The Church of Kharma Futures

The Rev's views on politics, events,faith, and the world. All content copyright Church of Kharma Future 2007-2015 All rights Reserved

Archive for the ‘unconstitutional’ Category

Paris Burns: DC Remains Too Cool

Posted by revkharma on November 16, 2015

Paris is burning, and DC is chilly. We have seen a well planned, well executed and devastating attack in Paris. Islamic fanatics have killed scores and it appears to be a direct result of the plans and achievements of the leaders of the West.
“Refugees” from Syria, and radicalized Europeans have struck in the heart of France with bloody results.
In the US, reaction is mixed. Our president has resolutely refused to change course, with his administration standing firm in their plans to import tens of thousands of those very same refugees.
After years of minimizing the role of ISIS, and refusing to even say ‘Islamic Terror’ President Obama on Friday, the day of the massacre, was quoted once more with noted ignorance, claiming that ISIS was now contained, and not a growing threat. At the gathering of world leaders, the American president was noticeably late for the formal gathering for a memorial moment of silence to honor the dead from the ISIS assault.
Even today, when pressed by media, President Obama has steadfastly refused to respond forcefully, with this the most telling exchange:

“CNN’s Jim Accosta said…’I guess the question is, and if you’ll forgive the language is”Why can’t we take out these bastards”?
Obama scoffed at the question: “What I’m not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of ‘American Leadership’ or America winning’ He said firmly”

Via Breitbart

 

This, then is pretty decisive and clear. This man, the president of the USA is NOT interested in victory by America.

Immediately following the attacks, Obama announced that he was releasing five Yemeni prisoners from Guantanamo, including the man who was Osama Bin Laden’s body guard. He appears bent on  showing he cares more for Islamists than Americans.
Why is this? What can possibly be the answer?

Our president has sometimes been portrayed as being an islamist. He has denounced those who have questioned his Christian credentials. Recall the scrambling to rephrase and reframe this famous quote in an interview with George Stephanopolis, where he responded to a question with an answer about ” My Muslim Faith” ?  If in fact, Obama had been raised as a Muslim by his father, then later in life he became Christian, then according to the Sharia law, he is an apostate. If this were the case, he would be subject to death by true believers.  As it happens, there have not been calls for his death for this crime.  Yet he continues to show more concern for defaming Islam than defending Christianity.
Answers range from his leftist upbringing, racialist philosophy, to Al Taqiyya.
But, in truth, the answers are irrelevant. The truth, the facts, are plain enough. As long as he is in command, Obama will not lead, will not permit America to win. He has stated plainly such. He must be thwarted, his successor must be someone capable of reversing his damage.
Keep the Faith!
The Rev

Advertisements

Posted in Big Government, Border, Christianity, Civil liberties, corruption, Culture of Death, deception, fascism, Freedom, Global government, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, International, ISIS, Islam, Obama, Obama Administration, Presidential race, religion of peace, Terrorism, transnational law, unconstitutional | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

There is hope for the future

Posted by brotherkharma on November 3, 2010

Once again I will pop out of nowhere, fire off a post and return to normal life.  This time I am cheating a bit.  The following is an essay written by a student in a public high school.  There is hope that despite all efforts to indoctrinate, some students can see the truth.  Let’s call the author…….nephewkharma?  It is long but it was an assignment and I think you too will be a bit more hopeful for the next generation.

Why Deregulation Works Better Than Regulation

In his book, Arguing with Idiots, Glenn Beck writes as if he is having an ongoing conversation with a friend whom he has dubbed an idiot. One particularly amusing passage comes in his chapter about Capitalism where the idiot makes the argument, “We need a new kind of capitalism, one where the government has more control.” To which Beck responds, “Thanks for buying the book, Stalin.” While the exchange was intended for humor, it also makes a point. With that statement Beck says that there is no room for government in private enterprises and business, and he is right. While government regulation is generally harmful to the economy, deregulation provides for a much more profitable economy. There are several proofs of this. One is how regulation is harmful to the economy by restricting a company’s ability to adapt and placing hardships and financial burdens on the working class. Another proof is that deregulation brings more profits and companies to the market and is beneficial to consumers and the working class. Finally, there is proof in the fact that while the New Deal and other government programs were failures, private sectors achieved far greater success. When the facts are examined, it is hard to believe that anyone still believes in regulation of business.

The first fact to be examined is how regulation restricts a company’s ability to adapt to a changing market and to consumer needs. The airline industry is a prime example of regulatory harm to companies. This is because it has experienced complete regulation until 1978, when it was partially deregulated (Hamrin 245). While it was regulated the government controlled prices. The result was that airports couldn’t adjust prices, and the prices set by the government were too low to cover some basic maintenance costs. They had to close a few gates, which limited the number of carriers they could bring in, which cut their profits even more (“Airline Deregulation: The Concise”). Conditions would have been better if the government had allowed them to set their own prices, as will be shown. Yet the prices would not have been too high, because competition in the market would have driven them down. They would have started off initially higher than government prices, just so that the airports could cover the maintenance cost of the gates. After they had a steady income, they would have been able to open more gates. The additional gates would bring in additional carriers, bringing in more profit. Competition in the market would make them lower their prices so that consumers would choose them over their competitors, and the increased profit from the additional gates would allow them to. As previously stated, the airline industry is a great example of how regulation hurts businesses, but it is not the only example. Another prime example would be the United States housing market and the crash.

