I am thrilled that Nancy Pelosi finally understands the need to politicize the churches. Actually they played a major role in bringing on the American Revolution as they, from the pulpit, encouraged their parishioners to actively advocate liberty. With respect to liberty, the loss of such has proceeded to the point that today you are either a part of the problem or part of the solution. Ministers, this is the Second American Revolution, using words rather than muskets for now. Your people need to be encouraged to stand up for freedom while they still can. In most revolutions Christians are among the first victims.
Now Nancy, illegal immigrants are those whose first act in America is to break the very laws that you helped create, thereby defying what you do. That is why they are called “illegal.” I hope the ministry also points this out to their people. And Nancy, I hope that you never criticize the Christian Coalition or any other group that advocates the restoration of Christian values in our schools such as prayers, or symbols, or express themselves with signs in California that express a conservative viewpoint, such as advocating against gay marriage or abortion. Should you do so, be prepared to be called a first class hypocrite.
So Nancy let us hear what you have to say about the Bible and the Christian ministry in politics so that we can better understand your new position of strong Christian advocacy.
There are only two reasons for the enumeration mandated by the Constitution every ten years that we now call the census: determining the number of representatives needed for a given area, and directing federal taxes. Constitutionally there is but one legitimate question: how many people live in this residence? With the House of Representatives based upon population the first reason is obvious. But the second reason expired when the 16th Amendment to the Constitution introduced the infamous income tax.
Today three columns of invasive questions now fill 28 pages of information that you would not share with your neighbors. With respect to housing they want to know what kind of building you live in, when it was built, how many rooms, your mortgage, taxes, insurance and utility costs, and move-in date. They also want to know how many automobiles are kept on the premises.
With respect to your personal life they want to know how many times you were married, the date of your last marriage, and if you have serious difficulty concentrating or bathing. At one point they even asked for the number of stillbirths or abortions you have had. Even your nosiest neighbor does not know these things.
With respect to employment they wish to know when and where you worked last and how you got there; even how many minutes to get to work is requested. And, of course, you must disclose your salary, who you work for and what kind of work you do as well as your educational level. President George Bush in 2000 grumbled: “I can understand why people don’t want to give over that information to the government. If I have the long form, I’m not so sure I would do it either.” In China under communism, they had spies gather this information. Today in the “Jerry Springer generation”, where nothing is sacred or private, we willingly give it to the government.
The part I like best are the questions where I am forced to categorize myself by race, but there is no category for someone that doesn’t make distinctions on the basis of race. If given the choice, many would categorize themselves simply as American, and yet in America that is not offered as an option.
The American Community Survey conducting the census publishes a pamphlet called “50 Ways Census Data Are Used.” Only two of the ways this data is used are constitutional. So how can the government collect sensitive data for the purpose of performing a function on the federal level for which there is no authorization without serious distortion? They can’t. When the first question outside how many people live in your home was asked, the intent of the Constitution was violated.
Should one refuse to answer all unconstitutional questions, the punishment is a fine of up to $5,000. Some time ago they even threatened imprisonment.
The Founding Fathers authorized no other purpose for the head count. If offered a window to our day, they would be appalled at the federal government’s misuse of this power as a means of creating a national information gathering service on you.
Many do not know that we live under two political systems: one primarily national in function, the other primarily domestic. It’s called federalism—the two share power and are equal. Neither was to be subservient to the other and each was to have separate duties. Thomas Jefferson explained it best when he said, “The states are not subordinate to the national government but rather the two are coordinate departments of one single and integral whole…. The one is domestic the other the foreign branch of the same government.”
Think of this relationship as an ideal marriage, where neither partner is subservient to the other. The duties in a relationship are gradually assigned to one partner or the other. Neither feels beneath the other, rather they are a team.
Though this was the ideal, the Founders were aware of the nature of all governments to grow. George Washington articulated this when he warned, “Government is like fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” In order to ensure that this fire does not spread too far and burn down the home, one builds a fireplace to keep the fire under control. That fireplace is the Constitution, particularly Section 8, which outlines all powers that are given to Congress. Everything Congress did was to be clearly linked to at least one of these enumerated grants of power. The States, who created the Federal Government, retained unto themselves all other powers per Amendments 9 and 10 of the Constitution.
The advantages of federalism are enormous. States become laboratories of experimentation. Californians remember numerous “brownouts” in the nineties because of California’s failed energy policies. Other states viewing this were careful to avoid the same policies. States have the tendency to look at sister states for models and to borrow from them in refining their own programs. These places of experimentation work to everyone’s advantage. What if we had federalized California’s failed energy policy? “Brownouts“ on a national scale.
Had our power crazed Federal Government refrained from their natural inclination to take more power, health care reform could have gone through this experimental process designed by our Founding Fathers. We would then have been able to identify the weaknesses or strengths while they were still geographically isolated. Only three states have tried it: Oregon, Massachusetts, and Hawaii. That was clearly not enough to identify and avoid the “brownouts “ in the area. Instead they took a half-baked idea and made it mandatory for all. Of course, this would have necessitated an enlargement of the enumerated list through Article V, requiring “3/4th of the Several States.” Since more than 60 % of the people did not want this bill, the Constitution would have protected us from the federal government’s ineptitude.
