Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 10:27 — 9.6MB)
by Michael Boldin
EDITOR’S NOTE:Â The following is Michael Boldin’s “Tenther Rant” at the end of Episode 14 of TRX: Tenther Radio, which airs live online every Wednesday at 5pm Pacific Time at http://radio.tenthamendmentcenter.com. Find the show on iTunes at this link. Â Michael will be a featured speaker at Nullify Now! in Jacksonville. Get tickets here, or by calling 888-71-TICKETS.
*******
Republicans scream and yell about “Obamacare†and how much they oppose what they consider to be the socialist who’s currently the president. In a recent poll, republicans and tea party members were asked if they considered Barack Obama a socialist.  71% said yes, and only 17% said no.
This must be a joke, because Republicans are little more than the pot calling the kettle black.
So, let’s take a look at that – first, with a definition of socialism.
Socialism. so·cial·ism [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] noun
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
And….
Collectivism. col·lec·tiv·ism  [kuh-lek-tuh-viz-uhm] noun
the political principle of centralized social and economic control
We all hear from people like Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry that they’ll do everything they can to repeal “Obamacare.† Perry even says he’ll use an executive order to get rid of it – an unconstitutional legislative action from the executive branch is obviously no problem for this guy.  But that’s best left for another discussion.
So, on principle, republicans oppose centralized control over health care, right?  Wrong.  They love it.  They just happen to dislike this particular social program in the health industry.  In fact, other than the new Affordable Care Act, there really doesn’t seem to be any socialist or collectivist programs that Republicans want to get rid of.  And it’s time we start calling them out on their inconsistencies, their lies and their grandstanding.
Let’s start with health care.
REPUBLICANS LOVE HEALTH CARE CENTRAL PLANNING
Medicare Part D was the biggest expansion of government control over the health care industry in decades. Â It was pushed and passed by republicans under George Bush, and most certainly paved the way for further government control under the Obama administration.
Not really believing that massive government control of the health industry was the result of this republican plan? Â A 2008 report in Politico helps make things a little more clear.
The growth of state and federal health care programs — including President Bush’s prescription drug plan for seniors — means that today about half of the pharmaceutical market is controlled by government.
Half of an entire market – a massive one to say the least – controlled by government?  Nah, that’s not centralized economic control.  Only Obamacare is!
But why focus only on the past.  Those were the “bad†republicans, and George Bush was no real “conservative republican.† Today’s crop is all about the Constitution – and they’re totally opposed to centralized economic control, right?
Wrong.
In the very same poll where 71% of republicans called Obama a “socialist†– 78% said they wanted to keep Medicare.  Only 12% want to get rid of it.
Centralized control over health care?  Republicans LOVE it, and they’re frauds when they say they don’t.
OTHER PROGRAMS
What about your retirement?  Want the government to control it?  Some would say that Social Security is unconstitutional.  Others consider it a Ponzi scheme.  As an aside, I wouldn’t – Ponzi schemes are voluntary.
On retirement plans, Republicans once again love collectivism. Â Â 75% want to keep it and only 17% would like to see it eliminated.
Republicans don’t like socialism, collectivism – centralized planning and control?  Nonsense.
How about education? Â Surely republicans are vehemently opposed to federal control – centralized planning and collectivism, that is – over the education of their children, right?
Nope.
A CNN Poll this month tells us that a whopping 74% of republicans want to keep the Department of Education and its centralized social and economic control over your childrens’ education in the hands of the federal government.
Only 24% want to see it eliminated.
Not even the EPA is on the chopping block for America’s socialist republicans.  Earlier this year Reuters reported that 61% of republicans opposed abolishing the EPA.  A little glimmer of hope, maybe, but not much.  Still, a large majority of republicans are fully on board with centralized planning on all kinds of social and economic issues.
JOBS.  THAT’S IT!
When looking at these numbers and seeing the big picture, I was both surprised, and not surprised at the same time.  I thought to myself, “there HAS to be some central planning and control that republicans don’t like.  I know it!â€
That’s when it hit me.  Jobs!  Everywhere I turn, republicans are speaking out against the new jobs plan from Barack Obama.  They laugh when Ron Paul rightly points out that under Rick Perry, a large number of new jobs created in Texas were government jobs.
So that’s the one.  Jobs is it!  Republicans don’t want government created jobs, right?
Then I saw this.
As of 2010, the biggest employer in the world is the US department of defense.  3.2 million government jobs in the DoD is more than #2 – the Chinese People’s Liberation Army – by almost 1 million!  It’s about the same as China National Petroleum and China State Grid, combined.
Hear a lot of republicans talking about cutting back on that government program, or those government jobs?
Neither have I.
SCAMMERS?
These are but a few of many examples of republican hypocrisy. Â They have no problem whatsoever with centralized social and economic control – collectivism, that is.
Republicans may dislike Obama personally.  And they may genuinely oppose some of the collectivist programs he’s in favor of.  But when they tell you they oppose Obama because “he’s a socialist,†it’s beyond absurd.  It’s often times a lie.
