WND/WENZEL POLL
Scientific tally shows 2 of 3 like state legislation to require proof
By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WorldNetDaily
Editor's note: This is another in a series of monthly "WND/WENZEL POLLS" conducted exclusively for WND by the public-opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies.
Not even one person in 10 believes Barack Obama has shown that he is eligible to be president of the United States, according to a stunning new scientific poll that also reveals political Independents have less tolerance than even Republicans for his efforts to obfuscate the issue.
"The shocking result in this survey is that just 9 percent said they believe Obama has met the requirements to prove he was born in the United States and is therefore qualified to be president," said Fritz Wenzel, chief of Wenzel Strategies, which conducted the assessment.
"Even when you combine those who say such questions are not valid with those who believe he has satisfied the requirements, it still falls short of equaling the percentage who said he should step forward and prove his birth origin once and for all," he said.
Wenzel Strategies, an independent public opinion research firm based in Ohio, conducted a nationwide telephone poll using a randomly selected sample of all adults. Thesurvey , including 1,095 respondents, was conducted March 15-17, 2011, and carries a confidence interval of 95 percent and a margin of error of +/- 2.93 percentage points.
"The question of whether Barack Obama is eligible to hold the office of president is remarkable in that so many people are aware of the questions that remain unanswered. The survey shows that 77 percent are aware of the issue, and another 12 percent said they are unsure, which likely means they know a little but not enough to articulate details," Wenzel said in his analysis of the results.
"Given the level of interest that the American public now devotes to politics, especially in an off-election year, this finding is remarkable. It speaks volumes about Obama's unwillingness or inability to satisfy this question once and for all," he said.
It was back in June 2009 when Wenzel asked the simple question, "Are you aware of questions raised about Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility for the office of president?" and 51.3 percent responded yes.
This month, 77 percent of the Democrats who responded said they are. Nearly 82 percent of the Republicans are, and almost 69 percent of the Independents. Overall, 76.8 percent said yes, and another 11.7 percent said they were unsure. Only 11.5 percent said there were not aware of the questions.
"Half of those surveyed said they believe these questions about Obama's legitimacy as president are either troubling or should be satisfied by Obama. In fact, more people want Obama to prove his legitimacy – 42 percent – than believe that the lingering questions are not valid – 32 percent," Wenzel said.
That division is 41.9 percent who say Obama should prove his birth story, including 60.9 percent of Independents, 58.6 percent of Republicans and 13.2 percent of Democrats.
Another 7.9 percent the questions are troubling
"What is most interesting is the response on this question of Independent voters: Fully 61 percent of Independents said they want Obama to prove once and for all his birth origin, which is a higher percentage than even among Republicans. Men are also somewhat more skeptical than women," Wenzel said.
"At a time when this country faces dramatic problems both here at home and around the world, it does harm to Obama's credibility and undermines the confidence of the American people to have this question hanging out there," Wenzel explained. "One can only imagine the storm of controversy that might ensue if we discover definitively after his presidency is over that he was not qualified to hold office. The resignation of Richard Nixon would pale by comparison in terms of undermining public confidence in government."
"A corollary issue to the Obama birth certificate is the question about Obama's refusal to release educational records, which could hold some clue as to his birth origin and early citizenship," Wenzel said. "Two-thirds of all respondents want those records released, while the other third of respondents oppose the release of those records. It remains unclear why Obama will not comply with any requests to show those records to the public."
Only 26 percent strongly opposed the release of the records. Nearly 50 percent strongly favored release and another 17 percent said the president should release the records.
"The bottom line on these early-life records of Obama is that this issue lives on, regardless of how derisive some have been toward the so-called 'birther' movement," Wenzel said. "Obama supporters, particularly those in the national news media who have protected the president on this issue, have tried to ostracize those who still have doubts about Obama's birth, but try as they might, they have done little to quell the questions in the minds of the American public. This issue is far from over."
"Evidence of that springs from the strong support that the national telephone survey found among Americans for state laws that require candidates for president to prove they are constitutionally qualified to hold the office – before they will be allowed to appear on that state's presidential ballot," Wenzel said.
"Fully 65 percent said they support such state bills, while just 24 percent said they oppose such state measures. Huge majorities of both men and women agree with these state proposals and it is popular in every region of the nation," he said.
"The clear implication from this polling data is that Americans like the idea that, in the absence of full disclosure by presidential candidates and a press corps interested enough to ask and pursue tough questions, state governments will do their own vetting of presidential candidates," he said.
WND has reported that such proposals already have been made in 13 states, although several of the initiatives have been detoured by politics inside of committee meeting rooms.
Another recent poll, of only members of the GOP, said only about 30 percent believe Obama was born in the U.S.
The Public Policy Polling found that only 28 percent of the Republicans surveyed believe Obama was born in the U.S. while 51 percent do not. Another 21 percent say they are not sure.
"Any thought that the birther theory has been put to rest can be thrown out the window," Dean Debnam, the president of the Democratic-leaning polling firm, told Politico at the time.
"That view is still widely held in Republican circles," he said.
Other polls in recent months have shown Americans to be increasingly skeptical of Obama's official narrative:
* A survey by Angus Reid Global Monitor, a division of Vision Critical Group, in October 2009 found three in 10 people in the U.S. believed Obama to be a foreigner.
"While only 13 percent of Democratic Party supporters believe Obama was not born in the U.S., the proportion rises to 25 percent among independents and 51 percent among Republican Party backers," the report said.
* Then in January 2010, another WND/Wenzel Poll revealed on the one-year anniversary of Obama's tenure in office that fully one-third of Americans refused to believe Obama was a "legitimate president," with another 15.8 percent saying they were not sure.
Barely half the voters, 51.5 percent, said they believed the president legitimate even though he had not yet produced the documentation proving his constitutional eligibility. Even 14.6 percent of the Democrats said they did not consider him legitimate.
* In May 2010, a WND/Wenzel Poll revealed that 55 percent of Americans wanted Obama to release all records relating to his childhood and his education, including "college records, Harvard Law School papers, passport records, travel records, and other similar documentation."
"Asked what should be done should it be found that Obama does not meet the qualifications to be president, 59 percent said he should be removed from office, and 35 percent said all bills signed into law by Obama should be repealed," the poll's analysis revealed.
* By last June, other media were beginning to put their toes in the waters of the controversy. A 60 Minutes-Vanity Fair poll revealed only 39 percent of respondents believe Obama was born in Hawaii as he claimed in his book.
"A shocking 63 percent – very nearly two-thirds of us – went out on a limb and stated for the record that we believe in the United States. It's enough to make you proud to be an American – or 63 percent proud, at any rate."
But that figure included those who said they believe he was born in Kansas or some other unknown state, which still would conflict with Obama's story.
* Last August, a poll by CNN said 6 of 10 people were uncertain Obama was born in the U.S. The poll said only 42 percent believe Obama "definitely" was born in the U.S.
The CNN report said that, "Hawaii has released a copy of the president's birth certificate – officially called a 'certificate of live birth.' And in 1961 the hospital where the president was born placed announcements in two Hawaiian newspapers regarding Obama's birth."
However, the online image released by the Obama campaign during his presidential race actually is called a "Certification of Live Birth," and those documents under the rules in the state of Hawaii were available for children not born in the state.
The Constitution requires a president to be a "natural-born citizen," which is not the same as a "citizen."
Other Wenzel Poll questions revealed a large majority of Americans – nearly 66 percent, including 86 percent of Republicans and 75 percent of Independents – believe the country is on the wrong track.
They also give Obama a "poor" grade for his job performance, by about the same margin.
And they believe many of the drilling and energy production restrictions in the U.S. now should be lifted and are split on the idea of more nuclear plans.
If you are a member of the media and would like to interview Fritz Wenzel about this story, please e-mail.
Read more: Only 9% believe Obama has documented eligibility http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=276865#ixzz1HFhv6pGj
Monday, March 21, 2011
Friday, March 18, 2011
Atlas Shrugged 2011: Businesses Buck Obama
by Roger Hedgecock
Two years in to the Obama term, American companies are reacting to his anti-free market regime in one (or more) of four ways: by becoming wards of the federal government, fleeing offshore, fleeing to business-friendly states, or fighting back.
The “too big to fail” banks and insurance giants, and “ Government Motors” and Chrysler have become extensions of the regime, playing lap cat Mr. Bigglesworth to Obama’s Dr. Evil.
Some American businesses continue to flee to business-friendly foreign locales, hollowing out their North American operations and staying afloat with overseas profits.
Other companies (with lots of overlap with point two) seek (additional) refuge by relocating in whole or part to more biz-friendly states within the U.S. Over the last 40 years, for example, California witnessed an exodus of old industrial companies (manufacturing, chemicals, logging, mining, etc.) Today that exodus has picked up speed as California tech, biotech, and even renewable energy firms crowd the exit lines seeking lower taxes, less regulation, and lower costs in Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Texas, and Mississippi.
But the most interesting phenomenon is the companies and their owners who have chosen to fight back against a government-directed economy. Before explaining that statement, I acknowledge that the government has become too powerful to ignore at every level, if you are in business in the United States.
Lobbying directly or through trade associations is a ubiquitous feature of business life today. Campaign contributions are even more so, especially if you are a business dependent on government contracts. But even if you’re not, government tax policy and compliance with regulation tsunamis that affect every business take up an increasing amount of a business owner’s or executive’s time.
Here's what’s new in the resurgence of Atlas Shrugged moments.
Take the example of Amazon.com, Overstock.com, and other Internet sales sites' reactions to state sales-tax policies.
States are caught between a growing demand for services, skyrocketing costs of unfunded liabilities for state workers’ pensions and health plans, and declining revenues.
Some states turn to economic growth for the answer: North Dakota boasts a balanced state budget, low taxes, and a biz-friendly atmosphere. Her 672,000 residents enjoy a 3.8% unemployment rate. Farmers are prosperous, ditto for miners. High-tech companies swarm the Red River Valley. But the North Dakota economy really kicked into high gear with the oil boom. Private land out of reach of the Obama moratoria yielded more than $12 billion in oil sales last year.
By contrast, high tax, regulation-happy states such as Illinois and California continue to wonder why they can’t balance their budget by raising taxes, mandating a “prevailing wage,” promising even higher public-sector wages and benefits, and imposing more “protections” through regulation.
In Illinois, the reelected Democrat governor and Democrat-dominated state legislature seek relief for the state budget by raising all taxes—by taking more money from every worker’s already-stretched-thin budget.
