Monday, March 08, 2010

Washington is Where It Happens!

Thugs use intimidation. A liberal application of "Do this or I'll do that," as a means of forcing innocent people, the thugs see as sheep to be fleeced
By Dr. Robert R. Owens
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Extortion, intimidation, and scams: these are the tactics of thugs. On the streets of Chicago there are neighborhoods where the police won’t enter after dark.
Gangs of thugs rule the night protecting the neighborhood or engaging in what the police in other places quaintly call extortion, intimidation and other activities common to organized crime.
The difference between the clique that has captured power in the United States and an organized crime family lies more in the magnitude of their scams and the legalized cover which gives them impunity than any other standard. The generational theft and constitutional subversion that the Obama administration and Congress commit on a daily basis is no more morally defensible than the shakedowns and extortions of a local street gang or other community organizers on the Southside of Chicago.
Thugs use intimidation. A liberal application of “Do this or I’ll do that,” as a means of forcing innocent people, seen merely as sheep to be fleeced, into doing what they want. The examples of the Obama Administration’s thuggishness abound and are as close as the headlines.
The legal limit of liability for oil spills had been set at 75 million dollars unless gross negligence has been proven. So far nothing has been proven, yet using his tried and true tactic of a bashing with the club of a compliant media and a short meeting behind closed doors President Obama was able to shakedown BP for 20 Billion. Of course, where the 20 billion is and who gets it are items to be filled in later.
The list of beat downs goes on: GM and Chrysler bond holders were pushed into accepting a surrender of their first position so that the companies could be given to the unions and the government. Solvent banks were forced to take TARP money so that consumers would not be able to identify the insolvent banks. After passing a law which mandates who they must insure and for what they must insure them, insurance companies are being pressured not to raise rates to cover their rising expenses and liabilities by the personal intervention of the president. After the BP spill the Obama administration took the opportunity to shut down all American drilling in the Gulf while they lend money and seek to give tax breaks to foreigners to do the same thing. When a federal judge declared the Obama ban on drilling in the Gulf is unconstitutional the Secretary of the Interior announces he’s going to reissue the ban any way abrogating the rule of law.
This highlights the style and tone of our current leadership crew but what’s the goal? Is it personal aggrandizement? Is it systemic change? President Obama has stated that his administration would fundamentally transform America. He has said that he sees himself as a transformative president.
Joining the New Deal, the Great Society, and the Reagan Revolution as a game-changer in American history, the Obama administration’s Progressive transformation of America has passed more major legislation in less than two years than many administrations do in two terms. Building upon TARP, the parting present from the Progressive Bush, President Obama lost no time beginning a spending binge that soon added as much to the deficit as every president from Washington to Ragan.
Within months of assuming power the stimulus bill, the largest spending bill in American History was rammed through a compliant Congress. Its ostensible purpose was to end the recession but which was also meant to take over such diverse things as educational lending and medical records. In the meantime, as the Recession rolls on, the non-stimulating stimulus bill now acts as an election aid for Democrats.
The next shakedown came in the form of an overhaul of the health care industry. This was promoted as the only way to stabilize premiums and insure the mysterious millions the Progressive media tells us are uninsured. Of course now premiums are going through the roof because of the government take-over and according to the Congressional Budget Office the uninsured still will not be insured.
Then came the takeover of the financial industry as a way to save the financial industry. With Senator Dodd adding his, “No one will know until this is actually in place how it works” to Pelosi’s infamous “We Need to Pass Health Care Bill to Find Out What’s In It.” The arrogance of the thugs adds insult to the injuries caused.
Before the electorate have a chance to “throw the bums out” and show them the door in December look for the Cap-N-Tax scam, the card-check unionization bill, net neutrality, open Internet or whatever they want to call a government speed limit on the information super highway, and import-a-voter immigration reform. If these can’t be done legislatively in a lame-duck session before the one-party rubber-stamp leaves town look for a New Year’s present in the form of executive orders or bureaucratic regulation as the vehicle for the change no one hopes for anymore.
These major Progressive goals, both achieved and potential, move the United States from a society based upon free enterprise and personal liberty solidly into the world of the socialist cradle-to-grave welfare state. The only question remaining is will our leaders move from political readjustment to social realignment as America staggers like a battered spouse looking for a shelter in the thugocracy of Chicago’s 51st Ward.
Ten Mental Mistakes of Obamatons
Nazis, Fascists, Communists, Purposeful verbal trickery, Fallacies
By Kelly O'Connell
Sunday, May 16, 2010
We live in times of rank, unchallenged errors of thought forcefully expressed in print and spoken word. Political movements, in particular, traffic in purposeful verbal trickery. In fact, some especially depend upon fallacies to drive their message since their essential convictions are defective or even diseased. Such groups as the Nazis, Fascists and Communists immediately spring to mind here.
Barack Obama peppers his rhetoric with a veritable buffet of verbal trickery. But why? If Obamatons are correct, and Barack is one of history’s great speakers, why must he use cheap rhetorical tricks to win support? The answer is Obama offers ideas which, on their face, are either counter-intuitive, or false to the average listener. Speakers do not mislead unless they sense an inability to otherwise persuade their audience. Therefore, Barack needs extra help to persuade. What other explanation can there be for such incongruent methods?
Obama supporters, aka Obamatons, have created a human ocean of fallacies to buoy their leader, threatening to engulf the globe in a terrifying flood of logical errors. The following is a short list of some of the most persistent members of this false-argument tsunami.
A. What is a Fallacy?
A fallacy is generally an error in reasoning. Fallacies are common, yet fraudulent arguments. The most popular are mistakes that occur when people don’t think clearly. The most typically used have given names to aid in their detection. Certainly, we all tend to use fallacious thinking daily. But for important topics, such as politics, religion, and law it is imperative we do not employ these flawed logical structures as we will end up with unacceptable results.
B. Top Ten Liberal Fallacies
The following fallacies are employed by Obama, his administration and his rabble of fervent and often intellectually challenged fans.
1. Self-Righteousness
This fallacy claims if someone is “morally pure,” or has the “right” motivations, then their actions cannot be questioned.
Example: Obama claims his foreign policy is better received and more effective because it is not “arrogant.” Further, he implies both his economic policies and health care plans will succeed because they are not based upon “greed,” but instead on altruism, as the wealthier are forced to share with the less affluent.
Analysis: Obama repeatedly employs the fallacy of Self-Righteousness (perhaps a logical result of his apparent embrace of a semi-messianic self-identity). Describing Obama as the furthest thing from pure, former House member Dick Armey summed him up, saying, “You’re intellectually shallow. You’re a romantic. You’re self-indulgent. You have no ability.” He added Obama was “...the most incompetent president perhaps in our lifetime.”
