America's supposed defender of democracy, the free press, is no where to be found when democracy has been toppled. Never mind that the United States is a republic, the media have been maddeningly derelict in their coverage of the current "financial crisis". Where are the questions about the seemingly unlimited power of the Federal Reserve? Where are the questions about the constitutionality of corporate bailouts? How can American's allow what is defined as "necessary" by the President, Congress, and the Fed trump what is defined as mandatory by the Constitution?
These are not difficult questions, yet they have not been asked by the media. America's next best hope to stop this intrusion on their rights: the judicial branch. America must turn to its judges and lawyers to enforce the law if the press is unwilling to or unable to shine a light on the tyrannical deeds of Washington. If nothing is done to challenge these unlawful acts then I fear the worst is yet to come.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Sunday, September 14, 2008
The Constitution's Last Gasps
We must save our financial system has been the plea in Washington D.C. for the last week. Politicians and government officials feel "something" must be done or the country faces a meltdown of its financial system. That "something" is massive financial bailouts of banks and financial institutions in distress. The action is necessary, they claim, because the consequences of inaction are far worse. Yet, what are the consequences of inaction, and what of the legality of this action?
The Constitution clearly states that only Congress has the power to spend tax money. It is also pretty clear that this statute has been ignored since the inception of the Federal Reserve (1913). The summer of 2008 has been one of ever more unprecedented and unconstitutional action by the Federal Reserve, culminating in multi-billion dollar direct financial bailouts of America's largest financial institutions. Once the inflation, interest payments, bad debt write-offs, the Fed's low-interest auctions, and the government's ill-advised stimulus package are factored into the scheme, the American tax-payers stand to lose several trillion dollars and, more importantly, have already lost their system of government.
The backbone of the American form of government is its system of checks and balances. That system is broken. Congress played no role in the bailouts of AIG or Bear Sterns, yet several billion in tax-payer money have been used. The Federal Reserve's power to spend is unchecked and therefore its effect on Amerca's existence is unlimited. America's elected officials, all under oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, have placed the importance of a centrally planned financial system over that of its system of government.
In both the short and long-terms Americans will be hurt more by inadequate, and indeed criminal, governance than by the predicted "meltdown" of its government's financial system. The tyranny waged by American politicians has never been greater than it is today. This financial "crisis" is primarily due to the central planning of Federal Reserve and has been exacerbated by government legislation that unreasonably favored homeownership for all Americans: it is the government and the Federal Reserve who set the stage for this debacle.
It is painfully obvious that America's elected officials are more concerned with the facade of action in an election year than their sworn duty. It is obvious that the free-market is free only when it behaves in a manner conducive to their re-election. It is obvious that the Constitution is no longer a restraint of power but a historical document to be mentioned only when discussing days of yore. It is obvious that America's days as a freedom-loving, law-abiding bastion of opportunity for all have come to an end.
The Constitution clearly states that only Congress has the power to spend tax money. It is also pretty clear that this statute has been ignored since the inception of the Federal Reserve (1913). The summer of 2008 has been one of ever more unprecedented and unconstitutional action by the Federal Reserve, culminating in multi-billion dollar direct financial bailouts of America's largest financial institutions. Once the inflation, interest payments, bad debt write-offs, the Fed's low-interest auctions, and the government's ill-advised stimulus package are factored into the scheme, the American tax-payers stand to lose several trillion dollars and, more importantly, have already lost their system of government.
The backbone of the American form of government is its system of checks and balances. That system is broken. Congress played no role in the bailouts of AIG or Bear Sterns, yet several billion in tax-payer money have been used. The Federal Reserve's power to spend is unchecked and therefore its effect on Amerca's existence is unlimited. America's elected officials, all under oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, have placed the importance of a centrally planned financial system over that of its system of government.
