DC non-voting delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton's been running her mouth lately, raising awareness of the peculiar relationship betweeen her constituents and Congress. Periodically, we hear of efforts to bring statehood to the District, or Puerto Rico; less often the US Virgin Islands or Guam. The driving force behind these movements is usually the electoral reality that the proposed states are expected to reliably send Democrats to Congress. I've done some thinking about the "fairness" argument, and I believe I have a solution.
Both my eldest brother and Monsterette 1’s husband have served in the US Air Force, maintaining legal residence in KS while living and working in OK, CO, TX, Japan, etc. They filled out KS resident income tax forms, and could vote in our elections. I am thus inspired to propose a Constitutional amendment that will forever negate the “DC statehood” nonsense. As an added bonus, I'm taking out Motor Voter and other sources of fraudulent voting.
Amendment ___
1. The Twenty-Third article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
2. Those persons who are citizens of the United States, but maintain their primary physical residence outside of all of the several States, whether in a territory subject to the jurisdiction of the United States or any foreign State; may declare to the United States their State of citizenship among any of the several states. They are then subject to such taxes as that State may levy upon its citizens, and if otherwise qualified, are entitled to vote in that State’s elections.
3. Congress shall have the power to make uniform regulations regarding such declarations, which shall assure that no person asserts citizenship in two or more States concurrently. The regulations may set a minimum period of citizenship in one State before a new declaration may be made, which may not exceed twenty months.
4. Congress shall have no power to limit such laws as a State may impose to require prior registration and/or positive identification before voting in an election, provided that the statutory deadline for such registration be no more than a hundred days before the first day that votes may be cast in that election.
As a practical matter, if this could be passed, I'd expect most of the residents of DC who exercise this option to declare themselves MD citizens, as the District was formed from MD and it's most convenient for them to travel there to deal with state government issues. I'm less certain about US citizens living in other places; those in PR would probably choose FL, but some might decide to virtually join family in other states, such as NY.
Does anyone see a downside to this idea? I'm trying to imagine ACORN organizing to get everyone in DC to declare residence in a particular state to sway an election there, but I just don't see how they'd actually carry it out.
I for one am tired of hearing about the "Vitriol" and "Hate" some say are used in todays discussions and speech about politics.
It seems that for some, a difference of OPINION and political views is enough to get one classified as a "HATER" or as someone who uses vitriolic speech.
We should be careful not to fall into this trap or mindset, labels are often thrown around to try and silence those that have an honest sincere disagreement with anothers views.
I would like to ask those that are using these terms and throwing these labels around, just what they want and expect from the MILLIONS of Americans who have concerns about our country and the direction it is going.
If you want to have an HONEST straightforward discussion/debate about the state of politics in this country, you MUST consider the views of both sides. You must understand that there are MILLIONS of Americans who love their country, are extremely concerned about the welfare of their children, are and have been hard working tax paying citizens..... all they have is their VOICES and VOTES to try and keep the country that they love intact.
Consider WHAT they see and HOW they feel when:
They see the Health Care Bill rammed down their throats... with votes that were bought and paid for. When a Congresswoman is shown on national TV saying that " I didn't come cheap, I got a hospital for MY vote."
The speaker of the house laughs when asked about the constitution and answers "Are you serious??, Are you serious??"
When John Kerry says... "The American voter has historically been disinterested in the politics of our country...." and laments that now, the American voter has opened his eyes..... sad that some of us are awake and paying attention now.
When Cass Sunstein, Obama's regulatory Czar says that he believes children should be able to be aborted up to the age of TWO YEARS OLD because they are not self aware.... and that ANIMALS should have the right to sue humans and should have their day in court.
There are MANY examples of acts and statements that cause honest Americans to be concerned.
I would suggest that those that are so very quick to talk about vitriol and hate are those that would see our country ravaged and changed for the worse.
Maybe, just maybe, if we had an administration that followed our constitution instead of looking at it as an impediment to their way of governing, we wouldn't have this "VITRIOL."
Maybe if the laws of our country were followed and the government DID it's job instead of being concerned about the things that it was not given the power to do, things would be better.
I don't know what the label throwers want.... maybe we should just shut up, sit down, and pay our taxes.... because apparently if we don't, we are haters.
I'm just tired of the smoke and mirrors, tired of of the labels and lies.
Peter Robinson sat down with British MEP Daniel Hannan for a five part interview [Part 1|2|3|4|5] right before the election. His recurring theme is that America's institutions and culture have reinforced each other to set us apart from the European institutions and culture from which we separated long ago, creating our exceptional liberty and prosperity. Hannan says Obama is trying to make the US more European, and therefore less American. And he has help from the ruling class in all parties.
One key insight is that we have what he calls "open" primaries. By that he doesn't mean that Democrats can vote in Republican primaries to choose the Republican nominees for various races, but that Republcans can do so. You see, in the European model, the party bosses choose who stands for election in each district. Ponder that when you see and hear the elitists in both parties telling us how those darned TEA Party extremists cost the GOP control of the Senate by nominating all of those divisive candidates instead of the safe RINOs that we may rest assured would have won in a walk.
Bill's at it again with the fourth in his series "What We Believe", this time explaining the idea of natural law:
If you haven't seen the others yet, get caught up here:
I feel like I'm in a Twilight Zone episode. Yesterday, I was celebrating the RKTBA victory in McDonald v. Chicago in the chat room of The Ed Morrissey Show when the discussion turned to the crucial question of whether the Fourteenth Amendment had "incorporated" the Second Amendment to bind the states as well as the "Federal" government against infringing gun rights.
My reaction was described as "barking". I can't believe that learned men and women can read the same words I read and come to the conclusions they have reached. Either I'm barking mad, or they are.
I responded that the Second Amendment doesn't need to be "incorporated", because it applied to all levels of government ever since December 15, 1791. Just read its text:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
There isn't a word there saying that the "Federal" government can't infringe that right, but States can, unlike the First Amendment, which plainly opens with the phrase "Congress shall make no law..."
Somehow, the notion has become popular that the Constitution only defined the limitations on the powers of the "Federal" government, and did not limit the powers of the States. But that's complete nonsense: Article I, Section 10 explicitly restricts State power, Article IV is all about the States, and Article VI places limits on State laws.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I see this as yet another case of the Constitution helping to define the powers of States: It leaves it to the people of each state to write their own constitutions to determine what powers to grant the state government, provided that nothing in the Constitution either gives that power to the "Federal" government or places it off-limits to the states.
Since the Tenth Amendment was proposed en masse with eleven others, including the Second, one could plausibly argue that its wording informs or restricts the meaning of the Second. In my analysis, the only glimmer of a theory under which the Second Amendment doesn't apply to the States is found here. This reading of the Tenth basically says "If the Constitution doesn't come right out and use the word 'state' in declaring a limit on government power, then that limit only applies to the 'Federal' government, not the states".
But I'm not buying that reading. When I read the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the original Articles of the Constitution, Federalist Papers, and the Bill of Rights, I come to the inescapable conclusion that when any of those documents speak of rights of the people that must not be infringed, they mean that those rights are superior to the powers of any government, and a government which infringes those rights, in doing so is violating its very reason to exist.
[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full article.]So, am I barking mad, or is the judicial consensus so far from what our first Congress meant when they proposed the Second Amendment, and the states understood when they ratified it, that I just seem insane as a sane man must appear in a world gone mad?
I don't normally bother to comment on just every "Afterburner" episode Bill does on PJTV. The link is over there in the sidebar, and I figure most people who come here go there. Insty links to most of them too.
But this one is a must see. Bill eviscerates MSNBC and the rest of the MainScream Media as the dishonest scum that they are. Set aside 15 minutes, pop yourself some popcorn, and enjoy a good old-fashioned ass-whoopin'. (Bill is the one doing the whoopin'.)
Ever wonder what it takes to be purged by Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs? Well, wonder no more. I have demonstrated it.
You see, Charles doesn't like being lumped in with Rabid Reich Winger RethugliKKKans. So he's drawn some lines in the sand. He doesn't much like "Intelligent Design", nor "racists" (a term that includes as guilty by association anyone who ever attends any event at which anyone else he considers a "racist" attends, but we'll get to that one in more detail later), nor <dramatic music>"Nirthers".
He is so freaked out by the controversies over Barack Obama's birth, the possibility of his ever having citizenship of the UK, Kenya, and/or Indonesia, that he will not tolerate anything that faintly resembles advocacy of "Nirtherism". Well, the other day, Charles decided to take another shot at that particular punching bag:
Even among people who accept that Barack Obama is a US citizen, a sort of “spinoff” idea keeps coming up in our discussions of the Nirther craziness: that Barack Obama “won’t release” his original birth certificate (some people refer to it as a “long form” certificate) because there’s something on it he wants to hide.
The two most common explanations suggested by LGF commenters for this “hidden info” are that the birth certificate: 1) lists Obama’s religion as “Muslim,” or 2) lists his race as “black” or “white” (both possibilities have been argued). ... Note that there is no space on the form for any kind of religion, and no space for either the religion or the race of the baby, although the race of both parents is listed. ... Status: debunked.
Let's boil his argument down to its essentials:
There is a meme floating about that Obama won't allow people to see his "long-form" birth certificate because "has something to hide"
He might be trying to hide how his race or religion is listed. (Note that Charles' commenters helpfully supplied this nose and hat.)
There is no place on a Hawaii "long-form" birth certificate to list a child's race or religion.
???
Therefore there can't possibly be anything at all on his "long-form" birth certificate that he wants to hide, and anyone who thinks there might be is looney.
