Joe Sestak and Occam's Razor

It’s the Friday before a Holiday weekend so it must be time for the White House to clear up some troubling events with a minor press release. This is how the Obama Administration has always dealt with such issues. After all, the number of people available for comment is scarce and the stories that will be written will hit the papers and television news over the weekend when relatively few people are paying attention.

A brief press release issued this morning by White House Council and long time Obama associate, Bob Bauer, to answer the growing question about Congressman Joe Sestak’s claim that a White House official offered him a job if he would agree to abandon his primary challenge against Senator Arlen Specter. Bauer’s statement said that Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel used former President Bill Clinton as an intermediary to offer Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) an unpaid, executive branch advisory board position to “avoid a divisive Senate primary”. Bauer denied rumors that Sestak was offered a nomination as Navy secretary, and said all discussions were “consistent with the relevant law and ethical requirements.”

If this statement is correct and the White House acted in a manner “consistent with the relevant law and ethical requirements”, why did it take ten weeks and a media storm before the White House would respond to this controversy and why did the White House contact Congressman Sestak’s office as well as Sestak’s brother and campaign manager, Richard Sestak, before issuing this statement? According to Bob Bauer, the White House has “concluded that allegations of improper conduct rest on factual errors and lack a basis in the law". In other words…..we looked at the issue and everything is fine so just trust us. Really?

For the past ten weeks, Joe Sestak has held firm in his account of the exchange. He said not once, but a number of times that he had been contacted by a member of the Obama administration and he was offered a high-ranking administration job in exchange for dropping his primary bid. When asked about the rumors that he was offered the nomination for Secretary of the Navy, Sestak declined to elaborate, saying that doing so would be just getting into politics. Now that the White House has contacted Sestak and his campaign manager prior to today’s press release, Sestak’s account is now mysteriously saying something completely different.

Sestak released his own statement today saying "Last summer, I received a phone call from President Clinton. During the course of the conversation, he expressed concern over my prospects if I were to enter the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate and the value of having me stay in the House of Representatives because of my military background," Sestak added. "He (President Clinton) said that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had spoken with him about my being on a Presidential Board while remaining in the House of Representatives. I said no."

"I told President Clinton that my only consideration in getting into the Senate race or not was whether it was the right thing to do for Pennsylvania working families and not any offer," he continued. "The former President said he knew I'd say that, and the conversation moved on to other subjects."

Was Sestak having a “Blumenthal moment”? If you recall, Democrat Dick Blumenthal who is running for the Connecticut Senate Seat has been accused of lying about his military service by hinting that he was a Viet Nam veteran. Blumenthal has since apologized and even though there are at least eight different occasions that this happened on film, he simply said he “misspoke” a few words that were taken out of context. The few words were silly things like “in Viet Nam” instead of “during Viet Nam” and “when we returned from Viet Nam” instead of “when my duty with a State-side reserve unit was over”. You know….easily mistaken comments. Could Sestak have simply misspoken a few words, confusing a “high ranking administration job” with a “non-paid appointment to an advisory board”? Perhaps he also confused Bill Clinton with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when he said he was contacted by a member of the Obama administration? Let’s face it….those high pressure jobs add years to your looks so maybe it was an honest mistake now that Hillary has added a few more wrinkles and some gray hair.

I am a huge fan of Occam’s razor. Occam’s razor (or Ockham's razer) is a theoretical principle proposed by 14th-century English logician, theologian and Franciscan friar William of Ockham that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem). In essence; that the simplest solution is usually the correct one. In this case, before we can arrive at the simplest solution we must identify the actual questions.

The obvious questions are:

1- Why did the White House refused to comment on this matter for ten weeks?

2- Why was Bill Clinton asked to “intercede” on behalf of the White House?

3- Why did Representative Sestak refuse to elaborate on the issue beyond his initial statement for the past ten weeks?

4- Why was Representative Sestak’s office and campaign manager contacted before the White House press release was issued?

5- Why has Representative Sestak’s account of the incident changed so drastically?

The simplest solution to all of these questions is that the press releases from both the White House and Joe Sestak are lies meant to cover up the true nature of the offer made to Joe Sestak and the identity of the person that made that offer. I’m sure the White House contacted Sestak after his initial statement and told him of the legal ramifications of his allegations. Sestak has nothing to gain by causing the White House embarrassment by further implicating them in what was obviously a criminal act. After all, Sestak is now the Democratic candidate for Specter’s Senate seat and will need the support of the White House and the DNC if he has any hopes of succeeding this November. That easily explains Sestak’s reluctance to elaborate on the offer that was made.