In both the short and long-terms Americans will be hurt more by inadequate, and indeed criminal, governance than by the predicted "meltdown" of its government's financial system. The tyranny waged by American politicians has never been greater than it is today. This financial "crisis" is primarily due to the central planning of Federal Reserve and has been exacerbated by government legislation that unreasonably favored homeownership for all Americans: it is the government and the Federal Reserve who set the stage for this debacle.
It is painfully obvious that America's elected officials are more concerned with the facade of action in an election year than their sworn duty. It is obvious that the free-market is free only when it behaves in a manner conducive to their re-election. It is obvious that the Constitution is no longer a restraint of power but a historical document to be mentioned only when discussing days of yore. It is obvious that America's days as a freedom-loving, law-abiding bastion of opportunity for all have come to an end.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Sarah Palin's Personal Business
Sarah Palin's teenage daughter is unmarried and pregnant, and the Republican party is outraged at the media's "intrusive" coverage of Governor Palin's personal life. The Republican's contend that Bristol Palin, the governor's daughter, should be off-limits as a topic for the news media, but it is the Republicans who have invited the media scrutiny.
For decades the Republican party has courted "social conservatives" and have amended their party's platform to accomodate this group. Republicans feel that the degredation of the traditional American family is the source of many of the country's current ills. Republicans, lead by President Bush, have used tax-payer money to fund a wide range of conservative social issues such as abstinence education in public schools and a broad spectrum of "faith based initiatives."
It is then only logical to question whether Palin's family adheres to this social conservative viewpoint. Afterall, tax-payer money is being used to provide "values" education to Americans and no person should exemplify these values more than the person who will have the power to implement them.
One may argue that the candidate's families are innocent and should not be subject to the same intense media scutiny. This would be true only if the candidates did not make families a government issue. It is also true that all Americans, including the candidate's families, are hurt by the use of tax-payer money to fund subjective "values" or "moral" education.
One could argue that the candidate's family is hurt more by the policy than by the media scrutiny. No one, Republican or Democrat, should be allowed to propose and implement such a policy (wholly inconsistent with at least the spirit of the Constitution I might add) and be free from criticism. Then, perhaps, candidates would think twice before attempting to legislate values.
For decades the Republican party has courted "social conservatives" and have amended their party's platform to accomodate this group. Republicans feel that the degredation of the traditional American family is the source of many of the country's current ills. Republicans, lead by President Bush, have used tax-payer money to fund a wide range of conservative social issues such as abstinence education in public schools and a broad spectrum of "faith based initiatives."
It is then only logical to question whether Palin's family adheres to this social conservative viewpoint. Afterall, tax-payer money is being used to provide "values" education to Americans and no person should exemplify these values more than the person who will have the power to implement them.
One may argue that the candidate's families are innocent and should not be subject to the same intense media scutiny. This would be true only if the candidates did not make families a government issue. It is also true that all Americans, including the candidate's families, are hurt by the use of tax-payer money to fund subjective "values" or "moral" education.
