Response to: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/02/03/the_perils_of_prosperity_the_story_behind_the_economic_crisis_100149.html Robert J. Samuelson
To suggest that the bubble was created by the free market is absurd.
The federal government extorted bankers to lend to borrowers who lacked the ability to repay the loans on threat to their charter and/or growth plans. Thank Mr. Dodd and Barney Frank. The brokers took their money and ran.
Fanny Mae immediately bought the suspect mortgages relieving the local mortgage company/bank of any liability for bad mortgages. Congress failed their oversight responsibilities even as many members personally benefited either through investments or especially cheap mortgages for themselves ("friends of Angelo mortgages). What about that Chris Dodd?
When investors balked at buying suspect mortgages Freddie started bundling good and bad, getting them rated as good, collected crazy profits. They protected their exposure with insurance from AIG. Congress failed in the oversight responsibilities and denied there was any potential problem even when it was brought to their attention. Thank you Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.
To add another level of commission generation Goldman Sachs et al created mortgage based derivatives, also insured by AIG to provide high profit, low risk (to the investment bankers). The Fed, tasked with oversight of precisely such activity, did nothing.
Unsaid in all this is the common thread of Goldman Sachs alumni: at Fanny and Freddie and the Fed and Treasury and the Congress (via generous campaign contributions to key members like Dodd and Frank and Obama)
What any rational person can see is not some happenstance, but an orchestrated fraud, designed and implemented for unjustified profit; funded by the taxpayer, insured by the taxpayer, guaranteed by the taxpayer and manipulated and managed by the Goldman Sachs alumni club. Oh, and policed by the Fed, Treasury, and Congress (Goldman Sachs alumni or beneficiaries) all co-opted by complicity in the scheme for personal reward. The true Coup de Grace is the complicity of Goldman Sachs in the decision-making process for driving their competitors into bankruptcy and dissolution. John Gotti was never so slick.
RICO was designed for just this type of fraud, but there is no mention of it at all in the aftermath of the collapse of the US, and subsequently the global economies. The current Congressional investigation is designed to assure that no one of importance takes the blame for this fraud or is held accountable for their complicity in this fraud: it has nothing to do with actually finding the cause and implementing corrective action. It has everything to do with covering the tracks of the guilty and providing cover for the enablers.
We continue to rely on the foxes to guard the henhouses. Articles such as this by Mr. Samuelson are nothing more than part of the track-covering, blame the innocent; hide the guilty cleanup operations in the guise of explanations.
God help America.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Federal Government causes high health care costs
Government is the problem, not the solution, in ever escalating health care costs.
My only cousin is dying of cancer. She wanted to spend her final days in Hospice. I called to get the details: “$865 a day; unless you have insurance in which case it might be as little as $160 a day. If she’s covered under Medicare, they pay 100%” “What if she is paying for this herself?” I asked. “$865 a day.”
I went to my dentist and asked for a quote for restoring my aging teeth to top condition; fillings, caps, bridges; the works. He quoted over $16,000 but told me that was the “official cost” but if I was paying for it out of pocket it would be only $8000.
I sleep with a BPAP machine to counteract my Sleep Apnea. After several years, the rubber straps for the face mask stretched too much to make a proper seal. I asked the medical supply company how much for a replacement: “We bill $45 but the insurance company only has to pay $20 so you have no out-of-pocket expense for it”.
Everywhere I turn in health care I encounter wildly divergent pricing between quote and actual, depending on if, or what, insurance covers the expense.
If I multiply these numbers by 300 Million Americans it’s easy to see how health care is an entitlement that will bring America to financial ruin.
In all of the federal health care discussions I haven’t heard the first word about this egregious disparity in the pricing of health care services. Why do they exist? What can be done to eliminate them? The biggest influence is government subsidies: Medicare and Medicaid.
Why is Hospice $865 a day?: because Medicare will pay that. Why is dentistry $16000?: because government health care will pay that. Why is a rubber strap $45?: because Medicare will pay that.
Remove federal subsidies and the cost of health care will plummet like a rock. That’s the beauty of a free market: competition won’t tolerate capricious pricing or inefficient processes.
Lasik eye surgery and breast augmentation surgery are two excellent examples of the continuous improvement in quality accompanied by continuous reduction in pricing for these non-covered procedures.
If we remove government subsidies and competition-restricting federal regulations from insurance and medical services; get the government out of health care; and transition health care coverage from employers (itself a result of government interference during WWII wage and price controls) to individuals, health care costs will reduce and become manageable.