For a company to legally be forced to collect state sales tax on sales within Illinois, the company must have a “nexus” within the state—usually an office, store, etc.
Amazon did not have a physical nexus in Illinois. The state defined the 6,000 Amazon affiliates' websites as a sufficient “nexus” and asked Amazon to start collecting sales tax on items sold to Illinois residents. The affiliate websites host ads for Amazon on their sites and get a commission when shoppers click through to buy on Amazon.com.
Amazon continued direct online sales to Illinois residents but cut affiliate ties with the 6,000 Illinois-based websites, with the result that the state doesn’t get the sales tax revenue and 6,000 affiliates lose income.
California is contemplating passing the same “Amazon” tax. Amazon has threatened to sever ties with more than 10,000 California affiliates' sites, calling the law unconstitutional and a threat to California jobs.
Last year, Texas demanded $269 million dollars in uncollected sales tax from Amazon, this time because Amazon owned (through a subsidiary) a physical nexus—a warehouse in Irving, Tex.
In response, Amazon closed the warehouse, fired the warehouse workers, and refused to pay the Texas sales tax. States are now suing Amazon. Amazon is standing its ground.
At long last, there is hope that the producers and innovators will demand their rights in a country and an economy where their rights to private property are routinely violated.
In 2011, will Atlas shrug?
Two years in to the Obama term, American companies are reacting to his anti-free market regime in one (or more) of four ways: by becoming wards of the federal government, fleeing offshore, fleeing to business-friendly states, or fighting back.
The “too big to fail” banks and insurance giants, and “ Government Motors” and Chrysler have become extensions of the regime, playing lap cat Mr. Bigglesworth to Obama’s Dr. Evil.
Some American businesses continue to flee to business-friendly foreign locales, hollowing out their North American operations and staying afloat with overseas profits.
Other companies (with lots of overlap with point two) seek (additional) refuge by relocating in whole or part to more biz-friendly states within the U.S. Over the last 40 years, for example, California witnessed an exodus of old industrial companies (manufacturing, chemicals, logging, mining, etc.) Today that exodus has picked up speed as California tech, biotech, and even renewable energy firms crowd the exit lines seeking lower taxes, less regulation, and lower costs in Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Texas, and Mississippi.
But the most interesting phenomenon is the companies and their owners who have chosen to fight back against a government-directed economy. Before explaining that statement, I acknowledge that the government has become too powerful to ignore at every level, if you are in business in the United States.
Lobbying directly or through trade associations is a ubiquitous feature of business life today. Campaign contributions are even more so, especially if you are a business dependent on government contracts. But even if you’re not, government tax policy and compliance with regulation tsunamis that affect every business take up an increasing amount of a business owner’s or executive’s time.
Here's what’s new in the resurgence of Atlas Shrugged moments.
Take the example of Amazon.com, Overstock.com, and other Internet sales sites' reactions to state sales-tax policies.
States are caught between a growing demand for services, skyrocketing costs of unfunded liabilities for state workers’ pensions and health plans, and declining revenues.
Some states turn to economic growth for the answer: North Dakota boasts a balanced state budget, low taxes, and a biz-friendly atmosphere. Her 672,000 residents enjoy a 3.8% unemployment rate. Farmers are prosperous, ditto for miners. High-tech companies swarm the Red River Valley. But the North Dakota economy really kicked into high gear with the oil boom. Private land out of reach of the Obama moratoria yielded more than $12 billion in oil sales last year.
By contrast, high tax, regulation-happy states such as Illinois and California continue to wonder why they can’t balance their budget by raising taxes, mandating a “prevailing wage,” promising even higher public-sector wages and benefits, and imposing more “protections” through regulation.
In Illinois, the reelected Democrat governor and Democrat-dominated state legislature seek relief for the state budget by raising all taxes—by taking more money from every worker’s already-stretched-thin budget.
For a company to legally be forced to collect state sales tax on sales within Illinois, the company must have a “nexus” within the state—usually an office, store, etc.
Amazon did not have a physical nexus in Illinois. The state defined the 6,000 Amazon affiliates' websites as a sufficient “nexus” and asked Amazon to start collecting sales tax on items sold to Illinois residents. The affiliate websites host ads for Amazon on their sites and get a commission when shoppers click through to buy on Amazon.com.
Amazon continued direct online sales to Illinois residents but cut affiliate ties with the 6,000 Illinois-based websites, with the result that the state doesn’t get the sales tax revenue and 6,000 affiliates lose income.
California is contemplating passing the same “Amazon” tax. Amazon has threatened to sever ties with more than 10,000 California affiliates' sites, calling the law unconstitutional and a threat to California jobs.
Last year, Texas demanded $269 million dollars in uncollected sales tax from Amazon, this time because Amazon owned (through a subsidiary) a physical nexus—a warehouse in Irving, Tex.
In response, Amazon closed the warehouse, fired the warehouse workers, and refused to pay the Texas sales tax. States are now suing Amazon. Amazon is standing its ground.
At long last, there is hope that the producers and innovators will demand their rights in a country and an economy where their rights to private property are routinely violated.
In 2011, will Atlas shrug?
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Doubting Donald? Now Trump wonders about Obama eligibility
BORN IN THE USA?
