In a developing story, the Federal Reserve called the heads of New York’s largest banks to its lower Manhattan office earlier this week. According to some one speaking from the banks, the feds told the bankers to lower CEO compensation or….

The “precise” “or,” is not known, but Judge Andrew Napolitano, sitting in for ailing Glenn Beck believe the banks have been told you WILL lower CEO compensation or the FDIC will begin an audit.

Following are quotes from Judge Napolitano (there may be an occasional word that is not exact, but it is very close). See the video below.

The CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York called the heads of New York’s largest banks into the offices of his lower Manhattan offices.

We don’t know precisely what was said but we do know that the head of the Fed told the assembled bankers that they must start cutting executive compensation, or the government will do it for them.

The government admits that it has no lawful authority to regulate compensation at banks that never received TARP funds or paid the funds back already.

So what was the extortion? Undoubtedly, it was a threat to have the FDIC audit the banks if they fail to tow the pay Czar’s line. An FDIC audit will cost the banks tens of millions in employee loss of time and shareholder loss of value.

What is extortion? Extortion is a threat to perform a lawful act to influence the free will of someone else. Well, can the FDIC audit these banks? Yes. But may it do so to force executives to do what they have a lawful authority not to do? No.

Napolitano has a great panel that now discusses what has happened. Napolitano asks? Can the federal government, constitutionally interfere with use of private funds and private freely negotiated contracts? Listen to this conversation about extortion and demonization.

Remember that Obama’s Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, was the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York when Obama tapped the tax-cheater to tend to our money.

Thanks much to David Lemon the master sculptor at Clay to Bronze.

Judge Napolitano – Government Extorts Banks? (video)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

When Obama said that his stimulation package has created 1 million jobs, did he include Chinese jobs in the calculation?

China’s manufacturing sector expanded at its fastest rate in 18 months in October, the eighth straight month of expansion, and Obama just happens to have gotten back to trying to push cap-and-trade last week.

The actual amount of new jobs stimulation has created is… Well, 2.7 million have been lost.

We should remember that Obama thought the unemployment rate would only reach 9 percent if the stimulation package didn’t pass.

Again, it’s just a question of who is going to be stimulated.

With our two trillion deficit, other nations’ currencies are being stimulated, the Euro having hit $1.50 on the dollar last month.

If we ever want to buy energy in the future–not that we will if cap-and-trade passes–we will have to convert our worthless dollar now that it’s not being used for oil trading.

All the new energy jobs that cap-and-trade is going to create? Well, China is building one clean coal plant a month.

We could probably profit off clean energy, too, having 27% of the world’s coal reserves, but Obama would rather kill jobs and bankrupt the industry (his own words) than support the clean coal alternatives he lied about supporting during the campaign.

It strikes some as odd that even in a time of great job loss, when he’s bragging about how many jobs his accountants created, that Obama would knowingly push forward with this plan to raise energy rates instead of creating jobs. He’s been reaching out to the communists in Cuba, Venezuela, and Honduras, so maybe this is his latest diplomatic efforts to a communist nation, along with refusing to meet the Dalai Lama, or maybe it’s just his concessions to China in return for them holding up our increasing debt.

Or maybe it’s part of his reward to China for winning Al Gore’s support with their CO2 reduction programs.

Gore has said, “Chinese leaders are mobilizing a national effort to introduce CO2 reduction initiatives, and have already begun the largest tree-planting program the world has ever seen.”

As has been noted, their CO2 reduction efforts involve building one coal plant a month.

As for their tree-planting efforts, only 15% have survived, and they have been counting shrubs as trees.

Counting trees like Democrats count stimulus jobs.

China’s “Great Green Wall” stimulus plan has been ongoing since 1978 and has 42 years left to go. That must be what Paul Krugman is talking about when he says the stimulus hasn’t been big enough.

All this talk about stimulus is on top of the healthcare bill the Democrats still haven’t passed. Maybe if they do it right, they can stimulate the Canadian healthcare industry, which has been losing jobs for some time to people seeking healthcare in America.

Everyone around the world loves Obama. I can see why.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

An editorial in the July 25th Tulsa World is wrong again, not to mention biased again, not to mention muddying the facts again. As the Tulsa World rolls off the presses every night, the assumption on the editorial page is that America Whites are racists, and racist Whites are Republicans.

Today’s unattributed editorial headline is “Who Goes There?” Harvard prof’s arrest sparks debate. The problem is, this editorial doesn’t debate.

This journalistic endeavor begins with a question: “If the Harvard professor who was arrested while trying to break into his own home were white, would he have been arrested at all?” “You can’t say for sure” this piece says “because the circumstances are still unclear and you don’t know the arresting officer or the professor.”