If the federal government would replace all existing subsidies and non-value added government regulations with an individual tax credit sufficient to cover a reasonable annual insurance premium (based on the net negotiated price, not the government subsidized price) the savings to tax payers would be astronomical, and the insurance and medical services industries would be scrambling to provide top quality health care at a competitive cost (within the tax credit level).
This same solution could be applied to replacing Medicare with private insurance.
Of course, without the ability to manipulate government subsidies, I’m sure that political contributions to our elected representatives from insurance and health care providers would be dramatically reduced, and I believe that explains why it won’t happen.
My only cousin is dying of cancer. She wanted to spend her final days in Hospice. I called to get the details: “$865 a day; unless you have insurance in which case it might be as little as $160 a day. If she’s covered under Medicare, they pay 100%” “What if she is paying for this herself?” I asked. “$865 a day.”
I went to my dentist and asked for a quote for restoring my aging teeth to top condition; fillings, caps, bridges; the works. He quoted over $16,000 but told me that was the “official cost” but if I was paying for it out of pocket it would be only $8000.
I sleep with a BPAP machine to counteract my Sleep Apnea. After several years, the rubber straps for the face mask stretched too much to make a proper seal. I asked the medical supply company how much for a replacement: “We bill $45 but the insurance company only has to pay $20 so you have no out-of-pocket expense for it”.
Everywhere I turn in health care I encounter wildly divergent pricing between quote and actual, depending on if, or what, insurance covers the expense.
If I multiply these numbers by 300 Million Americans it’s easy to see how health care is an entitlement that will bring America to financial ruin.
In all of the federal health care discussions I haven’t heard the first word about this egregious disparity in the pricing of health care services. Why do they exist? What can be done to eliminate them? The biggest influence is government subsidies: Medicare and Medicaid.
Why is Hospice $865 a day?: because Medicare will pay that. Why is dentistry $16000?: because government health care will pay that. Why is a rubber strap $45?: because Medicare will pay that.
Remove federal subsidies and the cost of health care will plummet like a rock. That’s the beauty of a free market: competition won’t tolerate capricious pricing or inefficient processes.
Lasik eye surgery and breast augmentation surgery are two excellent examples of the continuous improvement in quality accompanied by continuous reduction in pricing for these non-covered procedures.
If we remove government subsidies and competition-restricting federal regulations from insurance and medical services; get the government out of health care; and transition health care coverage from employers (itself a result of government interference during WWII wage and price controls) to individuals, health care costs will reduce and become manageable.
If the federal government would replace all existing subsidies and non-value added government regulations with an individual tax credit sufficient to cover a reasonable annual insurance premium (based on the net negotiated price, not the government subsidized price) the savings to tax payers would be astronomical, and the insurance and medical services industries would be scrambling to provide top quality health care at a competitive cost (within the tax credit level).
This same solution could be applied to replacing Medicare with private insurance.
Of course, without the ability to manipulate government subsidies, I’m sure that political contributions to our elected representatives from insurance and health care providers would be dramatically reduced, and I believe that explains why it won’t happen.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Constitutionality Not Popularism
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/02/01/obama_can_do_populism__100124.html
David Paul Kuhn, Chief Political Correspondence for RealClearPolitics.com suggests that president Obama should try Popularism.
President Obama doesn't need to try Populism, he needs to understand Constitutionality. From his public statements, Obama clearly neither understands nor honors the COTUS that he swore to preserve, protect and defend as a precondition to being vested with any federal authority.
The COTUS is very specific about the responsibilities and authorities delegated to each branch of the federal government, and quite clear that the federal government is specifically denied any authority to alter those delegated responsibilities and authorities. That can only be done by the Sovereign Citizens via a ratified Amendment to the COTUS.
The COTUS is quite clear: we elect a federal government to fulfill the enumerated duties and protect the COTUS: nothing more and nothing less. No federal branch or federal officer has any authority to "fundamentally transform the USA".
It appears that more Americans are beginning to understand the Constitution, reflected in what is referred to as the Tea Party Movement. As Sovereign Citizens it is our responsibility to remove from office any federal officer who fails to honor their solemn oath of office by usurping authorities not granted.
President Obama needs to learn this lesson more than any other, and he better learn it quickly as our patience is fading fast.
David Paul Kuhn, Chief Political Correspondence for RealClearPolitics.com suggests that president Obama should try Popularism.
President Obama doesn't need to try Populism, he needs to understand Constitutionality. From his public statements, Obama clearly neither understands nor honors the COTUS that he swore to preserve, protect and defend as a precondition to being vested with any federal authority.
The COTUS is very specific about the responsibilities and authorities delegated to each branch of the federal government, and quite clear that the federal government is specifically denied any authority to alter those delegated responsibilities and authorities. That can only be done by the Sovereign Citizens via a ratified Amendment to the COTUS.
The COTUS is quite clear: we elect a federal government to fulfill the enumerated duties and protect the COTUS: nothing more and nothing less. No federal branch or federal officer has any authority to "fundamentally transform the USA".
It appears that more Americans are beginning to understand the Constitution, reflected in what is referred to as the Tea Party Movement. As Sovereign Citizens it is our responsibility to remove from office any federal officer who fails to honor their solemn oath of office by usurping authorities not granted.
President Obama needs to learn this lesson more than any other, and he better learn it quickly as our patience is fading fast.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Constitutionalists, Not Libertarians
Response to: http://www.newsweek.com/id/232794/page/1 Eleanor Clift, Newsweek
Dear Ms. Clift:
You don’t get it.
The first thing you need to do is sit down with a copy of the Constitution and a piece of paper. Start with Article I and list the specific responsibilities and authorities that the Sovereign Citizens DELEGATED to Congress. Once you’ve completed that, do the same for Article II to learn the LEGAL authorities and responsibilities of the President. (We’ll skip the Judiciary for today, but they are just as wrong as these two branches).
Amazingly short lists aren’t they?
The Tea Party movement is about making the federal government comply with these lists. It isn’t about anger; the anger is a response to a federal government that fails to be restricted by the COTUS that created it; and the failure of our elected government to respond to our rightful demands for them to comply.
The COTUS isn’t a flexible document. Did you notice that every federal officer is required to take a solemn oath to ‘preserve, protect, and defend the COTUS’ before being empowered with any federal authority? No federal officer is authorized to interpret or modify or adjust the enumerated duties: that can only be done by a legally ratified Amendment. No federal officer has any authority to “fundamentally transform the USA” and in fact are sworn to do the opposite.
To make it simple: we elect a federal government to exercise their delegated responsibilities and protect the COTUS: Nothing more; nothing less.
Tea Party people are NOT Libertarians, they are Constitutionalists, and quite honestly there are only two kinds of people in America: Constitutionalists and those who should live somewhere else. That sounds harsh, but it’s no less true. The COTUS was designed to preserve and protect Citizens from a power-hungry and oppressive federal government, because government exists only to protect Citizen property rights, not to take and re-distribute their property.
As for the political parties; Republican and Democrat: did you see anything in the COTUS about them? Nope. Political parties exist only to pervert our Constitutional Republic. They are a way for elite wannabes to limit our choices in Representation. It’s okay for Citizens to join together to support their choice in representatives, but political parties have become far more than that.
Obama neither understands nor respects the COTUS or America for that matter. His SOTU demonstrates that he has no intention of being bound by the COTUS. For that reason he must be removed from office.
In America, Citizens are sovereign and the government exists only to serve them: not the other way around. Until there is appropriate realignment, the Tea Party will only grow: and that’s exactly how it should be.
Dear Ms. Clift:
You don’t get it.
The first thing you need to do is sit down with a copy of the Constitution and a piece of paper. Start with Article I and list the specific responsibilities and authorities that the Sovereign Citizens DELEGATED to Congress. Once you’ve completed that, do the same for Article II to learn the LEGAL authorities and responsibilities of the President. (We’ll skip the Judiciary for today, but they are just as wrong as these two branches).
Amazingly short lists aren’t they?
The Tea Party movement is about making the federal government comply with these lists. It isn’t about anger; the anger is a response to a federal government that fails to be restricted by the COTUS that created it; and the failure of our elected government to respond to our rightful demands for them to comply.
The COTUS isn’t a flexible document. Did you notice that every federal officer is required to take a solemn oath to ‘preserve, protect, and defend the COTUS’ before being empowered with any federal authority? No federal officer is authorized to interpret or modify or adjust the enumerated duties: that can only be done by a legally ratified Amendment. No federal officer has any authority to “fundamentally transform the USA” and in fact are sworn to do the opposite.
