The Politics of Character Assassination and Personal Destruction: Evidence that Evil Has Co-opted the Democratic Party

U.S. Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh testifies before a Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington

(credit:  Reuters photo)

by Diane Rufino, October 8, 2018

Judge Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed as the 114th associate justice to the Supreme Court on Saturday, October 6. It almost didn’t happen. And if everything went the way Democrats planned, it wouldn’t have.

According to Christine Blasey Ford (“Christina Ford”), thirty-six years ago, when she was only 15, she was assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh at a party. He was 17 at the time. She made a statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee explaining her account, but putting her theatrics aside, her naivete, her confusion and timidness and her frequent consults with her many attorneys, the truth is that she presented no evidence, no details, and no witnesses. She apparently only told one person – her husband, Russell Ford. She told him “He could become a justice of the Supreme Court someday.” She said her husband remembered that she said her attacker was Brett Kavanaugh, but she herself doesn’t remember telling him that. She never told her account to anyone else until May 2012, during a couples counseling session. Again, no details were given.

Until July 2018, Ford had never named Brett Kavanaugh as her attacker outside of therapy. In early July 2018, she saw press reports stating that he was on the “short list” of potential Supreme Court nominees and decided to tell her story.  She called her congresswoman, Anna Eshoo (D- Palo Alto) and left a message with her receptionist that someone on the president’s short list of judicial nominees had attacked her. On July 9, after Kavanaugh had become the nominee, Ford received a call from the office of Rep. Eshoo and she proceeded to meet on two occasions with her staff (July 11 and July 13). She mentioned sending a letter to ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Dianne Feinstein.  In fact, Rep. Eshoo’s office delivered a copy of my letter to Sen. Feinstein’s office on July 30, 2018. The letter included Ford’s name, but she requested that the letter be kept confidential until she had a chance to speak with her in person. Apparently, Senator Feinstein sent a letter in response confirming that she would keep it temporarily in confidence. [I included a copy of that letter at the end of this article]

The rest is history.

Christine Blasey Ford thought not to contact any authorities about her allegations but rather, her first instinct was to get it to Democratic politicians so they could use it to disgrace President Trump’s nomination to the Supreme Court, Judge Kavanaugh and to impugn his character. For thirty-six years, she essentially kept her accusations to herself until the 11th hour, when Kavanaugh made it through to be the president’s choice for the high court. Feinstein sat on that letter and that information until after Kavanaugh did far better in his confirmation hearings than Democrats hoped – when it looked like he would indeed be confirmed.

To be clear about the accusations made by Ford against Brett Kavanaugh:  The one person Ford said was at the party in question not only denied that she was there, but went on to sign a sworn statement, under penalty of perjury, that she: (i) never once met Kavanaugh; (ii) was not at the party; and (iii) the party Ford addressed in her accusations never happened. In fact, she said, Ford’s allegations came as a shock to her. On the other hand, Brett Kavanaugh brought to the Committee a journal that he meticulously kept to document his life (just as his father had done) which provided an air-tight alibi for his whereabouts on the possible evenings of the party.

Ignoring the evidence, Democrats concluded that just because Ms. Ford made accusations of possible sexual misconduct, she must be believed and Kavanaugh must be the attacker. And then when he passionately and forcefully defended his whereabouts, his reputation, and his good name, Democrats went after him again claiming he is an angry man who doesn’t possess the temperament necessary for an associate justice of the Supreme Court.  The made a mockery and a circus out of the Confirmation Hearings.

Let’s face it, no one expected the Democrats to make it easy for Trump to have Kavanaugh confirmed. Senator Chuck Schumer even said as much in a tweet he made moments after Trump announced him as his pick to replace Justice Kennedy, on July 9.  Schumer tweeted: “I will oppose Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination with everything I have, and I hope a bipartisan majority will do the same.”  Schumer, who apparently was spearheading the resistance against Kavanaugh, also was the one who sent out emails to fellow Democrats the night before the confirmation hearings began and who orchestrated to have all those annoying screaming protesters show up to disrupt the proceedings.

As bad as outright partisan delay and obstruction tactics are, which we have seen from the very first day Trump stepped into the White House, I and most Americans are far more concerned with something far more serious — which is the Democrats’ policy of PERSONAL DESTRUCTION and CHARACTER ASSASSINATION when it comes to Republican candidates and judicial nominees.  They spread lies and make up allegations of sexual harassment, without conscience and without impunity…. Why do they do it???  — Because it works.  It almost worked to keep Judge Kavanaugh off the bench. It already worked to make sure law schools won’t hire him. Harvard already announced that he is not welcome back. The politics of PERSONAL DESTRUCTION is something the Democrats have become good at. The politics of spreading lies and instilling fear (including a return to Jim Crow or a return to back alley abortions) is something Democrats are good at. Look what they did to Judge Roy Moore. (You don’t hear anything any more about his accuser). Look what happened to Mitt Romney in 2012 when he ran for president. During that election, Senator Harry Reid accused Mitt Romney, FALSELY, of not paying his taxes in over 10 years. He knew it wasn’t true. After the election, when confronted about his lie and whether he felt remorse for stooping so low, he said no. His response epitomized what the Democratic Party’s politics of personal destruction would become: “It worked didn’t it? He lost, didn’t he?”

The writer for the Stephen Colbert show, Ariel Dumas, tweeted during the Senate vote on Saturday: “Whatever happens, I’m just glad we ruined Brett Kavanaugh’s life.”

The writer’s name should forever be changed to Ariel Dumb-ass.

MSNBC host Mika Brzezkinski mocked Kavanaugh, saying he “raged” and “cried like a baby” while defending himself. This jubilation and mocking of a good and decent man, blemished by unverified accusations, humiliated before all of the country and the world, and fighting to save a reputation he spent an entire life building, is similar to the jihadists celebrating the deaths of thousands of innocent Americans in the wake of 9/11. It says more about who THEY are – the Democrats, the main-stream media, the Hollywood and entertainment industry – than who Brett Kavanaugh is.

These Democrats are not good people. They are not decent people. They are certainly not the kind of people that should be given any power over others. These are people co-opted by the devil; commissioned to do evil.

Remember what Judge Kavanaugh said in his remarks addressing Ford’s accusations?  He said: “I’m never going to get my reputation back. My life is totally and permanently altered.” Later, during that same hearing, an angry Sen. Lindsey Graham told his Democratic colleagues, “You don’t want to find out the truth.  What you want is to destroy this guy’s life.”

The sad thing is that those Democratic Senators, the ones so willing to condemn Kavanaugh merely because Ford made an unverified accusation against him, took an OATH to the US Constitution, which guarantees to each US citizen the right to be presumed innocent, the right to confront his or her accuser, the right to a fair trial by members of his peers. They ignored their oaths and betrayed their allegiance to the Constitution in denying Kavanaugh his fundamental liberty rights. These Democratic Senators are political terrorists and are unfit to serve in government. Their choice of terror is character assassination.

One of the tricks Democrats and other liberals love most is taking something that is as  universally despised as possible, like rape, racism, or police shooting innocent people, and then declaring that they are against it while Republicans are indifferent to it.

  • “You’re against disrespecting the flag?” Then you must want black men to be shot by the police!
  • “You’re not in favor of tearing down historical statues because the owners had slaves?” Then you must hate black people! You must believe slavery was OK.
  • “You don’t believe EVERY rape accusation made against a man?” Then you must be pro-rape or think that women are to be sexualized.

We have Congresswomen, like Mad Maxine Waters, who go around telling people to harass members of Trumps’ team and Trump supporters. “Tell them they aren’t welcome here.” What an unconscionable message to send. What an unconscionable tactic.

These people are taxpayers and citizens of this country; they are entitled to feel comfortable and welcome in their own country.

The actions of Maxine Waters and the obstructionist, duplicitous, actions in general of the Democratic members of government are deeply troubling and let me tell you why…

Government is supposed to be the governing body for the People. It is the creation of the Constitution, adopted by the People, organized in State Conventions. Government serves the States and the People. That’s its sole function. It is NOT to serve itself or a Political Party.

Years ago, before our Revolution, when people were dis-satisfied with their royal governor or with the King and Parliament, they protested; they petitioned, they engaged in peaceful acts of civil disobedience, designed to frustrate or scare those enforcing government policy. The point is that when government is not serving the people as legally authorized to do, it is the PEOPLE who organize and carry out the protests. That is how they put pressure on their government. In our present case, it is GOVERNMENT who is organizing and encouraging the protests – for government’s interests only.  Not for the people’s interests.  What we have now is a Political Party doing anything and everything it can to cause civil and national unrest because it believes it is entitled to the control of government. They absolutely can’t stand the fact that Donald Trump won. And they absolutely refuse to accept it.

If the people want the government to continue to be a GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, and FOR THE PEOPLE, the People are going to have to fight for it and defend it. Otherwise, it will become a Government of the Democratic Party, by the Democratic Party (and its band of indoctrinated useless idiots), for the Democratic Party.

This is the state of our government in DC right now —  It’s no longer the seat of government. It is a battlefield. Democrats feel entitled to power in DC and the election of Donald Trump in 2016 threw them for a loop. That is why we have the insurance policy known as the Russian Collusion scandal; That is why we have talk of instability and impeachment; that is why Democrats have adopted the tactic of Personal Destruction…..

We cannot be fooled by these desperate acts of a desperate political party. We can’t give into their despicable tactics.  We can never, ever allow such vile, uncivil, unethical, morally bankrupt people to control government.  We need to keep their kind off our courts.  We need to talk to our friends and neighbors and family members. We need to get conservatives out to vote. We need to support the #WalkAway movement.  We also need to get those who ordinarily may not be conservative to get out and vote Republican –  to prevent to stop the advancement of the Democratic Party agenda of national destruction.

The tactics employed by the Democratic Party are evil. This conduct, this blackening of the heart, this outright hatred against fellow Americans, this campaign of character assassination, the silencing of speech, the gestapo tactics of fear and violence is not who we are as Americans. It sickens us. It tarnishes our good name and reputation as countrymen. It cheapens our republic. And it must be STOPPED.

As Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA tweeted: “The sooner conservatives realize that the left will do absolutely anything to win – they will lie, cheat, steal, slander, falsify, attack, demagogue, insult, protest, malign, fabricate, make false accusation, and organize – the sooner we will realized that they will not give us our country back. We must fight for it.”

 

APPENDIX:   Christine Blasey-Ford’s Letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein

July 30 2018

CONFIDENTIAL

Senator Dianne Feinstein

Dear Senator Feinstein;

I am writing with information relevant in evaluating the current nominee to the Supreme Court.

As a constituent, I expect that you will maintain this as confidential until we have further opportunity to speak.

Brett Kavanaugh physically and sexually assaulted me during high school in the early 1980’s. He conducted these acts with the assistance of REDACTED.

Both were one to two years older than me and students at a local private school.

The assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and four others.

Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom as I was headed for a bathroom up a short stair well from the living room. They locked the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for help.

Kavanaugh was on top of me while laughing with REDACTED, who periodically jumped onto Kavanaugh. They both laughed as Kavanaugh tried to disrobe me in their highly inebriated state. With Kavanaugh’s hand over my mouth I feared he may inadvertently kill me.

From across the room a very drunken REDACTED said mixed words to Kavanaugh ranging from “go for it” to “stop.”

At one point when REDACTED jumped onto the bed the weight on me was substantial. The pile toppled, and the two scrapped with each other. After a few attempts to get away, I was able to take this opportune moment to get up and run across to a hallway bathroom. I locked the bathroom door behind me. Both loudly stumbled down the stair well at which point other persons at the house were talking with them. I exited the bathroom, ran outside of the house and went home.

I have not knowingly seen Kavanaugh since the assault. I did see REDACTED once at the REDACTED where he was extremely uncomfortable seeing me.

I have received medical treatment regarding the assault. On July 6 I notified my local government representative to ask them how to proceed with sharing this information . It is upsetting to discuss sexual assault and its repercussions, yet I felt guilty and compelled as a citizen about the idea of not saying anything.

I am available to speak further should you wish to discuss. I am currently REDACTED and will be in REDACTED.

In confidence, REDACTED.

Advertisements

The Constitutional Convention of 1787: Prayer Served a Purpose Just as Prayer Always Serves a Purpose

 

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION - Philadelphia Convention Center

by Diane Rufino, October 8, 2018

Here is a trivia question for you:  Who were the oldest and youngest delegates at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, in 1787 ?

The oldest delegate, as many I’m sure remember from your history class, was Benjamin Franklin. He was the delegate from Pennsylvania and he attended the Convention at the ripe old age of 81. The youngest delegate was Jonathan Dayton, age 26, from state of New Jersey.

These two men share in a very special moment at the Convention:

On June 28, almost exactly a month after the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia convened, the 81–year-old Benjamin Franklin rose to address his fellow members. He had become frustrated over the constant and fruitless bickering and the inability of the representatives to made any significant progress in amending the federal government. He noted how some members had already left in disgust.

He began by talking about the fact that they were a well-read group of men; they had enjoyed a classical education and some studied further. In preparing for their important task that summer –  of designing an appropriate government to unify the states – they brushed up on their ancient history. They reviewed ancient history and the models of government that were established back then. They analyzed why the Republics of the ancient civilizations and empires ultimately failed. They looked at the modern governments in Europe, but quickly concluded that none were suitable. The delegates at the convention couldn’t find any common ground.

