Bill Clinton or George Bush?

People like asking Bob Barr, "Bill Clinton or George Bush?"





The man who wrote the book The Meaning of Is (2004) and led the impeachment effort a decade ago chooses Bill Clinton.


Full shows -

• The Third Man? - Jane Hamsher and Bob Barr - bloggingheads.tv
• Bob Barr - Daily with Lindsay Campbell - moblogic.tv

The dog of war unleashed

Preface: For all my Democratic friends who go on about President Bush and his precipitous moves in the Middle East, this article is for you.

In a parallel universe, Presidents of the United States of America are held accountable for unconstitutional threats, invasions, and occupations.

---

The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces ... while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies,—all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.

- Federalist LXIX

---

Whereas "We, the people," as stated in the preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America, did "ordain and establish this Constitution" in order to, among other ends, "provide for the common defense."

Whereas the Constitution of the United States enumerates the limited powers granted therein by the free people of the United States and vested in the specified branches of the Government of the United States.

Whereas, according to Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution of the United States, "The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay ... for the common Defense ... of the United States," and not for intervention.

Whereas, according to Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution of the United States, "The Congress shall have Power ... To declare War," and not the President.

Whereas, according to Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States, "The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States ... when called into the Actual Service of the United States," and not before.

Whereas, according to Thomas Jefferson, the Constitution of the United States "expressly requires the concurrence of the three branches to commit us to the state of war, but permits two of them, the President and the Senate, to change it to that of peace, for reasons as obvious as they are wise."

Whereas, according to Thomas Jefferson, referring to the Constitution of the United States in a letter to James Madison, "We have already given, in example one effectual check to the Dog of war, by transferring the power of letting him loose, from the executive to the Legislative body, from those who are to spend to those who are to pay."

Whereas the President has presented Congress and the American people with a fait accompli in his threatened invasion and occupation of Haiti.

Whereas the President, in response to the question, "Mr. President ... do you intend to make as a pattern using military action without the consent of Congress or the approval of the American people?" answered: "With regard to Congress ... I think we'll have to take this on a case by case basis. In terms of popular approval, the American people, probably wisely, are almost always against any kind of military action when they first hear about it unless our people have been directly attacked. And they have historically felt that way, and obviously, at the end of the Cold War, they may be more inclined to feel that way. The job of the President is to try to do what is right, particularly in matters affecting our long-term security interests. And unfortunately, not all the decisions that are right can be popular."

Whereas, according to Article VI of the Constitution of the United States, "This Constitution ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land," and "The Senators and Representatives ... and all executive ... Officers ... of the United States ... shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."

Whereas absolutism begins where support for the Constitution of a free people ends.

May we, the People, resolutely call on our Representatives and Senators to impede the occupation of Haiti, which is unconstitutional in substance, not being for the common defense, and in means, not being initiated by Congress. Congress has the constitutional power to impede this operation. First, either House may declare that the acts of war launched were unauthorized; second, the House of Representatives may withdraw its funding for this venture; and third, the House of Representatives may impeach that officeholder who breaks the supreme law of the land which is our Constitution, duly so if after a long train of abuses and usurpations. If we fail to act now, how shall we act if that officeholder launches a reckless venture in Iran without our consent, or the consent of our Representatives?

May we leash this dog who, in the name of saving democracy abroad, has snarled at the democracy due within our own constitutional republic.

Postscript: This article did appear in the Minnesota Libertarian, October 1994. Only the name of one country has changed. Instead of Iran, the article originally read Bosnia.

When will the partisans on both sides remove their blinders to see how both parties set and accept the precedents of the other now?

I am disappointed that the Democrats have not impeached another President, Dick Cheney, the President of the Senate, since their rise to power in Congress in 2006.

The Congress does not have the power to vest its own power elsewhere. Neither is the President of the Senate vested with executive powers.

The next best thing to an impeachment might be the election of Bob Barr, a check and a balance on both party monsters. To all evidence he seems to take the rule of law seriously, while the real anarchists of both parties play.

Is Representative Dennis Kucinich's information accurate? How would we, the American people, know?



What does President Clinton's phrase really mean, doing the right thing?

The adapted article "The dog of war unleashed" was originally published in The Minnesota Libertarian, October 1994, p. 4, with the word Bosnia written instead of Iran. The author, Casey Bowman; the cartoonist, Logan Quinn; and the original publication are due attribution.

Related links

• Andrew Cockburn (May 2008) Secret Bush "Finding" Widens War on Iran
• Solonian Journal (Jun 19, 2008) President of the Senate

Update (Jul 3, 2008): Seymour Hirsh - Preparing the Battlefield: The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran
The New Yorker, July 7, 2008







Update (Aug 11, 2008): Ron Suskind and Philip Giraldi provide evidence to fuel the impeachment of Cheney.

The importance of medical privacy

I'm republishing a report on a health care town meeting in Rochester, Minnesota, May 7, 1994, which included this statement on medical privacy. Over the years I have frequently recounted Dr. Henderson's point,

The final speaker, Dr. Ed Henderson, retired from Mayo Clinic, and presently the executive director of the Zumbro Valley Medical Society and Emeritus Professor of Orthopedic Surgery in the Mayo Medical School, began with appreciation for being included at this event. He expressed his belief that physicians have been deliberately left out of the debate. The important facet of health care disregarded as a result has been the physician-patient relationship, the direct contact between doctor and patient that serves as a basis for care. The patient must see his doctor as his advocate, making sure that decisions are made that will ensure that patient will get the best treatment. Trust is critical. The confidentiality of their conversation is necessary for a proper diagnosis and treatment. I asked Dr. Henderson if he was aware of any organization taking a strong stand on the principle of medical privacy. He was aware of not one such group.

Shall we trust Clinton? Why not trust ourselves?

Casey Bowman, Minnesota Libertarian, June 1994, p. 7

Here's the rest of the report, which preceded the two paragraphs above,

Health Care Reform Meeting
by Casey Bowman

On May 7, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) sponsored their second Meeting on Health Care Reform. Before the meeting began, MN State Representative Gil Gutknecht, who chaired the host committee and introduced the speakers at this event, came up to us members of the LPM and talked with us in a manner of mutual respect. ALEC organizers gave us permission to put our "Project Health Choice" literature describing the National Libertarian Party health care proposal at the welcome desk. ALEC was true to its own words "empowering citizens in the health care debate."

The speakers in attendance were Congressman John Linder from Georgia, Wendell Cox of ALEC, Carl Parks from Citizens for a Sound Economy, Congressman Rod Grams, and Dr. Ed Henderson, Emeritus Professor of Surgery at the Mayo Medical School.

Congressman Linder attributed to Disraeli a sequence such as, "Bondage... Faith... Understanding... Courage... Liberty... Abundance... Complacency... Dependency... Bondage..." We need to learn from history and rebuild "understanding" before "dependency" sets in. Linder also warned that the Clinton plan intends to control entry into specialist practice.

The next speaker, Wendell Cox, warned against the coming rationing by waiting in line, by age, and/or by whom you know. He mentioned the "equality of poverty" experienced in the USSR, to which I might add it was an "equality of the graveyard" for millions.

Carl Parks, of Citizens for a Sound Economy, a group founded ten years ago at George Mason University with 250,000 current members, started by explaining that the term "universal coverage" is fine rhetoric, but what it means for everyone is a system like that provided to the veterans in VA hospitals. Parks felt the government is currently pushing the Gulf War Syndrome under the rug because they do not want to spend the money correcting the problem.

The speakers pointed out that the debate in Congress is not fair and the vote will not be either. Medical Savings Accounts have strong bi-partisan support and would be in the fore if Clinton had not been elected. The problem is the committee power hierarchy. For example, Senator Dingell is chair of some important committee. In exchange for the votes of four southern oil state members, he promises his support on oil import fees. Let us hope that Congressman Linder, who serves on the Committee on Committees, will work on the reform of committees. If the Republicans fail to reform the inequality in Congress among those elected to the same office, the Libertarians must address this issue vociferously. It is crucial.

Many in attendance believed that the Clinton plan was only a temporary stop on the way to a single-payer plan. That is, the socialization of medical care will necessarily follow the socialization of health care insurance. Representative Gil Gutkneckt reported that our own state Senator Linda Berglin is advocating MinnCare as a temporary plan that will lead our state down the road to a single-payer system.

The final speaker, Dr. Ed Henderson...

This article was originally published in The Minnesota Libertarian, June 1994, pp 5, 7. The author and the original publication are due attribution.

The first two questions

Out of purely historical interest—were it only so—, here are the first two questions at the "town hall meeting" hosted by KSTP in the Twin Cities on April 8, 1994.

Mr. Rob Horner [from St. Paul]: Hi. Welcome to Minnesota. It's indeed an honor. I'd like to talk philosophically. The philosophical basis for universal health coverage. I'll go first. Then I'd like to hear your philosophical arguments in support. I've got an interest in the ethics of redistribution. I firmly believe that the redistributionist policy undermines the basic sense of personal responsibility by transferring authority for decisions, crucial life decisions, from individuals to the state. When a do-everything government assumes control over a person's most personal responsibilities, we lose faith in our capacity to make our own decisions. And we've seen the deleterious effects of dependency upon an institution such as...

KSTP: Go ahead and ask your question.

Mr. Horner: OK, my question is: Is your plan really a health plan or is it a power grab? I'd like the philosophical arguments in support of your plan. I do not want to hear compassion. I want something more concrete.

President Bill Clinton: Compassion is part of my philosophy. But anyway.. Philosophically, I don't believe the government can solve all the problems for people and I don't think you should rob people of their personal responsibilities or their personal choice. That's why I don't have a government-run plan. It's private insurance, and people who don't have insurance have the responsibility to provide it themselves. But I believe philosophically it is wrong for people not to assume responsibilities for themselves and let other people do it. And what's happening today—let me just give you two examples. Self-employed person X decides, "Well, I"m not going to have any insurance." Then they get in a wreck. They show up in the emergency room. They can't pay. They could have had insurance, but they didn't do it. That's fine for them. Except they get the care. Nobody lets them die, and nobody thinks they should, and then the rest of us pay for it, and that is irresponsible. Another example: Restaurant X and restaurant Y next together. One covers employees. The other doesn't. One is fulfilling a responsibility not only to himself and the employees, but to the rest of society by not asking us to bear the risk of anybody getting sick. The other isn't. The other has a competitive advantage in business. I don't think that's right, and the system we have is not an individual responsibility system. It's an irresponsibility system. I don't plan to take over the health care system. I don't want the government to run it. I think the government should help to organize the markets so that small business people and self-employed people can afford to have insurance, and so that they're not disadvantaged as compared with big business and government, and I think it is irresponsible for people not to provide for their own health care and irresponsible for the government not to make it possible for people to do it no matter what their station in life.

KSTP: Mr. President, Angela has your next question on the other side of the room.

KSTP: Mr. President, this is Shirley Kaiser. She's a school principal from St. Paul, and she's concerned about losing certain benefits. Shirley...

Ms. Shirley Kaiser: Good evening, President Clinton. I have been real concerned about the health policy. I followed it along since your beginning presidency. I wondered about your and Hillary's true concerns, if this is... I've been concerned that it might be a political issue with you, and I wondered how it will affect all Americans.

Will we really receive better service? I wondered, like people who have insurance, will we have to pay more. Will we get less then? Will we have less choice of doctors, less choice of hospitals? Will the doctors have less choice of the services that they could provide? Will we have more government debt? Will we have more taxes? I'm wondering if your program is about controlling rather than better service. And I realize that we in Minnesota are ahead of many states, but I do have real concerns.

President Clinton: Well, let me try to answer two or three of those questions. You asked ten at once, so, hah.. I, uh,.. The only real tax we have in this plan.. We have to raise funds to pay for the unemployed uninsured, which we're all paying for anyway, folks. When they get sick, they wait till it's too late, it's too expensive. They show up in the emergency room, and we pay. Under our plan, we would raise a fund to pay for them and to pay for the discounts on small business from two sources: one, a tax on cigarettes, and the other, a modest assessment on the biggest American companies that will get the biggest windfall from this. That is, most big companies are paying way too much in insurance now to subsidize the rest of us. They'll get a windfall. We ask for a portion of that back to create a fund for discounts for small business and for the unemployed uninsured. There will be more choice under our plan. This idea that every American today has a choice of doctors is a myth. More than half the American people who are insured in the workplace today don't have a choice. They get one plan, and that's it. Ninety percent of the American people who're insured in small businesses with twenty-five or fewer employees have no choice. Under our plan, there well be more choices. That's why so.. one of the reasons why so many medical groups have endorsed this plan. Not just the nurses, but the family practitioners, the pediatricians, any number of other medical groups have endorsed our plan because they know it guarantees more choice. Now, if you have a plan today that is better than the one in our bill, you can keep it. In other words, if you have a plan today where your employer pays one hundred percent of your health insurance, not eighty percent, and you continue to do that, that's perfectly alright. We don't change that at all.

Ms. Kaiser: [Barely audible (It won't cost me more if)] ... it's an individual when you go for universal coverage? If I were to have a policy isn't it true that it will cost people that now pay for insurance more?

President Clinton: No, if you don't pay your.. If your employer pays all of your insurance now..

Ms. Kaiser: They don't pay for all of my insurance. I..

President Clinton: Well..

Ms. Kaiser: .. carry family coverage..

President Clinton: .. the question is whether it will cost you more...

Ms. Kaiser: [inaudible, still speaking]

President Clinton: It depends on a lot of factors. In all probability you won't. All the.. Not our studies but all the non-partisan studies that have been done show that more than half the people will get the same or better insurance for the same or lower cost. By and large, the people who will pay more are people who aren't paying anything now, people who have only very bare-bones coverage, and young single workers will pay more so that older people can pay less and we can have a large community rating. Otherwise, most other people will pay the same or less. But if you have a better plan than we require, what this does is to put a floor under you.

[increasingly flustered...]

We've got—keep in mind—I mean, I don't know where.. You know.. I understand.. I saw all those ads putting out all that propaganda. This is just politics. This is just a power play and all that. Tell that to these people who are disabled, who can't get insurance. Tell that to these old people who choose between medicine and food every month. Tell that to the one hundred thousand Americans a month who lose their health insurance. Tell that to the farmer and the small business people who insure at thirty-five percent and forty percent higher rate. I mean.. This is a bunch of hooey.