Many people say the collapse of the housing market was caused by a deregulated, free-market economy, but when the facts are examined the opposite holds true. The United States housing market was far from deregulated. The government wanted to increase home ownership to paint a better picture of the economy and the American dream, and so they began to regulate and set interest rates. (“Price”) According to economist Walter E. Williams in his paper, “The House that Uncle Sam Built,” interest rates provide potential investors with clues and signals as to whether or not to invest. When the investors saw the low-interest rates, they believed this was because the public was becoming more interested in the housing market, when in reality the rates were artificial and manufactured by the government to entice people to buy homes. Investors then made mistakes in investing in the market when public interest was not as high as they were led to believe, and these investing mistakes led to the housing crash. So it is quite apparent that if the government had left the housing market alone and allowed the economy to run the way it should, the housing market crash, which many cite as the cause of the global recession, would never have happened. Interest rates would have been based properly off of market factors, and that many investors would not have made bad investments in the market at the same time, which is what caused the crash. Rather, any poor investments would have been spread out, not doing as much damage to the market. Regulation hurts business in more ways than this, however. It also causes numerous other problems.

Among these problems is a decreased competitiveness between companies, which is essential to operating a business in a free-market economy. Once again, the airline industry is a prime example. As previously stated, airlines were very heavily regulated up to 1978. When deregulation finally came, some of the larger companies that had existed under regulations were hurt by their lack of competitiveness. Up until this point, these companies were not used to having to handle competition. The government had regulated almost everything in the industry, including prices, flight times, and carriers providing which flights. When competition came, large companies such as Braniff had no idea how to change their business plans to be competitive with smaller, more localized airlines. They had plans built around the fact that they flew at these prices at these times, and they were the only ones who flew at those times. So when smaller companies came and offered flights to the same destinations at the same time, but with lower prices or quicker routes or both, Braniff did not know how to properly adapt. Reliance upon government regulation caused Braniff and several other companies to collapse when smaller carriers entered the market (“Airline Deregulation: Lessons”). Without government regulation, these companies would not have become dependent on the government for support. They would have been able to properly adjust their plan and cost structure to compete with the smaller companies. With previous regulation taking away all competition, they had no idea how to do this, nor would they have been able to because of their business structure and cost structure. Because of this, their companies collapsed, costing many American jobs. Regulation does more than just decrease a company’s competitiveness; it also places hardships on many people.

The group most affected by government regulation is the consumers. For this example, the automobile industry is a good reference. From 1967 up to 2001, there were government regulations in the industry that mandated certain safety features, among other things. In that period of time, average cost of a vehicle rose about twenty-two thousand dollars. The mandated safety equipment was expensive, and the only way companies could compensate for costs was to raise the price of their vehicles. Now if the government hadn’t stepped in, the prices would not have gone up that high. Some argue that prices would still have risen, and although that may be true, we’ll never know for sure, but it is true that government regulations and requirements contributed to about a third of vehicle cost increases. (“Price”) So while the regulations maybe made cars a bit safer, it also placed an economic burden on the consumers. If the market had been deregulated, but people wanted safer cars, they could have opted to pay the higher price for the more expensive car. Instead, the government mandated the safety regulations and therefore indirectly took that choice away from the public. The automakers had to raise the prices, placing a burden on the consumers. Another example of how regulation places a burden on the working class can be found in the electricity industry in Texas. In 2001, the electric industry was regulated in Texas. The government deregulated the industries, and prices plunged. The average price of an electric plan in 2009 after deregulation was substantially lower than the average in 2001. Across the board in all companies and in all companies’ plans, every single rate for every plan went down (“The Success”). Obviously, the deregulation helped the market immensely. It is important to deregulate fully, as the Texas electric industry was. If an industry is only partially deregulated, there will only be partial success. Full deregulation has many benefits, as does even partial deregulation, though there is less success there.

One of these main benefits is a generally more profitable business environment, characterized by higher profits and more companies. For example, railroads were partially deregulated in 1981. As previously stated, partial deregulation will bring only partial success, but even this partial success brought a profit increase of forty-four per cent by 1984 (Hamrin, 246). After the airline industry was partially deregulated, fares have fallen twenty-five per cent. Economists say that if they continued under regulation, the fares would have fallen only three per cent. (“Airline Deregulation: Lessons”) Also, while regulated, no interstate carriers were granted permission to open, but after deregulation twenty-six new carriers opened from 1978-1988 (Hamrin, 246). The change in the railroad industry was drastic. A profit increase of forty-four per cent in only three years, and that is only under partial deregulation. Based on those numbers, the profits under full deregulation would be incredibly high. Some argue that full deregulation would mean an increase in control of the top companies, and a growth in “Big Business” but the airline industry proves quite the opposite. Rather than smaller companies being forced into bankruptcy, twenty-six new carriers were formed. Now it is apparent that deregulation is beneficial to companies, but many people are mistrustful of business in general. Deregulation does not only benefit companies, however.

