Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘unconstitutional’

No GMOMilton Friedman was right to draw our attention to the failings and detrimental effects of government regulation of our health, in the increasing absence of our own awareness and self-responsibility, especially with regards to unconstitutional federal regulation by the FDA. Why is it unconstitutional? Because the federal government was constituted with very limited functions, while those dealing with life, liberty and property were left to the States, which are closer to the people.

It’s far easier for big agri-business and big-Pharma to control one federal government regulator than it is for 50 different regulators.

This article describes eight foods that government regulators didn’t protect you from, which some food exports won’t even eat. They are:

Canned tomatoes, corn-fed beef, microwave popcorn, non-organic potatoes, farmed salmon, milk with artificial hormones, GMO unfermented soy and non-organic apples.

Read Full Post »

Gary North speaking at the Mises Institute aft...Gary North, in attacking Ellen Brown for her support of government-issued credit, has repeatedly referred to her as a “Greenbacker.”

He states, without reference, that she is “a Greenbacker by confession.

It’s ironic that North got on his high horse and claimed to have discredited her book, Web of Debt, by pointing to errors in it, yet failed to do research into his own bogus claim that she is a Greenbacker.

The Greenback movement refers to those who supported the issuance of interest-free paper money at the federal level during the Civil War era and in the subsequent years of the late 19th century.

Had North done even the most basic amount of research — which he claims Brown failed to do regarding some of her claims — he would’ve come across her proposal (on page 455) for:

A bill to update the Constitutional provision that “Congress shall have the power to coin money” so that it reads, “Congress shall have the power to create the national currency in all its forms, including not only coins and paper dollars but the nation’s credit issued as commercial loans.”

Calling for a constitutional amendment to make Greenbacks constitutional means that Ellen Brown is not a Greenbacker, since she is saying that the Greenbacks that were issued at the time were unconstitutional, and would be unconstitutional if issued today, until an amendment is passed.

Read Full Post »

Social Security Poster: old man

Or so they promised!

On the September 1, 2011 episode of Radio Liberty with Dr. Stan Monteith, John Stormer, author of None Dare Call it Treason, who exposed a communist conspiracy in the United States in the 1960s, admitted to being dependent on the socialist program of Social Security (starting at 41:18 and edited to remove pause words).

What we’re going to see, if some conservatives should get control of government in 2012 and even start to try and deal with things like entitlements, and part of that — of course I’m on Social Security, so I want to keep that (chuckles) — I’m livin’ on it.

Social Security is the unconstitutional and unlawful program passed by Congress in 1935, of which the first payment was made in 1940, which predictably made millions of American seniors dependent on government for a major source of their income, instead of their own savings and the help of their family, as used to be the case, and was the case for the first 159 years in the United States.

Dr. Stan has said that he feels it his patriotic duty to collect all of his Social Security benefits in order to bring the system down as soon as possible. I can certainly see the justification for taking all the money you’ve put into it at least, even if the program is unconstitutional.

Dr. Stan isn’t dependent on Social Security, however, since he runs a half-a-million dollar a year radio operation since 1993, after over 30 years as an orthopedic surgeon, and he said he doesn’t take a salary for his work, which I find to be very admirable.

I think that John Stormer’s admission that he is dependent on Social Security for his livelihood is a fitting indication of how the program predictably went beyond its promised intention of simply being a safety net for those seniors who would otherwise live in destitute poverty, as opposed to it being a primary source of income. I also note the irony of an author who exposed a communist conspiracy in the United States back in the 1960s later being dependent on a socialist program designed to take away the freedoms of American seniors.

Read Full Post »

Timothy F. Geithner, Under Secretary of the Tr...

In May, 2011, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner held up a pocket copy of the U.S. Constitution, and made the audacious claim that the Congressional debt limit is unconstitutional, citing Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which reads in part:

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

The nerve of him to claim the federal debt limit is unconstitutional, since he was previously the head of the largest of the 12 privately-owned regional banks of the illegal and unconstitutional Federal Reserve System.

Despite the 1819 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in McCulloch v. Maryland, which effectively ruled that a private central bank is constitutional, a private central bank was regarded as unconstitutional by the Father of the Constitution, James Madison, and by Thomas Jefferson, and is unconstitutional by a plain reading of the Constitution, which states that Congress has the power to coin money.

I think most Americans would regard the delegation of Congress’ power to declare war to a private entity to be ridiculous, but what about delegating its power to coin money?

Not only is Timothy Geithner a hypocrite on one count, he’s also a hypocrite for previously threatening that Congress is going to have to raise the debt limit he now claims is unconstitutional.

He also showed his ignorance of U.S. monetary history in claiming that the U.S. meets its financial obligations, in failing to acknowledge that the U.S. ended the gold standard in 1933, and the gold exchange standard in 1971.

Read Full Post »

Barack Obama signing the Patient Protection an...

The constitutional way of signing a bill -- with a pen in your own hand

It wasn’t enough for President Obama to illegally go to war against Libya.

No, he had to violate another part of the Constitution. This time, by indirectly signing a four-year extension to the so-called Patriot Act with an autopen.

Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution states:

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it

The clear meaning of this requirement is that the bill that has passed the House and Senate, which is to be presented to the President, has to be signed by him, and only him, and not some autopen based on his order.

If they can’t get the bill to him on time, then that should say something about the perils of waiting until the last minute, and about too many bills being passed by Congress. Taking shortcuts is no excuse, since the bill will become law if it’s still unsigned 10 days later (excluding Sundays).

The Constitution’s language also makes it clear that line-item vetos aren’t constitutional, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled as such in 1998, after such a provision was signed into law in 1996 by President Clinton.

Therefore, we don’t need a Supreme Court decision to tell us what should be obvious by a plain reading, and the former Attorney General under George W. Bush, Alberto Gonzales, is no authority on the Constitution, in arguing autopen signings are constitutional, since he was the one who claimed that there was no constitutional habeas corpus protection in the constitution for Guantanimo detainees, despite Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution already recognizing a pre-existing writ of habeas corpus, in saying:

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

Read Full Post »

Official presidential portrait of Barack Obama...

It has been noted that Friday, May 20, 2011, marked 60 days since the initiation of U.S. hostilities against Libya.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 prohibits U.S. armed forces from continuing hostilities for more than 60 days, with a 30 day withdrawal period, unless there is statutory Congressional authorization, or a formal constitutional Congressional declaration of war.

However, the War Powers Resolution and its timetable are a completely false diversion in this case.

The only situation in which an offensive military operation without prior Congressional authorization is valid under the Resolution is, “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Since the United States wasn’t attacked by Libya, the War Powers Resolution doesn’t apply, and, therefore, the imposition of a no-fly zone (an act of war) was unlawful to begin with, and the talk of the 30-day withdrawal deadline is a red herring.

Read Full Post »

Unbalanced scales

Among the common misconceptions about the United States are that it’s a democracy (it’s a republic), that the U.S. Constitution mentions “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (it’s in the Declaration of Independence), that it has a government of, by, and for the people (mentioned by President Abraham Lincoln at his Gettysburg Address, 87 years after U.S. independence), and then there is the misconception that everyone is equal before and under the law.

The U.S. Constitution, the document that provides the framework for the U.S. government, says it is “the Supreme Law of the Land,” and it says of the members of Congress:

They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

Not only isn’t everyone equal before the law in the U.S., but equality before the law is also unconstitutional, in that it is unconstitutional, and, therefore, unlawful, to arrest any member of Congress outside of the exceptions provided, and to arrest them for any statements made, even if they were intended to cause a riot.

So much, then, for members of Congress having special privileges being some new phenomenon.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »