Impeach Congress » Abuse of Power

Inflating Our Way to a Government-Controlled Economy

ImpeachCongress — Mon, 11 Apr 2011 18:44:55 +0000

Spiraling food prices, record energy costs and federally mandated health insurance reflect this Administration’s slavish ideological devotion to the centralized planning of key sectors of the American economy. So, what are the current results of Obama’s indoctrination of America into progressive collectivism? Global food costs have risen an astonishing 29 % in the past year, and almost 4% a month between October and January of 2011. Retail prices for gasoline have doubled in the 26 months since Obama was inaugurated. And the Democratic majorities in Congress passed a mandated health insurance bill that is not only unconstitutional, but also riddled with exemptions, political payoffs while adding 159 new boards, commissions and programs.

The current quagmire of budget deficits coupled with the viral growth of the federal government continues to be carefully planned and executed. We can especially thank the silent and complicit MSM for allowing this radical Administration and Obama’s handpicked shadow government, the thirty-nine unconfirmed czars now running the Federal bureaucracies, to eviscerate trillions of dollars of earned capital. The Marxists’ natural enemy, the professional capitalists (the American “bourgeoisie” in classic Marxist terminology) are rapidly losing significant chunks of disposable income to inflation and energy prices without a formal tax increase. The first and second quartiles (the two lowest socio- economic populations) are far more more dependent on government subsidies then 26 months ago. Plus the federal government last week plummeted an additional $7.7 billion deeper into debt each day.

Honestly, the Marxists and progressive collectivists who populate the senior levels of this Administration could be popping Veuve Clicquot nightly in celebration of their wildly successful, ongoing financial dismemberment of the upper middle class of America.

Here are two photos that refute the USDA propaganda that inflation in food costs will only increase 3% to 4% in 2011.

Yes, five dollars for a loaf of bread and six dollars for a 27.5 ounce box of corn flakes plus a few tablespoons of sugar. How absurd are these prices? Yuban coffee costs 24 cents an ounce, Frosted Flakes now costs 21.8 cent an ounce, and a loaf of bread runs 20.3 cent an ounce.

The World Bank’s brief account of February 2011 maize (corn) prices reminds us that seemingly good intentions can easily subvert a great nation and its food supply.

Maize prices have increased sharply and are affected by complex linkages with other markets. In January 2011, maize prices were about 73% higher than June 2010. These increases are due to a series of downward revisions of crop forecasts, low stocks (U.S. stocks-to-use ratio for 2010/11 is projected to be 5% the lowest since 1995), the positive relationship between maize and wheat prices, and the use of corn for biofuels. Ethanol production demand for corn increases as oil prices go up, with sugar-based ethanol less competitive at current sugar prices. Recent United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates show the share of ethanol for fuel rising from 31% of U.S. corn output in 2008/9 to a projected 40% in 2010/11.

Read that stat one more time. “In January 2011, maize prices were about 73% higher than June 2010.” That is a jaw-dropping annual inflation rate of 146%, for the most basic of food commodities. Corn also feeds cattle as well as making Frosted Flakes. Also, “Recent United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) estimates show the share of ethanol for fuel rising from 31% of U.S. corn output in 2008/9 to a projected 40% in 2010/11.” Why does anyone think that harvesting food crops for fuel is a good idea?

We can no longer waste newsprint or electrons on whether this Administration and it’s appointed political thugs are incompetent, naïve or Machiavellian. They are all of the above as it suits their purposes. Those purposes, after 26 months in office, are undeniable.

Using the silent complicity of the MSM, these progressive collectivists want an uncontested control of the six key sectors of the American economy: food, energy, healthcare, auto manufacturing, higher education and non-military government workers. Why this headlong plunge toward the centralization of planning and production? What is the end game?

From eHow.com, a very concise paragraph on economic models points the way:

The Marxist economic model is based on the economic and sociopolitical theories of 19th-century philosopher Karl Marx. Marx proposed that all human struggles could be traced back to the capitalist system and its unequal distribution of private wealth. The Marxist model of economics seeks to correct social and economic inequalities through public confiscation of private property. [the redistribution of wealth] This model supports a completely public economy, in which the state controls and manages all wealth and property for the benefit of people rather than for profit. The Marxist socialist model eventually — if implemented according to Marx’s design — gives way to a completely classless system known as communism.

Exactly so.

Start Slide Show with PicLens Lite

Shut It Down!

ImpeachCongress — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 19:03:30 +0000

By: J.B. Williams

There should be no debate over spending in D.C. at this point. Over the last seventy years, our federal government, behaving as an unconstitutional supreme central power, has sent the most productive and prosperous nation on earth on the path toward third-world status.

Bickering over a few billion in planned deficit spending above $1.65 trillion in just the next year — when the nation is already more than $14 trillion in unsustainable debt threatening the very existence of our dollar — is the definition of insanity.

Democrats are forcing a so-called shutdown in their effort to keep spending money we don’t have. Republicans are calling for only a symbolic level of spending cuts. Nobody in Washington, D.C. seems serious about ending the fiscal insanity. Even the president’s bipartisan debt panel is recommending deficit spending for at least another twenty-five years.

I say, shut it down! The federal government has done as much to harm the union of states as it has ever done to improve freedom and liberty in America. We will be better off without a federal government, with each state able to fund and govern itself better than the Fed ever could.

Extreme threats demand extreme measures, and nothing threatens the future freedom and prosperity of the United States more than our own federal government. Enemies beyond, we can deal with. It’s the enemy within which threatens us most today. It’s time to shut it down and reset.

As we have proven in election after election, changing the players on the field from time to time does not change the game. We need a game-changer here, beginning with forcing our elected servants to live within the confines of the Constitution, existing laws, and the budget that we allow them.

Everything in this country seems backwards, upside-down, and inside-out. The people can never win a game in which they are not even a player. D.C. players make up the rules as they go, and those rules rarely benefit the people.

When Obama and the Democratic Socialists of America passed unconstitutional acts like ObamaCare; green-lighted Obama’s czars; and authorized deep intrusions into private-sector banking, manufacturing, and education — that’s when Republicans should have shut it all down.

They simply didn’t have the backbone to do what they should have done on behalf of every American citizen, including the ones not smart enough to know that they can’t survive a bankrupt nation, either.

As British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said so well,

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” We ran out of other people’s money more than $14 trillion ago.

Republicans should up the ante here. Instead of allowing Democrats to accuse them of shutting down the government over a measly $30 billion, they should force Democrats to blame them for eliminating the entire $1.65-trillion deficit proposed in Obama’s budget.

Are Republicans scared of being accused of balancing the budget? Most Americans want somebody to balance the budget and stop the insane march into the financial abyss under the unbridled command of the international socialist left now known as the Democratic Party.

Our federal budget has been balanced only once since Andrew Jackson was president. Republicans in Congress balanced one annual budget during Bill Clinton’s second term. Democrats under Obama have increased the debt of every American taxpayer by more than 40%, or $4 trillion during Obama’s first two years in office.

To put it lightly, Obama is unsustainable. Democrats are unsustainable. And only Republicans have the power to do something about it.

Shut it down, and shut it down now!

Don’t start it up again until you have a balanced budget approved and signed by the president, who makes a drunken sailor look like a penny-pincher.

At this late date, the people of this nation are on an austerity program no matter what happens in D.C. But unless they force Republicans to put the feds on an austerity program now, the people will be all alone in their austerity, and the feds will drive this nation into a financial disaster that the nation cannot survive.

It may be too late for fiscal sanity already, but here’s where we are. We can’t change the past, and our only hope of altering the future is by acting today.

The decision is easy. If we refuse to face the music today, there will soon be no decision to make.

A federal shutdown does not mean that the federal government will actually shut down. That would be nice, but it won’t actually happen.

Instead, Democrats will aim the shutdown where their voters will feel it the most. They will keep business as usual, except for targeting their voters’ benefits in order to motivate those voters into a revolt in the streets, just as they did in Wisconsin over the state budget battle.

Democrats will try to make even a partial shutdown as painful as possible for the voters in this country who are trained government dependents. They are already out telling their voters to hold Republicans responsible for the big “shutdown,” which in reality will impact only government dependents.

Since social spending now exceeds 60% of the entire federal budget, there is no way to rein in the federal government without reining in social spending.

Yes, it will be painful — but not as painful as driving the nation and every state into bankruptcy and then cutting off all aid to those truly in need.

Republicans simply must summon their fortitude and do the work they were elected to do. Cutting Obama’s spending spree by a lousy $30 billion is merely symbolic, an effort to demonstrate to their voters that they did something, even though it amounts to nothing.

The cuts need to be fifty-five times that number: $1.65 trillion. Even then, the interest alone on past spending will still add to the current debt level. But at least we will have stopped the bleeding and set a new course for fiscal sanity.

If the voters throw Republicans out for doing that in 2012, then the voters deserve national bankruptcy.

Go ahead — shut it down, and don’t open for business again without a total fiscal restructuring that demonstrates a willingness in government to be much better stewards of the people’s resources.

Go ahead — shut it down now! It’s the only hope for freedom and liberty to survive!

Start Slide Show with PicLens Lite

When Government Turns Predator

ImpeachCongress — Tue, 05 Apr 2011 17:33:13 +0000

The following article covers an area of gross government tyranny. Offshore banking. The overreach of the government and particularly their nazi force, the IRS, has become so egregious that simply opening a bank account overseas is viewed as a crime. Monty points out precisely that this bankrupt and broken government will stop at nothing to steal the wealth of its productive citizens. It is disgraceful. –impeachcongress

By: Monty Pelerin

Honest US citizens are being turned into prey by the IRS, the victims of a hunt for tax evaders. It is the natural, if lamentable, product of the urge to power our Founders warned us against.

More than two centuries ago, George Washington stated:

Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.

Over the years, General Washington’s prescience has been demonstrated as government usurped and abused power. The myth that government serves the people should be shattered by now. Increasingly, government behaves as the master, not as the intended servant.

Oppression abounds, but nowhere is the raw abuse of power and coercion more possible and evident than in the Internal Revenue Service. They are the most dangerous member of the government gang. Now they have another tool to bully and expropriate wealth from innocents — US citizens living abroad.

Early in his presidency, Barack Obama pledged to add 800 new IRS agents to punish tax evaders with overseas accounts. In an effort, presumably designed to curtail and punish tax evasion on the part of wealthy Americans, legislation aimed at criminals now threatens the income and savings of the law-abiding.

Background

The Bank Secrecy Act became law in 1970 and implemented the Foreign Bank Accounts Report (FBAR) to monitor money laundering. The FBAR law required that US persons owning or having signing authority over foreign bank accounts report this information to the US Treasury Department. It was not much enforced for the obvious reason that a criminal does not willingly divulge incriminating information. During the first three decades of FBAR, there was widespread ignorance and disregard for the law.

In 2003, the Treasury Department handed over enforcement to the IRS. In 2004 non-willful non-compliance increased to a $10,000 fine per account per annum. Willful non-compliance allows criminal charges, a prison sentence, and fines of $100,000 or 50% of bank account’s contents, whichever is more (see Shepherd, p. 10).

The IRS has implemented two Voluntary Disclosure Programs I (2009) and II (2011), in which they waive criminal charges provided that all back taxes and penalties have been paid, along with an FBAR penalty of 20% (in 2009) or 25% (in 2011) of the account’s highest balance over the last six years. The penalty is lower (12.5%) for balances under $75,000. Persons who were unknowingly US citizens face a 5% penalty (see FAQ 52).

In 2010, Congress passed FATCA (Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act) which forces foreign banks to report on American clients, even if doing so would violate the banking and privacy laws of their country. Implementation of FACTA will be coerced by withholding 30% of US income from banks not in compliance.

The arrogance and brutality of the legislation is apparent. The penalties are severe and disproportionate. Economic blackmail of foreign banks is disgraceful. All of these actions will have repercussions, probably not intended.

US Citizens Abroad

US citizens living abroad must open a foreign bank account because commerce is done in the local currency. All who do are potentially in violation of the FBAR law. Most were unaware of the FBAR requirements; but now that the IRS has rattled its FBAR saber, taxpayers abroad are in a quandary.

Wealthier citizens spend thousands of dollars on accountants and tax lawyers to try to put themselves into compliance with the least financial damage. The average citizen not in compliance has limited options. His choices include:

Do Nothing The IRS doesn’t know about you, so continuing to keep a low profile and ignore the law might be the best route. This option may become impossible once FACTA comes into force.
File FBAR Forms IRS FAQ 17 of the 2011 Voluntary Disclosure Program states that filers who have complied with all taxes and filing requirements except FBAR should not enter the program but simply file the delinquent forms by August 31, 2011 with a letter of explanation. They promise that no penalties will apply to such persons. But given the severe threats of punishment issued to anyone failing to comply, many wonder whether the IRS will accept the excuse of ignorance of the FBAR requirement.
Enter 2011 Voluntary Disclosure Program: Some US citizens who entered the 2009 Voluntary Disclosure Program and were otherwise in compliance with US tax laws, found that the IRS intended to apply to them the full 20% penalty (see, e.g., here and here).
Renounce Citizenship Many US citizens living overseas have lives fully integrated into their new country. They comply with the local tax laws and often possess dual citizenship. Compliance with US tax laws and FBAR are a nuisance and liability that they may be able to live without.

Renunciation of citizenship is not riskless. Such a decision will set citizens free from future liability, but may subject them to IRS penalties for prior non-compliance. In addition, for covered expatriates, those having two million in assets or $145,000 in average annual tax liability over the last five years, an exit tax is also required.

To appreciate the uncertainty and duress faced by US citizens living abroad, a couple of hypothetical situations are useful. International tax lawyer Phil Hodgen partly inspired the following hypothetical cases:

Hypothetical Case 1: Jim lives in a foreign country and has dutifully filed a US income tax return each year, but was unaware of FBAR filing retirements. Jim operates eight accounts: four retirement accounts (which he reported on his annual tax returns), two trading accounts, a checking account and a high interest savings account. The highest balance in these accounts is $1,000,000 over the last six years. His current balance is $800,000 after the market dip.

Jim doesn’t know what to do. After great worry, he enters the Voluntary Disclosure Program. The IRS assesses Jim a $250,000 FBAR penalty. In order to pay the penalty, Jim must withdraw funds from his retirement accounts forcing an additional tax liability of $100,000 on the income. Jim is no longer able to retire because his $800,000 has been reduced to $450,000, solely as a result of IRS capriciousness.

Hypothetical case 2: Nancy is a teacher and mother of three, married to a citizen of the foreign country where she has lived for fifteen years. She dutifully filed her taxes in the US, but never knew about FBAR. A friend entered the Voluntary Disclosure Program and was assessed $14,000. She contemplates the renunciation of American citizenship, because her foreign husband owns a successful business and Nancy is a signer on business accounts. She fears exposing her husband’s business to the IRS and also fears that upon her death, the IRS will seek its pound of flesh from her estate. She renounces citizenship, though it breaks her heart.

Abuse Of the Law

FBAR was initially a harmless and little known embarrassment for the United States. It began as an ineffective attempt to stop money laundering. Like so many other laws (RICO, Homeland Security, etc.), it began with what some believed noble purposes, only to morph into a tyranny imposed upon law-abiding citizens. It is now a tool capable of arbitrary and oppressive expropriation the wealth of millions of US citizens living abroad.

An insolvent government is a dangerous government. It is akin to a wounded and cornered animal. When conditions become really difficult, it is likely to do anything to survive. Arbitrariness in the interpretation of any law is dangerous to freedom, but especially so when government’s primary concern is survival rather than justice.

There are many reasons to be critical of FBAR. The following two will illustrate:

Excessive fines: Ayn Rand said, “The severity of the punishment must match the gravity of the crime. “This basic principle of human rights, enshrined in the Eighth Amendment, forbids excessive fines. It is immoral for the IRS to intimidate innocent citizens. Any law so uncertain that it could result in a loss of 50% of your wealth, depending upon the whims of the IRS, is not a law. It is government-sanctioned extortion.”
Guilt Presumed: The Fourth Amendment protects (or was supposed to) citizens against arbitrary fishing expeditions by government. Probable cause is required. The FBAR requirements circumvent this Fourth Amendment right, in effect saying: “You will volunteer to open the door to your house and let us look inside.If you don’t, we will fine and/or imprison you.” The IRS demands bank information based on a presumption of guilt even though holding funds in a foreign bank account is no crime.

Unintended Consequences

The term unintended consequences, a convenient euphemism for stupid policy or law, is appropriate. Some of the foreseeable outcomes are the following:

(1) An avalanche of US persons will renounce their citizenship. In July 2010, the State Department implemented a $450 fee for making a renunciation before a consular officer, presumably to exact additional income and possibly (highly unlikely) deter some from making the decision.

(2) Foreign banks and investors may decide doing business with the US is not worth the trouble of compliance with FATCA, particularly as the US economy collapses and the global economy shifts to the East.

(3) US Citizens abroad already find it challenging to open bank accounts both in the US and in their countries of residence. This annoyance makes it more difficult for American companies and their employees to engage in foreign missions, business and trade.

(4) US citizens are already shunned from positions in foreign companies which do not want their banking details revealed to the United States Treasury Department.

Conclusion

The Bank Secrecy Act, passed in 1970, is an example of law designed for one purpose being expanded to be used against innocent citizens. Regardless of its good intentions, it is now a tyranny used to extort wealth from otherwise legal, law-abiding US citizens living abroad.

It represents a classic case of how government usurps freedom. What level of morality must government have to think they are entitled to shake-down hard-working citizens?

Monty Pelerin has never lived abroad or had a foreign bank account. He has friends who do and hopes that exposing this State plunder will cause it to cease in this and other parts of our lives. He blogs at www.economicnoise.com.

Start Slide Show with PicLens Lite

The Question of Imperialism

ImpeachCongress — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 00:37:12 +0000

By: Jeremy Egerer

Of the many difficult questions a person can ask about the rights of man, one of the toughest is whether the people of a country are ever their own supreme authority. To err toward an absolute “yes” or “no” seems to lend credibility to a variety of atrocities, and trying to strike a balance between the two extremes can plunge the answer into useless subjectivity. But a good answer is readily available for those who concern themselves with sound principles.

First, a claim to nationhood is a positive claim to geographical authority, which implicitly forfeits jurisdiction beyond a country’s expressly defined boundaries. But this jurisdiction may be extended should desperate situations or intolerable violations of natural law occur (Second Treatise of Government, sect 144). As such, a nation’s majority vote by itself does not necessarily grant that nation’s behaviors international legitimacy, as our natural rights provide the basis for both international justice and what is known as imperialism.

