Arizona SB1070 – Real Change That Gives America Hope

April 25, 2010

By David A. Black, Sr.

On Friday, Governor Brewer, from Arizona, signed SB1070.  Instantly, the critics went ballistic.

President Obama used the swearing in ceremony of new citizens to criticize Arizona legislators saying, “Our failure to act responsibly, at the Federal level, will only open the door to irresponsibility by others, and that includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona.”

Brian Williams, on NBC Nightly News, said on Friday, “A central question in the news tonight, ‘is it legal, is it right, for a police officer to come up to you and ask you to produce I.D. if you’re suspected of entering the country illegally?  This is playing out tonight in the State of Arizona.”

Jose Diaz Balart of TeleMundo in Phoenix reports, “Late this afternoon, Governor Jan Brewer signed the controversial Bill, the toughest State Law against illegal immigration in the country. With her signature, Arizona is in direct conflict with the White House…  The law makes illegal immigration a State crime and requires local police to check the status of anyone they believe is here illegally.”

Actually, if any of the critics had taken five minutes and read SB1070, instead of simply adopting liberal talking points, they would have found that, contrary to the ‘leftist’ talking points, Law Enforcement Officers may only inquire about an individual’s immigration status during “lawful contact”.  Additionally, any complaint of illegal immigration status, levied by one person against another and found to be frivolous, is punishable by monetary fines against the accuser.

Does potential questioning of an individual’s immigration status invite racial profiling?  It could, although the Bill contains specific language banning ‘racial profiling’.  Then again, most of those opposed to SB1070 support affirmative action which is based on racial profiling.  Why is it, that the practice is welcomed on one hand, and demonized on the other?

To solve for this, if Law Enforcement Officers adopts a ‘standard operating procedure’ of simply using the same line of questioning with every person, of whom they request identification, questioning legal immigration status becomes just another question.  No prejudice, no malice, no racial profiling.  Regardless, Governor Brewr is calling for additional training of Law Enforcement to ensure against racial profiling and to maintain respect of the peoples rights.

Of course, President Obama, who can never pass up on an opportunity for societal divisiveness, instructed the Justice Department to ‘closely monitor’ activities in Arizona for ‘Civil Rights Violations’.

Governor Brewer emphasized, “Racial Profiling is illegal.  It will not be tolerated in America, and it certainly will not be tolerated in Arizona.”

“This Bill,” Governor Brewer continued.  “The ‘Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act’, strengthens the laws of our State.  It protects all of us, every Arizona citizen, and everyone here, in our State lawfully, and it does so while ensuring that the Constitutional Rights of all, in Arizona remain solid, stable, and steadfast.”

Nonetheless, cries of the Bill being unconstitutional rang out from almost every protest.  Is this the same Constitution they were willing to throw under the carpet, as if hiding dust and debris from visitors, when backing the passage of the Healthcare Reform, or bailing out the financial, housing, and auto industries?

Why is it, every time legislation to protect our country and our citizens is passed, it is immediately deemed unconstitutional, yet laws and programs that clearly are not in accordance with the Constitution receive accolades?

So the question arises, is Arizona SB1070 constitutional?

We all know Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, states, “Congress shall have Power… To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.”

However, Section 13 of SB1070 refers to the Bill’s ‘Short Title’ as the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act”.  There is no reference in the title, nor anywhere in the Bill, to “Rule of Naturalization”.  That makes SB1070 a “Public Safety Law”, not an “Immigration Law”.

Upon reading the Bill, the language of the Bill does not even allow the State’s Legislature, Law Enforcement, or any member of the State’s Judiciary the Authority to determine any individuals ‘immigration status’.  Rather, all questions, regarding immigration status, are immediately deferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).  The last time I checked, ICE is a Federal Agency.

Arizona SB1070 does not even give the State the Authority to deport anyone.  Any person found to be in the country illegally, is to be transported to Federal Custody, and if said transportation includes removing an individual to a location outside the boundaries of the State, the State must first receive a Court Order to do so.

Clause 15, of Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution says, “Congress shall have Power… To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”

All enforcement activities in SB1070 defer to existing Federal laws.  One could argue that Law Enforcement is the ‘active duty branch’ of the ‘State Militia’, and that the constant flow of illegal immigrants could be considered a form of societal invasion.

Furthermore, Article VI, Clause 2, stipulates, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Law of the Land.”

Because SB1070 consistently defers to Federal Authorities, it should be deemed as being “in Pursuance” of the Constitution, where we have established Congress has a duty to create “Rules of Naturalization”.

Article VI, Clause 3, clarifies that, “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.”

That means that, by passing SB1070 into law, the Arizona Legislature is actually executing their duties under the Constitution.  I am willing to bet you are wishing we could say that about Congress.  Instead, Congress is too busy taking over the financial industry, the auto industry, the housing industry, the healthcare industry, increasing taxes, passing laws that do not pass constitutional muster, and spending our way into oblivion, to actually perform the duties obligated to them by the Constitution.

In fact, we should applaud the Arizona Legislature.  Now residents, and those of us who are asked for our I.D. while visiting their great State, can announce with great pride,

I AM AN AMERICAN!

Advertisements

President Obama Violates Constitution

April 5, 2010

By David A. Black, Sr.

Although I disagree with President Obama’s policies, and his political agenda, until now, he has not violated the Constitution.  (The Stimulus and the Healthcare bills are definitely arguable) However, that has now changed.

During a scheduled recess of Congress, President Obama used the opportunity to make 15 recess appointments to administrative positions that would normally require Senate confirmation.

In a written statement, the President declared, “The United States Senate has the responsibility to approve or disapprove of my nominees. But if, in the interest of scoring political points, Republicans in the Senate refuse to exercise that responsibility, I must act in the interest of the American people and exercise my authority to fill these positions on an interim basis,”

The President is quoted by FOX News as saying, “At a time of economic emergency, two top appointees to the Department of Treasury have been held up for nearly six months,” he said. “I simply cannot allow partisan politics to stand in the way of the basic functioning of government.”

President Obama went on to note that former President George W. Bush made 15 recess appointments by this point in his presidency, then claimed that the former President was not facing the same level of obstruction.

Does the President have the authority to make “recess appointments?

In Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, of the Constitution, we find that,

“…and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for…”

Article II, Section 2, Clause 3, goes on to state,

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

So let’s take the Constitution for what it actually says for once, instead of what some want it to say for their own political purpose, or as a method of promoting their personal agenda.

According to the Constitution, as quoted, “the President shall have the Power to fill up Vacancies THAT MAY HAPPEN DURING a Recess of the Senate,”

The Founders did not intend this sentence to serve as a method for the President to get around the authority of the Senate to provide “Advice and Consent” of Presidential Appointments.

The sentence was put in place for the President to make temporary appointment to key administrative positions when they become vacant during a recess of Congress.

The vacancies filled by Obama’s ‘recess appointments’, have existed since the President took Office.  They did not happen during the “Recess of Congress”.

The fact that the President does not like “partisan politics” holding up the advancement of his agenda, or that some may be doing so to “score political points”, has no bearing on the subject.  The President needs to get over it.

The fact is, there is NO provision in the Constitution for the President to override the authority or the responsibilities of the Senate.  That would have opened the door for a dictatorship, and that was one thing the Founders were attempting to avoid.

The idea of pointing out the errors of his predecessor does not make the action legal under the Constitution.  These appointments, made by President Obama, are a direct and blatant abuse of the Power of his Office, and a willful violation of the Constitution.

Is this an impeachable offense?

According to the Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 8,

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Accordingly, the President must take the ‘Oath of Office’ to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” to the best of his ability.  President Obama has publicly reminded the nation, on several occasions, that he taught Constitutional Law at the University level in Illinois.  Therefore, it is safe to assume that the President should be fully aware of the intent of Article II, Section 2, Clause 3.

Article II, Section 4, states,

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article VI, Clause 2, states,

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Therefore, Article II, Section 2, Clause 3, as part of the Constitution, is Federal Law. Any action that willfully and purposefully violates the Constitution, by using the provision to usurp the Authority of the Senate, is a Federal Offense.

It is time for the Government to understand that the ‘Powers of Government’ do not lie solely in the three branches of Government.  The Constitution provides for the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial branches.

However, under the ninth and tenth amendments, the Constitution also provides for the Several States and the People to be active participants in shaping our Government and legislation

Therefore, it is part of our civic responsibility to monitor the actions of the individuals elected to Office, and take action when necessary.

Amendment IX – The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X – The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It is time for the President to be introduced to the Power of the People.

The Constitution points out, in Article I, Section 1, Clause 5,

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article VI, Clause 3, states,

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;

I am sending a letter, defining the points of this article, to my Representative in the House.  I am demanding, under the Authority of the Constitution, that my Representative formally begin the process of forcing the President to rescind his “Recess Appointments”.  If the President refuses to act accordingly, I am demanding that my Representative begin the process of impeachment for the willful and deliberate usurpation of the Authority of the Senate under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States.

Please join me and do the same.

To receive a copy of the letter I wrote to my Representative, make a request in the comments box.  I will reply to all that I can.  Thank you.


The 2010 Census – An Endorsement of Socialism

March 22, 2010

By David A. Black, Sr.

The 2010 Census is officially under way.  The ad campaign, costing millions of dollars, for television, cable, and radio ads, and thousands of billboards, paid for by your hard-earned tax money, tells us all to stand and be counted.

Help your community get a fair share.”  They proclaim, urging people to fill out the Census Data Form and return it to the Government.

Get their fair share of what?  I had my fair share until the Government confiscated it through taxation, now they want to pretend to give a portion of it back.

According to a letter from the U.S. Census Bureau, “Results from the 2010 Census will be used to help each community get its fair share of government funds for highways, schools, health offices, and many other programs you and your neighbors need.”

In all fairness, the members of the House and Senate are just doing their job.  The Constitution instructs Congress to collect a direct, heavy, progressive tax from every person in the country.  Then, they are to withhold a sizeable amount of the Gross National Product for financing the cost of running the Government.  Finally, Congress is to disperse the proportionately small amount of remaining money back to the people, disguised as ‘Investing in America’.  Any such investing in the ‘public good’ shall be at the sole discretion of Congress, based on the projected return value of those investments, as realized in the results of polls and elections.

Based on the questions contained in the 2010 Census Questionnaire, two out of ten deals with ethnicity, Congress seems quite concerned about ensuring proper funding of ethnic groups.  Rest assured then, so long as you are of the proper, favored ethnicity, Congress is doing their job and looking out for your best financial interest, in relation to ‘Public Investing’.

Pardon my sarcasm.  Actually, unlike most members of the House and Senate, I’ve read the Constitution.  Article 1, Section 2, later modified by Section 2, of the 14th amendment, calls for representation to be “apportioned among the several States”.  The same paragraph, later superseded by the 16th amendment, calls for the “apportionment of direct Taxes” as well; and thereby calls for a Census to have been performed within three years of the first Meeting of Congress, and every ten years thereafter.

Therefore, according to the Constitution, the Census was intended to be used only for the purpose of apportioning representation in the House, and apportioning direct Taxation among the several States.  There is no mention of using the Census as a means to justify congressional spending.

Think about it.  For the purpose of “apportioned representation” based on the total populations of the several States, does not call for Congress to have any idea of the ethnicity of the populace; they do not need any demographic data as a means to cater to any particular groups.

This means that Congress does not need to know who owns the house I live in, what the genders of any residence are, the actual age of residents, or if a resident has a secondary residence.

Instead, Congress is using the Census to get the American People to endorse the Socialistic practice of ‘redistributing wealth’.  They took away Constitutional apportionment of direct taxation with the 16th amendment, and perverted the use of the Census.

Now, we have a scenario where the government taxes the groups determined by the Census, to be the “haves”, to provide benefits to groups determined as the “have not’s”.  This is known simply as Socialism.

For the record, there are only five questions the Census could ask under the authority of the Constitution.

  1. Verify your address.
  2. How many people live at your address?
  3. How many people, living at your address, are of legal voting age?
  4. How many people, living at your address, are American Indians?
  5. What is your status of residency in the United States?  (Circle one)   Natural Born Citizen   Naturalized Citizen   Legal Resident   Other

As to the cost of the Census, the entire questionnaire, as authorized under the Constitution, would fit on a post card, the cheapest form of U.S. Mail correspondence and would be easily administered by, and reported through, local governments.

It is at this point, I must ask the obvious question; if we, The People, are going to allow the elected members of Government to pervert the intentions of our Founders and the meaning of our Constitution, to what they want it to say, rather than what it actually says, why should we have a Constitution?

Are we truly a nation of Free and Independent People?  Or, are we, The People going to allow the endorsement of Socialism, and idly watch it take root and grow into an uncontrollable despotic dictatorship?


President Obama’s Biggest Failure and Success

March 3, 2010

Approximately one year ago, Rush Limbaugh countered Barack Obama’s continuing mantra of “Hope and Change” with a Hope of his own, that President Obama’s Socialistic agenda fails.

Although Mr. Limbaugh articulated his message clearly, the “left” could not break the habit of misconstruing his words, and soon there was an all out media blitz.  With the simplest of ease, any grade-schooler could have put together a seemingly endless montage of media ‘talking-heads’ stating; “Rush Limbaugh says he hopes the President fails.”  Very few in the media defended Mr. Limbaugh’s statement.

Even the First Lady, Michelle Obama, jumped on the ‘Rush-bashing’ bandwagon, obviously suffering from willful ignorance, when she aped the media in wrongfully citing Rush’s statement, and then claimed; “If the President fails, then America fails.”  Then asked, “Is that what you want for this country?”

President Obama has complained, on numerous occasions, about “inheriting” a financial meltdown.  However, not once has President Obama admitted that, as a member of the Senate, he helped create the very meltdown he fully credits to the former President.  According to the rants of President Obama, and members of his administration, President Bush was an absolute failure.

Watch it!  Mr. President, you are on the verge of contradicting your wife.  Mrs. Obama informed us that, beyond a doubt, if the President fails, so too, does the country.  Should America assume that you, Mr. President, or your wife, believes that our proud nation is a failure?

Oh, that’s right.  President Obama already explained that we were in a tailspin, spiraling out of control, when he took the helm.  But for his brave and determined actions, America was destined for absolute ruin.

So, what bold, great actions can we attribute to President Obama that has turned our nation from the path of destruction to a soaring success?  Let’s examine what the President has accomplished in his first year in the Oval Office.

We have watched the President travel all over the world, and listened to him badmouth America at almost every stop.

We have listened to President Obama’s adolescent like claims, that former President G.W. Bush is single-handedly to blame for all of the problems our nation faces today.

We have watched him gratefully accept gifts that denounce America, while he tries to earn ‘Brownie Points’ from our communist foes.

We have experienced national embarrassment when he bowed to foreign leaders, not once, but on at least two separate occasions.

Although partially successful, by inflicting damage and creating an atmosphere of control in some financial institutions, President Obama failed in his attempt at a hostile Government takeover of Wall Street.  After the Presidents support of the “Financial Bailout”, with a ‘sky is falling’ mentality, the President, who claimed he did not want to run the banks, turned around, and in his next breath appointed new bank executives, began dictating salaries, and refused banks that offered to pay back the money, borrowed by the Government to initially “lend” to the banks.  Even now, many banks are trying desperately to rid themselves of government intervention.

The President has succeeded however, in partnering with the Labor Unions, most significantly in the act of taking control of a large portion of the American auto industry, namely General Motors and Chrysler.  His latest commitment to this partnership is in naming Union Boss, Andrew Stern to his newly formed Debt Commission.

Then there is the failed ‘Stimulus Bill’.  The President was sure that the stimulus bill had to be passed immediately.  Without a stimulus, America was going to fail.  Unemployment was going to rise to over ten percent, we needed to supply more money into the public because the financial institutions were on the verge of ‘post-bailout bankruptcy’, threatening devastation to the taxpayers.  Businesses were shutting down, bailed out banks were not lending money, the housing industry was sinking like a lead balloon, people were losing their homes, livelihoods, and the promise of a future.

President Obama and the Congressional Democrats forced their will on America, and passed their $1 trillion ‘Stimulus Bill’.  After unaccountably spending some 20% of the money, nothing has changed except the size of our nation’s unsecured debt.

Reported unemployment still jumped to over ten percent, financial institutions continue to fail, people continue to lose their homes and livelihoods as companies close their doors at a rapid pace, and our financial future looks very bleak.  As to overwhelming expenses to the taxpayers, we do not even know how much it will cost for what the Government has spent until now, let alone where they have spent it.  So much for the promise of transparency and accountability.

Ironically, when it comes to spending America’s money on socialistic government programs, such as bailouts, stimulus, and efforts to socialize healthcare, President Obama is fearlessly bold and willingly decisive.  He rushes headlong into promoting the most socialistic of programs with an urgency only matched by con artists, or Circus Callers yelling, “Hurry!  Hurry!”

However, in matters affecting our national security, and supporting the troops, deployed at his command, the President’s resolve wavers.  Instead of remaining brave and determined, as is his Constitutional responsibility, he demonstrates a lack of intestinal fortitude, taking months to make a decision such as that regarding the deployment of reinforcements in Afghanistan.

The President consistently proves to be unwilling to commit to actions against our nations invaders and enemies, yet has boldly circumvented the Constitution.  Instead of nominating people to necessary offices, and allowing the Senate to fulfill their Constitutional duty of providing “Advice and Consent” through the confirmation process, the President, in performing his few successes, unflinchingly named Czars.

So, the President has, in his first year in the Oval Office, taken control of a large portion of one of the last remnants of American industrialization in the auto industry, and partnered heavily with the unions.  He has attempted to takeover the financial industry, committed to unprecedented spending, committing our future generations to an unsustainable burden of debt, and continues his attempts to take control of our healthcare industry, or financially speaking, up to 15% of our nation’s economy. No communist mentality here.  But, I digress.

All of this said, President Obama’s biggest failure is that he has no comprehension of what America is, or what makes the People of our nation great. 

President Obama fails miserably in understanding that America is envied and loved, the world over, for her iconic representation of Liberty, individual Freedom, and the promotion of Independence. 

The President fails to understand that our common conviction to these core values is what makes America great; that individuals believe so strongly, they are willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice to protect these values, not just for our own Freedom, but for that of our families, friends, and neighbors; and yes, for our country.

The President fails to understand that Freedom allows for different political ideologies, but that these core components of our belief may not be jeopardized, for they are the foundation of our country, and every American.

Amazingly, the President’s biggest success is derived from his biggest failure.  President Obama, with a little assistance from his leftist base, has roused the “Sleeping Dragon”, galvanizing America into action.  The President, along with the Congressional Democrats, have given voice to the “Silent Majority”, causing conservatives to rally around our liberty and freedom; and we are fighting mad.

American’s are standing up, united in telling the Government,

Stop!  We are fed up with politics as usual!  American Government is out of control and we are not taking it anymore!  We will not stand by and idly watch incompetent politicians destroy our nation, or our children’s future.

Government has overstepped it’s permissions and authority and we the People are demanding it’s members to cease and desist all such activities.  If Government refuses to listen, we the People will exercise our Constitutional Authority and take back control of our nation!


Are You Serious?

October 27, 2009

By David A. Black, Sr.

The question is, as asked recently by a CSNNews reporter; specifically, where does Congress derive Constitutional authority to mandate that individuals purchase health insurance?

Democratic House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, of Maryland responded to this subject by citing the ‘General Welfare Clause’.

Representative ‘Stinky’ Hoyer said, “Well, in promoting the ‘General Welfare’, the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to that end.  We’re trying to make health care more affordable, so I think this is within our constitutional responsibility.”

At least ‘Stinky’ gave his honest opinion when he said, “Congress has broad authority to force Americans to purchase other things as well, so long as it was trying to promote the ‘General Welfare’… we mandate other things as well like paying taxes”.

When asked if there is a limit to what Congress can mandate that an individual purchase in promoting the ‘General Welfare’, ‘Stinky’ said, “I’m sure the [Supreme] Court will find a limit.”

As ‘Stinky’ is the House Majority Leader, apparently the Democrats do not believe there are any limits to which they may dictate how we each spend our hard earned money.

‘Stinky’ is not alone, however.  Senator Patrick Leahy (D), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, did not cite the Constitution when he responded to a similar question.

Senator ‘Leaky’ Leahy (as Rush nicknamed him) said, “We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority?  Why would anybody say there is no authority?  I mean, there’s no question there’s authority.  Nobody questions that.”

Then Senator ‘Leaky’ goes way off the map when he tried to justify his statement saying, “Where do we have the authority to set speed limits of an interstate highway?”

Excuse me.  Senator, the States set the speed limits.  The Federal Government simply coerced the States to change the speed limits by threatening to withhold funds.

I’m not going to say that ‘Leakys’ response was ignorant, yet I can’t help but ask; Senator, shouldn’t you be questioning?  Isn’t that part of your job as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee?

Wait a minute.  Wasn’t ‘Leaky’ involved in a recent, ‘high profile’ case?  Oh yeah, that Valerie Plame thing.  That figures.  He couldn’t get that one right either.  Thanks to his adamant ignorance, an innocent man was incarcerated.  Can you say “A Danger to Society”?

Back to ‘Stumpy’.  Maybe he was referencing the Preamble of the Constitution, which states,

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

But, that says “promote the Welfare”, not provide for the Welfare.  The founders never intended for the Government to implement policies that encourage, or force, the citizens into a state of dependency on the Federal Government.  Rather, they designed a set of limitations by which to avoid “national dependency”, understanding that dependency of the People, on the Government, only leads to tyranny.

On the other hand, maybe, he was referencing Article I, section 8, which states,

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

Article I, section 8, lays the responsibility to “provide for the common Defence and the general Welfare of the United States”, not provide the Welfare of the individual People of the United States.

Article I, section 8, goes on to list the responsibilities of the Congress in plain English, defining the responsibility of the Federal Government to the several States.

Now get ready, I saved the best for last.  When Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was asked a similar question, she responded with her typical ‘vermin in the headlights expression’, “Are you Serious?  Are you Serious?”

Screecher Pelosi’s press spokesperson, Nadeam Elshami, later explained that questioning the authority of Congress to mandate that individuals purchase health insurance, “Is not a serious question.”

Apparently, the Screecher put out a press release in September claiming Congress has ‘broad powers’ to regulate activities that have an effect on interstate commerce under the ‘Commerce Clause’ in the Constitution.

The ‘Commerce Clause’ is listed in the list of congressional responsibilities under Article I, section 8, stating,

The Congress shall have the Power… To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.

The Supreme Court ruling in Wickard v. Filburn (1942) is the closest precedent to Screecher Pelosi’s argument.  The Court ruled against Mr. Filburn for planting twelve more acres of wheat, grown for personal consumption, than was allowed by regulations in the Second Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938.

Justice Jackson reasoned that although Mr. Filburn’s wheat alone was trivial, more than twenty percent of all wheat grown, at that time, was privately consumed, and therefore affected interstate commerce by reducing the overall supply and demand.  The Court, determined that the cause and effect of individuals, toward the supply and demand of the market, inherently gives Congress power over the individual under the “Commerce Clause” and thus expanded the powers of government.

The ruling of Wickard v. Filburn followed the logic of the “Commerce Clause” case of United States v. Darby Lumber Co. (1941), which questioned the authority of Congress to institute the Fair Labor Standards Act to institute parity of labor rates to neutralize seemingly unfair interstate competition.

All this said; if Congress truly wanted to regulate health insurance under the Commerce Clause, they should create legislation that allows health insurance to be purchased across States lines.  Congress should disallow States from mandating specific insurance requirements for their State, making it impossible for insurance companies from other States to provide competitive coverage.

What’s that?  A Conservative idea that remains within the confines and limitations of the Constitution?  No.  That’ll never fly in a Congress led by a Liberal Majority.  It does not expand the “Powers of Congress”.  We can’t have that.

As to Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, Senator Leahy, and the rest of the blithering idiots in Congress who are trying to force their Socialistic version of Government on America by attempting to “nationalize” our Health Care System;

ARE YOU SERIOUS?  But, then again, we’re not supposed to question the authority of those in Congress.

America, why do we even have these… PEOPLE in Congress if they cannot even correctly cite the Constitution of the United States of America, which they all swore an oath to support?


Health Care Reform – A Means to Something More Sinister

October 16, 2009

Part 3 of 3

By David A. Black, Sr.

Part of the problem with the Proposed Health Care Reform Act is that we cannot expect to hear the truth of the issues in “honest debate”.  For instance, the “Death Panel” was adamantly denied, until it was removed from the proposal.

The proposal will allegedly cover the health care of illegal immigrants.  Supporters repudiate this, claiming the language forbids coverage of illegal immigrants.

However, there is nothing in the proposal to allow verification of any recipient’s legal status.  When Conservatives offer legislation to amend the discrepancy, Liberals reject the amendments.

Liberals forget there are laws prohibiting illegal immigration; yet they are here.  Because illegal immigrants ignore our federal immigration laws, it is logical to assume they will ignore any legislated restrictions to “nationalized” health care.

In his speech to the Joint Houses of Congress, President Obama claimed to promote “choice and competition” by officially announcing a “Public Option”.

The president declared, “I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors.  I just want to hold them accountable.”

Ironically, that is similar to President Obama’s comments about not wanting control of General Motors, Chrysler, and companies affected by the “Financial Bail-Out”.  In the aftermath, we find that the opposite is true.  The president, and his administration, have asserted unprecedented control of “Private Industry”.  Why should we expect Health Care to be treated any differently?

The president went on to say, “… it would only be an option for those who don’t have insurance…  In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5% of Americans would sign up.”

Remember, I wrote to begin with, “we cannot expect to hear the truth”; you decide.

The president first cites to the falsely inflated number of 15% of Americans being uninsured at some point, and then exaggerates the number by doubling the time period, erringly assuming that doing so automatically doubles the number of people affected.

How so?  He claimed that one in three Americans goes without coverage at some point; that is more than 30%.   Then something closer to the truth slips out when he cited the CBO saying, “…only 5% will sign up”.

Mr. President, is it 15%, 30%, or 5%?  You referred to, or quoted all three percentages in the same speech.  With all due respect Sir, annoying little facts, known as the truth, will come back to bite you when they are misrepresented.

President Obama promised the following points in his “sales pitch” for the “Public Option;

1.  No tax subsidies for the “Public Option”.

2.  No additional deficit spending.

3.  Not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for the “Public Option”.

4.  Greater security for the middle-class, not higher taxes.

Ignoring the fact that President Obama contradicted every point in his speech, and assuming the president intends to abide by these four points.  Logically, to accommodate the “Public Option”, the president is proposing another Government Subsidized Entity, similar to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Who, along with GM and Chrysler, the newest GSE’s, are going bankrupt)

Think about it!  Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM, Chrysler, and the financial industry staggering under the weight of the government…These are prime examples of what to expect for our health care system under a “Public Option”.

The only way for a “Public Option” to abide by the four points in his “sales pitch”, and maintain “choice and competition”, is to mandate that the ‘Public Provider” abide by the same laws enforced on “Private Providers”.  This means, among other things, the “Public Provider” would be required to establish “security holdings”, (typically 70 – 80% of their policy values) to ensure the financial ability to cover claims.

In order to stay in existence, insurers must guarantee the principles, which are the premiums paid by the people.  To do this, insurance companies invest the premiums they collect to cover claims that may exist on their policies and for their own business returns as well, including operating costs.

This means, the government, through the “Public Provider” would necessarily purchase stocks, bonds, real estate, and commodities to amass profits. (Not a far stretch after the Auto and Financial Bail-Outs)

Politicians engaged in such activities create obvious potential dangers.  In short, your tax dollars would be risked, or “invested”, in the stock market to cover the costs of the “Public Option”.

Keep in mind, during his speech, President Obama informed us that nationalizing health care through a “Public Option” is only a part of his plan; he reminded his “Progressive Friends” that, “The ‘Public Option’ is only a means to that end – and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goals.”

What are the “ultimate goals” of the presidents “Progressive Friends”?

Government “investing” tax dollars in “Private Industry” is a one-way ticket to corruption.  It will not be long before politicians assume massive control of the market through legislation, to “protect” the investments of the “tax payers”.

Considering the government prints money at will, this creates an environment in which private insurance companies cannot compete.  In relatively short time, financial pressures will force “Private Providers” to file for bankruptcy.

There is no better “investment” than to acquire failing competitors.  Therefore, through “free market capitalist investing, “private assets” would end up in the government’s possession.

DANGER! The president is proposing a “hostile takeover” of our nation.  He is simply using Health Care Reform as a vehicle to reach a more sinister destination.  The “Public Option” creates a potential “enemy from within”, using Capitalism, to accomplish Socialism.

Nationalized Health Care is, by its nature, another form of Socialism being introduced to a “free” society; another attempt to gain control of all major methods of production in an effort to confiscate wealth and dictate the lives of individuals through mandates and distribution of means.

Redistribution, or the practice of taking from one societal group to provide for another group, is Socialism.

The government dictating compliance by mandating involvement of private individuals in government run programs is Communism.

America was created, by design, as a Capitalist Society; a social system based on individual rights through the separation of the economy and the Government; with a limited government, relegated to the duties of protecting the rights of the People.  America is founded on the rights, of individuals, to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness.  Americans enjoy the right to possess private property, and maintain the right to individually contract to, and profit from our own labor.

The right to Life and Liberty guarantees us to freedom from oppression, freedom from burdensome government, and the right to freedom of actions in our individual Pursuit of Happiness, so long as no person or group infringes or violates the rights of another.

Previously, in “The Health Care Reform Act of 2009 – Crisis or Coercion”, I disputed the “facts” the president termed “undisputable”.

In “National Health Care and the Constitution”, I called the president out, defying him to present an argument, giving him or Congress the Constitutional Power or Authority to legislate “National Health Care Reform”.

Now, I am declaring the potential dangers of a sinister agenda.

I reject giving the President, or Congress, the Power to implement legislation that could, so easily, be used as a means to anything as sinister as what I have described.

The Founders intended to create a nation of “free men”, fundamentally rooted in societal and economic capitalism, to preserve the natural rights of each individual.  Any attempt to vilify capitalism, or provide support of socialism is, in a word, un-American.

I maintain, that if America allows the nationalization of our health care system, we are only a step away from saying goodbye to our Representative Republic, and hello to a Socialist State; in essence, saying goodbye to Liberty, and welcoming Tyranny.

So long as a single Patriot fights for Liberty, Freedom lives.  Never stop fighting.

Part 1 of 3:  The Health Care Reform Act of 2009 – Crisis or Coercion

Part 2 of 3:  National Health Care and the Constitution


National Health Care & the Constitution

October 4, 2009

Part 2 of 3

By David A. Black, Sr.

Lately, we have heard an earful about Death Panels, nationalization of health care with forced participation, the Public Option, and using taxpayer’s money to pay for abortions and provide medical benefits for illegal immigrants.  With all of the recent debates over Health Care, our Political Representatives in Congress, along with our President, have forgotten the most important debate of all; or possibly, they are purposefully avoiding it.

In an effort to promote the beliefs represented by their ideology, they are forgetting, or ignoring, their responsibilities under the Constitution of the United States of America.  Let me take a moment to remind them of the burden they have been elected to carry.

The Founders of this nation went to great lengths to limit the Powers and Authority of the Federal Government.  In doing so, they outlined the purpose of the Government in the Preamble of the Constitution, which states,

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. (Sic)

NOTE: The key phrase is “promote the Welfare”, not provide for the Welfare.  The founders never intended for the Government to implement policies that encourage, or force, the citizens of our nation into a state of dependency on the Federal Government.  Rather, they designed a set of limitations by which to avoid “national dependency”, understanding that dependency of the People, on the Government, can only lead to tyranny.

I know!  The Liberal argument points to Article I, section 8, which states,

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States. (Sic)

NOTE: This section lays the responsibility to “provide for the common Defence and the general Welfare of the United States”, not provide the Welfare of the individual People of the United States.  Article I, section 8, refers to the responsibility of the Federal Government to the several States, in representing the United States to other nations, in the establishment of foreign policies, and the power to establish the means, within the limits of the Constitution, to pay for the country’s debts.

Then there is the pesky Bill of Rights.  The President’s proposal of a $1900 penalty for failing to comply with his wishes is a fine for violating a law.  This “penalty” means people will be found guilty of a crime without the benefit of a trial.  This violates our individual right to due process under the Fifth Amendment, which states,

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (Sic)

We must stop allowing “leftist” politicians to misinterpret, thus purposefully molest the intent of the founders, and pervert the Constitution.  The Power and Authority to provide for the People is reserved to the individual States respectively, or to the People, under the protection of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments in the Bill of Rights, which state,

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People. (Sic)

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People. (Sic)

How many members of the U.S. Senate have abandoned their loyalties to their party, and exercised their responsibility to argue for the interests of the State they represent, and protect the Constitution of the United States of America by enforcing the limitations of Government mandated therein?

It is important to remember, the Constitution was implemented, by the Founders of this great nation, as a tool to limit the Powers and Authority of the Government, and to protect the rights of the People.  President Reagan understood this when he said, “We are a People with a government, not a Government with a people”.  Therefore, we must remain diligently cognizant of the attempts, by the Government, to usurp our rights, and stop them.  As President Lincoln once said, “We are the Masters of our Government and of our Constitution”.

Though I am tempted, albeit for a different reason, I will not say, “You lie!”

However, I will say, “Mr. President, you are wrong!  Again!”

Mr. President, I have already disputed your “undisputable facts”.  I have challenged that you and the Liberal Democrats in Congress are misrepresenting the facts.  I have also accused you and the Left of using a “protection racket” riddled with “fear tactics” to coerce America, into reconfiguring our health care system.

Now Mr. President, I dispute the fact that you, and your socialist-minded sycophants in Congress, possess the Power and Authority, under the limitations of the Constitution, to usurp the rights of the several States and the People.

I hereby defy the President, to present a sound argument that would give him, or Congress, the right to legislate a National Health Care Reform Act.

I, for one, deny and reject giving the President, or Congress, the Power to implement legislation that would, in any way, “nationalize” our health care system or “socialize” our country.

Unlike the President, I am not, nor have I ever been, a Constitutional Professor.  I am however, a red-blooded American Citizen.  I am a student of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.  I am proud of the Founders of our nation, the product of their labors, and their vision for America.  As such, I refuse to apologize for the exceptionalism of our nation, or willfully allow for the degradation of our traditions and values, or the destruction of our Freedom and Liberty.

If America allows the President, and his supporters in Congress, to succeed in nationalizing our health care system, we are only a step away from saying goodbye to our Representative Republic, and hello to a Socialist State; in essence, saying goodbye to Liberty, and welcoming Tyranny.