American Principles Inc.

Obamacare was mainly aimed at redistributing wealth

Richard — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 08:06:13 +0000


Obamacare was mainly aimed at redistributing wealth “It hasn’t attracted much notice, but recently some prominent advocates of Obamacare have spoken more frankly than ever before about why they supported a national health care makeover. It wasn’t just about making insurance more affordable. It wasn’t just about bending the cost curve. It wasn’t just about cutting the federal deficit. It was about redistributing wealth. Health reform is “an income shift,” Democratic Sen. Max Baucus said on March 25. “It is a shift, a leveling, to help lower income, middle income Americans.”" Independent voters turn from hopeful to angry “President Obama and congressional Democrats face an uphill climb to reclaim the support of independent voters who vaulted them to the White House and huge majorities in Congress in 2008. At the end of the bitter, intensely partisan battle to pass Mr. Obama’s health care overhaul plan, independent voters, once captivated by hopeful campaign promises, are feeling burned and appear eager to oust Democrats in November’s midterm elections. ”

A toothless tiger: Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

Richard — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 07:52:34 +0000

Obama Limits When U.S. Would Use Nuclear Arms

By DAVID E. SANGER and PETER BAKER

Published: April 5, 2010

- WASHINGTON — President Obama said Monday that he was revamping American nuclear strategy to substantially narrow the conditions under which the United States would use nuclear weapons.

Enlarge This Image

Stephen Crowley/The New York Times

President Obama on Monday discussing his new nuclear strategy, which would limit the conditions for using such weapons.

But the president said in an interview that he was carving out an exception for “outliers like Iran and North Korea” that have violated or renounced the main treaty to halt nuclear proliferation.

Discussing his approach to nuclear security the day before formally releasing his new strategy, Mr. Obama described his policy as part of a broader effort to edge the world toward making nuclear weapons obsolete, and to create incentives for countries to give up any nuclear ambitions. To set an example, the new strategy renounces the development of any new nuclear weapons, overruling the initial position of his own defense secretary.

Mr. Obama’s strategy is a sharp shift from those of his predecessors and seeks to revamp the nation’s nuclear posture for a new age in which rogue states and terrorist organizations are greater threats than traditional powers like Russia and China.

It eliminates much of the ambiguity that has deliberately existed in American nuclear policy since the opening days of the cold war. For the first time, the United States is explicitly committing not to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear states that are in compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, even if they attacked the United States with biological or chemical weapons or launched a crippling cyberattack.

Those threats, Mr. Obama argued, could be deterred with “a series of graded options,” a combination of old and new conventional weapons. “I’m going to preserve all the tools that are necessary in order to make sure that the American people are safe and secure,” he said in the interview in the Oval Office.

White House officials said the new strategy would include the option of reconsidering the use of nuclear retaliation against a biological attack, if the development of such weapons reached a level that made the United States vulnerable to a devastating strike.

Mr. Obama’s new strategy is bound to be controversial, both among conservatives who have warned against diluting the United States’ most potent deterrent and among liberals who were hoping for a blanket statement that the country would never be the first to use nuclear weapons.

Mr. Obama argued for a slower course, saying, “We are going to want to make sure that we can continue to move towards less emphasis on nuclear weapons,” and, he added, to “make sure that our conventional weapons capability is an effective deterrent in all but the most extreme circumstances.”

The release of the new strategy, known as the Nuclear Posture Review, opens an intensive nine days of nuclear diplomacy geared toward reducing weapons. Mr. Obama plans to fly to Prague to sign a new arms-control agreement with Russia on Thursday and then next week will host 47 world leaders in Washington for a summit meeting on nuclear security.

The most immediate test of the new strategy is likely to be in dealing with Iran, which has defied the international community by developing a nuclear program that it insists is peaceful but that the United States and its allies say is a precursor to weapons. Asked about the escalating confrontation with Iran, Mr. Obama said he was now convinced that “the current course they’re on would provide them with nuclear weapons capabilities,” though he gave no timeline.