Really? We have police reports by the arresting officer, a White man and an attending officer, a Hispanic officer, as well as at least one Black officer on the scene who has given his support to Sgt. James Crowley publicly.

The Tulsa World calls the details “cloudy,” but at no time has Professor Henry Louis Gates charged that the police report was not factual. Maybe that’s because there were plenty of witnesses, including neighbors that were not city officials.

It’s important to note, that the Tulsa World thinks it important to note, that two Black Massachusetts officials have apologized to Professor Gates. That would be Governor Deval Patrick, a close friend of Barack Obama and Cambridge mayor, Denise Simmons. Maybe we should also point out that these two Black people didn’t bother to apologize to Sgt. James Crowley.

I don’t know about you, but as a White person, I take offense to it, just as Harry Alford, president of the National Black Chamber of Commerce was offended when Senator Barbara Boxer lost her way in a Senate hearing this week. Boxer countered some claims Alford was making about global warming job losses by quoting only Liberal dissenting Blacks. Alford asked her why she didn’t quote Asians or ….” That’s racial,” he said and he was right. See the video below – it gets good at about 1:30 in.

This unnamed Tulsa editorialist opines on the bad behavior of the Cambridge police:

Black students and professors have complained for years that Cambridge and campus police are guilty of racial profiling. and it is a fact that blacks and Latinos are stopped by police more than other ethnic groups.

Really? If you are stating a fact then back it up. How can we believe your assertion that the Cambridge police are racist? And call it what it is. This was not racial profiling. A neighbor called the police to the scene.

Speaking of that racist, profiling Cambridge police department, cut them some slack. After all, Barack Obama was issued 17 parking violations during his time as a student at Harvard and only paid two of them until he began his presidential campaign. Quite generous treatment from the Cambridge police actually. Had that been me, a White woman parking in a bus stop, my car would have been towed.

And speaking of Barack Obama, it is ironic that you choose not to mention Obama in this tale of the professor and the cop, because after all, he is the story.

This sorry excuse for an editorial is what Tulsans are treated to for their money, everyday, and that’s a fact that I’ll back up with any single issue of the Tulsa World that you can find.

The article ends with those so familiar words intended to show that perhaps you are just a little less racist than everyone else:

There is no doubt that racism is alive and well in the United States….If nothing else, the Gates episode gives us a reason to talk about our problems and the opportunity to move forward.

Sadly, racism will always be with us. And that should only make our resolve stronger.

What is sad is that no matter what American’s of any color do, institutions like the Tulsa World can’t stand to see things getting better. How long have we heard that Whites would never help elect a Black for president, and yet that is exactly what we did. If you want to criticize, at least do it honestly. Point out the fact that a conservative Black has a triple mountain to climb to get to a national political office or high-up in Ivy League academia, for that matter. About the only time that happens is when a conservative of any color can appoint a Black to the major leagues, because Liberal Whites and Blacks disdain conservative Blacks. If you are conservative and you are Black in America, you are nothing more than a bigoted White.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Obama’s Surgeon General Pick…Finally No Controversy! Wait…Better Think Again

by Holger Awakens

Michelle Malkin has a bit on this pick too.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Former Vice-President Al Gore is touting the United Nation’s (U.N.) plan to administer global warming and climate change through “global governance.” Make no doubt about it, it will be the U.N. and a few power-mongers who will administer that governance, as well as global social justice on you and me.

Al Gore

Speaking at the Oxford School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment on July 7th, Gore said the Waxman-Markey climate bill, recently passed in the U.S. House of Representatives, is a “step in the right direction,” toward that governance.

But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.

Recent U.N. global warming conferences have also called for a global carbon tax.

…the UN climate conference in Bali, urged the adoption of a global carbon tax that would represent “a global burden sharing system, fair, with solidarity, and legally binding to all nations.

Schwank noted that wealthy nations like the U.S. would bear the biggest burden based on the “polluters pay principle.” The U.S. and other wealthy nations need to “contribute significantly more to this global fund,” Schwank explained. He also added, “It is very essential to tax coal.

Hitting on my last nerve in this article is the “redistribution of wealth,” which is just what global governance is all about. Did you know that a species called the a Climate Justice Campaigner actually exists?

A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.

The quotes above from ClimateDepot.com. They end with this Editor’s Note:

[Editor's Note: Many critics have often charged that proposed climate tax and regulatory “solutions” were more important to the promoters of man-made climate fears than the accuracy of their science. Former Colorado Senator Tim Wirth reportedly said, "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy."]

