Does the Health Care Bill set up an Obama only approved domestic army of dedicated followers? Buried deep, page 1313, in the very controversial bill of 2700 pages is the establishment of a Ready Reserve Corps for immediate service in time of national emergency. No definition of national emergency is given in relationship to the creation of this group. No explanation of why the National Guard or the fire and police departments already in place are not enough. Nor is there a sentence limiting this new force to health care functions only.
What is clear is that over 320 million is appropriated for the fiscal year 2010, suggesting immediate employment. This will be raised by at least 125 million each year until the total amount for fiscal year 2015 is over 1.1 billion. The money to fund the Ready Reserve Corps is to come “out of any funds in the Treasury.” Of course that actually means from the taxpayer. These amounts suggest the employment of thousands.
This bill already increases the number of IRS employees by 16,000 in order to enforce that everyone gets and pays for healthcare whether they want it or not. So what will the Ready Reserve Corps do? They are to be on short notice “to meet both routine public health and emergency response missions.” But there is no language restricting their use in these cases, nor is there a definition of “public health” or “national emergency.”
Disturbing is that commissioned officers “shall be appointed without regard to the civil-service laws and compensated without regard to the Classification Act of 1923.” Civil service laws are in place to ensure one can be screened for employment with no regard to his or her political views, and classification laws define compensations by classification. Obviously such will be waived.
More disturbing is that “commissioned officers of the Ready Reserve Corp shall be appointed by the President” alone. The “advice and consent of the Senate” is excluded in making the appointment. Since no qualifications are specifically noted (instead noticeably waved) it seems any goon will do. With 30 years experience in studying the rise and fall of great nations, this is especially disturbing to me. It is reminiscent of the Brown Shirts in NAZI Germany, where dissention was hunted and punished.
Especially unsettling in light of the above is candidate Obama’s July 2, 2008 statement. “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” Is this the beginning of such a force? The U.S. army has nearly 500,000 troops excluding the National Guard. In 2007 our U.S. Defense budget was 439 billion dollars. Why would we need a domestic security force even larger? And what would it do, pick on dissenters like Tea Party participants? Is this the civilian national security force of which he spoke? Sounds like thug-ocracy and a potential threat to our freedom.
Twenty years ago June 4, thousands of students gathered at Tiananmen Square to oppose socialism. Using a copy of the Statue of Liberty they created to symbolize their bid for freedom over 2,000 stood as Patrick Henry had years before with his, “give me liberty or give me death.” No one in history symbolized this more powerfully than the brave student who stood in front of the line of incoming tanks offering the only thing left to him, his body. The Chinese government continues to tell us nothing of this man. Eventually over one million demonstrated in the streets of China in support of the nations bid for freedom.
Led by the student intellectuals from the universities, the group supposed to be the base of future communism rule, it caught the existing socialist government leaders completely by surprise. Paralyzed for seven weeks-how could they destroy their future socialist base?-the decision was made by the Old guard. In the middle of the night a tank drove through the Square of demonstrators at full speed crushing to death hundreds under its massive wheels. It was followed by indiscriminate gunfire and other incoming tanks and thousands were wounded or killed.
Virtually all nations condemned the Chinese governments’ brutality as did the United States but unfortunately, within a month thereof, President Herbert Walker Bush, having previously been our ambassador to China, awarded the “Old Guard” most favored nation trade status– a real coveted prize for the receiving country. Presidential candidate Bill Clinton promised to retract the favored status on the basis of Chinas’ continued human rights violations but after his election changed his mind.
Ironically while the Chinese intellectuals, who understood what socialism really was, were attempting to rid themselves of it, our student intellectuals of today are too often promoting and electing those who promote socialism and abandoning, as quickly as thy can, the very philosophy that made us the envy of every other nation on earth. Socialism, without a serious injection of capitalism, has never resulted in prosperity for more than the ruling elite and never will. Sometimes our intellectuals are too smart to see that. If we wish to retain our freedom those who cannot or will not see must be turned out of office regardless in which party they reside.
We end our coverage of the Tiananmen Square Slaughter with two brief contemporary CNN accounts: Tiananmen Square Students Reject Socialism and Tiananmen 20th Anniversary found in Dr. Peases’ Favorites. Would to God that we never have to attempt to get back our liberty in the same way having lost it by our own present ineptitude.
The Founding Fathers’ concept of separation of powers has been heavily altered the last fifty years. The Constitution allowed only the Legislative Branch to make law (Art. I, Sec. I, Clause I). A law’s review by 533 individuals (432 members of the House, 100 Senators and 1 President) served as a filter for bad law as only one bill in thirty survived the rigid scrutiny of both branches and the signature of the president.
Today the president makes half as many laws as does the Legislative Branch. Some few laws of Congress need a statement of implementation by the president. For example, President Washington was directed by Congress to create Thanksgiving Day as a national holiday. This he did by Executive Order, which was lawful. An executive order, if it simply implements a single, recently passed (within weeks), law of Congress is fine. But, when he instead takes multiple pieces of many laws passed by ancient congresses, he effectively creates new law without any review and unconstitutionally usurps the powers of Congress. This has happened through much of the 20th Century.
Even more blatantly unconstitutional is the practice of presidents, beginning with Nixon, of not even attempting to justify their Executive Orders with ancient pieces of authorization, instead, just decreeing something to be law. These are known as Presidential Decrees and differ little from Monarchical Decrees. More recent is the practice by presidents, most notably George W. Bush, of issuing a Signing Statement on a new law that they do not like, which basically says that he will enforce only some parts while ignoring others.
Except for the few Executive Orders, which require a statement of implementation by the president, all other types of Executive Orders are unconstitutional and must stop. If they do not, the inevitable will happen– Congress will nullify itself and monarchical decrees will be the standard.
