America became a great country by letting its people be all they can be without interference from government. In just less than a year all this has changed. We have seen the government dictate everything from toilets to light bulbs and take ownership interests in private enterprises in major segments of our economy. The formerly largest auto company has been taken over by the government and major banks now have the government sitting on their boards. The free market is no longer free and government expansionists are not through yet. We are looking at the one-fifth of our economy in the form our health industry becoming under the control of those running the government and under the guise of controlling alleged pollution virtually all the remaining remnants of the free market will be subject to bureaucratic regulation.
How did this happen and how does the government take over our lives? The answer is simple, with our own money – money earned under what once was a free market system and confiscated by tax laws.
Since the 1930’s under four-term President Franklin D. Roosevelt the government has spread tax money around beyond its constitutional role and infiltrated state governments and private enterprise. Under current President Barack Obama and with the aid of a virulent uncontrolled congress, government expansion has grown like an atomic mushroom cloud. By distributing tax payer money, often without being asked by recipients, the government has used this largesse as reason enough to dictate what those getting the money may or may not do.
Historically private enterprise has answered for the most part only to its owners, whether privately or publicly owned. However today we see and largely accept that if tax payer money finds its way into free enterprise in what should be a free market, the government which distributes the money can say how the business can be run, even to the point of dictating salaries and employee compensation.
There is much hysteria generated by government bureaucrats, the executive and legislative branches of government, broadcast by a sympathetic news media, who ask the question “how dare they pay executives (and others) huge salaries and bonuses when the government ‘bailed’ them out?” It seems that if money is given to a business, it has the right to become involved with how the business spends its money. There is virtually no publicly stated opposition to this idea even though the premise can be used to justify government intervention in almost all aspects of our lives – that the government has not as yet gone this far is only because those in charge have not thought of it, for now.
Let’s just see what could be done if we accept the idea that not only big business can be put under the government thumb but anything and anyone else that benefits from something the government does “for them.”
Money deposited in banks is insured by the FDIC, does this mean the government can tell the depositor how the insured money can be used?
Many students take out loans for their education. The government has recently decided that such loans must be given by the government and not privately owned banks (if there are any left). Can the government say what course of study the student borrower can have?
Home mortgages are often obtained directly or indirectly from the government or insured by government controlled agencies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Why can’t the government use this link to approve or disapprove a buyer’s purchase selection or what the home owner wants to do with the house?
Government money finds its way into schools by one means or another and actually has enabled the government to dictate curricula and what students may eat at the school and what food may be served in government sponsored school lunches. As a result we see all manner of propaganda imposed on school children from programs praising the president to aggrandizing homosexuality. Private home schooling is discouraged because it is free from government control.
The federal government gives money to states and can then dictate speed limits (remember the 55 mph national speed limit) and all manner of rules and regulations which absent government money would be under the control of elected state officials.
The authority of the federal government of the United States is limited by the Constitution, intentionally, to prevent the government from taking over freedom and liberty; at least that’s how it supposed to work. But as you see tax payer money can be used by the government to extend its reach well beyond what the Constitution intended.
During the ten months or so Barack Obama has been president an enormous amount of money has been distributed to what had been publicly owned companies usually operated by company officers overseen by a board of directors on behalf of the owners, i.e. shareholders. This is how free enterprise works in a free market system but under the “hope and change” promised by Obama there is no boundary for the government.
Obama declared multiple crises and used the fear generated to invigorate dormant leftists members of congress to transform America into a socialist/Marxist society which has been their goal for years. The irony is that they did this with tax payer money for as long as it lasted and then with the printing presses in the Treasury Department under orders from the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank.
With the aid, if not direction, of the Federal Reserve Bank leadership, billions and billions of dollars were given to businesses and banks under the guise of helping them out to avoid private bankruptcy and the financial disruption that would cause - even to banks who did not want government help. In return for this infusion of tax payer money, the government received ownership interests in the businesses receiving the government “bailout” money. With virtually no opposition, or much knowledge of the public, the federal government wound up with 60% ownership of General Motors; 35% of GMAC; 35% of Citigroup and 10% of Chrysler. The Obama administration used the rubric of the peoples’ money given to businesses to dictate not only how the businesses and banks are to operate, but what compensation can be made to company employees. One of Obama’s “Czars” went so far as to require compensation reductions of as much as 90%.
Let’s ask those business leaders and unemployed who supported Obama’s election – how is that hope and change working out for you?
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
The UN Human Rights Council's Goldstone report rewards terrorism
For eight years, while Hamas indiscriminately shelled Israeli civilians with rockets provided by Iran, the UN stood did and said nothing. Only when Israel tried to stop this, did the Human Rights Council dominated by Muslim countries act. What did they do, they condemned Israel. This so-called Human Rights council passed a resolution calling for an investigation. Last month, the results of this "investigation" of Israel’s defensive action in Gaza were presented by Justice Richard Goldstone (a Jew) to the HRC. But the report did not deal responsibly with the issues it merely was a one-sided anti-Israel diatribe, as even Goldstone acknowledged as being one-sided. Goldstone is now trying to distance himself from the results of his own handiwork.
Last Friday he discussed his disappointment with the action taken by the HRC, telling the Swiss daily Le Temp: "This draft resolution saddens me as it includes only allegations against Israel, there is not a single phrase condemning Hamas."
We must now deal with the consequences. The council's adoption of the Goldstone report constitutes nothing less than a reward for terrorism in more ways than one. First, the resolution adopted Friday ignores the reality of Hamas criminality, blaming the victim, rather than the real perpetrator of war crimes in Gaza. The HRC ignored the war crimes committed by purposely firing thousands of missiles at Israeli civilians, endangering Gaza civilians by firing from populated areas and abducting Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit.
Israel had a responsibility to protect its citizens, made every effort to avoid confrontation and did all that it could to minimize civilian casualties. The only relevant consideration for the HRC was the fact that an opportunity had presented itself to demonize Israel in the international arena.
By ignoring the atrocities by Hamas, this resolution essentially grants immunity to the terrorists and prevents a law-abiding state from defending its citizens. The Human Rights council has sanctioned new form of warfare in which terror groups launch attacks against "enemy" civilians from behind a shield of "friendly" civilians.
The Goldstone snowball is gaining momentum since the report has now been passed to the UN General Assembly in New York for further action.
By the way, President Obama has reversed the Bush administration refusal to join the farcical Human Rights Council and has joined the Muslim-dominated UN agency and its Islamic crusade against Israel and humanity."
Last Friday he discussed his disappointment with the action taken by the HRC, telling the Swiss daily Le Temp: "This draft resolution saddens me as it includes only allegations against Israel, there is not a single phrase condemning Hamas."
We must now deal with the consequences. The council's adoption of the Goldstone report constitutes nothing less than a reward for terrorism in more ways than one. First, the resolution adopted Friday ignores the reality of Hamas criminality, blaming the victim, rather than the real perpetrator of war crimes in Gaza. The HRC ignored the war crimes committed by purposely firing thousands of missiles at Israeli civilians, endangering Gaza civilians by firing from populated areas and abducting Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit.
Israel had a responsibility to protect its citizens, made every effort to avoid confrontation and did all that it could to minimize civilian casualties. The only relevant consideration for the HRC was the fact that an opportunity had presented itself to demonize Israel in the international arena.
By ignoring the atrocities by Hamas, this resolution essentially grants immunity to the terrorists and prevents a law-abiding state from defending its citizens. The Human Rights council has sanctioned new form of warfare in which terror groups launch attacks against "enemy" civilians from behind a shield of "friendly" civilians.
The Goldstone snowball is gaining momentum since the report has now been passed to the UN General Assembly in New York for further action.
