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?
Friday, March 18, 2011
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
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Van Jones and the American Dream
by Robert Ringer
As I watch events unfolding in Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, et al, I wonder how many Americans realize that government employees are demanding rights that exist only in their progressive minds. They have been led to believe that their desires are rights, and that includes the right to have the government take someone else’s property and give it to them simply because they want it.
In Wisconsin, the protesters keep insisting that Governor Walker is trying to destroy their “collective bargaining rights.” I give Walker an A thus far for his courageous stand on this issue. But I stop short of giving him an A+ because he has not made it clear that there is no such thing as a right to collectively bargain. Only individuals have rights, and, whether a religionist or atheist, any honest, rational person knows that these are rights that are self-evident and inherited at birth.
In fact, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness really comes down to a single right: the right to liberty – to be free to live your life as you please, so long as you do not violate anyone else’s right to do the same.
If one truly believes in the fundamental right to be free, then he is obliged to agree that an employer has a right to establish the rules regarding anything he owns, which includes banishing unions from his premises.
The problem with public-sector unions is that the employer is the government, so there’s an inherent conflict of interest. As Democrats have realized for decades, agreeing to the suicidal demands of public-sector unions can keep them in power.
The raucous protests in Wisconsin and elsewhere have emboldened the 30 percenters – the loud and foul left that has fundamentally changed America from the land of the free to the land of soft socialism over the past 100+ years.
A good example of this was a column in The Huffington Post last week by that paragon of social justice, Van Jones. What got my attention was the title of the article: “Introducing the ‘American Dream’ Movement.”
Below is a reprint of a part of that article where Comrade Jones listed “the steps needed to renew and redeem the American Dream.”
* Increase revenue for America’s government sensibly by making Wall Street and the super-rich pay their fair share. [My note: The term fair share is a meaningless, abstract, subjective term that is impossible to define. And nothing could be further from individual liberty than the belief that government revenues should be increased.]
* Reduce spending responsibly by cutting the real fat – like corporate welfare for military contractors, big agriculture and big oil. [My note: I'm all for cutting corporate welfare, but the actual numbers make it clear that what needs to be cut even more is welfare to individuals and groups via hundreds of transfer-of-wealth programs.]
* Simultaneously protect the heart and soul of America – our teachers, nurses and first responders. [My note: Teachers, nurses, and first responders are not the heart and soul of America. Their jobs are important, to be sure. But the heart and soul of America is entrepreneurship - individuals willing to take risks and do whatever it takes to succeed. Entrepreneurs produce products and services that people want and, in so doing, create jobs and stimulate the economy - which is what makes it possible to pay teachers, nurses, and first responders.]
* Guarantee the health, safety and success of our children and communities by leaving the muscle and bone of America’s communities intact. [My note: Guarantee success? Really? The rest is unintelligible rhetoric - kind of like "hope and change."]
* Maintain the American Way by treating employees with dignity and respecting their right to a seat at the bargaining table. [My note: Employees do not have a "right to a seat at the bargaining table." However, every individual has a right to negotiate with any employer who, of his own free will, chooses to negotiate with him. In other words, a worker is free to sell his services in the open market - absent union or government coercion.]
* Rebuild the middle class – and pathways into it – by fighting for a “made in America” innovation and manufacturing agenda, including trade and currency policies that honor American workers and entrepreneurs. [My note: To Van Jones' credit, he does allude to entrepreneurs, but the rest of his statement is unintelligible. Who has the moral authority to "build the middle class" - and what does it even mean? How do you fight for a "made in America" innovation and manufacturing agenda?]
* Stand for the idea that, in a crisis, Americans turn TO each other – and not ON each other.[My note: Again, meaningless babble, though I admit that it might be a good idea to lecture progressives on cutting back on their hatemongering toward Tea Partiers, those who are financially successful, and just about anyone who doesn't agree with their strong-armed tactics to bring about a redistribution-of-wealth society.]
Honesty compels me to admit that if communism is the American Dream to Van Jones, he has a right to define it that way. However, my own definition of the American Dream gets back to that one unalienable right I mentioned earlier – liberty – nothing more and nothing less. The problem with the Van Jones American Dream is that it requires that the liberty of some people must be violated in order to satisfy the desires of others. By contrast, in my American Dream, liberty must always be given a higher priority than all other objectives.
It is impossible to reconcile these two philosophical views, which is why it is imperative that the state governors and the 70 percent majority of citizens not compromise in the showdown that is now playing out across the nation. It is the first of many showdowns to come over the next two years, and, from a psychological standpoint, I believe that winning the first one is extremely important.