Some would tell me that these socialist republicans are just part of the establishment, that “real republicans†or “constitutional conservatives†are definitely not on board with all this.
But when Rasmussen Reports asked Tea Party members about their support for republicans, 92% – not 9.2, but 92% – of them said they would vote for the republican candidate in 2012 no matter what. Â Only 83% of republicans at large have the same degree of support. Â Tea Party members support republicans more than republicans do.
Support Sound Money with a TAC Medallion!
Come on republicans – and that includes you Tea Partiers – stop the posturing.  I’m sick and tired of the fraud of it all.
Like the fake antiwar movement before you – that marched against war under Bush but not under Obama – don’t turn into the fake anti-socialist movement of today.  Do you oppose socialism or just Obama?  From all this, it seems like the latter, but I hope you turn that around.  So here’s my challenge to you, either join your so-called opponents, or stop your support of all these programs right now.
Either way, it’s the honest thing to do.
If you buy the Jeffersonian/Jacksonian interpretation of the Constitution then the President is bound to do only what the congress authorizes. However, he could do less than what is authorized. Or rather, Congress can not force him to act.
Therefore is is possible and fully within the framework of the Constitution for the President to nullify an act of Congress which he believes to be unconstitutional (e.g. ObamaCare).
Similarly a President who wanted to end the Department of Education could simply fire every bureaucrat in that department and not appoint a secretary. Granted the next President could easily undo his actions, so the solution would not be permanent, but a President would be within his scope of office to act in this way.
Interesting perspective. Plus the president can pardon all kinds of people arrested an in jail for breaking unconstitutional acts.
I agree…the President is responsible, just like the Congress, Supreme Court, and States, to police the boundaries of the Constitution. They all must adhere to the Jeffersonian principle "that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." Congress would have to pursue an Amendment to assume any new powers or prior legislation the President refused to enforce.
The problem is is that the federal government will always think whatever it does is constitutional since it is their bills. I think nullification is better and perhaps we need an amendment securing that power to the states in some way. The repeal amendment is a nice start but individual states having the power to nullify the federal laws will have a much stronger effect. It makes those in congress think if the people of the states will agree with their own assessment that the law they want passed is constitutional.
The states already have this power, but because of things like the 16th and 17th amendment they can not exercise that power in a politically defensible way. Repeal 1913, that's my answer in a nutshell.
I also know this will not happen, so in some ways just look forward to the eventual bankruptcy and perhaps break up of the union.
I know what you are saying with the tenth amendment but the courts, as of yet, does not recognize it so the federal courts will keep enforcing laws that have been officially nullified by the states. I think an amendment that says that federal courts lose their jurisdiction over nullified laws would secure nullification since it makes enforcing any nullified law impossible. That is my opinion about the issue.
More like repeal 1865, which set the stage for making the 10th amendment meaningless.
You are correct that the president could refuse to do what the congress says, it would then force them to consider impeachment.
No President will ever be impeached again unless they murder someone. Congress has no political will to impeach ANYONE. Look at the situation today…the President has completely invaded Libya illegally and nothing has been done by Congress…nothing
A President that exercises his or her proper Constitutional authority may not get re-elected, but he or she will not be impeached…not enough political will.
The Repeal Amendment deals w/ANY law passed…not just unconstitutional laws. The problem is laws passed not in pursuance to the Constitution. I think the repeal law is unwise since it puts all the appropriate and legal functions of the federal government at risk.
I agree with you….2012 will probably be the last election before a military take over.
I agree. In the end, follow the money, which leads back to 1913 and the federal reserve act. Abolish the federal reserve, go back to the US owning and printing our money and go back to a value-tethered monetary system. Only an idiot pays interest on something he can create himself. But then again, no one ever said politicians weren't idiots.
Full-on revolution will eventually be the last resort. When the average citizen finally wakes up and realizes that his/her Country has been stolen and transformed into a nice little package that the IMF, UN, and the central banking cartel can better control, people will finally rise up in revolution. Perhaps too late though.
Lots of republican hypocrisy. Only Ron Paul has the integrity when he speaks compared to the others. He has been quoted about how in the US there are more government jobs than private industry jobs. His beef is that there is a lot of waste in the government, & that the government doesn't create real jobs (not self sustaining, but held up by tax payers).
Paul doesn't want to end all governmental Jobs, but he does want to make it more sustainable. If you look at our GDP compared to our current spending you have to wonder how we are going to balance that out because we are creating more debt than erasing debt. The only way to stop bankruptcy is to raise the debt ceiling which in turn devalues the dollar. Paul is the only one from the GOP who has a real plan to help get the economy in the right direction, so that people who the government promised will get their check will.
The GOP knows they are hypocritical. They also know Paul is the only one who isn't, & they attack him because he is shining a light on their own hypocrisy.