And so he suggested that they appeal to God for help.

And then he delivered the first prayer of the Convention:

Mr. President,

The small progress we have made after 4 or five weeks in close attendance and in continual reasonings with each other, with different sentiments on almost every question, is melancholy proof of the imperfection of the Human Understanding. We indeed seem to feel our own want of political wisdom, since we have been running about in search of it. We have gone back to ancient history for models of Government, and examined the different forms of those Republics which having been formed with the seeds of their own dissolution now no longer exist. And we have viewed Modern States all round Europe, but find none of their Constitutions suitable to our circumstances.

In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings?  In the beginning of the Contest with Great Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending providence in our favor.

To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity.  And have we now forgotten that powerful friend?  Or do we imagine that we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid?

We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, in Psalm 117:1a, that “Except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this. And I also believe that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel. We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that Service.

Out of the 55 delegates at the Convention, only a handful were devoutly religious. And here was Franklin, perhaps one of the least religious of the Founding Fathers, calling for prayer and quoting Scripture. As James Madison noted, in the notes he meticulously took of the Convention, many were deeply moved.

New Jersey delegate Jonathan Dayton reported:  “The Doctor sat down; and never did I behold a countenance at once so dignified and delighted as was that of Washington at the dose of the address; nor were the members of the convention generally less affected. The words of the venerable Franklin fell upon our ears with a weight and authority, even greater that we may suppose an oracle to have had in a Roman senate!”

Immediately after Franklin spoke, Roger Sherman of Connecticut seconded his motion for prayer.

But the motion ended up fizzling out among the other participants. There were some who opposed to the motion to appoint chaplains to begin each day with prayer because they had no funds to pay such chaplains. In fact, he recorded his disappointment at the bottom of his prayer speech, writing: “The Convention, except three or four Persons, thought Prayers unnecessary.

What is important to note in this tiny bit of history is that Ben Franklin’s passionate plea served to break the stalemate, or impasse, that was crippling the convention. The delegates were dismissed for three days, and some, moved by Franklin’s words, attended the Old First Reformed Church, where Rev. William Rogers held a special time of prayer for the proceedings. Dayton reported that when the delegates met again on July 2, much of the animosity was gone:  He noted: “We assembled again; and … every unfriendly feeling had been expelled, and a spirit of conciliation had been cultivated.”

While some difficulties continued to arise before the conclusion of the Convention’s business in September, the delegates apparently never returned to the fruitless bickering that had existed prior to June 28th.  It would certainly be an exaggeration to suggest that the drafting in earnest of the US Constitution began as the result of a prayer delivered at the Convention in Philadelphia, but Franklin’s call for prayer clearly played a pivotal role in softening the hearts and opening the minds of the delegates and reminding them that if they intended to proceed with such a critical undertaking without God’s help, all their efforts would be in vain.

 

References:

Ben Franklin’s Call for Prayer in the Constitutional Convention,” Lost Episodes in American History, March 21, 2013.  Referenced at:  http://lostepisodes.us/37/

“Benjamin Franklin’s Request for Prayers at the Constitutional Convention”  – http://www.beliefnet.com/resourcelib/docs/21/benjamin_franklins_request_for_prayers_at_the_constitutional__1.html

“Franklin’s Appeal for Prayer at the Constitutional Convention,” Wallbuilders –  https://wallbuilders.com/franklins-appeal-prayer-constitutional-convention/

Thank You Senator Susan Collins for Defending Our Institutions and for Supporting Judge Kavanaugh

SUSAN COLLINS - official

by Diane Rufino, October 5, 2018

Several heroes emerged in this whole sordid, circus-freak show that Democrats made of our Constitutional process of nominating and affirming judges to the Supreme Court, and those include Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator Mitch McConnell, and now Senator Susan Collins of Maine.

Today, in announcing her decision to vote in favor of Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination, Senator Collins stood up for our institutions of government, for the proper decorum of Senators, for the solemn role of the Senate in the confirmation process, for our history and our Founding Fathers, for the Rule of Law, for the presumption of innocence, for the role that evidence plays in allegations claiming a crime of moral turpitude, and for fundamental fairness. She hit the nail on the head when she said that the allegations against Kavanaugh were unverified and wholly refuted and therefore in all fairness could not prevent him from serving on the Supreme Court.

Democrats promised to oppose any nomination offered by Donald Trump “with everything they have.” They weren’t opposing Judge Brett Kavanaugh because of any failing on his part but rather because another “conservative” judge would severely undermine liberals/progressives/Democrats in their attempts to count on the courts to circumvent the Constitution and democratic processes that happen to stand in their way. For Democratic members of the Senate, their shameless, obstructive uncivilized conduct was a desperate political act to advance a desperate Political Party. As someone recently said: “The Democratic Party used to be the party of bad ideas; not it’s the party of bad people.”

As Senator Collins made clear in her remarks: Our Constitution and our laws are far more important than any political party. Political parties may not survive (and maybe shouldn’t survive), but our country must survive.

One person on Twitter commented that Collins’ speech may go down as one of the most important speeches of all time, and another commented: “Dear Cory Booker, this is what a real ‘Spartacus moment’ looks like.”

I’m grateful and vindicated that out of the great heap of depravity in DC, some noble members of our Congress could emerge. I’m grateful and vindicated that out of the great barrage of uncivil and vile dialogue and discourse, some words of clarity and truth, and inspiration, could shine through reminding us good and decent citizens that at some level, we can find hope in the honest and proper and constitutional function of our government.

Thank you so very much, Senator Collins.

 

VIDEO:  Senator Collins’ remarks today, October 5, 2018: https://youtu.be/FRpSJed5xsA

The Double Standard That Makes Victims of Ordinary Men

MEME - Believe Women (To Kill a Mockingbird)

by Diane Rufino, October 4, 2018

Last night I watched an episode of Ally McBeal that had quite an impression on me — season 5, episode 16 (“Love Is In the Air,” Part 1). In that episode, the firm assigned Nelle to a very important case involving the wrongful dismissal of a female employee. She was set to go against the notorious court femme fetale, Liza “Lolita” Bump – a bitchy, young, flirtatious, sexually inappropriate, feared, AND yes, extremely successful attorney, and the attorneys at the firm feared the worst for Nelle. And so, Nelle and Ally felt the need to seek the assistance of the best trial attorney they know, senior partner John Cage. Cage, at that time, had requested to step back from trial work (to become “of counsel”) but expressed willingness to help where absolutely necessary. Hearing that Nelle would have to go to court against the notorious Liza Bump, Cage agreed to take over the case. It was the details of the case that spoke to me; it was the attorneys’ closing arguments that left an impression.

Holly held a management position at a production company. She was fired because she refused to attend a company-sponsored seminar, titled the “Bully Broad Program,” which her boss had recommended to her. He recommended she take the seminar because he found her “too tough” and because the male employees who reported to her found her to be unlikeable and therefore they didn’t want to work with her. Holly sued, claiming discrimination (no male had ever been asked to take such a program) and improper termination.

At trial, under questioning from Liza, Holly’s boss testified: “Holly is a smart woman. But for men to refuse to work with her was a problem. Holly’s problem. I was trying to help her address it. I sent three other female executives to this seminar and they all thanked me for it.”

The rest of the testimony went like this:

Liza: “Did you ever send men to these camps?”
Boss: “No. I haven’t had complaints about the males.”
Liza: “So a man can be a tough boss, but not a woman?”
Boss: “A boss has to be able to motivate, not alienate.”
Liza: “You didn’t answer my question. Is there a double standard?”
Boss: “Perhaps. I can’t change that, but I can deal with it.”
Liza: “By dealing with it, you mean making the women become softer… helping them to be liked. They would be liked by being softer?”
Boss: “Well, yes.”
Cross-Examination by Opposing Counsel (Nelle): “Where do you draw the line between being too domineering and too feminine? When should a woman be softer? When does she need this seminar? From my perspective, if she is hated by everybody she needs the seminar.

The next day, a female employee from the company took the stand:

Female Employee: “When it was first suggested to me, I scoffed. The idea of a Bully Broad camp to soften me?”
Liza: “Did you have trouble with employees?”
Female Employee: “Yes, I thought it was discrimination. When a man is tough, he’s a leader. With a woman? A bitch.”
Liza: “Nevertheless, you did go?”
Female Employee: “I did. – And much to my shock, I loved it.”
Liza: “Why?”
Female Employee: “It made me realize, I was in a man’s world, trying to be like a man. Why should I be like a man? Who’s to say a woman can’t succeed being like a woman?”
Liza: “Did the program help?”
Female Employee: “Very much. I was better able to relate to my employees and productivity went up.”
Liza: “Even so, to be required to attend a seminar, didn’t you object?”
Female Employee: “Executives are sent to seminars all the time.”
Cross-Examination by Opposing Counsel (Nelle): “The seminar made you a better leader?”
Female Employee: “Correct”
Nelle: “By teaching you to be feminine?”
Female Employee: “By teaching me to use my God-given femininity. The seminar taught me to use my innate femininity.”
Nelle: “You mean being demure?
Female Employee: “Yes.”
Nelle: “Submissive?”
Female Employee: “The willow tree can seem submissive, but actually it’s quite strong.”
Nelle: “Did the seminar teach you to cry sometimes?”
Female Employee: “It taught us to use emotion, not conceal it. – Rather than demand, cry. – Sometimes. Do you believe we are the weaker sex? No. We’re stronger when it comes to compassion and empathetic skills. And using those skills- By using those skills, you mean act weak, don’t you? I can see you’re getting frustrated. Let’s examine our goals and see if we can’t find a way to achieve them

The Closing Arguments to the case were excellent. John Cage went first, to defend the right of his client (Holly) to be free from gender discrimination in the workplace:

Cage: “The defendant didn’t seek to make my client friendlier or nicer. No. The goal here was to make her more feminine. Well, ladies and gentlemen, there’s a word for that. Sexism. And this was blatant sexism. He didn’t send the aggressive men off to camp. No, just the tough women. Because women shouldn’t be tough, should they? What message does this send to our daughters? That if you want something, be weak cry for it, act demure? Look at this young woman. She’s an intelligent, competitive litigator. Yet she chose to offer tears in this courtroom as her best strength. That’s what the weaker sex should do, right? Be soft so society will like you. And that is her message, ladies and gentlemen. Women can compete in a man’s world. They can be just as tough as men, and they have the right to be. If society has a problem with that, then the 12 of you need to send a message to society. But if not for society then for our daughters. You tell the young people, like Liza Bump they have the right to be strong. They don’t have to go through life weak.

Liza Bump followed, arguing why women should even have to conform to “a man’s world”:

Liza: “This isn’t about getting women to perform in a man’s world. This is about teaching women that it doesn’t have to be a man’s world. So many women today are aggressive, belligerent, ruthless because our culture values these masculine traits as leadership. Why can’t female traits, such as emotion, empathy, connectedness Why can’t these things be signs of good leadership? As long as we continue to attach such value to dominance and aggression we’re gonna end up with a man’s world, and that is sexist. Let’s place a premium on emotional intelligence on the ability to mediate instead of fight. To feel as well as think. We might not only have a woman’s world we might turn out better companies. That’s what was proposed to the plaintiff, but she didn’t try. She just dropped her gloves, sued and said, ‘Let’s have a fight.’ How manly.”

No doubt, Holly was wronged. She was treated unfairly; she was treated differently than a man would have been treated in the same situation and under the same circumstances. She could see what her boss wanted from his female employees – to conform to a stereotypic version of a woman while being able to use and exploit the nuances of such a stereotyped woman. She knew it and wouldn’t put up with it. She wasn’t going to play the “weak female” card; she was going to compete on equal terms with her male counterparts. And so she sued. She stood up for herself because she knows that our legal system is blind and fair. Lady Justice wears a blindfold for that very reason. Our legal system is blind to race, gender, religion, age, ability, and social status. It doesn’t require less evidence because a woman brings suit; it doesn’t expect less credibility on the witness stand because a woman is testifying; and it doesn’t weigh the merits of a case more lightly just because a woman happens to file it. Holly brought suit not because she was weak but because she believes in equality and believes in fundamental fairness. Equality and fairness are the hallmarks of our Rule of Law.

The Bully Broad Seminar taught women employees to be “feminine”… to be the weaker sex that they were created and intended to be. Men respond better to women when they “act the part.” In dealing with men, women can accomplish as the weaker sex what they can’t accomplish when they try to be tough like a man. Why? Because men respond to women when they act in the traditional stereotypic manner; they are put off when women try to act like men.

This conflict of human nature (How should a woman act? Should she act like a 50s woman or a contemporary woman?) has reared its ugly head in the horrible accusations levied against Judge Kavanaugh. How best will others respond to women, and especially when it involves accusations of sexual misconduct? When she acts like a demur, unsophisticated woman or when she acts like a contemporary strong woman? And that’s exactly what we saw at the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings with Prof. Christine Blasey Ford. She acted like a “traditional” woman (weak, soft, demur, submissive, ditzy, confused, easily exhausted, quickly overwhelmed, unable to answer tough questions, apologetic) and was treated as the weaker sex by those who questioned her. It is easy to see her as a victim when she comes across as weak and vulnerable. It’s easy to believe she could be taken advantage of, right?