By the way, President Obama has reversed the Bush administration refusal to join the farcical Human Rights Council and has joined the Muslim-dominated UN agency and its Islamic crusade against Israel and humanity."
Monday, October 12, 2009
Isn't America under Obama great?
In case you missed it, Obama has proposed a new auto insurance reform plan with a public option. There are millions without auto insurance that need to be protected and it is not fair that they are not covered. The unfortunate who do not have documentation to prove they are American citizens must be also able to share the American dream of a car in every garage or front yard. Although children of the undocumented who are born in the United States would qualify for auto insurance, they may be too young to get a driver’s license at present.
Under Obama’s plan a Federal Auto Reform Tribunal (FART) will be established that will determine federal standards for what vehicles may be covered (for example, it may be that only "green" cars can be insured), and rules for what auto insurance coverage may be available and to whom, e.g. what vehicles may be insured and what repairs may be included. FART will also determine whether private insurance policies meet federal standards; only policies that meet these standards can be sold. Though FART will only make recommendations, once approved by the Secretary of HEW the recommendations will become law.
The Obama Insurance for National Coverage (OINC) reform plan focuses on late model vehicles. Clunkers, cars that have seen better days and usually require more repair at that stage of their life, will only qualify for reduced coverage and repairs because the cost of repairing the clunkers comprises the greatest amount of repair costs.
Auto insurance will be mandatory; everyone will be required to buy insurance. It has not yet been decided whether those not owning cars will also have to pay for national auto insurance under OINC. Anyone not buying auto insurance must pay an annual fine in an amount intended to encourage purchase of insurance. (Of course, fines for families will be greater than for individuals.)
So as to not be burdensome for those with low income, those with incomes under a maximum amount (to be determined) and members of ACORN will be reimbursed by the government for the cost of insurance. High income earners (earners who don’t qualify as low income earners) will pay an extra surcharge to assure OINC is made available to all and reduce the overall cost of OINC so the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) will be able to report a lower overall cost of OINC.
In order to insure fairness, and help pay for OINC, private insurers offering auto insurance with coverage which exceeds the federal standards and those buying such insurance will have to pay a tax to make up the difference.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will enforce OINC to make sure everyone pays their fair share.
OINC also includes a government, or public, option that offers auto insurance that will compete with private insurance for the purpose of offering competition to state-limited private insurance companies. The government insurance will compete against private companies that are unable to sell across state lines. Since government enterprises are not required to make a profit, it is anticipated that government auto insurance will cost less than private insurance so those seeking to reduce their auto insurance cost will likely switch their insurance to the OINC, thus assuring that in time only the government option will exist as private companies cease to sell auto insurance.
Americans have often complained that private insurance company employees are too often difficult to deal with. OINC will offer everyone an alternative by allowing people to deal with government employees (sometimes referred to as government bureaucrats). This arrangement has the added advantage of increasing employment (albeit government employment) since a very large bureaucracy will have to be created to service OINC.
Another public complaint has been that insurance companies do not cover preexisting conditions. When insurance coverage is really needed because of prior injury, insurance companies refuse to offer coverage; and this is simply unfair. Probably the greatest benefit of OINC is that it remedies this situation by requiring auto insurance to cover preexisting conditions.
Under OINC if you have a car that has been injured you will be able to get auto insurance to cover repairs of the injured vehicle. It does not matter whether or not you have had insurance at the time of the injury; you will get the needed coverage and reimbursement for repair after the injury. No longer will car owners fear that they will not be able to afford putting their vehicle in like-new condition because they are unfortunately unable to afford the cost.
Isn’t America under Obama great or what?
Under Obama’s plan a Federal Auto Reform Tribunal (FART) will be established that will determine federal standards for what vehicles may be covered (for example, it may be that only "green" cars can be insured), and rules for what auto insurance coverage may be available and to whom, e.g. what vehicles may be insured and what repairs may be included. FART will also determine whether private insurance policies meet federal standards; only policies that meet these standards can be sold. Though FART will only make recommendations, once approved by the Secretary of HEW the recommendations will become law.
The Obama Insurance for National Coverage (OINC) reform plan focuses on late model vehicles. Clunkers, cars that have seen better days and usually require more repair at that stage of their life, will only qualify for reduced coverage and repairs because the cost of repairing the clunkers comprises the greatest amount of repair costs.
Auto insurance will be mandatory; everyone will be required to buy insurance. It has not yet been decided whether those not owning cars will also have to pay for national auto insurance under OINC. Anyone not buying auto insurance must pay an annual fine in an amount intended to encourage purchase of insurance. (Of course, fines for families will be greater than for individuals.)
So as to not be burdensome for those with low income, those with incomes under a maximum amount (to be determined) and members of ACORN will be reimbursed by the government for the cost of insurance. High income earners (earners who don’t qualify as low income earners) will pay an extra surcharge to assure OINC is made available to all and reduce the overall cost of OINC so the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) will be able to report a lower overall cost of OINC.
In order to insure fairness, and help pay for OINC, private insurers offering auto insurance with coverage which exceeds the federal standards and those buying such insurance will have to pay a tax to make up the difference.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will enforce OINC to make sure everyone pays their fair share.
OINC also includes a government, or public, option that offers auto insurance that will compete with private insurance for the purpose of offering competition to state-limited private insurance companies. The government insurance will compete against private companies that are unable to sell across state lines. Since government enterprises are not required to make a profit, it is anticipated that government auto insurance will cost less than private insurance so those seeking to reduce their auto insurance cost will likely switch their insurance to the OINC, thus assuring that in time only the government option will exist as private companies cease to sell auto insurance.
Americans have often complained that private insurance company employees are too often difficult to deal with. OINC will offer everyone an alternative by allowing people to deal with government employees (sometimes referred to as government bureaucrats). This arrangement has the added advantage of increasing employment (albeit government employment) since a very large bureaucracy will have to be created to service OINC.
Another public complaint has been that insurance companies do not cover preexisting conditions. When insurance coverage is really needed because of prior injury, insurance companies refuse to offer coverage; and this is simply unfair. Probably the greatest benefit of OINC is that it remedies this situation by requiring auto insurance to cover preexisting conditions.
Under OINC if you have a car that has been injured you will be able to get auto insurance to cover repairs of the injured vehicle. It does not matter whether or not you have had insurance at the time of the injury; you will get the needed coverage and reimbursement for repair after the injury. No longer will car owners fear that they will not be able to afford putting their vehicle in like-new condition because they are unfortunately unable to afford the cost.
Isn’t America under Obama great or what?
Saturday, October 10, 2009
New federal law will make thought punishable
Passing a law that makes an act a crime does not stop such acts from occurring; it merely punishes a person who performs the act. There is nothing wrong with punishment for committing an act that society deems wrong but it should be recognized that punishment is a form of societal revenge and not a device to prevent offensive acts.
But there is a problem with what acts should be deemed punishable. Of course there will be general agreement about many acts which should be regarded as punishable acts, i.e. crimes, but there is a huge grey area where some acts may be regarded as worthy of societal retribution and others are simply an effort of behavioral modification, e.g. murder is wrong, punishment for not wearing a seat belt while driving is for behavioral modification, but society punishes both, albeit with different severity.
There are a great many arbitrary criminal laws that are in place in an ineffective way to dictate what a person should and should not do. The fact is that although some may be frightened for fear of punishment to conform to the societal dictate, not everyone will.
The theatre of the absurd is illuminated when society adds to the mix the concept of motivation to determine what is a crime or is not. Not only is it necessary to then “guess” at why a person does something but if the punishment for an act which has been previously deemed criminal is “enhanced,” then a situation is created where the untenable becomes the rule and anything becomes possible to criminalize and punish whether reasonable or not - which brings us to “hate crimes.”