If people don't agree with me, let them come forward and contest me with their ideas, but I am sick and, I think, a lot of you must be sick of all this hot-air rhetoric in all these paid television ads and all these hit jobs for people who are making a killing from the insurance business that we have today. It is wrong, and we should change it.

KSPT: Mr. President..

President Clinton: I don't.. Let me just say something. I don't go around.. First two questions.. I don't.. I don't.. I mean, I don't mind doing this. I'll do this all night, but it never..

One of the things I've learned in twenty years of public life is you don't get very far questioning other people's motives. Most people I've met.. Contrary to what you read, most of the people I've met in public life are honest, well-meaning. They're not crooks. They're trying to do the right thing. We have differences of opinion. But this health care debate in my judgement has really been retarded, in more ways than one, by all this motive-throwing-around we've had. You know, if I hadn't wanted to take on a tough issue, I could have found something else to do with my time. I believe we have to do this, and if we don't do it, you're going to have more people without insurance, more people who can't afford what they got and a terrible situation in this country, and that's why I did it. That doesn't mean I'm right, but let's argue about what should or shouldn't be done, and not talk about other people's motives. I've even tried to convince the insurance industry I don't want to attack their motives. I just want us to argue about what we should do.

Transcribed by Casey Bowman (1994)

Is universal coverage really a power grab? Is it about controlling?

I wrote a letter to the Minnesota Libertarian, which was published in their June 1994 issue

Now President Clinton is attempting to socialize the health insurance system. Beyond the issue of dependency discussed in the last newsletter, there is another essential point to see: insurance companies invest. Beware of those who would like to control via government where these investments go, whether to their favorite businesses or movements. As one advisor of the Clintons, Mr. Michael Lerner, put it in his book The New Socialist Revolution (a self-described "attempt to explain why the only changes that will make sense in America are those that will move this country to socialism..."): "The rub, as in so many areas, is the absence of money."

I suspect that these "new socialists" are going after our nest eggs. There lies the real power grab.

See - "The Meaning of the Politics of Meaning", Wall St. Journal, p. A15 (Jun 3, 1993). Lerner writes,

Hillary Clinton has been under fierce attack for having advocated a "politics of meaning" and advocating a societal tilt away from selfishness and toward caring and community. According to Paul Gigot on these pages last Friday [May 28], I am Mrs. Clinton's guru in these matters.

It's certainly true that the Clintons and I are on the same wavelength on this issue. But what, exactly, is so frightening about the politics of meaning?

For more and perhaps an answer to Lerner's question, and the "first two questions", read - Michael P. Lerner (1971) The New Socialist Revolution: An Introduction to its Theory and Strategy. Lerner writes,

This book is an attempt to explain why the only changes that will make sense in America are those that will move this country to socialism... (p. xi)

The collapse of the American economy ... would create international havoc and thus the conditions for significant struggle in all of the advanced industrial societies, where revolutionary forces would find it easy to seize the moment.... (p. 275)

There is every good reason to think that a revolution will not occur in this country before fifteen or twenty years, and it may be as far as thirty years away. (p. 276)

Probably one of the first actions of a socialist government would be to make free such essential services as health care.... (p. 310)

The rulers must come to understand that if there is to be a sea of blood, it will be made of their blood as well. The one thing that can make the American [socialist] revolution less violent is the clear and public determination of a majority of people to defend that revolution with violence. (p. 279)

The pleasant gentleman on the Long Island Railroad reading his Wall Street Journal or the quiet technician working in Palo Alto or on Route 128 in Massachusetts, the Wall Street banker or the assistant secretary of state or agriculture or defense, the professor of political science who runs the institute on Latin America or the liberal senator—all participate daily in making decisions that sustain the daily violence upon which this system rests. ... [S]urely the violent men who surround us, with their gentle manners and sweet smiles and well-manicured lawns and all the rest of the petty concealments that hide a life of "honorable" crime, should be tried for their crimes by the peoples of the world. (p. 271)

But what do we want? In a word, "socialism." ... But let us be clear what we mean by "socialism." Socialism is the ownership and control of the means of production, and, through that, the control of all areas of life, by the majority of people who work.... Socialism is radical democracy, democracy extended to every area of our collective lives. (p. 287)

On the classical republican theory of government

In classical republican theory, government was to be a mixture of forms: the one, the few, and the many, each balancing the two others. In our Constitution, this mixture may be found, for example, in the offices of the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. We, the people, fill each office in democratic elections, but the natures of these offices differ, being leadership-oriented, principle-oriented, and poll-oriented, respectively. Ideally the House of Representatives ought to reflect closely the wishes of the people between elections. Thomas Jefferson spoke of two requirements for just lawmaking: majority will and respect for the equal natural rights of the minority. I believe that Representatives should, as delegates, reflect the will of their constituents and that Senators should, as trustees, focus on whether or not a bill respects the natural rights of all. As a little-d democrat little-r republican, I believe ... that the American people ought to be able to stand in the way of any legislation whatsoever, especially through what should be the most democratic branch of our republic, the House of Representatives. I also believe that small-l libertarians ... ought to be elected to the Senate so as to prevent oppressive legislation, standing up for those great general interests—the Declaration and the Constitution.