It seems to me that last step is a doozy. Let's try an equivalent argument:
Alice thinks Bob has a book from the library.
Carol wonders if it's is the eighth in the Harry Potter series, and Dave opined that it could be the ninth.
J. K. Rowling has only written seven Harry Potter books.
???
Therefore Bob doesn't have a book from the library, and Alice is cuckoo, at least according to Carol and Dave's friend.
Does that make any sense to you? Me either. But I've noticed LGF changing over the last few years. As Charles has excommunicated people for various heresies, the remaining lizards have become an echo chamber, unwilling to challenge such logical fallacies.
It's really a shame, because I remember the halcyon days when he stood up against the faked TxANG memo (aka "Rathergate". In fact, I find it ironic that the Left used similar logic to "debunk" the arguments we made. Yes, I contributed to those discussions:
I just heard a talk jock take ONE call on the forgery issue. He erected the straw man of 'proportional', found the reference that IBM was selling proportional typewriters in the '40s, and declared the issue closed.
The words 'Times New Roman' were never uttered.
The point I made then was eerily similar to what I make now: We in the Dextrosphere were saying that no typewriter in a TxANG office in 1973 would be able to do all of a list of things, and the Lefties thought they "debunked" our reasoning by pointing to a list of machines, each of which could do some of the things in the list, but none of which could done them all.
It's also the same kind of twisted logic as they use to oppose the Iraq War: The Bush administration outlined a list of reasons to go to war, one of which was that Saddam Hussein was trying to build WMDs. Because our troops never found huge stockpiles of WMDs armed and ready to fire at them, there was therefore no threat that there would be any WMDs, so not only does that reason fail, but all of the others with it. It doesn't make any sense when they say it, and it doesn't make any sense when "one of ours" says it either.
The burden of proof is not on Obama- it is on the nirthers to provide reasonable evidence he was not born in the United States. What Obama is doing here is upholding the rule of law. He is innocent until proven guilty.
That final sentence is a particularly nasty bit of logical gymnastics. Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. the private person is not accused of a crime. No one has threatened to imprison him, confiscate his property, deny him the right to go about public places as he pleases, nor even to detain him temporarily and question him in connection with the investigation of suspicious behavior at his home. He is the one who claims to hold power over our lives, including the power to do those very things to us (or to order others to do them) should he or his subordinates deem any of them necessary.
If he has that power, it is because he has been given it by the Electors in conformance with the Constitution of the United States of America. Some people have raised various overlapping questions about whether he has done so. He is not entitled to the presumption that those questions are without merit. The burden of proof belongs on the person who wishes to exercise the power to limit another's freedom, whether that be the prosecution in a criminal proceeding, or the candidate for any office that carries such power.
Besides, it is logically fallacious to insist that someone produce evidence they have been legally forbidden to obtain. So, I responded, initially to the above comment, but also to the larger issue:
That makes no sense at all. His records are sealed, requiring him to release them. Since he controls access to the information that would prove his place of birth, it is impossible for anyone else to prove anything without his cooperation.
The new-style CertificatION Of Live Birth does not carry any signature, nor does specify which hospital, the name of the attending physician, or a great deal of information that the original "long-form" CertificATE Of Live Birth shows.
Nor does this view of someone else's long-form CoLB debunk the idea that there is something on it that Obama doesn't want us to see. It merely debunks the idea that the religion of the child is the particular thing in question.
The fact remains that Obama himself has refused to allow anyone to see his original birth certificate, his school records from Indonesia, Princeton, or Harvard, and the passport information that would show whether he used his US passport to travel to Pock-EE-stohn, or perhaps instead used an Indonesian passport.
Because if he travelled as an adult on a passport issued by some other country, he may legally have renounced his citizenship, and regained it later when he decided to enter into a political career. As a re-naturalized citizen, there is a reasonable argument that he therefore isn't a natural-born citizen. These are interesting legal questions, which have never been answered, because no court has allowed the questions to be decided. Instead, the courts that have had suits come before them have all insisted that the plaintiffs lacked standing to do so, as if a mere citizen has no right to challenge the qualifications of a candidate for office.
By wrapping up all of the questions being asked into the single package called "Birtherism" or "Nirtherism", it becomes possible to take the statement by a HI official that the records do in fact indicate that Obama was born there as a refutation of all of the other questions.
But that's not the worst rejection I've heard of the Nirthers. The most disgusting of all goes this way: "He won the election, and you can't just invalidate the election on a 'technicality'; there would be riots if that happened."
In January, Obama took (and later retook, to make sure the words were in the right order) an oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution. The qualifications for his office clearly stated therein are not a "technicality"; they are the legal basis for the oaths taken by every other USGOV employee to follow his executive orders, including the military. If you have never taken an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, maybe you just don't understand how important it is to those who have.
And that's who filed the most recent suit; uniformed servicemen, who need to know that the orders they are following are lawful, no matter how popular the person giving them, may be.