I urge you to go to get acquainted with then-Senator Obama’s Senate Bill 2433, which is festering on hold, and the U.N. Millinium Development Goal (MDG). The U.N. has very dangerous plans for America’s future and Obama has tied his Global Poverty Bill, Senate Bill 2433 to the MDG. You can find links to the MDG in these articles:

Will Obama’s Global Poverty Act Tax Fossil Fuels, Currency, Land and Freeze Militaries?

Transnationalism: What it Means for America

Obama’s Global Poverty Act – Here’s the Evil in S.2433

Obama’s Senate Bill S.2433 – A UN Global Tax on the U.S.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

While ousted Honduras president, Manuel Zelaya cools his heels somewhere in Nicaragua and newly installed Honduras president, Roberto Micheletti, tries to keep Zelaya from re-entering the country, while also running the business of government, the conversation continues around the world: Does the Honduras constitution support Zelaya’s removal; was the Zelaya removal constitutional? And if Zelaya remained in office, or if the government is handed back to him, what is the fear? See an excellent video below.

Honduras Capital City, Tegucigalpa

Let’s take the “fear factor” first. Mr. Zelaya was ousted for trying to rewrite the presidential term limits clause, and you’ll see below that even considering that option can be considered treasonous in Honduras. Zelaya has a lot in common with Chavez and his buddies:  Bolivia’s Evo Morales won a referendum allowing him to overturn a ban on re-election; Ecuador’s Rafael Correa unconstitutionally changed the constitution and overrode the term limit stipulations; and Chavez, under tremendous protests from the people of Venezuela changed the country’s constitution and says he will stay in office until “2019, 2021 or 2030.” We know the story in Cuba. And in Nicaragua, the American-hating Sandinista Marxist thug Daniel Ortega told Sir David Frost in a March 2009 interview that he would like to change the constitution to allow him to run again for president.

Central and South American dictators have a long history, and since the people of any country do not want to be “ruled,” rather than governed, “dictators” are not popular. You can’t run for office as a dictator and get elected. So it’s all about deceiving the people. In the case of Manuel Zelaya, he was elected as a “centrist” four years ago, and has moved rapidly to the Left. Zelaya took an out-sized stetson hat and cowboy boots as his signature apparel, and grinned and waved his way to the Left and a fast friendship with Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez. In an attempt to appease the poor, of which Honduras has plenty, Zelaya cut a deal with Chavez for cheap oil. Unless oil is cheap around the world, oil is not cheap, and of course there had to be a pay-back to Chavez for his generosity. Zelaya joined-in with Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador and Nicaragua to participate in Chavez’ “regional trade and political pact.”

Outside of the Chavez pact members:

San Salvador just elected Maurico Funes of the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front (FMLN)- named for Farabundo Marti, the Communist leader and social activist. His election ended nearly 50-years of conservative control that fought against the FMLN movement seeking a Communist revolution. Funes wants good relations with the U.S., he vowed to restore relations with Cuba and is opening an embassy there. Standby to see how far Left San Salvador leans.

Uruguay’s ruling coalition party proposed reforming the Uruguayan constitution to allow an immediate reelection of the president, Tabare Vazquez. It didn’t happen and sources say it is not likely to happen as the constitution forbids it. Vazquez is considered a conservative.

South of the equator, history demonstrates that it hard to hold on to the very constitutional ideals designed to keep executive branches from becoming absolutists.

So back to Honduras, while I have maintained that from my research, the Honduran Supreme Court and the Congress had the authority to remove Zelaya from office, I found an “opinion” from someone said to be “a well noted Honduran Attorney.” I cannot vouch for this information but it is interesting, and it uses Honduran constitutional articles to make the point:

On January 11th of the year 1982, a constituent assembly gave birth to a beautiful Constitution that was vaccinated against the diseases that historically have affected the region. The Honduran Constitution does not allow the reform of articles related to the form of government, the territory, the presidential term, the prohibition on presidential reelection and who can’t become President in the subsequent term. It goes further and states that the alternation of the Presidency is mandatory and its violators incur in high treason.

Our constitution clearly lays out an impeachment process that must be followed to trial and convict a President that has violated the Law. But our Constitution also includes a single exception to this rule in article 239, which states that the President that violates the principle of alternation of the Presidency or simply proposes its reform, will immediately cease in the exercise of office. In other words, the simple act of proposing the reform removes ispo jure (by operation of law) a President from office. This may sound radical to many, but the truth is it’s coherent with the geopolitical reality of Honduras; and on June 28 of 2009 it proved why.

Read the entire article here.