One could argue that the candidate's family is hurt more by the policy than by the media scrutiny. No one, Republican or Democrat, should be allowed to propose and implement such a policy (wholly inconsistent with at least the spirit of the Constitution I might add) and be free from criticism. Then, perhaps, candidates would think twice before attempting to legislate values.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Signs You're No Longer Free
The FBI avoids secret ( I repeat, SECRET!) courts to spy on unsuspecting Americans
Secret courts exist
All banks install software programs that alert the IRS of any "unusual" spending activity
The IRS exists
A $3 trillion budget is not enough to satisfy Washington politicians
The government borrows or prints money to give out to a select number of people
The president subsidizes an energy source more wasteful and more scarce than the one already in use
Baggy pants are outlawed in several cities and soon the entire state of Florida
The president is allowed to declare war
The president declares war on a military tactic (terrorism) and not a country or group
The Fed ignores inflation and a tanking dollar to bail out banks
The Fed exists
Real ID means you will need your papers to travel
The Democrats want to take the borrowed Iraq "War" money and use it to pay for "programs"
You can't gamble online
You can't marry if you're not straight
The Republicans want to legislate morality
If you're dying you better hope the FDA approved that drug
Torture is considered acceptable and is deemed to induce reliable information
Taking an oath on anything other than the bible is unacceptable even if you're not a Christian
We're better capable of defending Iraq than America
The Constitution is never a topic in any Presidential debate
1 in 100 Americans are incarcerated
Secret courts exist
All banks install software programs that alert the IRS of any "unusual" spending activity
The IRS exists
A $3 trillion budget is not enough to satisfy Washington politicians
The government borrows or prints money to give out to a select number of people
The president subsidizes an energy source more wasteful and more scarce than the one already in use
Baggy pants are outlawed in several cities and soon the entire state of Florida
The president is allowed to declare war
The president declares war on a military tactic (terrorism) and not a country or group
The Fed ignores inflation and a tanking dollar to bail out banks
The Fed exists
Real ID means you will need your papers to travel
The Democrats want to take the borrowed Iraq "War" money and use it to pay for "programs"
You can't gamble online
You can't marry if you're not straight
The Republicans want to legislate morality
If you're dying you better hope the FDA approved that drug
Torture is considered acceptable and is deemed to induce reliable information
Taking an oath on anything other than the bible is unacceptable even if you're not a Christian
We're better capable of defending Iraq than America
The Constitution is never a topic in any Presidential debate
1 in 100 Americans are incarcerated
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
The FDA is Universal Health Care
The Supreme Court recently ruled that a person with a terminal illness does not have the right to drugs not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and in so doing struck a severe blow to individual rights. The ruling supplants the federal government as the only body that can decide what drug treatments work, and essentially reaffirms the FDA's monopoly on what drugs may be sold legally in the United States. The result: the federal government's power grows, even though this power was not granted to it in the Constitution, and universal health care has been legalized.
The FDA has an important role in ensuring a minimum standard of quality in the food and drugs bought and sold in the United States. However, the minimum standard has evolved (or devolved) into an absolute standard; particularly for the drugs the agency oversees. The opinions of the physicians and professionals who make up the FDA are absolute. Their decisions on which drugs are safe or effective dictate the treatment options for every American. It is in this manner that the FDA has become - and will increasingly become - the centerpiece of universal health care.
Consider the example of a person with a terminal illness that has exhausted all treatment options approved by the FDA. Such a person cannot try new experimental drugs, no matter how promising the drugs may be, if those drugs are not approved by the FDA. One government agency in its effort to protect its citizens has thus limited their choices and denied its citizens their most basic right to pursue life. The opinions of physicians who wish to prescribe the unapproved drug are trumped by the opinions of physicians who act as government agents via the FDA.
American citizens can only decide their course of medical treatment as far as the government will allow. Innovation can occur no faster than the bureaucracy of the FDA can process. In addition, there is no guarantee that the drugs or treatments the FDA has approved are indeed effective. The Supreme Court's ruling moves the country closer to one method of care for all as dictated by the federal government.
The FDA will become even more domineering if the Democrats are allowed to enact their universal health care plans. The logical evolution of government financed health care is growing government control over methods of care. Under a universal health care plan, should the quality of care falter politicians must assert more control over physicians and their treatment options to "ensure" the people's tax dollars are spent effectively.
There is something very different about government financed health care. For example, how many second opinions will be allowed for a person dependent on government financed health care? Should an infinite number of second opinions be allowed, and what if it's the eighth opinion that can save a life? Although we despise the insurance agencies for making such decisions, its an entirely different ballgame when it's your own government denying you every chance at life.
The FDA has an important role in ensuring a minimum standard of quality in the food and drugs bought and sold in the United States. However, the minimum standard has evolved (or devolved) into an absolute standard; particularly for the drugs the agency oversees. The opinions of the physicians and professionals who make up the FDA are absolute. Their decisions on which drugs are safe or effective dictate the treatment options for every American. It is in this manner that the FDA has become - and will increasingly become - the centerpiece of universal health care.