What is a hate crime? The answer is whatever law makers say it is. And what do law makers say is a hate crime – whatever a sufficiently strong pressure group wants it to be. There need not be any logic to it.
Last July in another of the Democrat’s leader’s tricky moves, the senate voted to expand the 1969 federal hate crimes law to include people attacked because of gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability by attaching it to a “must pass” defense appropriation bill. Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid said: "This bill simply recognizes that there is a difference between assaulting someone to steal his money, or doing so because he is gay, or disabled, or Latino or Muslim."
The vote was 63-28 (nine senators did not vote). All 56 Democrats who were present and the 2 independents (Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernard Sanders of Vermont) voted "for" the legislation. The Republicans who crossed party lines to vote in favor of the amendment were Susan Collins of Maine, Richard Lugar of Indiana, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Olympia Snowe of Maine, and George Voinovich of Ohio.
Recently a similar bill passed by the House, (HR 2647) - the Defense Authorization bill, also to which hate crimes legislation was attached. The hate crimes amendment is attached to a $681-billion defense allocation that now heads to the Senate. After the bill passes the Senate and the president signs it, federal prosecutors will be able to intervene in cases of violence against people because of gender, sexual orientation, "gender identity," or disability.
Homosexual advocacy groups and their Democrat allies have been trying for decades to broaden the reach of hate crimes law. "It's a very exciting day for us here in the Capitol," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, saying hate crimes legislation was on her agenda when she first entered Congress 22 years ago.
It is noteworthy that the Senate and House leadership chose not to allow a separate vote for this but attached it to a totally unrelated, but necessary, bill to authorize critical defense spending; the reason is obvious, standing alone congress was unlikely to go along with this arbitrary absurdity.
"The very idea that we would erode the freedoms for which our soldiers wear the uniform in a bill that is designed to provide resources to those soldiers who need to get the job done and come home safe is unconscionable," said Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana who is a member of the Republican leadership.
This is the first time in American history that thought alone is being criminalized. Until now the government has adhered to the admonition by Thomas Jefferson who said the reach of legislation should extend only to actions and not to opinions but now the law will punish people not just for what they did but what they were thinking when they did it.
Consider the effect this will have on the practice of religion and freedom of speech. Anyone speaking from a pulpit who preaches the biblical view of homosexuality may be subject to criminal prosecution.
Not only does the new law make thought a factor in criminality, it also extends the power of the federal government over the states. Despite many states also having enacted hate crimes legislation, it would provide federal grants to help with the prosecuting of hate crimes and funds programs to combat hate crimes.
The federal government can step in after the Justice Department certifies that a state is unwilling or unable to follow through on a purported hate crime.
It in not likely that this law will be able to be repealed in the future so it will remain the law of the land and another triumph of a special interest group, in this case the homosexual community.
But there is a problem with what acts should be deemed punishable. Of course there will be general agreement about many acts which should be regarded as punishable acts, i.e. crimes, but there is a huge grey area where some acts may be regarded as worthy of societal retribution and others are simply an effort of behavioral modification, e.g. murder is wrong, punishment for not wearing a seat belt while driving is for behavioral modification, but society punishes both, albeit with different severity.
There are a great many arbitrary criminal laws that are in place in an ineffective way to dictate what a person should and should not do. The fact is that although some may be frightened for fear of punishment to conform to the societal dictate, not everyone will.
The theatre of the absurd is illuminated when society adds to the mix the concept of motivation to determine what is a crime or is not. Not only is it necessary to then “guess” at why a person does something but if the punishment for an act which has been previously deemed criminal is “enhanced,” then a situation is created where the untenable becomes the rule and anything becomes possible to criminalize and punish whether reasonable or not - which brings us to “hate crimes.”
What is a hate crime? The answer is whatever law makers say it is. And what do law makers say is a hate crime – whatever a sufficiently strong pressure group wants it to be. There need not be any logic to it.
Last July in another of the Democrat’s leader’s tricky moves, the senate voted to expand the 1969 federal hate crimes law to include people attacked because of gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability by attaching it to a “must pass” defense appropriation bill. Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid said: "This bill simply recognizes that there is a difference between assaulting someone to steal his money, or doing so because he is gay, or disabled, or Latino or Muslim."
The vote was 63-28 (nine senators did not vote). All 56 Democrats who were present and the 2 independents (Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernard Sanders of Vermont) voted "for" the legislation. The Republicans who crossed party lines to vote in favor of the amendment were Susan Collins of Maine, Richard Lugar of Indiana, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Olympia Snowe of Maine, and George Voinovich of Ohio.
Recently a similar bill passed by the House, (HR 2647) - the Defense Authorization bill, also to which hate crimes legislation was attached. The hate crimes amendment is attached to a $681-billion defense allocation that now heads to the Senate. After the bill passes the Senate and the president signs it, federal prosecutors will be able to intervene in cases of violence against people because of gender, sexual orientation, "gender identity," or disability.
Homosexual advocacy groups and their Democrat allies have been trying for decades to broaden the reach of hate crimes law. "It's a very exciting day for us here in the Capitol," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, saying hate crimes legislation was on her agenda when she first entered Congress 22 years ago.
It is noteworthy that the Senate and House leadership chose not to allow a separate vote for this but attached it to a totally unrelated, but necessary, bill to authorize critical defense spending; the reason is obvious, standing alone congress was unlikely to go along with this arbitrary absurdity.
"The very idea that we would erode the freedoms for which our soldiers wear the uniform in a bill that is designed to provide resources to those soldiers who need to get the job done and come home safe is unconscionable," said Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana who is a member of the Republican leadership.
This is the first time in American history that thought alone is being criminalized. Until now the government has adhered to the admonition by Thomas Jefferson who said the reach of legislation should extend only to actions and not to opinions but now the law will punish people not just for what they did but what they were thinking when they did it.
Consider the effect this will have on the practice of religion and freedom of speech. Anyone speaking from a pulpit who preaches the biblical view of homosexuality may be subject to criminal prosecution.
Not only does the new law make thought a factor in criminality, it also extends the power of the federal government over the states. Despite many states also having enacted hate crimes legislation, it would provide federal grants to help with the prosecuting of hate crimes and funds programs to combat hate crimes.
The federal government can step in after the Justice Department certifies that a state is unwilling or unable to follow through on a purported hate crime.
It in not likely that this law will be able to be repealed in the future so it will remain the law of the land and another triumph of a special interest group, in this case the homosexual community.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
The government does not create wealth; it merely redistributes tax money received
With all the government spending these days it’s easy to forget that the government does not create wealth; whatever the government gives to some it takes from others. The tax system is designed to be the vehicle for this transfer of wealth. Barack Obama said, famously, that he wants to spread the wealth but this was being done long before Obama had aspirations to become president. Once elected, Obama merely expedited the transfer of wealth and wants to bring it to new levels of “success.”
Today with as many people not paying taxes as do, it makes perfect political sense for a politician and a political party intending on remaining in power to practice what George Bernard Shaw observed: "The government who robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul."
John Stossel wrote an article recently in which he cited some profound statistics. I don’t know if these statistics are correct but I trust Stossel to not put anything in writing that is incorrect.
The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center recently reported that close to half of all households will pay no income tax this year and some will pay less than zero — meaning, they'll get money from those who do pay taxes.
The Tax Policy Center also reported that in 2009 the average income-tax rate for the bottom 40 percent of earners will be negative and that their cash subsidy under the euphemistically entitled “Earned Income Tax Credit” will equal 10 percent of the total amount the income tax paid to the government under both this tax program and President Obama's "Making Work Pay" program.
The system already in place before Obama is geared to make sure the “rich pay their fair share.” The top 20 percent of earners makes about 53 percent of the income in America but pays 91 percent of the income tax. The top 1 percent pays 36 percent. The IRS says the bottom half of earners pays less than 3 percent and don’t forget this does not include the many who don’t pay any taxes but receive a “tax credit,” that is, a welfare check paid out of money the 53 percent of us pays to the government.
According to Stossel, “Frederic Bastiat, the great 19th-century French economist, defined the state as ‘that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.’” Unfortunately one political party here has elevated this concept to a point likely not envisioned by Bastiat where one half of the population lives off the other half.
The founders who created this country wrote a constitution intending to limit the power of the federal government. The primary task they expected the government to fulfill was to provide security and protect the people and to do this properly people would support the government by paying taxes (but not income taxes, that was thought up much later by the same thinking that enlarged the role of the federal government). However today we live under a system where virtually nothing is beyond the reach of the national government so more and more of the income of working Americans and businesses must be confiscated to support the expanded range of government activities. There is no limit to what the federal government can do at our expense; if there is a limit, it’s only whatever the political mind can envision. The result is, as Stossel points out, a distribution “of special privileges, taking money from some and giving it to others. America is now about evenly split between those who pay income taxes and those who consume them.”
As I said, the government does not create wealth; it merely redistributes the earnings of those who pay taxes.
Today with as many people not paying taxes as do, it makes perfect political sense for a politician and a political party intending on remaining in power to practice what George Bernard Shaw observed: "The government who robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul."
John Stossel wrote an article recently in which he cited some profound statistics. I don’t know if these statistics are correct but I trust Stossel to not put anything in writing that is incorrect.
The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center recently reported that close to half of all households will pay no income tax this year and some will pay less than zero — meaning, they'll get money from those who do pay taxes.
The Tax Policy Center also reported that in 2009 the average income-tax rate for the bottom 40 percent of earners will be negative and that their cash subsidy under the euphemistically entitled “Earned Income Tax Credit” will equal 10 percent of the total amount the income tax paid to the government under both this tax program and President Obama's "Making Work Pay" program.
The system already in place before Obama is geared to make sure the “rich pay their fair share.” The top 20 percent of earners makes about 53 percent of the income in America but pays 91 percent of the income tax. The top 1 percent pays 36 percent. The IRS says the bottom half of earners pays less than 3 percent and don’t forget this does not include the many who don’t pay any taxes but receive a “tax credit,” that is, a welfare check paid out of money the 53 percent of us pays to the government.
According to Stossel, “Frederic Bastiat, the great 19th-century French economist, defined the state as ‘that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.’” Unfortunately one political party here has elevated this concept to a point likely not envisioned by Bastiat where one half of the population lives off the other half.
The founders who created this country wrote a constitution intending to limit the power of the federal government. The primary task they expected the government to fulfill was to provide security and protect the people and to do this properly people would support the government by paying taxes (but not income taxes, that was thought up much later by the same thinking that enlarged the role of the federal government). However today we live under a system where virtually nothing is beyond the reach of the national government so more and more of the income of working Americans and businesses must be confiscated to support the expanded range of government activities. There is no limit to what the federal government can do at our expense; if there is a limit, it’s only whatever the political mind can envision. The result is, as Stossel points out, a distribution “of special privileges, taking money from some and giving it to others. America is now about evenly split between those who pay income taxes and those who consume them.”
As I said, the government does not create wealth; it merely redistributes the earnings of those who pay taxes.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Legislating in secret - or - the end of the era of transparency before it began
When you don’t want people to know what you’re doing, what do you do – you don’t tell them. The robotic Obama Democrat congress is implementing the outrageous practice of shielding new legislation not only from the public but also from the legislators who vote on them. Thanks to Washington Examiner correspondent, Susan Ferrechio, we know that the Democrat leadership in congress is fighting against posting bills online - and winning.
Since President Obama took office, and even earlier during the last days of the Bush administration, laws have been passed that were deliberately made impossible for the public to read in advance and many in congress admit that they too have had no time to read and understand bills before voting – but they voted anyway – with the result that the Democrat congress succeeded in giving Obama whatever he wanted. Most often these bills had enormous price tags and the country’s debt mushroomed like an atomic cloud.
In the waning days of the Bush White House, first a "crisis" was declared in the financial industry and then a Democrat Congress passed a $700 billion financial sector rescue package on October 3, 2008. However, this 1,100 page costly bill was passed with only 29 hours prior notice to the public online before voting. Even those in the House and Senate were given only hours before the final vote.
Big numbers don’t scare Democrats but they might waken the public to what the Democrat congress under Obama is doing. So the non-stimulating 1,100 page, $790 billion Stimulus bill was passed February 14, 2009, after being available online only 13 hours before debate. Of course, there was another "crisis" that warranted immediate action, notwithstanding that almost all of this money was not to be spent for years while the economy continued to languish. Democratic leadership didn’t want the public to know where this money was going until after the law was passed; otherwise they might have learned about the "stimulation" of ACORN and like organizations with billions of dollars which is included in the law.
The Stimulus bill has been a resounding failure except to those sharing in the largesse, mostly supporters of Barack Obama’s election. Although the president promised that spending all this money would restrain unemployment to 8%, we have seen unemployment rising to nearly 10% with the true figure being closer to 17%.
The 1,168 page cap-and-tax law passed the House August 26, 2009, after being online only 15 hours before the vote. Many in congress, including the committee chair, Henry Waxman, admitted they did not know what was in the bill or had not read it before voting. Imagine, this so-called energy bill will affect the lives of all Americans in untold ways and increase costs to businesses and the public forever but the Democrat congress rushed the bill though in less time than most people could read over 1,100 pages of anything, let alone something as convoluted and far reaching as this bill.
The only good thing to come out of the Democrat spending spree is that it seems the people of America have finally been aroused to pay attention to what is happening around them. There were town hall meetings across the country this past summer that brought out formerly passive Americans who were angry about the way Congress rushed through passage of the stimulus, global warming and bank bailout bills. The stimulus bill has failed to provide help to the job market promised by Obama. Lisa Rosenberg, a lobbyist for the Sunlight Foundation that seeks to bring more transparency to government, pointed out "If someone had a chance to look at the bill, they would have found that out."
Now that health care "reform" proposals are being pushed by Obama and Democrats, voters are starting to pay attention. Polls show that large majorities are against the Democrat proposals but that hasn’t stopped the Democrat railroading. Democrat speaker Nancy Pelosi has dictated that a health care bill will be passed by the House with no input from Republicans and we can expect with little advance notice of its provisions to the public.
The Senate is expected to vote on a health bill very soon which also is written in hundreds of pages with no assurance that Senators and the public will be given the chance to read the legislation before a vote.
Democratic leadership is unwilling to cede control over when bills are brought to the floor for votes. One Democrat aide said "The leaders use it as a tool to get votes or to keep amendments off a bill."
It is obvious that the public has no faith that congress will be doing the right thing for the country. "The American people are now suspicious of not only the lawmakers, but the process they hide behind to do their work," said Michael Franc, president of government relations for the Heritage Foundation.
Heritage wants to have all bills posted online 72 hours before votes are taken but I believe even this does not provide sufficient time for analysis and publicizing the critical features of proposed laws. Furthermore, not only should there be adequate public notice and disclosure, it should be mandatory that every Senator and member of congress read or at least be intimately familiar with all provisions of bill they will vote upon before they become law.
