ledeagenda.com

From the same administration that released the DHS and MIAC reports, labeling citizens who support the Constitution, Ron Paul and limited Federal government as domestic terrorists, comes this beauty:

On Tuesday, the White House posted a blog that asked supporters to report “fishy” information they come across about the health insurance debate. The appeal was made at the end of the blog, which showed a video that countered a set of online clips that made it look like Obama wanted to eliminate private coverage. 

“There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there,” the blog concludes. “Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.” 

With the request raising the possibility of a kind of Nixonian “enemies list” that would initiate a whole new brand of surveillance over that undertaken during the Bush administration, critics called the move an Orwellian tactic to control the health care debate. 

That’s right, Obama has set up his snitch-line to report those ‘domestic terrorists’ who dare oppose his socialism and unconstitutional government actions.

Consider this: what potential, raw abuses of government/state power await those who dare stand against any political administration who runs afoul of the Constitution? After all, the Department of Homeland Security in it’s, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic And Political Climate” report lists gun owners (pg. 3), opponents of globalization (5), those opposed to abortion (5), same sex marriage (5) and illegal immigration (6), as ‘domestic terrorists’.

Or how about the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report, “The Modern Militia Movement” report which lists those opposed to the New World Order (1), North American Union (4), and universal national service (6) as threats to the American public. Do you fly a Gadsen Flag? The MIAC reports lists you as a domestic terrorist (7). Or how about supporting a third political party? Ron Paul? The Campaign For Liberty? Again, you are a threat to the Homeland (7).

You see, Obama and the cronies moved very, very quickly to establish his enemies list. By working with law enforcement, he is targeting constitutionalists and libertarians for political character assassination in an attempt to marginalize and demean you. He know that adherents to the constitution are the biggest threat to his political agenda and also the biggest opportunity for the Republican party to rebuild. That is he is now going beyond law enforcement and establishing this snitch line only confirms the fact that the American people are waking up, fascism- the total state takeover of our lives- is breathing down our neck if we don’t demand a return to the Constitution, and demand it now.

Well we are going to have a little fun and show this Administration that we are not afraid of his gestapo tactics.

Judge Napolitano writes:

The White House strategy of turning supporters into snitches when they see “fishy” information about the health care debate may run afoul of the law, legal experts say.

“The White House is in bit of a conundrum because of this privacy statute that prohibits the White House from collecting data and storing it on people who disagree with it,” Judge Andrew Napolitano, a FOX News analyst, said Friday. 

“There’s also a statute that requires the White House to retain all communications that it receives. It can’t try to rewrite history by pretending it didn’t receive anything,” he said.

“If the White House deletes anything, it violates one statute. If the White House collects data on the free speech, it violates another statute.”

Napolitano was referring to the Privacy Act of 1974, which was passed after the Nixon administration used federal agencies to illegally investigate individuals for political purposes. Enacted after Richard Nixon’s resignation in the Watergate scandal, the statute generally prohibits any federal agency from maintaining records on individuals exercising their right to free speech.

So what are we going to do? Simple, we are going to email ‘The Messiah’. Make sure that what you write is in opposition to one of his policies, preferably the reason this email address was created in the first place, nationalized health care. Cap and tax or opposition to the stimulus package are also good suggestions. In any event, just email his snitch line- flag@whitehouse.gov, and then our work begins.

You see, as Judge Napolitano writes, it is against the law for Obama to retain these records on political opponents, but it is also against the law for him to delete communications. You see we are going to force the issue to bring attention to the chilling effects of civilian monitoring that was put into place with the creation of the DHS, and put to use against citizens when Obama came into power. We are going to file Freedom Of Information Act requests to obtain our own emails to the President.

Should Obama fail to produce these records, he is in violation of the statue that requires him to retain communications to his office. Should he provide our own email back to us, he violates the Privacy Act of 1974. Either way, he is caught in a catch-22.

The ACLU notes:

The ACLU said in a statement to FOXNews.com that the White House blog is a “bad idea that could send a troublesome message.”