2. You’re Another (Tu Quoque)
Here’s the famed “you too” fallacy, which states an action is acceptable simply because another person has previously performed it.
Example: When Obama began ramping up giant deficits, and was criticized for profligacy, his followers defended him with statements like, “Bush started the deficits!” Or, “It’s OK for the last administration to do this, but not Obama’s?”
Analysis: Clearly, if Bush’s deficits were a problem, it was because such spending is irresponsible, not simply because it was W. doing them. So, if Obama quadrupled Bush’s deficits, he has fourfold culpability under the same analysis. If this dynamic is not true, imagine another example. For instance, what if Wendy’s restaurant argued they had a right to put four times the amount of cyanide in their burgers, since it was discovered a madman at McDonald’s was doing the same. This argument is utter nonsense.
3. Personal Attack (Ad Hominem)
This fallacy is committed when a person is insulted for delivering criticism.
Example: After broadcaster Rush Limbaugh launches a blistering attack upon Obama, claiming his actions were “socialist,” Obama asks a friend to respond. US Senator Al Franken officially replies, pointing out that claim is wrong because… “Rush Limbaugh is a Big, Fat Idiot.”
Analysis: Even the most ponderous commentators can deliver accurate critiques of politicians. Further, doing counter-commentary like explaining Sarah Palin is a transparent “moron,” or that Dick Cheney is clearly “evil” is not so much a way of sharing genuine information, as a manner of circling the wagons against officially denoted enemies to destroy them. It’s a tribal response designed as a defensive maneuver.
4. Damning the Origin (Consider the Source)
Damning the Origin is an Ad Hominem fallacy claiming defective sources cannot express truth.
Example: When FOX’s Bret Baier gave Barack a tough interview on Obamacare, badly exposing a lack of answers, the left erupted in fury over FOX’s bias and Baier’s “lack of decorum” and “rudeness.”
Analysis: Even a broken clock is right twice a day. If only “perfect” people were allowed to speak, all communication would cease. This defensive fallacy is lately applied to Obama’s “enemies.” The belief that comments by such monsters as Glenn Beck or religious believers, etc must be dismissed out-of-hand is absurd. After all, if cogent criticism of liberalism is articulated, it probably won’t be by the left.
5. The “Good Reason”
The “Good Reason” is a fallacy where something unacceptable is made agreeable after substituting a “good reason” in place of the actual purpose for which the thing was done.
Example: When Obama canceled America’s promised Polish missile shield, he claimed he “...supports deploying a missile-defense system when the technology is proved to be workable.” And when the DC School Voucher Program was stopped, Barack said it was because of “funding.”
Analysis: Question: Is it possible Obama really canceled missiles to curry Russian favor at the cost of the Poles? Or, could he have blocked vouchers to please the teachers unions to the disadvantage of DC kids? The Good Reason tactic is used often by Obama. Any administration priming the policy pump by arguing “No crisis should be wasted” must be watched with an eagle’s eye.
6. Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam)
This fallacy is another Special Pleading argument, stating pitiable groups should receive unique status and ala cart rules.
Example: Those pushing Obamacare argue the poor must be put on equal footing with the wealthy in health care choice since they lack funds. Further, it’s claimed making the rich pay for them is a morally enlightened choice.
Analysis: To argue the poor deserve more wealth, simply by virtue of their penury, creates a de facto socialist state.
7. Condemnation of Hypocrisy
A fascinating error which is again Special Pleading, is the Fallacy of Condemning Hypocrisy. This error claims the worst and maybe only moral failure is claiming to stand for a rule, then violating it.
Example: Barney Frank mounts the House floor podium, harshly condemning Larry “Wide-Stance” Craig for opposing gay marriage while practicing homosexuality. Later, when criticized for allowing a gay brothel in his DC townhouse, he states, “Let me be Frank, I’ve never lied about my orientation.”
Analysis: Hypocrisy is not the only crime in the universe. Marxist Saul Alinsky’s book, Rules For Radicals, states, “Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.” While socialists may only want others to live transparently moral lives, all people are under the same expectation.
8. Appeal to Anger
This fallacy suggests anyone truly angry over a subject must be correct, or they couldn’t have become furious.
Example: Incensed opponents of Bush’s decision to invade Iraq, after WMDs were not discovered, met and shouted, “Bush Lied & People Fried!” Then, when Obama was elected, war protesters decamped despite him not keeping promises on ejecting Iraq troops, closing Guantanamo and increasing efforts in Afghanistan.
Analysis: Anger, no matter how artfully expressed, is not argument. Fury is no proof the person expressing it is correct in their position. The left believes secularized holy anger is a great purifier of debates. This is an example of the Fallacy of Emotivism, claiming emotions are a signpost for truth.
9. Purified Opinion (Appeal to Political Correctness)
A fascinating recent Western development is the rise of Political Correctness (PC). Generally, PC contains a number of formerly verboten activities and groups; having gone from rejection, to protected, and now morphed into representing unassailable truth.
Example: An obese vegetarian Marxist lesbian boasting a peace-sign prison tattoo flips-off Conservative war hero Juan McCrane as his motorcade flies past her electricity-free commune cobbled together from recycled milk jugs and egg-crates. Officer Duerite observes, arresting her for public indecency, transporting her back to jail. But boss Chief Brawnoz insists she be released without charge.
Analysis: Under the PC umbrella lie many subgroups and arguments. Since each different group, set of beliefs, or practices must be defended upon its own merits, PC is a logical fallacy (based on the Compound Question fallacy and also an inversion of the Cultural Bias fallacy. The latter is the flawed instinct to rate one’s cultural practices as universal truths).
The very phrase “Politically Correct,” first used by Chairman Mao, is an oxymoron. “Political” doctrines are prima facie open for debate; to suggest any are “correct,” or beyond dispute, is a self-abnegating contradiction. Only a one-party system can accommodate such a theory. PC’s Marxist origins, from the Frankfurt School, are well documented, as are its goal of sowing chaos and disorder into society.
10. After This, Therefore Because of This (Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc)
This fallacy says that a second event occurring after a first event must be caused by the first.
Example: Obama has pointed out how now, after his Stimulus was passed, we are finally ending the recession.
Analysis: The Stimulus is a near-billion dollar job creation bill. Despite misspent funds, no strategic plan, and a many-years spending schedule, Obamatons claim all current economic recovery is Stimulus-derived. But classical economics state such “stimulus” does more harm than good. The “Rooster Fallacy” applies here, which credits the rooster’s crow for the rising of the sun.
What happened to America’s former superbly-trained intellectual class, once patriotic and reflexively intelligent? That generation is gone, their dull replacements a zombie army of unthinking leftists simply following State command. The US is battling the debilitating effects of John Dewey’s humanistic, socialist educational vision. Dewey’s theory dismembered our once world-class, Puritan-derived pedagogy, now devolved into simple inculcation of youth in Political Correctness, instead of the classics.
We are in the fight of our lives for our future. Caught between Obama’s deranged, self-righteous socialist phantasm versus the fading glory of our freedom-boasting past, we must commit to protecting and reviving ourselves via education and political advocacy. We must purchase books on logic, philosophy, politics, history, rhetoric, law, religion, the Constitution, the Founders, and others to gain the intellectual firepower necessary to battle back and regain control of our wildly-careening country.
To paraphrase Karl Marx: America, we have nothing to lose but our chains of ignorance. We have a world to win. Patriotic People of America, Unite!
Caruba’s Crystal Ball
Predictions between now and the midterm election on November 2, 2010
By Alan Caruba
Friday, April 23, 2010
I rarely make predictions. Events can change the entire direction of a nation in the blink of an eye. It happened in my lifetime with Pearl Harbor, the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the resignation of Richard M. Nixon, and with 9/11.
As this is being written, air traffic to, from, and throughout Europe is barely recovering because of an Icelandic volcano and no one really knows how long that will continue.
So, barring any catastrophic natural events or wars, I will look into my crystal ball and narrow my predictions to the period between now and the midterm election on November 2, 2010.
Having forced a healthcare program on America that 85% of the voters did not want, the Obama White House now knows it can do the same with other major pieces of legislation intended to “transform” America into a socialist wreck comparable to European nations, one of which, Greece, is bankrupt while two others, Spain and Italy, are close to it.
The Obama administration is getting ready to put a chokehold on the nation’s financial sector by claiming it needs more regulation. It is a lie. Few sectors of the nation are more heavily regulated by the government. What is needed is more effective enforcement of existing regulations. Had that been the case there would have been no Bernie Madoff and the 2008 crisis brought about by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae could have been avoided.
The next piece of legislation to be imposed on Americans before November will be Cap-and-Trade, a law based on a “global warming” crisis that is not happening. It will impose “caps” on how much energy industries, businesses, and finally individuals can use and it will institute a “trade” mechanism in bogus carbon credits that will make a few companies, utilities, and individuals very rich while bleeding Americans by taxing energy use at every level.
The era of abundant and affordable energy will end and, with it, the economy of the nation. Companies that manufacture goods will move offshore to friendlier places such as China and India. Both were exempted in the United Nations’ Kyoto Protocol intended to force greenhouse emission caps on industrialized nations like America and Europe.
The coal industry, responsible for providing the source of half of all the electricity generated in America, will be under attack in every way at the government’s disposal. Mountain top mining will be the next target. Beyond that, all coal-fired plants will encounter a regulatory hell. There will be no offshore exploration for new sources of oil and natural gas.
When the brown-outs and black-outs begin, the nation will be five to ten years from providing new sources of electrical power whether it’s coal, natural gas, or nuclear. By then billions in government (your money) subsidies will have been wasted on “green” or “clean” or “alternative” energy in the form of wind and solar. They currently represent about one percent of all the electricity generated in America.
By the midterm elections, the unemployment rate will have likely increased. A growing, permanent class of the unemployed will be maintained with endless extensions of government support.
The southern border from Texas to California is becoming a war zone. There’s a reason the State of Arizona just passed a law allowing its citizens to carry concealed weapons and another law to empower its law enforcement authorities to rid the State of illegal aliens. Do not be surprised by the rise of southwestern state militias to deal with the constant invasion. Watch for an effort to pass an amnesty law as well.
What Americans have not caught onto as yet is that the Obama administration’s policies and actions are now fully controlled by people who did not have to go before the U.S. Senate for approval. They are Obama’s “czars” and they wield as much influence or more than constitutionally appointed cabinet secretaries.
So the real question between now and November is “How much damage can the Obama White House inflict?” and the answer is a lot.
Why Patriotic Americans Could Resort to "Extremism"
February 23, 2010
"Domestic Extremism is Top Concern"
Feb 21, 2010
By Eileen Sullivan
WASHINGTON (AP) - Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano (left) says terrorists who are U.S. citizens or live in the country legally and plot against the U.S. are just as big of a concern as international terrorists.
She says that when she started as secretary a year ago, the focus was largely on international terrorists who want to harm U.S. interests. But in the past year, more of the violent extremism that has been seen overseas is showing up in the U.S.
She says officials need to drill down and analyze the factors that make a young person, raised in the U.S., migrate to extremist beliefs and actions.
Napolitano was speaking to governors who are in Washington for their annual conference.
Okay, as a social scientist I am going to help you out, hs head, so listen up
Janet Napolitano wants to know what makes ordinary American citizens become extremists according to her own MIAC type definition (which all of our founding fathers meet, not just some).
When folks like you are in command, complete traitors who care nothing about the US, our Constitution or Bill of Rights, but want only to destroy the US and fold it in to a one world global nazi/stasi style fascist regime, US citizens who understand that you are the "enemy within" become very concerned and angry. They start thinking how can we take our country back from traitors who have hijacked it.
This is not extremism; it is the true patriotism that our country was founded upon. Extremists are folks like you who care nothing about rule of law, the US Constitution and Bill of Rights or the welfare of any US Citizens. And then you dare to call True Patriots and lovers of the Republic, the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, "extremists". It is you and your compatriots that are the extremists, but you are criminals too and commit treason daily.
You and your minions care only for yourself and your sick one world government globalist dreams which are treason because you act on them and violate the US Constitution daily. You and you minions are the true terrorists and you are doing everything you can to provoke citizens to open revolt so you have an excuse to declare martial law and attack all citizens. And you plan to bring in foreign troops under Nato and the UN to further oppress the Citizens of the USA and destroy our great Republic.
When that won't work you and your minions institute sophisticated covert operations against the American people, i.e. Gladio style self-inflicted inside-job terrorist acts and then blame them on others when you are the true terrorists. But true Patriots won't fall for your sick provocations. But unlike you and your minions we will continue to obey the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights and will vote your overlords out and you will leave office with them. And don't be surprised if you are brought to justice someday legally in a system you are doing your best now to destroy.
You and your minions are the true enemies of our Republic and should be arrested, tried and convicted for treason. You don't have to be a Rhodes Scholar to be able to understand what a traitor is according to the US Constitution and our Founding Fathers.