Casey Bowman (1994)

This is an example of the noise we in the Libertarian Party of Minnesota made in 1994 in the debate over health care. In my last post, I mentioned how noisy we had been. I wanted to give an example.

Here's a reprint of the full article -

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Health

[W]e both ... love [the people] with parental affection. But you love them as infants whom you are afraid to trust without nurses; and I as adults whom I freely leave to self-government.

Thomas Jefferson (1816)

by Casey Bowman

On July 6, members of the Libertarian Party of Minnesota attended a town hall meeting on health care legislation, hosted by Wes Minter and broadcast live on WCCO radio (830 AM). Responding to questions from the audience and callers were four panelists: Congressman Rod Grams, Senator Paul Wellstone, Dr. John Goodman (co-author of Patient Power), and Ms. Lois Quam (Clinton task force member).

Minter began the show by citing a quote in that morning's Wall St. Journal, made by Senator Jay Rockefeller on April 18: "We're going to push through health care reform regardless of the views of the American people." Indeed, some big-D Democrats have now become little-a anti-democrats. In a defense of his statement in a letter to the Wall St. Journal, July 21, Rockefeller went on: "My point has been that the half-truths and hysteria turned out by special-interest groups may have confused the public on some of the details of reform...." So Rockefeller was not blaming the people, only special interest groups. "... [R]eprehensible are those who sow such confusion and uncertainty," he wrote.

A full response I dared not broach live on the Wes Minter Show, but I shall now. In classical republican theory, government was to be a mixture of forms: the one, the few, and the many, each balancing the two others. In our Constitution, this mixture may be found, for example, in the offices of the President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. We, the people, fill each office in democratic elections, but the natures of these offices differ, being leadership-oriented, principle-oriented, and poll-oriented, respectively. Ideally the House of Representatives ought to reflect closely the wishes of the people between elections. Thomas Jefferson spoke of two requirements for just lawmaking: majority will and respect for the equal natural rights of the minority. I believe that Representatives should, as delegates, reflect the will of their constituents and that Senators should, as trustees, focus on whether or not a bill respects the natural rights of all. As a little-d democrat little-r republican, I believe, in contrast to Rockefeller, that the American people ought to be able to stand in the way of any legislation whatsoever, especially through what should be the most democratic branch of our republic, the House of Representatives. I also believe that small-l libertarians (hopefully some big-L ones, too) ought to be elected to the Senate so as to prevent oppressive legislation, standing up for those great general interests—the Declaration and the Constitution.

Other Libertarian Party members were vocal. Charles Test read aloud a quote from the Minnesota State Department of Health, which had been cited in the Minneapolis Star Tribune that morning: "The emphasis in medical savings accounts on individual autonomy and personal economic gain ... is largely incompatible with the policy goals of universal health coverage and managed care." Reflecting on this, Test asked, "Aren't individual autonomy and personal economic gain basic principles that America was built upon?"

Later Test quoted the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This amendment affirms that the Constitution must respect the natural rights touched on by the Declaration of Independence that we, as individuals, retain.

Wes Minter followed up on Test's note of the Ninth Amendment by asking him how the founders might view the current policy debate. Test said they are all probably rolling in their graves. Minter asked which founders we Libertarians revere, Franklin, Jefferson? Test continued with a full list of founders, on up to Dolly Madison.

LPM member Evan Williams asked Dr. Goodman if it were true that 5% of Canadians are waiting for some medical procedure. Dr. Goodman responded by saying that 177,000 persons there are waiting for important surgery. Adding those waiting for non-life-saving surgeries, the total becomes one million, which all agreed was indeed about 5%.

Sen. Wellstone, at one point, claimed that a single-payer system would give people more choice rather than less choice. In reaction to one such remark, there was tumult in the audience. I remember, as one of the restless natives, crying out something about how part of the health care system closed down in Canada for a period. Wes Minter clearly enjoyed the enthusiasm exhibited by his audience. Wellstone also demanded that insurance companies never be allowed to deny anyone coverage, a remark in sync with Hillary Rodham Clinton's latest surreal lament on a morning show comparing insurance companies to car dealers who charge different prices for different cars and so restrict our choices.

In a parting shot at Rockefeller's remarks on special interests, I shall quote from an article written by the secretary and treasurer of the Arizona chapter of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Mr. Richard Fisher ("Behind the Task-Force Veil", Liberty, July 1994):

In February 1993, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons filed suit under the Federal Advisory Committee Act ... to force the Clinton administration to reveal the task force's composition. In November, the admin[i]stration was ordered to comply. The documents thus made public suggest a very different picture of the task force than the White House has presented....