I attracted a few non-sequitur responses, and 10 down-dings on my comment, which put me on Charles' radar screen for my auto-da-fé from the Lizard Kingdom:
I'm not going to tolerate idiots who promote Nirtherism at LGF.
"The Monster" is blocked.
Now, Charles is entirely within his rights to ban me from his site. And I am entirely within mine to respond. But even though I would be within my rights to ban him here in retaliation, I won't. I'll let him come over here and explain why my comment was so noxious that he simply couldn't tolerate my participation on his site any further. But if he does, I ask that he also explain why debunking one particular idea of what President Obama is trying to hide on his long-form birth certificate somehow invalidates the notion that he's hiding something else.
The point has little to do with whether Obama was born in Hawaii. I’m quite confident that he was. The issue is: What is the true personal history of the man who has been sold to us based on nothing but his personal history? On that issue, Obama has demonstrated himself to be an unreliable source and, sadly, we can’t trust the media to get to the bottom of it. What’s wrong with saying, to a president who promised unprecedented “transparency”: Give us all the raw data and we’ll figure it out for ourselves?
UPDATE: Someone who still has posting privileges over there quoted McCarthy in another thread, (discussing a purported Kenyan birth certificate that is likely to be a fake) prompting Charles in Charge to call him a Nirther. Since he was responding to McCarthy's words, I think that means Charles has officially classified McCarthy as a Nirther too, despite the fact that McCarthy says he's "quite confident" that Obama was born in Hawaii. This stretching of "Nirther" to include anyone who asks why Obama refuses to disclose information proves my point that Charles has conveniently packaged together a diverse collection of questions and contentions under a single umbrella, and tars them all with the broadest brush imaginable. Argumentum ad stramentam.
[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full article.]
By now, everyone who pays attention to how the US Congress operates knows that many bills are passed into law without most Congressmen having actually read what they voted for. I was listening to KMBZ's Scott Parks explaining why Emmanuel Cleaver (D-MO5), being one of the few members of Congress who is not a lawyer, might have to rely upon a staff member who is one, to read bills on his behalf and tell him what they mean.
I was gobsmacked. Cleaver has a Master of Divinity degree and is an ordained minister. That means he has more education than the average US citizen. If the laws enacted by Congress are impossible for such a man to understand, how can the rest of us, who must obey those laws, understand them well enough to do so? The entire point of a "government of laws, not of men" is that the law will be well known and understood by the people it governs, so that those people can live their lives free of the threat of force being imposed upon them.
Just as our constitution explicitly forbids ex post facto laws (which criminalize past acts, which were legal when they were committed) and Bills of Attainder (which legislatively declare guilt, without benefit of a trial), I believe legislation beyond the reading comprehension required of those expected to obey it is unconstitutional. The constitution also protects the right to trial by jury, which at the time it was adopted would have implied a random selection of people of the community in which the crime is alleged to have taken place. The Framers were well aware of the jury in Zenger nullifying a law they considered unjust. I believe it is a reasonable assumption that a jury so empowered would also acquit someone charged with violating a confusing law.
Unfortunately, judges and prosecutors conspire to deprive jurors of their inherent power. Perhaps an amendment is in order. I'd prefer one explicitly enumerating jury nullification, but I'd take this as a consolation prize: No law may be enacted that is beyond the comprehension required of high-school graduates, except if it only applies to certain industries, in which case it might apply technical language that is common knowledge in those industries.
Okay – now bear in mind that I have two young children myself (and I’m about as protective of them as you might expect for someone carrying around this particular online-nic), so I’m automatically going to be against any sort or level of ‘bullying’.
While being ‘Me’ means being personally more likely to ‘deal’ with anything of the sort myself – I can also understand the impulse of those people who are not ‘Me’ to wish for some institutional answer to the problem – the “There-Oughta’-Be-A-Law” reaction to injustice.
But the rub there is that that 'Law' would require the buy-in of your elected officials.
If there’s anything to be learned from the past 18 months or so, it’s that an alarming number of your elected representatives care FAR more about being ‘Elected Representatives’ than they do about YOU - the people they’ve been ‘Elected’ to ‘Represent’.
It’s not that they’re unaware of the topics you feel are important – they just consider those topics to be largely dismissible or otherwise subordinate when compared to their own agendas…
…except when those topics can be used as a screen to help further those agendas.
By now, everyone has heard of Megan Meier, the 13-year-old girl who was ‘CyberBullied’ until she finally committed suicide – it was, more than anything, a horrific example of grownups refusing to act as though they had any grown-up standards or expectations to live up to – If you’re not familiar with the story, go HERE.
While anyone who’s ever read or heard this story agrees that it is one of the more nightmarish things connected to internet-use-by-otherwise-seemingly-normal-kids, what follows here - and bears her name - seems to be one of two possible things:
- Either a shoddily-written bill that inadvertently lends itself to abuse,
- Or a larger-agenda piece of legislation that uses tragedy as a cover for its own advancement.