And you personally meet the definition perfectly. You truly care nothing for the Citizens of the United States of America and only serve off shore elite banking and corporate interests which have hijacked our Republic.
Do you think your efforts to nazify America aren't invisible to Citizens who know the Constitution and Bill of Rights? More and more Americans are discovering that all terrorism is financial as covert ops by western intel. Many now know that our own US Government routinely trafficks in narcotics, illegal weapons, and children, and was responsible for the JFK Assassination, the Murrah Building and first Trade Center "stings gone bad", and the 9/11 attacks on the twin towers and the pentagon.
And your labelling and calling the USA the "Homeland", is an attempt to diminish our great Republic merely to a label "Homeland" instead of a Republic based on Liberty and Freedom. How sick and traitorous can you and our top our officials get? Pretty sick and unAmerican. And you are a complete hypocrite and a true threat to US National Security. If you played by your own rules that you impose on US Citizens you would immediately arrest yourself and surrender to the nearest US Magistrate.
Now it has come out that you claim you will openly murder American Citizens in foreign countries with no warrant, trial or conviction, at any time you think it is needed. And of course you will keep doing here inside the USA as long as you have a "signed finding".
So now miz napo, you and your fusion center compatriot traitors have your answer. You can fool a lot of the Citizens, but there are quite a few who now understand the depth of your treason and evil. And more every day are catching on to the likes of you and your dedication to destroying the United States of America and everything our Founding Fathers and Veterans of many wars fought to preserve. You and your likes are scum and deserve to be brought to justice in a court of law.
Makow comment:
According to Obama's Identity politics, Napolitano scores high on two counts:
1. She is a lesbian.
2. She is an Illuminati Jew, like Sonia Sotomayor.
Since candidates are selected on this basis, it is perfectly kosher to "kvell" about it. Her predecessor Michael Chertoff was also an Illuminati Jew. Minority members like Napolitano act as agents of the foreign-based central banking cartel. They threaten and smear NWO opponents as "terrorists." Illuminati Jews put ordinary Jews in jeopardy because they are perceived as agents of an occult foreign power imposing world government tyranny.
Without the Consent of the Governed
Obama's Unconstitutional Health Care Treachery
By JB Williams
Friday, March 26, 2010
Obama’s Unconstitutional Health Care Treachery is just the beginning of a dark and sinister age in American history. Now that Obama & Co. have found the legislative mechanisms to subvert the Law of the Land on the federal health care grab, they intend to rush forward with the passage of “financial reform”—“energy reform”—and “Immigration reform”—none of which are any type of “reform.”
All of these measures are massive federal power and resource grabs, moving the vast resources of the United States from private sector control to public sector control. It is called socialism, by way of democratic process.
All of it will be done over the next few months without the consent of the governed, before the November election when leftists expect to lose their fifteen minutes of power in the voting booth. They plan to advance their anti-American agenda no matter how many stand opposed, and in such a manner that it can never be reversed.
As I pointed out very clearly in my most recent column, for any federal law to be “constitutional,” it must meet this minimum standard…
It must be within the limited federal powers enumerated in the Constitution
It must enjoy the support of the vast majority of “the governed,” from which all federal powers are derived
It must not infringe upon the unalienable individual rights of any citizen
It must not infringe upon the rights of any state, protected by the Tenth Amendment
It must become law by way of legal legitimate legislative process
Obama’s Health Care treachery violates all five of these standards and as a result, it cannot be allowed to stand. They are just getting started. This is about much more than health care, yet health care is where the people must put a stop to all of it.
How the rest of the world runs is of no consequence to Americans. In the United States of America, “the people” are the government, and our federal government derives every ounce of its power strictly from the “consent of the governed.” Our elected officials are not Kings - they are “servants.”
Implied Consent in the Election
Leftists claim, while they are in power of course, but not when they are not in power—that winning an election “implies full consent” from the people and authorizes anything the newly elected want to do on the basis of the election results alone.
This is false, and even leftists know it when it is not leftists in charge. In the Unites States, even the majority does not have the authority to run roughshod over the minority, even when that minority is a single individual. So the notion that any minority has the authority to run roughshod over a vast majority is blatantly false.
Unlike any other nation on earth, the United States of America is a “representative republic,” which is to say that our elected officials must at all times “represent” the “will of the people.” Not the will of any minority, but the will of all Americans, defined by a “majority” of legal U.S. citizens.
Further, our representative republic is limited in scope and power, to the enumerated powers granted the federal government via the U.S. Constitution. Then federal powers are even further limited by certain “unalienable individual rights”—further defined in the Bill of Rights.
As noted above in the five minimum standards, our federal government derives all of its power from the consent of the governed—all elected officials have taken an oath to uphold and defend these principles as their first obligation of office—and they are further prohibited from acting at odds with “the governed” by way of “unalienable individual rights” and extended specific limits found in the Bill of Rights.
Winning an election in no way releases any elected official from their oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, or represent the will of the governed. Leftists scream this loudly when they are not in power.
Thomas Jefferson explained why we do NOT have a “democracy”—“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
Karl Marx explained why this is a problem—“Democracy is the road to socialism…”
Obama & Co. answer only to their powerbase, which is found in the Congressional Progressive Caucus and Congressional Black Caucus, both of which are taking orders from their parent organization, the Democratic Socialists of America.
Today’s Democratic Party is not “like socialism,” it is “democratic socialism.”
As even USA Today was forced to report, candidate Obama campaigned on his health care overhaul with a price tag of only $50-$65 billion. President Obama signed a health care seizure bill estimated to cost more than ten times that amount, at $938 billion.
Politicians lie on the campaign trail. They promise what they think the people will buy, and then act differently once elected. This is why all politicians are limited in power to the “consent of the governed.” Winning an election does not make one King in America.
A Velvet Revolution
We the people—town hall—912 and Tea Party folks all over the country are involved in a “velvet revolution” in defense of individual freedom and liberty. A peaceful resistance against the rushing tide of anti-American Marxist principles, values and policies oozing out of the White House, Pelosi and Reid.
The left is working around the clock to paint every resister a “domestic terrorist” despite the well-known fact that it is demonstrators on the left, ACORN, SEIU and Teamsters who have a long history of violence.
It’s the leftist green movement and even the leftist anti-war movement which has again and again resorted to violence to get their message across.
Last September, more than a million American patriots showed up for the 9/12 March in DC and there was not one arrest, not one broken window, not one reported act of violence, no burning streets, and, in fact, not even any garbage left behind.
In contrast, when Obama’s inaugural event ended, it looked like Woodstock had just left town, with piles of garbage in the wake. When a handful of Berkeley students heard that their college “entitlements” might be reduced in this tough economy, the streets of Berkeley burned once again.