Imagine if Brett Kavanaugh defended himself in the same manner Ford pursued her accusations….

But wait, men aren’t supposed to be weak or demur or soft or easily overwhelmed. They are supposed to be the tougher sex, the ones who stand up for their women, their children, their jobs, their good name. We expect them to be forceful.

The reality is, and we saw it on full display with the accusations made by Prof. Ford and her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, is that women need to play whatever role best advances a particular cause. We thought the notion that women are necessarily the “weaker, softer” sex is a thing of the past; that women have been liberated from that stereotype. It’s the age of equality. But it’s not true. Sometimes, women need to be “soft and weak” in order to be effective. It of course depends on what she needs to be effective at.

Being a boss is not a situation that calls for a woman to be weak. Being a lawyer is not a situation that calls for a woman to be weak. Being an activist for social justice and abortion rights is not a situation that calls for a woman to be weak. But alleging victimhood at the hand of a man is absolutely such a situation. Almost instantly, she must be believed. “Believe Women!” is the new protest theme of the left. What that protest theme means is that if a woman merely alleges that she has been abused, she must immediately and without question be believed. How dare anyone challenge or doubt her. How dare anyone try to pressure her for details.

As we also witnessed with the Kavanaugh hearings, and particularly with the allegations made by Prof. Christine Ford, woman are subject to a lower standard of expectation and proof. They would certainly never make up an allegation of sexual misconduct, right? They would certainly never make up an allegation of mistreatment or rape, right?

Because women are weak, they can be expected to be taken advantage of at every possible opportunity, right? Men can’t be trusted to be around them – they look at them inappropriately, they say inappropriate things (or if they don’t say anything inappropriate, it can be assumed they meant something inappropriate), they touch them inappropriately, under the guise of being complimentary, they (of course) are really sexually harassing them with their kind words, if they are nicer to another woman, then they (of course) are being discriminatory and creating a hostile working environment, if they give a woman a drink, they expect sex, if they dance too close to a woman, they are hitting on her, if they happen to speak to a woman while under the influence of alcohol, they have rape on their minds……… this list goes on and on. Men just can never be disinterested around a woman, right?

Women hate to be accused of anything less than being honest. Yet we know that all too often they are dishonest. They are ruthless. They are disingenuous. They are cunning and conniving. Hillary Clinton is one such woman. And they are willing to play the “sex” card. Yet they don’t think men should be given the benefit of the doubt as well, to assume they are honest. Because they have a penis, they are automatically dishonest and unable to control themselves. Never mind that women intentionally put themselves out there as a sexual object; they emphasize their curves, show too much skin, show too much cleavage, wear tight clothing, wear flimsy underwear so that it looks like they aren’t even wearing any at all, make sexual inuendo, flirt, act loose when they drink, purposely try to get a man worked up by the stuff they talk about, post inappropriate pictures on their social media, and the list goes on. One can hardly walk through a mall and not see women’s clothing stores that don’t advertise by displaying sexy dresses and shirts. Some dresses are so tight and so short as to leave nothing to a man’s imagination. And yet, men are supposed to ignore the “window dressing” and treat her like a sophisticated, intelligent woman who is interested in conversation? Some dresses must be worn without underwear. I suppose when a woman wears one such dress, she expects a man, including one who has had a drink or two, to look only at her eyes. Victoria Secret advertises sexy lingerie, bombshell bras (making even a woman as flat-chested as Calista Flockheart appear to be a bodacious double D), and string thongs. Is a man to honestly think that women aren’t interested in putting themselves out there more sexually than need be?

Woman can’t – and shouldn’t – have it both ways. The truth of the matter is that perhaps it is men who are the weaker sex. They have sexual urges far more frequently and intense than women; they have testosterone and a penis, and most importantly, they have an obligation imposed by nature itself, wired into their genetics and biology, to spread their seed and procreate the species. They may be stronger physically, but hormonally, they can be, and probably are, the weaker sex.

The Kavanaugh confirmation hearings should disturb every one of us.

I’m disturbed, first of all, because Prof. Ford made serious and horrible allegations against a man six times investigated and cleared by the FBI without providing any details, without providing any evidence, and without providing any means to corroborate her story. In fact, the persons she listed as able to corroborate her story emphatically denied it ever took place – under penalty of perjury. There is no stronger denial than one accompanied by a legal agreement to serious consequences. (“If you find I am lying, you can punish me for a crime.”). I’m disturbed that charges were levied that are absolutely unverifiable. And I’m disturbed that such unverifiable allegations have tarnished the name and reputation of a man who worked his whole life to build an exemplary ones.

I’m disturbed that Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee continued to hold her as more credible than Judge Kavanaugh even after he produced absolute and undeniable proof of an alibi for the incident alleged. It was Kavanaugh who presented evidence and who presented proof. When a crime or a serious allegation is made, it is PROOF that matters… not facial expressions, not demeanor, not gender, not softness

I’m disturbed that Democrats (and Ford herself) played the “woman as a natural victim” card. It was offensive and reprehensible. How does a party that stands for Women’s Rights and Equality betray both so callously?

I’m disturbed at how viciously, how ambitiously, and how unscrupulously Democrats conducted themselves all for the purpose of advancing Party interests. I’m disturbed at how uncivilly and disrespectfully they treated the process and the hearings, as well as their solemn duty as members of the Senate Judiciary Committee (to give advice and consent), for the purpose of advancing their Party interests. They turned the hearings into a damn circus. They protesters they colluded with to disrupt the hearings acted like a bunch of untrained monkeys. Judge Kavanaugh was absolutely correct when he said that Democratic members of the Committee replaced “advice and consent” with “search and destroy” and he was right to accuse them of turning the hearings into a circus. A man who, above all else, displaced the highest respect for law, the Rule of Law, for the Constitution, for government, and for the bench watched those who took an oath to the Constitution make a mockery of all of it. He deserved so much better.

Professor Ford may have had something happen to her at a party back when she was 15 years old (back when she looked like she was 15, braces and all), but making those unverified allegations against a SCOTUS nominee 36 years later, at the 11th hour, under the circumstances that she did and using the persons she used as vehicles for her allegations, and selling herself (a professor, mind you) as a weak, demur, soft, fairly helpless woman was disgraceful.

It’s not a “man’s world” or a “woman’s world”; it’s a world where everyone is treated equally.
Reference:
Ally McBeal, Season 5, Episode 16 Script – https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/view_episode_scripts.php?tv-show=ally-mcbeal&episode=s05e16

The Feinstein/Ford Blockade: Chronology, Testimony, and Hypocrisy

MEME - Dianne Feinstein (Put her under oath)

by Mark Alexander, PATRIOT POST, October 3, 2018

https://patriotpost.us/alexander/58633-the-feinstein-slash-ford-blockade-chronology-testimony-and-hypocrisy?mailing_id=3774&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3774&utm_campaign=alexander&utm_content=header

 

This has NEVER been about finding the truth but about creating unjust and inexcusable political optics.

An allegation standing alone is not necessarily sufficient to conclude that conduct occurred.”

That was the conclusion of the Democrat attorney hired to investigate domestic-violence allegations against DNC Deputy Chairman, aspiring Minnesota Attorney General, and Rep. Keith Ellison. His victim had medical records and a police report associated with her charges, and had discussed the alleged assault with others. Additionally, there is at least one other assault allegation against Ellison noted in a 2005 police report by another woman.

These charges are more serious, more recent, better documented, and more suggestive of a pattern of abuse than the unsupported, unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, and in fact refuted allegations that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh groped another teenager 36 years ago.

But Ellison’s defenders incessantly remind us that the allegations against Ellison could be false, especially the lawyer who cleared him — whose firm has given more than $500,000 to Democrat candidates.

Again, “An allegation standing alone is not necessarily sufficient to conclude that conduct occurred.”

Of course, nothing close to that assertion, or its inherent assumption of innocence (a foundational standard of constitutional Rule of Law), entered the rhetorical lexicon of Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats in their “search and destroy” mission against Judge Kavanaugh. That charade, scripted by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), disgracefully used a distressed woman with conflicted memories, Christine Ford, as a political pawn. Feinstein seems to have achieved the optics Democrats were after, enraging their largest voter constituency, women, whom Demos treat like emotionally incontinent dupes.

As was their plan, Ford became the poster proxy for women who have had regrettable sexual encounters — from sexual harassment in the workplace, to encounters resulting from alcohol- or drug-impaired cognitive ability, to victimization by violent sexual assault. For women who have experienced an encounter anywhere on this spectrum, Ford embodies their collective anger, grief, and desire for justice, regardless of whether Ford’s allegations are true.

Conversely, Judge Kavanaugh became the poster proxy for every man who has ever offended a woman, from street-side cat-callers to serial rapists. As Democrats estimated, blocking the Kavanaugh nomination has become the proxy path to achieve a sense of collective “justice.” Never mind the end-justifies-the-means standard of “justice” they seek, which is the same sort of injustice upon which totalitarian regimes are built and sustained.

In January of this year, I wrote in “The Democrats’ 2018 Midterm Election Strategy” that they were “going to make the #MeToo ‘epidemic of sexual assault’ the centerpiece of their 2018 and 2020 elections.” Feinstein’s timing of the Kavanaugh derailment was a setup for the upcoming midterm elections, manufactured to energize enough women voters to carry Democrats to victory, particularly in those states where Donald Trump won majorities in 2016.

Recall that in the scheduled hearings for Judge Kavanaugh, when hordes of leftists were disrupting the Senate committee chamber and hallways, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) declared: “Why [are these protests] happening for the first time in the history of this committee? … You are the nominee of President Donald John Trump.”

Monday marked the beginning of a new Supreme Court term — without Kavanaugh.

Well played, Feinstein.

As place markers for the Democrats’ metastasizing investigation into Kavanaugh and their assault on our Constitution, what follows are three summaries of Feinstein’s ruse. First, a chronology of how Feinstein scripted the events. Second, a list of significant problems with Ford’s testimony. And last, a look at the hypocrisy of Kavanaugh’s accusers on the Judiciary Committee.

THE FEINSTEIN / FORD TIMELINE —

To review, the objective of Feinstein’s script to derail Kavanaugh was, and remains, to influence the midterm elections (particularly to flip the Senate, which would then make it difficult for Trump to nominate another SCOTUS candidate before the next Congress is seated in January, but also to flip committee control in the House, which would then bring to a screeching halt the investigation of the corrupt investigators in the phony Trump-Russia-collusion probe). To that end, despite the deal that committee Demos cut with Sen. Jeff Flake (?-AZ) last Thursday for a now-seventh FBI investigation of Kavanaugh that would be “limited in time and scope, to the current allegations … and limited in time to no more than one week,” Feinstein predictably declared Tuesday, “I believe it’s too soon. … We have to put all the facts together.”

This timeline of the Feinstein/Ford collusion to derail Kavanaugh is based on the Judiciary Committee chronology and other investigative sources.

On July 30, Feinstein says she received a draft of a letter from Christine Blasey Ford with allegations against Judge Kavanaugh. It had previously been sent to Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA).

It was not until after the conclusion of the 4-7 September confirmation hearings that the allegations against Kavanaugh were leaked to the mainstream media, without disclosing Ford’s name.

Feinstein did not make the Ford letter known to Republicans on the committee until almost a week after the close of the Kavanaugh hearings on September 7. She claims the committee Democrats had only learned of it the day before.

On September 13, Feinstein advised committee chairman Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) of the letter’s existence without naming Ford, and she sent a copy of the letter to the FBI. According to Feinstein’s script, she told the media, “I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities.”

Of course, this feigned desire to remain anonymous was meant to give Ford credibility and to suggest that she and Feinstein had no political motive. But it’s highly likely that Feinstein’s staff arranged for the contents of the letter to be “leaked,” and that is a matter the FBI should take up.

On September 16, The Washington Post published an article with Ford’s name — which is how Sen. Grassley and his fellow Republicans found out who’d written the letter. On the 17th, Ford’s counsel told the MSM that Ford wanted a public hearing on the matter. A redacted copy of the Ford letter was leaked to CNN and published. The committee invited Ford to a hearing the following Monday, but no response was received from Ford or her attorneys. Judge Kavanaugh was then interviewed by committee investigative staff, but Democrats refused to participate in that interview.

On September 20, Feinstein gave an un-redacted copy of the Ford letter to Grassley. Told that Ford wanted to maintain her anonymity and has a fear of flying, committee staff informed her attorneys that they would fly to California to interview her. In her testimony, Ford said she was never advised of this offer, almost certainly because Feinstein and Ford’s Democrat-activist attorneys were pushing for an optically sensational public hearing. Which they ultimately got.

The full details between September 13 and 27 can be read in the committee chronology, but suffice it to say that Feinstein’s motives are betrayed by what occurred between the time she received the Ford letter on July 30 and the time its contents were leaked to the press as the Kavanaugh hearings were concluding during the second week of September.

On June 27, Democrats were alarmed by the announcement of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement. They were even more alarmed on July 9, when President Trump announced an exceptional (and more solidly conservative) replacement for Kennedy, his former clerk Brett Kavanaugh.