But the organization added, “While it is unclear at this point what the government is doing with the information it is collecting, critics of the administration’s health care proposal should not fear that their names will end up in some government database that could be used to chill their right to free speech.”

Specifics on filing a FOIA request can be found here, but the most important aspect is this: to ask for both a copy of the email, any database that it was collected in and person’s who it may have been forwarded on to. For the record, the address to mail your request to is as follows:

A request made under the FOIA must be submitted in writing, by mail or fax, to the following address:

Office of Administration
FOIA Officer
725 17th Street NW
Washington, DC 20503
Fax: (202) 456-7921

The words FOIA REQUEST should be clearly marked on both the letter and the envelope.

Have fun, and realize this is a smoking gun against unconstitutional Executive and state power. As you get your responses, please let us know so that if necessary we can reverse engineer the President’s enemies list setup.

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”- Edmund Burke

We gathered on April 15th in over 300 different cities, our voices united in one purpose; to stop the unconstitutional bailouts, to stop the stimulus spending, to audit the Federal Reserve and return to the Constitution.

And yet… Congress is still spending like drunken sailors, still considering a bill to nationalize our health care system, still considering Cap and Tax and even proposing to expand the powers of the private Federal Reserve.

Our calls to answer abuses of constitutional authority went unheeded. It is now time to formalize the process and petition for a redress of grievances, laying out a course of action against the unconstitutional actions by our government.

It is time for the Continental Congress 2009, organized by the We The People Foundation.

The purpose of the CC09 is:

Since its inception, WTP has stood for Constitutional Obedience without exception, striving to hold our elected officials accountable to the finest governing documents ever given to mankind. Anything less than full compliance with our Constitution and Bill of Rights is unacceptable.

After years of rationally and intelligently Petitioning the Government for Redress of violations of numerous provisions of the Constitution with no reasonable response, and especially now as violations to the Constitution escalate with devastating effects on our country and citizens, we have turned our focus to Continental Congress 2009 knowing that this is the appropriate next step for a FREE People to take.

Since last December, we have been diligently working to convene a Continental Congress for America from November 9th through the 24th, to conclude on the eve of our Thanksgiving holiday. (1) ‘A Most Urgent Appeal Regarding CC2009′, July 14th, 2008.

In short, the Continental Congress is meeting to analyze the facts of our petitions, choose a course of action and then present our demands to the government. The intent and motivation behind this is to bring our nation back into full and absolute compliance with the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

If this interests you, or if you just want to network with fellow lovers of freedom, liberty and the Constitution, then head on down to the Caldwell Library at 1010 Dearborn St. We will be starting about 10:30 am, running ~2.5-3 hours.

For more information and contact info, join the Idahoans For Liberty Meetup group, a semi-joint organization of the We The People Foundation Idaho and the Idaho chapter of the Campaign For Liberty.

Mind you, this is a serious effort to restore the Republic and return to the Constitution.

I love my country and I love the Constitution, it hangs on my wall along with the Declaration of Independence. But ask yourself this: do you really see America coming out of these bailouts, stimulus spending, expansion of the Federal Reserve and nationalization of our health care, auto and banking industries the same as we went in?

If you don’t believe that America will be recognizable by the time this ‘Hope and Change’ gets fully implemented, this may just be the cause you are looking for.

Mr. Bernanke goes to Washington. From La Times:

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner today began the tough sales job on Capitol Hill for the Obama administration’s sweeping overhaul of financial regulations, facing sharp criticism at a Senate hearing for one key proposal — increasing the power of the Federal Reserve to regulate large institutions whose failure would pose a significant risk to the economy.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) and the committee’s top Republican, Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, both told Geithner they did not like the Fed idea, reflecting bipartisan concerns about the central bank’s failure to identify the looming financial crisis and the deep recession.

Key lawmakers are also concerned that giving the Fed more of a direct regulatory role could impede its independence, which they said is crucial to keeping politics out of its responsibility for setting monetary policy.

The questions about the Fed’s role also highlighted the challenges President Obama faces in getting his regulatory overhaul passed into law. The plan, the most comprehensive since the Great Depression, would institute tough, new requirements on large companies who could damage the economy if they fail, add oversight of complex financial derivatives, attempt to rein in executive compensation and create a new agency to oversee consumer financial products.

Most of the key provisions require congressional approval. Geithner is expected to face a similar reception when he testifies before the House Financial Services Committee later today.

Dodd said he had an open mind about whether the Fed should take on the new role, which is one of the major and most controversial components of the Obama administration’s plan. But then he referred to numerous criticisms of the Fed, citing one expert who said giving the agency more power over the financial system was like a parent giving a teenager a faster car after he crashed another one.

Shelby, who has been a strong critic of expanding the role of the Federal Reserve, cited the agency’s independent structure and worried that Congress would not be able to hold it accountable for its new power. He also said the Fed’s performance leading up to the current crisis did not merit additional responsibility. The Fed already is responsible for monetary policy as well as handling some bank supervision and consumer protection roles in the financial system.

Responding to Geithner’s assertion that the Fed was the one government agency that had the expertise to handle the role, Shelby said, “I personally believe this represents a grossly inflated view of the Fed’s expertise.”

Geithner defended the administration’s plan at the Senate Banking Committee hearing, particularly the new role for the Fed, even as he sought to downplay it.

“Our plan is to give it a carefully designed, modest amount of additional authority and clear accountability for the Fed to carry out that mission,” Geithner said. “But we also take some important authority and responsibilities away from the Federal Reserve.”

Most notably, Geithner said the Federal Reserve would lose its authority to write consumer protection rules for consumer financial products such as credit cards and to enforce those rules. Those powers would rest in a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency - itself a controversial proposal, particularly among business groups and some Republicans.

Even senators who largely praised the administration’s overall regulatory plan, such as Dodd and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), criticized the Fed for failing in its consumer protection responsibilities.

But Schumer said he tentatively was supportive of giving the Fed its expanded role to monitor the entire economic system.

“I’m not certain, but I tend to agree that the Fed is the best answer,” he said. “There are no great ones.”

The Obama administration’s regulatory overhaul also creates a new Financial Services Oversight Council to identify emerging risks to the economy. The council would be headed by Geithner and include the Federal Reserve chairman and other financial regulators. Some senators said the council might be better suited than the Fed to supervise and regulate large institutions.

But Geithner said the council would not be as accountable as a single agency and would not be able to act as quickly in a crisis.

“You cannot convene a committee to put out a fire,” he said. “The Federal Reserve is the best positioned to play that role.”

Bailouts, reforms, expanded powers of the Federal Reserve. Economic turmoil. Nationalization of our the auto, bank and health care industries.

When you look at all the problems facing us today it almost seems surreal. It almost seems passé  to worry about the erosion of civil liberties due to the expansion of government power and control. Contrast this to the eight years of the Bush presidency when one couldn’t sneeze without someone arguing about how Bush is violating their rights. No one, it seems, is willing to face the reality: Obama, by and large, is carrying on with the exact same agenda, secrecy and expansion of government that his predecessor was. Hope and change has turned out to be nothing more than a marketing gimmick. A intentional disguise to hide the fact that he actually intends to build on what he inherited from President Bush. A cool ploy to hide the man behind the curtain: centralized banking and the power oligarchs.

And I don’t begrudge those haven’t caught up to this fact yet. But the facts are the facts. There will be no end to the war or terror, the war in Iraq or secret military tribunals. There will be no end to the Department of Homeland Security and the so-called Patriot Act. If anything we have seen the emboldenment and elevation of the Terror State since Obama took office. And, just like the patriots warned would happen, the DHS is now starting to label American’s as terrorists for simply supporting the Constitution, waving a Gadsen flag or re-affirming a strong political stance.

What we are facing is really a crises of responsibility. It really boils down to that.

Men, it is time to step up. If you love your life, if you love your country, it is time to step up.

I would like to suggest this: It doesn’t matter if a government program is doing good or bad, by simply existing it is a threat to our liberty and freedom. Decentralize and repeal must become the mantra of the patriot, the Christian, the freeman. We must demand a return to the principals our our forefathers: our rights end were another person’s begin. Taxation operates out of compulsion and force; it is the antithesis of freedom and liberty. We can not support federal government mandated programs where they exceed the 18 limited and enumerated powers of the Constitution, no matter the positive or negative effects to society.

Perhaps some of you are not the ‘political type’. I get that, I really do. But I would like to ask you this: at what point does this system become a problem? How many abuses will you allow to be assailed against you before you petition for redress? Where is your line in the sand?

Think about your home. Your land and home are taxed.  The loan you obtain the home with is taken from a bank owned by the Federal Reserve. The food you fill it with, regulated and controlled in it’s manufacture, marketing and content. The clothes you wear, subject to trade law and the health care you need should you become sick, nationalized. The car in your driveway, built by a company owned by the Federal Government. Your employer, regulated, controlled and taxed. At every aspect of our most basic right to life, liberty and property we find the usurpations and abuses promulgating every aspect of our being.

Consider what Frederic Bastiat wrote in ‘The Law’, 1850:

Each of us has a natural right—from God—to defend his person, his liberty, and his property.  These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two.  For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?

Do you see where we are at? Do you see what is at hand? Put most simply: you have a moral obligation to fight against government encroachment into areas that exceed it’s lawful powers. We can no longer be happy with simply fighting for a smaller percentage of government growth, we must reduce the size, scope and authority of said government.

Decentralize and repeal. No longer a choice between two bad idea’s, but honest hope and change. The first step, of course, is for us to take responsibility for our own lives. So I guess the real question of the day is this: what are you doing to promote your own freedom and happiness? What battles are you fighting? Are you dependent on this system that operates on force to help you obtain what you need to survive? These are the questions we must ask.

Men, are we willing to fight this battle for posterity? History will record the result.

From WSJ:

The Obama administration is proposing the creation of a new office within the Treasury Department to coordinate policy in the state-regulated insurance sector, according to a near-final draft of the plan.

The office would be charged with gathering information about the insurance sector and negotiating international agreements, according to the draft. It would also be empowered to consult with the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. on insurance matters if a failing insurer needs to be resolved by the government. Legislative action would be required to establish the new office.

The proposed insurance office is a far cry from the federal regulation of the industry that some insurers had been seeking. Large property and casualty firms and life insurers have pushed for years to have an optional federal charter but have been met with stiff opposition from smaller firms and insurance agents.

Or this…

From The Hill:

Senate lawmakers from both parties raised questions on Thursday about one of the main elements of President Obama’s proposal to restructure the financial system: granting more power to the Federal Reserve.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner defended the proposal and the Fed’s role as a “systemic risk regulator” at a Senate Banking Committee hearing.

But committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) continues to have questions about granting the central bank authority to oversee “systemic risk.” Meanwhile, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) took aim at the Fed for failing to regulate lending practices among large firms at the center of the financial crisis. Shelby questioned the administration’s plan to vest more power in an agency that traditionally has tried to maintain its independence in setting monetary policy.

Or this…

From Mercury News:

Progressives must keep demanding a single-payer health care system to ensure that the reform package Congress eventually votes upon at least has a robust public option, Rep. Barbara Lee told local health care and community leaders Monday.

About 250 people attended the national heath care plan discussion that Lee, D-Oakland, hosted in the Evergreen Missionary Baptist Church on West MacArthur Blvd. Joining Lee on the dais were several Bay Area health policy experts, most of whom extolled a single-payer plan — in which one source of money, most likely the government, pays all health care providers — but acknowledged that’s essentially a political impossibility.

But they said pushing for a single-payer plan will build support for the proposal unveiled last week by the Democratic chairman of the Education and Labor, Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means committees, which at least includes a public alternative to private insurance.

“At no point can we be silent,” Lee told the crowd, adding President Barack Obama wants “a democratic movement of people” to push for the best possible plan under the political circumstances. “Health care should not be driven by a profit motive. I don’t believe it should be an industry — I believe it’s a human right.”

Where does the Constitution grant Congress the right to take action in these areas?

Where does the Constitution grant Congress to overrule our inalienable rights AGAINST government interference?

There are 18 specific, enumerated powers given to Congress and two clauses to allow action on these powers- the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause.

Where does President Obama claim to draw his power from? Where does he claim legitimacy for his actions? We need to only look at a key line from his Inauguration:

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.

As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.

Translation: ”expedience’s sake” seems to be whatever fits Obama’s socialist agenda.

From BreitBart:

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Monday delayed Chrysler’s sale of most of its assets to a group led by Italy’s Fiat, but didn’t say how long the deal will remain on hold.
Ginsburg said in an order that the sale is “stayed pending further order,” indicating that the delay may only be temporary.

Chrysler LLC has said the sale must close by June 15, or Fiat Group SpA has the option to walk away, leaving the Auburn Hills, Mich., automaker with little option but to liquidate.

A federal appeals court in New York approved the sale Friday but gave opponents until 4 p.m. EDT Monday to try to get the Supreme Court to intervene. Ginsburg issued her order right before the deadline.

Ginsburg could decide on her own whether to end the delay, or she could ask the full court to decide. It is unclear when she or the court will act.

Chrysler said it had no comment until it receives further information from the court.

Chrysler claims the agreement with Fiat is the best deal it can get for its assets and is critical to the company’s plan to emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

But a trio of Indiana state pension and construction funds, which hold a small part of Chrysler’s debt, have been fighting the sale, claiming that it unfairly favors Chrysler’s unsecured stakeholders ahead of secured debtholders like themselves.

As part of Chrysler’s restructuring plan, the automaker’s secured debtholders will receive $2 billion, or about 29 cents on the dollar, for their combined $6.9 billion in debt. The Indiana funds bought their $42.5 million in debt in July 2008 for 43 cents on the dollar.

The funds also are challenging the constitutionality of the Treasury Department’s use of money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program to supply Chrysler’s bankruptcy protection financing. They say the government did so without congressional authority.

Consumer groups and individuals with product-related lawsuits also are contesting a condition of the Chrysler sale that would release the company from product liability claims related to vehicles it sold before the “New Chrysler” partnered with Fiat is created.

Individuals with claims against “Old Chrysler” would have to seek compensation from the parts of the company not being sold to Fiat. But those assets have limited value and it’s doubtful that there will be anything available to pay consumer claims.

 There are so many problems with TARP. So many unconstitutional acts of government.

The injustices of the TARP Bailouts

- placing unsecured stakeholders above secured creditors in a bankruptcy re-organization

- pushing TARP as a legal mechanism to buy up “troubled assets” (remember that line?) from mortgage corporations and then turning around and using those funds for direct “capital infusions” and common and preferred stock purchases, thus often assuming majority control and ownership.

- voiding consumer safety laws for the security of its own “capital infusion”

- creating a Fiat sale to intentionally undermine a orderly bankruptcy, leaving people with a legitimate interest in a bankruptcy fight left with only 20-25% of the company to claim in assets

- eliminating auto dealerships based on donations to political candidates

- putting a 31 year old in charge of the bankruptcy reorganization of the auto industry despite no prior experience in the field

- refusing to disclose which banks have received “capital infusions” (bailouts)

- refusing to allow banks that were forced to accept bailout monies to repay them

- changing the terms and conditions of the bailouts after they were given

Why we should be hopeful

Legal Summary of the TARP Legislation

Constitutional Law Professor Blog: Problems with TARP and Auto Maker Bailouts 

Freedom Works: TARP is Unconstitutional

CATO: Is The Bailout Constitutional?

The Heritage Foundation: The Housing Bailout: Constitutional Infirmities Remain, but a Ray of Hope

The problem is that were application of the TARP legislation is not blatantly unconstitutional (for failing to follow the proper legal intent of the legislation- that is purchasing of bad loans) it clearly is not included within the scope of the TARP model (bailouts of credit card companies & auto makers).

What We Can Do To Support A Sound Economy

This fight can be won. But let us not let our guard down: these cases will mearly open the door to highlighting the real culprit behind inflation, economic destruction and slavery to debt- The Federal Reserve System. But that is a story for another day (although if you are interested check out and support Ron Paul’s ‘Audit The Fed’ bill- H.R.1207. Also, LewRockwell.com- The Case Against The Fed).

But in the meantime know that we still have a message to send. We must still be boycotting those who have benefited from the theft of the taxpayers. We must boycott any financial institution that received TARP monies, General Motors Government Motors and Chrysler. We must refuse to purchase from any company that has participated in tyranny.

We must stand united:  we demand the Constitution, not socialism!

What does a Socialist America mean for the future of capitalism? How concerned do we need to be with government largesse with these bailouts? For case study, let’s dissect some recent news as related to Chrysler and GM.

1) The Government will choose the management team, acquisitions and product development

From ABC News:

“We are acting as reluctant shareholders,” President Obama said today, announcing the federal government’s unprecedented 60 percent stake in General Motors, a company that will ultimately receive almost $50 billion from the U.S. taxpayer. “That is the only way to help G.M. succeed.”

Attempting to reassure Americans skeptical of this step, the president said, “What we are not doing — what I have no interest in doing — is running G.M.”

General Motors “will be run by a private board of directors and management team,” he said. “They, and not the government, will call the shots and make the decisions about how to turn this company around. The federal government will refrain from exercising its rights as a shareholder in all but the most fundamental corporate decisions.”

A senior administration official said “the government will not interfere with or exert control over day-to-day company operations and very much will ensure that no government employees will serve on board or be employed by the company it makes investments in. As a shareholder, the government will limit what it votes on to core governance issues, particularly the selection of the company’s board of directors; major corporate events or transactions.”

2) Shareholders will be cast out (not bought out) and the Government will assume ownership; union labor contracts supplemented with Government funds while retirees will be pushed into Government programs.

He described the restructuring plan as tough but fair, requiring the “United Auto Workers to make further cuts in compensation and retiree health care benefits, painful sacrifices on top of all that they’ve already done” as well as GM “shareholders to give up the remaining value of their shares.”

The plan for the new GM will “require a substantial amount of money that only a government can provide,” Mr. Obama said, thus the “government will be making a significant additional investment of about $30 billion in G.M., an investment that will entitle American taxpayers to ownership of about 60 percent of the new G.M.”

3) Political, economic and foreign policy agendas, not the free market, will shape the new direction of said company.

“I recognize that this may give some Americans pause,” he said. “Understand, we’re making these investments not because I want to spend the American people’s tax dollars, but because I want to protect them. Instead of taking so much stock in G.M., we could have simply offered the company more loans. But for years, G.M. has been buried under an unsustainable mountain of debt. And piling an irresponsibly large debt on top of the new G.M. would mean simply repeating the mistakes of the past.”

He said this would mean the “beginning of a new G.M., a new G.M. that can produce the high quality, safe and fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow, that can lead American toward an energy-independent future, and that is once more a symbol of America’s success.” This future G.M. will be different from the one of yore, he said, but he said he’s “absolutely confident that if well managed, a new G.M. will emerge that can provide a new generation of Americans with the chance to live out their dreams, that can out-compete automakers around the world, and that can once again be an integral part of America’s economic future.”

4) Long term market control, corruption and trade protectionism can be expected out of these bailouts.

From the Wall St. Journal:

The Administration’s concessions to the UAW also restrict the company’s ability to import smaller, more fuel-efficient cars that it already makes overseas. UAW President Ron Gettelfinger boasted on PBS’s “NewsHour” last week that “we, quite frankly, put pressure on the White House, the [auto] task force, the corporation” to bar small-car imports from overseas. GM is also selling its Opel operation in Europe as part of this restructuring, and the Washington Post reports that one of Treasury’s sale conditions is that Opel’s new owners must stay out of the U.S., and even out of China, where GM’s business is strong.

This is raw trade protectionism. It is also textbook cartel behavior and would be an antitrust violation if practiced by a business. But the benefits for GM are illusory because the import limits mean the company will have to spend even more to retool its domestic plants to make the little green cars that President Obama and Congress are demanding. No one knows if Americans will buy such cars, even if GM can make them competitively in the U.S.

The Administration promises to wield a light ownership hand, but it’s only a matter of time before Congress starts to micromanage GM’s business judgments. Every decision to close a plant will be second-guessed, much like a military base-closing. And what about buying parts from foreign suppliers? Will those also be banned when Mr. Gettelfinger demands it, even if the costs are lower? GM’s managers and directors will have one eye on enhancing shareholder value, but the other on pleasing their political minders in Washington.

The Obama Administration has been whispering to the press that it could start selling its stake within a year to 18 months, and that it hopes to be out of the business entirely in five years. But even assuming that the taxpayer investment stops at $50 billion, GM would have to be worth a cool $80 billion for taxpayers to break even on their 60% stake. By way of comparison, GM’s market capitalization at its recent peak in 2000 was only $56 billion.

The larger corruption will be when government tries to vindicate its ownership by favoring GM over Ford and the other auto makers that aren’t wards of the state. The TARP legislation contained one blatant example in the form of a $7,500 tax credit for consumers who buy GM’s new electric car, the Chevy Volt. Expect more such favoritism, including huge new subsidies for green cars if consumers prove resistant to their charms.

Well, this is going to end well. By the way, how is your economic self-sufficiency preparedness going?

From The Fort Fairfield Journal:

The U.S. Census Bureau has been overstepping the U.S. Constitution’s requirements for a simple enumeration of the citizens for years, but their current plans to mark the GPS location of every address in the U.S. is just the latest in a long list of usurpations of the General Government’s Constitutional authority.

The Bureau of Census is sending its army of workers to every address in the United States within the next couple of months in order to log the Global Positioning System (GPS) location of every American citizen’s home.

Cataloging the physical location of people’s homes is far removed from the Constitutional grant of authority to the government to merely count how many people are living in the several states in order to assign an appropriate number of Representatives to them in the U.S. House of Representatives¹ so, there must be another purpose for this action.

The term “Census” is Latin for to appraise or to assess a value thereon. In Roman history it was a registration or count of citizens and their property to determine taxation.”²

The spirit of the word ‘Census,’ as to appraise or assess a value on the citizens’ labor and their property, does not appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, only an enumeration (counting) of people every ten years in order to appropriate Representatives.

The Bureau of Census is a relatively new creation, not actually in existence in the beginning of the United States. It was established temporarily in 1899 and as a permanent office within the Department of Interior in 1902, just a few years prior to our nation surrendering its money supply to a private cabal of international banks. In 1903, the Bureau of Census - now functioning as a de facto “Bureau of Appraisals” was absorbed by the newly created Department of Commerce and Labor, which was later separated into two separate departments. The Bureau of Census (Appraisals) was reorganized in 1950 and remains in the Commerce Department to this day.³

Congress created the Bureau of Census (Appraisals) to begin the laborious task of cataloging, serial numbering and tracking the value of all personal and business property in the United States, as well as the humans therein for the purposes of appraising their value and preparing them for use as collateral against the nation’s debt under a proposed fiat debt money scheme to be implemented later on in 1913.

Ten years after its inception, the Department of Commerce was restructured as a stand-alone entity separating Labor into its own Department (15 USC 1501). The private, for-profit corporation, known as the Federal Reserve System was formed in the same year as the restructuring of the Department of Commerce. Under the new Federal Reserve System’s plan, all new money would be brought into existence via loans to the government and citizens. The Bureau of Census (Appraisals), as a division of the Department of Commerce, is charged with keeping track of the number of human chattels whose labor is pledged against the national debt via the Federal income tax. The Bureau of Census (Appraisals) also appraises and keeps track of manufacturers, mineral industries, distributive trades, construction industries, agriculture, religious organizations and transportation. All towns, cities, and municipalities are required to annually submit a report of all new construction, multi-family units, new businesses, and any losses to the Bureau of Census (Appraisals) for the purposes of keeping a current valuation of all property in the United States.⁴

Just prior to the bankruptcy of the United States in June, 1933, the Bureau of Census (Appraisals) undertook a bold new venture. During the month of April, 1930, over 100,000 persons were engaged in taking the census. At that time the usual questions regarding race, color, sex, age, occupation, whether married or single, and whether able to write were asked. In addition were such questions as the value of your home and whether owned or rented, whether you were the owner of a radio, and detailed questions regarding unemployment.⁵ This information was needed in order to assess a value on the chattels and collateral the Federal Reserve banks needed before loaning money to the soon to be bankrupt U.S. government.

The Under Secretary for Economic Affairs compiles all Census data and makes it available to those who are in need of it - such as banks seeking to determine how well a state or geographic area of people are able to collateralize a bond issue (loan) with their currently existing labor and property.

The current scheme of using unwitting census workers to mark the GPS location of every address in the United States, under the banner of a Constitutional enumeration of the citizens, has nothing to do with counting people in order to appropriate Representatives to Congress. Instead, it appears to be an unconstitutional ploy to catalog and track all citizens’ property which has been pledged to the banks and creditors who hold the notes on the United States’ now $11+ trillion national debt.

“We are using the GPS data to help our census takers find your home when they come around next year,” said one census worker. However, when asked since she was able to find the person’s house without a GPS coordinate to begin with, why was a GPS coordinate necessary for another census worker, she was unable to explain.

Some have speculated that the GPS coordinates are for the Federal Government’s future use in silencing protesters, confiscating firearms or foreclosing on homes on behalf of the foreign banks and countries who have loaned the U.S. trillions of dollars in unpayable debt. Whatever this government’s intentions are, history has shown they are not benevolent.

The Fort Fairfield Journal contacted Paul Powell, Partnership Coordinator for the Boston Regional Census Center to ask what Constitutional authority the Bureau of Census had to catalog GPS coordinates, what the information was being used for, what other information was being collected about the address at the time the GPS coordinates were taken, and what steps the Bureau of Census was taking to protect the privacy of those who chose not to allow their home to be cataloged as such. Mr. Powell acknowledged receiving the questions, but refused to comment or provide answers.

While the Bureau of Census (Appraisals) may have enacting legislation to grant its authority by fiat, the U.S. Constitution has granted no power to the Federal government to do anything other than count people, with respect to the Census. Therefore, the Census workers’ cataloging the GPS positions of every home address in the U.S. is blatantly unlawful activity initiated on behalf of the private banking industry now running Congress. According to the 10th amendment, any power not granted to the Federal government, or prohibited by the Constitution to the States, is reserved to the States or the people respectively.

 

Notes

1. see U.S. Const., Article 1, Sec. 2, Clause 3.

2. World Book Dictionary/Thorndike Barnhart; 1969 ed. ©1969 Doubleday & Company Inc., p. 333.

3. U.S. Government Manual 2000-2001, p. 608

4. op. cit., p. 137

5. see MacGruder’s American Government, ©1939 Allyn and Bacon, pp. 285-286.

 

Remember, the Constitution authorizes enumeration ONLY (Article I Section 2). Any question above and beyond the number of people and number of persons of voting age is beyond the scope of the Founders’ intent.

“The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.” Article I, Sec. 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution.

Once again historical revisionists would have us overlook the fact that the Founders’ written style- in this case capitalizing “Enumeration” was a signal to the legitimate powers of the United States government. Powers specifically delegated to the Federal Government were outlined and set apart from the duties of government- that is responsibilities that the Federal Government had within the context of the limitations placed on it.

In this case, the Constitution only authorizes Enumeratory powers and any constitutionally legitimate law written under this clause of the United States Constitution will limit itself to the powers of population and household Enumeration. Enumeration, as defined by the Merriam-Webster means “to count”.

Because the Census it used to determine House seat apportionment, it is appropriate for the Census to ask, in addition to how many people are at a home, how many of them are of voting age. However, any other questions (how many guns, electricity source, religion, et al) is clearly beyond the plain and clear language of the original intent.

For my household Obama will get the following- 2 and 3. Two people of legal voting age and three total household members.

BTW, worse case scenario it is only a $100 fine for NOT answering (higher fines if you give deliberately false answers). $100 is worth forcing the government to stick to its enumerated power in this blogger’s humble opinion.