Tells ABC: 'The reason is because he grew up and nobody knew him'
© 2011 WorldNetDaily
Now flamboyant billionaire Donald Trump, whose name has been surging past lesser-knowns among rumored candidates for the GOP's 2012 presidential nomination, says he has reason to wonder about Barack Obama's eligibility to be president.
Questions about Obama's qualifications under the U.S. Constitution's demand that a president be a "natural born Citizen" have been around since before he was elected: multiple cases have been filed in court, a military officer has been sent to prison over the issue and significant numbers of the American population have major doubts about his story of being born in Hawaii.
Trump has told an interviewer for ABC that he'll be making a decision on his possible candidacy probably in June.
Get the free, in-depth special report on eligibility that could bring an end to Obama's presidency
Then he said his doubts about Obama stem from the fact that so little information is available regarding his background.
"He grew up and nobody knew him. You know! When you interview people, if ever I got the nomination, if I ever decide to run, you may go back and interview people from my kindergarten. They'll remember me. Nobody ever comes forward [about Obama]. Nobody knows who he is until later in his life. It's very strange. The whole thing is very strange," he said.
While much of the concern rests with Obama's birth certificate – he's refused to release his original document, substituting instead a computer-generated summary of information purportedly in the Hawaii state archives – there are a multitude of other documents that remain unavailable.
These are the types of records that typically are available for major political leaders such as someone occupying the Oval Office. They include his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.
According to CNN, Trump said, "Let me tell you, I'm a really smart guy. I was a really good student at the best school in the country. The reason I have a little doubt, just a little, is because he grew up and nobody knew him."
Neil Abercrombie, the current Hawaii governor, promised some weeks ago when he took office to investigate the issue of Obama's birth records in the state and release information to prove his eligibility status.
However, he said later he could not do that, raising even more questions since an earlier governor had made public statements that the president's birth records were on file "in accordance" with Hawaii law and had been inspected.
Read more: Doubting Donald? Now Trump wonders about Obama eligibility http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=276269#ixzz1Gs5cILB3
Tells ABC: 'The reason is because he grew up and nobody knew him'
© 2011 WorldNetDaily
Now flamboyant billionaire Donald Trump, whose name has been surging past lesser-knowns among rumored candidates for the GOP's 2012 presidential nomination, says he has reason to wonder about Barack Obama's eligibility to be president.
Questions about Obama's qualifications under the U.S. Constitution's demand that a president be a "natural born Citizen" have been around since before he was elected: multiple cases have been filed in court, a military officer has been sent to prison over the issue and significant numbers of the American population have major doubts about his story of being born in Hawaii.
Trump has told an interviewer for ABC that he'll be making a decision on his possible candidacy probably in June.
Get the free, in-depth special report on eligibility that could bring an end to Obama's presidency
Then he said his doubts about Obama stem from the fact that so little information is available regarding his background.
"He grew up and nobody knew him. You know! When you interview people, if ever I got the nomination, if I ever decide to run, you may go back and interview people from my kindergarten. They'll remember me. Nobody ever comes forward [about Obama]. Nobody knows who he is until later in his life. It's very strange. The whole thing is very strange," he said.
While much of the concern rests with Obama's birth certificate – he's refused to release his original document, substituting instead a computer-generated summary of information purportedly in the Hawaii state archives – there are a multitude of other documents that remain unavailable.
These are the types of records that typically are available for major political leaders such as someone occupying the Oval Office. They include his kindergarten records, his Punahou school records, his Occidental College records, his Columbia University records, his Columbia thesis, his Harvard Law School records, his Harvard Law Review articles, his scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, his passport, his medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.
According to CNN, Trump said, "Let me tell you, I'm a really smart guy. I was a really good student at the best school in the country. The reason I have a little doubt, just a little, is because he grew up and nobody knew him."
Neil Abercrombie, the current Hawaii governor, promised some weeks ago when he took office to investigate the issue of Obama's birth records in the state and release information to prove his eligibility status.
However, he said later he could not do that, raising even more questions since an earlier governor had made public statements that the president's birth records were on file "in accordance" with Hawaii law and had been inspected.
Read more: Doubting Donald? Now Trump wonders about Obama eligibility http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=276269#ixzz1Gs5cILB3
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
The 'Redevelopment' Hoax
by Thomas Sowell
Why are so many people who are opposed to development nevertheless in favor of "redevelopment"?
The short answer is that development involves decisions made in the market by large numbers of people in the general population, in their own personal interests, while redevelopment involves taking decisions out of the hands of the population at large and putting the power to make those decisions in the hands of elites.
Developers who build housing to sell to the public are the focus of many denunciations by elites in places like coastal California. But developers would not even exist if there were not vastly larger numbers of people ready to buy or rent what they build.
All these people who make the developers' work economically viable vanish into thin air in political rhetoric that is focused on the developer and his "greed."
The people who are against development dare not come right out and say in plain English that they want other people's desires squashed by the government, so that the desires of the small, self-congratulatory elites can prevail, while housing prices skyrocket because of the restricting on building.
If development is considered to be so bad, why is redevelopment considered to be good, by many of the same people?
Redevelopment imposes the supposedly superior wisdom and virtue of an elite on the rest of us. That is its ideological appeal to self-congratulatory elites.
Its political appeal is more mundane. By bulldozing low-income neighborhoods and replacing them with upscale malls and condos, local political leaders get more tax money into their coffers, offering more opportunities for them to do things that enhance their chances of being reelected.