To make it simple: we elect a federal government to exercise their delegated responsibilities and protect the COTUS: Nothing more; nothing less.
Tea Party people are NOT Libertarians, they are Constitutionalists, and quite honestly there are only two kinds of people in America: Constitutionalists and those who should live somewhere else. That sounds harsh, but it’s no less true. The COTUS was designed to preserve and protect Citizens from a power-hungry and oppressive federal government, because government exists only to protect Citizen property rights, not to take and re-distribute their property.
As for the political parties; Republican and Democrat: did you see anything in the COTUS about them? Nope. Political parties exist only to pervert our Constitutional Republic. They are a way for elite wannabes to limit our choices in Representation. It’s okay for Citizens to join together to support their choice in representatives, but political parties have become far more than that.
Obama neither understands nor respects the COTUS or America for that matter. His SOTU demonstrates that he has no intention of being bound by the COTUS. For that reason he must be removed from office.
In America, Citizens are sovereign and the government exists only to serve them: not the other way around. Until there is appropriate realignment, the Tea Party will only grow: and that’s exactly how it should be.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Post SOTU Recap
The problem with dealing with a liar is that it is impossible to believe anything they say.
President Osama is a liar and the American people have finally realized it.
Being a liar is not the president's only problem, he's also a narcissist and a megalomaniac who happens to hate America and everything American.
Of course, as Harry Reid noted, he is light-skinned and he does not speak with a Negro dialect except when he wants to.
So, to recap:
Liabilities: liar, narcissist, megalomaniac, anti-American
Strengths: light skin, situational-only Negro dialect.
It's not looking good Mr. President.
President Osama is a liar and the American people have finally realized it.
Being a liar is not the president's only problem, he's also a narcissist and a megalomaniac who happens to hate America and everything American.
Of course, as Harry Reid noted, he is light-skinned and he does not speak with a Negro dialect except when he wants to.
So, to recap:
Liabilities: liar, narcissist, megalomaniac, anti-American
Strengths: light skin, situational-only Negro dialect.
It's not looking good Mr. President.
Friday, January 29, 2010
A Practical Plan for National Recovery
We don’t need a community organizer for president because all a community organizer (CO) does is stir-up anger, claim a spot on the evening news and move on to the next demonstration. Actually solving problems requires a much different skill set.
Most real progress is done out of the limelight, letting those who actually fix the problem take the credit so they are primed to contribute to fixing the next problem. A CO has to steal the limelight because the next problem will involve a different group and someone has to be enough of a draw to get the TV crews out.
A CO has to generate anger enough to motivate a complacent population to actually get out to protest. To create the anger there has to be a victim and there has to be a villain. That’s why we see a victim and a villain in every speech Obama makes. It doesn’t help solve problems at the national level, but that’s all he knows how to do.
We hear the same tired rhetoric in every Obama speech because he only knows how to say what he’s going to do: that’s how you entice a community into action. But COs rarely actually accomplish anything of substance beyond rabble-rousing because they have no resources to work with but popular discontent. They stimulate popular anger to get the media’s attention but confrontation is an ineffective foundation for actual problem solving beyond getting the TV crew to go away.
Since COs rarely see a project through to completion before they move on to the next confrontation, their rhetoric rarely changes, they simply exchange a few key words to adapt their stump speech to the next community action. That explains why Obama was such a good campaigner, all he had to do was deliver a rousing speech and move on to the next crowd and do it over again: that’s what COs do. Unfortunately we are learning that is all he can do. He’s been president for over a year, he’s got the Congress and Executive stacked with his homies, but all we get are campaign speeches, nothing more.
As we learned from the SOTU, Obama isn’t even able to modify his stump speeches to delete the promises he made as candidate but failed to deliver as president (honesty, transparency, no lobbyists, bi-partisanship, teamwork, a new politic, eliminating government waste, line by line budget reviews, etc., etc., etc.).
Many Americans obviously hoped that Obama, as president would miraculously rise above his lack of accomplishment as a CO. That hope is rapidly dissipating. Obama should realize that when hope is crushed, anger usually takes it’s place. As a CO, that’s not a bad thing because that anger can be used for the next episode on the evening news. As a problem solver that anger is a real problem because it generally gets focused on the promise-breaker, not the problem.