Deregulation also benefits consumer and the working class. With an increased freedom for competitiveness, deregulated airlines resulted in more choices and even more services offered to consumers. Among these choices were city-pairs, which are flight direct from one city to another with no stops or connecting flights. After deregulation, there was a fifty-five per cent increase in city-pairs, which are quicker and more convenient for flyers (Hamrin 245). Obviously, quicker service and more convenience are positive aspects for consumers, and what is positive for the customer is positive also for the provider, as the customer will be more likely to return and do business again.  Many supporters of regulation say that regulation protects small business and keeps Big Business in check. This is a common misconception. In fact, the opposite holds true. In an article “Big Business and Big Government” published on the CATO institute’s website, Timothy P. Carney points out this flaw in thinking. He writes, “The facts point in an entirely different direction . . . Enron was a tireless advocate of strict global energy regulations supported by environmentalists. Enron also used its influence in Washington to keep laissez-faire bureaucrats off the federal commissions that regulate the energy industry.” Enron would not try to keep laissez-faire politicians off of federal commissions if deregulation increased its control over the business. So clearly, it must be that deregulation threatens its power. Carney goes on to explain that newer, smaller business cannot keep up financially with all the government regulations, whereas big businesses have the resources to easily afford whatever regulations the government puts in place. They use government regulations to keep their smaller competitors one step behind and struggling financially under the burden of the regulations, which usually are not quite big enough to do any real damage to big business (“Big Business”). It is not good for consumers or for an economy to have the majority of the financial power residing with a group of large corporations. It reduces customer choices, and prices are more likely to rise, placing a burden on the people. With less competition, business can and will slowly raise their prices. This is the point of business; to make a profit. A free-market economy ensures that these prices do not go out of control. Simply put, if two companies offer the same service or good with similar quality, but one offers it a lower price, consumers will go to the company with the lower prices, forcing companies to have fair, competitive rates. With regulations and restrictions, companies are either forced to raise these prices to cover the cost of these regulations, or they have the freedom to raise them with less competition, as proved above. So it is clear that regulation ultimately ends in failure.

There is no better way to show just how and why these regulations end in failure than to examine government run economic programs such as the New Deal and other programs that amounted to nothing. According to Glenn Beck in his book Arguing with Idiots, the reason that government is ineffective in areas involving economics and business is simple. He writes:

Their motives are completely different. Private companies exist to create wealth, the          government exists (at least in theory to provide protections critical to life, liberty, and the        pursuit of happiness. Private companies closely manage expenses and ensure every dollar      has a return; the government attempts to spend every dollar it’s given and measures     returns in campaign donations and polling data.

If one disagrees that government is incompetent in the business and economics field, he or she need only look over previous regulations and programs and find the proof. During the New Deal, Roosevelt thought it would be a good idea to seize all the banks and make them close during a national “banking holiday” as it was called. After the so-called holiday, five thousand of the banks did not re-open. The majority of failed banks were in states with unit banking laws, which forbade a bank from opening new branches to lessen risk. Now this could be circumstantial, but further evidence proves otherwise. In Canada, there were no such laws, and banks could feel free to open new branches wherever and whenever they like. The number of bank failures in Canada at this time was a grand total of zero (“Great Myths” 8). The logical conclusion is that the unit banking laws caused the banks to fail. The banks were not allowed to open new branches, so when there was an opportunity to make more profits in another area, they were unable to seize that opportunity. Obviously, these banks needed the extra profit badly, or they would not have failed. In Canada these banks could open new branches when they got into financial troubles, and the new revenue could save their company. So it is clearly established that government regulation and government programs ultimately end in little or no success.

In contrast, private sectors have achieved far greater success. When hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, both government agencies and private charities rushed to help. The government also put forth numerous recovery plans. The majority of these failed miserably. For example, Ray Nagin, the mayor of New Orleans, put forth over three hundred public projects and rebuilding efforts. Almost three years later, only six were complete. Conversely, Wal-Mart was having incredible success. One hundred and twenty-six of Walmart’s stores had been severely damaged in the hurricane. Within ten days, one hundred and ten of them were up and running (Arguing). It is hard to believe those numbers. In less than two weeks, Wal-Mart had completed recovering eighty-seven per cent of its stores, while in over three years less than two percent of the government programs were completed. Obviously the private company had much better success than the government; the facts do not leave room for any interpretation. New Orleans recovery is not the only example of the government versus private companies though.

For an additional example of how private sectors achieve greater success than government-run operations, the National Center for Educational Statistics offers this interesting report. Private school students in the fourth grade outscored public school students by 14.7 points in reading, and 7.8 points in math. By the eighth grade, private school students were outperforming their public school counterparts by 18.1 points in reading and 12.3 points in math (“Comparing Private Schools”). As the students in the private school advanced through the grades, their scores over the public school students increased by 3.4 points in reading and 4.5 points in math. The longer the student remains in a private school, the more his or her scores improve. Clearly, the private-run schools provide a better education than the government-run schools. Financially, the private schools were better also. Competition in the private, less regulated sector drives efficiency and lower cost. According to that same report, the average annual cost per public school student in 1996 was $6,857. The average tuition in private schools that same year was about half that, at $3,116. Obviously, the government is doing something to raise costs that the private sectors are not. This same basic effect occurs whenever the government attempts to regulate private industries that it should not be involved in.

So it is obvious that government regulation hurts the economy, while deregulation provides for a more profitable business climate. This can be seen in the way regulation restricts companies and places financial burdens on consumers. It can be seen in how higher profits accompany deregulation and the effects of deregulation on the working class. It can be seen when government is directly compared with the private sector. The Founding Fathers drafted our Constitution with distinct goals in mind. Among these goals was the decentralization of power, keeping the federal government as far detached from citizen’s day to day lives as possible. Through regulations and restrictions, however, the federal government has inserted itself into areas it does not belong, with complete disregard for the Constitution. It is time for a change; it is time for the government to realize that the welfare of the economy is more important than its own power. Deregulation can bring many benefits to the economy where regulation can only cause more harm. It is time to deregulate, before it is too late.