A politically successful redevelopment project enables those who promoted it to show "before and after" photos of the neighborhood that has been bulldozed and replaced by shiny new buildings, tree-lined vistas and clearly upscale new housing. This is easily portrayed as a welcome new addition to the community, both aesthetically and economically.
In reality, what redevelopment does is transfer wealth from one place to another place, with no net addition to the wealth of the country as a whole. But it increases tax revenues in the local jurisdiction, which is what local politicians care about.
When money that would have been spent and taxed elsewhere is transferred into a particular jurisdiction, that is no net increase in tax revenues, or of jobs, in the country, however.
Why are so many people who are opposed to development nevertheless in favor of "redevelopment"?
The short answer is that development involves decisions made in the market by large numbers of people in the general population, in their own personal interests, while redevelopment involves taking decisions out of the hands of the population at large and putting the power to make those decisions in the hands of elites.
Developers who build housing to sell to the public are the focus of many denunciations by elites in places like coastal California. But developers would not even exist if there were not vastly larger numbers of people ready to buy or rent what they build.
All these people who make the developers' work economically viable vanish into thin air in political rhetoric that is focused on the developer and his "greed."
The people who are against development dare not come right out and say in plain English that they want other people's desires squashed by the government, so that the desires of the small, self-congratulatory elites can prevail, while housing prices skyrocket because of the restricting on building.
If development is considered to be so bad, why is redevelopment considered to be good, by many of the same people?
Redevelopment imposes the supposedly superior wisdom and virtue of an elite on the rest of us. That is its ideological appeal to self-congratulatory elites.
Its political appeal is more mundane. By bulldozing low-income neighborhoods and replacing them with upscale malls and condos, local political leaders get more tax money into their coffers, offering more opportunities for them to do things that enhance their chances of being reelected.
A politically successful redevelopment project enables those who promoted it to show "before and after" photos of the neighborhood that has been bulldozed and replaced by shiny new buildings, tree-lined vistas and clearly upscale new housing. This is easily portrayed as a welcome new addition to the community, both aesthetically and economically.
In reality, what redevelopment does is transfer wealth from one place to another place, with no net addition to the wealth of the country as a whole. But it increases tax revenues in the local jurisdiction, which is what local politicians care about.
When money that would have been spent and taxed elsewhere is transferred into a particular jurisdiction, that is no net increase in tax revenues, or of jobs, in the country, however.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Six-Figure Bus Drivers and Other Working-Class Heroes
by Ann Coulter
Can we stop acting as if people who work for the government are the heroes of working people?
Fine, we understand that Wisconsin public sector employees like the system that pays them an average of $76,500 per year, with splendiferous benefits, and are fighting like wildcats against any proposed reforms to that system. But it's madness to keep treating people who are promoting their own self-interest as if they are James Meredith walking into the University of Mississippi.
This isn't how we usually view people fighting for their own economic interests.
When Wall Street opposes financial reforms or a tobacco company opposes new cigarette taxes, no one hails them as "working men and women" who "deserve a decent pay and decent retirement." We're not told Wall Street has a "fundamental right" not to be regulated, or tobacco companies promoting their own interests are just trying to "help working people and middle-class people retain a good job in America." People on the other side of the issue aren't said to be "just trying to kick the other guy in the shin and exterminate him."
And yet all that was said by the Democratic governor of Illinois, Pat Quinn, on MSNBC's "Hardball" last week, about government workers fighting to preserve their own Alex Rodriguez-like employment contracts.
Yes, we understand that public sector employees got themselves terrific overtime, holiday, pension and health care deals through buying politicians with their votes and campaign money. But now, responsible elected officials in Wisconsin are trying to balance the budget.
MSNBC is covering the fight in Wisconsin as if it's the 9/11 attack -- and the Republicans are al-Qaida. Its entire prime-time schedule is dedicated to portraying self- interested government employees as if they're Marines taking on the Taliban. The network's Ed Schultz bellows that it is "morally wrong" to oppose the demands of government employees.
Yes, and I guess pornographers are noble when they launch a full-scale offensive against obscenity laws.
Public sector workers are pursuing their own narrow financial interests to the detriment of everyone else in their states. That's fine, but can we stop pretending it's virtuous?
Because of the insane union contracts in Wisconsin, one Madison bus driver, John E. Nelson, was able to make $159,000 in 2009 -- about $100,000 of which in overtime pay. Jackie Gleason didn't make that much playing bus driver Ralph Kramden on "The Honeymooners." Seven bus drivers took home more than $100,000 that year.
When asked about the outrageous overtime pay for bus drivers -- totaling $1.94 million in 2009 alone -- Transit and Parking Commission Chairman Gary Poulson said: "That's the contract."
Can we stop acting as if people who work for the government are the heroes of working people?
Fine, we understand that Wisconsin public sector employees like the system that pays them an average of $76,500 per year, with splendiferous benefits, and are fighting like wildcats against any proposed reforms to that system. But it's madness to keep treating people who are promoting their own self-interest as if they are James Meredith walking into the University of Mississippi.
This isn't how we usually view people fighting for their own economic interests.
When Wall Street opposes financial reforms or a tobacco company opposes new cigarette taxes, no one hails them as "working men and women" who "deserve a decent pay and decent retirement." We're not told Wall Street has a "fundamental right" not to be regulated, or tobacco companies promoting their own interests are just trying to "help working people and middle-class people retain a good job in America." People on the other side of the issue aren't said to be "just trying to kick the other guy in the shin and exterminate him."