_____
As I watch events unfolding in Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, et al, I wonder how many Americans realize that government employees are demanding rights that exist only in their progressive minds. They have been led to believe that their desires are rights, and that includes the right to have the government take someone else’s property and give it to them simply because they want it.
In Wisconsin, the protesters keep insisting that Governor Walker is trying to destroy their “collective bargaining rights.” I give Walker an A thus far for his courageous stand on this issue. But I stop short of giving him an A+ because he has not made it clear that there is no such thing as a right to collectively bargain. Only individuals have rights, and, whether a religionist or atheist, any honest, rational person knows that these are rights that are self-evident and inherited at birth.
In fact, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness really comes down to a single right: the right to liberty – to be free to live your life as you please, so long as you do not violate anyone else’s right to do the same.
If one truly believes in the fundamental right to be free, then he is obliged to agree that an employer has a right to establish the rules regarding anything he owns, which includes banishing unions from his premises.
The problem with public-sector unions is that the employer is the government, so there’s an inherent conflict of interest. As Democrats have realized for decades, agreeing to the suicidal demands of public-sector unions can keep them in power.
The raucous protests in Wisconsin and elsewhere have emboldened the 30 percenters – the loud and foul left that has fundamentally changed America from the land of the free to the land of soft socialism over the past 100+ years.
A good example of this was a column in The Huffington Post last week by that paragon of social justice, Van Jones. What got my attention was the title of the article: “Introducing the ‘American Dream’ Movement.”
Below is a reprint of a part of that article where Comrade Jones listed “the steps needed to renew and redeem the American Dream.”
* Increase revenue for America’s government sensibly by making Wall Street and the super-rich pay their fair share. [My note: The term fair share is a meaningless, abstract, subjective term that is impossible to define. And nothing could be further from individual liberty than the belief that government revenues should be increased.]
* Reduce spending responsibly by cutting the real fat – like corporate welfare for military contractors, big agriculture and big oil. [My note: I'm all for cutting corporate welfare, but the actual numbers make it clear that what needs to be cut even more is welfare to individuals and groups via hundreds of transfer-of-wealth programs.]
* Simultaneously protect the heart and soul of America – our teachers, nurses and first responders. [My note: Teachers, nurses, and first responders are not the heart and soul of America. Their jobs are important, to be sure. But the heart and soul of America is entrepreneurship - individuals willing to take risks and do whatever it takes to succeed. Entrepreneurs produce products and services that people want and, in so doing, create jobs and stimulate the economy - which is what makes it possible to pay teachers, nurses, and first responders.]
* Guarantee the health, safety and success of our children and communities by leaving the muscle and bone of America’s communities intact. [My note: Guarantee success? Really? The rest is unintelligible rhetoric - kind of like "hope and change."]
* Maintain the American Way by treating employees with dignity and respecting their right to a seat at the bargaining table. [My note: Employees do not have a "right to a seat at the bargaining table." However, every individual has a right to negotiate with any employer who, of his own free will, chooses to negotiate with him. In other words, a worker is free to sell his services in the open market - absent union or government coercion.]
* Rebuild the middle class – and pathways into it – by fighting for a “made in America” innovation and manufacturing agenda, including trade and currency policies that honor American workers and entrepreneurs. [My note: To Van Jones' credit, he does allude to entrepreneurs, but the rest of his statement is unintelligible. Who has the moral authority to "build the middle class" - and what does it even mean? How do you fight for a "made in America" innovation and manufacturing agenda?]
* Stand for the idea that, in a crisis, Americans turn TO each other – and not ON each other.[My note: Again, meaningless babble, though I admit that it might be a good idea to lecture progressives on cutting back on their hatemongering toward Tea Partiers, those who are financially successful, and just about anyone who doesn't agree with their strong-armed tactics to bring about a redistribution-of-wealth society.]
Honesty compels me to admit that if communism is the American Dream to Van Jones, he has a right to define it that way. However, my own definition of the American Dream gets back to that one unalienable right I mentioned earlier – liberty – nothing more and nothing less. The problem with the Van Jones American Dream is that it requires that the liberty of some people must be violated in order to satisfy the desires of others. By contrast, in my American Dream, liberty must always be given a higher priority than all other objectives.
It is impossible to reconcile these two philosophical views, which is why it is imperative that the state governors and the 70 percent majority of citizens not compromise in the showdown that is now playing out across the nation. It is the first of many showdowns to come over the next two years, and, from a psychological standpoint, I believe that winning the first one is extremely important.
_____
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)