To be certain, if the left keeps pushing for a fight with the pro-freedom American right, one day they are likely to get a fight for which they are ill prepared. But few Americans seek violent revolution, preferring the constitutional tools put in place to make protecting freedom and liberty a peaceful process in this country.
Without Consent
There are two sides to every fight and despite modern leftist psychobabble on the matter—there is a significant difference between the attacker and the victim.
Whether foreign enemy or domestic enemy - when people attack the Unites States of America at the core, at its foundation - they are the aggressor - the agitator - the provocateur. It short, they caused the fight to happen and they are responsible for whatever consequences follow…
They cannot pick a fight and then legitimately accuse their victims of “violence” in response. Every individual has an unalienable right to self-defense, and every American has both a right and a responsibility to the defense of the nation and all that it stands for…
What Obama & Co. are doing today, they are doing without the consent of the people, which is to say, beyond the scope of power given them in the U.S. Constitution. That is a silent means of picking a fight with the pro-liberty right.
What we see today is that Americans are VERY tolerant people. They tolerate a whole laundry list of anti-American nonsense that they cannot really afford to tolerate.
But because they are a peaceful and optimistic bunch by nature, they persist in the search for peaceful solutions and resist the urge to resort to violence.
They can be provoked to violence, however… and I don’t recommend it.
Calling them names won’t do it - the left has been calling them names for decades now. Disagreeing with their views won’t do it either.
But keep attacking their freedom and liberty in a heavy-handed manner, shoving them into an economic corner and making them believe that there is no peaceful solution to the daily assault on everything they believe in, and you just might get them fighting mad sooner or later.
If the people of this country become convinced that their elected “servants” are going to destroy their nation and their children’s future no matter how many citizens stand opposed peacefully, they very well could resort to non-peaceful action to save the things they care about most.
If any elected politician or political party thinks that they are more important than the US citizen they are sworn to serve, they are sadly mistaken.
If you won’t listen to the American majority, and can’t be reigned in or replaced by peaceful processes, then what comes next won’t make anyone happy.
This isn’t Europe or North Korea. This is the Unites States of America and this country belongs to the governed, not the elected servant.
Elected officials come and go.
Thomas Jefferson said it best—“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”
America is the beacon of freedom and liberty all over the world. If America is not free, no place on earth will be free. So tread carefully in Washington DC.
The American people will not live in fear of their government for long. It’s not in our DNA.
Am I “inciting” violence?”—I work around the clock to promote peaceful solutions.
But I have no hesitation in predicting violence. Violence is what happens when all peaceful solutions for conflict have been eliminated.
No matter one’s political ideology, if your agenda does not enjoy the consent of the majority of citizens, don’t do it. You are picking a fight you don’t want…

Dates that Destroyed America
By Chuck Baldwin
March 24, 2010
Passage of the so-called "health care reform" bill in the House of Representatives this past Sunday, March 21 (I won't even address the inferred unconstitutionality of Congress doing business on the Lord's Day. See Article. I. Section. 7. Paragraph. 2.) drove yet another stake into the heart of America. For all intents and purposes, it is the health of the United States that is in dire need of healing. In fact, the US has been on extended life-support for decades. With its condition being rendered critical, and absent major surgery, its days are numbered. The passage of this bill only serves to further weaken an already frail Constitution. In fact, this one may prove to be the fatal blow. Lady Liberty may never recover.
The decision by Congress to socialize medicine in the US ranks among the most draconian, most egregious, most horrific actions ever taken by the central government in Washington, D.C. This bill rocks the principles of liberty and constitutional government to the core. It changes fundamental foundations; it repudiates historical principle. Oh! The same flag may fly on our flagpoles, the same monuments may grace our landscape, and the same National Anthem may be sung during our public ceremonies, but it is not the same America. The Congress of the United States has now officially turned America into a socialist state.
On March 23, 2010, President Barack Obama signed the health care bill into law, and as such, this date--along with March 21--joins a list of dates that have each inflicted unconstitutional, socialistic, and sometimes even tyrannical action against the States United and have, therefore, contributed to the destruction of a free America.
April 9, 1865
This is the date when General Robert E. Lee surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia to U.S. Grant at Appomattox Court House, Virginia. Regardless of where one comes down on the subject of the Civil War, one fact is undeniable: Abraham Lincoln forever destroyed the Jeffersonian model of federalism in America. Ever since, virtually every battle that free men have fought for the principles of limited government, State sovereignty, etc., have all stemmed directly from Lincoln's usurpation of power, which resulted in the subjugation and forced union of what used to be "Free and Independent States" (the Declaration of Independence). In fact, the philosophical battles being waged today regarding the recent health care debacle (and every other encroachment upon liberty and State power by the central government) have their roots in Lincoln's tyranny.
July 9, 1868
This is the date when the 14th Amendment was ratified. This amendment codified into law what Lincoln had forced at bayonet point. Until then, people were only deemed citizens of their respective states. The Constitution nowhere referred to people as "US citizens." It only recognized "the Citizens of each State." Notice also that citizenship was only recognized among the "several States," not among people living in non-State territories. Until the 14th Amendment, people were "Citizens of each State." (Article. IV. Section. 2. Paragraph. 1.) The 14th Amendment created a whole new class of persons: "citizens of the United States." This false notion of "one nation" overturned the Jeffersonian principle that our nation was a confederated republic, a voluntary union of states.
February 3, 1913
This is the date when the 16th Amendment was ratified, and the direct income tax and IRS were instituted. This was a flagrant repudiation of freedom principles! What began as a temporary measure to support the War of Northern Aggression became a permanent income revenue stream for an unconstitutional--and ever-growing--central government.
April 8, 1913
This is the date when the 17th Amendment was ratified. This amendment overturned the power of the State legislatures to elect their own senators and replaced it with a direct, popular vote. This was another serious blow against State sovereignty. The framers of the Constitution desired that the influence and power in Washington, D.C., be kept as close to the people and states as possible. For example, the number of representatives in the House of Representatives was to be decided by a limited number of voters. In the original Constitution, the ratio of "people of the several States" deciding their House member could not exceed "one for every thirty thousand." (Article. I. Section. 2. Paragraph. 3.) And when it came to the US Senate, the framers also recognized the authority of each State legislature to select its own senators, thereby keeping power and influence from aggregating in Washington, D.C. The 17th Amendment seriously damaged the influence and power of the states by forcing them to elect their US senators by popular vote. The bigger the State, the less influence the State legislature has in determining its US senator. Senators who answered to State legislators, each answering to a limited number of voters, are much more accountable to the "citizens of the several States" than those who are elected by a large number (many times numbering into the millions) of people. For all intents and purposes (at least in the larger states), US Senators are more like "mini-Presidents" than they are representatives of sovereign states.