In many ways the SOTU was very disturbing. Aside from being little more than a kluge of numerous campaign speeches, it demonstrated a president totally incapable of achieving teamwork in his administration blaming everyone else in the room (i.e. the entire federal government) for his failure of leadership. It also showed a president
totally out of touch with the reality of the mood of the electorate; and out of touch with his Constitutional responsibilities and limitations. It also showed a president asking the Citizens to entrust their entire lives to a dysfunctional government. Is Obama incapable of seeing that paradox?
In fairness we should have expected nothing more. A Community Organizer only generates dissent, not actual solutions.
The question is, what do we do now as Citizens? Not only is the president totally out of his league, but with Biden, Pelosi and Reid as his backups, we have no viable fall-back position.
The solution model comes from the Nixon Administration. As Nixon bubbled over the edge of reality, something had to be done, but Agnew, like Biden was not a plausible replacement. The first step was to remove Agnew, and then impeach Nixon, leaving a steady, non-threatening Ford as caretaker until the next election.
So here’s the plan: Use the 2010 elections to change the structure of the House and assure that a stable, non-threatening and Constitution-honoring Speaker of the House is put in place; spend 30 minutes reviewing Biden’s personal financial manipulations as Senator and indict him under RICO, forcing his resignation; then impeach Obama. He’s given us plenty of cause not only to impeach him but also to prosecute him for extortion.
It may not be a pretty plan, but it is far better than leaving a grossly incompetent narcissist and megalomaniac in the oval office for another 3 years. It’s time to get America back on track before Obama can cause irreversible damage to our Republic.
Most real progress is done out of the limelight, letting those who actually fix the problem take the credit so they are primed to contribute to fixing the next problem. A CO has to steal the limelight because the next problem will involve a different group and someone has to be enough of a draw to get the TV crews out.
A CO has to generate anger enough to motivate a complacent population to actually get out to protest. To create the anger there has to be a victim and there has to be a villain. That’s why we see a victim and a villain in every speech Obama makes. It doesn’t help solve problems at the national level, but that’s all he knows how to do.
We hear the same tired rhetoric in every Obama speech because he only knows how to say what he’s going to do: that’s how you entice a community into action. But COs rarely actually accomplish anything of substance beyond rabble-rousing because they have no resources to work with but popular discontent. They stimulate popular anger to get the media’s attention but confrontation is an ineffective foundation for actual problem solving beyond getting the TV crew to go away.
Since COs rarely see a project through to completion before they move on to the next confrontation, their rhetoric rarely changes, they simply exchange a few key words to adapt their stump speech to the next community action. That explains why Obama was such a good campaigner, all he had to do was deliver a rousing speech and move on to the next crowd and do it over again: that’s what COs do. Unfortunately we are learning that is all he can do. He’s been president for over a year, he’s got the Congress and Executive stacked with his homies, but all we get are campaign speeches, nothing more.
As we learned from the SOTU, Obama isn’t even able to modify his stump speeches to delete the promises he made as candidate but failed to deliver as president (honesty, transparency, no lobbyists, bi-partisanship, teamwork, a new politic, eliminating government waste, line by line budget reviews, etc., etc., etc.).
Many Americans obviously hoped that Obama, as president would miraculously rise above his lack of accomplishment as a CO. That hope is rapidly dissipating. Obama should realize that when hope is crushed, anger usually takes it’s place. As a CO, that’s not a bad thing because that anger can be used for the next episode on the evening news. As a problem solver that anger is a real problem because it generally gets focused on the promise-breaker, not the problem.
In many ways the SOTU was very disturbing. Aside from being little more than a kluge of numerous campaign speeches, it demonstrated a president totally incapable of achieving teamwork in his administration blaming everyone else in the room (i.e. the entire federal government) for his failure of leadership. It also showed a president
totally out of touch with the reality of the mood of the electorate; and out of touch with his Constitutional responsibilities and limitations. It also showed a president asking the Citizens to entrust their entire lives to a dysfunctional government. Is Obama incapable of seeing that paradox?
In fairness we should have expected nothing more. A Community Organizer only generates dissent, not actual solutions.
The question is, what do we do now as Citizens? Not only is the president totally out of his league, but with Biden, Pelosi and Reid as his backups, we have no viable fall-back position.
The solution model comes from the Nixon Administration. As Nixon bubbled over the edge of reality, something had to be done, but Agnew, like Biden was not a plausible replacement. The first step was to remove Agnew, and then impeach Nixon, leaving a steady, non-threatening Ford as caretaker until the next election.