Second, those totally rejecting the legitimacy of imperialism oftentimes forget that most people, whether citizens of the USA or the UAE, have not had the opportunity to enter into a social contract. In fact, most are born under the authority of governmental entities, regardless of consent. In addition, although many vote to influence their government, the ability of individuals to reject authority according to their personal reason and cultural development is not necessarily a universal right. Instead, most people find themselves under the legal authority of others, both past and present.

And thus, it is necessary to recognize that the moral value of the democratic republic exists partially in its reflection of the majority’s will, but never in a refusal to subject unwilling citizens to law. Interventionism, for its part, can be similar to strictly national laws in that people are held to moral standards regardless of their consent, and by countries which they did not necessarily form or expressly choose. And perhaps more interestingly, this similarity increases greatly when influenced governments are ruled by despots.

Third, it is only fair to say that even should the entire world not arrive at an entirely uniform consensus of what is “good,” for a people to become less evil and more good under the influence of others is not only beneficial, but moral. And conversely, it is fair to say that a people remaining evil or influencing others to become more evil is not only less beneficial, but also wrong.

Therefore, since no nation can ever be its own supreme authority, and all governments must force someone to abide by law against his will, and positive influence is always good, the question arising from cultural imperialism is not whether it should take place. Rather, the question concerns who is right and what is good.

Herein lies great danger, as even the most ignorant and unstable people are oftentimes convinced that if the world were Plato’s allegory of the cave, they would be the sole escapee to have discovered the sun, and they thus believe themselves entitled to impose their “enlightenment” upon others. Within this tendency toward narcissistic ignorance is found the likelihood of barbaric imperialism, by which morally inferior cultures seek to influence others by force or the threat thereof, for purposes contrary to the unalienable rights of man.

Resulting from such immoral imperialism, two primary reasons exist for a nation’s forgoing interventionism. The first reason exists in the acknowledgment of multiple morally variable, ethnocentric cultures with armies, and thus in the interest of self-preservation. But the second reason for non-intervention, which errs in the opposite philosophical direction of wrongful imperialism, results from a relativistic, multicultural worldview.

It is interesting to note, however, that while many multiculturalists claim to oppose cultural imperialism and an objective code of morality, their actions suggest otherwise. In one instance, President Obama decries our “imperialist” past, yet he declares that “[t]he genocide in Darfur shames the conscience of us all.” It is impossible for Darfur to shame us unless we are called to justice beyond our borders in order to stop those who — also in the name of necessity, morality, and even democracy — commit atrocities.

Thus, the only true and moral answer to the question of intervention is that there lies within man an understanding, however polluted by environment and selfishness, of natural law (as explained by C.S. Lewis). There must either be a standard by which men judge both themselves and the world, or men must never war, intervene, argue, or vote unless something affects them in a displeasing way. That is to say, they must only act entirely selfishly. And if man’s motives are entirely rooted in subjective selfishness, then he has lost his claim to moral superiority in affairs both foreign and domestic. In short, he must always appeal to a universal concept of civilization if civilization is to exist at all.

America’s forefathers knew where this code of civilization originates. It is not in contradictorily defined and enforced ideals such as liberty and equality, and it has not evolved from the ape to the human, nor is it evolving in our day and age. It is and must necessarily be a declaration from our Creator, a Truth which exists beyond the authority of the human, beyond the tampering of intellectuals, beyond culture, beyond race, and beyond nation (Second Treatise, sects 135 and 136). And to those who disagree, it is only fair to ask from where their Truth and rights come and whether or not someone who disagrees with them has a right to enforce another standard.

It must be confessed that the purpose of this article is not to foster an interest toward the invasion of every country in the name of human rights. Americans are not moral enough as a people to do so, nor do they have the resources to do so, nor would uncivilized people necessarily recognize the benefit of Judeo-Christian liberty given to them against their will. But it must be recognized that cultural imperialism in itself is neither necessarily evil nor disposable, and it is practiced by almost every person on the globe on some level or another. In certain cases — such as nearly uncivilized Rome — it has even been beneficial in the long term. And it must also be realized that conservatives (particularly Biblical Christians) have been hoodwinked into rejecting the universal applicability of conservative values, yet leftists will not reject the universal applicability of leftism.

Americans must understand that imperialism is not imperialism when it is an enforcement of real, objective morality. Rather, imperialism under these circumstances becomes the cause of justice, of righteousness, and of goodness. But without the firm acknowledgment of the Noble Code, man’s government comprises subjectivity, sheer will, and brute force, with tyranny as his only form of intervention.

Jeremy Egerer is a recent convert to Christian conservatism from radical liberalism and the editor of the Seattle website www.americanclarity.com.

Start Slide Show with PicLens Lite

The Divine Right of Government

ImpeachCongress — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 19:41:09 +0000

By: Monty Pelerin

History is a great teacher. It often provides clues that enable us to understand the present and future.

Ancient regimes’ concept of divine right of kings seems pertinent to today. Wikipedia offers as good a summary as any:

The Divine Right of Kings is a political and religious doctrine of royal absolutism. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving his right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm, including the church.

The phrase “not subject to the will of his people” is an appropriate similarity to contemporary times.

Divine right was based on a metaphysical assertion. Despite “ultimate authority,” kings engaged “intellectuals” to provide supporting propaganda for the claim. Their efforts worked for a long time. As late as 1729, Thomas Paine saw fit to speak about the lingering right of heredity:

…the idea of hereditary legislators is as inconsistent as that of hereditary judges, or hereditary juries; and as absurd as an hereditary mathematician, or an hereditary wise man; and as ridiculous as an hereditary poet laureate.

We do not believe in the divine right of elected representatives, although some of them seem to.

The interesting parallel to today is the ancient regimes’ use of “intellectuals” as court propagandists. The same model exists today. The propagandists who led our country to its current dismal state, it seems to me, are economists. Today’s metaphysicians are called economic advisers. The Keynesian model is their tool for increased and activist government.

To many, the Keynesian myth is every bit as metaphysical as the divine right of kings. Gary North provides an evaluation that should unnerve Keynesians:

Ever since the third quarter of 2008, the nation’s nominal GDP has increased by a tiny $100 billion, but the Federal debt has increased by 25 times the GDP increase.

It has taken $25 of Federal deficits to produce $1 of GDP growth. This marks a major anomaly for Keynesian economic theory. The justification for government deficits in Keynesian theory is that government spending restores economic growth. Money spent by the private sector does not increase economic growth in a recession; government spending does. This has never made any economic sense, but now the non-response of the economy is exposing this original nonsense for what it always was: nonsense.

The ineffectiveness of Keynesian policies is a surprise only to those who worship at the Keynesian Temple. Many non-Keynesians accurately predicted that recent interventions would make conditions worse.

The Faustian bargain between some of the economics profession and the political class was struck after Keynes’ General Theory was published during the Great Depression. Keynes’ ideas provided cover for politicians to take increasing control of the economy due to its alleged instability. Government management was deemed necessary for consistent growth and wealth creation. For politicians, that was nirvana. For economists, it provided wealth and power in the form of government service. All they had to do was please the king and his court.

The Faustian partnership is now unraveling, despite the protestations of Keynesians. Worshipers like Paul Krugman claim that the economy would be worse if the Keynesian potions had not been applied.

The sacrosanct Keynesian paradigm is never doubted by true believers. All problems are assumed solvable by injection of more poison into the patient. There is no other solution. If results are less than expected, it is always the fault of practitioners who failed to administer enough medicine in a timely manner.

As the world economy implodes, the mountebanks are increasingly seen for what they are — descendants of the court advisers who supported the divine rights of kings. They are alchemists paid to support the divine right of government. It is their role to provide the intellectual support for the growth of government at the expense of the will of the people. These paid political hacks are little different from prostitutes or hired guns. They are the whores of the economics profession.

Let me be clear that I am not calling all Keynesians whores. Some are just plain ignorant. (Neither category is flattering.) Many are technocrats who have mastered mathematical techniques from prestige universities. Like idiot savants, they are brilliant with models, but not intelligent enough to know that aggregate models have nothing to do with individual human behavior. A wag’s characterization of Paul Samuelson seems appropriate to describe these types: “He is the best physicist that the economics profession has ever produced.”

Now their franchise is in danger. Their fingerprints are all over disasters like the Post Office, Amtrak, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and too many others to mention. Despite their best efforts and promises, there is no recovery coming in the economy. Keynesianism is under attack around the world.

It is times like these that paradigm shifts occur. Thomas Kuhn wrote about the difficulties of such shifts in the natural sciences. Vested interests were not easy to overcome, even with contradictory data. That does not bode well for changing the Keynesian paradigm in the social sciences where the vested interests are more numerous and powerful.

There are reasons to be pessimistic:

First, virtually every politician and bureaucrat favors the status quo. It has produced pay, retirement benefits, power and prestige relative to their counterparts in the private sector. There is no risk of unemployment of your employee relocating or going out of business. It is a sheltered overcompensated life that few would willingly change regardless of political affiliation.

Second, big media favors big government and big spending. They understand little about anything, especially economics. The Daily Bell discussed this shortcoming with respect to Time Magazine’s recent article on Economics and concluded:

Here is a woman who writes about economics for millions and whose platform is arguably the most prestigious magazine of its type during the 20th century. Yet both she and her editors allow her to publish an article that betrays such ignorance that the feedbacks beneath the article are of far more value than her own erroneous musings. When that happens, you’ve got a problem.

Third, major corporations are dependent upon various corporate welfare items, contracts and tax loopholes that they are unwilling to give up.

Fourth, 47% of individuals pay no income tax. These individuals have the incentive to vote for larger government because they are “free-riders.”