December 23, 1913
This is the date when the Federal Reserve Act was passed. This Act placed oversight of America's financial matters into the hands of a cabal of private international bankers, who have completely destroyed the constitutional principles of sound money and (for the most part) free enterprise. No longer would the marketplace (private consumption, thrift, growth, etc.) be the determinant of the US economy (which is what freedom is all about), but now a private, unaccountable international banking cartel would have total power and authority to micromanage (for their own private, parochial purposes) America's financial sector. Virtually every recession, depression, and downturn (including the one we are now experiencing) has been the direct result of the Fed's manipulation (again, for its own purposes and with Washington's cooperation) of the market.
June 26, 1945
This is the date when the United Nations Charter was signed and America joined the push for global government. Ever since, US forces have spilled untold amounts of blood and sacrificed thousands of lives promoting the UN's agenda. Since the end of World War II, in virtually every war in which US military forces have been engaged, it has been at the behest of the UN. And it is also no accident that America has not fought a constitutionally declared war since we entered the UN--and neither have we won one.
Furthermore, it is America's involvement in the United Nations that has spearheaded this draconian push for a New World Order that George H. W. Bush, Henry Kissinger, Tony Blair, Walter Cronkite, et al., have talked so much about. The United Nations is an evil institution that has completely co-opted our US State Department and much of our Defense Department. It is an anti-American institution that works aggressively and constantly against the interests and principles of the United States. But it is an institution that is ensconced in the American political infrastructure. Like a cancer, the UN eats away at our liberties and values, and both major political parties in Washington, D.C., are culpable in allowing it to exert so much influence upon our country.
June 25, 1962, and June 17, 1963
These are the dates when the US Supreme Court removed prayer ('62) and Bible reading ('63) from public schools. At this point, these two Supreme Court decisions were the most serious affront to the First Amendment in US history. Think of it: from before a union of states was established in 1787, children had been free to pray and read the Scriptures in school. We're talking about a period of more than 300 years! Of course, the various State legislatures--and myriad city and county governmental meetings--still open their sessions in prayer, as do the US House and Senate, and even the US Supreme Court. But this same liberty is denied the children of America. There is no question that America has not recovered from these two horrific Supreme Court decisions. In effect, the federal government has expelled God not only from our public schools, but also from our public life! And America has not been the same since.
October 22, 1968
This is the date when President Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the Gun Control Act of 1968. Before this Act, the 2nd Amendment was alive and well in the United States. The Gun Control Act of 1968 turned a right into a privilege and forever forced the American people to bow to the altar of government when seeking to arm themselves. Interestingly enough, this Gun Control Act mirrored Nazi Germany's Gun Control Act of 1938. In fact, the Gun Control Act of 1968 is almost a verbatim copy of Hitler's Gun Control Act of 1938.
Our Founding Fathers could never have imagined that governments within the "several States" would ever be allowed to deny the people's right to keep and bear arms. In fact, it was the attempted confiscation of the firearms stored at Concord, Massachusetts, that triggered the War of Independence in 1775. That the people of Massachusetts would be denied their right to keep and bear arms, as they are today, could not have been foreseen--and would never have been tolerated--by America's founders.
Yet, most of the hundreds of draconian gun control laws that have been inflicted upon the American people have all come about as a result of the Gun Control Act of 1968.
January 22, 1973
This is the date when the US Supreme Court issued the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, which, in effect, legalized abortion-on-demand. These two decisions expunged the Jeffersonian principle that all men are endowed by their Creator with the unalienable right to life (Declaration). Since then, more than 50 million unborn babies have been legally murdered in their mothers' wombs. Abortion is, without a doubt, America's national holocaust. It has opened the door to a host of Big Government programs and policies that have resulted in the wanton destruction of human life both in the United States and overseas. It has created an entire industry whose express purpose for existing is the destruction of human life. It has desensitized the conscience and soul of America. Furthermore, it has forced men of decency and good will to finance--with their tax dollars--the unconscionable act of killing unborn children.
And once again, another Jeffersonian principle was eviscerated. He said, "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." The Roe and Doe decisions violate this principle in the most egregious manner possible.
October 26, 2001
This is the date when President George W. Bush signed the USA Patriot Act, and the federal government's war against individual liberty began in earnest. Most of the unconstitutional eavesdropping, snooping, wiretapping, phone call intercepting, email reading, prying, financial records tracking, travel watching, ad infinitum, ad nauseam, by federal police agencies began with the implementation of the Patriot Act. The Department of Homeland Security and the "war on terrorism," which have resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people worldwide, and the usurpation of federal power at home, have all come about as an outgrowth of the Patriot Act. The USA Patriot Act has forever shifted the focus of American law and jurisprudence against constitutional government and individual liberty, toward a police-state mentality. The Patriot Act is even turning our local and State law enforcement agencies into military-style "Jackboots," where police officers see themselves not necessarily as guardians of the citizenry, but, as often as not, as adversaries, where citizens are deemed to be the "enemy."
October 17, 2006, and October 9, 2009
These are the dates when President G.W. Bush signed and re-signed the Military Commissions Act. This Act is the outgrowth of the Patriot Act but has, in effect, terminated the fundamental protections of individual liberty, which are found in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. For all intents and purposes, the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act eviscerated the 4th and 5th Amendments, and do serious injury to several others. The Military Commissions Act also expunges the constitutional right of Habeas Corpus.
March 21 and 23, 2010
These are the dates when Congress passed and President Obama signed into law the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," the so-called "health care reform" bill that we spoke about at the beginning of this column. While Social Security and various Welfare programs have toyed with socialism in the United States, this bill is the largest and most expansive endorsement of socialism in American history. This bill socializes some 18% of the US economy by socializing the health care industry in America. The fallout and ramifications of this bill are going to be horrific.
When future historians review the demise of our once-great republic, they will observe that the above dates, including March 21 and March 23, 2010, were the dates that destroyed America. The American people have been far too tolerant for far too long.
#People concerned about the future of freedom and prosperity in America should line up quickly and demand that their respective State legislatures and governors resist this new health care bill, even to the point of refusing to implement it in their states. More than 30 states are threatening to take the health care bill to court. But states must do more than that. They must follow the lead of the State of Virginia and pass legislation refusing to comply with it. Yes, I'm saying it: it is time for another State rebellion! If states do not stand up and draw their lines in the sand now, it will be forever too late.