Posted in administrative power, bailout, bank takeover, Big Government, Bill of Rights, Constitution, corruption, Democrats, economics, federal reserve, Federal reserve bank, gold, gold standard, international money, monetary policy, Obama, Obama Administration, Political parties, TARP, Tea Parties, unconstitutional | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

The Danger Model

Posted by revkharma on August 11, 2010

I was listening to the radio the other day, and caught part of an interview with a cancer specialist.  She was discussing a recent trend in cancer treatment theory and contrasting it with traditional methodology and treatment theories.

About as close as I can get to explaining it is like this.

Traditionally we look at the immune system as border guards or police, roaming looking for foreign intruders. Once found these intruders are attacked and destroyed.  The problem is with the cancer cells. Frequently they are NOT strangers, but merely healthy cells which are growing faster and more productively than those around them. They are not different.

So, a new idea has come along, something called the Danger Model. The idea here is to compare the actions more to a fire station. There the defenders are waiting, prepared to respond when a signal is received indication danger which will generate a response.

Immune cells respond to a toxin, or the contents of a ruptured killed cell and react, attacking and destroying the dangerous cells.

In the late 1800’s Dr William Coley used such a theory to treat cancer. An example of how this worked  can be found here:

On January 24, 1893, the first patient to receive Coley Vaccine[2] was John Ficken, a sixteen-year-old boy with a massive abdominal tumor. Every few days, Coley injected his vaccine directly into the tumor mass and produced the symptoms of an infectious disease, but did not produce the disease itself. On each injection, there was a dramatic rise in body temperature and chills. The tumour gradually diminished in size. By May 1893, after four months of intensive treatment, the tumour was a fifth its original size. By August, the remains of the growth were barely perceptible.

So, why the rambling medical history? It’s a long way around to make a salien political point.  Currently we have growth of government stimulated by a cadre of politicians who have seemed no different from any others who have come along in the past. They have built upon the foundations of the past, enlarging and expanding “Leviathan” to unprecedented scope and size.

They have moved swiftly, taking the controls of our systems and begun to direct the function and output toward their own goals.  Most of the nation has simply sat and watched, as there seemed no real danger from another bunch of politicians. The liberty which past generations have prized has been trimmed, and scaled back.  The rights and freedoms so cherished have been encroached upon, while the tumor of government growth has expanded, swelling and growing sleek and thick within the skin of the once proud and healthy nation.

Gradually some have in fact, perceived a signal and slowly started to react.  But only around the margins, and only slowly, tentatively have they begun to attempt to stop the tumor cells from expanding and taking over.

What we need is clear. Somehow, some way the body politic of this nation needs to get a fever. something must happen which will start the defenders moving, moving swiftly and with purpose.

The most common hope is that these people will make a step, take some action which finally stir enough people to react and expel the cancer cells.

The problem with waiting is that while we wait, the tumor grows enormous and sleek. It draws more and more of the resources from the healthy body until  not enough strength remains to fight it off. Then the cancer metastasizes essentially taking control of the entire body.

A look at tracking polls show that 46% of Americans strongly disapprove of the current president’s actions.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 24% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-six percent (46%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -22 (see trends).

This matches the lowest Approval Index rating yet measured for this president.


The worst performance ever. Yet still he and his party continue, acting with impunity, brazenly continuing to plunder the treasury as citizens watch. While Leviathan is feeding from the very blood of the nation, the muscles and bones which support it are being weakened and rotted.  As any cancer grows, it steals the needed resources and nutrients which the healthy tissue needs. Masquerading as part of the body, it extends its reach, feeding on the  body it is destroying from within.

Most people simply continue, going about their daily business as if there is no problem. We act as if this is merely another phase, simply a small cough which will pass. Meanwhile the tumor, which began decades ago continues to swell and pulse, threatening our  existence.  We move along with our chores, oblivious, ignoring the cries of those who see the danger.

I am not supplying answers here, just observing. But clearly somehow, something must be done. Something has to happen to waken those capable of defending the nation from the growing cancer. If we fail to react, if we allow it to continue to thrive, the killing cells will spread, taking control of, and eventually completely destroying the nation.

We have to find a way to send a danger signal that can be clearly heard, and one which will engender a strong enough response to finally and completely destroy the disease which continues to strangle our lives as it feeds and grows unchecked.

Perhaps this economic strain will act as a sort of  “Coley’s toxin”, which will cause the necessary mobilization of defenders.  Perhaps the plunder of our resources and vast deficit spending will be the signal which brings out the immune response.  Something will.  It had better happen.  We really don’t have all that much time left.

Before it is too late, we need to act.

Keep the Faith!

The Rev.

Posted in administrative power, Bill of Rights under attack, Civil liberties, Constitution, corruption, Democrats, Founders, Freedom, Government expansion, Government Power, Obama Administration, Term Limits, Terrorism, Uncategorized, unconstitutional, White house | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Pay Czar And Illegal Acts

Posted by revkharma on October 23, 2009

So, Kenneth Feinberg is ordering steep cuts in the compensation of various bank and financial executives.  Clearly there is no constitutional foundation for this incredible power grab by the White House. Mr. Feinberg, who apparently rejects the nickname of ” Pay Czar” but not the authority of the role will use this power regardless. He claims only the highest of motives. He is trying only to recoup the bail out money given to the banks already.  He is simply a steward of taxpayer funds.

Many in all positions of the political spectrum will forgive this one time intrusion. After all, they reason, the banks DID take federal money, now they have to dance to the federal tune.

I see some problems with this. First, as many accounts have shown there was little choice on the part of most of the execs who took funds. Stories abound of the closed-door pressure meeting in which GW Bushes treasury secretary essentially forced the major banks to take money, in order not to taint only one financial institution.  Secondly there was no valid authority for the Treasury to use taxpayer money to save, and essentially buy private corporations.  All this was cloaked in a blanket of  ‘temporary emergency’ but emergency is not a valid reason to void constitutional principles.