Zerosheep.com offers the translated Honduran constitution and specifically Article 239 mentioned above, along with excellent and extended commentary:

Article 239 The citizen that has been the head of the Execut[ive] Branch cannot be President or Vice-President (again).
Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.

You can read the constitution in the original Spanish here, or a full translation of it here. Article 239 clearly makes it illegal for a public official– such as Zelaya here — to even attempt to amend the constitution to allow multiple terms. And it is not just illegal:

ARTICLE 4 .- The form of government is republican, democratic and representative. Is exercised by three branches: legislative, executive and judicial, and independent and complementary relationship of subordination.

Alternation in the presidency of the Republic is required.

Violation of this rule constitutes the crime of treason.

So was the Supreme Court correct that Zelaya ran afoul of the Honduran constitution? Seems so. Still yet, the Obama administration refuses to address the facts – one being that Micheletti’s government could have charged Zelaya with treason on the spot. The fact that the U.S. suspended military aid to Honduras on July 8th demonstrates a high level of support for the power-grabbing Zelaya. What is going on in Washington, D.C. which boasts the “healthiest brains” in the U.S. The photo above is of Tegucigalpa, the capital of Honduras.

Zelaya Removal Constitutional (video)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

How unconstitutional is Barack Obama? I’ve begun to count ways.

1) Bailouts
The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to spend the taxpayer’s money. Without the consent of Congress, the President cannot legally spend taxpayer money.

No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.

Two Presidents had a hand in the auto industry bailout: 1) President G. W. Bush by using TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) money authorized by Congress and 2) President Barack Obama, not using TARP funds, but declaring that he would use monies from somewhere, and do so with the authority and power of the Executive Branch. At the time, CNSNews.com correspondent Fred Lucas asked Press Secretary Robert Gibbs where President Obama derived his authority to use taxpayer funds to bail out GM and Chrysler.

I think the determination has been made both by the previous administration and the current administration that this assistance is legal, and our goal is to ensure that the taxpayers in any instance when this is used feel confident that it’s being done in a transparent and accountable way,” Gibbs said.

President Bush’s use of congressionally approved TARP funds is suspect also, although the money was “legislated” by Congress. The bug in the ointment is that the TARP funds were authorized only for use by the Treasury to purchase “troubled assets” from “financial institutions.” The auto industry does not qualify as a “financial institution.”

CNSNews.com once again seeks an answer, this time from House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer:

The administration clearly believes it does have the authority to use some of the remaining TARP funds for the automobile industry,” Hoyer told Fred Lucas of CNSNews.com.

I don’t know, technically. I would be kidding you to mouth some words on that, because I don’t know technically where that authority would be,” said Hoyer. “But my own view is that if it is perceived they don’t have that authority and it is perceived by the Congress they need to have that authority, the Congress would probably be willing to give that authority. But I don’t know technically the answer to that question.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass) introduced a Bill in the House to give the President Constitutional authority for the bailouts. Sixty Senators were required to vote for the legislation to overcome a Senate filibuster. Those votes were not there and the legislation was dead.

Then comes the Time of Obama. There was no attempt to get the Senate Banking Committee to introduce the needed legislation.

Rep. Barney Frank washed his hands of all responsibility of the administration’s trampling the Constitution. Again, when CNSNews.com asked Frank about Obama’s intentions to do the bailout without Congressional approval, Frank allegedly said:

It’s an administration situation so I’m not very well informed on it,” Frank told Fred Lucas of CNSNews.com

Then the correspondent asked Frank if Obama’s promised guarantee of the auto warranties for GM and Chrysler needed “legislative authority,” Frank was even clearer in his answer:

Do the words ‘I’m not very well informed on it’ have any meaning to you? Am I speaking a language you don’t understand?”

It’s not something I’m focused on,” said Frank. “The committee, which I chair, keeps me busy. I have not had a chance to look at that. I do not have an informed opinion on it. It’s not my understanding that Congress is going to get to vote on it. So I tend to focus on things that are under the jurisdiction of the committee and that we’ll have to vote on. When things are neither, I don’t have a very well-informed opinion.

So much for constitutionally-mandated Congressional oversight.

Back in October 2008, the CATO Institute looks at the constitutionality of the auto bailouts. After exploring the fact that the government “created this crisis with everything from artificially low interest rates to political pressures for affordable housing, quick loans for bad credit risks, and the subsidization of agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Nevertheless, CATO Institute’s chairman, Robert A. Levy, says, no, the bailout is not constitutional.

The federal government has no constitutional authority to spend taxpayers’ money to buy distressed assets, much less to take an ownership position in private financial institutions. And Con­gress has no constitutional authority to delegate nearly plenary legislative power to the Treasury secretary, an executive branch official.Congress can proceed only from legitimate authority, not from good intentions alone. That means we must find a constitutional pedigree for each proposed law.

Levy then discusses the rationale of using the commerce clause to legitimize the spending, but he clearly decides that any reasoning for this position is a misinterpretation.

Moreover, it is not a commerce clause argument to say that Congress created the mess and, therefore, Congress can do whatever it wants to fix the mess. Legislators’ misdeeds do not ipso facto justify the socialization of private banks, brokers, mortgage companies, and insurance companies-and who knows where it stops.

Even if Congress could defend the bailout as a means of preventing interstate impediments to commerce, that would not legitimize any and all means.

Under the sub-heading No Intelligible Principle, Levy says (snippets):

Indeed, the bailout quite clearly violates the Constitution’s separation-of-powers principle-in particular, what has become known as the nondelegation doctrine, which states that Congress may not delegate its legislative power to any other entity, including the Cabinet departments of the executive branch….A plain reading of that text shows that lawmaking is for the legislative branch, which does not include the Treasury Department. Yet when Congress authorized the bailout package, it gave Secretary Henry Paulson Jr. unprecedented power to act as a super-legislature.

But Congress itself, not an executive official, must be accountable for the consequences of laws that Congress puts in place. That tenet has been a cornerstone of our Constitution for more than two centuries. John Locke got it right in his Second Treatise of Civil Government (1690): The separation-of-powers principle means that “the legislative [branch] cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands.” The legislative power, wrote Locke, is “to make laws, and not to make legislators.”

Despite that sound advice, the Treasury secretary is now the one calling the shots as he partially nationalizes a significant sector of our economy.

Here’s the link again to Mr. Levy’s article.

2) Supreme Court

President Obama has expressed his desire to see his Supreme Court nominees embrace “empathy” in their decisions and opinions. Nevermind the the oath that a Justice swears to:

I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

There is no room for empathy when justice is blind and the poor and the rich have equal rights in the sight of the law of the land. While the U.S. Constitution does not provide the oath for a Supreme Court Justice, it does state that others “shall be bound by an oath or affirmation to support this constitution.”

Additionally, if the President keeps his oath of office, he will not require a Justice who uses “empathy” to decide a case, because empathy is unconstitutional and unfit for the U.S. Supreme Court:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Appointing activist Judges to the Supreme Court is an avenue to interpreting the Constitution as a “living, breathing” document…an avenue for a Judge to insert personal opinion, maybe “empathy,” which is unlawful. The only way for the Constitution to take a breath is through an amendment. There is no other way. Outside of amendments, the Constitution is ageless, and it awaits it’s use as a service to all Americans, but not at the whim of an activist Judge.

Interpreting the Constitution as a “living, breathing document without amendments, renders it practically impotent, because it no longer has the power to protect our rights. Eminent domain is an excellent example.

3) The Czars

The appointment of the many “czars” by the Obama administration are unconstitutional. There’s the Car Czar, The Pay Czar, The Great Lakes Czar, a Cyber Czar, a Drug Czar, an Energy Czar, a Health Reform Czar, an Intelligence Czar, and a Tech Czar. The Czar Czar, of course, is Barack Obama. What is Obama’s Cabinet members doing these days? They’ve all been demoted and they know it and there’s not a thing they can do about it.

Here’s the problem with Czars. They report to no one but Barack Obama. They have far reaching powers and Congress cannot stop a single decision they make. What has happened to our egotistic Congress who has been so willingly hypnotised into giving up their grasp on EVERYTHING? Maybe it’s something in the water. So much for checks and balances. Barack Obama reigns.

Even Senator Robert Byrd, the longest-serving senator in history, hates the idea of Czar appointments. It’s dangerous he says. It gives the president too much power.

In a letter to Obama on Wednesday, Byrd, a Democrat, said that the czar system “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances,” Politico reported. Byrd added that oversight of federal agencies is the responsibility of officials approved by the Senate.

As presidential assistants and advisers, these White House staffers are not accountable for their actions to the Congress, to cabinet officials, or to virtually anyone but the president,” Byrd wrote. “They rarely testify before congressional committees, and often shield the information and decision-making process behind the assertion of executive privilege. In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability.

The wildly liberal CBS News, at the end of the article on Byrd, says:

These days, however, Byrd’s comments have less force as he is no longer the chairman of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee.

What does Byrd’s chairmanship or the lack of it have to do with the fact that it is unconstitutional to have presidential appointees making decisions about taxpayer monies without congressional oversight?

4) Government ownership in private business

The seizure of ownership of private business is unconstitutional. The government ownership of GM is unconstitutional. We’ve beat this horse to the ground. No need to say more.

5) Redistribution of Wealth

Engineering the redistribution of wealth in the GM stock debacle is unconstitutional. I’m not sure I have the latest figures, but nevertheless, it’s not good for shareholders who I believe end up with 10 percent of their investment or five cents on the dollar. The government gets 50 percent of the stock, about 87 cents on the dollar. The Unions get 40 percent ownership, plus $10 billion in cash – about 76 cents on the dollar. Doesn’t this make you want to throw-up and then find a quiet spot and grieve for our country?

6) Health Care

Obama’s health care plan is unconstitutional. The first thing that comes to mind is his plan to pay for his health care plan by taxing the wealthy to pay for it. Redistribution of wealth is unconstitutional in America. Then there’s the fact that he plans to put private business out of business to achieve his goal, which is simply power over all of us.

In the fall of 2008, Obama told Tom Brokaw that health care “should be a right for every American.” The Constitution says nothing about guaranteeing health care. BUT, Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. has introduced H.J. Res. 30 which calls for a Constitutional Amendment to establish “the right of citizens of the U.S. to health care of equal high quality.”

7) Interpreting the Constitution as a “living, breathing” document

The only way to make the Constitution take a breath occasionally is to amend it. The Constitution limits government, and to expand government, that expansion must be appropriate under the document,

That’s my six obviously unconstitutional steps taken by President Obama.

We live among idiots, and I guess, we are idiots because if we had the proper sense of outrage, we would sit on the steps of Congress until all of the above are overturned, or Barack Obama is impeached, whichever comes first.

Where are our Defending Fathers in Congress? They should be on the floor railing about these issues every single day, over and over. Are we…are they, really so willing to devalue our prized Constitution.

From Thomas Paine:
A constitution is not the act of a government, but of a people constituting a government, and a government without a constitution is power without right.’ ‘A constitution is a thing antecedent to a government; and a government is only the creature of a constitution.’

Think about that:

“…operating the government without the Constitution “is a power without right.”

I as a “people” didn’t grant that power, neither did you, neither did Congress.

I ask this question: Who will limit the expansion of government? President Obama and the Executive Branch? Speaker Pelosi or Senate Majority Leader Reid? The Supreme Court? For the moment, The Supreme Court is the only chance we have. Once Sonia Sotomayor, an activist judge is confirmed, Ruth Bader Ginsberg will resign and then we have not one branch of government to stop the wild ride to Socialism. By the way, Socialism whether Americans want it or not, and I believe a huge majority do not want it, is unconstitutional. The preamble to the Constitution makes it clear:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

(guarantees a republican form of governance)
I know there are other unconstitutional acts to add to this list, including: the budget an earmarks, the stimulus expenditures that do not create jobs, eminent domain, snatching rights designated only to states, and other unlawful federal rights granted that are clearly unconstitutional – such as “special interest” legislation. If you have thoughts about this or other additions, please leave them in comments. I’ll continue updating this list and give you credit, unless you prefer that I not. Help me compile a complete list. While the U.S. Constitution is not a living, breathing document, this post will be.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

I don’t tear-up often but Mitt Romney’s speech at the Heritage Foundation had me reaching for a tissue.

Mitt Romney

Patriotic speeches went the way of G.W. but we have Mitt Romney reminding us of what America and Americans have meant to so many around the world. We have former Vice President Dick Cheney standing so courageously in front of the myriad of maniacal appeasers and defending the steps it has taken to keep us free of further terrorist attacks. We have had some good days in this country recently.

The following is taken from the Mitt Romney speech:

Because of what America did in the 20th century, there are hundreds of millions of people around the world who now live in freedom – who, but for the price paid by the United States, would have lived in despair. I know of no other such example of national selflessness in the history of mankind. That is why America is the hope of the earth. – Mitt Romney

Here are some snippets from Romney about Obama’s criticisms of the U.S.:

That is also why, with all due respect, I take issue with President Obama’s recent tour of apology. It’s not because America hasn’t made mistakes—we have—but because America’s mistakes are overwhelmed by what America has meant to the hopes and aspirations of people throughout the world.

The President also claimed on Arabic TV that America has dictated to other nations. No, America has sacrificed to free other nations from dictators. Britain’s Guardian newspaper noted that Mr. Obama has been more critical of his own country, while on foreign soil, than any other president in American history. That would be a most unfortunate distinction at any time. But it is particularly so today: with all that is transpiring in the world, in Iran, North Korea, Georgia, Somalia, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan, this is the time for strength and confidence, not for apologizing to America’s critics.

Read the entire speech, which includes the “four competing nations or groups of nations, representing four different ways of life, that are vying to lead the world before the end of this century.” Thank you to Lonely Conservative who has up the excellent video, as well as a conservative rap video by Young Con. I had not heard of Young Con before this video. Stop by and see what you think.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

How many times have you commented that Barack Obama voters knew nothing about him when they cast their vote at the polls? I’ve said it often. How well do you verbally size him up? Who is he? What is he up to? Can you put it into words, or explain it to your nephew or your daughter? See photos and a video below.

Barack Obama

Remember when Tom Brokaw and Charlie Rose sat down just three days before the November 2008 election and admitted they hadn’t a clue who Barack Obama really is. Rose asks about Obama’s “world view,” and his views on China – both say they know nothing about either. They know nothing about Obama’s “universe of thinking.” It doesn’t get more pathetic than these two S.O.B.’s admitting how they robbed the American people of vital information about Barack Obama. Brokaw says the media must be “vigilant,” but they weren’t. He said a reporter needed to bring “intellectual vigor” to this election, but they didn’t – they didn’t dare. You can see the video of that conversation below.

When I’m trying to explain what makes Obama tick, I know plenty.

I can talk about his father, his father’s philosophy, his father’s connections, his father’s communism, his father’s writings, and the Muslim influence in both of their lives. I can talk about Obama’s own admission in his book Dreams From My Father, when he said he tried to take his father’s “high blown ideals” as his own. He said he sought his father’s attributes in himself. He needed to “prove” himself through political organizing, as did his father.

President Obama’s Father, Barak Hussein Obama, Sr.

To discount his distant father’s influence, and his ardor for communism is foolish, but that’s just what America did. A quote from Obama Sr.:

…there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed.

I do not see why the government cannot tax those who have more and syphon some of these revenues into savings which can be utilized in investment for future development.

Obama Sr. believed in the communal ownership of land, and the forced confiscation of privately controlled land. He wanted the nationalization of European and Asian owned enterprises, including hotels…and writing from Kenya for the East Africa Journal, Problems Facing our Socialism, published in July 1965, he wanted these operations handed over to the indigenous black population.” He attacked the economic proposals of pro-Western ideals proposed by African leader Tom Mboya. Obama sided with communist-allied leader Oginga Odinga. You can view a pdf of the original document by following the links from Sweetness and Light.

Then there’s the mother who loved Muslim men, who painted with broad, vibrant strokes, the son’s father…and seeded those stories in the mind of the boy. There’s the mother who left her son behind in Hawaii at a certain age to pursue her own self-interests.

I know about Barack Obama’s years with with the Gamaliel Foundation and his gloried community organizing in Chicago. This article sums it up succinctly and offers credible links.

So knowing all this and more, I admit that I still find it difficult to put into words who I think Barack Obama is, or what I believe his motives to be, but another blogger has found those words and put them together ingeniously. The entire article wastes not a word. Here are some snippets from The Return of Scipio.

His life has been fully marinated in the world view of those who hate capitalism, call the US the source of much of the world’s evil, believe the Jews to be the main problem of the Middle East, see themselves as most qualified to govern “the people”, equate opposition with heresy and despise traditional religions and values. They are absolute and total creatures of government and could not survive outside of it. Indeed, this is the reason why all of their proposals involve government. The greater the size of government, the more power they have. The fact that liberty is reduced for the citizenry is irrelevant, since the ruling classes will always have the freedom to do what they wish.

Obama and his sorts exist in some bounteous ether where taxes, small cars, high gas prices, reduced incomes and the toil of daily life affect only those who do the actual work of the nation. They award themselves beautiful homes, large and fancy automobiles, excellent food and citizen subsidized foreign travel. Indeed, their entire lives are subsidized by the taxes they impose upon the masses. And with the increase of government—which really is an increase of job prospects of the ruling classes and their families—the numbers of these types will increase, as will the taxes imposed to maintain such sumptuous lifestyles of these rich, famous and powerful.

[omissions....]

The grand design of all these teeming intellectuals all over the globe is to create a world system where they and their type sit at all the tables of governance, control all the levers of power and distribute all the world’s wealth. Obama sees himself at the head of this motley throng. It is obvious that these types have no particular loyalty to any particular geographic area. Obama himself has nothing particularly American about him. Search all you like but in him you will find no Jefferson or Madison. He is really a citizen of that transnational body of intellectuals that imagines the entire world as its proper stage and the rest of us as mere bit players in its grandiose drama. The members of this elite regard the entire earth as part of their rightful inheritance and desire a world government composed of themselves.

Read every word at The Return of Scipio and thanks to Jim Simpson at Truth and Consequences.

Sizing Up Barack Obama: Who is He, What is He Up To? (Video)

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Victor Davis Hanson is taking a look at inflation, and it is good for us to realize that unavoidable inflation can be the thing that undoes America for years into the future. He also takes a look at who Barack Obama is and what makes his policies tick – in other words, what is Barack Obama’s “method of operation.”

Victor Davis Hanson (Photo)

After the inflation-dialog, Hanson offers the possibilities of Barack Obama’s “method of operation.”

(a) Clueless. Obama, the community organizer from Chicago with a mere two years plus in the Senate, is clueless. He has never run a business, never served as an executive, never done anything in matters of commerce other than speak and write and authorize spending bills as part of his government job. The result is that he listens to the last person he speaks with — and with dozens of advisors with dozens more agendas, we are seeing a herky-jerky, now this, now that, everything but the kitchen sink, sort of governance. This version of the President is a nice guy who wants to please everyone and will please no one.

(b) Not so clueless. Or Obama has a pretty certain, calculated European objective of high taxes, big-spending programs, utopian foreign policy initiatives, and a therapeutic sense of ensuring we are all going to be equal by result. In that sense, the recession was a godsend, since he has a brief window of about six months of fright and uncertainty to ram through programs that will last a lifetime, and whose expense will ensure a vast redistribution of income. His closest advisors are life-long government technocrats who are inured to spending others’ money and can use tax-free public appurtenances (salaries, perks, benefits, travel, etc.) to emulate the grand lifestyles of those they detest in corporations and on Wall Street. So we will get a new technocrati overseer class to replace the now disgraced masters of the universe on Wall Street. This manifestation of Obama is a hustler of the first order, and almost everything he says from FISA and earmarks to raising the ethical bar on appointments and limits on spending is, well, made up as he goes along, with the assurance that the media is still ga-ga.(c) A Mean streak. Or there is not so much chaos or European utopianism at work as a sort of primeval dislike of capitalists and those who have access to money — an angry President Obama whose furor now and again peeks through (remember the clingers’ speech, the accidental middle finger scratches, and the Robespierre rhetoric). Never mind the hypocrisy involved, or the mega-fortunes at play in the rise of Obama’s candidacy. Instead concentrate on the effects, both direct and insidious, of his initiatives on capital of the near-do-well. This is a quadruple whammy:

1) Aggregate tax rates are going to approach 70% in some states, effectively destroying the idea that anyone from the lower classes can ever achieve wealth in a single lifetime, and pass some of it on to his children (increases in estate taxes will be next).

2) The pulverizing of the Dow (cf. Obama’s flippant talk of gyrations and advice to invest now at rock bottom prices, as if those who were wiped out have disposable cash to buy more stocks) means that the aggregate wealth in 401(k)s and stocks for millions — along with equity in homes — of the upper middle classes has effectively vanished. In some cases, the lawyer or contractor who a year ago had $400K put away in retirement funds and $300K in home equity has effectively lost half, if not more, of his hard-won wealth. And when one computes the additional taxes on future income he will pay, it will be almost impossible in his remaining lifetime to make it back.

3) The promises of free health and free education for everyone most surely will come with salary considerations and mean-testing (we are seeing that already with ideas floating about charitable contributions). In other words, the more you of the upper middle class will pay for new expansive entitlements, the more likely you will not be eligible to use the full extent of them.

4) The power of anti-“rich” rhetoric is already beginning to demonize the wealthy as those who have somehow done something wrong in paying the full ticket for their children’s education, or their own health care, or their full mortgage payments. Of all the things that worry me about Obama, the most troublesome is his conflation of the super wealthy — who are so rich that even Obama cannot touch them and who often are his most fervent supporters — with the entrepreneurs, the scramblers of the small business class who make between, say, $250,000 and $600,000.

These already pay over 50% in various taxes, are eligible for almost no government support, do not have access to insider government breaks and special legislation, pay their own way — and create both jobs and new innovations critical to the performance of the U.S. economy. Yet between Wall Street and DC they have been targeted for extinction.

Read his entire essay at Victor Davis Hanson Private Papers.

The first Victor Davis Hanson video below is a snippet taken from the second video. The title is Victor Davis Hanson Questions Obama’s Political Past. Filmed in October 2008, it is as pertinent today as it was six months ago, and it is a good reminder of who Barack Obama is and what is behind his “method of operation.” The second is the full, 39 minute video titled: Victor Davis Hanson: Obama, Palin and the Culture Wars.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post