The U.S. Census: “Rule of Law” or “Rule of Men”?
The federal government demands answers to questions which the Constitution does not permit them to ask, in order to administer programs which the Constitution does not authorize them to administer; and then they threaten you with a $5,000 fine
By Publius Huldah
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
1. The American People have forgotten the most important Principle of our Founding: The distinction between the “Rule of Law” and the “Rule of Men”. This distinction was illustrated in a discussion about the census questions between Megyn Kelly (Fox News) and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R. Minnesota) on June 25, 2009. Ms. Kelly illustrated the Rule of Men; Rep. Bachmann, the Rule of Law.
2. What is the “Rule of Law”? The Rule of Law prevails when the civil authorities act in accordance with a body of Law which is established by a higher authority. The Preamble to The Constitution of the United States says it is ordained and established by WE THE PEOPLE of the United States. Thus, WE THE PEOPLE are the highest political authority in our Land. It is OUR Constitution - WE ordained it - WE created the federal government; and the federal government has only those powers WE granted to it in The Constitution.
Alexander Hamilton recognized in Federalist No. 33 (To 6th), that the federal government is our “creature”, and WE are to judge the acts of the federal government using the “standard [we] have formed” - the Constitution. When the federal government departs from this standard, WE are to “take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify”.
Noah Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language (1828), says under the entry for “Constitution”:
...In free states, the constitution is paramount to the statutes or laws enacted by the legislature, limiting and controlling its power; and in the United States, the legislature is created, and its powers designated, by the constitution.
Do you see? The Constitution is superior to Congress, and the Constitution limits and controls Congress’ powers! In Federalist No. 33 (last two paras), Hamilton said that acts of the federal government “which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers” are “merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such”; that only “laws made pursuant to the Constitution” will become part of the Supreme law of the land; and that laws which are not made pursuant to the Constitution “would not be the supreme law of the land, but a usurpation of power not granted by the Constitution.”
Our Founders were emphatic that ours is a Constitution of enumerated powers only. In Federalist No. 45 (9th para), James Madison said:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign trade; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people‚Ä.[italics added]
So! The Rule of Law prevails when the people in the federal government obey The Constitution. When they act outside the enumerated powers, they abandon the Rule of Law - the Constitution - and embrace the Rule of Men. And they are “the Men”.
3. Now let us see what the Constitution says about the census. Art. I, Sec. 2, clause 3, provides that an enumeration of the people shall be taken every 10 years for the purposes of apportionment of (1) direct Taxes and (2) Representatives to the House.
In Federalist No. 54, last para, Madison explains the “salutary effect” of having a “common measure” [the number of people] for determining both the number of Representatives for each State and the amount of the direct taxes each State is to pay: As the accuracy of the census depends on the cooperation of the States, the “common measure” discourages States from overstating or understating the numbers of their population.
The Constitution is clear, and Madison confirms it: The purpose of the census is (1) to determine the number of Representatives for each State, and (2) to determine each State’s share of the direct taxes. To these ends, we gave the federal government authority to ask us only the number of persons living in our homes (and whether any of us are Indians).
4. Now let us look at some of the questions on the 2010 census (short form) at The questions are asked of every person who lives in your home:
In #3, they demand to know whether you own your home subject to a mortgage, whether you own it free & clear, whether you pay rent, or whether you live rent free. The justification they give for asking is that the information is “used to administer housing programs and to inform planning decisions”.
In #s 4 & 5, they demand to know everybody’s full name and telephone number!
In #6, they demand to know everybody’s sex. They say they ask because “many federal programs must differentiate between males and females for funding, implementing and evaluating their programs…”
In #7, they demand to know your age and date of birth. They say they “...need data about age to interpret most social and economic characteristics, such as forecasting the number of people eligible for social security or Medicare benefits. The data are widely used in planning and evaluating government programs and policies that provide funds or services for children, working age adults, women of childbearing age, or the older population”.
In #8, they demand to know whether anyone in your home is of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin.
In #9, they demand to know the race of everyone in your household. The reasons they give for asking include, “to monitor racial disparities in characteristics such as health and education and to plan and obtain funds for public services.”
Housing programs? Planning decisions? Federal programs which differentiate between males & females? Social Security? Medicare? Other government programs for children, adults, childbearing women, or old people? What’s this? Can anybody point to where these are among the enumerated powers of Congress? No! These are powers which Congress has usurped.
5. Megyn Kelly and Michelle Bachmann both expressed disapproval of the intrusiveness of questions on the census [they may have been looking at the long form], and of ACORN’s involvement in gathering the information. But Ms. Kelly brought up that a spokesperson for the Census Bureau said that “the US code says anyone over eighteen who refuses to answer any of the questions on the census can be fined up to $5000 dollars”. Ms. Kelly asked Rep. Bachmann: how do you respond to those who say, “...The law is what the law is and you as a lawmaker should know better than to break it.”
Rep. Bachmann answered:
...I’m saying for myself and for my family, our comfort level is we will comply with the Constitution. Article one section two: we will give the number of the people in our home. And that’s where we’re going to draw the line.
Ms. Kelly then said:
But Congresswoman, and let me just press you on this because that’s what the Constitution says, OK, you’ve got to give the number of people in your home. But as you know in this country we don’t live just by the Constitution; we have laws that people like you passed - and the US code - and I have it - says and the Census Bureau has got a point - it says that anybody whoever over 18 years of age who refuses or wilfully neglects to answer any of the questions on the schedule submitted to him in connection with the census shall be fined not more than $5000 dollars. So that’s a law on the books. So why don’t you try to change the law as opposed to defying the one that already out there?
So! Do you see? The federal government demands answers to questions which the Constitution does not permit them to ask, in order to administer programs which the Constitution does not authorize them to administer; and then they threaten you with a $5,000. fine if you don’t submit to their unconstitutional acts! That is the Rule of Men.
Under the Rule of Law - The Constitution - they may ask no more than the number of persons who reside in your home. That is all WE THE PEOPLE authorized them to ask at Art. I, Sec. 2, clause 3; hence, that is all that they may lawfully ask. When they exceed the powers granted to them in The Constitution, they usurp powers and act lawlessly.
Alexander Hamilton understood that the People [that’s us] are the “natural guardians of the Constitution”, and he expected us to be “enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority” (The Federalist No. 16, 10th para).
Hamilton also said that acts of the federal government which are not pursuant to its constitutional powers are “merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such.” (The Federalist No. 33, 7th para). This is what it means to stand up for the Rule of Law! Shall we defend our Constitution? Many of us are already sworn by Oath to do so: Art. VI., clause 3. Or will we cooperate with the lawless and bullying federal government in subverting it?