Finally history shows us that once the federal government takes a new power it is rarely surrendered.  Using the broad and nearly limitless powers found hidden in the ‘Interstate Commerce Clause’ the federal government has taken control of vast chunks of the private economy in the name of exigent circumstances and never relinquished the shackles once placed.  Using the doctrine of Eminent Domain, much private property has essentially been taken from owners simply for the benefit of others. See for example the now infamous Kelo case. The socialists in congress now will use this as a template for future action. Once the public is shown that the government has such a power, regardless of the extra-constitutional origin of such powers, the government will simply continue to use it. Saying,  ‘ well we have done it before’ is often the only justification for future abuses.

The public at large, intentionally educated to be ignorant of constitutional principles and the proper rule of law, will simply assume that as long as it is some  ‘rich guy’s bonuses’ getting clipped  they are in no danger of it affecting them.  The history of creeping use of ill gained power shows that it will be a matter of when, not if, congress begins to extend the power to regulate the pay of private citizens compensation.

Feinberg is an abomination. His power is absolute. There is only one appeal to is rulings. And Feinberg himself hears the appeal. Unlikely that he will overrule himself.

Keep the Faith.

The Rev

Posted in administrative power, bailout, bank takeover, Big Government, Bill of Rights, Civil liberties, Constitution, corruption, deception, Freedom, geithner, Government expansion, Government Power, nationalization, regulations, unconstitutional | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Is The White House Compiling An ‘Enemies List”?

Posted by revkharma on August 6, 2009

Day after day, this administration seems to push things further and further. During the Bush years, we saw the adoption of the Patriot Act as a direct response to an attack on our country. Many questioned, some quite loudly if the danger was sufficient to justify the curtailing of liberty which accompanied the new rules. While many objected, there was at least some rational purpose, an attempt to find and stop those who would attack us again.

The danger was, and is clear. In addition to the short term infringement of our freedom, the use and abuse of the Patriot Act powers by any future administration, with perhaps a less than pure motivation was always lurking.

Now we see that even more than just abusing existing statutes the Obama Administration is moving toward using ‘snitches’ to gather information on those who ‘spread misinformation on Obama’s health care plan’. Look here to see Byron York’s essay in the Washington Examiner. CBS says the following:

The White House in recent days has taken pro-active steps to combat the misinformation spreading about the president’s health care plans…

Senator John Cornyn of Texas has send a letter in which he puts it plainly and clearly:

“By requesting that citizens send “fishy” emails to the White House, it is inevitable that the names, email addresses, IP addresses, and private speech of U.S. citizens will be reported to the White House,” Cornyn wrote to Obama. “I can only imagine the level of justifiable outrage had your predecessor asked Americans to forward emails critical of his policies to the White House.”

The Dallas Morning News has more detail, including the entire letter from Senator Cornyn.

When all of the actions of this administration are put out for view, in the clear light of reason it is difficult to avoid reacting in fear. Recall  his plan for  Obama 2.0, to continue his own separate campaign organization. Recall the statements from his administration on the need for a separate ‘ civilian organization’ to equal the military.  The press secretary calls those who are angry at their representatives at town hall meetings angry mobs.

This most recent request is just far too similar of tactics used by past administrations to collect information on ‘dissidents’ in National Socialist Germany, or Stalinist Russia, or Castroist Cuba. Use fear, use neighbors to rat out others, and you will rapidly silence opposition.

How long before this secret list is used by the Obama Justice department, or the IRS to target those who have opposed him.

We are in dangerous times folks. We all need to step up. If you are not afraid to have your name and e-mail added to the list, then why not try this. Send an e-mail to the following: ( I am following the lead I read here, it’s brilliant)

flag@whitehouse.gov

and ask that you be reported as opposed to Obama care. By the time I post this I’m willing to guess that I’m already on the list, but I’ll send a copy of this post just to be sure.

Don’t forget, send your polite, friendly and courteous message to Macon Phillips, the White House Director of New Media at this e-mail address

flag@whitehouse.gov

Keep the Faith

The Rev

Posted in administrative power, Big Government, change, Civil liberties, corruption, deception, Democrats, fascism, Free Speech, Government Power, Health Care, media coverage, Obama, Obama Administration, Politics, regulations, unconstitutional, White house, White House Enemies List | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Specter, The Supreme Court, and Political Parties

Posted by revkharma on May 1, 2009

  

A scorpion scuttles to the bank of a stream, seeking a way across. He spies a frog and asks him to carry him across the water. The frog is doubtful, and asks the scorpion “Why would I do that? What if you sting me?”   The scorpion replies, “I would not do that, if I were to sting you, we would both drown.”  Thinking for a moment, the frog agrees. The scorpion climbs on his back and they head into the water. About half way across, the scorpion wields his tail, stinging the frog with a deadly poison. Just before they sink below the water, the frog asks the scorpion “Why…?”   To which the scorpion replies:
“It is my nature to do so”.
(From Aesop’s Fables, roughly from memory)
The political pundits are whirling and spinning, all trying to explain or excuse the move yesterday by Arlen Specter from Pa. He has returned to the Democrat party which he left in the 1960’s. He has said coyly that the Republicans ‘left him’. He felt uncomfortable in a party which would not allow for diverse views. Republicans are stunned, and media mouths are dropping in shock. I can’t understand anyone being shocked. Mr. Specter has shown his sense of political expediency outweighs his courage since he switched affiliation in 1965 to defeat a Democrat incumbent for a district attorney position. Mr. Specter has always walked the walk of political survival.  Recall his courageous vote ‘Pursuant to Scottish Law I vote Unproved’ during the impeachment trial of President Clinton. Rather than take a stand and display principle, he managed to evade accountability. He saw the poll numbers and knew there was no slam dunk with either side, so he took no side.