Consider the example of a person with a terminal illness that has exhausted all treatment options approved by the FDA. Such a person cannot try new experimental drugs, no matter how promising the drugs may be, if those drugs are not approved by the FDA. One government agency in its effort to protect its citizens has thus limited their choices and denied its citizens their most basic right to pursue life. The opinions of physicians who wish to prescribe the unapproved drug are trumped by the opinions of physicians who act as government agents via the FDA.
American citizens can only decide their course of medical treatment as far as the government will allow. Innovation can occur no faster than the bureaucracy of the FDA can process. In addition, there is no guarantee that the drugs or treatments the FDA has approved are indeed effective. The Supreme Court's ruling moves the country closer to one method of care for all as dictated by the federal government.
The FDA will become even more domineering if the Democrats are allowed to enact their universal health care plans. The logical evolution of government financed health care is growing government control over methods of care. Under a universal health care plan, should the quality of care falter politicians must assert more control over physicians and their treatment options to "ensure" the people's tax dollars are spent effectively.
There is something very different about government financed health care. For example, how many second opinions will be allowed for a person dependent on government financed health care? Should an infinite number of second opinions be allowed, and what if it's the eighth opinion that can save a life? Although we despise the insurance agencies for making such decisions, its an entirely different ballgame when it's your own government denying you every chance at life.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Rebate or Welfare?
A rebate, as defined by Dictionary.com, is "a return of part of the original payment for some service or merchandise; partial refund." President Bush and Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi have negotiated an economic stimulus package designed to stave-off a recession. The economic package has often been cited as a tax "rebate" by politicians and the media, but it is clear that this stimulus does not fit the definition of a rebate.
America's central government has already spent its citizenry's tax dollars. In fact, all of the taxes the government has collected did not meet the government's spending needs. So where does the money for this "rebate" come from? The government will have to borrow, tax, and or print more money to come up with the funds for this stimulus package.
All of these options first hinder the economy before stimulating it, and never mind the fact that it does not come close to the dictionary definition of a rebate. An actual rebate of taxes paid would be fantastic, but because that is impossible this really is just another government spending program. It is in essence welfare for all, except those the government deems to be unworthy. Its referred to as a rebate because many Americans, especially those with any knowledge of the principles of the Constitution, my object otherwise.
Yet virtually everyone will take their government checks and cash them without a second thought. Who can resist a free hand-out; especially cash? Be forewarned, the politicians in Washington (both Republican and Democrat) will in the near future call on you to "sacrifice" and absorb a tax increase to pay for this exercise in true Socialism.
America's central government has already spent its citizenry's tax dollars. In fact, all of the taxes the government has collected did not meet the government's spending needs. So where does the money for this "rebate" come from? The government will have to borrow, tax, and or print more money to come up with the funds for this stimulus package.
All of these options first hinder the economy before stimulating it, and never mind the fact that it does not come close to the dictionary definition of a rebate. An actual rebate of taxes paid would be fantastic, but because that is impossible this really is just another government spending program. It is in essence welfare for all, except those the government deems to be unworthy. Its referred to as a rebate because many Americans, especially those with any knowledge of the principles of the Constitution, my object otherwise.
Yet virtually everyone will take their government checks and cash them without a second thought. Who can resist a free hand-out; especially cash? Be forewarned, the politicians in Washington (both Republican and Democrat) will in the near future call on you to "sacrifice" and absorb a tax increase to pay for this exercise in true Socialism.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
An Oath to Reaganism or the Constitution?
While the Republicans worry about upholding the principles of former President Ronald Reagan, the principles of the Constitution continue to take a beating. The hot topic of the most recent Republican presidential debate was Ronald Reagan and whether the candidates believe his principals were still being practiced by today's Republicans. In fact, other than Ron Paul, not one candidate mentioned the Constitution during the debate. It is apparent that dedication to Reagan and his principles takes precedent over the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution for today's neoconservatives.
Reagan's foreign policy is one of essentially imperialistic pursuits, or at least that is how it is carried out by today's Republican leaders. Neoconservatives feel there are no limitations to where or in what circumstances the United States should use its power and influence so long as it is in the best interest of the country. Yet, the purpose of the Constitution is to limit the power of the central government thereby ensuring each individual enjoys life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It is in the best interest of the country that all three branches of government make good on their oaths to the Constitution, which clearly states that only Congress can declare war. Presently, even government agencies like the C.I.A. and F.B.I. conduct covert military actions in foreign countries, and most Americans think nothing of these gross violations. The politicians in the legislative branch are too worried about being re-elected to truly make a decision on whether or not to officially declare war. Instead, they insulate themselves from repercussions by granting the executive branch broad authorities for military actions such as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution or the Iraq Resolution (America has not been in an officially declared war since World War II).
President Bush has taken his kingly war powers to the next level by adopting a policy of preemptive war. Of course, this preemption should be based on knowledge of factual evidence of impending harm to the United States. It was Thomas Jefferson who said, "how much pain they have cost us, the evils which have never happened." Jefferson, unlike Reagan or Bush, was one of the writers of the Constitution.
Reagan's foreign policy is one of essentially imperialistic pursuits, or at least that is how it is carried out by today's Republican leaders. Neoconservatives feel there are no limitations to where or in what circumstances the United States should use its power and influence so long as it is in the best interest of the country. Yet, the purpose of the Constitution is to limit the power of the central government thereby ensuring each individual enjoys life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It is in the best interest of the country that all three branches of government make good on their oaths to the Constitution, which clearly states that only Congress can declare war. Presently, even government agencies like the C.I.A. and F.B.I. conduct covert military actions in foreign countries, and most Americans think nothing of these gross violations. The politicians in the legislative branch are too worried about being re-elected to truly make a decision on whether or not to officially declare war. Instead, they insulate themselves from repercussions by granting the executive branch broad authorities for military actions such as the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution or the Iraq Resolution (America has not been in an officially declared war since World War II).
President Bush has taken his kingly war powers to the next level by adopting a policy of preemptive war. Of course, this preemption should be based on knowledge of factual evidence of impending harm to the United States. It was Thomas Jefferson who said, "how much pain they have cost us, the evils which have never happened." Jefferson, unlike Reagan or Bush, was one of the writers of the Constitution.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Ron Paul Excluded Part 2
The word is Fox has excluded Ron Paul from the New Hampshire debate because they do not have enough room in the debate facility. Anchors on Fox have also openly stated that Paul will not be President and have said the network simply wants to spend more time on the issues by narrowing the participants. They report, you decide? I think not. It has become apparent the true reason Ron Paul is not invited to the debate is because the executives at Fox do not agree with his policies.
It is impossible to overstate the dangerous precedent this sets for the future of elections in this country. The media already has a far too powerful influence on our election process. Fox's exclusion of Paul robs him of an opportunity that every other Republican candidate will enjoy; an opportunity to explain his views and illustrate the difference between himself and the other candidates. It is no coincidence that this stolen opportunity will take place in a state that Paul could conceivable finish in the top three: New Hampshire.
It is not a question of having more time to focus on the issues. This assertion is completely disingenuous, and is really an assertion of dollars over credibility. Fox need only to increase the length of the debate to spend more time on the issues. Of course, this would require the network to put the importance of the presidential election over the importance of advertising revenue for one night. I am sure Fox would counter that people will not watch a four-hour debate. However true this might be, it is irrelevant. The onus is on Fox to do its job. Remember, "We report, you decide."
The Republican National Committee has withdrawn as a partner in the debates because of Fox's exclusions. It is reassuring that the network's actions have not gone unnoticed by the Republican Party leadership. We can only hope that media also appreciates the magnitude of this precedent and lambastes both Fox and ABC.
It is impossible to overstate the dangerous precedent this sets for the future of elections in this country. The media already has a far too powerful influence on our election process. Fox's exclusion of Paul robs him of an opportunity that every other Republican candidate will enjoy; an opportunity to explain his views and illustrate the difference between himself and the other candidates. It is no coincidence that this stolen opportunity will take place in a state that Paul could conceivable finish in the top three: New Hampshire.
It is not a question of having more time to focus on the issues. This assertion is completely disingenuous, and is really an assertion of dollars over credibility. Fox need only to increase the length of the debate to spend more time on the issues. Of course, this would require the network to put the importance of the presidential election over the importance of advertising revenue for one night. I am sure Fox would counter that people will not watch a four-hour debate. However true this might be, it is irrelevant. The onus is on Fox to do its job. Remember, "We report, you decide."
The Republican National Committee has withdrawn as a partner in the debates because of Fox's exclusions. It is reassuring that the network's actions have not gone unnoticed by the Republican Party leadership. We can only hope that media also appreciates the magnitude of this precedent and lambastes both Fox and ABC.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Ron Paul Excluded by Fox
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has surpassed the expectations of many. He has gone from a relatively unknown candidate to one who attracts hordes of enthusiastic supporters at every one of his speaking engagements. Paul apparently leads all Republican candidates in fundraising for the fourth quarter of 2007 and finished with 10% of the vote in the Iowa caucus. Paul finished ahead of Rudy Giuliani in Iowa and his performance is even more impressive when you consider his Libertarian views against the evangelical Christians who carried Mike Huckabee to victory in the state. Paul easily passes any test of a credible candidate for President, but Fox News has excluded him from their next presidential debate just prior to the New Hampshire primary.
Fred Thompson has been invited to the Fox News debate; Ron Paul leads Thompson in most New Hampshire polls. Although one must respect Fox News' rights as a private organization hosting a private debate, one can hardly consider the debates, or now Fox News' coverage of the presidential race, as credible. There really is no justification for not inviting Paul to the debate other than the top executives at Fox deciding they don't want him there. This is hardly "fair" or "balanced." The network is essentially signaling their viewers that Ron Paul should not be considered as a viable candidate for President.
Fox News is therefore influencing the presidential race. Their decision to exclude Paul shows no impartiality. In addition, it appears that ABC news has also chosen to limit the participants of its upcoming debate. These decisions by two major news agencies are dangerous because they set a precedent of the media selecting who is worthy of the public's attention. Had the media taken such actions earlier in the year, Mike Huckabee might not have been the winner in Iowa.
It is possible that in the future the list of candidates will be narrowed by opinions in the boardroom rather than naturally by candidates voluntarily dropping out of the race. The smart candidates will make an issue of this situation, or they may find themselves on the outside looking in. As for myself, I will no longer rely on Fox or ABC for any news on the election.
Fred Thompson has been invited to the Fox News debate; Ron Paul leads Thompson in most New Hampshire polls. Although one must respect Fox News' rights as a private organization hosting a private debate, one can hardly consider the debates, or now Fox News' coverage of the presidential race, as credible. There really is no justification for not inviting Paul to the debate other than the top executives at Fox deciding they don't want him there. This is hardly "fair" or "balanced." The network is essentially signaling their viewers that Ron Paul should not be considered as a viable candidate for President.
Fox News is therefore influencing the presidential race. Their decision to exclude Paul shows no impartiality. In addition, it appears that ABC news has also chosen to limit the participants of its upcoming debate. These decisions by two major news agencies are dangerous because they set a precedent of the media selecting who is worthy of the public's attention. Had the media taken such actions earlier in the year, Mike Huckabee might not have been the winner in Iowa.
It is possible that in the future the list of candidates will be narrowed by opinions in the boardroom rather than naturally by candidates voluntarily dropping out of the race. The smart candidates will make an issue of this situation, or they may find themselves on the outside looking in. As for myself, I will no longer rely on Fox or ABC for any news on the election.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)