Fifth, the elderly receive Medicare and Social Security. Presumably they paid into these systems during their earning years. When someone talks about government reform, they see their primary source of income threatened — “they are trying to take away my benefits. How will I live?”

Sixth, the balance of the population is generally unable to determine whether they are winners or losers from government. There are too many programs and regulations to make such a calculation. Many deem a particular program or regulation good because they do not know its costs. Even if proper cost determinations could be made, the calculation is terribly biased because of deficit spending. Deficit spending is close to 50% of total spending. If people compare what they pay in taxes as the costs of these programs, they fool themselves by being biased toward government spending.

Seventh, intellectual arguments cannot overthrow the Keynesian paradigm. Unlike the natural sciences, replicated laboratory tests of a hypothesis are not possible. Proof in the social sciences is never as definitive as in the physical sciences.

Vested interests are much greater than Kuhn described in the natural sciences. No constituent group supports a move toward smaller government. Eventually the truth outs, at least in the natural sciences. Will that happen in the social sciences? Will we overthrow the false paradigm of Keynesian economics? Will big government be able to be rolled back? These are questions that only the passage of time will reveal.

The Keynesian paradigm has gone on too long. It is likely that it cannot continue much longer. Rational evaluation will not kill it. It will die from self-immolation. It will perish in the flames that consume our economy. Consensus that it is dead will probably only come when the economy has reached a similarly terminal condition.

One hopes that this tragedy unfolds fast enough that our freedom still remains. If so, we will rise from the ashes painfully but quickly. If not the world may enter an Economic Dark Ages.

Start Slide Show with PicLens Lite

Former Congressman Says Obama A ‘Threat’ And Must Be Impeached

ImpeachCongress — Mon, 26 Jul 2010 17:02:11 +0000

By Bob Unruh

We have a man in White House who brazenly disregards his oath of office

A former congressman and GOP presidential candidate says for current members of the House and Senate to uphold their oath of office that includes the defense of the United States against enemies “foreign and domestic,” they need to be filing impeachment charges against Barack Obama.

Former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., joined what has become a growing surge of those recommending the ultimate solution for a president they believe not only has disagreeable policies, but is participating in actions that damage the nation.

Tancredo wrote in a opinion piece in the Washington Times that, “Mr. Obama’s refusal to live up to his own oath of office – which includes the duty to defend the United States against foreign invasion – requires senators and representatives to live up to their oaths. Members of Congress must defend our nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Today, that means bringing impeachment charges against Mr. Obama.”

The ultimate guide to Obama’s radical agenda – and how to stop it!

Tancredo is not the first to raise the idea of impeachment against Obama, who has implemented legislation and policies effectively nationalizing financial institutions, automobile companies, health care and many other previously private interests.

In fact, he was not even the only person on this particular day. Times columnist Jeffrey T. Kuhner, who also is president of the Edmund Burke Institute, wrote at the same time, “President Obama has engaged in numerous high crimes and misdemeanors. The Democratic majority in Congress is in peril as Americans reject his agenda. Yet more must be done: Mr. Obama should be impeached.”

Kuhner continued, “He is slowly – piece by painful piece – erecting a socialist dictatorship. We are not there – yet. But he is putting America on that dangerous path. He is undermining our constitutional system of checks and balances; subverting democratic procedures and the rule of law; presiding over a corrupt, gangster regime; and assaulting the very pillars of traditional capitalism. Like Venezuela’s leftist strongman, Hugo Chavez, Mr. Obama is bent on imposing a revolution from above – one that is polarizing America along racial, political and ideological lines. Mr. Obama is the most divisive president since Richard Nixon. His policies are Balkanizing the country. It’s time for him to go.”

Tancredo’s arguments aren’t complicated. During his brief presidential run in 2008 he focused on the border security issue of the United States, and he still is concerned that the failure to secure the U.S. boundary – especially with Mexico – will lead to tragic consequences at the hands of border-crossing terrorists.

Tancredo appeared on Fox News today to defend his position from skeptics, saying Obama’s responsibility is to protect and defend the Constitution and the United States, not “fundamentally transform” them.

“Our president is an enemy of our Constitution, and, as such, he is a danger to our safety, our security and our personal freedoms,” Tancredo warns, affirming his belief that Obama is more dangerous for the United States than al-Qaida.

“He is more dangerous simply because he is inside,” he said. “Few people took him seriously about fundamentally transforming America. That is what he is all about. That is what he has set about doing. He is a committed ideologue. When you have someone like that in the White House, it is a scary proposition.”

He cited the president’s lack of action to adequately secure the border with Mexico.

“He’s putting his country in danger,” Tancredo said. “The country the Founders put together, that’s what’s in jeopardy.”

“Barack Obama is one of the most powerful presidents this nation has seen in generations. He is powerful because he is supported by large majorities in Congress, but, more importantly, because he does not feel constrained by the rule of law. Whether he is putting up the weakest possible defense of the Defense of Marriage Act despite the Justice Department’s legal obligation to support existing law; disenfranchising Chrysler and GM bondholders in order to transfer billions of investor dollars to his supporters in the United Auto Workers; or implementing yet a third offshore oil-drilling moratorium even after two federal courts have thrown out two previous moratoriums, President Obama is determined to see things done his way regardless of obstacles,” Tancredo wrote in his op-ed.

“To Mr. Obama, the rule of law is a mere inconvenience to be ignored, overcome or ‘transcended’ through international agreements or ‘norms.’”

Tancredo wrote that the “dedicated Marxist who lives in the White House” holds power over budgets, the judiciary, national defense and health care. As such, “his regime and his program are not just about changing public policy in the conventional sense. When one considers the combination of his stop-at-nothing attitude, his contempt for limited government, his appointment of judges who want to create law rather than interpret it – all of these make this president today’s single greatest threat to the great experiment in freedom that is our republic.

“Yes, Mr. Obama is a more serious threat to America than al-Qaida. We know that Osama bin Laden and followers want to kill us, but at least they are an outside force against whom we can offer our best defense. But when a dedicated enemy of the Constitution is working from the inside, we face a far more dangerous threat. Mr. Obama can accomplish with the stroke of his pen what bin Laden cannot accomplish with bombs and insurgents.”

Tancredo, who served five terms representing Colorado and now is chairman of the Rocky Mountain Foundation, was joined by Kuhner, who accused Obama of abusing his office and violating his oath.

Kuhner cited Obama’s demand that all Americans buy health insurance.

“The federal government does not have the right to coerce every citizen to purchase a good or service. This is not in the Constitution, and it represents an unprecedented expansion of power,” he wrote. “Yet Obamacare’s most pernicious aspect is its federal funding of abortion. Pro-lifers are now compelled to have their tax dollars used to subsidize insurance plans that allow for the murder of unborn children. This is more than state-sanctioned infanticide. It violates the conscience rights of religious citizens.”

He further cited Obama’s actions regarding the BP oil spill.

“There is a legal process for claims to be adjudicated, but Mr. Obama has behaved more like Mr. Chavez or Russia’s Vladimir Putin: He has bullied BP into setting up a $20 billion compensation fund administered by an Obama appointee. In other words, the assets of a private company are to be raided to serve a political agenda.”

He also wrote about the takeovers in the auto and financial industries, and the New Black Panther case.

“Under Mr. Obama, the Constitution has become a meaningless scrap of paper,” he said. “As president, he is supposed to respect the rule of law. Instead, his administration has dropped charges of voter intimidation against members of the New Black Panther Party. This was done even though their menacing behavior was caught on tape: men in military garb brandishing clubs and threatening whites at a polling site.”

Tancredo nearly two months ago broached the subject of impeachment, suggesting an “impeachment file.”

“I believe there is a growing body of evidence of impeachable offenses sufficient to warrant a formal impeachment resolution in the House, followed by a trial in the Senate,” he wrote at the time.

And the suggestion even has come from onlookers at a presidential appearance. CNN has documented when Obama made a surprise visit to a crowd on a shuttle bus, one onlooker shouted, “When are you going to quit. When are you going to be impeached?”

The issue even has appeared among online gamers, when Microsoft told an Xbox user the signon name “Impeach Obama” was not allowed because, “If you were President Obama, how would you feel if someone wanted to impeach you?”

Floyd and Mary Beth Brown, in a column on WND, discussed the ImpeachObamaCampaign.com that they launched.

They reported that many, instead of examining the evidence, attacked the messengers.

“We expected these attacks,” they reported. But they said the unresolved issues include:

Gerald Walpin, inspector general of the Corporation for National and Community Service, investigated Kevin Johnson, a big buddy of the president, for misuse of funds from an AmeriCorps grant. Obama did not like Walpin’s investigation and findings, whereupon he vindictively fired Walpin to cover for his friend, Johnson. A subsequent investigation vindicated Walpin’s judgment in the matter.
Barack Obama oversaw the effective takeover by government of banks, the largest insurance company (AIG), General Motors and Chrysler – the bulk of the U.S. auto industry – thus stripping bondholders, shareholders and others of their personal property.
Barack Obama is actively pursuing cap-and-trade legislation. Instead of taxing the very air we breathe, it will instead, in a manner of speaking, tax the air we exhale, giving the government unprecedented control over the economy and American businesses. Those taxed businesses will then pass the fees onto the American people.
Spending American citizens’ money, Barack Hussein Obama is running up our debt at an alarming rate. In just the nine months since Obama assumed office, our national debt has gone up by over a trillion dollars. To put that figure in perspective, it took George W. Bush eight years to add $4.8 trillion to the national debt.
And, to add insult to injury, Obama is printing money like it’s going out of style. The effect will be hyperinflation, a crippling of our economy and, quite possibly, personal hardship on a scale that has not been experienced since the Great Depression.
Barack Hussein Obama appointed countless “czars” to oversee everything from the closing of Guantanamo to the food we eat. These czars don’t have to be approved by the Senate. The czars have unprecedented power and report only to Obama. Members of both parties are disturbed by these extra-constitutional excrescences. Sen. Robert Byrd said: “The accumulation of power by White House staff can threaten the constitutional system of checks and balances.” Rep. Jack Kingston called the czars a “parallel government.”
And finally, Obama consistently refuses to approve the release of his actual birth certificate, college transcripts and his medical records. Is he trying to hide something that will threaten his presidency?

Retired U.S. Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, a noted military leader who now is a presence on the Internet with his Stand Up For America and Veterans Defenders websites, told WND he would like Obama to resign.

Vallely, who served in Vietnam and retired in 1991 from the U.S. Army as deputy commanding general for the Pacific, said, “We now must call for the immediate resignation of Barry Soetero (AKA President Barack Hussein Obama) … based on incompetence, deceit, fraud, corruption, dishonesty and violation of the U.S. oath of office and the Constitution.”

“We can wait no longer for a traditional change of power and new government,” he has warned.

“‘We the People’ have had enough. Enough is enough. The Obama White House and identifiable members of Congress are now on a progressive socialist, treasonous death march and are bankrupting and weakening the country. We have watched them violate their sacred oath of office. ‘We, the People’ cannot wait for and solely rely on the next round of elections in November of this year. It is now and each day that these public servants must put the citizen’s interests above self-interest by resigning immediately,” he said.

Peter Ferrara, on the American Spectator website, also has predicted Obama’s resignation.

“I am now ready to predict that President Obama will not even make it [to 2012],” he wrote. “I predict that he will resign in discredited disgrace before the fall of 2012,” Ferrera said.

Opinion by ImpeachCongress: Fellow Americans, we are at a crossroads here in America. We either stand up for our country as the founding fathers bequeathed it to us or we roll over and give up our Liberty. It is our choice. There are “designing men” as George Washington put it that want to destroy the very Liberty that America stands for and our forefathers fought for to further their own personal power.

We are a nation of free individuals. We cannot succumb to the progressive onslaught on our freedom. We must stand up, united, against the tyranny of the federal government and send the message this November that the progressive liberals in Congress are done. Once Constitutional Conservatives have gained control of both Houses we must begin to dismantle the past 110 years of progressive influence on our Country.

The first order of business will be to either impeach Obama or force his resignation followed by the criminal trials he so deserves. Second, we bring impeachment proceedings against any remaining Representatives and Senators, that were not voted out in November, that have been complicit in this great fraud on the American People. And, finally, we begin the arduous task of undoing the mess of laws and bureaucracies that have strangled our Liberty for one hundred years. Close the department of education and the IRS. Repeal the internal revenue code and replace it with a fair and simple flat tax. Put education back into the hands of State and Local government. Repeal the seventeenth amendment and scale federal government back to the seventeen enumerated powers granted it in the Constitution. We must unite around these principals and take back our country!

Start Slide Show with PicLens Lite

Wolves Guarding The Henhouse: Financial Reform Bill to Be Finalized by Members Who Benefit Most from Wall Street Cash

ImpeachCongress — Fri, 11 Jun 2010 00:02:52 +0000

By Michael Beckel

Democratic and Republican leadership in both the House and Senate have named 43 individuals to a conference committee tasked with hammering out the final version of the Congress’ financial regulatory reform legislation.

These members comprise just 8 percent of Congress, but the group has been far more likely to benefit from Wall Street’s cash.

Out of every $100 that Wall Street interests have contributed to sitting members of Congress over the years, $16 has gone to a member of the financial reform conference committee, the Center for Responsive Politics has found.

Since 1989, all political action committees and individual employees of companies classified by the Center as part of the finance, insurance and real estate sector (FIRE) have contributed more than $695 million to the campaign committees and leadership PACs of current members of the 111th Congress.

More than $112 million from these interests has benefited the Democrats and Republicans named to the conference committee, which will reconcile differences between the Wall Street reform measures passed by the House and Senate.

Among specific interest groups within the FIRE sector, commercial banks were found to have given about $18 to a member of the conference committee out of every $100 donated to all current members of Congress.

Securities and investment interests have given $1 out of every $5 to a member of the conference committee, the Center for Responsive Politics found.

And people and political action committees associated with credit and finance companies have given nearly $1 out of every $4 donated to members of the conference committee.

	Total Congress	Only Conferees	% Conferees
FIRE Sector	$695,005,130	$112,333,737	16%
Real Estate	$175,105,723	$21,492,789	12%
Insurance	$117,396,301	$18,630,940	16%
Commercial Banks	$82,035,049	$14,685,940	18%
Securities & Investment	$163,628,474	$32,252,759	20%
Credit & Finance	$25,191,341	$5,739,911	23%

The median amount of contributions from Wall Street interests received by the committee’s 16 House and Senate Republicans ($1.75 million) is 81 percent larger than the median amount received by the committee’s 27 Democrats ($969,600) — although the parties have received nearly the same amount when one compares averages.

The conferees who have received the most from the FIRE sector since 1989 are Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.). Schumer has received more than $17.5 million, while Dodd has received more than $15.1 million.

The next highest recipient of contributions from Wall Street interests has received less than half as much as either Schumer or Dodd. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), the ranking Republican member of the Senate Banking Committee, has collected more than $7.5 million.

The eight-figure sums collected by Schumer and Dodd increase the Democrats’ average as a whole.

Thanks in large part to their hauls from Wall Street, Senate Democrats on the conference committee have received an average of 72 percent more from the FIRE sector than Senate Republican on the conference committee.

When comparing medians, Senate Republicans named to the conference committee have received 3 percent more than their Democratic counterparts.

Among House members named to the conference committee, Republicans have collected more from Wall Street interests, when comparing both the median and average amounts.

The median amount received from the FIRE sector by House Republicans on the conference committee is double the Democratic median.

And the average haul from Wall Street interests by House Republicans on the conference committee is 60 percent large than the average among Democrats on the committee.

Comparison	% Increase
Median Senate GOP v. Median Senate Dem	3%
Average Senate Dem v. Average Senate GOP	72%
Median House GOP v. Median House Dem	103%
Average House GOP v. Average House Dem	60%
Median All GOP v. Median All Dems	81%
Average All Dems v. Average All GOP	2%

For more detailed information about the summary figures, and the breakdown of all FIRE contributions to the 43 members of the conference committee, you can download a spreadsheet of the data here: FinReg Money.xls

(If you use this information, please be sure to credit the Center for Responsive Politics.)

You can also see the FIRE contributions to all members of the 111th Congress here as part of the financial tools available in our “Crossing Wall Street” series.

Source: Center for Responsive Politics and OpenSecrets.org

Start Slide Show with PicLens Lite

Virtue and Morality is the Answer to Washington Corruption

ImpeachCongress — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 17:48:34 +0000

We need only go back and read the historical writings of our founding fathers to grasp the solution to our current deficit of leadership in Washington. The times we are living today are in many ways exactly the same as they were when these men risked everything for liberty. They could not have done it without deep faith and belief in Natural Law. The underlying basis of which is Virtue and Morality from which come Truth, Honor and Humility; none of which exists in Washington today.

In order for a free people to self-govern, they must be virtuous and moral. Without these traits as a people, they will sink into despotism.

Samuel Adams pointed out a sobering fact concerning our political survival as a free people when he said:

“But neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who, so far as his power and influence extend, will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man.”

(emphasis added)

He then went on to say that public officials should not be chosen if they are lacking in experience, training, proven virtue, and demonstrated wisdom. He said the task of the electorate is to choose those whose “fidelity has been tried in the nicest and tenderest manner, and has been ever firm and unshaken.”

If we look at our current leadership, we have chosen a President who is neither virtuous or moral. He is, at a minimum, a socialist and more likely a communist. Moreover, it is highly likely that he is neither a Natural Born Citizen nor a legal Naturalized Citizen of the United States. This is a very serious matter that has been utterly ignored by the courts and the press in order to perpetrate a fraud on the American People. It is the highest treason that our founding fathers would never have tolerated. They took great care and consideration to be certain that a leader with dual loyalties could never hold the highest office in the land.

Indeed, our Congressional leadership is worse! These people were “hired” by us to represent us and what have they done? They have defrauded the very people that elected them by allowing an unqualified candidate to run for and get elected to the Presidency. What immoral cowards! Yet, we the people have failed ourselves in choosing people of such low mortality to begin with. We deserve to suffer the consequences of our actions. Our actions are representative of the low moral character that we, as a nation, have sunk to and this has been driven by the long term undermining of education in America. In our complacency, we have allowed a liberal takeover of education which in turn is indoctrinating our children against the very Constitution that protects them.

So, what do we do? We seek out leaders of High Virtue and Morality!

Below is letter from Eugene DiSimone, Candidate for Governor of Nevada to James Gibbons, Governor of the State of Nevada. In no uncertain terms, he is spelling out all that is wrong with the current deficit of virtue and morality with the current President and Congress. The call is there for Governor Gibbons to proceed with Quo Worranto proceedings against the President and redress for the seizure of States rights with the Healthcare Bill. Each branch of government have usurped power from the states and claimed it for themselves. Clearly in violation of the Constitution.

Mr. Eugene “Gino” DiSimone
Candidate, Governor of Nevada 2010
17810 Thunder River Dr.
Reno, NV 89508

March 27, 2010

Mr. James A. Gibbons
Governor State of Nevada
101 N. Carson Street
Carson City, NV 89701

Dear Governor Gibbons:

I adjure you, nay, I require you, as the duly elected Governor of my State exercising the duty of Commander in Chief of Nevada, to immediately take action to protect my freedom, liberty, property and wealth, as your duty utterly requires. To this end I require you file a legal challenge, Quo Warranto (D.C. Statute 35 §16-3501), on the authority of BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, a/k/a BARRY SOETORO requiring proof that he is eligible to be President of the United States of America, and he has the constitutional authority to act as President of the United States and to execute the Health Care Bill. This Bill is a direct threat to my freedom, liberty, wealth and property. It threatens nearly every citizen of Nevada and nearly every business of Nevada as it will forcefully extract, under duress, my/our wealth and property. This is an acute direct security threat and I require swift aggressive intervention for assurances of security from my Commander in Chief of this great State of Nevada.

By virtue of this acute security threat to me and Nevada citizenry and businesses, as Commander in Chief, it is your solemn sworn duty to protect me/us from acute security threats, particularly threats to my freedoms, liberties, health, wealth and property. To this end I demand you exercise your sworn duty to protect us with expediency as follows:

File (directly from the Governor of Nevada) a legal challenge, Quo Warranto (D.C. Statute 35 §16-3501), on the eligibility and authority of BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, a/k/a BARRY SOETORO requiring exacting legal proof of the specific constitutionally defined and required form, such that he is eligible to be President and has constitutionally granted Presidential signature authority of the legal and correct form – not withstanding substitute documents are not authorized by the U.S. Constitution.

Submit an Executive Order staying all provisions, actions, or other measures of the Health Care Bill, and further enacting such measures as is required to guarantee the security of the citizens and businesses toward our freedoms, liberties, wealth and property against all efforts to infringe them as is written in the Health Care Bill.

Submit a Proclamation of Resolutions, listed in items ‘a’ through ‘l’ below and adopted in large part from the Resolutions of 1798, making null and void the Health Care Bill, claiming the State of Nevada reasserts constitutional authority and sovereignty over all powers not expressly delegated to the United States nor prohibited to it by the US Constitution.

Be It Resolved: The Health Care Bill of Congress, signed by the President on the 23th day of March, 2010 and again thereafter, and so commonly known as the “Health Care Bill” or otherwise known as “Health Care Reform” (and all their other acts which assume to create, define, or otherwise establish laws, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution,) are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and otherwise establish laws is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory; that the State of Nevada reasserts rightful constitutional ownership and power of these rights within its territory and borders.

Be it Resolved: That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.

Be It Resolved: That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, and no other crimes, whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” therefore the Health Care Bill of Congress, signed by the President on the 23th day of March, 2010 and again there after, and so commonly known as the “Health Care Bill” or otherwise known as “Health Care Reform” (and all their other acts which assume to create, define, or otherwise establish laws, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution,) are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and otherwise establish laws is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory and borders.

Be It Resolved: That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitutions, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, or prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”; and that no power over the free choice of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness shall be infringed by forced participation in health care or any other aspect of private lives as it pertains to health or health care. That, therefore, the act of Congress of the United States, signed by the President on the 23th day of March, 2010 and again there after and so commonly known as the “Health Care Bill” or otherwise known as “Health Care Reform” which does abridge the freedom and liberty of individual choice of health care or any other measure within such “Health Care Bill”, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.

Be It Resolved: That illegal aliens are not friends of the State and are under the jurisdiction and the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” the act of the Congress of the United States, signed by the President on the 23th day of March, 2010 and so commonly known as the “Health Care Bill” or otherwise known as “Health Care Reform” which assumes powers over aliens, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.

Be It Resolved: That the construction applied by the General Government (as is evidenced by sundry of their proceedings) to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” and “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution, the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof,” goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to their powers by the Constitution: that words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers, ought not to be so construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument: that the proceedings of the General Government under color of these articles, will be a fit and necessary subject of revisal and correction, at a time of greater tranquility, while those specified in the preceding resolutions call for immediate redress.

Be It Resolved: That a committee of conference and correspondence be appointed, who shall have in charge to communicate the preceding resolutions to the Governors and Legislatures of the several States: to assure them that this commonwealth continues in the same esteem of their friendship and union which it has manifested from that moment at which a common danger first suggested a common union: that it considers union, for specified national purposes, and particularly to those specified in their late federal compact, to be friendly, to the peace, happiness and prosperity of all the States: that faithful to that compact, according to the plain intent and meaning in which it was understood and acceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its preservation: that it does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States; and that therefore this commonwealth is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy;

Be it Resolved: That where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act or Bill is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non fœderis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them: that nevertheless, this commonwealth, from motives of regard and respect for its co States, has wished to communicate with them on the subject: that with them alone it is proper to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, and solely authorized to judge in the last resort of the powers exercised under it, Congress being not a party, but merely the creature of the compact, and subject as to its assumptions of power to the final judgment of those by whom, and for whose use itself and its powers were all created and modified.

Be It Resolved: That if the Bill before specified should stand, these conclusions would flow from it; that the general government may place any act they think proper whether enumerated or not enumerated by the constitution as cognizable by them: that they may transfer its cognizance to the President, or any other person, who may himself be the accuser, counsel, judge and jury, whose suspicions may be the evidence, his order the sentence, his officer the executioner, and his breast the sole record of the transaction: that a very numerous and valuable description of the inhabitants of these States being, by this precedent, reduced, as outlaws, to the absolute dominion of one man, and the barrier of the Constitution thus swept away from us all, no ramparts now remains against the passions and the powers of a majority in Congress to protect from a like exportation, or other more grievous punishment, the minority of the same body, the legislatures, judges, governors and counselors of the States, nor their other peaceable inhabitants, who may venture to reclaim the constitutional rights and liberties of the States and people, or who for other causes, good or bad, may be obnoxious to the views, or marked by the suspicions of the President, or be thought dangerous to his or their election, or other interests, public or personal; that the common man has indeed been selected as the safest subject of a first experiment; but the greater citizenry will soon follow, or rather, has already followed, for already has the Health Care Bill marked him as its prey: that these and successive acts of the same character, unless arrested at the threshold, necessarily drive these States into revolution and blood and will furnish new calumnies against republican government, and new pretexts for those who wish it to be believed that man cannot be governed but by a rod of iron. The States are required to protect the people from such despotism and heretofore shall do so.

Be It Resolved: That it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights: that confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism — free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power: that our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go; and let the honest advocate of confidence read the Health Care Bill, and say if the Constitution has not been wise in fixing limits to the government it created, and whether we should be wise in destroying those limits. Let him say what the government is, if it be not a tyranny, which the men of our choice have con erred on our President, and the President of our choice has assented to, and accepted over the common man to whom the mild spirit of our country and its law have pledged hospitality and protection: that the men of our choice have more respected the naked belief of the President, than the solid right of proof, the claims of justification, the sacred force of truth, and the forms and substance of law and justice. It is well known that this President elected in November of 2008, his father was from Kenya and, therefore, according to the British Nationality act of 1948, BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA II, a/k/a BARRY SOETORO would also be British, making him a dual citizen. It is this dual allegiance that the Constitution specifically guards against, especially in the Office of the President where fierce loyalty and allegiance to only this country is required; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power. The State of Nevada asserts jealousy, and not confidence, which prescribes and requires proof of allegiance through constitutional limits on Presidential eligibility.

Be It Resolved: In questions of powers, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. That this commonwealth does therefore call on its co-States for an expression of their sentiments on the Health Care Bill, plainly declaring whether this Bill is or is not authorized by the federal compact. And it doubts not that their sense will be so announced as to prove their attachment unaltered to limited government, weather general or particular. And that the rights and liberties of their co-States will be exposed to no dangers by remaining embarked in a common bottom with their own. That they will concur with this commonwealth in considering the said Bill as so palpably against the Constitution as to amount to an undisguised declaration that that compact is not meant to be the measure of the powers of the General Government, but that it will proceed in the exercise over these States, of all powers whatsoever: that they will view this as seizing the rights of the States, and consolidating them in the hands of the General Government, with a power assumed to bind the States (not merely as the cases made federal, casus fœderis but), in all cases whatsoever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by others against their consent: that this would be to surrender the form of government we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and not from our authority; and that the co-States, recurring to their natural right in cases not made federal, will concur in declaring this Bill void, and of no force, and will each take measures of its own for providing that neither this Bill, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shall be exercised within their respective territories and borders.

Be It Resolved: That the said committee be authorized to communicate by writing or personal conference, at any times or places whatever, with any person or persons who may be appointed by any one or more co-States to correspond or confer with them; and that they lay their proceedings before the next session of Assembly.

Sincerely,

Gino DiSimone
1-775-544-2765

The President Who Hates His Country

mweiss — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:49:27 +0000

This is perhaps the best article I’ve seen written on Obama’s hatred for and desire to “fundamentally change” our country. It was published in May, 2009 at the Canada Free Press website by Joan Swirsky. Great work Joan! He hates America… He hates capitalism…. He hates individual ingenuity and success… He is a traitor and should be treated as such. Patriotic Americans must stand up against this domestic terrorist and his tyrannical government!

By Joan Swirsky Sunday, May 3, 2009
In the last century, the impassioned words and actions of patriots like Winston Churchill – along with America’s heroic help and sacrifice – saved Europe. The eloquence and actions of “I’ve been to the mountaintop” Martin Luther King Jr. brought America to an unprecedented level of social justice.

The peerless oratory and tireless diplomacy of the man who would become Israel’s Foreign Minister, Abba Eban convinced the entire world that after the wanton murder of six-million Jews in the Holocaust its straggling survivors deserved their own state of Israel. The inspiring words and decisive actions of President Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, tore down the Berlin Wall, and restored economic prosperity to America. The efforts of these towering figures resulted in a more highly-evolved world.

We have also seen the opposite in totalitarian leaders like Hitler, Mussolini, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot, Mao, and Saddam Hussein, among others, who exploited their masses, destroyed their economies, brought havoc, turbulence, grief and massive death within and outside of their countries, and made the world a more dangerous and threatening place.

The one thing all of these virtuous and evil men had in common was love for their respective countries, in fact a burning passion that superseded all else. The virtuous believed in freedom and democracy. The evil believed in subjugation of their peoples and lifetime tenures for themselves in order to actualize their goals of conquering their eternal enemies – Americans and Jews.

Today, we have a new crop of inveterate America- and Jew-haters, among them the Marxist leader of Venezuela Hugo Chavez, Nicaragua’s president Daniel Ortega, Iran’s “death-to-America-and-Israel” study-in-abnormal-psychology Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the ever-sabotage-America and anti-Semitic “leaders” of the 22-Arab states that surround Israel.

I have either read about or observed firsthand all of these people. Yet in my decades of commenting on the political scene, I cannot recall a single leader of any country or regime who has ever spoken negatively of his country or tolerated others speaking ill of the land or the people he represented

Until now

Bizarre and, yes, repugnant as it is to our essentially centrist country, America now has a president who has broken that time-honored tradition. Barack Obama, on the campaign trail and as the leader of the free world is the first U.S. president to proclaim to anyone within earshot that he, like his wife, is not proud of his country, and is all-too-willing to offer serial apologies – for America! – to Americans and foreigners alike.

As Ed Lasky writes: “We know that during the campaign [Obama] warned that criticism of his wife was `off-limits’. But criticism of America – well, that is fine.”

We also know that during his run for the presidency, Obama expressed sneering condescension towards all those bible-clasping, gun-owning yahoos who “cling” to those silly things, and that in Europe he consistently gave voice to America’s supposed “sins.” But all that pales in comparison to the clear contempt – looks more like hatred to me – that Obama feels for the United States of America and for its most revered founding document, the U.S. Constitution.

In just the first 100-days of his tenure, Obama’s words and actions have demonstrated that he is no friend of the country he leads. This is only a smattering of what happened on his recent three-continent trip abroad and to Mexico:

In France, Obama told his audience that America “has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive” toward Europe.
In Prague, Obama – in true utopian-kindergarten fashion – pledged “with conviction” that America will “seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” In other words, destroy big bad America’s ability to defend itself!
In London, Obama made clear that the world’s financial wealth was no longer made by those inferior leaders Roosevelt and Churchill, effectively ceding America’s leading role in creating and sharing wealth to nations that have never measured up to our country’s bountiful generosity or spirit of free-market entrepreneurship.
In Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, Obama sat passively while the Marxist Chavez handed him an American-bashing book and delivered another revile-America speech, while never once rising to defend our country.
In Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, Obama again sat passively while the Marxist Ortega blamed the United States for a century of what he called terroristic U.S. aggression in Central America, again emitting not a whisper of defense on our country’s behalf.
In Turkey, Obama said – incredibly and inaccurately – that America was not a Christian nation.
And in his recent trip to Mexico, Obama said that the escalating border violence was essentially America’s fault.

Scan your memory. Can you think of any other leader in world history who so consistently badmouths his own country, or fails to defend it? I can’t.

Wall St. Journal writer Dorothy Rabinowitz notes that Obama “had gone to Europe not as the voice of his nation, but as a missionary with a message of atonement for its errors. No sitting American president had ever delivered indictments of this kind while abroad, or for that matter at home. When [our allies] see Obama’s moral equivalence, they realize they are on their own and must cut their own deals to survive – understanding that multicultural trendiness is now a cynical cover for moral laxity and ‘can’t we all get along?’

Historian Victor Davis Hanson also noticed something odd about Obama’s apology tour. “Despite this fresh climate of atonement, there was a complete absence of a single apology from any other foreign leader…not a word came from Britain about colonialism…nothing from Germany on the Holocaust…not a peep from France about Algeria or Vietnam. Turkey was mum on the Armenian killings…Russia said nothing about the 30 million murdered by Stalin…Nothing came from China about the 70 million who perished under Mao…Mr. Medvedev said nothing about Putin’s brutish rule…We saw no concrete evidence of any help — or hope and change — from any foreign leader. Zilch.”

In addition, Hanson continues, “We hear nothing about our Gettysburg, or our entry into World War I. Iwo Jima and the Bulge are never alluded to. Drawing the line in Korea and forcing the end of the Soviet monstrosity are taboo subjects. That we pledged the life of New York for Berlin in the Cold War is unknown. Liberating Afghanistan and Iraq from the diabolical Taliban and Saddam Hussein is left unsaid. The Civil Rights movement, the Great Society, affirmative action, and present billion-dollar foreign-aid programs apparently never existed. Millions of Africans have been saved by George Bush’s efforts at extending life-saving medicines to AIDS patients — but again, this is never referenced.”

Blogger James Lewis says that Obama’s “obsessive need to put down his own country shows a stunningly ignorant man who has evidently never spoken to a concentration camp survivor, a Cuban refugee, a boat person from Vietnam, a Soviet dissident, or a survivor of Mao’s purges.”

And Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell adds, “Obama `gets’ the America-haters.”

Abandoning allies, Embracing enemies

“If you are a longtime enemy of the United States, count on a grand reception from the Obama administration. All is forgiven and, worse, forgotten,” write Dick Morris and Eileen McGann. “But if you have a track record as an ally or friend, you won’t get the right time of day.”

Of course apologists for Obama & Co. point to “progress” in our foreign policy, ignoring, as Caroline Glick points out, that “America’s betrayal of its democratic allies makes each of them more vulnerable to aggression at the hands of their enemies – enemies the Obama administration is now actively attempting to appease.” Glick lays out the cold hard facts:

Obama abrogated America’s strategic commitment to the defense of our ally Japan when his administration reacted to North Korea’s ballistic missile test by saying the U.S. would only shoot the missile down if it targeted U.S. territory.
Obama slapped our ally India when he refused to make ending Pakistan’s support for jihadist terror groups attacking India a central component of its strategy for contending with Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Obama failed to assure our ally Iraq that democracy and freedom will be secured before U.S. forces are withdrawn next year.
Obama de facto abandoned our allies in Eastern Europe when he announced his intention to forge a new alliance with Russia. “The Czech, Polish, Georgian and Ukrainian governments,” Glick says, “were quick to recognize that Obama’s strong desire to curry favor with the Kremlin and weaken his own country will imperil their ability to withstand Russian aggression.”
Obama “is sacrificing the U.S.’s alliance with our ally Israel “in a bid to appease the Arabs and Iran by supporting the immediate establishment of a Palestinian state,” which, Glick warns, “requires Israel to commit national suicide in exchange for `peace.’” Obama also made clear “that from the administration’s perspective, an Israeli strike that prevents Iran from becoming a nuclear power is less acceptable than a nuclear-armed Iran.” In addition, Obama sent Hamas $900 million of foreign aid, “channeled through the UNRWA, a United Nations front filled with Hamas operatives”
Obama slapped our ally England when he returned the bust of Winston Churchill to Prime Minister Gordon Brown.
Obama slapped our ally Colombia and its president Alvaro Uribe when he refused to submit the free trade deal with Bogota to the Senate.

“What a great time to be our enemy!” Glick exclaims. “What a terrible time to be our friend!”

And speaking about appeasing Iran, the Obama administration recently asked a federal judge to throw out a $6.6-billion class-action lawsuit against Iran filed by 52 American diplomats and military officials held hostage for more than a year at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran 30 years ago. Nothing like selling out Americans to make brownie points with a bloodthirsty dictator!

Barry Rubin explains: “Friends, especially in Europe, are pleased, applaud, but then add that they don’t have to give this guy anything because he is all apologies and no toughness. They like the fact that he is all carrots and no sticks. If, however, they are states more at risk…they worry that they cannot rely on the United States to help and defend them. Enemies or potential rivals…say that this guy is weak and defeated. He apologizes, offers unconditional engagements, and promises concessions…they’ll eat the carrots and, if possible, their neighbors as well.”

NY Post writer Ralph Peters, a former military intelligence officer, sums up the hate-America core tenets of the “Obama Doctrine” as follows:
(1) We’re to blame,
(2) Problems can be negotiated away,
(3) Problems that can’t be talked out can be bought off,
(4) Islamist terrorism doesn’t exist,
(5) It’s all our fault,
(6) Israel’s the obstacle to Middle East peace,
(7) Our nukes threaten world peace and we need to get rid of them,
(8) Our military is dangerous,
(9) Our intelligence services are even more dangerous than our military,
(10) It’s only torture if we do it, and
(11) Blame President George W. Bush.