In the same way he saw the poll numbers and knew he might not win reelection this time, so rather than take a stand, he took a leap. Only weeks after stating flatly that he was a ‘republican, and would always be one” he jumped to the other party, ensuring that he would now have some measure of power in congress that he could not earn in the minority party.

Republicans supported Specter in the 2006 election. President Bush expended much time and effort to help reelect Specter, and he made promises to help the republicans work toward their objectives. (Why would I aid the democrats? If I do that we all lose!”)  He repaid the work and effort by giving his vote to Obama and his ‘stimulus package’ (Because, it’s my nature!”)

The Republican party was once home to bedrock conservative ideas: Small government, limited taxation, and support for the Constitution. Over the last decade or so they have drifted, becoming essentially a smaller version of the Democrat party. They agreed in principle that big government was essential, they just haggled over the exact size and goals of that government. In essence the debate was not over a controlling centralized government. It was over who should hold the reins, and in which direction the power of government would be directed. With two parties controlling things, the debate becomes one in which actions of ‘our guys’ is deemed good, and the actions of ‘those guys’ is deemed bad. As long as it’s ‘our party’ we are told to cheer for any application of government power, especially when punitively applied to the other party.

After 9/11, George W. Bush’s ‘Compassionate Conservatism’ was transformed into something sometimes referred to as ‘ American Greatness Conservatism”. This was merely a different mask on the face of an expanding State system. The thinking seemed to be that as long as the controls were in the hands of ‘the good guys’ it was not a bad thing to have Big Government.  The flaw here is that in the constitutional system set up in the U. S. those controls don’t belong to a single party for long.  And once the Democrats get hold there is no reason for them to slow the expansion of government, as they can accurately say the debate is over.  Now that the party in control is all about spending, people like Specter can go along, join them and have no fear of reprisal. They will happily spend others money and reap short term benefits. Arlen Specter moved from one party to another because control of our government is held by parties, rather than by representatives of the people.

As I was mulling all of this, one more thing came to my attention. There are now stories that Justice Souter will be leaving the US Supreme court, giving President Obama his first opportunity to show his true inclinations and philosophy. The dominance of parties will be on display here.  The leftists who now control the Democrat party will push for the appointment of someone who shares the deeply felt, but deeply hidden views of Mr. Obama.  A clear indicator of his thinking is the nominee to be legal adviser to the State Department, Harold Koh.  Mr. Koh is an ardent proponent of what he he casts as ‘Transnationalism’.  This is a political theory which, if put into practice, would literally undermine the US constitution and replace it with ill defined concepts of multi- national, or global law. Such foundational principles as our First
Amendment freedoms of speech and religion, which he regards as an obstacle to America joining with the ‘international community’ will be pushed aside.

Writing for National Review Online, Ed Whalen gives us a preview of Koh’s stunning views:

As part of his general case for what he contends to be the “more venerable strand of ‘transnationalist jurisprudence’” over the “blinkered view” of a “nationalist jurisprudence” (Koh, International Law as Part of Our Law, 98 Am. J. Int’l. L. 43, 48, 52 (2004)), Koh approvingly sets forth the transnationalist view that

 

domestic courts must play a key role in coordinating U.S. domestic constitutional rules with rules of foreign and international law, not simply to promote American aims, but to advance the broader development of a well-functioning international judicial system.  In Justice Blackmun’s words, U.S. courts must look beyond narrow U.S. interests to the “mutual interests of all nations in a smoothly functioning international legal regime” and, whenever possible, should “consider if there is a course of action that furthers, rather than impedes, the development of an ordered international system.”

 

(98 Am. J. Int’l. L. at 53-54 (emphasis added).

In order to ‘coordinate’ like this, there is only one path. That path is to subordinate, or abandon the Constitution, and substitute some form of ‘International Law”. This is not the same thing as historically understood, and agreed upon framework such as the outlawing of piracy. This is an entanglement of regulations and rules designed and implemented by groups similar to the EU.

If we allow this, we allow the end of the United States of America.

George Washington, at the end of his time as President spoke forcefully about the dangers of Parties and the destruction they could do to the new born American nation. We see his words as prophetic now, as parties run the government for their benefit, instead of the benefit of the people who put them in place.

I think we may have a short time with an open window here. Arlen Specter’s party change exposes clearly the raw power of parties, and their strangle hold on government and our nation in general.  Perhaps we should encourage others, who have complained that they feel marginalized by the parties to leave.  Instead of switching, they should be encouraged simply to leave and follow no party at all. It seems as if the Republican party is sliding into irrelevance. Let’s see if we can prevent another ‘party’ from replacing it, and instead have the American people be represented. If we allow another party to form, we risk the fate of Aesop’s frog, for we already know what is in the nature of political parties.

 

 

Posted in administrative power, Big Government, Bill of Rights under attack, Civil liberties, congressional representation, Constitution, deception, Freedom, George Washington, Government expansion, Government Power, liberal court, liberty, Obama Administration, Political parties, Supreme Court, transnational law, unconstitutional, White house | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Back Door Take Over

Posted by revkharma on April 20, 2009

In a move which is covered by a media smoke screen the Obama administration is now moving toward taking control of the banks to which it force fed loans under the Tarp plan originated under the Bush administration. Back then we were told that the banks needed additional capital in order to continue to make loans, or to stay liquid, or well, it seemed the reason varied with what the weather was at the time.