Since President Obama took office, and even earlier during the last days of the Bush administration, laws have been passed that were deliberately made impossible for the public to read in advance and many in congress admit that they too have had no time to read and understand bills before voting – but they voted anyway – with the result that the Democrat congress succeeded in giving Obama whatever he wanted. Most often these bills had enormous price tags and the country’s debt mushroomed like an atomic cloud.
In the waning days of the Bush White House, first a "crisis" was declared in the financial industry and then a Democrat Congress passed a $700 billion financial sector rescue package on October 3, 2008. However, this 1,100 page costly bill was passed with only 29 hours prior notice to the public online before voting. Even those in the House and Senate were given only hours before the final vote.
Big numbers don’t scare Democrats but they might waken the public to what the Democrat congress under Obama is doing. So the non-stimulating 1,100 page, $790 billion Stimulus bill was passed February 14, 2009, after being available online only 13 hours before debate. Of course, there was another "crisis" that warranted immediate action, notwithstanding that almost all of this money was not to be spent for years while the economy continued to languish. Democratic leadership didn’t want the public to know where this money was going until after the law was passed; otherwise they might have learned about the "stimulation" of ACORN and like organizations with billions of dollars which is included in the law.
The Stimulus bill has been a resounding failure except to those sharing in the largesse, mostly supporters of Barack Obama’s election. Although the president promised that spending all this money would restrain unemployment to 8%, we have seen unemployment rising to nearly 10% with the true figure being closer to 17%.
The 1,168 page cap-and-tax law passed the House August 26, 2009, after being online only 15 hours before the vote. Many in congress, including the committee chair, Henry Waxman, admitted they did not know what was in the bill or had not read it before voting. Imagine, this so-called energy bill will affect the lives of all Americans in untold ways and increase costs to businesses and the public forever but the Democrat congress rushed the bill though in less time than most people could read over 1,100 pages of anything, let alone something as convoluted and far reaching as this bill.
The only good thing to come out of the Democrat spending spree is that it seems the people of America have finally been aroused to pay attention to what is happening around them. There were town hall meetings across the country this past summer that brought out formerly passive Americans who were angry about the way Congress rushed through passage of the stimulus, global warming and bank bailout bills. The stimulus bill has failed to provide help to the job market promised by Obama. Lisa Rosenberg, a lobbyist for the Sunlight Foundation that seeks to bring more transparency to government, pointed out "If someone had a chance to look at the bill, they would have found that out."
Now that health care "reform" proposals are being pushed by Obama and Democrats, voters are starting to pay attention. Polls show that large majorities are against the Democrat proposals but that hasn’t stopped the Democrat railroading. Democrat speaker Nancy Pelosi has dictated that a health care bill will be passed by the House with no input from Republicans and we can expect with little advance notice of its provisions to the public.
The Senate is expected to vote on a health bill very soon which also is written in hundreds of pages with no assurance that Senators and the public will be given the chance to read the legislation before a vote.
Democratic leadership is unwilling to cede control over when bills are brought to the floor for votes. One Democrat aide said "The leaders use it as a tool to get votes or to keep amendments off a bill."
It is obvious that the public has no faith that congress will be doing the right thing for the country. "The American people are now suspicious of not only the lawmakers, but the process they hide behind to do their work," said Michael Franc, president of government relations for the Heritage Foundation.
Heritage wants to have all bills posted online 72 hours before votes are taken but I believe even this does not provide sufficient time for analysis and publicizing the critical features of proposed laws. Furthermore, not only should there be adequate public notice and disclosure, it should be mandatory that every Senator and member of congress read or at least be intimately familiar with all provisions of bill they will vote upon before they become law.
Monday, October 5, 2009
What is a misdemeanor under the constitution and why it is important
Although I can be sympathetic to the effort to prove Barack Hussein Obama is ineligible to be president, the simple truth is nothing will come of it. The fact is while Obama is in the oval office (even only occasionally as he seems to be) the president can and (with a robotic Democrat congress), is doing great harm to the country and more destruction is on the way.
However this quixotic effort is not the only way Obama could potentially be removed from office, but (unfortunately) with the same result, i.e., nothing will come of it. Nonetheless, unlike the eligibility issue, this one is more provable.
Can we actually impeach Barack Hussein Obama? Should we impeach Barack Hussein Obama?
Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution reads: "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." (Emphasis added)
The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors," imports a concept in English Common Law that was well-known to our Founding Fathers but is greatly either misunderstood or totally ignored today. "High crimes and misdemeanors" essentially means bad behavior.
C-Span.org has succinctly and clearly summarized the historical significance of including the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the Constitution:
"’High crimes and misdemeanors’ entered the text of the Constitution due to George Mason and James Madison. Mason had argued that the reasons given for impeachment - treason and bribery - were not enough. He worried that other "great and dangerous offenses" might not be covered... so Mason then proposed ‘high crimes and misdemeanors,’ a phrase well-known in English common law. In 18th century language, a ‘misdemeanor’ meant ‘miss-demeanor,’ or bad behavior."
In other words, "high crimes and misdemeanors" does not refer to a criminal act as many believe because our founding fathers fully intended to allow for the removal of the President for actions which were... egregious... grossly incompetence... grossly negligence... outright distasteful... or, in the case of Barack Hussein Obama, actions which clearly show "malevolence toward this country and constitution, which is unabated."
The subject of impeachment was the subject of a great deal of discussion as the Constitution was debated as it was adopted from the English concept of this idea. In England impeachment was a device to remove from office someone who abused his office or misbehaved but who was protected by the Crown. (1) It was used in the early constitution proposals and the discussions concerned such questions as what body was to try impeachments and what grounds were to be stated as warranting impeachment. (2) The attention of the founders was for the most part fixed on the President and his removal, and the results of this narrow focus are reflected in some of the things left unresolved by the language of the Constitution.
During the debate in the First Congress on the ''removal'' controversy, some contended by that impeachment was the exclusive way to remove any officer of the Government from his post, (3). Madison said impeachment was to be used to reach a bad officer sheltered by the President and to remove him ''even against the will of the President; so that the declaration in the Constitution was intended as a supplementary security for the good behavior of the public officers'' (4). However the language of Sec. 4 does not leave any doubt that any officer in the executive branch is subject to the power.
Examining records of the discussion of what should qualify as grounds for removal of the president is very interesting. At first it was determined that the Executive should be removable by impeachment and conviction ''of mal-practice or neglect of duty'' and subsequently this was changed to ''Treason, or bribery'' (5). Mason objected to this limitation, saying that the term did not encompass all the conduct which should be grounds for removal; he therefore proposed to add ''or maladministration'' following ''bribery.'' Upon Madison's objection that ''[s]o vague a term will be equivalent to tenure during pleasure of the Senate,'' Mason suggested ''other high crimes and misdemeanors,'' which was adopted without further recorded debate. The phrase in the context of impeachments has an ancient English history, first turning up in the impeachment of the Earl of Suffolk in 1388 (6).
Treason is defined in the Constitution (7); however, "high crimes and misdemeanors, which, in England had comprehended conduct not constituting indictable offenses (8), is not. In debate prior to adoption of the phrase (9) and comments thereafter in the ratifying conventions (10) were to the effect that the [president] should be removable by impeachment for commissions or omissions in office which were not criminally cognizable. And in the First Congress' ''removal'' debate, Madison maintained that the wanton removal from office of meritorious officers would be an act of maladministration which would render the President subject to impeachment.
During the effort to impeach Justice Chase, the theory of extreme latitude was expressed by Senator Giles of Virginia during his impeachment trial... ''The power of impeachment was given without limitation to the House of Representatives; and the power of trying impeachments was given equally without limitation to the Senate. . . . A trial and removal of a judge upon impeachment need not imply any criminality or corruption in him . . . [but] nothing more than a declaration of Congress to this effect: You hold dangerous opinions, and if you are suffered to carry them into effect you will work the destruction of the nation. We want your offices, for the purpose of giving them to men who will fill them better.'' Though Chase was acquitted it had more to do with more to do with the political divisions in the Senate than to the merits of the arguments, it did establish that no indictable crime was necessary to impeach for "high crimes and misdemeanors."
This interpretation was used in the president Johnson impeachment.--President Johnson was impeached by the House on the ground that he had violated the ''Tenure of Office'' Act (11) by dismissing a Cabinet chief. The theory of the proponents of impeachment was succinctly put by Representative Butler, one of the managers of the impeachment in the Senate trial.
''An impeachable high crime or misdemeanor is one in its nature or consequences subversive of some fundamental or essential principle of government or highly prejudicial to the public interest, and this may consist of a violation of the Constitution, of law, of an official oath, or of duty, by an act committed or omitted, or, without violating a positive law, by the abuse of discretionary powers from improper motives or for an improper purpose.'' (12)
In conjunction with later impeachments of federal judges, several successful impeachments in this Century support the idea that the constitutional requirement of ''good behavior'' and ''high crimes and misdemeanors'' may conjoin to allow the removal of judges who have engaged in seriously questionable conduct, although no specific criminal statute may have been violated. For example, both Judge Archibald and Judge Ritter were convicted on articles of impeachment that charged questionable conduct that did not amount to indictable offenses (13).
It’s not difficult to find high crimes and misdemeanors justifying impeachment according to the definition of the phrase as used by the founders and as described subsequently.
Here are just a handful of the high crimes and misdemeanors committed by Barack Hussein Obama, our president:
- Obama has overseen the unconstitutional effective takeover by government of banks, the largest insurance company (AIG), and General Motors (GM) and Chrysler... the bulk of the U.S. auto industry, thus depriving bondholders, shareholders, and others of their property.
- Obama has overseen the effective takeover by government of banks, the largest insurance company (AIG), and General Motors (GM) and Chrysler... the bulk of the U.S. auto industry, thus depriving bondholders, shareholders, and others of their property
- Obama has appointed countless "Czars" to oversee everything from the closing of Guantanamo to the food we eat. These Czars don't have to be. Approved by the Senate. The Czars have unprecedented power and report only to Obama. Members of both parties are disturbed by these extra-Constitutional excrescences
- Obama lied to the American people when he said we could keep our private insurance, knowing full well that his legislation would inevitably drive private insurers out of business.
- Gerald Walpin, Inspector General of the Corporation for National and Community Service investigated Kevin Johnson, a big buddy of the president, for misuse of funds from an AmeriCorps grant. Whereupon Obama vindictively fired Walpin to cover for Johnson. A subsequent investigation vindicated Walpin’s judgment in the matter.
- Obama is actively pursuing cap-and-trade legislation. Instead of taxing the very air we breathe, it would instead, in a manner of speaking, tax the air we exhale and give the government unprecedented control over the economy and American businesses.
-Obama is running up our debt at an alarming rate. In just 9 months since Obama assumed office, our National Debt has gone up by over a trillion dollars. To put that figure in perspective, it took George W. Bush 8 years to add 4.8 trillion to the National Debt.
And these matters are only some of the misdemeanors (as defined by the Founders). Doesn’t it appear as if Obama is intentionally trying to destroy the country?
On numerous occasions in his world-wide apology tour Barack Hussein Obama said that America is not a Christian nation despite surveys that say the contrary. In his book, The Audacity of Hope, he wrote of Muslims and Arabic immigrants: "… I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." When he spoke at Georgetown University, a Catholic institution, the White House insisted that the name of Jesus, be covered. Georgetown complied. In 2006, he said; "Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation." He went to Egypt and said, "You might say that America is a Muslim nation."
Why go to such lengths to deny the Judeo Christian heritage of the United States? Surely Barack Hussein Obama knows that our personal liberties flow directly from our Judeo Christian heritage... that there is no surer way to destroy our republic than to deny that heritage.
There is no doubt that America was founded on Judeo Christian heritage.
President Thomas Jefferson: "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?"
President Andrew Jackson called the Bible; "the Rock upon which our republic rests."
President John Adams said; "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion."
Patrick Henry said, "It is when a people forget God, that tyrants forge their chains."
George Washington, in his Farewell Address said; "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports."
Alexis de Tocqueville, in Democracy in America, wrote extensively on the relationship between the Christian religion and liberty in American: "America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great."
It is clear to patriots that every jab at the Judeo Christian heritage of this great nation is a blow to the very foundation of our nation and strikes at our freedom and liberty. Barack Hussein Obama hasn't only denied this heritage of this nation; he has as president bad-mouthed America itself at every opportunity.
For example, Obama said, "America has been arrogant." thus giving our enemies and our allies every reason to believe that we are less resolved to defend ourselves and hence more vulnerable to attack.
Following his inauguration, Obama ordered Gitmo closed within a year without having any idea where to put the terrorists, despite the fact that it was (and is) the best possible facility for detaining terrorists.
His first presidential phone call was to Mahmoud Abbas, leader of the Fatah Party in the Palestine territory. According to press reports he told Abbas; "This is my first phone call to a foreign leader and I'm making it only hours after I took office."
His first one–on-one TV interview was not with NBC or ABC, but with Al Arabiya, where he said:
"My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect."
He immediately issued an Executive Order halting military commissions which resulted in charges being dropped against Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the vicious terrorist accused of planning numerous terrorist attacks against Americans, including the USS Cole bombing in which 17 U.S.
sailors died.
While treating the Queen of England with casual familiarity, he obsequiously bowed from the waist to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, leader of a Muslim nation that won’t permit Christian worship within its borders... under penalty of death.
I believe that Barack Hussein Obama is one of the most dangerous men in the world today and when it comes to his plans for transforming the United States into his idea of a socialist utopia Obama is not yet finished.
President Obama is going all the way back to Karl Marx; he believes it's his mission to promote "equality of outcome" over "equality of opportunity" even if Americans must suffer a lessening of our way of life. Barack Hussein Obama is a very dangerous man and one of the greatest threats to our personal liberty today.
To make sure Americans can do nothing to thwart his agenda, Obama appointed Attorney General, Eric Holder who despises the 2nd Amendment. If Holder had his way, he would take away our guns, leaving us defenseless not only against gangs and hoods, but also the encroaching federal government. It was the healthy and rational fear of government that led to the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution of the United States.
We can but unfortunately won’t do something to stop this maniacal narcissist. There’s only one answer.
Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution reads: "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
Barack Hussein Obama's words and actions clearly rise well beyond the level of "bad behavior" and our Founding Fathers left us a remedy for presidents guilty of bad behavior.
"The Obama presidency is the disease; Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution, is the cure."
Footnotes
(1) W. Holdsworth, History of English Law (London: 7th ed. 1956), 379-385; Clarke, The Origin of Impeachment, in Oxford Essays in Medieval History, Presented to Herbert Salter (Oxford: 1934), 164.
(2) Simpson, Federal Impeachments, 64 U. Pa. L. Rev. 651, 653-667 (1916).
(3)Annals of Cong. 457, 473, 536 (1789), Id. 375, 480, 496-497, 562, Id., 372.
(4) W. Willoughby, op. cit., n.294, 1448. [This point was established by a vote of the Senate holding a plea to this effect good in the impeachment trial of Senator William Blount in 1797. 3 A. Hinds' Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States (Washington: 1907), 2294-2318; F. Wharton, State Trials of the United States During the Administrations of Washington and Adams (Philadelphia: 1849), 200-321].
(5) M. Farrand, op. cit., n.4, 88, 90, 230, 172, 186, 499.550.
(6) T. Howell, State Trials and Proceedings for High Treason and Other Crimes and Misdemeanors from the Earliest Period to the Present Times (London: 1809), 90, 91; A. Simpson, Treatise on Federal Impeachments (Philadelphia: 1916), 86.
(7) Article III, 3. [The use of a technical term known in the common law would require resort to the common law for its meaning, United States v. Palmer, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 610, 630 (1818) (per Chief Justice Marshall); United States v. Jones, 26 Fed. CAS. 653, 655 (No. 15,494) (C.C.Pa. 1813) (per Justice Washington), leaving aside the issue of the cognoscibility of common law crimes in federal courts. See Act of April 30, 1790, Sec. 21, 1 Stat. 117.]
(8) Berger, Impeachment for ''High Crimes and Misdemeanors,'' 44 S. Calif. L. Rev. 395, 400-415 (1971).
(9) See id., 64-69, and 550-551.
(10) E.g., 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions on Adoption of the Constitution (Philadelphia: 1836), 341, 498, 500, 528 (Madison); 4 id., 276, 281 (C. C. Pinckney: Rutledge): 3 id., 516 (Corbin): 4 id., 263 (Pendleton). Cf. The Federalist, No. 65 (J. Cooke ed., 1961), 439-445 (Hamilton).
(11) Trial of Andrew Johnson, President of the United States on Impeachment (Washington: 1868), 88, 147.
(12) Id., 409.
(12) Act of March 2, 1867, 14 Stat. 430.
(13) Broek, Partisan Politics and Federal Judgeship Impeachments since 1903, 23 Minn. L. Rev. 185 (1939). [Grimes, Hundred-Ton-Gun Control: Preserving Impeachment as the Exclusive Removal Mechanism for Federal Judges, 38 UCLA L. Rev. 1209, and 1229-1233 (1991).]
However this quixotic effort is not the only way Obama could potentially be removed from office, but (unfortunately) with the same result, i.e., nothing will come of it. Nonetheless, unlike the eligibility issue, this one is more provable.
Can we actually impeach Barack Hussein Obama? Should we impeach Barack Hussein Obama?
Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution reads: "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." (Emphasis added)
The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors," imports a concept in English Common Law that was well-known to our Founding Fathers but is greatly either misunderstood or totally ignored today. "High crimes and misdemeanors" essentially means bad behavior.
C-Span.org has succinctly and clearly summarized the historical significance of including the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the Constitution:
"’High crimes and misdemeanors’ entered the text of the Constitution due to George Mason and James Madison. Mason had argued that the reasons given for impeachment - treason and bribery - were not enough. He worried that other "great and dangerous offenses" might not be covered... so Mason then proposed ‘high crimes and misdemeanors,’ a phrase well-known in English common law. In 18th century language, a ‘misdemeanor’ meant ‘miss-demeanor,’ or bad behavior."
In other words, "high crimes and misdemeanors" does not refer to a criminal act as many believe because our founding fathers fully intended to allow for the removal of the President for actions which were... egregious... grossly incompetence... grossly negligence... outright distasteful... or, in the case of Barack Hussein Obama, actions which clearly show "malevolence toward this country and constitution, which is unabated."
The subject of impeachment was the subject of a great deal of discussion as the Constitution was debated as it was adopted from the English concept of this idea. In England impeachment was a device to remove from office someone who abused his office or misbehaved but who was protected by the Crown. (1) It was used in the early constitution proposals and the discussions concerned such questions as what body was to try impeachments and what grounds were to be stated as warranting impeachment. (2) The attention of the founders was for the most part fixed on the President and his removal, and the results of this narrow focus are reflected in some of the things left unresolved by the language of the Constitution.
During the debate in the First Congress on the ''removal'' controversy, some contended by that impeachment was the exclusive way to remove any officer of the Government from his post, (3). Madison said impeachment was to be used to reach a bad officer sheltered by the President and to remove him ''even against the will of the President; so that the declaration in the Constitution was intended as a supplementary security for the good behavior of the public officers'' (4). However the language of Sec. 4 does not leave any doubt that any officer in the executive branch is subject to the power.
Examining records of the discussion of what should qualify as grounds for removal of the president is very interesting. At first it was determined that the Executive should be removable by impeachment and conviction ''of mal-practice or neglect of duty'' and subsequently this was changed to ''Treason, or bribery'' (5). Mason objected to this limitation, saying that the term did not encompass all the conduct which should be grounds for removal; he therefore proposed to add ''or maladministration'' following ''bribery.'' Upon Madison's objection that ''[s]o vague a term will be equivalent to tenure during pleasure of the Senate,'' Mason suggested ''other high crimes and misdemeanors,'' which was adopted without further recorded debate. The phrase in the context of impeachments has an ancient English history, first turning up in the impeachment of the Earl of Suffolk in 1388 (6).
Treason is defined in the Constitution (7); however, "high crimes and misdemeanors, which, in England had comprehended conduct not constituting indictable offenses (8), is not. In debate prior to adoption of the phrase (9) and comments thereafter in the ratifying conventions (10) were to the effect that the [president] should be removable by impeachment for commissions or omissions in office which were not criminally cognizable. And in the First Congress' ''removal'' debate, Madison maintained that the wanton removal from office of meritorious officers would be an act of maladministration which would render the President subject to impeachment.
During the effort to impeach Justice Chase, the theory of extreme latitude was expressed by Senator Giles of Virginia during his impeachment trial... ''The power of impeachment was given without limitation to the House of Representatives; and the power of trying impeachments was given equally without limitation to the Senate. . . . A trial and removal of a judge upon impeachment need not imply any criminality or corruption in him . . . [but] nothing more than a declaration of Congress to this effect: You hold dangerous opinions, and if you are suffered to carry them into effect you will work the destruction of the nation. We want your offices, for the purpose of giving them to men who will fill them better.'' Though Chase was acquitted it had more to do with more to do with the political divisions in the Senate than to the merits of the arguments, it did establish that no indictable crime was necessary to impeach for "high crimes and misdemeanors."
This interpretation was used in the president Johnson impeachment.--President Johnson was impeached by the House on the ground that he had violated the ''Tenure of Office'' Act (11) by dismissing a Cabinet chief. The theory of the proponents of impeachment was succinctly put by Representative Butler, one of the managers of the impeachment in the Senate trial.
''An impeachable high crime or misdemeanor is one in its nature or consequences subversive of some fundamental or essential principle of government or highly prejudicial to the public interest, and this may consist of a violation of the Constitution, of law, of an official oath, or of duty, by an act committed or omitted, or, without violating a positive law, by the abuse of discretionary powers from improper motives or for an improper purpose.'' (12)
In conjunction with later impeachments of federal judges, several successful impeachments in this Century support the idea that the constitutional requirement of ''good behavior'' and ''high crimes and misdemeanors'' may conjoin to allow the removal of judges who have engaged in seriously questionable conduct, although no specific criminal statute may have been violated. For example, both Judge Archibald and Judge Ritter were convicted on articles of impeachment that charged questionable conduct that did not amount to indictable offenses (13).
It’s not difficult to find high crimes and misdemeanors justifying impeachment according to the definition of the phrase as used by the founders and as described subsequently.
Here are just a handful of the high crimes and misdemeanors committed by Barack Hussein Obama, our president:
- Obama has overseen the unconstitutional effective takeover by government of banks, the largest insurance company (AIG), and General Motors (GM) and Chrysler... the bulk of the U.S. auto industry, thus depriving bondholders, shareholders, and others of their property.