The dismissive non-response to the press’s questions issued by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs tells me that they initially believed that this would all fade away after the primary, but to their surprise, it didn’t. Legal analysts were scouring US code looking for possible violations of law and the ramifications of those laws being violated meant someone was going to have to be sacrificed if there was any truth to Sestak’s story at all. Since this was fast becoming an issue that could affect the upcoming elections, fellow Democrats joined in the call for explanations and that could not be ignored. Some way had to be found to “help” Joe Sestak back away from his claims without damaging his race for the Senate but the real trick was that it had to be done in such a way that the White House was also clear of any wrong doing.

Ten weeks seems like a plausible amount of time for legal council to review the incident and issue recommendations. I'm sure those recommendations included the need to portray a series of events where someone that was not a member of the administration (Bill Clinton) would speak with Sestak only to suggest that his chances for success in the primary were limited so he should just drop out of that. “Oh by the way…Rahm Emmanuel would like to place you on a Presidential Advisory Board as a non-paid advisor while you retain your all important seat in the House of Representatives.” No government employee and no promise of power or money would skirt all of the problems. While that scenario certainly plays well with respect to the laws against using the power of a government office to interfere with a primary or general election, it does not sit well with the good Congressman’s previous and frequent statements.

As convoluted as this story is, it certainly does not play well with respect to Occam’s razor either. It makes no sense that the White House would risk the political damage of letting people believe that they were stone-walling the issue for ten weeks if Sestak’s original story of the attempted bribe were not true. It makes no sense that Joe Sestak would suddenly change his story so drastically on the day of the White House press release and risk his chances in the November election if he were not coached by the White House that this was the only acceptable way out of this for the both of them. It makes no sense that the White House would attempt to entice Sestak with a non-paid position on an advisory panel when the man was running for the United States Senate. Knowing that Sestak is not one of the wealthier members of Congress like Kerry or Kennedy, that wouldn’t fly at all so they further complicated the story by adding that he was told he could serve on that board and keep his seat in the House; something that Congressional rules currently prohibit. Curiously, Joe Sestak has been avoiding any direct interviews in the wake of the statement he released today that directly contradicts his previous assertions.

About the only part of the story that makes any sense is the Bill Clinton connection. Billy misses the limelight (not to mention access to female White House aides) so he doesn’t mind being drawn into something like this. Actually, Clinton was the perfect name to use in place of Rahm Emmanuel. He is not a member of the White House staff nor is he a paid employee of the Obama administration and if this ruse fails and an investigation is forced upon the White House, we all know that Bill Clinton has no problem lying to special prosecutors, Grand Juries or to the American People.

Paul

Does the Healthcare Bill Violate the Constitution?

Yesterday we discussed the Constitutional issues that have become cause for alarm when one State is exempted from a tax that all others must pay. Today I wish to raise question with the Constitutional authority Congress claims to possess to enact healthcare reforms in the first place. When the question of Constitutional authority was posed to the members of Congress we got some very interesting answers. Nancy Pelosi would only ask rhetorically “Are you serious?” Mary Landrieu said “We have some very talented Constitutional lawyers on staff that can answer that.” which in the language of politics means “I don’t know”.

The closest thing to an answer we got from a member of Congress on this very serious issue came from Congressman James Clyburn (D-SC). Representative Clyburn said that “most of what we (Congress) do here (in Washington) is not authorized in the Constitution.” I can only take that as an admission that they know they are in direct violation of the Constitution and mean to keep violating the supreme law of the land in order to advance their agenda.

The Tenth Amendment states:

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Constitution also clearly spells out, or enumerates, the powers that were delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution under Section Eight. That section reads:

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

1- The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
2- To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
3- To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
4- To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
5- To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
6- To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
7- To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
8- 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;
9- To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
10- To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
11- To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
12- To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
13- To provide and maintain a Navy;
14- To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
15- To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
16- 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;
17- 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
18- 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.

For years the Congress has been forcing legislation upon us claiming to promote the “general welfare, taking their authority from the first paragraph of Section Eight. They have similarly misused the commerce clause which gives the Congress the authority to “regulate” commerce between the States (item 3 above). While that seems reasonable, at least to them, it does require an examination of what those phrases meant to the men that drafted the Constitution before Congress can derive authority from those clauses.

To “regulate” was a very specific term at the time the Constitution was drafted. It meant exactly what it says; to make regular. The commerce clause was intended to provide Congress with the tools it needed to inure that the conduct of business between the states was uniform. It was intended to allow businesses in any state, free and unfettered access to markets anywhere. It was never meant to give the Congress authority to license, impose regulatory control or provide federal oversight of American businesses.

The term “General Welfare” is responsible for more unlawful impositions by the Federal Government than any one phrase in the Constitution. To understand it, one must read it literally. Since the architects of the Constitution had taken great pains to use the words States, citizens and people in other areas of the document, to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States” only gives the Congress authority to provide for the “General Welfare” of the United States as a governmental entity; the United States as a body of states and not the people that reside within those states.

In the Federalist Papers, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, "to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.” For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They 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. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless.

It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.”

We can clearly see by Jefferson’s text that the “General Welfare” that Congress has been charged with providing for is the Welfare of the Union and not of its citizens. He adds further that to interpret the clause as the Congress is now doing, is dangerous and if allowed, could use that interpretation to do as much evil as good. I think it is fair to say that we have reached the point where the interpretation is being used by Congress to do great evil and this bill is only one example. A healthcare panel that will determine your care options in place of your doctor is about as evil as it gets. Oh your doctor can still provide the care he believes you need. He just can’t expect to get paid for his services if he strays from the mandates of the Health Benefits Panel.

Paul

They Really Aren't Listening, Are They?

I love it when people prove my point for me. It is no secret that my underlying belief is that the Federal government has become a hive of elitists, in fact, an American aristocracy that when faced with the anger of their constituents, invariably lash out with the modern equivalent of “Let them eat cake”. Of course you know that that phrase was reportedly blurted out by Marie Antoinette when she was told that the people had no bread. It didn’t work out very well for Marie and she would eventually be beheaded by guillotine during the French Revolution for her uncompassionate dismissal of her starving subjects.

Americans are now facing the same uncompassionate dismissal by their elected officials. The anger that bubbled up to the surface during the healthcare town halls was dismissed as “Astroturf”, not grass roots. The people that were demanding answers from their representatives were called an “angry mob” and “manufactured”, marching to the orders of corporate America and the Republican Party. I’ve been to Tea Parties and I can tell you I joined of my own free will and they are organized locally. We network with other Tea Party and patriotic groups and decide when and where to protest ourselves. I have not seen a single word given to us by big business, pharmaceuticals, healthcare insurers or the Republican Party. It has all been spontaneous and it has all been very “grass roots”.

The Democratic Party, on the other hand, provides funds for MoveOn.org and Organizing for America and these are the groups that are protesting in favor of Obamacare. There were even ads taken out on Craigslist over the summer by Calpirg, a pro-Obama, pro-socialism group in California that promised pay for protestors! “Need a summer job? Protest for healthcare reform.” Somehow Ms. Pelosi thinks those protests are legitimate but the Tea Parties aren’t. In fact, the people shouting at the Tea Parties made her weep as she had flashbacks to the protests of ‘70’s and that “frightened” her. What she forgot to mention is that the angry and violent protests of the 70’s were conducted by people that share her ideology. Tea Party protestors don’t blow things up; left wing, anti-American radicals do.

Through all of this, one thing keeps resonating in every Congressional interview, in every Presidential speech. Despite all of the meetings, protests, letters and phone calls to Congress…they still don’t get it. We are not being heard and it is appears that those that have heard us are choosing to ignore us. I recently sent an e-mail to the White House about healthcare reform and I probably wouldn’t be upset if I had never received a reply. After all, who am I? I am not a foreign dignitary nor am I a member of Congress. I am a whiney little blogger that probably has far too many opinions for my own good. But I did get a response and it only reinforced my belief that they just don’t care. I will post my e-mail to the President and then the response I received.

Mr. President,

Now that Congress has taken the position of adding to the national debt through Harry Reid's offer to doctors and since they have declined to allow the American people the right to see this legislation on-line, both of which violate your promises, do you intend to withdraw your support for this initiative as you also promised?