And yet all that was said by the Democratic governor of Illinois, Pat Quinn, on MSNBC's "Hardball" last week, about government workers fighting to preserve their own Alex Rodriguez-like employment contracts.
Yes, we understand that public sector employees got themselves terrific overtime, holiday, pension and health care deals through buying politicians with their votes and campaign money. But now, responsible elected officials in Wisconsin are trying to balance the budget.
MSNBC is covering the fight in Wisconsin as if it's the 9/11 attack -- and the Republicans are al-Qaida. Its entire prime-time schedule is dedicated to portraying self- interested government employees as if they're Marines taking on the Taliban. The network's Ed Schultz bellows that it is "morally wrong" to oppose the demands of government employees.
Yes, and I guess pornographers are noble when they launch a full-scale offensive against obscenity laws.
Public sector workers are pursuing their own narrow financial interests to the detriment of everyone else in their states. That's fine, but can we stop pretending it's virtuous?
Because of the insane union contracts in Wisconsin, one Madison bus driver, John E. Nelson, was able to make $159,000 in 2009 -- about $100,000 of which in overtime pay. Jackie Gleason didn't make that much playing bus driver Ralph Kramden on "The Honeymooners." Seven bus drivers took home more than $100,000 that year.
When asked about the outrageous overtime pay for bus drivers -- totaling $1.94 million in 2009 alone -- Transit and Parking Commission Chairman Gary Poulson said: "That's the contract."
Thursday, March 3, 2011
1st call for impeachment by member of Congress
OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL
'Absolutely,' Trent Franks tells blog, citing abandonment of DOMA law
By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WorldNetDaily
A Republican congressman has told a left-leaning blog that if there is collective support, he would favor the impeachment of Barack Obama over his decision to stop defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
Scott Keyes of ThinkProgress.org asked U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz.: "I know Newt Gingrich has came out (sic) and said if they don't reverse course here, we ought to be talking about possibly impeaching either Attorney General [Eric] Holder or even President Obama to try to get them to reverse course. Do you think that is something you would support?" Keyes asked.
Franks replied: "If it could gain the collective support, absolutely. I called for Eric Holder to repudiate the policy to try terrorists within our civil courts, or resign. So it just seems like that they have an uncanny ability to get it wrong on almost all fronts."
Keyes was referring to the announcement by Holder and Obama that they no longer would fulfill their official duties to defend the law of the United States when it came to the Defense of Marriage Act.
"While sexual orientation carries no visible badge, a growing scientific consensus accepts that sexual orientation is a characteristic that is immutable," Holder explained in a statement announcing the conclusion he reached with Obama.
Holder said he and the president believe the law is unconstitutional.
"The president and I have concluded that classifications based on sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny and that, as applied to same-sex couples legally married under state law, Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional," Holder said.
Keyes had asked, "What recourse does Congress have? Could you, for instance, defund the Department of Justice if they don't reverse course and start to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act?"
Franks responded, "That's probably the strongest leverage that we have."
In a followup question from Keyes, Franks said he would support "in a moment" a move to defund the agency.
Think Progress describes itself as a "nonpartisan organization" tied to the Center for American Progress Action Fund. It boasts of being named the "Best Liberal Blog" in 2006.
Comments on the site included mostly ridicule of Republicans:
* "They have such weird priorities: they won't even investigate torture, but private relationships between consenting adults is something that gets their hackles up. I'm really surprised that impeachment hearings haven't already commenced. Must be part of the deal he got for not prosecuting war crimes."
* "Republicans are acting like cry baby Democrat union thugs now."
* "Impeach a president who shows support for the constitution? What doesn't this freak understand about equal rights for all … including rights for those HIS GOD created?"
* "The teatarded and brain dead republicans need something to make them seem busy since they don't have a freaking clue what to do with the jobs and the economy. They know guns, religion, gays, abortion, and unnecessary wars. That is it."
But there also was a jab at Obama:
"What other laws do you think King Obama will choose not to defend in court?"
There was a massive negative reaction to Obama's move. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich described it as an attempt by Obama to dictate his perspective to America .
"The president is replacing the rule of law with the rule of Obama," he said. "The president swore an oath on the Bible to ensure that the laws be faithfully executed, not to decide which laws are and which are not constitutional."
Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, said actions by government officials who were sworn faithfully to uphold the laws of the United States are "outrageous."
"This is a federal law and the federal government, including the Obama administration and the Department of Justice, has an obligation to defend this law," he said. "This law has been attacked before and has been upheld as constitutional."
"This is tyranny," he said.
Judge Roy Moore, the former Supreme Court chief justice in Alabama and now chief of the Foundation for Moral Law, said his organization has filed an amicus brief in a dispute over the federal definition of marriage.
"I'm glad we didn't elect to depend on the president to defend our law," he said. "I hope now Congress will step up and take up the battle where the president has stopped."
He said such "arbitrary" decisions about a law's constitutionality have no place in America.
"Basically, he's not upholding the rule of law," he said.
A statement from Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association said, "As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama said he was against homosexual marriage. Many people at the time suspected he was intentionally being dishonest for political expediency, because he thought it would hurt his chances to beat John McCain if he said he was in favor of homosexual marriage. Now the truth is out. He was lying."