He dodged when asked whether he shared Israel’s view that a “nuclear capable” Iran was as dangerous as one that actually possessed weapons.

“I’m not going to parse that right now,” he said, sitting in his office as children played on the South Lawn of the White House at a daylong Easter egg roll. But he cited the example of North Korea, whose nuclear capabilities were unclear until it conducted a test in 2006, which it followed with a second shortly after Mr. Obama took office.

“I think it’s safe to say that there was a time when North Korea was said to be simply a nuclear-capable state until it kicked out the I.A.E.A. and become a self-professed nuclear state,” he said, referring to the International Atomic Energy Agency. “And so rather than splitting hairs on this, I think that the international community has a strong sense of what it means to pursue civilian nuclear energy for peaceful purposes versus a weaponizing capability.”

Mr. Obama said he wanted a new United Nations sanctions resolution against Iran “that has bite,” but he would not embrace the phrase “crippling sanctions” once used by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. And he acknowledged the limitations of United Nations action. “We’re not naïve that any single set of sanctions automatically is going to change Iranian behavior,” he said, adding “there’s no light switch in this process.”

In the year since Mr. Obama gave a speech in Prague declaring that he would shift the policy of the United States toward the elimination of nuclear weapons, his staff has been meeting — and arguing — over how to turn that commitment into a workable policy, without undermining the credibility of the country’s nuclear deterrent.

The strategy to be released on Tuesday is months late, partly because Mr. Obama had to adjudicate among advisers who feared he was not changing American policy significantly enough, and those who feared that anything too precipitous could embolden potential adversaries. One senior official said that the new strategy was the product of 150 meetings, including 30 convened by the White House National Security Council, and that even then Mr. Obama had to step in to order rewrites.

He ended up with a document that differed considerably from the one President George W. Bush published in early 2002, just three months after the Sept. 11 attacks. Mr. Bush, too, argued for a post-cold-war rethinking of nuclear deterrence, reducing American reliance on those weapons.

But Mr. Bush’s document also reserved the right to use nuclear weapons “to deter a wide range of threats,” including banned chemical and biological weapons and large-scale conventional attacks. Mr. Obama’s strategy abandons that option — except if the attack is by a nuclear state, or a nonsignatory or violator of the nonproliferation treaty.

The document to be released Tuesday after months of study led by the Defense Department will declare that “the fundamental role” of nuclear weapons is to deter nuclear attacks on the United States, allies or partners, a narrower presumption than the past. But Mr. Obama rejected the formulation sought by arms control advocates to declare that the “sole role” of nuclear weapons is to deter a nuclear attack.

There are five declared nuclear states — the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China. Three states with nuclear weapons have refused to sign — India, Pakistan and Israel — and North Korea renounced the treaty in 2003. Iran remains a signatory, but the United Nations Security Council has repeatedly found it in violation of its obligations, because it has hidden nuclear plants and refused to answer questions about evidence it was working on a warhead.

In shifting the nuclear deterrent toward combating proliferation and the sale or transfer of nuclear material to terrorists or nonnuclear states, Mr. Obama seized on language developed in the last years of the Bush administration. It had warned North Korea that it would be held “fully accountable” for any transfer of weapons or technology. But the next year, North Korea was caught aiding Syria in building a nuclear reactor but suffered no specific consequence.

Mr. Obama was asked whether the American failure to make North Korea pay a heavy price for the aid to Syria undercut Washington’s credibility.

“I don’t think countries around the world are interested in testing our credibility when it comes to these issues,” he said. He said such activity would leave a country vulnerable to a nuclear strike, and added, “We take that very seriously because we think that set of threats present the most serious security challenge to the United States.”

He indicated that he hoped to use this week’s treaty signing with Russia as a stepping stone toward more ambitious reductions in nuclear arsenals down the road, but suggested that would have to extend beyond the old paradigm of Russian-American relations.

“We are going to pursue opportunities for further reductions in our nuclear posture, working in tandem with Russia but also working in tandem with NATO as a whole,” he said.

An obvious such issue would be the estimated 200 tactical nuclear weapons the United States still has stationed in Western Europe. Russia has called for their removal, and there is growing interest among European nations in such a move as well. But Mr. Obama said he wanted to consult with NATO allies before making such a commitment.

The summit meeting that opens next week in Washington will bring together nearly four dozen world leaders, the largest such gathering by an American president since the founding of the United Nations 65 years ago. Mr. Obama said he hoped to use the session to lay down tangible commitments by individual countries toward his goal of securing the world’s nuclear material so it does not fall into the hands of terrorists or dangerous states.

“Our expectation is not that there’s just some vague, gauzy statement about us not wanting to see loose nuclear materials,” he said. “We anticipate a communiqué that spells out very clearly, here’s how we’re going to achieve locking down all the nuclear materials over the next four years.”

A version of this article appeared in print on April 6, 2010, on page A1 of the New York edition.

Does Obama actually want America to get back to work?

Richard — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:52:24 +0000

By Bill Wilson

Does Barack Obama actually want America to get back to work? That is the question that I asked myself as I read about his latest brainstorm: forcing mortgage lenders to not collect payments from those who are unemployed.

As reported by the Washington Post, “Banks and other lenders would have to reduce the payments to no more than 31 percent of a borrower’s income, which would typically be their unemployment insurance, for up to six months. In some cases, administration officials said, a lender could allow a borrower to make no payments at all.”

While a typical Obama sound bite idea, in principle this is just another in a long series of economic disasters that has flowed daily from this Administration. It seems intent on plummeting the nation into Third World status.

Ronald Reagan’s old adage applies: “If you want more of something, subsidize it; if you want less of something, tax it.” In this case, Obama’s basic plan is to use what remains of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program to subsidize unemployment and sloth.

As a result, that is what they are going to get — a lot more of it. While everyone is sympathetic to the hardship faced in this tough economy, every American who pays their bills and plays by the rules is being screwed to the wall by Obama’s new mortgage bailout.

But, it’s even worse than that. The irony of Obama and his cohorts attempting to force the ever-shaky mortgage banking industry to cover the loans of the unemployed is that it creates the very real possibility of a double dip financial crisis. What bank is going to lend money in an environment where the government essentially demands that they not collect the debt? Of course, in the end, someone pays, and as usual it is the poor slob who pays his mortgage every month, or wants to buy a new house.

Harry and Mary Wannahome will now likely have to pay an interest premium to cover the possibility that he/she may become unemployed and not make payments for months/years at a time, further increasing the cost of purchasing a home and making even the most modest home even less affordable.

Banks are likely to require significantly higher interest rates on homes that are purchased with lower down payments denying young, prospective homeowners the opportunity to buy a home until much later in life, if at all.

Naturally with demand for homes spiraling downward, construction jobs will continue to be scarce, but that isn’t the most egregious impact on employment.

Through this subsidy initiative Obama is actually incentivizing people to become unemployed. If one is behind on his or her mortgage, it may make more sense to quit your job rather than get a second one to pay his or her bills.

If an employer offers you a job at $20 an hour, can you really afford to take that job when it will kick your mortgage payment back into gear? Wouldn’t you be better off working for $10 an hour under the table, rather than double that with your mortgage payment due?

Effectively, the Obama free mortgage giveaway coupled with the seemingly infinite numbers of extensions of unemployment insurance benefits are nothing more than an incentive for people to choose to continue to be unemployed and dependent on the benefits provided by the government.

I always used to assume that Obama and his ilk just didn’t understand basic pocketbook economics, but the more I think about it, maybe Obama really doesn’t want Americans to go back to work.

After all, a working person doesn’t rely on the government for his or her well being. But someone who is unemployed is dependent on — some would say enslaved to — the government services they receive and the masters who provide them.

Something to think about.

Bill Wilson is the President of Americans for Limited Government.

Washington and Hollywood, both tone-deaf to American attitudes

Richard — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 13:11:18 +0000

Andrew Klavan

A Tale of Two Cities

Washington and Hollywood, both tone-deaf to American attitudes

23 March 2010

Washington, D.C. and Hollywood are two cities suffering from the same condition: they’ve not only become completely alienated from the people they’re meant to serve, they’re bizarrely blind to the fact of that alienation. Like deranged narcissists in a hall of mirrors, both our lawmakers and our culture-makers blow kisses at their own reflections, see a million kisses coming back their way, and think, “Oh, look, they love me—love me!”

For glaring proof in Washington, we have the passage of the health-care bill. Recently the Washington Post ran an op-ed by former Carter pollster Pat Caddell and former Clinton pollster Douglas E. Schoen expressing their amazement that Obama and the Democrats would go forward with this bill in the face of overwhelming evidence that the public doesn’t want it. Caddell—a moderate Democrat who sometimes sports a T-shirt reading I’M GRUMPY BECAUSE YOU’RE DOPEY—and Schoen are baffled that the Democrats continue to grow and grow and grow the government despite polls that show Americans feel the federal apparatus is now an immediate threat to their civil rights and is no longer operating with the consent of the governed.

And yet, even after losing a Senate seat in blue-on-blue Massachusetts almost entirely because of the health care and big government issues, the Democrats plunged forward, certain that we’re going to like what they’re forcing us to eat.

To get a sense of the psychology behind this self-destructive self-deception, let’s take a look at a similar act in D.C.’s ideological sister city, some 3,000 miles away. Here, Universal studios recently released Green Zone, a $100 million anti–Iraq War movie, despite the box-office failures of over a dozen similarly themed films. Matt Damon stars as the soldier who discovers—though in reality, this is provably untrue—that the Bush administration lied about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction in order to drag us into war. Operation Shock and Awe was nothing compared with the way this picture bombed. HBO’s World War II series, The Pacific, also did only modest business, its chances possibly poisoned by executive producer Tom Hanks’ idiotic remarks that America had “wanted to annihilate [the Japanese] because they were different,” and that this made the war in the Pacific similar to today’s wars against Islamic terror.

As a result of these two failures, showbiz trade magazine Variety ran an almost hilariously purblind article saying that Hollywood was calling a “truce” on making war films because “with U.S. troops embroiled in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, American audiences continue to suffer from war fatigue.”

Yeah, that must be it. It couldn’t be that we’re nauseated by a bunch of showbiz yahoos depicting our troops and leaders as evil while they’re in the field defending us. Or wait, maybe it is: the one film—the single film—that, while taking no political position on these wars, nonetheless treated our military with deep honor, respect, and patriotism—HBO’s brilliant Taking Chance—was one of the network’s signal successes despite the mainstream media’s blithering negative reviews.

Here’s the thing. The American people want government that acts in keeping with our principles of free markets, self-reliance, and individual liberty. The people want culture that depicts the moral order as we know it is, not as sequestered elites dream it should be. But in Hollywood and in Washington, they can’t hear the people because they’re making too much noise talking to themselves, confirming themselves, and loving themselves.

They say that Washington is Hollywood for ugly people. But as long as our leaders and artists are displaying such blindness, arrogance, and narcissism, they’re all ugly.

Andrew Klavan is a City Journal contributing editor and the author of such best-selling novels as Don’t Say a Word and Empire of Lies. His new thriller for young adults, The Long Way Home, is out now.

“wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

Richard — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 02:35:34 +0000

Quotes from Thomas Jefferson

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.

In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.

That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves.

The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that… it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Virginia AG Tweets Healthcare Lawsuit

Richard — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 22:17:43 +0000

Ken Cuccinelli bypasses the traditional press conference to announce plan to challenge reform bill on constitutional grounds.

By Paul McDougall, InformationWeek
March 22, 2010
URL: http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=224000281

In the latest sign online social networks may be usurping the role of traditional media, Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli on Monday turned to Twitter to announce his plan to sue the federal government if the healthcare reform bill approved by the House of Representatives on Sunday is enacted into law.

“Well, they did it,” Cuccinelli wrote on a Twitter post early Monday.

“Once the president signs it into law, we’ll walk across the street and file suit b/c the ind mandate is unconstitutional,” Cuccinelli wrote.

Translation: Cuccinelli, as well as a number of other state officials and lawmakers, believe the bill’s requirement that individuals who do not obtain health insurance from their employers must purchase coverage through government-backed exchanges or face fines is not authorized by the Constitution.

Attorneys general in 11 other states are reportedly mulling similar actions.

President Obama and Democratic lawmakers have argued that mandatory participation is essential to bringing down the cost of coverage as it spreads expenses across a larger population.

The merits of either argument aside, what’s clear is that politicians are increasingly turning to social media to deliver their messages directly to constituents. Perhaps as little as a year ago, Cuccinelli would have held a press conference to announce his intention to challenge the healthcare bill.

Obama himself made extensive use of Facebook and Twitter during the presidential election campaign.

Media pros say social networks allow officials to communicate directly, and in real-time, with the public–without having to worry about the press adding its own spin to the message or taking quotes out of context.

Cuccinelli has more than 1,000 followers on his Twitter account.

Data centers have never been more strategic. But growing demands, flat budgets, and emerging technologies have IT teams sweating. That story and more in our March 22 all-digital issue. Download it now. (Registration required.)

Obama is purposely undermining the US Constitution-Should he be impeached?

Richard — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:50:32 +0000

Obama is purposely undermining the US Constitution

If Barack Forces Passage of Health Care “Reform” – Should He Be Impeached?

By Kelly O’Connell Sunday, March 21, 2010 Canada Free Press

Would a straightforward, unbiased analysis of the presidential actions of Barack Obama through March 2010, lead to a demand for his immediate impeachment and removal from office? Yes, for a most transparent reason: Obama is purposely undermining the US Constitution. In doing so, his actions make unstable every institution and office below the presidency, since the Constitution is the foundation of every government power and official decision. In fomenting institutional unrest across the US, he threatens the safety of every American man, woman and child, and all our citizens abroad.

The malign deeds of Barack include issues with: Honesty: Obama’s campaign was based upon a mass tissue of lies, undermining his legitimacy by deriving election results based on sheer falsehoods; Loyalty: When Obama flies around the world and criticizes America, or bows down to kings and despots, who is he actually representing? Fiscal Integrity: Deficit spending appears Barack’s only theory of government economic growth, eventually necessitating US insolvency. Knowledge & Competence: Obama repeatedly appears disinterested or ill-informed about important issues; Constitutional Fealty: Obama reveals contempt for the US Constitution; World-view: Barack often seems to identify more with socialists, or other radicals, than typical Americans; America’s Future: What possible strong tomorrow can America hope for if Obama’s ideas become default public policy?

I. A Natural Law Constitution

The preeminent American political document is the Constitution. Its chief drafter was James Madison, the most gifted political theoretician of his day. 1 He and other Founders would claim the Constitution could not be changed without debasing the natural law theory behind it. 2 It offers the classic model of virtuous self-rule government, proposing an enlightened concept of law and the public good. It propounds wholesome truths regarding human nature and revealed religion. Because the Constitution rests upon a natural law foundation 3, being an appeal to immutable principles, it must not be quickly re-molded for a mere superficial switch in public opinion. Yet, Obama’s inane tinkering with our written foundation reveals a shocking lack of acceptance or understanding of the concepts that underlie our system.

John Locke
The architectonic thinker of the Enlightenment and Classical Liberalism, John Locke, was the source of many concepts used in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Ideas on natural law, the need for consent of the governed, the sanctity of contracts and property rights, and a perpetual privilege to rebel against tyranny were some of his many contributions. Locke had absorbed the Puritanism of his upbringing and helped secularize many biblical concepts, like turning the covenant notion into a secular constitution. 4 Yet, just like today, many non-Believers also strongly supported the Founder’s cause.

Thomas Paine
Referred to as the Father of the Revolution, Founder Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense,” proclaimed the greatest American Revolutionary tract, sold almost 150,000 copies and was even read aloud by Washington to inspire his troops. Ironically, Paine was nearly as famed for his atheism as patriotism, merely proving the Founder’s principles did not appeal just to Believers, but were relished by the greatest minds of the age. Paine wrote in Common Sense, “In America, law is king.” 5 He believed a country must have a written constitution hedged by the rules of law before anyone could claim they were a free people. He dedicated the 4th chapter of his Rights of Man, Book II to the topic, titling it “Of Constitutions.” He wrote here,

All power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. It must either be delegated or assumed. There are no other sources. All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation. Time does not alter the nature and quality of either. 6

Paine also stated that constitutions are “to liberty, what a grammar is to language.” Elsewhere he claimed, “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.” He added, “A constitution is a thing antecedent to a government; and a government is only the creature of a constitution.”

Paine eloquently summed up in Rights of Man, Book II, what a constitution really is:

Here we see a regular process- a government issuing out of a constitution, formed by the people in their original character; and that constitution serving, not only as an authority, but as a law of control to the government. It was the political bible of the state. Scarcely a family was without it. Every member of the government had a copy; and nothing was more common, when any debate arose on the principle of a bill, or on the extent of any species of authority, than for the members to take the printed constitution out of their pocket, and read the chapter with which such matter in debate was connected.

Barack Obama
What is Obama’s attitude towards our Constitution? Even before Obama went to law school he had a serious disagreement with America’s secular bible. In his undergraduate college thesis, according to Liberal columnist Joe Klein, Barack complained:

The Constitution allows for many things, but what it does not allow is the most revealing. The so-called Founders did not allow for economic freedom. While political freedom is supposedly a cornerstone of the document, the distribution of wealth is not even mentioned. While many believed that the new Constitution gave them liberty, it instead fitted them with the shackles of hypocrisy. 7

Obama is not a fan of the Constitution. But why not? As good a guess as any, based upon a background soaked in socialism and communist influence, and his many comments to this effect, is that the main flaw of the document is it does not focus upon Barack’s chief aim—“justice” via redistribution of wealth.

After he became a lawyer, Barack did admit in a 2001 radio interview that the courts could not supply the abortion, expanded health care, and wealth “redistributive” changes he fought for as a community organizer, which explains why he originally ran for office. Obama said,

Typically, the court can be more or less generous in interpreting actions and initiatives taken, but in terms of funding of abortions and Medicare and Medicaid, the court it not initiating those funding streams. Essentially, what the court is saying is at some point this is a legitimate prohibition or this is not, and I think those are very important battles that need to be fought and I think they have a redistributive aspect to them. 8

II. What is Impeachment?

“Impeachment” describes the trial and conviction of elected officials for acts deemed deleteriously injurious to the state, sometimes followed by removal. The Middle English word empechen originally comes from Old French, meaning “to accuse, bring charges against.” The first English example occurred when Peter de la Mare, first Speaker of the English House of Commons, initiated impeachment and removal proceedings against Lord William Latimer in 1376 for raiding the public treasury for personal enrichment.

The Founders adapted impeachment from the British model. Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, claimed it is a “method of national inquest into the conduct of public men.” 9 In the American version, the House assembles articles of impeachment and then votes on whether the charges are credible. If the House passes these by simple majority, the Senate then acts as court of impeachment, voting on removal by 2/3rds super-majority.

Two separate Constitutional amendments were passed by the First Congress for impeachment. Article I states “the House of Representatives…shall have the sole Power of Impeachment,” and “the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” Article I addresses punishment and proceedings for impeaching the President of the United States. Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution states, “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.” 10

Treason, High Crimes & Misdemeanors
“Treason” is defined as “the offense of acting to overthrow one’s government or to harm or kill its sovereign; a violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state; or the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of faith; treachery.” 11 The Constitution defines “Treason” in Article III, section 3 as: “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” But many acts that are profoundly disloyal and dangerous to America would not fit into that simple definition—which is why the Framers allowed some latitude in defining the subject. William Blackstone, the legal writer widely read in the colonies, develops in his Commentaries on the Laws of England a definition of High Treason that includes these words,

TREASON, proditio, in its very name (which is borrowed from the French) imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of faith… As this is the highest civil crime, which (considered as a member of the community) any man can possibly commit… 12

Generally speaking, the House frames the Articles of Impeachment, and then the Senate votes upon them. The House acts like a prosecutor, while the Senate sits as a judge. But is there enough latitude in the impeachment definitions and rules to allow Congress to act? Specifically, if the two bodies believed a president were making socialist or communist machinations, based simply on this, could they remove him or her from office? Absolutely.