This is a surprisingly short Bill, light on explanation or definitions (which automatically makes me suspicious), so hitting all of it won’t be a big chore… that said;
Let’s Review:
A BILL To amend title 18, United States Code, with respect to cyberbullying.
Specifically, that’s Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 41 of the US Code – “Extortion and Threats” – to which “Cyberbullying” would be added as its own subsection.
Now, I don’t usually spend too much time on the findings – but in this case, they actually lend to the picture of the thin-veneer laid over the worst parts of the Bill language, so this time I’ll make an exception.
1)Four out of five of United States children aged 2 to 17 live in a home where either they or their parents access the Internet.
Not what you’d expect in a country “facing the worst economic crisis since the great depression’, but okay…
(2) Youth who create Internet content and use social networking sites are more likely to be targets of cyberbullying.
That’s a little like saying “Kids who play in the street are more likely to be hit by a car” – seems like more of a mood-setter than any sort of “Finding” a committee would have to “Research”..
(3) Electronic communications provide anonymity to the perpetrator and the potential for widespread public distribution, potentially making them severely dangerous and cruel to youth.
Okay – leaving aside that neither Lori Drew nor the UK Pentagon-Hacker would likely concur with the ‘provide anonymity’ part – take out all of the embellishment and this “Finding” is saying that “Electronic communications…” [are] “potentially…” “severely dangerous and cruel to youth”... I’m afraid that I would have to contend that it is ‘cruel communications’ by people lacking a proper upbringing or sense decency are potentially dangerous to youth.
(4) Online victimizations are associated with emotional distress and other psychological problems, including depression.
This is another one like #2 – “victimizations are associated with emotional distress and other psychological problems” – another mood-setter “Finding”.
(5) Cyberbullying can cause psychological harm, including depression; negatively impact academic performance, safety, and the well-being of children in school; force children to change schools; and in some cases lead to extreme violent behavior, including murder and suicide.
Which sounds like ‘regular’ bullying – except you can hit the ‘off-switch’ to escape the ‘Cyber’ variety.
(6) Sixty percent of mental health professionals who responded to the Survey of Internet Mental Health Issues report having treated at least one patient with a problematic Internet experience in the previous five years; 54 percent of these clients were 18 years of age or younger.
This one bothers me in a more subtle way – the “Survey of Internet Mental Health Issues” was taken by a group of psychiatrists and responded-to based on data gathered from existing patients.
...as in ‘people already being treated for overt mental-health issues’ – which, if you’re a looking for a mental-health related “Finding”, seems sort of like fishing in a stocked-pond.
Not to mention that, given the ‘stocked-pond’ conditions, that “60%” becomes rather less impressive or imposing – if this were a legislation-worthy crisis, wouldn’t you expect them to hit higher than “60%” among a sample-group of psychiatric patients?
…me too.
But as we look at the section they’re proposing to include into the US Code, it becomes more likely that we’re looking at legislation that has a completely different purpose:
‘(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
‘(b) As used in this section--
‘(1) the term ‘communication’ means the electronic transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user’s choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received; and
‘(2) the term ‘electronic means’ means any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an information service, including email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.’.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 41 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item: ‘881. Cyberbullying.’.
I’m going to take this out-of-order, because I think that proper focus on the included definitions is important to really understanding the scope & breadth of this deceptively-short bit of proposed inclusion.
If the definition of “communication’ is:
- The electronic transmission of information of the user’s choosing - between or among points specified by the user (thus being the User’s “audience”)
And if the definition of “electronic means” is:
- any equipment dependent on electrical power to access an “information service”.
And if “information service” includes – yet is apparently not expressly limited-to:
- “email, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages.”
Then this, as written, absolutely applies to... (wait for it)...
Television and Radio.
Notice also, that this language is completely devoid of definitions for “coerce”, “intimidate”, “harass”, “cause substantial emotional distress”, “severe”, “repeated” or “ hostile behavior”.
That being the case, if you have a Television show, Radio show or Blog that someone (ostensibly ‘someone in government’) finds to contain:
‘coercive’ (to compel to an act or choice), ‘harassing’(critical or mocking?), ‘repeated’ (critical or mocking?), ‘hostile behavior’ (critical or mocking?)
…that ‘causes substantial emotional distress’ (which I suppose could be more subjective…somehow)
Then You, as the creator/participant in that Television/Radio-show/Blog, would be subjected to fines, imprisonment or both.
Notice that there is no provision for anything like “except in the act of political discourse” in there.
But here - at the very beginning – is the part where they tip their hand as to the real intent of this Bill :
” Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication…”
So a Bill supposedly offered up as a “response” to the Megan Meier tragedy – wouldn’t have been applicable to her case, because that entire exchange occurred within the same neighborhood.