Coinciding with Feinstein’s receipt of Ford’s letter, there was a conference call to Democrats about the Kavanaugh nomination from leftist strategist Ricki Seidman (who became one of Ford’s “advisers”). In that conference call, Seidman stated, “Over the coming days and weeks there will be a strategy that will emerge, and I think it’s possible that that strategy might ultimately defeat the [Kavanaugh nomination].”

Given the nature and age of the allegations, Feinstein — and Ford, who teaches psychology of all things — most certainly knew that Ford should’ve gotten a forensic interview from a professional sex-crime investigator in order to determine the veracity of her claims. In essence, this is the equivalent of preserving the evidence so that it’s not contaminated, even though the evidence consisted only of Ford’s allegations. But the “evidence” was grossly contaminated in order that if fit into Feinstein’s plan.

A forensic interview would have helped substantiate Ford’s perception about what happened to her — in order to get to the truth.

Yet this has NEVER been about finding the truth but about creating unjust and inexcusable political optics.

Harvard Law School professor emeritus and liberal Democrat Alan Dershowitz says of Feinstein’s play: “When it’s a white man being accused by the Left of sexual offenses, all the rules are called off. The rules of presumption of innocence, the rules of due process — ‘we know he’s guilty because he’s a white man, she’s a woman, she’s a survivor,’ that’s the end of the inquiry.”

Instead, soon after receiving the letter, Feinstein suggested that Ford lawyer up, recommending Debra Katz, a hardcore Beltway Democrat specializing in sexual harassment. Katz and other Democrats then huddled with Ford, coaching her on how to proceed and, among other things, having her take a two-question polygraph examination, which determined only that Ford believed the story she had crafted.

Astoundingly, when asked about the leak at the close of Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony, Feinstein looked flustered, and after asserting that her staff did not leak the letter, she actually had the unmitigated audacity to blame Ford — to blame the “victim.”

It’s now clear that Feinstein had no intention of maintaining Ford’s “privacy” and that she scripted the entire charade. Feinstein should therefore be interviewed by the FBI to determine the sequence of events and motives behind the leaking of Ford’s letter. Feinstein’s actions, or those of her cutouts, likely warrant felony charges.

To that end, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), himself a Harvard-educated attorney, warned, “[Ford’s] lawyers are going to face a DC bar investigation into their misconduct” for not informing Ford that Senate investigators had offered to travel to California to interview her. Cotton also insisted, “Dianne Feinstein and her staff are going to face an investigation for why they leaked that. All of this could have been done discreetly. It happens hundreds of times every year in the Judiciary Committee.”

SUBSTANTIVE PROBLEMS WITH FORD;S TESTIMONY —

Where to start with Ford’s salacious, unsupported, unsubstantiated, uncorroborated, and in fact refuted claims?

With an analytical ear and eye, I evaluated every painful minute of both the Ford and Kavanaugh testimonies.

Here’s my list of inconsistencies.

As to when the alleged groping occurred, Ford claimed, in communications with The Washington Post on 6 July, before sending her letter to Feinstein on 30 July, that the attack happened in the “mid 1980s.” Her letter to Feinstein noted “the early 80s.” She claimed in her testimony that she recalled running into Mark Judge (whom she says was with Kavanaugh when he assaulted her but who categorically denies it) at the Potomac Village Safeway some weeks after the incident, and that helped her place the timeline.

Apparently, Judge wrote a casual memoir that mentioned working at a food store, and Feinstein’s staff put that together for Ford after reviewing what Judge wrote.

Who did she tell that Kavanaugh was the alleged attacker? Until July of this year, she had never named him. Ford testified that she told her husband about a “sexual assault” before they were married in 2002 — 20 years after the alleged groping — but had told him it was “physical abuse” before they were married. But she didn’t name the alleged assailant, and no name was mentioned in her 2012 marriage therapy or her 2013 individual therapy.

Where did it happen? Ford only knows in broad terms when and where she attended a party and was allegedly groped by Kavanaugh. She doesn’t know how she got to the party, who took her, or whether it was before or after others arrived.

Ford doesn’t recall which of the “visibly drunk” boys, Kavanaugh or Judge, pushed her into the room, who turned up the music, or who pushed her onto the bed. She claimed Kavanaugh covered her mouth to keep her from crying out for help, but after some sort of groping, the three of them just toppled onto the floor, at which time the two drunk boys just let her “get up and run out of the room” to the bathroom right across the hall.

Why did she not run down the stairs for help instead of running to the bathroom right across the hall from the bedroom, where she stayed until the two boys had “loudly walked down the narrow stairs, pin-balling off the walls on the way down”?

Ford doesn’t recall who took her home after the party, approximately eight miles from where she estimates the party might have been.

Ford claims, “The details about that night … I will never forget. They have been seared into my memory.” But she has forgotten just about everything except that she just “drank one beer.”

However, nobody else remembers the alleged details, much less the party — even her friend Leland Keyser, whom she also places at the gathering. Indeed, all the alleged witnesses named by Ford have refuted her account.

Regarding Ford’s memory, Rachel Mitchell, the sex-crimes prosecutor who interviewed her, asked if Feinstein had suggested she obtain a “forensic interview” as noted in law-enforcement guidelines, because “effective investigation requires cooperation with a multi-disciplinary team that includes medical professionals, victim advocates, dedicated forensic interviewers, criminalists, and other law enforcement members.”

Ford stated simply, “No,” but someone of Ford’s academic standing, a PhD in psychology, should certainly have known that a forensic interview would have been part of the correct course of action. Ford gave very technical testimony about memories, noting that various neurotransmitters “code memories into the hippocampus, and so the trauma-related experience is locked there, whereas other details kind of drift.” But it never occurred to her, or Feinstein, or the attorneys she recommended for Ford that a forensic interview was in order?

Mitchell outlined many serious inconsistencies in a lengthy analysis of Ford’s testimony, concluding, “A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that.” Key points of those inconsistencies are outlined here and here.

Tuesday, a man who was in a relationship with Ford for six years prior to her marriage has submitted a sworn statement to Sen. Grassley, casting significant doubt on the claims in Ford’s testimony. Among other things, he wrote, “During our time dating, Dr. Ford never brought up anything regarding her experience as a victim of sexual assault, harassment, or misconduct.” And he also indicated, contrary to Ford’s testimony, that she had coached someone else about passing a polygraph exam.

This other person denies his claim.

Washington attorney James Thurber has compiled a lot of questions the FBI should be asking Dr. Ford.

Predictably, as the Feinstein/Ford case against Kavanaugh is collapsing, Democrats are now desperately moving the goalposts, shifting their investigation to his testimony about his high-school yearbook and his comments about alcohol use, thereby seeking some path, any path to perjury. (This is similar to the Democrats’ shift, once the fake Trump/Russia collusion conspiracy began to collapse, to an obstruction of justice investigation.)

For the record, the previous FBI probes would have covered the question of alcohol use.

FINALLY, THE HYPOCRITES —

Ford’s spurious allegations are being heralded by the party of serial sexual assailant Bill Clinton and his chief defender and enabler Hillary Clinton, and by DNC Deputy Chair Keith Ellison.

Feinstein, a card-carrying Clintonista, now wants to investigate groping allegations from 36 years ago? Somebody get Juanita Broaddrick and Clinton’s other victims on the line.

And there sits committee member Sen. Cory “Spartacus” Booker (D-NJ), judging Kavanaugh for allegedly groping somebody 36 years ago. But it was Booker who revealed in a college newspaper that he had once groped an intoxicated 15-year-old girl.

But at the very top of the “creep factor” scale is committee member Richard “Stolen Valor” Blumenthal (D-CT), who made it clear this week that no amount of FBI investigation would be sufficient: “This list of witnesses is only a beginning. It’s not the end of what the FBI needs to do.”

When questioning Kavanaugh, Blumenthal strolled out a little Latin: “Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus,” noting the principle in a trial that when a witness lies about one thing, he will lie about anything. But it’s Blumenthal who is the most egregious of liars.

In his best put-on, he declared that Kavanaugh was guilty as charged and would be a “stain” on the Supreme Court. But according to even The New York Times, Blumenthal is a well-documented liar. He’s also a stain on the U.S. Senate.

In the run-up to his first Senate campaign in 2010, then-Connecticut Attorney General Blumenthal repeatedly declared that he had served in Vietnam — but he did not.

At an event honoring veterans, Blumenthal asserted, “We have learned something important since the days that I served in Vietnam, and you exemplify it.”

At a memorial service for fallen veterans, he said, “When we returned from Vietnam, I remember the taunts, the verbal and even physical abuse we encountered. We had to endure taunts and insults, and no one said ‘Welcome home.’”

On another occasion to welcome OEF and OIF veterans home, he said, “When we returned, we saw nothing like this.”

According to the Times, after at least five deferments, “In 1970, with his last deferment in jeopardy, [Blumenthal] landed a coveted spot in the Marine Reserve, which virtually guaranteed that he would not be sent to Vietnam. He joined a unit in Washington that conducted drills and other exercises and focused on local projects, like fixing a campground and organizing a Toys for Tots drive.”

Caught in his disgraceful lie, Blumenthal said, “I may have misspoken — I did misspeak — on a few occasions [but] I will not allow anyone to take a few of those misplaced words and impugn my record of service. I regret that I misspoke…”

Whatever you say, Sergeant Stolen Valor.

Laughably, leaping to new hypocritical heights, Feinstein offered this assessment of Kavanaugh’s response to her witch-hunt charade: “Judge Kavanaugh did not reflect an impartial temperament, or the fairness and even-handedness one would see in a judge. He was aggressive and belligerent. He should not be rewarded with a lifetime Supreme Court seat.”

Just how is an innocent man supposed to comport himself when confronted with an utterly flimsy 36-year-old attempted rape allegation? Answer: with righteous indignation. (Had Kavanaugh instead responded meekly and mildly during his testimony, you can be certain that Democrats would’ve pointed to his lack of anger as evidence of his guilt.)

Chuck Schumer (D-NY) also got the parroting memo: “Judge Kavanaugh harbors deep, deep partisan resentments. That’s not the kind of Justice we need on the Supreme Court.”

And after dragging Kavanaugh and the nation through this charade, now Feinstein is arguing that the final FBI report should remain highly confidential…

All said, on Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) called out Democrats on their Kavanaugh agenda, saying: “The national spectacle the professional left has created around Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation process has now reached some kind of fever pitch … a [virtual] mudslide of wild, uncorroborated accusations have poured out. This mudslide has been actively embraced, urged on and capitalized upon by Democrats inside this chamber and [their] far-left special interests. … The time for endless delay and obstruction has come to a close. Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination is out of committee. We’re considering it here on the floor and … we’ll be voting this week.”

As we await the FBI report, notably, a Harvard Center for American Political Studies poll was just released, and according to that survey this week, 60% of Americans support Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation if the FBI finds no other evidence to corroborate Ford’s accusations. And 75% of respondents believe that Feinstein should have provided Ford’s letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee when she received it in July, rather than waiting until Kavanaugh’s hearing had concluded.

 

**  This article is re-printed with permission from the Patriot Post.

 

References:

Mark Alexander, “The Feinstein/Ford Blockade: Chronology, Testimony, and Hypocrisy” (This has NEVER been about finding the truth but about creating unjust and inexcusable political optics), The Patriot Post,  October 3, 2018.  Referenced at:  https://patriotpost.us/alexander/58633-the-feinstein-slash-ford-blockade-chronology-testimony-and-hypocrisy?mailing_id=3774&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.3774&utm_campaign=alexander&utm_content=header

TRANSCRIPT of Ford and Kavanaugh testimonies:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/09/27/kavanaugh-hearing-transcript/?utm_term=.ac4711f46203

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment | Edit

Undoing the American Republic with Welfare and Institutionalized Poverty (That’s Why Welfare Reform is So Important!)

WELFARE - work hard, millions depend on you (BEST)

by Diane Rufino, September 30, 2018

Government programs such as welfare and other social means-tested programs characterize very well the government’s general policy towards poverty: Make individuals “comfortable” in their poverty rather than incentivize them to become self-sufficient. Those dependent on government have little incentive to vote against its interests; those dependent on government have little incentive to vote for fiscal conservatism and for constitutional conservatism.

The premise of this article is three-fold:

(1)  To make the argument that government entitlement and other social welfare policies (means-tested programs), rather than serving “the general welfare” and helping to raise people out of poverty, in fact are really just increasingly making individuals “more comfortable” in their poverty, are increasingly relieving them of the “burden” of having to provide for themselves and their families, and in their sum, are creating institutionalized dependency. We see it already, and have seen it for many years now – welfare has become a way of life and not just a temporary program of aid and assistance; even worse, it has become a generational way of life.

(2)  Dependency, and certainly institutionalized dependency, by its very nature, puts individuals completely at odds with the notion of freedom. An individual cannot be free and dependent on government at the same time.  As more become dependent on government, there is no other course than the destruction of our republic and the transformation to socialism. Socialism is the death blow to individual liberty. The rights of the individual, the property of the individual, the work and production of the individual, becomes subject to the needs and best interests of the collective. Socialism is the death blow to the great American experiment.

(3)  Entitlement Programs, like block grants to the States (per “contact agreements”), are Unconstitutional.

A GOVERNMENT OF LIMITED POWERS?

As the title of this article suggests, I intend to address the constitutionality of Welfare and other means-tested social programs. The United States was once a country that prided itself on the ambition, creativity, ingenuity, energy, and production of the American people. Americans worked hard; they provided for themselves and their families. Without the lure of a safety-net, people became creative and ambitious and did whatever they could to make a living and provide for themselves and their family. With people like that, with social pressure like that, is it any wonder that our country was so successful and created such profound wealth? Is it any wonder that people were able to climb the social ladder so quickly and children and grandchildren became more successful than their parents? Is it any wonder why the United States became such an attractive magnet for the impoverished and downtrodden of the world?

But after the era of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the United States slowly and steadily became a welfare state, with Lyndon B. Johnson taking the most credit for what our country has become.  In 1964, with the Civil Rights bill looming, Johnson said to his political cronies: “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”

Well, it did make quite a difference. Rather than help pull African-Americans out of poverty, welfare often doomed them to institutionalized poverty. Rather than help African-Americans overcome the prejudices, discriminations, and actions that held them back in the past, welfare was responsible for the greatest change in community dynamics which would have unfortunate consequences for them – it destroyed the black family.  The impact of welfare policies on marriage and family have been dramatic: Out-of-wedlock birthrates have skyrocketed among all demographic groups in the US but most notably among African Americans. In the mid-1960s, the out-of-wedlock birth rate was scarcely 3% for whites, 7.7% for Americans overall, and 24.5% among blacks. By 1976, those figures had risen to nearly 10% for whites, 24.7% for Americans as a whole, and 50.3% for blacks specifically. And today, the numbers stand at 29% for whites, 41% for the nation overall, and 73% for blacks. In other words, thanks to the welfare state, the entire country is moving rapidly in the wrong direction, but blacks in particular have reached a point of veritable catastrophe.

Is welfare constitutional??   I’ll eventually get to that question.

First of all, where does the supposed constitutional authority come from to redistribute wealth in the name of “welfare” or “security”?  The usual answer is the “General Welfare” clause of the Constitution. In the opening paragraph of Article I, Section 8 (which delegates to Congress the powers it is legally authorized to exercise), we find the “General Welfare” Clause. We have seen that term previously, of course – in the Preamble to the Constitution. In that opening paragraph of Article I, Section 8, Congress is granted power to tax and spend for the “general welfare of the United States.” From early in our history there were arguments about what sort of spending was truly for the general welfare. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, for instance, argued in 1791 that bounties paid to innovative new manufacturing concerns would qualify as spending for the general welfare. But Hamilton understood that the appropriations had to meet a standard of  uniformity throughout the Union. And for decades, Congress and various presidential administrations (mostly Republican) considered whether various “internal improvement” projects could legally constitute spending “for the general welfare.”

The government is not one of unlimited powers. We all know this. The US Constitution, as ratified by the individual states, created a common government of expressly-delegated powers which taken together, provide for some common essential functions (like safety and security, speaking with “one voice” in dealing with foreign nations and the Indian tribes, ensuring that commerce is made “regular,” and providing a uniform system of currency). Its powers were not intended to reach inside the state to regulate or affect the conduct of its citizens.

And yet the Constitution contains a clause that references “the General Welfare.” It’s called the “General Welfare Clause” and its purpose means one thing to big government folks and another to those who hold true to the historical view of the Constitution.

This clause is a special friend of  big-government politicians and intellectuals, and an enemy of limited-government folks. It is the catch-all phrase by which the federal government claims the authority to enact so much of its unconstitutional legislation and to carry out so much unconstitutional taxing and spending.

When the federal government wishes to create and expand welfare programs, to meddle in education, to provide grants for certain groups of individuals to attend college, to assist women in aborting their babies, to establish a national healthcare system, to serve the enormous immigration population (including illegals), to provide financial support for refugees, or to coerce the states to increase their drinking age or lower their speed limit,  progressives cite the “General Welfare” clause for constitutional authority.

Constitutional conservatives, on the other hand, push back with the argument that the General Welfare Clause is NOT, in fact a grant of power or source of authority.

Which is the correct view?  And why is it so important?

THE GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE:

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution lists the delegated functions of the federal legislative branch (Congress): Its opening paragraph includes the General Welfare Clause:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;  —And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[This last provision is called the “Necessary & Proper” Clause; it is typical language included in contracts at the time making clear that the party delegated a particular function or functions can take the “necessary” steps to carry out that function or those functions.]

FEDERAL SPENDING:  IS IT ALL CONSTITUTIONAL? 

The federal government spends money, through grants, tuition, other types of “assistance,” etc, to do things it cannot otherwise accomplish through actual constitutional authority. For example, the federal government provides funding to States to build roads, bridges, train tracks, airports, electric grids, libraries, swimming pools, housing, and other infrastructure; it provides funding to educate our children and to require public schools to implement affirmative action and other special programs for minorities and for students with disabilities; it provides funding for pre-school and day care; it provides funding to re-train the unemployed; it provides funding for relief aid; it provides funding for state and local law enforcement; it provides funding for Medicaid, food stamps, free lunch programs, and other social services; it provides funding to aid illegals; and it provides funding to individuals for college tuition, tuition remission, as scholarship awards, for housing, etc.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 grants the US government the power to raise and spend money. Is that power limited?  Or is it unqualified and unlimited?  We all know the government’s view.

The government may believe it is justified under the General Welfare Clause, for example, to provide healthcare for the elderly (or for everyone), to provide old-age pension, to fund public health projects; to invest in and conduct basic research; to provide subsidies for agriculture; to build libraries, and even to provide emergency aid for natural disasters. But under what theory of a “limited government” is Congress justified in taxing and spending for such purposes as building roads, bridges, train tracks, airports, electric grids, libraries, swimming pools, and housing, educating our children, providing pre-school and day care; re-training the unemployed, and bailing out big banks and big industry (such as the auto industry)?  The answer is that according to the delegated powers vested in Congress in Article I, Section 8, none of those responsibilities is allowed. “The powers not delegated to the States, nor prohibited to them, are reserved to the States and to the People.”  Then Tenth Amendment tells us that all of these objects rightfully belong to the States. While the government assumes the authority to tax and spend for these objects from the General Welfare Clause, it is the Tenth Amendment that supersedes.

The amount spent on such programs is staggering:

First of all, the US Treasury divides all federal spending into three groups: mandatory spending, discretionary spending and interest on debt. Mandatory and discretionary spending account for more than ninety percent of all federal spending, and pay for all of the government services and programs on which many rely. Federal spending for 2015 was broken down as follows: Mandatory spending at 64.4%, Discretionary spending at 29.3%, and Interest on the debt at 6.03%.

Discretionary spending refers to the portion of the budget that is decided by Congress through the annual appropriations process each year. These spending levels are set each year by Congress. In fiscal year 2015, $1.1 trillion out of a total budget of $3.8 trillion was spent on discretionary spending. By far, the biggest category of discretionary spending is spending on the Pentagon and related military programs. Examples of other well-known programs paid for by discretionary spending include the early childhood education program Head Start (included in Housing & Community), Title I grants to disadvantaged schools and Pell grants for low-income college students (Education), other school funding, food assistance for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), training and placement for unemployed people provided by Workforce Investment Boards (in Social Security, Unemployment and Labor), and scientific research through the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation (NSF), among many others.

Mandatory spending is spending that Congress legislates outside of the annual appropriations process, usually less than once a year. Out of a total budget of $3.8 trillion, $2.45 trillion was spend on mandatory spending. It is dominated by the well-known “earned-benefit” programs Social Security and Medicare (that is, people have money taken out of their wages for these programs). It also includes widely used safety net programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps), and a significant amount of federal spending on transportation, among other things.

Many mandatory programs’ spending levels are determined by eligibility rules. For example, Congress decides to create a program like Social Security. It then sets criteria for determining who is eligible to receive benefits from the program, and benefit levels for people who are eligible. The amount of money spent on Social Security each year is then determined by how many people are eligible and apply for benefits, whether or not they have paid into the program. [Note: Congress does not decide each year to increase or decrease the budget for Social Security or other earned benefit programs. Instead, it periodically reviews the eligibility rules and may change them in order to exclude or include more people, or offer more or less generous benefits to those who are eligible, and therefore change the amount spent on the program].

Mandatory spending makes up nearly two-thirds of the total federal budget. Social Security alone comprises more than 1/3 of mandatory spending and around 23% of the total federal budget. Medicare makes up an additional 23% of mandatory spending and 15% of the total federal budget. [See:  https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/ ]

The question is: Are these grants and other forms of assistance to the States constitutional?  Perhaps such programs as Social Security and Medicare are constitutional, or at least at one time were (that is, when salary deductions for them were still considered a property right), but now they are simply considered another federal tax.

But what about the other programs??   Welfare (for the poor and the generational dependents), education funding, funding for transportation, state grants?

On the government’s website (https://www.grants.gov/learn-grants/grant-policies.html; “A Short History of Federal Grant Policy”), there is this explanation:

      Billions of dollars in Federal grants are awarded each year for programs and projects that benefit the public. This assistance is rooted in the Constitution and its call to “promote the general Welfare.”

      It wasn’t until the 1970’s, however, that Federal grant policy began to evolve into what it is today. The Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act, passed in 1977, set out to guide government agencies in their use of Federal funds – particularly by defining the roles of contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants. Contracts, the law states, should be awarded when a Federal agency is acquiring something – an improved computer network, for example. Grants and cooperative agreements, meanwhile, should be awarded when a Federal agency is providing assistance, such as funding for a lower-income housing program in an at-risk urban community.

The federal government, by law, has established a grant program (mandatory grants and discretionary grants) whereby it provides funding to the states as a means to further its policies or to coerce conformity among the states on matters it has no actual constitutional authority to legislate. These grants are contractual in nature and so, legally, if the particular state accepts the money, it agrees to the conditions attached to it. It’s a matter of free will. And so the government achieves contractually, and coercively (because money is an attractive carrot) what it cannot achieve constitutionally. It is the means by which the federal government can control and coerce the States; it is the means by which the federal government can achieve an end-run around the Constitution and accomplish unconstitutionally what the Constitution legally does not allow it to accomplish. Federal grants to the states (grants-in-aid) are a primary mechanism that the federal government uses to extend its influence into state and local affairs.

The matter of federal funding and the coercion associated with it was addressed in 1987 with the Supreme Court case South Dakota v. Dole. The case centered on the constitutionality of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which was passed in 1984.  Specifically the Supreme court was asked to consider the limitations that the Constitution places on the authority of the US Congress when it uses its authority to influence the individual states in areas of authority normally reserved to the states.

The National Minimum Drinking Age Act (NMDAA) withheld 10% of federal highway funding from states that did not maintain a minimum legal drinking age of 21. South Dakota, which allowed 19-year-olds to purchase beer, challenged the law as an abuse of power, naming Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole as the defendant.

The Court, in a 7-2 opinion, upheld the statute’s constitutionality. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, articulated a 5-point rule for considering the constitutionality of expenditure cuts of the type in the NMDAA:

  • The spending must promote “the general welfare.”
  • The condition must be unambiguous.
  • The condition should relate “to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs.”
  • The condition imposed on the states must not, in itself, be unconstitutional.
  • The condition must not be coercive.

Rehnquist concluded that the NMDAA met the first three restrictions and thus was a constitutional exercise of Congressional authority. Furthermore, he wrote that Congress did not violate the Tenth Amendment because it merely exercised its right to control its spending nor did the statute coerce the states since it cut only a small percentage of federal funding.  According to Rehnquist, Congress applied pressure, but not irresistible pressure.

I believe the opinion was a poor exercise of judicial interpretation, and it hurts me to say that considering what a fan I usually am of William Rehnquist.

While contacts are always allowable, the question I ask is whether it is constitutional in the first place for the federal government to collect tax money for the purpose of doing something unconstitutional (even if it is by contract). I think it is an unconstitutional object of the taxing power. The power to coerce through funding is the power to coerce period.

If the federal government can use public funding to extend its authority, why can’t a state government have its citizens withhold federal tax dollars and direct it to itself instead in order to further its state authority under the Tenth Amendment?

Federal grants, put simply, are not only an unconstitutional exercise of the federal taxing and spending power but act to distort and erode the critical balance of government power between the states and the federal government.

SEPARATE GRANT OF POWER OR QUALIFYING PHRASE?

The words “General Welfare” actually create something of a dilemma. Either the founders didn’t really intend to create a general government of limited powers, or the General Welfare clause doesn’t really mean unlimited federal authority to do things beneficial to the nation as a whole.  What is it?

The answer, of course is easy. It’s just not the convenient answer for the federal government.

The grant of power to “provide . . . for the general welfare” raises a two–fold question:  (1) How may Congress provide for “the general welfare,” and (2) What is “the general welfare” that it is authorized to promote?

The first half of this question was answered by Thomas Jefferson in his opinion (to President George Washington and the First US Congress) on the government’s authority to establish a National Bank as follows: “The laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose.” The clause, in short, is not an independent grant of power, but a qualification of the taxing power. Although a broader view has been occasionally asserted, and although Congress has acted under that assumption, the Supreme Court has NOT upheld that view.

Let’s start by looking at construction:

The “General Welfare” clause, as one can notice and read, is set off by commas after the delegation of taxing power, for the purpose of clarifying WHAT the taxes collected are to be spent on. The powers enumerated in the following lines go into more specifics as to what Section 8 means when it says “to provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.” The fact that the framers followed up the general welfare clause in Article I Sec. 8 with specific enumerated powers indicates the latter – a qualification on federal authority. If they had intended Congress should have the power to do virtually anything and everything to promote the general welfare, they wouldn’t have bothered to include specific powers.

We don’t need to speculate on what the “General Welfare” clause means and we shouldn’t have to take the word of a politically-appointed Supreme Court justice. We only need to look at the explanation provided by the author of the Constitution himself, James Madison.

In a letter to James Robertson, dated April, 20, 1831, Madison makes quite clear that the phrase “for the General Welfare” is not a separate grant of power:

“With respect to the two words “general welfare,” I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

The General Welfare Clause is not an enlargement clause, authorizing the government to tax and spend to pay the nation’s debts, to provide for the common defense, and to do anything it wants for the general welfare. It is a clarifying clause, serving once again as a reminder the goals of the government. The goals, of course, are stated in the Preamble to the Constitution:  “To form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity….”

Again, if our Founding Fathers and drafters of the Constitution had intended Congress should have the power to do virtually anything and everything it wanted in order to promote the general welfare, they wouldn’t have bothered to include specific delegations of power. If the government was intended to be one of unlimited and consolidated powers, what state would have ratified it?  The truth is that the Constitution was sold to the States, through written and oral assurances, as one creating a common government of limited powers to serve the States and to carry out their common functions.

James Madison, as I hope everyone knows, was a primary author of The Federalist Essays, which became known as The Federalist Papers. Knowing that of the 55 delegates who attended the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, only 39 signed it at the end (September 17).  Some didn’t sign because they had already left explained the convention and several didn’t sign because they could not lend it their support.  He also knew that some heavy hitters refused to even attend the convention because of grave suspicions of what the convention might try to do and that they would not support his Constitution in the state ratifying conventions. And in fact, during the ratification debates, Anti-Federalists who opposed the Constitution voiced fears that people would come along and assert that the term “General Welfare” granted unlimited power to the federal government.

Madison, together with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, wrote the Federalist essays (ie, the Federalist Papers) as a means to explain each provision of the Constitution and for the purpose of providing assurances to the States as they contemplated whether to adopt it or not. In particular, the Federalist essays addressed the fears, the skepticism, the concerns of the Anti-Federalists (who had written a series of essays highlighting the defects in the new Constitution). The Federalist Papers, coming from the primary author of the Constitution, the man who called for the Convention, the man who provided the rough draft (rough outline) of the proposed new government), the man who attended each day, the man who took faithful notes of the proceedings and debates, the man who was almost universally perceived as being honest and trustworthy, and the man who most had a stake in seeing the Constitution through to its adoption (since it was his vision to scrap the Articles of Confederation) in favor of a new government), are without a doubt the most important and the primary authority on the meaning and intent of the US Constitution.

With that in mind, Madison addressed the scope of the General Welfare Clause in his Essay No. 41:

      For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?  Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

He went on, in Essay No. 41:

      In a more remote stage, the imports may consist in a considerable part of raw materials, which will be wrought into articles for exportation, and will, therefore, require rather the encouragement of bounties, than to be loaded with discouraging duties. A system of government, meant for duration, ought to contemplate these revolutions, and be able to accommodate itself to them. Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power ‘to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,’ amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms ‘to raise money for the general welfare.’

Again, the Federalist Papers, because of how wrote the essays and for the purpose they were written, are the primary authority on the meaning and intent of the US Constitution.

Madison further illuminated the intended meaning of the General Welfare Clause in a letter written to Edmund Pendleton in 1793, pointing out that the phrase was lifted from the Articles of Confederation and was intended to retain its meaning in the new Constitution.

       “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions. It is to be remarked that the phrase out of which this doctrine is elaborated, is copied from the old articles of Confederation, where it was always understood as nothing more than a general caption to the specified powers, and it is a fact that it was preferred in the new instrument for that very reason as less liable than any other to misconstruction.”

According to Madison, “the most important and fundamental question” with respect to the intent and meaning of the Constitution and the design of the government created was the meaning of and the relationship between the General Welfare Clause and the enumeration of particular powers in Article I, Sect. 8. This question, as he explained in Federalist No. 41, is the most “fundamental” because the answer determines the very “idea” or “nature” of the U.S. Constitution. It determines the ambition of the federal government.  Legal scholars and commentators virtually agree that the clause was not a separate grant of power but rather a substantive grant of power for the generally-stated end (see the Preamble to the Constitution). They agree that the primary purpose of the ensuing enumeration was to define more particularly the ends alluded to by the phrase “General Welfare.” Hence, the meaning of the general constitutional government in the American federal system is a government oriented to a limited number of limited ends.

I would argue then, that any “taxing and spending” for purposes not permitted under the enumerated powers, and in fact, reserved to the States per the Tenth Amendment, is impermissible and unconstitutional.

But we all know that the States are weak and the Supreme Court, because of its general aversion to cling to a meaning associated with an era long gone, intentionally ignores what our Founders have said and what they have written. They prefer to engage in their progressive way of interpreting the document in order to update it – which is merely a way of saying that they want to ignore the intended restraints on the federal government in order to transfer more and more power to it.

So the words “general welfare” must mean something other than a grant of power for Congress to do whatever it pleased. What exactly did the framers mean?

Two words in the clause hold the key – the words general and common. The phrase simply means that any tax collected must be collected to the benefit of the United States as a whole, not for partial or sectional (i.e. special) interests. The federal government may promote the general welfare, or common good, but it must do so within the scope of the powers delegated and without favoritism.

Let’s look at what the Supreme Court has said:

The Constitution contains two references to “the General Welfare” — one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. The Supreme Court, in the case Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution “has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments.”  Furthermore, the Court has held that the understanding of the General Welfare Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate Justice Joseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States:

“A power to lay taxes for any purposes whatsoever is a general power; a power to lay taxes for certain specified purposes is a limited power. A power to lay taxes for the common defense and general welfare of the United States is not in common sense a general power. It is limited to those objects. It cannot constitutionally transcend them.”    [Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, in §919]

Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power, but a qualification on the taxing power which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government.

The problem with Justice Story’s comment (above) is that the “General Welfare” does NOT mean “General Interest to the federal government.” It means the “general welfare of the American people.” The clause means that the US Congress the power to spend for matters affecting only the national welfare, and not certain groups particularly.

The problem is that the federal government is addicted to taxing; it gives government the ability to carry out its expressly-delegated function and also the ability to carry out functions it has no authority to regulate. The latter it accomplishes by bribery – I mean, it offers the states grant money (in exchange for complying with conditions; conditioned spending).

When challenged on the federal government’s constitutional authority to create welfare programs, meddle in educations, take over public education, offer programs specifically for illegal aliens and Hispanic green-card holders, or run a national healthcare system, progressives will almost always appeal to the “General Welfare Clause.” Because they believe the government SHOULD be handling such tasks, they advance the “all-inclusive” and “all-authoritative” view of the Clause. And who is really willing to challenge this – the greater than 50% of the people who depend on government programs enacted “for the so-called General Welfare”?  At some point, there will be so very many people unable to support themselves and provide the substance to take care of themselves and their families and who look to the government that the federal courts are going to have to officially re-interpret the General Welfare Clause to give Congress a blank check to legislate for any reason related to the “general” welfare or to the welfare of any particular group of people. And perhaps that is the reason the government has, over the years, established so many policies designed to get Americans dependent on it for their essentials. Perhaps that is why Democrats in particular, continue to make sure that those on entitlement and other social programs are increasingly more “comfortable” in their poverty rather than pressured to abandon a life of dependency for one of employment and production.

WELFARE: CONSTITUTIONAL or NOT?  HOW BETTER TO PROVIDE A SAFETY-NET?

As explained above, I believe any taxiing and spending for objects NOT expressly tasked to the federal government by Article I, Sect. 8, is unconstitutional. There is no provision in the Constitution for (1) Discretionary Spending; (2) Grants and Other Types Assistance, which includes things like grants and scholarships for education, grants to the States (for roads, bridges, airports, ports, railroad tracks, public schools, Medicaid and other dependency programs, healthcare, etc); (3) Education; (4) Universal Healthcare; or (5) Welfare and other government-sponsored public assistance programs. All of these types of spending (although one might argue that for the most part, some are duplicated) allow the government to do the following:

(1)  Maintain a high federal taxation rate

(2)  Accomplish what the Constitution itself does not allow it to do.  (They permit the government to make an end-run around the Constitution)

(3)  Control people. A person dependent on government will never vote against its interests.

(4)  Exercise control over the States  (Most States can’t fund all that the State requires internally and for its people through the money that it raises by state taxation, and that is why they almost reflexively and automatically put their hands out when the federal government offers government assistance)

(5)  Apply coercion to the States.  (Again, most States can’t fund all that the State requires internally and for its people through the money that it raises by state taxation, and that is why they almost reflexively and automatically put their hands out when the federal government offers government assistance, even though they know that the funds come with strings and often times, it deprives the State of the decisions and options it could have exercised on its own)

(6)  Establish uniformity among the States (slowly erasing the borders that distinguish one state and its “politics” from another).  Dangling funds in front of a State that is otherwise strapped for funds is coercive pressure (regardless of what judges who sit on a bench in DC say) and usually results in the States accepting the money, agreeing to its conditions, and sacrificing little by little its state autonomy and sovereignty.

In other words, the spending identified above, including funding (grants) to the States and including welfare and other means-tested assistance programs, are unconstitutional.

Healthcare is a social program, plain and simple; it is socialist at its core. Those who the government determines are able to pay their insurance premiums must do so, and in fact, will be burdened with an increase in premiums. Why?  Because they are paying not only to cover themselves and their families, but to help cover all those in poverty who can’t afford healthcare on their own. It is a government program based on simple re-distribution of wealth and socialism. One group of individuals suffers a burden while another group receives a hand-out. Both pretty much get the same level of healthcare coverage.

Government, or universal, healthcare is not legitimately covered by the “General Welfare” Clause because the program doesn’t apply equally to everyone. It is a program whereby the government commandeers half the American population to cover (pay) the healthcare insurance premium costs of the other half. One half benefits in every sense of the word while the other half is forced to incur an additional burden.

Welfare, and other means-tested social programs, are other programs based on re-distribution of wealth. Those who work and make enough are required to pay federal income taxes. They work at least 3 months out of the year to pay the government what it requires, which is essentially 30% of their income and a lot more for other types of assets. Those who don’t work or only work a little (and don’t make enough) can go on welfare and can take advantage of other means-tested social programs. They can sit around and wait for their government checks – money that flows directly from those who earn and produce to those who don’t.

These programs are not legitimately covered by the “General Welfare” Clause because frankly, it doesn’t fit the definition of “general welfare.” The opening paragraph of Article I, Sect. 8 means that any tax collected must be collected in order that the government (Congress) can fund all the projects pertaining to the express powers granted to it (ie, the enumerated powers), which collectively are covered by the phrase “for the common defense and to provide for the general welfare.” Welfare and other means-tested social programs do NOT benefit the citizens of the United States as a whole, but rather benefit only a subset of the people. In fact, a good portion of citizens are harmed in order to benefit the others. That hardly seems fair. The Constitution doesn’t empower the US Congress to institutionalize giving and compassion. It only empowers Congress to act in those areas that the States originally agreed to in 1788. [On June 21, 1788 the Constitution became the official governing document of the United States of America when New Hampshire became the ninth of thirteen states to ratify it, per Article VII].

The grants to the States are simply unconstitutional because the federal government, in Article I, Sect. 8, was not delegated the authority to address any of the purposes for which the grants are offered. If the government can simply accomplish through funds (conditional funding) what it can’t accomplish according to the Constitution, then the government is not a limited one but one easily and most likely capable of becoming overly ambitious and controlling. If the government can simply accomplish through funds (conditional funding) what it can’t accomplish according to the Constitution, then our government is not longer “federal” but “national.” And we see that is absolutely true today.

Let’s go back to Welfare (and other means-tested social programs) and look at the inherent unfairness in the program. One group of people exists on welfare and other social programs; their needs and essentials are provided by the government. Since they earn no money, they pay no federal taxes. The other group is self-sufficient and is able to provide for themselves and their families (the way it was supposed to be), and because they are considered “successful,” the government demands that they pay a fairly substantial federal income tax. In fact, all their income, all their property, and all their assets must be diligently disclosed to the IRS.  Government, of course, doesn’t provide its own money but rather must obtain it, usually through taxpayer funding. So, the first group, on welfare, is not supported by the government but rather by hard-working tax-paying citizens.  One groups pays (heavily) and the other sits back and receives; yet both enjoy the freedoms, the civil rights, and the privileges, as well as the safety and security provided by the United States. But, truth be told, both exist differently and both are not served equally from the government. Here are some differences:

(a) Those on welfare don’t need to work; they don’t even need to get out of bed or get off the couch. They can socialize or they can spend all day with their kids.  Those not on welfare must work and must always be concerned that their jobs are secure.

(b)  Those on welfare don’t have to worry where their money comes from and don’t have to live check to check for their rent and their grocery bills. They get a check from the government which they can count on. Those not on welfare often live check to check; in fact, they sometimes have to take on a second job or have their spouse go to work to cover bills.  (The ironic thing is that those on welfare often tell Health & Human Services Office that there are no jobs, yet those not on welfare often have no problem finding a second job)

(c)  Those on welfare get a break in college tuition; there are lots of scholarship and tuition assistance aid to help them; those not on welfare pay more for their children to go to college.

(d)  Those on welfare get free healthcare.  Those not on welfare have to pay for their own health insurance or make sure they get a job that provides it.

(e)  Those on welfare (or those who meet other means-tested criteria) can also get food stamps (to help them buy more nutritious food), assistance for daycare (even though they don’t work), housing assistance, assistance to help cover heat and air-conditioning, etc etc.  In other words, over the years, more and more social programs have been created to help make people more comfortable in their poverty. They do NOTHING to help them become independent and self-sufficient, and in fact, do everything to establish the hand-outs as a way of life.

(f)  Those on welfare can have all the kids they want, including with as many different men as they want. Sure, they are supposed to disclose the name and contact information of the father of each child to Health & Human Services, but knowing people who have worked with HHS, women aren’t always forthcoming with such information. My mother, who worked for years with the New Hanover County Department of Health & Human Services, used to tell me how frustrating it was to work there and what a scam Welfare is. She told me how mostly black women would come in to the office with two and three and four kids and want their check. She would ask them for the name of the father of the children, and the response would be “I don’t know” or “Just give me my damn check.” She would call for her supervisor and eventually, every single time, they would get their check without giving any information.  Those not on welfare have to make a cost-benefit analysis when planning their families. Having children isn’t a scam to them or a money-making scheme. Their concerns are always whether they can afford them and provide a good life for them.

(g)  Those on welfare are supposed to continually look for work and report their efforts to HHS, but we know that’s a joke. Most know exactly how to game the system. When those not on welfare need to find a new job, they make an honest and great effort to do so.

(h)  Those on welfare can do drugs and abuse alcohol whenever they want and still collect their checks. Those not on welfare must always conduct themselves in a manner to be good and responsible employees; they must show up for work on time, be alert, be productive, not call out excessively, and must be able to pass an on-the-spot drug test.

(i)  Those on welfare never have to worry about keeping a record of their expenses, keeping receipts, or hiring an accountant to navigate the federal income tax form. They never have to worry about being audited by the IRS or will never know the absolute fear of getting a certified letter from them.  They will never have to worry about having the IRS telling them that they should have paid more in taxes and so, the money they planned to use for a vacation must be turned over immediately. Those not on welfare are slaves to the IRS and to the April 15 deadline to file their taxes.

(j)  Those on welfare never have to worry about saying or doing anything on social media or in their private lives that might somehow prevent them from receiving their checks. Those not on welfare, however, must forever be diligent in what they say, how they say it, where they say it, to who they say it, and they must be careful to give the appearance of being neutral on religion and politics and social issues should a co-worker somehow find out or should Human Resources find out. Personal opinions and politics, and activism and association…  these once traditional exercises of the First Amendment now can be reason to be fired from a job or to be denied an interview.

(l)  Those on welfare automatically get an increase in their living expenses with each additional child. Those not on welfare do not. Those not on welfare (ie, those who have honest employment) cannot game the system and defraud their employer.

(m)  Those on welfare can exploit various ways to exploit the entitlement system, including colluding with men to have additional children and splitting the welfare funds.

Welfare and other government hand-out programs offer only one positive benefit: They offer a safety net to those who temporarily are unable to work and provide for themselves and their family. This safety net was intended to be temporary, to provide for the individual while he or she figures out a way to get back on his/her feet and back into the workforce. It was NOT intended to be a way of life. It was NOT intended to be a viable alternative to a career or being a productive member of society. On the other hand, welfare and other government hand-out programs offer many negative effects (many perhaps are unintended consequences), including the following:

  • They generate and reward sloth
  • They relieve too many young people of the energy they would need to invest in an education or to learn a skill
  • They result in a lack of ambition
  • They result in an obese population (as someone from New Dehli once explained to his family: “I want to live in America. I want to live in a country where the poor people are obese.” Dinesh D’Souza tells this story)
  • They have resulted in, and continue to result in, the destruction of the family unit (welfare contains marriage penalties)
  • They have increased, and continue to increase, the level of poverty in our country [Families with an absent father, black and white alike, generally occupy the bottom rung of America’s economic ladder. Regardless of race or ethnicity, the poverty rate for single parents with children is several times higher than the corresponding rate for married couples with children. According to Robert Rector, with the Heritage Foundation, “the absence of marriage increases the frequency of child poverty 700 percent” and thus constitutes the single most reliable predictor of a self-perpetuating underclass. Articulating a similar theme many years ago, Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Nothing is so much needed as a secure family life for a people to pull themselves out of poverty”]
  • They inspire and encourage too many people to stay on welfare and not look for employment (cost-benefit analysis)
  • They perpetuate of ignorance, illiteracy, etc
  • They serve as a viable alternative to getting an education
  • They reward those who did not take public education seriously nor took any initiative to learn a skill
  • They reward women for having children without being married
  • They reward women for not cooperating with authorities to identify the father or fathers of their children (in order to have them provide child care)
  • They have created generational government dependency (young girls imprint on their mothers and get pregnant without being married in order to be taken care of rather than get educated and work)
  • Rather than serve the positive goal of providing a temporary safety-net until the applicant can get back on his or her feet, they have become a permanent means of support. Dependency has become a way of life. (Over the years, more and more social programs have been created to help make people more comfortable in their poverty. They do NOTHING to help them become independent and self-sufficient, and in fact, do everything to establish the hand-outs as a way of life)
  • They have resulted in the increase in crime, drug use, and human decay [In agreeing to sign the Civil Rights legislation of 1965, LBJ’s chief objective was to reduce dependency by blacks and put an end to the disproportionately high rate of black poverty. He said he wanted “to break the cycle of poverty” and make “taxpayers out of tax eaters.” He further claimed that his programs would bring to an end the “conditions that breed despair and violence,” those being “ignorance, discrimination, slums, poverty, disease, not enough jobs”]
  • They have ruined whole communities
  • They have created a class system in the US (those who are dependent and are takers; and those who are independent and produce).
  • They have caused one group of citizens to distrust and to have no respect for another group of people (because many recipients are non-citizens)
  • They have caused people to question the legitimacy of the voting system [Is it fair for people living off the government (ie, other people), to have the ability to vote and have a say in how other people’s money is spent? Maybe there should be a progressive voting system like there is a progressive income tax…. Those with more money and assets are taxed at a higher level so maybe their votes should carry greater weight]

To highlight the differences between those on welfare and other social programs with those who provide for themselves one sentence, I would sum it up this way: Those on welfare receive a check without any conditions attached; those not on welfare are subject to.

The federal government has been financing government-provided welfare since the 1930s. Of the more than $1.1 trillion spent in fiscal year 2016, federal expenditures accounted for $829 billion (or 74% of all funding related to welfare programs), and state expenditures accounted for $297 billion (or 26%). Most state spending ($213 billion) is done on one single program – Medicaid. In terms of GDP, welfare alone accounts for 6%. It has risen steadily and quickly in the years after Ronald Reagan left office. During LBJ’s term, welfare spending accounted for 1.5% of GDP; during Carter’s term it more than doubled – to 3.6%; during Reagan’s term, it remained the same and even dipped; but then after he left office, it began to increase quickly and steadily.

Imagine how much each taxpayer could be relieved in his or her federal taxation burden if the federal government taxed only for the spending for which it is constitutionally allowed.  Imagine how much each individual State could then tax its citizens. They would be able to raise money on their own to cover internal expenses – the running of the State and the care of its people – and more importantly, they could spend that money AS THEY SEE FIT, and not within the conditions imposed by the federal government. Imagine how, if this financial dependency were ended, the rightful balance between federal and state government power could be better achieved.  Taking away the financial power to coerce and control leaves the States in a better position to stand up to the federal government rather than to cower and concede.

As mentioned above, the spending identified above, including funding (grants) to the States and including welfare and other means-tested assistance programs, are unconstitutional.  Yet there are citizens who feel passionate and strongly that those who can give up some of their income should do so in order to take care of those who are less fortunate, those who are legitimately disabled (and not like some friends I know who filed for disability because of their obesity), those who work but can’t provide enough for their family (while still continuing to have more and more kids), those who are here illegally and need help providing for their growing families, those who have children without being or getting married (including those who refuse to provide information to the authorities for child-support), those who are crafty at defrauding the system, those who ignored the opportunity to become educated and hence can’t get anything other than a minimum-wage job, and those who simply don’t want to work.  I wonder if they feel so passionate and so supportive of these people because they know that it is other people’s hard-earned money that will be used to support them. I wonder if they would feel the same if the money was taken from them, their family, their food allowance, and their recreation fund.  I think the only legal way that the federal government can offer welfare and other means-tested assistance programs is if it asks each taxpayer, at the time they file their taxes, if they would be willing to donate additional of their money for the care of the poor. I’m sure many would agree to do so. I’m also sure that such programs would have much less funding which means criteria would be stricter and time restraints would have to be added. The programs would clearly have to be temporary in nature and because of stringent criteria, there would be indirect pressure to get off as soon as possible.

So, let me list out some solutions to the problem of federal discretionary spending, including Welfare and state grants:

(i)  My first solution to this out-of-control, unconstitutional-taxing and spending bloated government is for the States to challenge each item of federal spending for constitutionality. For each item that is not constitutional, the federal income tax rate should be reduced accordingly.

(ii)  My second solution (and this one is for Welfare only) would be the one outlined in the previous full paragraph (each taxpayer can offer to send additional of their money to the government for welfare programs). Personally, I like this one.  This forces people to put up or shut up. It forces people to put their money where their mouth is.

(iii)  My third solution is each state to establish a State Escrow Account. (I’ve written an article on this and how it would work).  Each State would review the federal budget and determine which items are constitutional or not. It would then adjust the federal budget accordingly. Then it would determine the pro rata share of that budget that North Carolina residents would provide. The state would require all residents to have their federal income tax first reviewed by the State Treasury Department. Only the portion that corresponds to constitutional federal spending would be forwarded to the IRS and the remainder would be deposited in the State Escrow Account. The state would then determine for itself what to do with the escrow funds – either returning it to its residents or applying it to state projects, thus relieving the state of any un-necessary reliance on the federal government and moving the state towards the independence it was intended to have.

(iv)  My last solution is to keep welfare and the other means-tested social programs, but to treat them like state grants and attached strict conditions to recipient status. Remember, welfare and other such social entitlement programs are like state grants in that they both are an unconstitutional exercise of the taxing and spending power. Conditions should be attached for two essential reasons: (1) to ensure that recipients can only receive benefits for a LIMITED time (there will need to be time limits); and (2) to make it so burdensome that recipients will want to get off of government assistance as soon as possible, whether that means they will look at marriage and education more favorably or will invest in career training programs or will make sure they do not have further children which may tend to keep them dependent on government aid. Some conditions that should be placed on free government aid (ie, other people’s money) include:

  • Mandatory birth control. (No government check without first receiving a monthly birth control shot)
  • No increase in the welfare check and no additional funds should the recipient have another child while on public assistance
  • Suspension of the right to vote
  • Definite earmarks are attached to the funding. Funds can only go towards essential food items, housing, and transportation. Any person on government assistance who can afford a new car will be automatically kicked out of the program
  • No free cell phones
  • No visits to the nail salon
  • No funding for air-conditioning (Lowe’s sells a great $12 fan which works wonders in the heat)
  • Mandatory proof of job searches (including signed statements from each employer consulted, including the reason the person could not be considered or interviewed. Job searches will be viewed with extreme scrutiny for potential for fraud and abuse; for example, a person who has a criminal record should not be looking for a job with law enforcement or education, daycare, etc because such jobs expressly require employees to have no criminal background history)
  • Mandatory community college or GED courses for those who did not graduate high school or who barely graduated (those who severely lack the basic skills and knowledge imputed on an adult, or a young adult)
  • Mandatory college or community college courses for those who have no college diploma, associates degree, vocational training, etc (No government check without a report showing course status; if a person is not working, he or she must be developing their career and building valuable job skills)
  • Children of a person on welfare must be doing well in school (average or better)
  • Proof of citizenship must be provided (and confirmed by the Social Security Department). Identity fraud will result in immediate deportation
  • Recipients must show they are drug-free (mandatory drug-testing)
  • Random audits will be conducted
  • Mandatory visits from a social worker to assess the cleanliness and order of the home and the environment for the child (or children)
  • Recipients must be available for community service when the state government needs them

I’m sure there are other conditions that I haven’t thought of and I’m sure that others would make some suggestions of their own.  In fact, I would encourage those who have read this article to comment and add their suggestions.

Milton Friedman, an economist, was highly critical of welfare, and noted several times how it should be judged by its results and outcomes and not by its intentions.  He also said: “There’s been one underlying basic fallacy in this idea of welfare measures, and that is that it is feasible and possible to do good with other people’s money. That view has two flaws. If I want to do good with other people’s money, I first have to take it away from them. That means that the welfare state philosophy of doing good with other people’s money, at it’s very bottom, is a philosophy of violence and coercion. It’s against freedom, because I have to use force to get the money. In the second place, very few people spend other people’s money as carefully as they spend their own.”

If we are going to coerce and extort money from taxpayers, not merely to provide safety and security for the country or to legislate for the enumerated objects in Article I, Section 8, but also to support those who don’t want to even try to support themselves and their families, then the very least we should do is provide accountability to those taxpayers (those hard-working men and women whose paychecks are seized by the government for 1/3 of the year) and that is to attach strict and limiting conditions to welfare checks. The program, which would have to be run as one that is contractual in nature and not as a constitutional responsibility, must be so burdensome, so intrusive, so violative of freedom, and so unattractive to the recipient that he or she will absolutely want to spend as little time as possible on it.  Well that’s the hope anyway.

 

References:

John Perazzo, “How the Liberal Welfare Destroyed Black America,” Front Page Magazine, May 5, 2016.  Referenced at:  https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/262726/how-liberal-welfare-state-destroyed-black-america-john-perazzo

Mike Maharrey, “The General Welfare Clause is Not About Writing Checks,” The Tenth Amendment Center, August 28, 2014.  Referenced at:  https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/08/28/the-general-welfare-clause-is-not-about-writing-checks/

Federalist No. 41 –  http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed41.asp

“Federal Aid to States and Local Governments,” Congressional Budget Office (CBO), April 18, 2018.  Referenced at: https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/federal-aid-to-state-and-local-governments

The Delegates Who Didn’t Sign the Constitution –  https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-constitution-amendments/those-who-didnt-sign-the-constitution/

Delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia (May 27 – September 1787) –  http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/marryff.html

“Federal Grants to State and Local Governments (1960-2017) – Chart Analysis,” Mercatus Center (George Mason University).  Referenced at:  https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/Federal-grant-aid-state-and-local-chart-analysis-pdf.pdf

“Federal Spending on Benefits and Services for People with Low Income: In Brief,” Congressional Research Service, Feb. 6, 2018.  Referenced at:  https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45097.pdf

“Spending for the General Welfare,” Cornell Law School.  Referenced at:  https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art1frag29_user.html

Jefferson’s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank (1791), Avalon Project (Yale Law School).   Referenced at:  http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-tj.asp

Grant Policy –  https://www.grants.gov/learn-grants/grant-policies.html

Federal Spending: Where Does the Money Go?,” National Priorities Project.  Referenced at:  https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

Matthew J. Franck, “The Lawless Welfare State,” National Review, Jan. 13, 2013.  Referenced at:  https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2010/05/17/lawless-welfare-state/

 

The Federal Courts Have Become Political, as Judge Kavanaugh’s Confirmation Hearing Made Clear

KAVANAUGH - at Senate Confrrmation Hearing (Sept. 2018)

by Diane Rufino, Sept. 22, 2018

The United States is a constitutional republic.  It is not a democracy, as most people believe. A “republic” is a form of government in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected president rather than a monarch. It is a “constitutional” republic because it is the constitution which outlines what powers the government has and does not have. It is “constitutional” for another important reason; the constitution protects important individual rights that belong to ALL persons, whether those persons belong to a minority group or whether they happen to be of the majority. The implications of this are critical for our country. The majority may be successful in electing the representatives of their choice and may try to push the agenda that serves them best, but they can never target minority groups to burden their rights, liberties, privileges, or property.

As you can see, the Constitution is the cornerstone of our society; it forms the very foundation of our government system and the foundation of our Rule of Law. It defines the division of government power between the federal government and the states, and then the state and local governments have their authority.

The Constitution is the People’s document. How can that be when I just explained that how it defines the powers of government?  It is the People’s document because above all else, it sets limits on the power and the reach of government on the rights and in the lives of Americans. It establishes boundaries on government. Individual Liberty is greatest when government is most properly restrained.

After all, Individual Liberty is the great ideal on which our country was founded.

The problem with this ideal though, is in the diminishing role the Constitution holds and the transitory nature that too many judges attribute to it (“a living, breathing document”). The Constitution can’t mean what it what it was meant to mean…  That’s too archaic. It is a product of a different time, with different values.  The Constitution must mean what judges and justices infer it means, according to the changing times and values. This is the argument of liberal and progressive judges.

To compound this problem further is the fact that the federal government now holds a monopoly over the meaning and intent of the Constitution.  It can legislate as it wishes; it can enforce as it wishes, and god forbid either branch is challenged, well then the federal courts will usually support them. The federal judiciary is the branch which has given itself the supreme power to interpret the Constitution and to require all states and localities to abide by its opinions, even when that opinion is delivered by a single judge, by 2 members of a 3-member panel of judges, or by a 5-4 split on the Supreme Court.  (The point I’m making is that often an “opinion” is the result of a single judge).  As the name implies, the federal judiciary is a branch of the federal government. It is not an impartial tribunal for the various parties to a suit, including the States, the Church, individuals, minority groups, etc. It is a tribunal whose members are political appointees nominated by US presidents and confirmed by the political members of the US Senate. They are creatures of the federal government, beholden first and foremost to the system that put them on the seat of the highest courts of the land.

Does anyone really believe that, in their opinions, the federal courts are not going to tend to side with the federal government?

The truth is that the federal government is virtually free to assume any and all powers it wants or thinks it needs; conversely, it is also free to ignore powers it wants to ignore. And we’ve certainly seen this trend. Over the years, and it began almost immediately (in 1803), there has been a constant and steady transfer of government power from the States and from the People to the federal government. The government, once of limited powers, has now swelled to a government of consolidated and unlimited power.

To make matters even worse, the federal judiciary has become a third political branch, making the monopoly completely political in nature. Politics, as we know, invites aggression and division. It is not a unifying force but one of division.

The federal courts have become political, rather than apolitical, which is what they were intended to be. Interpretation of the Constitution should be, and MUST ALWAYS BE, free from politics. Interpretation is really simple; its black and white, and rarely involves shades of gray.  Those of us who have been involved in the reading of a will or navigating the fine print of a credit card, or even re-negotiating the terms of a contract, understand what interpretation is all about.  The terms speak for themselves. The provisions, including how they are written, with commas, semi-commas, and sub-paragraphs, speak to the intent.

In short, contract law governs the role of a judge when it comes to the interpretation of the Constitution; the document is interpreted according to its plain words, the meaning of those words at the time they were written and agreed upon, and any contemporaneous documents or writings that help explain the Constitution’s meaning and intent.

The contemporaneous documents that might be (and should be) included in a judge’s exercise of interpretation include The Federalist Papers (because they were written to explain the Constitution and because they were written, in large part, by James Madison, the primary author of the Constitution and Alexander Hamilton, who also attended the Convention in 1787, they were assurances given to the States on which they relied in their ratifying conventions) and any debates in the Ratifying Conventions (because those “understandings” became part of the “meeting of the minds” on which the States agreed to adopt the Constitution). There is NO role of a federal judge to interpret the Constitution applying modern values or norms or to interpret it through the lens of a political agenda.

And yet they do. In fact, there is a whole population of judges who are referred to as “progressive” or “liberal” judges and who hold the opinion that the US Constitution is not firm in meaning but rather is a “living, breathing document” to be molded and transformed by smart lawyers (considering themselves, of course, to be far smarter than we ordinary citizens) according to the dictates of politics and evolving social norms and values.  It is those types of lawyers, unfortunately, who have the power and authority to define those social norms and values. As we all know, social norms and values are political.

The Constitution is a social compact, which is important to understand. A social compact is an agreement among the members of a society on how they will organize and govern themselves. They organize and form a common government in order to establish order, to share common services, to cooperate for mutual benefit, and for protection. For example, a typical social compact requires some sacrificing of individual freedom for state protection. In other words, in an ordered society, individuals can’t go around taking the law into their own hands. The people of our founding generation (the people of the original states), acting through duly-organized state conventions, ratified the Constitution. In doing so, the States joined themselves in a federated union, agreeing to transfer some of their sovereign government powers to the common (or federal) government and agreeing to abide by its governance. So, it is the States which are the parties to the Constitution. The Constitution provides a mechanism – the only legal mechanism – by which those who are parties to its agreement (ie, the States) can amend it in order to bring it up to date with current norms and values, and that is the amendment process, which is outlined in Article V.  The options (two of them) are the only way the Constitution can legally be “updated” to reflect modern times. And that makes sense because again, the Constitution is a social compact and it is the People, in their state conventions, who make and amend that compact. It is THEY who determine how THEY want their society to be organized and governed and by which values and principles.  It is not the government to make that determination. Government has no such power; rather it is tasked to strictly interpret the Constitution. It is tasked to preserve the document that the People have drafted and adopted for their governance. Government has no power to amend it by back channels such as the federal bench or by policy or executive order because the government is not a party to the compact but rather, its creation.

Things are becoming worse and worse for our federal courts; they are increasingly becoming more political and becoming more aggressive in their roles. The reason they are becoming politicized is because liberals and progressives (Democrats) are increasingly turning to the federal courts to seek the progress that they cannot achieve through the ordinary democratic process (elections and lawmaking).

That is why what we saw a few weeks ago on TV with the Senate Judiciary Committee questioning Judge Brett Kavanaugh troubled us so thoroughly.  The Confirmation Hearing was an embarrassing, a humiliating, political circus. Democratic Senators not only organized and staged a despicable protest of Kavanaugh – carried out by numerous androgynous-looking individuals who screamed and essentially carried on like petulant children – but they engaged in outright character assassination. Democrats were proud of their conduct.  Senator Lindsey Graham articulated their conduct best when he told them (paraphrasing): “You were never going to vote for him. Why don’t you just do what you were going to instead of making a mockery of this hearing and doing everything you can to destroy the character of this fine man, and in front of his wife and children no less. Just vote NO, like you intended to.”

The Democrats want nothing more than to get promises from Kavanaugh that he will use his position as a Supreme Court justice to further their agenda to get rid of President Trump. They seek nothing more than to co-opt a single seat on the bench of the highest court in the land to undo the 2016 election – the legal and constitutional election by the people. The Democrats, in every public hearing, in every instance before a microphone, in every interview, with every national crisis, and with every act of presidential power taken by President Trump, use the occasion to condemn, criticize, mock, and humiliate him… to misconstrue his actions, to accuse him of acting erratically, and to call for his impeachment.

They are a bunch of low-lives who hold no moral ground to accuse anyone of being imperfect. How dare they impugn the character of someone like Brett Kavanaugh when they are, collectively, nothing more than a bunch of tax cheats, law-breakers, criminal solicitors, race baiters, hustlers, sexual predators, and constitutional illiterates. If Democrats are going to turn every confirmation of a Republican candidate into a very public “high-tech lynching” (a term used by Clarence Thomas in his own confirmation hearing), then I agree with those who argue that confirmation hearings should be kept closed and out of the eyes and ears of the American people. No one needs to be reminded of how low and vile and despicable and unconscionable and dishonest and uncivil our Democratic lawmakers have become.

I found Kavanaugh’s Senate Confirmation hearings to be absolutely sickening. Now, more than ever, I believe Democrats to be the enemy of our country and nothing more than parasites and a disease (a plague) on our good and honorable nation. They do NOT represent the values and conduct of the overwhelming majority of Americans. Most Americans conduct themselves mindful that they reflect upon the character and morality and decency of our great land.

While we are on this subject, let’s  not forget WHY Democrats conduct themselves as they do. Personally, I believe it’s because they are acting out of pure desperation and futility. They are a party of a derailed and un-American message; they are losing resonance with the American citizen (yet picking up new followers — illegals, foreigners, social misfits, transgenders, psychotics, financially-dependent sloths, ignoranuses…..) We are witnessing the desperate acts of the leaders of a desperate political party.

Let’s not forget WHY they follow the same sordid, sickening template every single time, which is to spread lies about Republican candidates and nominees and to make up allegations of sexual harassment …. Because it works. The politics of PERSONAL DESTRUCTION is something the Democrats have become good at. The politics of spreading lies and instilling fear (including a return to Jim Crow and a return to back-alley abortions) is something Democrats are good at. Look what it did to Judge Roy Moore. (You don’t hear anything any more about his accuser). Look what happened to Mitt Romney in 2012 when he ran for president. During that election, Harry Reid accused Mitt Romney, FALSELY, of not paying his taxes in over 10 years. He knew it wasn’t true. After the election, when confronted about his lie and whether he felt remorse for stooping so low, he said no. His response epitomized what the Democratic Party’s politics of personal destruction would become: “It worked didn’t it? He lost, didn’t he?”

We cannot fall for their immoral, unethical tricks.  They detest the one thing that matters most to a conservative – Truth. They will twist it and ignore it all day, all night, all week-end long, and twice on Sunday, if they think it will advance their agenda. They know no scruples and they know no decency. Again, they are parasites. They are our modern-day plague.

 

References:

Senator Lindsey Graham during the Senate Confirmation Hearings –  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WunFJhgKwig