III. Communist Strategy of Forced Crisis

A main tool for fomenting Socialist Revolution, and then keeping power in Marxist countries is the production of government-developed crises. Both Stalin and Mao realized a communist tyranny needed a doctrine of “permanent crisis.” For example, Mao precipitated a peasant war when these poor farmers did not deliver his utterly fantastic expectations for food production. So he took all their food by force, allowing upwards of 40 million Chinese to starve to death during the Great Leap Forward campaign. Of course, the Chairman claimed the problem a natural “famine,” as described in Jasper Becker’s Hungry Ghosts. Both Stalin and Lenin did the same exact thing to Russian peasants, causing tens of million more to die.

Marxism assumes revolution against capitalism will inevitably occur, and always have a beneficial result. Therefore, a policy causing crises merely helps the inevitable upheaval to occur, which might even include fighting a war against another country to “liberate” the people into communism, according to Robert C. Tucker’s “The Marxian Revolution.”

What is the purpose of the “permanent crisis” theory of government? First, folks in crisis are unlikely to attack the government. Second, it’s a great way to liquidate enemies. Third, crises bring a lot of confusion and allow the government to focus on other strategic goals while the people are trying to survive. This is especially effective when the government is trying to shrink the middle class and reallocate assets. Of course, given the inevitable arrogance and lack of education by the typical communist tyrant, at times its hard to know which programs are willfully stupid versus accidentally so.

Obama’s Beliefs
A person’s actions are the best statement of what they believe. Since Obama seems on the verge of losing both houses of Congress as a result of his leftist policies, he must really be a profound leftist. This, since he is losing support, and politicians need power to achieve their goals. On another level, we must ask—Does it even matter what Obama believes? By his actions—sincere, or not—Obama is doing an amazing job of mimicking a wanna-be socialist dictator, burning all his political capital in a mad dash to amass as much power as soon as possible.

So, why did Obama choose health care as his raison d’etre? First, Ronald Reagan answers this question astutely in his 1961 “Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine.” 13 He said:

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project, most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it. Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. (audio: youtube.com)

Obviously, fifty years ago, Ronald Reagan nailed the entire logic behind the insatiable desire for leftists demanding socialized medicine. Reagan added, “James Madison in 1788 speaking to the Virginia convention said, “Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” Reagan believed if the mere outline of such a program were enacted, over the next decades, the government would slowly fill it in and take increasingly more freedoms away from the people until their liberty was extirpated like a python slowly suffocating its victim.

Second, if Obama can break the Constitution on the health care reform battle, he knows he will be too hard to stop his Machiavellian machinations to develop a junior tyranny. He will then use the same method to relentlessly drive his entire agenda.

IV. Obama’s Questionable Deeds

A long list of Obama’s wicked acts could be listed for sake of a remonstrance. But only a few ought be mentioned as possibly impeachment worthy. First, did Obama massively lie when campaigning to win so he could then enact a secret socialist campaign? This one is obviously true. Second, has Obama been trying to spend America into oblivion to force it to accept socialism and a reduced international profile? This seems quite likely. Third, and most important—Is Obama doing what he can to get his “health care reform” enacted, against historic procedure and in complete defiance of the direct language of the Constitution? The answer here seems yes, despite his acting coy with journalist Bret Baier on the irrelevancy of the method used, suggesting he wasn’t engaging in sedition by asking others to undermine the Constiution. 14

Further, consider the fact that during what Barack himself called the worst economy since the Great Depression, and in the midst of two wars, Obama has set everything else aside to battle for “Health Care Reform”? Is this possible, that he subjectively chose a fight out of the blue during a financial typhoon? These facts literally make no sense, on the surface. Therefore there must be a reason that Obama is keeping all these crises in the air, like so many plates at a Chinese circus.