Commentaries raised the issue that should the precedent stand, a subsequent president simply could say that he and his Justice Department no longer would defend Obama's signature law, Obamacare, in court.
But it's far from the first discussion of impeachment, as WND reported
Jonathan Chait at The New Republic, before the 2010 election, predicted that the House would impeach Obama with a majority in the House, but he wouldn't be removed from office because that would demand 67 votes in the Senate.
"Hear me now and believe me later: If Republicans win and maintain control of the House of Representatives, they are going to impeach President Obama. They won't do it right away. And they won't succeed in removing Obama. (You need 67 Senate votes.) But if Obama wins a second term, the House will vote to impeach him before he leaves office," Chait wrote.
In the public forum section of Chait's column, "Ironyroad" wrote, "They'll buy themselves a race war. People aren't going to take it lying down, because they'll know it's because Obama's skin tone isn't to their taste, not because of high crimes and misdemeanors."
In his explanation of why he believes an impeachment could be forthcoming, Chait says the reason itself actually won't matter.
"Wait, you say. What will they impeach him over? You can always find something. Mini-scandals break out regularly in Washington. Last spring, the political press erupted in a frenzy over the news that the White House had floated a potential job to prospective Senate candidate Joe Sestak. On a scale of one to 100, with one representing presidential jaywalking and 100 representing Watergate, the Sestak job offer probably rated about a 1.5. Yet it was enough that GOP Representative Darrell Issa called the incident an impeachable offense," Chait wrote.
WND reported earlier when Maj. Gen. Jerry Curry, who served in Vietnam and commanded the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command at Aberdeen Proving Ground during his long military career, suggested Congress should simply hand Obama an ultimatum.
"Action should be taken by the Senate and should be taken by the House," he said. "They should serve notice on him and say, 'Mr. President, we love you but we want to tell you something. You're under a cloud of suspicion. We can't continue running this country with you in charge under this cloud. Now either you clear it up or you resign from office.'"
He was answering questions on Stan Solomon's "Talk to Solomon" show:
Further, 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, earlier told WND he believes Obama should 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 Soetoro (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.
WND also reported that former congressman and GOP presidential candidate Tom Tancredo said for current members of the House and Senate to uphold their oath to defend the United States against enemies "foreign and domestic," they need to file impeachment charges against Obama.
Tancredo wrote in an opinion piece in the Washington Times that 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."
At the same time, Times columnist Jeffrey T. Kuhner, who also is president of the Edmund Burke Institute, wrote, "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."
And at the Taking America Back 2010 conference in Miami in September, Floyd Brown expanded on the idea.
Brown, president of the Western Center for Journalism, said, "The Obama presidency is a disease. … Article 2, Section 4 (the impeachment clause of the Constitution) is the cure. And it's Obama's hatred of America that makes it absolutely imperative that we take action now.
"Barack Hussein Obama is not some do-gooder that has had his plans go astray," Brown added. "He is not a person of good will just trying his best to make America go the right direction. He is not. Barack Hussein Obama is a liar that absolutely knows what he's doing to the United States of America. He has a plan. He has an agenda. This man knows exactly where he's taking us.
"Barack Obama is a very dangerous man," said Brown. "Over the last two years, we have been watching the slow progression of what I call a bloodless coup."
Read more: 1st call for impeachment by member of Congress http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=270077#ixzz1FanGKFAG
'Absolutely,' Trent Franks tells blog, citing abandonment of DOMA law
By Bob Unruh
© 2011 WorldNetDaily
A Republican congressman has told a left-leaning blog that if there is collective support, he would favor the impeachment of Barack Obama over his decision to stop defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
Scott Keyes of ThinkProgress.org asked U.S. Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz.: "I know Newt Gingrich has came out (sic) and said if they don't reverse course here, we ought to be talking about possibly impeaching either Attorney General [Eric] Holder or even President Obama to try to get them to reverse course. Do you think that is something you would support?" Keyes asked.
Franks replied: "If it could gain the collective support, absolutely. I called for Eric Holder to repudiate the policy to try terrorists within our civil courts, or resign. So it just seems like that they have an uncanny ability to get it wrong on almost all fronts."
Keyes was referring to the announcement by Holder and Obama that they no longer would fulfill their official duties to defend the law of the United States when it came to the Defense of Marriage Act.
"While sexual orientation carries no visible badge, a growing scientific consensus accepts that sexual orientation is a characteristic that is immutable," Holder explained in a statement announcing the conclusion he reached with Obama.
Holder said he and the president believe the law is unconstitutional.
"The president and I have concluded that classifications based on sexual orientation warrant heightened scrutiny and that, as applied to same-sex couples legally married under state law, Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional," Holder said.
Keyes had asked, "What recourse does Congress have? Could you, for instance, defund the Department of Justice if they don't reverse course and start to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act?"
Franks responded, "That's probably the strongest leverage that we have."
In a followup question from Keyes, Franks said he would support "in a moment" a move to defund the agency.
Think Progress describes itself as a "nonpartisan organization" tied to the Center for American Progress Action Fund. It boasts of being named the "Best Liberal Blog" in 2006.