Recently we have seen several banks loudly announcing intent to return the money and, stunningly hearing the Treasury department resisting the repayment. Banks were obviously spooked by the termination of the CEO of General Motors, ordered by Il Duce  President Obama. They saw the future and decided not to play in that game. As the Treasury Dept stalled, the Administration has now come up with another scheme. According to a NY Times story , the Obama Administration plans to convert the loans into shares of common stock. The Times obligingly states this is so that the cost will be minimal. After all, with a trillion dollar deficit, they can’t possibly find another billion or so to save a bank. 

The real story is that once the TARP funds are ‘converted’ to common stock, the US Government, through the Department of the Treasury will be major stake holders in the largest banks in the nation. Without speaking the words, they will have effectively nationalized the banks.  The Times and other media outlets are aware that most Americans are leery of that, instinctively knowing that nationalizing the economy is not the best way to run things. (Medicare is great, right) So the stories going to print now position it as a money saving move, or one which will allow the banks to free up cash.

So, follow the chess board here: First, the Treasury essentially forces the banks to accept loans, needed or not. Demonize the heads of financial institutions who ‘Took government money then spent it on bonuses’ .Then they delay or refuse repayment of those loans until the final part can be put in place. Finally, convert the ‘loans’ into common stock, taking control of the banks in order to extend government control of the economy.

We are moving in lockstep toward a command economy with all the dangers that will bring to our system. Unless Americans speak out, and demand accountability this will all happen without anyone interfering. We will wake up one morning with the very nature of our republic unalterably changed.  All this is being done with absolutely no input from the people, the congress or any legislative support.  This is an administrative takeover of the financial sector. Find me ONE place in the Constitution that authorizes this.

Keep the Faith

The Rev

Posted in administrative power, bank takeover, Big Government, Constitution, deception, fascism, Government expansion, Government Power, laws, liberty, media coverage, nationalization, Obama Administration, Politics, TARP, unconstitutional | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

EPA Regulations: A Danger To The Constitution?

Posted by revkharma on April 18, 2009

On Friday, the Environmental Protection Agency announced proposed regulations under which it will regulate Carbon Dioxide as a toxic substance. This means that without any oversight, nor legislative control, the EPA will give itself the authority to control virtually any productive activity within the United States. Any mmanufacturing, use of engines, construction of homes or commercial buildings, essentially all productive activity can thus be regulated or stopped by administrative rule of the EPA with no recourse other than expensive and lengthy legal action. And the legal action to challenge it would be likely to fail, as the EPA claims it was ‘forced to act’ by a two year old Supreme Court ruling. In  2007 ruling on Commonwealth of Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al, in a split ruling the Supreme Court said that the EPA had violated the Clean Air act by not regulating new car emissions as a dangerous substance. Chief Justice Roberts, in his dissent even went so far as to say the majority had used ‘slight of hand to even grant Massachusetts standing to bring the suit.”

Even if we were to accept the alarmist proposition that global warming is an imminent danger, and further to grant that carbon dioxide is the ( or even the strongest) cause of global warming, the proper place for a regulation which will force action in every area of national activity lies properly with the legislative branch, not in the Supreme Court.  Once the EPA had made the originaldecision not to regulate CO2 as a hazard, the court should not have the power to compel, at the behest of a single state, executive action. So, what we now have is an activist liberal bloc of the court, conniving with liberal states to force an administrative agency of the executive branch of government to take action against its own rulings.  Massachusetts is certainly empowered to promulgate any regulations it sees fit, and regulate any activity within the state. By gaming the system, we have one state essentially forcing 49 others to follow rules it desires to enact.

Even in the press release from the EPA states that the proper place for such regulations should be with Congress. However, even while stating that, they asserted authority to control all emissions of CO2. The scope of this cannot be understated. There really is no facet of economic activity which cannot conceivably be regulated now by the EPA under this proposed regime. Even should Congress intervene, any legislation would be reviewed and managed through the EPA and it’s enforcement regulations.

With one ruling, the Federal Government has now taken a giant step toward eliminating private control of industry in the United States. Anything deemed to produce carbon emissions will now be subject to regulation, taxation or direct federal oversight.

Once more, and with little fanfare or resistance our government by constitution has become a government by regulatory fiat. At what point will Americans realize that the dream of the Founders is being crushed? Have enough of the people been given enough government cheese that they no longer care what else happens?  If you don’t contact your representatives and demand they act to rescind this, everything in our economy becomes weaker by the minute. Soon, very soon, we will become a third world nation.

Keep the Faith

The Rev

Posted in administrative power, Big Government, Climate Change, CO2, economics, EPA, global warming, Government Power, laws, Obama Administration, regulations, Science, Supreme Court, unconstitutional | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

The Tenth and Independence

Posted by revkharma on April 3, 2009

One of the most pressing issues facing all who love freedom is the continued expansion of the Federal Government in DC. The constantly grasping tentacles of this monster are finding their way into any and areas of life, and are strangling liberty. The court system seems to have abandoned Constitutional principles, allowing the legislative branch to pass laws with no foundation in the Constitution. The Executive branch is arrogating power from the legislative branch, and unilaterally expanding powers, again with no regard for Constitutional restrictions.

We have seen the “Stimulus Bill” written to incorporate regulations which will directly challenge the executive, constitutional authority of the governors of various states. This has been applauded by the budding statist/fascist movement in congress, and cheered on by those citizens who stand to gain at the expense of productive Americans.