Among the special interests represented were United Health Care Corporation, Chicago Health Maintenance Organization, Aetna, Travelers, Liberty Mutual Insurance, Wausau Insurance Company, National Capital Preferred Providers Organization, Harvard Community Health Plan, Kaiser Permanente, U.S. Health Care, EDS Health Care, PCS Health Systems, First Health, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and Alliant Health Systems....

One corporation represented on the task force was MCI Communications—the likely primary vendor for the 250 million cards Clinton's plan would require. Potential contractors for other parts of the Clinton plan were also amply represented, including the Rand Corporation, Alpha Center, Telesis, Cooper & Lybrand, Price Waterhouse, and the Principal Financial Group....

It is plain that ... Lois Qualm, vice president of United Health Care Organization, [and others] have conflicts of interest in helping formulate federal health-care policy. Yet these officials and executives of major managed-care concerns played significant task-force roles without obtaining waivers for conflicts of interest, despite the requirements of the law. ...

Rather than admit to the prominent participation of special interests in the formulating its health-care proposals, the White House chose the path of secrecy and closed doors. In doing so, it trampled on the law.

This article was originally published in The Minnesota Libertarian (State Fair edition) August 1994. The author and the original publication are due attribution.

Bob Barr's book's a bipartisan bombshell

I finished Bob Barr's book today, The Meaning of Is (2004). Though his theme is Clinton, in fact, it's a bombshell lobbed against both parties, or factions as they've become.

My evidence?

As America burned, the Republican Party was fiddling away.

p. 114

---

Like nervous corporate CEOs, the leadership structure of the Republican Party and it[s] corporate patrons preferred predictable consistency above all else. They felt they could deal with any reality as long as that reality was stable.

p. 227

---

In the new Congress, partisanship was everything. You played on a team and you were loyal to that team no matter what. Independent thought was strongly discouraged, and loyalty was enforced through a system that rewarded lemmings and punished mavericks. If you towed the line, you got campaign cash, action on your bills, and perhaps a shot at a committee chairmanship. If not, then the party leadership was not going to lift a finger to help you get anything done, either in your home district or Washington. The same system was enforced in both parties, and it ultimately made it difficult for anyone to cross partisan lines...

p. 148

---

We have a huge responsibility as a nation. We can close our eyes. But when we open them, the problem will still be there, looming before us with a brooding darkness. We can answer this question the wrong way. And allow the president to hold his office with the knowledge that he has committed multiple felonies. Or we can answer this question the right way. The only right answer to the question is to respond to presidential felonies with impeachment. Regardless of whether the president is ultimately removed by the Senate, we must take this step in the House, as directed by our Constitution, in order to establish a precedent that will prevent future presidents from engaging in similar conduct.

p. 171, quoting himself, emphasis added

---

We had not damaged national security, attacked the integrity of the criminal justice system, abused the most powerful public office in the world, or violated the constitutional rights of large numbers of American citizens. Bill Clinton had done all of these things, and this was the reason he was being impeached, not because of the affair he had with Monica Lewinski or the long list of affairs that preceded it.

p. 180, emphasis added

---

If any other person had done what Bill Clinton had done, he not only would have been prosecuted, but convicted, sentenced, and put in jail. Obviously, no prosecutor in America was going to bring an indictment against a sitting president. But that is precisely the reason the Founders put the impeachment provision in the Constitution. The whole point of the trial was to determine his guilt or innocence. By arguing that Clinton had already been tried and cleared—when he had not—[Senator Dale] Bumpers conveniently gave the senators cover to vote against removal, even though presented with a clear factual case for doing so. Like any masterful attorney, he was giving the jury a plausible reason to do what it wanted to do, even though its desires ran contrary to the facts and the law. Put colloquially, the senators were chicken, and Bumpers was giving them a place to hide.

p. 199, emphasis added

---

Along these lines, I observed one of the most amazing cases of odd behavior by a senator during my closing presentation. Its source was Alaska senator Ted Stevens. Stevens chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee and consequently owns one of the most heavily kissed backsides in Washington, D.C. He is constantly besieged by a cornucopia of special interests, all seeking their own slice of taxpayer money from the budget pie. He is a guy who is used to having everyone around him act exactly as he wants them to. Early in the trial, he had emerged as one of the most strident opponents in the Republican conference to putting together a real trial. He wanted the spectacle of the impeachment trial to end as quickly as possible so the Senate could get on its real business—which as he saw it was doling out taxpayer monies.