Comments on the site included mostly ridicule of Republicans:
* "They have such weird priorities: they won't even investigate torture, but private relationships between consenting adults is something that gets their hackles up. I'm really surprised that impeachment hearings haven't already commenced. Must be part of the deal he got for not prosecuting war crimes."
* "Republicans are acting like cry baby Democrat union thugs now."
* "Impeach a president who shows support for the constitution? What doesn't this freak understand about equal rights for all … including rights for those HIS GOD created?"
* "The teatarded and brain dead republicans need something to make them seem busy since they don't have a freaking clue what to do with the jobs and the economy. They know guns, religion, gays, abortion, and unnecessary wars. That is it."
But there also was a jab at Obama:
"What other laws do you think King Obama will choose not to defend in court?"
There was a massive negative reaction to Obama's move. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich described it as an attempt by Obama to dictate his perspective to America .
"The president is replacing the rule of law with the rule of Obama," he said. "The president swore an oath on the Bible to ensure that the laws be faithfully executed, not to decide which laws are and which are not constitutional."
Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, said actions by government officials who were sworn faithfully to uphold the laws of the United States are "outrageous."
"This is a federal law and the federal government, including the Obama administration and the Department of Justice, has an obligation to defend this law," he said. "This law has been attacked before and has been upheld as constitutional."
"This is tyranny," he said.
Judge Roy Moore, the former Supreme Court chief justice in Alabama and now chief of the Foundation for Moral Law, said his organization has filed an amicus brief in a dispute over the federal definition of marriage.
"I'm glad we didn't elect to depend on the president to defend our law," he said. "I hope now Congress will step up and take up the battle where the president has stopped."
He said such "arbitrary" decisions about a law's constitutionality have no place in America.
"Basically, he's not upholding the rule of law," he said.
A statement from Tim Wildmon of the American Family Association said, "As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama said he was against homosexual marriage. Many people at the time suspected he was intentionally being dishonest for political expediency, because he thought it would hurt his chances to beat John McCain if he said he was in favor of homosexual marriage. Now the truth is out. He was lying."
Commentaries raised the issue that should the precedent stand, a subsequent president simply could say that he and his Justice Department no longer would defend Obama's signature law, Obamacare, in court.
But it's far from the first discussion of impeachment, as WND reported
Jonathan Chait at The New Republic, before the 2010 election, predicted that the House would impeach Obama with a majority in the House, but he wouldn't be removed from office because that would demand 67 votes in the Senate.
"Hear me now and believe me later: If Republicans win and maintain control of the House of Representatives, they are going to impeach President Obama. They won't do it right away. And they won't succeed in removing Obama. (You need 67 Senate votes.) But if Obama wins a second term, the House will vote to impeach him before he leaves office," Chait wrote.
In the public forum section of Chait's column, "Ironyroad" wrote, "They'll buy themselves a race war. People aren't going to take it lying down, because they'll know it's because Obama's skin tone isn't to their taste, not because of high crimes and misdemeanors."
In his explanation of why he believes an impeachment could be forthcoming, Chait says the reason itself actually won't matter.
"Wait, you say. What will they impeach him over? You can always find something. Mini-scandals break out regularly in Washington. Last spring, the political press erupted in a frenzy over the news that the White House had floated a potential job to prospective Senate candidate Joe Sestak. On a scale of one to 100, with one representing presidential jaywalking and 100 representing Watergate, the Sestak job offer probably rated about a 1.5. Yet it was enough that GOP Representative Darrell Issa called the incident an impeachable offense," Chait wrote.
WND reported earlier when Maj. Gen. Jerry Curry, who served in Vietnam and commanded the U.S. Army Test and Evaluation Command at Aberdeen Proving Ground during his long military career, suggested Congress should simply hand Obama an ultimatum.
"Action should be taken by the Senate and should be taken by the House," he said. "They should serve notice on him and say, 'Mr. President, we love you but we want to tell you something. You're under a cloud of suspicion. We can't continue running this country with you in charge under this cloud. Now either you clear it up or you resign from office.'"
He was answering questions on Stan Solomon's "Talk to Solomon" show:
Further, 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, earlier told WND he believes Obama should 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 Soetoro (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.
WND also reported that former congressman and GOP presidential candidate Tom Tancredo said for current members of the House and Senate to uphold their oath to defend the United States against enemies "foreign and domestic," they need to file impeachment charges against Obama.
Tancredo wrote in an opinion piece in the Washington Times that 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."
At the same time, Times columnist Jeffrey T. Kuhner, who also is president of the Edmund Burke Institute, wrote, "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."
And at the Taking America Back 2010 conference in Miami in September, Floyd Brown expanded on the idea.
Brown, president of the Western Center for Journalism, said, "The Obama presidency is a disease. … Article 2, Section 4 (the impeachment clause of the Constitution) is the cure. And it's Obama's hatred of America that makes it absolutely imperative that we take action now.
"Barack Hussein Obama is not some do-gooder that has had his plans go astray," Brown added. "He is not a person of good will just trying his best to make America go the right direction. He is not. Barack Hussein Obama is a liar that absolutely knows what he's doing to the United States of America. He has a plan. He has an agenda. This man knows exactly where he's taking us.
"Barack Obama is a very dangerous man," said Brown. "Over the last two years, we have been watching the slow progression of what I call a bloodless coup."
Read more: 1st call for impeachment by member of Congress http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=270077#ixzz1FanGKFAG
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)