So this would only be applicable to ‘Cyberbullying’ that comes from out-of-state or a foreign country.
Like Fox news, if they’re being critical of the government…
Or Michael Savage, whose speech against the government, jihadists etc., has managed to get him banned from the UK.
Or like this blog – if you happen to be one of the congressmen sponsoring this Bill.
Go ahead and say I’m just being paranoid if you want, but it would have only taken the addition of a few short phrases to keep this from being so used, if that was not their intent.
President Barack Obama sought Monday to make American amends with the Islamic world after eight years of tension, declaring in a speech to the Turkish parliament that he is determined to have a “partnership with the Muslim world.”
“Let me say this as clearly as I can: the United States is not – and will never be — at war with Islam,” Obama said in remarks delivered in Ankara.
Well, I'm sure that a lot of people will be very relieved to hear that...
Now, be certain - I hear the Old Rejoinders often enough to predict them here:
"It's only a small percentage"
"It's only the Fundamentalist Radicals"
"It's not all of the Muslims in the World"
etc., etc., etc.....
But Consider This:
If we were talking about a country (let's call it Muslonesia) committing these sorts of attacks against another country (with only a 'small percentage' of their military, of course), killing, burning, beheading...
...and the only response from either the leaders or the citizens of 'Muslonesia' was to quietly nod their heads and go about their business with no outcry, no condemnation, and no demands on their leaders to recall the soldiers committing those murders... (indeed, with some dancing-in-the-streetsat anynews of Western deaths)
...would you have to decide that 'Muslonesia' was 'at war' with you?
Naturally, You Would.
Would you meekly accept the assertions that 'Moderate Muslonesia' wishes your country no ill, even though they obviously don't bear you enough 'good' to speak out - and even though the various Muslonesian-leaders continue to insist, over and over again that there is no 'Moderate Muslonesia'?
Of course not.
Hell, you're probably a High-School graduate who (apparently) knows how to work a computer - you're not stupid enough to miss the nose-on-your-face. ...even if a significant number of your fellow-citizens are. (55 percent of those polled said they are without a basic understanding of the teachings and beliefs of Islam, ... but 58 percent said it is a peaceful religion. )
So why does our 'President' seem to have fallen off of the reality-train?
At what point did Barack Obama come to the conclusion that if you smile at an opposing force and say "I don't want to fight you, I want to be your friend" that they would fail to see the inherent weakness in that reaction and pour on the violence?
And here's an extra bit of 'sticky' for your 'wicket':
Apparently, that part of the Turkish population lacking a world-domination-bent (read: 'want to just be left alone')don't even want to be a part of NATO
(the signs say "Obama Get Out!" ... hmmm... whaddaya think, CafePress?)
So we find ourselves with a 'President' whose stated intentions
- Will break our country's financial back,
- Capitulate to those who seek our destruction, and
- Surrender our sovereignty to some nebulous 'World Body' of questionable integrity and intent.
And who utterly rejects the notion that America is in any way greater than it's role of "cog in the collectivist machine"within his vision of a New World Order.
Remind me - how much more of this are we supposed to take?
...to do many of the things he's been doing apparently.
The One got on TV the other day, and went on a bit about how he doesn't want to run the auto companies.
"Let me be clear. The United States government has no interest in running GM. We have no intention of running GM," Obama said.
But, while he wants to 'make one thing perfectly clear' - some people may have been having a little trouble getting his words to line up with his actions.
Let's Review...
After the bailout monies got passed around Obama started doing things that (certainly to the untrained eye) made it look like "running the auto companies" was exactly what he was doing:
- He has PUSHED Chrysler (a PRIVATELY-HELD company, btw)into merging with Italian car company, Fiat - making it clear to Chrysler that their continued existence depends on the success of said merger.
Now, I've been looking at all of this as simply incredible - that the President of the United States somehow has the authority to order US Companies to build what he wants, employ who he wants - and merge with foreign companies, all on his say-so?
The President of the United States has that kind of authority?
Congress has Voted and GIVEN HIM this extra-constitutional power?
...as it turns out... No. He Doesn't - And They Haven't.
"House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told CNSNews.com on Tuesday that he does not know where President Barack Obama gained legal authority to oversee a restructuring of General Motors and Chrysler."
"House Majority Leader(D)"?
And guess who else can't figure where Obama's authority is coming from?
How about fellow Class-Warrior Chris Dodd?
"Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd (D.-Conn.), meanwhile, toldCNSNews.com he was somewhat surprised that the administration did not consult with him at all about its auto industry plan despite his key committee chairmanship and that he had “been reading about it in the papers basically."
Dodd also said he had questions about the president’s proposal regarding Chrysler.
“One piece that has me somewhat perplexed is whether or not we are providing funds to Chrysler in order to make their position attractive to Fiat,” Dodd said. “That’s going to raise questions in people’s minds.”
Okay, but wait - that's TARP money!
If anything has been well-established thus far, it's that the law (however unconstitutional it may be) clearly states that if you take TARP money then the government owns you!
Chris Dodd finds that part to be something of a head-scratcher too...
Dodd, like Hoyer, expressed uncertainty when asked where the president got the authority to further fund the auto industry and oversee its restructuring given that TARP only authoriz[es] federal aid to financial institutions
Oh, wait.... these are Car Companies, aren't they?
The TARP law specifically says, “The Secretary is authorized to establish the Troubled Asset Relief Program (or ‘TARP’) to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, troubled assets from any financial institution, on such terms and conditions as are determined by the Secretary, and in accordance with this Act and the policies and procedures developed and published by the Secretary.”
“The term ‘financial institution’ means any institution, including, but not limited to, any bank, savings association, credit union, security broker or dealer, or insurance company, established and regulated under the laws of the United States or any State, territory, or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, or the United States Virgin Islands, and having significant operations in the United States, but excluding any central bank of, or institution owned by, a foreign government.”
But... that would mean that Obama couldn't use those "the-world-is-going-end-right-now-if-you-don't-give-us-this-money-without-strings-or-oversight" TARP funds to bailout, restructure or otherwise threaten automakers with in the first place!
Apparently, I'm not the only one who sees that:
Using TARP money to finance a government-driven restructuring of GM and Chrysler as announced by Obama would not be legal without a congressional authorization, said Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.).
“No, it’s not legal without congressional approval,” Franks told CNSNews.com. “The language is clear. The money is directed toward financial institutions. But that may be the least of our challenge.
"The notion that government could specify what vehicles to make is ridiculous.”
Not. Legal.
So does that make the whole to-do into "Obama's Illegal War on American Corporations"
... it certainly has a certain ring to it, and Orin Hatch seems to agree too:
Hatch told CNSNews.com. “But I do not want the federal government dictating who runs corporations in this country. Now there is no question there is a lot of leverage with the federal funds. But it’s a very troubling thing that people think politicians can fire a leader of a company.”
Indeed - some people might even consider such a thing... "Unconstitutional".
"We The People" need to do something about this, before I end up using that word so many times in this "First 100 Days" that it loses its meaning.
Congress and the Obama Administration are now voting themselves into the position of "Central Planning" over the salaries of each and every employee of every Financial Institution that has any amount of money from the "spend-our-way-out" government.
(1) PROHIBITION- No financial institution that has received or receives a direct capital investment under the Troubled Assets Relief Program under this title, or with respect to the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, or a Federal home loan bank, under the amendments made by section 1117 of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, may, while that capital investment remains outstanding, make a compensation payment, other than a longevity bonus or a payment in the form of restricted stock, to any executive or employee under any existing compensation arrangement, or enter into a new compensation payment arrangement, if such compensation payment or compensation payment arrangement--
`(A) provides for compensation that is unreasonable or excessive, as defined in standards established by the Secretary, in consultation with the Chairperson of the Congressional Oversight Panel established under section 125, in accordance with paragraph (2); or
`(B) includes any bonus or other supplemental payment that is not directly based on performance-based measures set forth in standards established by the Secretary in accordance with paragraph (2).
Okay - taken as 'read' that the amendment changes the Bill's statement of intent from "Executive Compensation" to "Certain Compensation" (because not everyone who draws a paycheck is an 'Executive' after all) - let's look at that first part.
The focus-points, in regard to Financial Institutions having received TARP funds:
No financial institution... may,
... make a compensation payment...
...to any executive or employee under any existing compensation arrangement, or enter into a new compensation payment arrangement
Now, make no mistake - "Compensation Payment" is defined @ the end of the Bill, and it means not only "Salary", but also "Retirement Contribution" and "Health Benefits" - so this Bill says that the companies involved grantanycompensation, inanyform that is "unreasonable or excessive".
What constitutes "Unreasonable or Excessive", the Bill goes on to tell us, would be determined solely by the Secretary of the Treasury... (look closely now, it says "in consultation with" - not "requiring the approval of")
...in accordance with "Paragraph 2" of the amendment.
Well then, let's slide down to Paragraph 2, and get a look at these guidelines that Secretary Geithner will be applying as he determines whose salaries are "Unreasonable or Excessive":
`(2) STANDARDS- Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Secretary, with the approval of the agencies that are members of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, and in consultation with the Chairperson of the Congressional Oversight Panel established under section 125, shall establish the following:
`(A) UNREASONABLE AND EXCESSIVE COMPENSATION STANDARDS- Standards that define `unreasonable or excessive' for purposes of subparagraph (1)(A).