So here’s the plan: Use the 2010 elections to change the structure of the House and assure that a stable, non-threatening and Constitution-honoring Speaker of the House is put in place; spend 30 minutes reviewing Biden’s personal financial manipulations as Senator and indict him under RICO, forcing his resignation; then impeach Obama. He’s given us plenty of cause not only to impeach him but also to prosecute him for extortion.
It may not be a pretty plan, but it is far better than leaving a grossly incompetent narcissist and megalomaniac in the oval office for another 3 years. It’s time to get America back on track before Obama can cause irreversible damage to our Republic.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
SOTU: Isn't it interesting...?
Isn't it interesting that the only mention of the Constitution in the president’s SOTU was the requirement to report the State of the Union from time to time.
There was no mention of the COTUS in comments regarding plans or programs; no concern about complaints that many of the president's plans or programs egregiously exceed any Constitutional authority to implement them.
There was no mention of the COTUS when alluding to the take-over by the federal government of our auto industry; our banking industry; or our financial system. No mention of the COTUS in relation to the decision by the Fed to print worthless currency by the truckload to monetize federal debt that investors won’t touch; no mention of the COTUS in connection with the government intervention in our financial system that caused it’s collapse.
There was no mention of the COTUS when the federal government essentially confiscated two-thirds of our domestic auto manufacturing and arbitrarily distributed it to the UAW and Fiat without just compensation to the rightful owners: the shareholders.
There was no mention of the COTUS when the decision was made to drive major commercial and investment banks into bankruptcy while protecting Goldman Sachs. There was no mention of the COTUS when the president was extorting bond holders to forego their long established rights under the bankruptcy laws of the US in the distribution of the auto manufacturers’ assets.
There was no mention of the COTUS when the Congress was implementing clearly un-Constitutionally non-uniform distribution of Medicare taxes for certain States or certain occupations as a bribe for Senate votes.
There was no mention of the COTUS when chastising the SCOTUS; no mention of the COTUS when discussing hate crime legislation (so much for equal justice under law); no mention of the COTUS when discussing protected status for homosexuals even though the practice is an abomination to Jews, Moslems and Christians and subsequently any empowering legislation is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment proscription that the Congress shall pass no laws restricting the free exercise of religion.
There was no mention of the COTUS when discussing the roles of the Legislative, Executive, or the Judicial branches or the issues they considered over the past year.
Isn’t it interesting that every federal officer is required to take a solemn oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the COTUS” before being endowed with any federal authority? Respect for the COTUS is supposed to be the heart of every action by our federal government: but it’s mentioned only for a report required from time to time. God help America!
There was no mention of the COTUS in comments regarding plans or programs; no concern about complaints that many of the president's plans or programs egregiously exceed any Constitutional authority to implement them.
There was no mention of the COTUS when alluding to the take-over by the federal government of our auto industry; our banking industry; or our financial system. No mention of the COTUS in relation to the decision by the Fed to print worthless currency by the truckload to monetize federal debt that investors won’t touch; no mention of the COTUS in connection with the government intervention in our financial system that caused it’s collapse.
There was no mention of the COTUS when the federal government essentially confiscated two-thirds of our domestic auto manufacturing and arbitrarily distributed it to the UAW and Fiat without just compensation to the rightful owners: the shareholders.
There was no mention of the COTUS when the decision was made to drive major commercial and investment banks into bankruptcy while protecting Goldman Sachs. There was no mention of the COTUS when the president was extorting bond holders to forego their long established rights under the bankruptcy laws of the US in the distribution of the auto manufacturers’ assets.
There was no mention of the COTUS when the Congress was implementing clearly un-Constitutionally non-uniform distribution of Medicare taxes for certain States or certain occupations as a bribe for Senate votes.
There was no mention of the COTUS when chastising the SCOTUS; no mention of the COTUS when discussing hate crime legislation (so much for equal justice under law); no mention of the COTUS when discussing protected status for homosexuals even though the practice is an abomination to Jews, Moslems and Christians and subsequently any empowering legislation is a clear violation of the 1st Amendment proscription that the Congress shall pass no laws restricting the free exercise of religion.
There was no mention of the COTUS when discussing the roles of the Legislative, Executive, or the Judicial branches or the issues they considered over the past year.
Isn’t it interesting that every federal officer is required to take a solemn oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the COTUS” before being endowed with any federal authority? Respect for the COTUS is supposed to be the heart of every action by our federal government: but it’s mentioned only for a report required from time to time. God help America!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