Still, I expected Stevens at least to keep his opinion to himself during the actual trial. Needless to say, I was surprised to look up during my initial presentation and see him slowly moving his hand back and forth across his throat while staring me down. Either they guy was having serious thoughts of suicide, or he was giving me a sign to sit down and shut up. Here, I thought, was Senate arrogance at its best.

p. 209, emphasis added

---

Does party membership amount to little more than the kind of choice a college freshman makes in choosing a fraternity or a young criminal makes in choosing a neighborhood street gang in which to participate? If parties are mere labels, rather than representations of deeply shared principles, then the answer is "yes."

p. 228

---

The Libertarian Party actually seemed to grasp the significance of Clinton's assaults on individual freedom. In a public call for impeachment in July 1998, the Libertarians argued that Clinton "has the worst record on civil liberties since Richard Nixon, and the worst record on economic issues since Fidel Castro. What he's done to the Constitution should be classified as a hate crime." Specifically, they cited the administration's systematic assaults on cherished constitutional principles, most notably those contained in the Bill of Rights. I found myself fully in agreement with their logic, and we became close allies in the impeachment effort, although I still disagreed with the party's position on several issues such as abortion and drug legalization. Interestingly, this disagreement would surface four years later when, in running for election in a new district, the national Libertarian Party, in a move reflective of the old adage about "cutting off your nose to spite your face," worked hard to defeat me over the drug issue, even though on privacy and civil liberties I was—in the words of many of the party's own members—one of their best friends in office.

p. 102, emphasis added

---

Can women say no?

The point here is not that Clinton had extramarital affairs while in office. He was not the first president to cheat, and he will not be the last. Bill Clinton's adultery was—in my view—something that was between him, his wife, and God. I am amazed that any spouse would tolerate his brazen behavior, but it is none of my business. However, what was my business as a member of Congress is that the evidence clearly showed that the president of the United States was a sexual predator (and, of course, a perjurer and obstructor of justice.) There was a clear pattern. First, Clinton targeted women he believed were vulnerable to his advances and who could not say no due to their station in life or their personal circumstances. When some of these women did say "no," they were subjected to a carefully orchestrated and brutal campaign that involved lawyers, political operatives, donors, and White House staff, with the clear goal of threatening or pounding them into silence.

p. 100, emphasis added

---

Can Congress say no?

Requests from the executive branch to pass its legislative proposals without hearings are becoming more, rather than less, common, even as the complexity and importance of that legislation makes it imperative that the Congress conduct searching and substantive—if time-consuming—hearings (as was not done with the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001).

p. 229, emphasis added

---

Ignoring the Separation of Powers and attempting to make end runs around Congress was a favorite Clinton strategy, and the use of Executive Orders was his favorite tactic for doing so. In their legitimate form, Executive Orders are simply management tools used by the president to keep federal agencies running in the most efficient manner possible. They reflect the clear intent of laws passed by Congress and merely put a finer point on existing law. Bill Clinton turned this logic upside down, using Executive Orders to legislate—in clear violation of the Constitution—because he though[t] it too much trouble to be bothered by negotiating with Congress. ...

Some of the most insidious sets of Executive Orders were those issued by Clinton on the topic of federalism. A bedrock principle of the Constitution, which is woven throughout the debates over its passage and permanently protected in the Tenth Amendment, is that powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government belong to the state governments and the American people. Although the notion of federalism was being consistently eroded by years of contrary legislation and court decisions, no president had ever changed all that. They essentially set up a system where any conflict between state and federal regulations was automatically decided in favor of the federal law. This meant all an agency that wanted to run roughshod over a state had to do was pick a fight, which it knew it would win because the game was rigged ahead of time by Clinton's Executive Orders. Simply put, this amounted to crippling the Tenth Amendment, and it was done solely by executive action without any involvement from the courts or Congress.

pp. 91-92, emphasis added

---

However, the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) quickly followed [the failed attempt to require Clipper Chips in telephones]; the Clinton administration convinced Congress to pass this act in 1994. Under CALEA, every phone company in America is legally required to install snooping technology in all its new equipment so that government agents can listen in with ease.

p. 90, emphasis added

---

I am anything but a supporter of terrorists and criminals. I spent a large portion of my adult life working for the CIA and prosecuting criminals at the Department of Justice, so I am not unsympathetic to law enforcement. However, I have a theory about law enforcement: investigations can be hampered more than benefited by new authority and fancy technology. In my experience—privacy concerns aside—relying too much on sophisticated laboratories and massive wiretapping operations rather than on shoe-leather police work often resulted in cases that took too long to bring to trial and were far too weak and complex once they got there. For example, wiretapping can quickly overwhelm an investigation, particularly if multiple targets are involved or language barriers are present. Merely trying to cope with the resulting information is like trying to drink from an open fire hydrant. Despite the shortcomings, many agents like these methods because they are easier in many ways than old-fashioned investigative work.

p. 85, emphasis added

---

Who's defending civil liberties and due process now?

In past years, being a Democrat meant having a certain appreciation for civil liberties that went far beyond mere expediency. To be sure, Democrats did not always protect individual freedom, but they were far more reliable allies for the American Civil Liberties Union than were Republicans. This assumption of American politics cracked and ultimately shattered during the eight years of the Clinton administration. The first sign that this philosophy was dying occurred when many respected liberals went out of their way to cover up actions by federal law enforcement in the Waco attack. It went completely out the window when the Clinton administration introduced its draft anti-terrorism legislation following the tragic Oklahoma City bombing.

pp. 81-82, emphasis added

---

Much later, the FBI was forced to admit that it did use incendiary munitions after officials—including Janet Reno—testified under oath that they did not do so. ...

There are still numerous questions surrounding the Waco tragedy. At least two things are certain, however. First, top federal law enforcement officials from Janet Reno down behaved as if they wanted everyone in that compound dead, and their actions achieved that result. Secondly, the same top Clinton administration officials participated in an extensive effort to cover up the truth about what really happened at Waco. ...

I kept pursuing my hard line of questioning, but as we all know, it was largely in vain. We succeeded in getting important facts one the record, but the official version of the story is still largely one of a fiery mass suicide that the federal government was powerless to prevent. This, like so much of what passes for commonly accepted official stories in Washington, is a lie.

pp. 78, 80, emphasis added

---

As most Americans remember, Bill Clinton put Hillary Clinton in charge of a task force to develop a new health insurance plan for America. ...

Making this bad situation worse, Hillary insisted on meeting secretly to work on the plan. This resulted in a head-on collision with federal laws requiring government meetings to be open to the public if they involved non-governmental individuals. ...

Interestingly [the precedent] might also be used to prevent White House officials from being compelled to testify about conversations with other private individuals. Such a privilege—if asserted based on this precedent—would certainly encourage all kinds of corrupt conduct currently banned by law. In fact, it was this very argument that Vice President Cheney's legal team made in a bid to keep information about his energy policy task force secret when sued by Judicial Watch.

pp. 51-52, emphasis added

Now I know what my vote for Bob Barr would mean.

A vote for Bob Barr is a vote for due process and the rule of law.

A vote for Bob Barr is a vote to let government officials know that no one is above the law, the Constitution, and a respect for human rights.

A vote for Bob Barr is a vote for holding our President accountable. Our country needs a good impeachment. A vote for Bob Barr is the next best thing.


One last quote :-)

While I was frequently derided throughout my congressional career for never smiling, next to Maxine Waters I was the Cheshire Cat.

p. 131

Version 1.1 - bit about factions added May 18
----------------
Now playing: Beck - The New Pollution (I noticed some bits and pieces of this song are from the Brazilian band Os Mutantes)
via FoxyTunes

Bob Barr - how one president set the precedent for another

4 years ago Bob Barr wrote an intelligent book on how President Clinton set the precedent for President Bush in the accelerating erosion of our civil liberties and due process. Here he describes how an FBI "wish list", which included many of the things Democrats complain so vehemently about with Bush, came to light and how the Clinton administration "drafted a massive anti-terror package and sent it to Congress," some provisions of which Barr successfully defeated in 1996 "by banding together with libertarian-leaning conservatives and civil libertarians in the Democrat ranks. (p. 87)"

Tomorrow at the National Press Club, Bob Barr might announce that he's running for President.

----------------
Now playing: Snowden - Victim Card
via FoxyTunes

Update (May 12, 2008, 9:50 am Central): Minutes to go before Barr speaks. I just read a critique of Newt Gingrich by The Other McCain.

Ralph Z. Hallow of The Washington Times has a story about Republicans who fear the potential impact of a Barr LP candidacy:

Republicans, both publicly and behind the scenes, are saying that a Barr run could hurt him financially and sink Mr. McCain's Republican candidacy in the general election, likely against Sen. Barack Obama.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told The Times today that "Bob Barr will make it marginally easier for Barack Obama to become president. That outcome threatens every libertarian value Barr professes to champion."

Electing the co-author of McCain-Feingold would threaten no libertarian values?

I'd add what Barr wrote in his book on p. 223,

When Republicans finally waved the white flag of surrender and caved in to Clinton's budget demands, the approach taken by our leaders was particularly disturbing. Through late fall and early winter 1995 as the "crisis" played itself out, in meeting after meeting Newt had been urging us to hold tough. Newt repeatedly reminded us that principle had gotten us where we were and must always be our ultimate guide. In the end, however, Newt changed course suddenly and completely, telling us we were going to give Clinton what he wanted, and we had by-God better support it. He even told us—for the first time to my knowledge—that he was going to keep a list of every member who did not vote to cave on the Clinton spending package and that the list would later be used to punish us.

Update (May 12, 2008, 10:20 am Central): Why is Newt's cave an important issue for everyone, all Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike? Ask David Walker, the recent Comptroller General of the United States of America. See - Thomas Jefferson and the Barbarian Invasions