We do well to remember Igal Halfin’s observation in his book “From Darkness to Light: Class, Consciousness, and Salvation in Revolutionary Russia.” Halfin stated that Russian specialists disagreed over every subject, save one, when discussing the Russian Revolution. Everyone agrees that all the communist programs, with the many colorful titles, all had one thing in common—they were only proposed to further amalgamate government power at the cost of the people’s liberties.

The Heritage Foundation succinctly explains why the Slaughter Rule, which Obama’s side designed, where no votes are taken, but a bill is passed, is unconstitutional: “According to Article I, Section 7, in order for a “Bill” to “become a Law,” it “shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate” and be “presented to the President of the United States” for signature or veto. Unless a bill actually has “passed” both Houses, it cannot be presented to the president and cannot become a law.” 15

Conclusion

Thomas Paine wrote these words in The American Crisis, that still ring true today,

THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph….

Barack Obama took the presidential oath, did he not? He repeated: “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.” Was Barack telling the truth when he did this? Has he followed this promise and supported our Constitution, whether he agreed with the outcome? In defying the Declaration of Independence’s demand the government listen to the will of the people, or act as a tyrant—Does not Obama desecrates our core democratic principle?

And in laying an ax at the root of the mighty oak of the Constitution, does Obama not menaces the very source of America’s 250 years of unfettered vitality, and the very wellspring of our perennial genius? Barack should heed Paine’s statement, “The Rights of Man are the rights of all generations of men, and cannot be monopolised by any. “

Has Obama not presented the profile of an indefatigable socialist rebel, admitted by his own mouth? Does he not battle against America’s history, ideals and standards, whenever possible? Doesn’t Obama seem to strain like Atlas to erect a socialist kingdom over America and against the people’s will? Much as Satan likewise sought to erect his throne over the Lord’s? 16 If so, Barack must be impeached, according to the Constitution itself.

Post Script: Constitution Article I. Section. 7.

Clause 1: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Clause 2: Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Clause 3: Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

We have not begun to fight

Richard — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 22:06:15 +0000

Idaho became the first state to go officially on record in the nationwide fight against the 2700-page Senate-passed monstrosity. Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter signed a measure requiring the state attorney general to sue the federal government if its residents are forced to buy health insurance.

Governor Otter — himself a former member of Congress — told reporters in Boise, “The ivory tower folks will tell you, ‘No, they’re not going anywhere. But I’ll tell you what; you get 36 states, that’s a critical mass. That’s a constitutional mass.”

Actually, according to the AP, similar defiant legislation is pending in 37 states across this land. Virginia lawmakers have taken similar action, but Idaho is the first to reach the goal of a governor’s signature on the legislation.

A framework for the communist takeover of our country.

Richard — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 21:25:52 +0000

The 10th amendment:

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

This weekend President Obama intends to remove the Constitution of the United States of America and replace it with a framework for the communist takeover of our country.

The cost of the two bills combined would be $940 billion over a decade.

Richard — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 21:19:37 +0000

Victory within reach, President Barack Obama set his sights on rallying House Democrats on Saturday for a final health care push as party leaders appeared confident they had overcome a flare-up within their ranks over abortion funding restrictions in the legislation.

Building on Democrats’ momentum, House leaders decided on a straight up-or-down vote on Obama’s top priority and the defining issue of his first year in office, backing off a much-challenged plan to vote on the bill indirectly. With the vote scheduled for Sunday, the battle tilted in Obama’s direction as more Democrats disclosed how they would vote.

The legislation, affecting virtually every American and more than a year in the making, would extend coverage to an estimated 32 million uninsured, bar insurers from denying coverage on the basis of existing medical conditions and cut federal deficits by an estimated $138 billion over a decade.

Congressional analysts estimate, which are historically low, the cost of the two bills combined would be $940 billion over a decade.

Republicans, unanimous in opposition to the bill, complained anew about its cost and reach.