Let's be honest. You and I both know that this is not about lowering premium costs for American's with insurance and it is not about covering those without insurance...this is about the gross mismanagement of existing Federal programs. Medicare and Medicaid are bankrupting the Federal government and Congress has already raided the Social Security trust to keep it afloat to spite massive annual losses. The so-called "thinkers" in Washington needed a way to begin the process of driving Americans into a government run, universal care system so the funds would be there to continue this massive Ponzi scheme.

Are you people really any better than Bernie Madoff? Enough already; the reforms that the majority of America want are market reforms that reinforce the free enterprise system. We do not want government care, we do not want an expanded government and we are not willing to allow the Federal government to "tweak" the Constitution to make the unconstitutional, permissible.

As an Arizonan, I intend to vote for the referendum in the 2010 ballot that would exclude Arizona from having to participate in this scam and through my vote; I intend to hold any of my representatives accountable that do vote for this as it makes its way through Congress.

We have had enough. Taxation has placed an oppressive burden on America and we can no longer afford these massive tax and spend plans that the Democratic Party has become famous for.

Sincerely,

Paul M. Magel Sr.

The reply I received?

Dear Friend:

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. I have heard from countless Americans struggling to afford health insurance and health professionals striving to provide care. I appreciate your perspective.

There is broad consensus among the American people on the need for affordable, high-quality health care. The rising cost of health care is the most pressing financial challenge for families and for our Nation, and controlling this cost is essential to bringing down the Federal deficits we inherited. We must end unfair insurance practices that leave millions of Americans without coverage, denying them access to care, and exposing them to extraordinary burdens. And we should ensure that all small business employees have access to affordable, high-quality health plans so that we can make our economy--and our small businesses- -more competitive. Now is the time to move forward, and I am working to get health insurance reform done this year.

Since I took office, we have done more to improve health care than we have in the previous decade. In February, I signed H.R. 2 to provide coverage for millions of children through the Children's Health Insurance Program, and I signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to make key investments in computerized medical records and preventive services.

Still, more must be done to lower costs, expand coverage, and improve the quality of health care. My 2010 Budget makes a major down payment on health insurance reform by implementing efficiencies in government health care spending while improving the quality of care. To help fulfill the debt we owe to our service men and women, it includes the largest proposed single-year increase in veterans funding in 30 years. It expands health care coverage to an additional 500,000 veterans by 2013, implements technology that eases the transition from military care to veterans'
care, and enhances screening and treatment services for those suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injury.

Looking forward, there are tough choices to be made, and I will seek to bring employers and workers, health care providers and patients, and Democrats and Republicans together to create a system that delivers better care and puts the Nation on a sustainable, long-term fiscal path. To learn more about my agenda or to share a personal story, please join me online at:
www.healthreform.gov. For further information on health care and assistance that may be available to you, you may call 1-800- FEDINFO or visit: www.usa.gov.

I share the sense of urgency that millions of Americans have voiced. I watched as my ailing mother struggled with stacks of insurance forms in the last moments of her life. This is not who we are as a Nation; together, we will fix it.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama


To be a part of our agenda for change, join us at www.WhiteHouse.gov


The reply I received completely ignored every statement I made. There was not a single point in my message that was even touched on and the idea that the reply goes as far as providing links I can use to “join” with the President to work towards passing healthcare reform is insulting. He even had the nerve to include the story of his ailing mother struggling with “stacks” of medical insurance paperwork in the last moments of her life. My doctor’s office fills out all of my forms so maybe he should change doctors but that doesn’t answer the larger question…where was her family? You know, family, the people that love you and help you with these things or is the government supposed to provide those services too? Maybe the finished bill will have a couple of billion dollars earmarked for “hugs”. Maybe we can even find some community based organization we can fund to provide the hugs….like ACORN.

As you read those two e-mails, did you see one thread of evidence that my e-mail had even been read? In retrospect, sending that message was probably a mistake since I am sure it is being counted as just another example of an “American that is concerned about healthcare reform”.

No, they are not listening and it doesn’t appear they will. The only hope we have is to maintain the pressure. The longer the anger is vocal and public, the more they will understand that this is not going to go away as it has in the past. The one thing they want more than Universal Healthcare is another term and if we make it clear that the choice is one or the other, healthcare reform will die a quiet death and they can get back to their primary concern of raising money for their next campaign.

Paul