Agreed. This is funny. If you want to go back in time, go to the website- escape tyranny dot com. It's an honest to God head-shaker over there. They still believe we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hated us for our freedom, that Bush Jr. kept us safe for those 8 years, etc… Bizarro world to be sure.
Dr Paul has been saying the same thing for 30 years. He doesn't have to run a campaign based on polls because he speaks from his heart, as he has for so long.
But the smear campaign "ron paul is crazy" is working… on those willing to be spoon-fed BS by sitting in front of a TV on any channel owned by the BIG 6.
Hell, I thought Ron P. was nuts, that Obama was Jesus, until I began to wake the hell up. Well, I am full awake now, and mad as hell.
Ron Paul 2012
Tea Partiers say they will support the more conservative of the two nominees simply because they understand that if they do a write-in instead, Obama will win. It took us 100 years of incrementalism to get us where we are today. Barring another armed revolution, It will probably take at least half that much time to deconstruct it all and get back to where we should be. The socialists have gained ground because they have been willing to take a few inches at a time. They have also been patiently taking over their party from the inside for the past 40 years…a process we are only barely beginning.
If we take an all-or-nothing approach, that's what we'll get: nothing. And as Milton Friedman said, if you can't get the "right" person in office right now, you must "create a climate in which the wrong people are forced to do the right things". The Tea Partiers will support the most conservative nominee they can get in this election, and then put the heat on them to move in a conservative direction and not give an inch back.
nah. This article – and the polls themselves – have nothing, whatsoever, to do with incrementalism as you imply. tea partiers are asked if they want to see something eliminated. When it comes to social programs, they do not. Overwhelmingly.
What this demonstrates is quite clear – socialist education has gotten so good at indoctrinating people that even those that oppose the philosophy, support it in practice.
Question for yourself – answering publicly is unimportant – but whatever the path, immediate or incremental, do YOU support eliminating all these collectivist programs? all of them? Or are you the pot calling the kettle black as well?
The right people in the wrong government, is that the ticket?
maybe! not sure….
I hope I am wrong Michael, but there are so many advantages available for these feds who act as if we live in a National democracy, and not a Constitutional republic.
I find it highly unlikely these political masters of deception will ever surrender their powers of usurpation from within their own establishment.
exactly.
Choosing Democrat or Republican is like being asked to pick between a firing squad or stoning. The result is the same-only the method is different.
Brilliant analogy! I wonder which is which?
The libs are definitely the stoners.
American politics is just another team sport. Issues and facts don't matter, it's just about who's team is winning. And like professional sports. it's just a distraction from reality and keeps the ignorant masses thinking they live in a democracy.
Perhaps socialism, vs capitalism, is not the real issue to most people.
To me it seems politically realistic that if, for instance, all the government monies are in one fund, and the fund becomes exhausted, that social security, and mecicare become unconstituitional.
Doesn't matter that people have paid in all their life. It matters to them that we have genocidal wars against the towel head, and smash the bill of rights. The money that controls government comes from those who profit off the destruction of what americans want.
When they get rid of vital social programs for older americans, will they still keep their congressional retirement, and medical benefits? Bet they wouldn't find any constituitional problem there.
You are correct. The best we're going to get is a republican Bill Clinton. Therefore we just have to keep pushing the Constitution down their throats every day, through the election and onwards. This will be a very long fight.
When will Americans get it through their extremely thick and stupid skulls? The Democrat/Republican shell game has been fooling them for at least since the time of President Kennedys assasination. They are one and the same and they go out and golf and eat at expensive restaurants together after they get through fooling the American dumbhead voters that get all excited. Do you see the Democrats against war? No you don't, Do you see the Republicans against war,? Nope. How about outsourcing? Both love it, yet the Democrat Party says it's the party of the working man. Really? I think it's the party of the non-working man. And as far as the Republicans zeal for outsourcing factories and jobs go, I guess they can be called the party of the non-working man also,since their policies take work away from Americans. They are both better called the parties of treason, Period..
What a patronizing article. Seven million republicans abstained from voting in the last presidential race because they understood what Mr. Bolton has just figured out. The TEA party was born out of this same understanding that guys like McCain or Perry are nothing but liberal progressive interventionists. The working American people are in the process of purging these progressives out of the republican party, the democratic party however has been completely co opted by the progressive movement and it's agenda of a world government.
What Mr. Bolton has pointed out is as depressing as its true. We must remember that we can't move the world over night. That we have made amazing headway in our goal, but moving an ocean and undoing more then a100 years worth of damage and misinformation will never happen quickly if it happens at all.
Any republican that supports what Mr. Bolton does 100% right now would also be nearly 100% powerless and thus would ultimately matter not matter at all as far as we need politicians to accomplish any of our goals.
We have to reeducate our population, open their eyes and most of all get them to overcome 75+ years of propaganda and forced "investment" in this corrupt system.
The more important issue from my perspective is what our States can, should, and better start resisting, rather then how much this federal government can be counted on to restrain itself.
should states have the power to nullify federal laws?