Arm yourself with knowledge. Study and understand the Constitution so you can participate in informed discussion among those with whom you come in contact. Expect your Senators and Congressmen to understand it as well, and bear this in mind when you go to the polls. We must be active now before the fire of government takes over our states, our homes, and our lives.
Every semester I ask my students how a small business gets rid of an unproductive employee. They usually realize that there is a relationship between productivity and job security. No business intentionally hires someone incompetent. They know that when such happens the response is a quick layoff and presume that the same is so of government jobs as well. It isn’t. The government job is layered to protect incompetency. Getting rid of ineptitude is well nigh impossible.
To begin with, a government supervisor seeking to unload an incompetent employee must provide a written notice at least 30 days in advance of a hearing to determine incompetence or misconduct. The statement of cause required necessitates long term documentation indicating specific dates, places, and actions cited as incompetent or improper, so the employer must begin collecting evidence months before. The incompetent employee remains on the job during this investigative period.
The accused has the right to a hearing and decision by an impartial official, with the burden of proof falling on the agency that wishes to fire the employee. At this hearing he has the right to have an attorney present and witnesses presented in his favor. This too takes time and by now he knows your intent, resulting in a hostile working environment that affects more than just the two of you.
An adverse decision here is appealable to a Systems Protection Board, where again the burden of proof rests on the agency seeking removal. This could take months. It’s probably best not to be in the same room alone together. By now he hates your guts.
This too is appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals, which again could take months. Meanwhile the incompetent employee has the right to remain on the job and be paid until all appeals are exhausted, thus ending the employer’s nightmare if the appeal ends in his favor. Every appeal, every involved party, and all of the time involved in this process are funded by your tax dollar, and are happening at the expense of productivity.
Very few federal civil servants are ever dismissed from their jobs. Instead the employer simply hires a second person to do the work not done by the first—two people doing the job of one, and paid for by the hardworking taxpayer.
The New American recently reported that “with about 2 million civilian employees, the federal government, excluding the postal service, is the nation’s largest employer.” Everything the government manages, state or federal, is either bankrupt or nearly so. Is it any wonder given the natural inefficiency of government? The answer to this inefficiency is to give the government as little to do as possible.
Government is inefficient by it’s nature. This same government labors to create thousands of new laws to control our behavior each year. We must return to the basics of the Constitution or continue to lose our liberty at the hands of such ineptitude. It is as simple as that. After all, it’s about liberty.
The nature of all governments is to grow, absorbing decision-making power unto themselves. It happened with the British Parliament and it is now happening with our imperial Congress. The reason the Enumeration Clause is one sentence of 18 paragraphs is that the Founders did not want a piece to be separated and enlarged distorting the whole. So it is with the Commerce Clause.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said it best. “Let me put it this way; there are really only two ways to interpret the Constitution—try to discern as best we can what the framers intended, or make it up.” On making it up he added: “No matter how ingenious, imaginative or artfully put, unless interpretive methodologies are tied to the original intent of the framers, they have no more basis in the Constitution than the latest football scores.”(Wall Street Journal Opinion, Oct. 20, 2008)
Under the original interpretation, commerce among the states did not begin until goods commenced their final movement from their state of origin to that of their destination. Through faulty interpretation, gradually this grant was applied to commerce that did not even cross state boundaries. In the 1942 case, Wilcord vs. Filbourn, commerce was applied to a farmer who did not even move his wheat off his farm or even sell it, under the logic that consuming his own wheat affected interstate commerce. Had he not grown it he would have had to purchase wheat, which would have affected the price thereof. This distortion flawed every other Supreme Court decision with regard to commerce and reversed the Founders’ interpretation by 180 degrees.
Recently in response to the Court overruling California’s state law legalizing medical marijuana, the honorable Justice Clarence Thomas wrote: “If the Federal Government can regulate growing a half-dozen cannabis plants for personal consumption…then Congress’ Article I powers…have no meaningful limits. Whether Congress aims at the possession of drugs, guns, or any number of other items, it may continue to appropriate state police powers under the guise of regulating commerce.”
So why won’t this flawed reasoning work for National Healthcare as those Constitutionally ignorant insist? Because this would be the first time a penalty is imposed upon an individual for not engaging in commerce. Even the Congressional Budget Office penned in 1994 when National Healthcare was last proposed, “The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.” If the government can force this commerce it can force any commerce, say electric cars or even the purchase of tomatoes.
Such a broad interpretation of the commerce clause virtually destroys the 10th amendment to the Constitution. With power hungry governments each flaw legitimizes yet a more serious one, destroying federalism and our ability to ever get our freedom back. If national healthcare is allowed to stand it will be the one decision wherein future generations can specifically date the end of not just health freedom but all freedom. The word “commerce” has wrongly been interpreted by the Supreme Court to cover “every species of movement of persons or things, whether for profit or not; every species of communications, every species of transmission of intelligence, whether for commercial purposes or otherwise.” Put simply, every person that moves. No government can be trusted with that kind of power.
