- It is rampant criminal corruption rather than creeping socialism.
What is the Constitutional authority for Congress to give money to ACORN? There isn’t any. When Nancy Pelosi was asked for Constitutional authority for the federal government to take control of health insurance, she responded that “promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to effect that end.” It’s the kind of fundamental misinterpretation that one might expect from a grade-schooler. If it were true, it would mean that the federal government can spend money on anything it wants. There would be virtually no Constitutional limit to federal government power or abuse of that power.
They could for example, give $400 million to Al Gore just because they felt like it and he could give a percentage privately back to each Congressional supporter. It would make Al Gore happy as well as the politicians receiving the kick-backs. That would be ok under Pelosi’s “broad authority” to promote welfare....
The “slippery slope” theory of American government held that allowing the federal government to exceed its Constitutional authority here and there would establish precedents that would then allow greater and more rapid expansions of government power. This would eventually lead to a collapse of the Constitutional system along with disappearance of freedom and individual rights. The theory has obviously held, for the current Congress respects no limits to their power and is addicted to proposals that would accomplish the task.
It has often been said that the “slippery slope” leads to socialism. But is the appearance of a socialist revolution in Washington merely another marketing trick?
- Are we really sliding into the deepest pits of plain, old-fashioned
- criminal corruption? History suggests that we are.
Constraints against federal power have relaxed, more rapidly since the 1960s. In the 1970s, conservative members of Congress complained that it looked like “liberals” wanted to turn any good idea into a federal program. By the 1980s, the ideas no longer needed to be good. They only needed to be marketed in a manner that would make them feel like they might be good. During the 1990s, disguised as “welfare reform,” the federal government took over marriage and family. It was likely the greatest social and political change in American history, at least since Roe v. Wade. For the first time in history, the welfare program had grown to encompass everyone, regardless of income and no matter whether you asked to be involved or not. The federal government immediately began to collect detailed personal and financial information on every American, as if authorized to investigate alleged welfare fraud in every case. The US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sanctioned it all by redefining marriage and family law from Civil Law to “social policy;” in effect abolishing individual rights and protections against government intrusion. (P.O.P.S. v Gardner, 1993)....
Government supported studies were often conducted by people with clear conflicts of interest – those who made money or stood to make money directly from the reforms. There was also a revolving door between government social system bureaucracies and the private partner companies where much more money could be made. A few state legislators were jailed after passing legislation for personal profit and a Michigan Attorney General lobbied for additional funding while running a controversial private child support enforcement organization. Legislation also included additional support for judicial operations, subject to performance measures, while ordinary support was being cut back....
Hillary Clinton hatched her health care reform effort, based on nothing. The parallels between the family law scheme and Gore’s global warming scam are quite striking. Government studies producing false and misleading results in support of government expansion and intrusion, broad support from people on government payrolls, a massive propaganda campaign with critics attacked and demonized, public-private partnerships that receive huge contributions from government and forced contributions from the private sector while providing no worthwhile services. Gore’s plan, as well as health care reform, are much larger and involve much more money. Gore’s scam is global, but so was the family law scheme. Led by the USA, similar family law reform in most of the western world followed. The difference is that Gore’s scheme will allow Gore to collect on all international operations, whereas public-private partnerships had previously been local.
Forty years ago, such schemes would have gone off without a hitch. The public would have been none the wiser. Politicians would have been careful to hide ulterior motives. In the past, the public accepted fundamental change pretty much without complaint, often because they were simply not told. The “conservative” verses “liberal” debate seemed like it amounted to something and we thought that the Constitution and the courts would save us eventually if something really important went wrong.
It seems that big public scamming has become more formulaic. The current generation of politicians has only known success of the method. So they “geared up” to bigger and bolder schemes and carry them out with less concern for getting caught. In fact, the new generation of followers do not seem to have the need to be as bright as the original creators.
That brings us back to ACORN. Why not pick an existing organization – one that already has a nefarious character – and just funnel money to them. It’s particularly easy if it has already created its own marketing myth –
it’s own feeling of a good idea, if the president already has an established relationship, and the attack on critics is already defined – racists! Domestic terrorists using the Constitution as an excuse!
But then, somebody might notice. And with so many government scams effecting so many people already – the truth might generally be believed. Support for current initiatives is relatively low and diminishing as more and more critics have become more concerned about corruption. Especially with repetition, the whole master-plan – the “formula” itself might be exposed. If stupidity isn’t the reason for such brazen moves as we are watching today, what is?
Maybe they just believe that they are already so powerful that there is nothing the public can do to stop them. Without Constitutional rights and protections against government intrusion and only a semblance of democracy, what can anyone do?" by Roger F. Gay, 11/26/09, Mens News Daily, "Are Americans Paying Taxes to Organized Crime Syndicates?" via Lucianne.com