Latimer’s constitutional construction method alone (i.e. “the [preamble] grants Congress power”), the tenth amendment is utterly worthless, having no effect whatsoever; specifically by the preamble stating that the constitution’s purpose was to “secure the blessings of liberty.” Given Latimer’s method of constitutional construction, if the federal government deemed that a state were not implementing laws best conducive to the “blessings of liberty,” the federal government could use its extremely broad powers to “secure the blessings of liberty” and could dictate to the states the laws it may or may not pass; despite the states’ expressly reserving all powers not granted to the federal government, which the Law of Nations acknowledges a sovereign state has the absolute right to do and defend. Of course, to Latimer and his like, elimination of the states would likely be a good thing, regardless of whether his interpretation of the constitution is ACTUALLY the meaning understood by the ratifiers in 1787.

Line of Separation Between Federal and State: Who Maintains It?

Latimer’s method of construction devours the limitations placed upon the federal government and the line of separation between the states and the federal government–a line that Madison claimed was inviolable–unbreakable and unassailable. James Madison says in Federalist Paper 39, “the proposed government cannot be deemed a NATIONAL one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and LEAVES TO THE SEVERAL STATES A RESIDUARY AND INVIOLABLE SOVEREIGNTY OVER ALL OTHER OBJECTS.” (Emphasis added) How can an inviolable line of powers be maintained if the federal government can increase its powers at will, or as defined by the most un-democratic office holders in the country: the federal supreme court? Interestingly enough, the federal government, in toto, seems to be doing a great job at drawing and maintaining a “line of separation between church and state.” Why not apply the same strict principle of separation to the sovereignty of federal and state government? Funny how lines all of a sudden get blurry. The fact is: federal government lovers care nothing of the lines of sovereignty, except moving it encroachingly more into the territory and dominion of the states and people respectively, the tenth amendment notwithstanding. This requires the states to defend what is rightfully theirs.

Red Herrings–The Typical Response

Latimer attempts to debunk the purpose, reality and strength of the retained powers of the states by using red herrings to distract his readers, such as using the de-segregation cases of the 1950s. He appeals to emotions instead of conclusions of correct political application, as if expanding the federal government’s limited powers at the expense of the states’ retained powers is noble and was somehow justified because an apparent injustice was taking place within certain states; as if those apparent injustices create power in the federal government, despite the lack of constitutional authority to do so. Latimer makes a false (and supposedly benign) statement that the “Fourteenth Amendment specifically prohibits the states from abridging the privileges or immunities of American citizens,” as if to suggest that he actually cares what the real meaning and intention of the constitution and amendments express. Perhaps Latimer should go back to the history books and learn that even the federal supreme court judges did not believe that the actual and real meaning of the fourteenth amendment conveyed the power to Congress which Latimer would have us believe per se, even while the “general welfare” clause was still there.

Actual Meaning–Does It Even Matter?

While attempting to find historical support in context of the passage of the fourteenth amendment to give Congress the power to impose upon the states their will regarding the matters of desegregation, despite the tenth amendment and no enumerated power in Article 1, section 8 to do so, Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter’s law clerk confirmed that “it is impossible to conclude that segregation be abolished; impossible also to conclude that they foresaw it might be, under the language they were adopting.” Thomas E. Woods, Jr. and Kevin R. C. Gutzman, Who Killed the Constitution?, (New York, NY, Crown Forum, 2008), 47. So, instead of comporting to the line of separation between federal and state powers anticipated and demanded by the US Constitution, the federal supreme court decided it would declare a “new law for a new day,” as worded by Justice Robert Jackson. Ibid., at 49. And so the story has been for quite some time: new laws for new days shape constitutional construction.

A “Living” Constitution Kills Its True Meaning and Purpose

This “living/changing constitution” notion is evident when Latimer states the following: “Similarly, TODAY, Congress is empowered under Article I, Sect. 8, through taxation and regulation of commerce, to promote the general welfare by enacting socially beneficial programs into law, such as…health care reform legislation.” (Emphasis added). Latimer stresses in this sentence–and ones previous–that Congress has powers TODAY that it did not once have based upon the “general welfare” clause.

This constitutional approach of course contradicts the belief of those who influenced the principles of and who drafted and ratified the constitutions of the United States from 1777 to 1787. In fact, George Washington, the father of our country, expressed the fixed meaning of the constitution this way:

“Let the reins of government then be braced and held with a steady hand, and every violation of the constitution be reprehended. If defective, let it be amended, but not suffered to be trampled upon whilst it has an existence.” Albert Bushnell Hart, ed. and Mabel Hill, comp., Liberty Documents: With Contemporary Exposition and Critical Comments Drawn from Various Writers, (New York: Longmans, Green, 1903), 218.

The federal supreme court has recognized the same fixed meaning of the constitution: “We are bound to interpret the Constitution in light of the law as it existed at the time it was adopted.” Mattox v. United States, 156 U.S. 237, 243 (1895).

Of course Latimer would likely scoff at a notion that the constitution’s meaning is fixed. Unfortunately, most attorneys (ignorantly or not) do today (though consider the source of their education: ABA). When meanings change, it is no wonder how Latimer can in “good faith” conclude that the federal government has the power to force individuals to purchase health insurance mandated and controlled by them and force states to go along like little good slaves. It is this approach to constitutions that form the premises necessary to wittingly empower Congress to regulate “commerce [within] the several states” under the moving hand of the people’s “general welfare”.

So, What is “Limited Government”?

No doubt, Latimer and his like would say that the federal government is limited as well–perhaps not in the tongue-in-cheek fashion that Nancy Pelosi demonstrated when asked the question, Is the national health care bill constitutional? So, what is their proposed limitation? Latimer tells us: the federal government’s power rests somewhere between the “public interest [verses] individual liberties.” Of course, these definitions are made by either Congress or the federal supreme court. Perhaps Latimer should attempt to define “limit” for us: it would likely come out worse than Bill Clinton’s allusion to the definition of “is.”

What Are the Principles?

Of course, there is one thing that is ultimately missing in Latimer’s article: that is, principles or maxims. So, one must infer them, so here they are: the federal government has whatever power it decides to use subject to no restrictions other than the balance between “public interest and individual liberty” (short of maybe the federal supreme court’s opinion or presumably, constitutional amendment, though he would not dare suggest that the states should limit the power of the federal government in any way); human nature is naturally good; (federal) government is not to be feared; individuals are not created with certain inalienable rights which must not be interfered with by government; government need not encourage self-responsibility and -reliance, but government-program and -reliance; the status of “sovereign” states has no bearing to the limitations of the federal government; constitutions do not form the supreme will and consent of the sovereigns forming it; and to violate that supreme will is not committing an egregious act (of war) upon those sovereigns. In other words, Latimer’s principles run in direct contrast to the principles adopted by those whose thoughts formed and who drafted and ratified the Articles of Confederation and US Constitution. To Latimer, the federal government is our protector, our provider and our parent. To Latimer, “[t]hat socialized function of the federal government is not just constitutional; it’s intelligent, humane and long overdue.”

Now What?

The conclusion to be drawn from the juxtapositions displayed in Latimer’s method and the ones I have highlighted is that the people of the states have a serious identity crisis. We do not know who we are, why we are or how we came to be. We live in a country, under a federal constitution, which is supposed to be the “Supreme Law of the Land”; yet, there is not even close to being a consensus or even a similarity of thought on the nature and character, purpose, limitations and application of the constitution that we are all supposed to be governed by.

The polarities of the formation of the constitution (i.e. It was created by one people, forming one nation, creating a government subject only to the control of the people VERSES It was assented to by the sovereign individual acts of states in the form of a federal compact) cannot exist simultaneously. One will eventually give way to the other. Unfortunately, the nationalists have indeed gained ground on the matter for quite some time. Therefore, for all those who do not know where you stand, it is time to pick a side. Your ignorance is helping no one. If you do not know where to stand and why, then you need to study our history directly from the sources that influenced our country’s formation–not from talking heads, TV news stations or even talk radio. Watching Glenn Beck will not equip you to engage in the battle we are confronted with today. Finally, for those who stand firmly on the principles of self-government and federalism, “It’s Time We Decide” the identity of the constitution we consent to be governed by!

Copyright (c) 2010 Timothy Baldwin

If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,

Or make a donation to help keep this site active.

http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/01/11/a-lesson-in-a-free-federal-constitutional-republic/

Bookmark It

Hide Sites