Why Joe the Plumber should not Accept a Compromised McCain Bill
By Attorney Jonathan Emord
March 8, 2010
It is a common political strategy in Washington, when a member’s pet bill is in trouble, to signal an interest in accepting “reasonable” changes. Aware that John McCain’s Dietary Supplement Safety Act will not move without significant change, he now aims to save the awful measure, quell the loud opposition. and invite greater support by suggesting that he would entertain a lot of changes. The bill, however, is a disaster from beginning to end. The harm it is advertised to address (the sale of supplements as steroids) is already illegal. In short, there is no room for compromise on this bad bill. It needs to go to the dust bin.
McCain’s bill has hit a wall of opposition, a wall constructed by significant protests from consumers, physicians, and industry, precisely because it invites FDA to remove supplements from the market and it regulates down to the grandmother who distributes supplements from her basement. The bill is the political equivalent of a loathsome, contagious disease. Those who sign onto it will likely suffer the same rebuke as Senator McCain. Consequently, weeks after its introduction, it still has only one co-sponsor, the original one, the retiring liberal Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan.
While Senator McCain claims the bill is designed to protect consumer interests, his claim is belied not only by the bill’s terms but also by the fact that he introduced it on behalf of lobbyists for the major national baseball leagues, themselves representatives of corporate interests. As Congressman Ron Paul has astutely pointed out, the bill favors the pharmaceutical industry and threatens consumer access to supplements.
Senator McCain’s bill was advertised as a means to stop steroids from being sold as supplements, but instead the bill gives FDA broad new powers to ban all manner of supplements other than those sold as steroids, to require new registration and reporting by all who sell supplements, and to cause simple distributors of supplements to be open to FDA inspections, even civil penalties and fines, for the first time. In short, McCain’s bill greatly expands FDA discretionary power to remove a wide variety of safely consumed dietary supplements from the market and to cause presently law abiding citizens to become law violators for failing to file registration forms and keep records (neither of which are remotely needed to protect the public from supplements sold as steroids).
The bill shocks the conscience because it comes from a man who has said many times he is not a friend to government regulation. The bill also shocks the conscience because while it gives FDA extensive new powers, it includes not a single provision to protect Americans from FDA abuse of its powers. The measure should be renamed the “In FDA We Trust” bill because it trusts one of the most corrupt and abusive agencies of the government to expand its authority over law abiding citizens. It also suggests that Senator McCain is deaf and dumb to the congressional record. The bill follows years of Congressional testimony revealing abuses of power by the FDA (from the knowing approval of unsafe drugs, like Vioxx, to the exercise of undue influence over agency decision-making by representatives of drug companies). The bill follows the U.S. Senate’s findings that FDA harbors an unscientific bias against dietary supplements (recorded in the Senate’s legislative history for the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act). The bill follows proof that FDA unlawfully refused to implement provisions of the DSHEA to which Commissioner Kessler objected. The bill follows proof that FDA openly refused to abide by numerous federal court orders against its actions. The bill follows proof that FDA censors truthful supplement claims. The bill follows proof that FDA routinely places people with conflicts of interest on drug review panels to ensure that drugs would be approved despite serious safety questions.
The bill invites the FDA to ban supplements sold before October 15, 1994, unless the FDA Commissioner in her sole discretion deems them safe and posts them on a list of “Accepted Dietary Ingredients.” Hundreds of dietary supplements now lawfully sold and safely consumed in the market could suddenly be deemed unlawful to sell. The FDA Commissioner, no friend of supplements, could pick and choose with no defined standard what she wished to have in the market and what she wished to remove.
Moreover, the bill forces for the first time every distributor, including every multi-level marketer in the United States, to register with the agency, identify all products, list all ingredients in those products, and retain records for FDA inspection. In his heart of hearts McCain does love regulation. He would take the Avon lady, who sells supplements, and regulate her with the same tenacity as the largest dietary supplement company. He would permit FDA investigators to visit her home to inspect her supplements and verify her recordkeeping was in order. He would permit FDA to charge her with civil law violations and fine her if her records were not in order or if she failed to file registration papers. McCain must be entirely comfortable with these intrusions because his bill would make them the law.
In an earlier article, I lampooned the bill with a Joe the Plumber example. I said Joe probably has to sell supplements in this bad economy, was promised by Candidate McCain regulatory relief, but would find himself now the victim of extensive new federal regulation visited upon him at the request of John McCain. Joe, you’ve been betrayed (again).
Some on the Hill and in the trade associations are now playing the field for McCain, telling the supplement industry that a compromise bill can be crafted. This is to lessen the ire against the bill. The problem with accepting that compromise approach is that it increases the likelihood that some part of this bad bill will make it into the law. If a version of McCain’s bill ever passes the Senate and another version of it the House, it would be negotiated in conference where supplement haters like Henry Waxman would do FDA’s bidding and add into the bill loose language to permit a gross expansion in FDA regulatory power.
Going part way down the slope gets you to the bottom faster than if you refuse to get on the slope at all. Remember the only legitimate thing the bill could do (render unlawful the sale of supplements as steroids) is already the law. In short, there is no sound reason for enacting any part of the McCain bill. There is no such thing as irrelevant legislation. If you give FDA a new law, FDA will interpret it to provide the agency with new powers. Better to legislate only when essential, at least that is the political lesson of our Founding Fathers and one learned by those who are sincere in their respect for limited government. John McCain, while claiming to fit within this tradition, does not. He has flunked the limited government test. He is a friend of energetic government. He trusts more in regulation and in the discretion of regulators than he does in the American people.
The good news is that Congressman J.D. Hayworth is giving McCain a run for the money. He is running against McCain for the Republican Party nomination for the U.S. Senate. I urge those who read this column in Arizona to jump on the Hayworth band wagon. Hayworth would never support an awful bill like this. You will not find Hayworth trusting in government regulators more than he does in the liberty of the American people. Its time for McCain to try a new line of work that does not involve the privilege of exercising power to restrict other people’s freedoms.
#Additional good news comes in the form of action by the Alliance for Natural Health-USA (WWW.ANH-USA.ORG). I am deeply impressed by that group’s national campaign against the bill (a campaign that in its first call to action caused 46,000 people to email their U.S. Senators against the bill). ANH-USA is organizing a rally against the bill in McCain’s home state. If you want to help make a big difference against this bill, I urge you to send an email against the bill to your U.S. Senators through the ANH web site. If you can, send a financial contribution to that group (also through its web site) to help wage this battle. The bill has no momentum. Its time to send a resounding message that it must be withdrawn, not revised.