Obama is clearly not satisfied with threatening the safety of our tried-and-true allies abroad. He is also determined to undermine the bedrock foundation of America’s security – our military and intelligence agencies. By disclosing interrogation memos – and planning to release photographs associated with military probes into prisoner abuse – he has betrayed every heroic person who risks his or her life for our country, and unforgivably given aid-and-comfort to enemies who seethe with virulent anti-Americanism and lust for our demise. And in the Department of Homeland Security’s infamous memo, he has called members of our military, among others, potential domestic terrorists!

“After September 1th, the general outcry was, ‘Why don’t we have better overseas capabilities?’” said Porter Goss, director of the CIA from September 2004 to May 2006. “I fear that in the years to come, this refrain will be heard again. It is certainly not trust that is fostered when intelligence officers are told one day ‘I have your back,’ only to learn a day later that a knife is being held to it.”

How horrifying to contemplate that it is the President of the United States himself who is wielding that back-stabbing knife!

Questioning Obama’s patriotism

Before the November election, legal scholar Henry Mark Holzer wrote – and scrupulously documented – a stunning indictment of Obama in which he stated that Obama’s repeatedly professed claim to be a patriot is “a fraud on the American people – and an insult to the countless true patriots who, for over two hundred years, have loved and loyally and zealously supported the United States of America.”

“Patriots,” Holzer concluded, “don’t associate with and derive sustenance from terrorists, America-haters and anti-Semites; they don’t countenance fixed elections; they don’t keep secrets from voters; they don’t intimidate their enemies; they don’t denigrate and degrade our military; they don’t gratuitously interfere with their government’s efforts to protect our country; and they don’t disdain the symbol of this great nation, which for over two centuries men and women have fought and died: the American flag. Whatever Barack Obama is, we can be certain that he is no patriot!”

The events that have followed Obama’s election, Holzer says, “have compounded the proof of the president’s lack of patriotism,” which he has recently spelled out in a follow-up article. A few of the many examples he provides of what “a patriotic American president does not do include:

Bankrupt this country and court massive inflation in order to implement his vision of a fascist/socialist nation.
Sit on his hands with a straight face while a South American thug insults his country.
Appoint America-haters to his cabinet.
Cozy up to a soon-to-be-nuclear-armed Iranian madman.
Impotently watch the probably-already-nuclear-armed North Korean Stalinists lob a ballistic missile across the Pacific.
Fail to stanch the flow of illegal aliens across the Mexican-United States border.
Cut the defense budget.
Strangle innovation during a serious recession by raising taxes.
Close Guantanamo Bay without a clue of how to handle the enemy combatants incarcerated there.
Publicly announce what measures military and CIA interrogators can use to extract information from terrorists.
Apologize to the world for what has made America great and grovel to persons, nations. and institutions unfit to shine our shoes!
Cede American sovereignty to the American-hating United Nations.
Defy the Second Amendment and a Supreme Court decision by making an end run that substantially reduces the supply of certain ammunition.
Repudiate the policy and practice of missile shield installation.”

Some dare call it treason

It is one thing to question a president’s patriotism, but even more serious to accuse him of treason. In an open letter to Obama on Treason, Walter Francis Fitzpatrick, III (U.S. Naval Academy, Class of 1975) minces no words in accusing the president of sending Army forces to Samson, Alabama, and Boston in violation of the Constitution. Here are excerpts of his letter:

“I have observed and extensively recorded invidious attacks by military-political aristocrats against the Constitution for twenty years. Now you have broken in and entered the White House by force of contrivance, concealment, conceit, and deceit. Posing as an imposter president and commander in chief, you have stripped civilian command and control over the military establishment…
“We come now to the reckoning. I accuse you and your military-political criminal assistants of TREASON. I name you and your military criminal associates as traitors. Your criminal ascension manifests a clear and present danger. You fundamentally changed our form of government. The Constitution no longer works….

“I identify you as a foreign-born domestic enemy. You are not my president. You are not my commander in chief.

Fitzpatrick is not alone. John Smith – a blogger on Townhall.com, titled a recent article “Obama Is a Traitor.” Commenting on the president’s release of the “torture” memos, Smith says:

“Given the actions of Barack Obama in recent days, one has to wonder how many soon-to-be released State secrets have been gathered by radical left-wing traitors and hidden in the dark recesses of Washington, awaiting the Manchurian Candidate’s command to publish them…

“The motivation for Obama’s recent intentional disclosure of Top Secret CIA memoranda…was an act committed solely to increase his own political power through appeasement of the radical left…or was it …guided by the twisted moral imperative uniquely embraced by the Left, which dictates that only those actions that serve to limit individual liberty, punish patriotism, and destroy the traditions and culture of the United States of America are good?…

“Were Obama’s actions motivated by a deeply rooted desire to harm this Nation?…

“Article III of the Constitution defines Treason against the United States as “… levying War against them or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort…”.

“Top Secret information is the highest level of classification that we have on a national level. By definition, such material, if made public, will cause “exceptionally grave damage” to national security…

“The willful disclosure of Top Secret information is an act of Treason against the United States….A sitting President of The United States of America has committed Treason.”

Fitzpatrick and Smith are among a rising tide of voices – in and outside of the military – who have observed with growing horror Obama’s proclivity to destroy our capitalist economic system, subvert the U.S. Constitution, endanger our military and intelligence services, and obsequiously embrace America’s sworn enemies.

Dr. Jack Wheeler, a consummate Washington insider, goes one step further. “The evidence that the President of the United States is a traitor is mounting. The evidence that the President of the United states is a mortal danger to America’s national security is mounting. The evidence that the President of the United States will not defend America from threats and insults from every two-bit fascist dictator in the world …is not only mounting, it is overwhelming.”

Writer Amy L. Geiger-Hammer states: “I do wonder if Obama should be called a traitor or just incompetent…does he ever talk about what a great country America is?”
And UK journalist Gerald Warner echoes that rising tide: “If al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the rest of the Looney Tunes brigade want to kick America to death, they had better move in quickly and grab a piece of the action before Barack Obama finishes the job himself. Never in the history of the United States has a president worked so actively against the interests of his own people – not even Jimmy Carter. Obama’s problem is that he does not know who the enemy is. To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US Constitution. “

Is America Lost?

Multiple lawsuits to find proof that Obama is Constitutionally ineligible to be president are ongoing and will ultimately determine if he is an American or Kenyan or Indonesian or UK “natural-born” citizen. To this date, he has spent over a million dollars blocking the suits about his still-missing birth certificate, and there is increasing evidence that the birth certificate attested to by FactCheck.org, FightTheSmears.org, and DailyKos.com are forgeries. And of course we still have not seen Obama’s Selective Service record, medical records, multiple visas, college transcripts, et al.
If Obama is proven to be the fraud and interloper many suspect, every one of his edicts, bills, laws, dictates, Supreme Court selections, et al, will be overturned , leaving America to cope with serious problems – under the leadership of the incomprehensible Joe Biden – but nothing approaching this hate-America president’s far-left socialist domestic programs and appease-our-enemies foreign policy.
The huge national turnouts at the Tea Parties of April 15 were only the beginning of a movement that was spurred by ordinary Americans waking up to Obama’s destruction of our economy, his attempts to reshape America into a banana republic, the grave damage he’s inflicted on our military and intelligence services, and his unsavory predilection for embracing our enemies and apologizing non-stop for the most magnificent nation on earth.
In short, they are waking up to the president who hates his country.
Editor Charlotte Baker predicts that “the Tea Parties and other, more aggressive, protests will grow exponentially, and that the Obama juggernaut can and will be stopped.” It’s crucial, she says, “for all Americans to recall the history they learned in school – at least before the Left hijacked what used to be known as `education.’ The Europeans, Japanese and Russians were all taken over by one form or another of totalitarianism because their combined history was one of absolute rulers – kings, czars and `divine’ emperors. They were totally conditioned to tyranny.
“But the monstrous anti-American gang that rigged the voting system on November 4, 2008– as they do routinely in Obama’s Chicago Machine politics – to push Obama into We-the-People’s White House, have shown – even before his inauguration – the kind of overreaching that arrogant tyrants always demonstrate. Hitler, Mao, Tojo and Stalin all got away with overreaching, but they weren’t brutalizing Americans.
“Tolerating totalitarianism is simply not in the genetic code – the DNA – of Americans!” Baker adds. “Freedom and Liberty run in our blood!”
Indeed!

Start Slide Show with PicLens Lite

Obama Attacks Our Sovereignty; Sells Us Out

mweiss — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 23:47:24 +0000

The reason why Obama continues to apologize for America around the world has now become abundantly clear. He has every intention of selling us out to the Europeans, the Chinese, the Middle East and every other Third World country in order to create some grandiose ideological communist world government of which he believes he will be the leader. We The People of the United States of America must stop this tyrannical dictator before he signs the United Nations Climate Change treaty in Copenhagen this December.

We must remove him from the Office of the Presidency either by impeachment, if he is actually determined to be eligible to the office, or for treason against the Constitution, which is the more likely scenario.

Below are two videos of Dr. Jerome Corsi being interviewed by Sean Hannity for his new book… America for Sale: Fighting the New World Order, Surviving a Global Depression, and Preserving USA Sovereignty. The third video is of the closing statements in a speech by Lord Christopher Monckton, the former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Lord Monckton’s speech was given at Bethel University in St. Paul, MN on Wednesday, October 14,2009.

Click here to view the embedded video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMkSref0soc

Click here to view the embedded video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAUvTiHlQJw

Click here to view the embedded video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlTagSZPm7o

Start Slide Show with PicLens Lite