We have seen a Chief Executive who has simply taken control of private corporations, dismissing the CEO of one, and demanding another ‘find a partner’ and merge with a foreign entity. All this is justified by the ‘greater good and ‘dire economic crises’. I could go on at great length listing the various attacks on liberty our nation has endured in the last ten or twenty years.

Quinn Hilyer, writing in the American Spectator, echoes several of the discussions we have had here in the Rev’s Place. ( Here, Here,  Here, and here among others) The conclusion that the DC government is growing more dangerous by the day is really not a topic for debate.

The question then must be asked: What can be done? Further, is anyone actually doing anything?  I will admit that while I blather on, I have no real ability to make anything happen except noise.

However, the real action is beginning, and there s much that liberty loving citizens can do to help. Various states have begun consideration of “Tenth Amendment” resolutions and State Sovereignty bills. The resolution most familiar to me is in South Carolina, H 3509 which was introduced in February of this year:


A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

TO AFFIRM THE RIGHTS OF ALL STATES INCLUDING SOUTH CAROLINA BASED ON THE PROVISIONS OF THE NINTH AND TENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

The title itself lays out the case briefly and clearly. The very first paragraph is wonderful:

 

Whereas, the South Carolina General Assembly declares that the people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent State, and shall exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right pertaining thereto, which is not expressly delegated by them to the United States of America in the congress assembled;

 

This is a fulcrum which can be used to leverage the power of the States to begin to roll back the dangerous expansion of Leviathan government from DC. South Carolina is not alone, by any means.  At this time there are at least thirty states considering similar legislation. Thirty states is a tough block to ignore, even for the out of touch DC power mongers. Each and every one of us concerned with Liberty needs to help push this forward. Over at “The Tenth Amendment Center  they have compiled an excellent database of states considering this. I suggest you head there, and read.  Contact your legislators and encourage their support and action to move this forward. If you need to find your local reps, follow this link for Project Vote Smart. There’s a fast search to find contact info for federal and state government representatives.

We need to be active, and we need to support those who are protecting our liberties. Without direct communication from people our representatives will become more and more attentive to government and less attentive to those they are sent to represent. Don’t wait; don’t expect others to do it for you. Please, act on this, and do so quickly. If the States can reassert their individual sovereignty there is still a possibility of controlling DC. The alternative is the continued slow deadly slide into despotism and eventual eradication of Liberty in our Nation.

Keep the Faith!

The Rev.

Posted in bailout, Big Government, Civil liberties, Constitution, fascism, Freedom, geithner, Government expansion, governors, laws, Obama Administration, Politics, State Supremacy, states rights, Treasury dept, unconstitutional, White house | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Humpty Dumpty and the Constitution

Posted by revkharma on April 1, 2009

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.’ 
Lewis Carroll 


Remember when virtually every donkey in congress, joined by major media outlets were pounding the drums over the ‘politicization of the Justice Department?” We have seen time and time again that the Obama administration has taken so many actions that seem to be unconstitutional. Well, today in the Washington Post we can see that this is intentional. The Great and Powerful Obama’s hand picked ally in the Attorney General’s office has rejected a clear and distinct opinion that the DC statehood bill is unconstitutional. Of course, the Post couches it in weasel words.  ” Some in Justice… disagree..”  The role of the Office of Legal Counsel is to provide guidance, in this case requested by A.G. Eric Holder, on the legality of certain positions taken by the Administration. The current lawyers in the Obama OLC have essentially reached the same conclusion which the Bush era OLC had come to. The Statehood bill for DC is unconstitutional and should not be supported.

In deciding that the measure is unconstitutional, lawyers in the department’s Office of Legal Counsel matched a conclusion reached by their Bush administration counterparts nearly two years ago, when a lawyer there testified that a similar bill would not withstand legal attack.

Unhappy with this decision, Holder decided not to publish it, and instead he turned to the Solicitor’s office.

Holder rejected the advice and sought the opinion of the Solicitor General’s office…

Now the two offices have very different functions. After being told by the OLC that this bill would violate the United States Constitution, the Obama Administration then asked a different question of the Solicitor’s Office.  They were asked if they felt they could defend such a law should it be passed. Again, this is an entirely different issue.

Typically, legal scholars said, the solicitor general is asked whether the office can plausibly defend a law in court, rather than to opine directly on the legality of a piece of legislation.

 What we see here is very clear, and very dangerous. After being advised by their own attorneys that a particular action would violate the Constitution which all have sworn to uphold, they ignored ( and buried) the legal advice, and asked for a political opinion on the issue.  

This is clear, unequivocal evidence of the very thing the donkey party has screamed over. The Attorney General of the United States of America has directly changed policy to accommodate a political consideration. We have always harbored suspicions of the disdain the Obama people held for the Constitution, now we have direct and bright proof. .

This is a precedent, and even the Washington Post could not completely ignore it, while trying to downplay what was done, they had to put the facts out or lose the last shreds of respect they may still hold to themselves.

President Obama is showing that, for him, the Constitution is not an impediment to his desires and actions.  It is as if Humpty Dumpty were not running the Justice department. The Constitution means only what they choose it to mean. 

We are clearly facing something foreign, and no one seems able to stop them.

Americans need to prepare for a long hard slog, and watch carefully for the distortions this administration will perpetrate upon us.

Keep the Faith.

The Rev

Posted in Attorney General, Big Government, Cabinet, Constitution, eric holder, Government expansion, Government Power, Justice, laws, Obama Administration, Politics, Solicitor General, unconstitutional, White house | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »