Tag Archives: Constitution

If you didn’t pay the government to do it, who would you pay to do it?

I chuckled and cheered my way through this article – a list of ~102 things some liberal thought no one would do if government agents didn’t take your money at gunpoint and then do themselves.

It is quite invigorating to see another person rebut so many inane assertions with the plain and simple “It is not the job of government to do X, and it is a myth that nobody would do it if the government didn’t.”

Because I don’t like to pay taxes, I was intrigued by the title of the article by Stephen Foster that I was directed to titled: “102 Things NOT To Do If You Hate Taxes.” The article is a liberal defense of the legitimacy of the government (usually federal, but sometimes state or local) confiscating a portion of Americans’ incomes and redistributing and reallocating the incomes because the government provides certain services. Implied throughout the article is the myth that none of the 102 things listed “NOT to do” would exist without the government. The above Holmes quote appears at the end of the article.

Before the list of the 102 things “NOT to do if you hate taxes,” the article is prefaced with this statement: “So, you’re a Republican that hates taxes? Well, since you do not like taxes or government, please kindly do the following.”

Since when do Republicans hate taxes? Since when do Republicans not like taxes or government other than when it is Democrats collecting the taxes and running the government? There is only one Republican member of Congress that I am aware of who has called for the complete elimination of the federal income tax – Ron Paul. Although I am not a Republican, since I still “hate taxes” and “do not like taxes or government,” I feel compelled to analyze the list of things I should not do.

via Pay Up or Die by Laurence M. Vance.

Free To Die? by Walter E. Williams

Walter E. Williams summarizes in a most excellent way the moral quandary behind forcing one person to pay for healthcare for somebody else:

If a person without health insurance finds himself in need of costly medical care, let’s investigate just how might that care be provided. There are not too many of us who’d suggest that we get the money from the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. That being the case, if a medically indigent person receives medical treatment, it must be provided by people. There are several possible methods to deliver the services. One way is for people to make voluntary contributions or for medical practitioners to simply treat medically indigent patients at no charge. I find both methods praiseworthy, laudable and, above all, moral.

Another way to provide those services is for Congress to use its power to forcibly use one person to serve the purposes of another. That is, under the pain of punishment, Congress could mandate that medical practitioners treat medically indigent patients at no charge. I’d personally find such a method of providing medical services offensive and immoral, simply because I find the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another, what amounts to slavery, in violation of all that is decent.

I am proud to say that I think most of my fellow Americans would be repulsed at the suggestion of forcibly using medical practitioners to serve the purposes of people in need of hospital care. But I’m afraid that most Americans are not against the principle of the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another under the pain of punishment. They just don’t have much stomach to witness it. You say, “Williams, explain yourself.”

Say that citizen John pays his share of the constitutionally mandated functions of the federal government. He recognizes that nothing in our Constitution gives Congress the authority to forcibly use one person to serve the purposes of another or take the earnings of one American and give them to another American, whether it be for medical services, business bailouts, handouts to farmers or handouts in the form of foreign aid. Suppose John refuses to allow what he earns to be taken and given to another. My guess is that Krugman and, sadly, most other Americans would sanction government punishment, imprisonment or initiation of violence against John. They share Professor Krugman’s moral vision that one person has a right to live at the expense of another, but they just don’t have the gall to call it that.

I share James Madison’s vision, articulated when Congress appropriated $15,000 to assist some French refugees in 1794. Madison stood on the floor of the House to object, saying, “I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents,” adding later that “charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” This vision of morality, I’m afraid, is repulsive to most Americans.

via Free To Die? by Walter E. Williams.

Whither Constitutional Authority Statements?

This is pretty funny, although not unexpected.

The first thing the Republican House majority did when they convened this year is adopt a rule requiring that every bill introduced also list which Constitutional clause enumerates their authority to introduce that bill and legislate in that matter.

Turns out, they have no idea how the Constitution works, what “enumerated powers” means, or even what “enumerated powers” are.

So, nine months later, what happened? The Republican Study Committee – essentially the GOP House Caucus’s conservative sub-caucus — has come up with the following analysis (analyzing 3042 bills through September 16, some of them counted more than once in the below statistics):

  • 3 bills cite only the Preamble to the Constitution.
  • 84 bills cite only Article 1, which creates the Legislative Branch.
  • 58 bills cite only Article 1, Section 1, which grants all legislative powers to Congress.
  • 470 bills cite only Article 1, Section 8, which is the list of specific powers of Congress, without citing any specific clause.
  • 539 bills cite [the General Welfare Clause].
  • 567 bills cite [the Commerce Clause].
  • 247 bills cite [the Necessary and Proper Clause], without citing a “foregoing power” as required by [Article I, section 8,] clause 18.
  • 309 bills cite two or more of the “general welfare” clause, commerce clause, or the “necessary and proper” clause.
  • 87 bills cite Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7, which provides that no money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.
  • 210 bills cite Article 4, Section 3, which provides that Congress shall have the power to make rules and regulations respecting the territory or property of the United States.
  • 252 bills cite an amendment to the Constitution. For example, 54 cite the 10th Amendment (powers not delegated to the federal government), 30 cite the 14th Amendment (“equal protection, etc.”), and 64 cite the 16th Amendment (income tax).

Why do they even bother swearing an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution when they obviously have no concept of what that means?

via Whither Constitutional Authority Statements? | Cato @ Liberty.

Two Perspectives On The Latest Sham Terror Plot

The government’s getting desperate to distract drum up more Fear Of Nouns and gain support for their tyrannies:

Fake, fake, fake – I’m talking about the latest anti-Iranian propaganda coming out of Washington, which claims the Iranian Revolutionary Guards were involved in a “plot” to take out the Saudi ambassador to the US and blow up both the Saudi and Israeli embassies. The narrative reads like a formulaic melodrama: two Iranians, one a naturalized US citizen, purportedly approached someone they thought was a member of a Mexican drug cartel – according to the indictment [.pdf], it was a “sophisticated” drug cartel, not the plebeian sort – and proposed paying him $1.5 million to murder Adel al Jubeir, the Kingdom’s ambassador in Washington – oh, and by the way, the Iranians supposedly said, “Are you guys any good with explosives?”

The key to understanding just how fake this story is can be found in the New York Times report, which informs us:

“For the entire operation, the government’s confidential sources were monitored and guided by federal law enforcement agents, Preet Bharara, the United States Attorney for the Southern District, said in the news conference. ‘So no explosives were actually ever placed anywhere,’ he said, ‘and no one was actually in ever in any danger.’”

Translation: the whole thing is phony from beginning to end.

via Iranian Terror Plot: Fake, Fake, Fake by Justin Raimondo — Antiwar.com.

And:

The DOJ card players have a credibility problem. 17 well-publicized “terrorist” plots since 2001 have been federal setups that never approached the professionalism of an early talent screening for American Idol. The federally micromanaged Fast and Furious gun running operation purposely ran guns to Mexico, and then blamed it on the 2nd Amendment. After it became known that over 200 people were killed as a result, a normally passive Congress questioned Eric Holder, who apparently lied under oath about it.

Last week’s “terrorist plot” – an odd Iranian “caught” by the bold federales in part because they “overheard” him explain in detail his complicated plan to his Mexican gangster “cohorts” has been immediately blown out of the water by state media from the left, right and center – taking their lead from independent media that is, thankfully, growing ever more influential.

Even Hollywood is in on the joke. The very idea of federal “law enforcement” is almost silly in this second decade of the 21st century. If the government of the United States can publically, through the president with justification by DOJ, assassinate Americans around the world and make war without Congressional consultation or approval, it has forfeited any right it ever had to “enforce the law.”

via Will Holder Fold? by Karen Kwiatkowski.

The only laws these guys want to enforce are the ones that restrict and control us, while they do whatever they want around the globe.

It’s well past time to bind them with the chains of the Constitution.

Our Troops do NOT Protect Our Freedom and We Should Stop Thanking Them for Doing So

I agree whole-heartedly with this article, as sad as it is.  None of the “kinetic actions” around the globe in which our servicemen are fighting provide any benefit whatsoever for our freedom.  And to the contrary, we are enslaved to pay for those operations, and they are destroying the freedoms of peoples around the globe.

Meanwhile, here in the United States, the fact that our servicemen are out killing and being killed by Nouns (Terror, Drugs, Etc.), we are losing our freedoms en masse, such as: the freedom to simply board a plane, open a bank account, to not buy health insurance, or to exchange goods or services with another person.

Who is fighting for those freedoms?  How come no one here is willing to die for freedom, but we are perfectly happy to let patriotic youth die in vain somewhere else for a President’s whim?

Particularly when the President’s wars are unconstitutional, illegal, and therefore, anti-freedom?

Let’s make one thing crystal clear, no member of the US military contributes in any way whatsoever to protecting the freedoms of the American people. As a matter of fact, they are more likely to turn their weapons on you than they are to defend your Constitutional rights.

The only people on this planet Earth who can affect your freedom are members of Congress, local legislators and the members of enforcement institutions who will blindly follow the rulers who sign their paychecks. And, while your beloved troops are murdering people around the globe, yes, I said murdering, your Congress and local legislators are eliminating your freedoms, en masse, without any intervention by our so-called protectors in the armed forces.

There is no honor in volunteering to go anywhere in the world and kill anybody you are told to, without question, without historical background and without verifying the stated reasons for doing so. In this modern age of information we now know that time and time again our military have been deployed into battle, to kill and be killed, for reasons that in no way shape or form resemble the reasons for which they, or we were told at the time. This is no secret, although many Americans refuse to take off the flag that is wrapped around their eyes and see American history as it really happened. They blindly believe what was told to them by the people who have a vested interest in maintaining myths and misconceptions.

via Our Troops do NOT Protect Our Freedom and We Should Stop Thanking Them for Doing So.