Letter to Chicago Tribune on Clarence Page on ObamaCare

Chicago Monday AM 29 March 2010

Voice of the People, Chicago Tribune

Gentlepeople:

The Chicago Tribune's Clarence Page writes in his Sunday, March 28 column (“Right’s anger could backfire”) of “reports of vandalism and death threats against congressmen on both political sides” after the President signed “his health care overhaul legislation.”

“... the New York City office of Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner was closed because of an envelope that reportedly contained a threatening letter and white powder.” A strange sentence from a seasoned newspaper writer. Where was this envelope, who reported it, and what was the result of that reporting?

Then a Police investigation of “a broken window at the congressional office of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords a few hours after the Tucson, Ariz., Democrat voted for the bill....” What was the result of that investigation? Did one of Rep. Gifford's visiting children throw an errant spit ball at the window?

But Mr. Page does manage to find a police statement on a bullet breaking a window at Republican Rep. Eric Cantor's Richmond, Va., office: “probably just random gunfire.”

Mr. Page wonders “Why... is there so much viciousness in the backlash against a bill designed to expand health insurance coverage to the uninsured?”

Could this “viciousness … against a bill designed to expand health insurance” have anything to do with the fact that of the 7541 words of the US Constitution (including all 27 amendments,) not one of them is 'health or 'insurance'? (The word 'care' does occur once, in the phrase “[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully execute....”)

I can hear Mr. Page already screaming “General Welfare clause.” But in Federalist Paper Number 41 the father of the Constitution himself, James Madison explains that “a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms [general welfare] immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon.” And sure enough, following that semicolon is a list of 17 specific things Congress is limited to doing, and not a sign of anything to do with health, insurance, or care.

Further Mr. Page writes of “broad support for many provisions of the bill” including “new limits on the ability of insurance companies to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.” Insurance is a tool that society uses to spread the effect of bad things that happen to people, but not all people. Groups of people join together, each contributing money to a pool, so that the few that have the problem can use it to pay their expenses. If you pay these expenses for people who haven't paid into the pool,you don't have insurance, you have charity.

Mr. Page concludes remarking of a TV host's description of a map on Sarah Palins's facebook as “despicable”: Good for her. But she's not running for office. Maybe Mr. Page could point out to us in a future column where Sarah Palin has announced what office she's running for?

Arnold H Nelson

Letter to Detroit News on 'Christian terrorists'

Chicago Sunday PM 28 March 2010

Editors, The Detroit News

Gentlepeople:

A Detroit News breathless 500 word on-line article on Sunday March 28 2010 5:46PM headlined “Seven arrested in FBI raids linked to Christian militia group” said the group was described as “Christian soldiers preparing for the arrival and battle with the anti-Christ, ” are “actively training to be alongside Jesus,” and oh no! “made threats of violence against Islamic organizations.”

But nothing more is said about those 'threats'. Were they threats to snuff out any hapless Islamic journalist trudging thru the Chistian heartland trying to get a story? Did they threaten to hijack Islamic airliners and fly them into that new half-mile-high skyscraper in Dubai? Did one of the Christian Militamen, a licensed psychiatrist inadvertently assgned to Fort Hood, threaten to shoot as many unarmed US soldiers on the base as he could?

Is it at all possible to get assurance that the FBI and company are spending as much time and effort protecting America from Muslim terrorists as they appear to be spending protecting Muslims in America from alleged Christian terrorists?

Arnold H Nelson

Letter t Washington Post on Obamascare conniving

Chicago Sunday PM 28 March 2010

Editors, Washington Post

Gentlepeople:

The Washington Post article “... poll finds split on health-care law remains deep” of Sunday, March 28 says “more than a quarter of Americans seeing neither side as making a good-faith effort to cooperate” on the health-care issue.

Could this lack of cooperation have anything to do with the fact that of all the 7541 words of the US Constitution (including all 27 amendments,) not one of them is 'health'? The word 'care' does occur once, in the phrase “[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.”

Of course there is the 'General Welfare' clause in Article I section 8. A quick read of Federalist Paper Number 41 finds the father of the Constitution himself, James Madison explaining that “a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms [general welfare] immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon.” And sure enough, following that semicolon is a list of 17 specific things Congress is limited to doing, and not a sign of anything to do with health.

So if even the simplest reading of the Constitution shows that ObamaCare violates it, does not the same reading show that Medicare, and even Social Security also violate it, leading to the question, why even have a constitution?

Your article also notes that “Republican leaders have called for repeal of the new law and replacement with more modest changes.” If the Democrats say forget the Constitution, now we have the Republicans say they have a plan that's unconstitutional too, but not quite as unconstitutional as the Democrats.

Our Constitution has given the longest period of peace and prosperity of any civilization in history. Do we really want to replace it with a government that through thotless deficit spending lowers everyone (except for a small number of czars running everything) to a common subsistence level?

Arnoild H Nelson

Financial Times:"A triumph tempered by the raging of the right"

Chicago Sunday PM 28 March 2010

Editors, UK Financial Times

Gentlepeople:

The Financial Times' columnist Jurek Martin writes on Wednesday, March 24 (“A triumph tempered by the raging of the right”) that Barack Obama uses the English Language better than almost everyone....” Barack Obama reads speeches written by others from a teleprompter better than almost anyone.

Martin continues on “...the times of Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson, when great things – Social Security, Medicare, and civil rights laws – were accomplished.”

The US Constitution says nary a word about old age pensions nor health, so Social Security and Medicare are clearly unconstitutional. Before you say “General Welfare Clause” you should read James Madison's comments on that in his Federalist Paper number 41. Civil rights were a fine accomplishment, but backed by only 61% of house Democrats and 69% of Senate Democrats. Corresponding 'raging right' Republicans were 80% and 82%.

Then Mr. Martin claims that “the American people did speak in the election of 2008... in a voice more definitive than any ephemeral opinion poll.” They sure did: they elected someone whose only previous election wins were where his only opposition was forced to drop out before a vote was cast for reasons unrelated to the election. His entire previous work experience was as a community organizer (Chicago euphemism for Democrat vote hustler,) Illionis state Senator ( a job requireing no more skill than a 3^rd string Chicago Bears jock strap attendant, without the responsibility,) and part time non-tenure-tracked instructor in Constitutinal law, the legal equivalent of differential calculus. None of his cillege records have ever been released, so no one knows if he's ever studied economics for even 5 minutes. He has never hired anyone more consequential than a baby sitter, had never made a buck-stops-here decision (such as made very every day by governors from Alaska to Texas) before January 20, 2009.

And Mr. Martin thinks the American people were speaking in a 'difinitive ' voice?

Further, Mr. Martin writes suspiciously “the wife of [Supreme Court] Justice Clarence Thomas has started a tea party chapter of her own.” Everyone knows that Mr. Martic is a thoroly scrupulous writer, so we know that buried deep in FT archives are articles by him writing equally suspiciously of the wife of Senate Democrat leader Tom Daschle, a paid lobbyist working on his own Senate; and Andrea Mitchell, big time NBC commentator, wife of Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan; and how about a certain Hillary Rodham, who if she hadn't latched on to a potential state attorney general, governor, and president would probably be an assistant public librarian in Park Ridge Illinois.

The Financial Times can do, and has done, much better.

Arnold H Nelson

Where have you gone,Victor Davis Hanson?

Chicago Wednesday AM 24 March 2010

Editors, The Wall Street Journal

Gentlepeople:

The Wall Street Journal's 'Notable and Quotable' feature of Tuesday, March 23, has Victor Davis Hanson writing that the health care bill “was not really about medicine; after all, a moderately priced, relatively small federal program could offer the poorer not now insured, presently not on Medicare or state programs like Medicaid or Medical, a basic medical plan.” Certainly true, but would not such a bill be equally unconstitutional?

Arnold H Nelson

WSJ:: Left wing Democrat objectives

Chicago Saturday PM March 20, 2010

Editors, The Wall Street Journal

Gentlepeople:

The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan concludes her Saturday 20 March column “Now for the Slaughter - On the road to Demon Pass, our leader encounters a Baier” wondering “at what point the administration will realize it [Health Care Reforn] wasn't worth the discord, the diminution in popularity and prestige....”

For all that Ms. Noonan can write a coherent 1200 word column on the topic of the decade, she completely misses the objectives of the left wing of the Democrat party: They don't care about “discord... diminution in popularity and prestige” if it gets us to the point where President Obama can get on TV and read from his teleprompter: “Fellow citizens, the country is failing... but the country is too big to fail. To keep it from failing, I am nationalizing the entire private sector of the country. Every private company is now a part of the federal government. State and local governments are now parts of the federal government. All residents are employees of the Federal government. Your local commissar will be in touch with each of you in the morning. May the force be with us.”

But not to worry: his approval numbers will be at least 60%.

Arnold H Nelson

Financial Times: George W Bush's $11,000bn debt legacy?

Chicago IL USA Wednesday AM 17 March 2010

Editors, UK Financial Times

Gentlepeople:

The Financial Times' article “America needs to invest in jobs – and fast” of Tuesday, March 16 says the United States needs to “... produce enough wealth to pay off... President George W Bush's $11,000bn debt legacy.”

The 2010 Statistical Abstract of the United States Table 457 page 304 “Federal budget receipts and outlays 1960-2009” shows that fiscal years 2001-2008 total US deficit was $1,739.9bn (constant 2000 $.) To be fair, the Democrats controlled the House of Representatives, the Constitutional source of spending decisions, for Fys 2007-2008, accounting for $497.4bn of that deficit.

But of course, to Democrats, what is really fair is the Abstract's projected 2009 $1.440.1bn is Bush's fault, as is the 10-year projection of $trillion annual deficits, finally achieving your $11,000bn claim.

Arnold H Nelson

PS: Have you ever considered temporarily deleting the word 'Financial' from your masthead on days when you print wild-assed guesses like this?