- Obama has overseen the effective takeover by government of banks, the largest insurance company (AIG), and General Motors (GM) and Chrysler... the bulk of the U.S. auto industry, thus depriving bondholders, shareholders, and others of their property
- Obama has appointed countless "Czars" to oversee everything from the closing of Guantanamo to the food we eat. These Czars don't have to be. Approved by the Senate. The Czars have unprecedented power and report only to Obama. Members of both parties are disturbed by these extra-Constitutional excrescences
- Obama lied to the American people when he said we could keep our private insurance, knowing full well that his legislation would inevitably drive private insurers out of business.
- Gerald Walpin, Inspector General of the Corporation for National and Community Service investigated Kevin Johnson, a big buddy of the president, for misuse of funds from an AmeriCorps grant. Whereupon Obama vindictively fired Walpin to cover for Johnson. A subsequent investigation vindicated Walpin’s judgment in the matter.
- Obama is actively pursuing cap-and-trade legislation. Instead of taxing the very air we breathe, it would instead, in a manner of speaking, tax the air we exhale and give the government unprecedented control over the economy and American businesses.
-Obama is running up our debt at an alarming rate. In just 9 months since Obama assumed office, our National Debt has gone up by over a trillion dollars. To put that figure in perspective, it took George W. Bush 8 years to add 4.8 trillion to the National Debt.
And these matters are only some of the misdemeanors (as defined by the Founders). Doesn’t it appear as if Obama is intentionally trying to destroy the country?
On numerous occasions in his world-wide apology tour Barack Hussein Obama said that America is not a Christian nation despite surveys that say the contrary. In his book, The Audacity of Hope, he wrote of Muslims and Arabic immigrants: "… I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." When he spoke at Georgetown University, a Catholic institution, the White House insisted that the name of Jesus, be covered. Georgetown complied. In 2006, he said; "Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation." He went to Egypt and said, "You might say that America is a Muslim nation."
Why go to such lengths to deny the Judeo Christian heritage of the United States? Surely Barack Hussein Obama knows that our personal liberties flow directly from our Judeo Christian heritage... that there is no surer way to destroy our republic than to deny that heritage.
There is no doubt that America was founded on Judeo Christian heritage.
President Thomas Jefferson: "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?"
President Andrew Jackson called the Bible; "the Rock upon which our republic rests."
President John Adams said; "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion."
Patrick Henry said, "It is when a people forget God, that tyrants forge their chains."
George Washington, in his Farewell Address said; "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports."
Alexis de Tocqueville, in Democracy in America, wrote extensively on the relationship between the Christian religion and liberty in American: "America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great."
It is clear to patriots that every jab at the Judeo Christian heritage of this great nation is a blow to the very foundation of our nation and strikes at our freedom and liberty. Barack Hussein Obama hasn't only denied this heritage of this nation; he has as president bad-mouthed America itself at every opportunity.
For example, Obama said, "America has been arrogant." thus giving our enemies and our allies every reason to believe that we are less resolved to defend ourselves and hence more vulnerable to attack.
Following his inauguration, Obama ordered Gitmo closed within a year without having any idea where to put the terrorists, despite the fact that it was (and is) the best possible facility for detaining terrorists.
His first presidential phone call was to Mahmoud Abbas, leader of the Fatah Party in the Palestine territory. According to press reports he told Abbas; "This is my first phone call to a foreign leader and I'm making it only hours after I took office."
His first one–on-one TV interview was not with NBC or ABC, but with Al Arabiya, where he said:
"My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect."
He immediately issued an Executive Order halting military commissions which resulted in charges being dropped against Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the vicious terrorist accused of planning numerous terrorist attacks against Americans, including the USS Cole bombing in which 17 U.S.
sailors died.
While treating the Queen of England with casual familiarity, he obsequiously bowed from the waist to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, leader of a Muslim nation that won’t permit Christian worship within its borders... under penalty of death.
I believe that Barack Hussein Obama is one of the most dangerous men in the world today and when it comes to his plans for transforming the United States into his idea of a socialist utopia Obama is not yet finished.
President Obama is going all the way back to Karl Marx; he believes it's his mission to promote "equality of outcome" over "equality of opportunity" even if Americans must suffer a lessening of our way of life. Barack Hussein Obama is a very dangerous man and one of the greatest threats to our personal liberty today.
To make sure Americans can do nothing to thwart his agenda, Obama appointed Attorney General, Eric Holder who despises the 2nd Amendment. If Holder had his way, he would take away our guns, leaving us defenseless not only against gangs and hoods, but also the encroaching federal government. It was the healthy and rational fear of government that led to the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution of the United States.
We can but unfortunately won’t do something to stop this maniacal narcissist. There’s only one answer.
Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution reads: "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
Barack Hussein Obama's words and actions clearly rise well beyond the level of "bad behavior" and our Founding Fathers left us a remedy for presidents guilty of bad behavior.
"The Obama presidency is the disease; Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution, is the cure."
Footnotes
(1) W. Holdsworth, History of English Law (London: 7th ed. 1956), 379-385; Clarke, The Origin of Impeachment, in Oxford Essays in Medieval History, Presented to Herbert Salter (Oxford: 1934), 164.
(2) Simpson, Federal Impeachments, 64 U. Pa. L. Rev. 651, 653-667 (1916).
(3)Annals of Cong. 457, 473, 536 (1789), Id. 375, 480, 496-497, 562, Id., 372.
(4) W. Willoughby, op. cit., n.294, 1448. [This point was established by a vote of the Senate holding a plea to this effect good in the impeachment trial of Senator William Blount in 1797. 3 A. Hinds' Precedents of the House of Representatives of the United States (Washington: 1907), 2294-2318; F. Wharton, State Trials of the United States During the Administrations of Washington and Adams (Philadelphia: 1849), 200-321].
(5) M. Farrand, op. cit., n.4, 88, 90, 230, 172, 186, 499.550.
(6) T. Howell, State Trials and Proceedings for High Treason and Other Crimes and Misdemeanors from the Earliest Period to the Present Times (London: 1809), 90, 91; A. Simpson, Treatise on Federal Impeachments (Philadelphia: 1916), 86.
(7) Article III, 3. [The use of a technical term known in the common law would require resort to the common law for its meaning, United States v. Palmer, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 610, 630 (1818) (per Chief Justice Marshall); United States v. Jones, 26 Fed. CAS. 653, 655 (No. 15,494) (C.C.Pa. 1813) (per Justice Washington), leaving aside the issue of the cognoscibility of common law crimes in federal courts. See Act of April 30, 1790, Sec. 21, 1 Stat. 117.]
(8) Berger, Impeachment for ''High Crimes and Misdemeanors,'' 44 S. Calif. L. Rev. 395, 400-415 (1971).
(9) See id., 64-69, and 550-551.
(10) E.g., 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions on Adoption of the Constitution (Philadelphia: 1836), 341, 498, 500, 528 (Madison); 4 id., 276, 281 (C. C. Pinckney: Rutledge): 3 id., 516 (Corbin): 4 id., 263 (Pendleton). Cf. The Federalist, No. 65 (J. Cooke ed., 1961), 439-445 (Hamilton).
(11) Trial of Andrew Johnson, President of the United States on Impeachment (Washington: 1868), 88, 147.
(12) Id., 409.
(12) Act of March 2, 1867, 14 Stat. 430.
(13) Broek, Partisan Politics and Federal Judgeship Impeachments since 1903, 23 Minn. L. Rev. 185 (1939). [Grimes, Hundred-Ton-Gun Control: Preserving Impeachment as the Exclusive Removal Mechanism for Federal Judges, 38 UCLA L. Rev. 1209, and 1229-1233 (1991).]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