`(B) PERFORMANCE-BASED STANDARDS- Standards for performance-based measures that a financial institution must apply when determining whether it may provide a bonus or retention payment under paragraph (1)(B). Such performance measures shall include--
`(i) the stability of the financial institution and its ability to repay or begin repaying the United States for any capital investment received under this title; `(ii) the performance of the individual executive or employee to whom the payment relates; `(iii) adherence by executives and employees to appropriate risk management requirements; and `(iv) other standards which provide greater accountability to shareholders and taxpayers.
So, wait...
This Bill - soon to be voted into Law - will give the Secretary of the Treasury the power to determine the "fairness" of the salaries of invididual employees of publicly-traded companies...
...based on criteria that he will be left to determine - at some point after the Law is passed,and requiring only the approval of agencies that largely report to Treasury in the first place?
How can anyone not see...oh, but wait - there's more!
Because how could such a class-warfare, pandering-to-the-mob piece of legislation be complete without a:
(3) REPORTING REQUIREMENT-
`(A) INGENERAL- Any financial institution that is subject to the requirements of paragraph (1) shall, not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this subsection and annually on March 31 each year thereafter, transmit to the Secretary, who shall make a report which states how many persons (officers, directors, and employees) received or will receive total compensation in that fiscal year in each of the following amounts:
`(i) over $500,000; `(ii) over $1,000,000; `(iii) over $2,000,000; `(iv) over $3,000,000; and `(v) over $5,000,000.
So, in the future, we can be "kept up-to-date" on the exact percentages of 'Evil' still existing in those companies.
Don't worry - I'm sure no one in Congress would dream of trotting that bit out whenever they need to throw something shiny to the shrieking mob.
When did 'We The People' allow our government to reach the position to make such naked power-grabs, with seeming impunity?
The real point of a “fairness doctrine” would be to silence such voices as Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham & Glenn Beck – by forcing radio stations to broadcast equal time-slots of such personalities as Joy Behar, Al Franken, and Roseanne Barr. This would (as has been demonstrated) offset the money-making ability of the conservative shows, and very likely make the whole endeavor not worth the financial-effort for the local radio stations – which would, in turn, drop the whole talk-radio format in favor of something that would reliably sell advertising.
There - now we're all on the same page.
If you were paying close attention to the news recently, you may have heard that senator Jim DeMint was able to push through an amendment to prevent the FCC from forcing the enactment of a “Fairness Doctrine” – which would use the FCC’s “public interest” clause underTITLE 47, CHAPTER 5, SUBCHAPTER III, Part I, § 303. Powers and duties of Commission to force (in the “public interest”) broadcast media (read: Talk Radio) to devote “equal time” to opposing-viewpoints.
Senator Jim DeMint, realizing that a bureaucratic-process quashing of free-speech would be just as egregious as any other kind, inserted an amendment intoSenate Bill 160 – the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 - A bill with the intended purpose of granting that : ”… the District of Columbia shall be considered a Congressional district for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives.”
Knowing that the assembled body would be …(ahem).. ‘unlikely’ to vote-down a bill granting DC one more voice on the national stage, Senator Demint included the following amendment:
(a) Limitation on General Powers: Fairness Doctrine.--Title III of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended by inserting after section 303 (47 U.S.C. 303) the following new section:
``SEC. 303A. LIMITATION ON GENERAL POWERS: FAIRNESS DOCTRINE. ``Notwithstanding section 303 or any other provision of this Act or any other Act authorizing the Commission to prescribe rules, regulations, policies, doctrines, standards, guidelines, or other requirements, the Commission shall not have the authority to prescribe any rule, regulation, policy, doctrine, standard, guideline, or other requirement that has the purpose or effect of reinstating or repromulgating (in whole or in part)--
``(1) the requirement that broadcasters present or ascertain opposing viewpoints on issues of public importance, commonly referred to as the `Fairness Doctrine', as repealed in In re Complaint of Syracuse Peace Council against Television Station WTVH, Syracuse New York, 2 FCC Rcd. 5043 (1987); or
``(2) any similar requirement that broadcasters meet programming quotas or guidelines for issues of public importance.''.
(b) Severability.--Notwithstanding section 7(a), if any provision of section 2(a)(1), 2(b)(1), or 3 or any amendment made by those sections is declared or held invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the amendment made by subsection (a) and the application of such amendment to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected by such holding.
So there it is, right?
After awinning vote of 87-11, the FCC cannot (even under threat or political pressure) bureaucratically, or by virtue of internal process, re-enact the conditions of the Fairness Doctrine – “Done and done”, as they say.
You see, knowing that Senator Demint was moving to block the re-emergence of the Fairness Doctrine in a time & way unlikely to be opposed, Senator Durbin countered by inserting his own amendment into the very sameBill.
Knowing also that he couldn’t insert an amendment with language in direct-opposition to an already-accepted amendment, Senator Durbin (in a move remniscent of colleague Barney Frank) went quietly for a back-door:
``(a) Certain Affirmative Actions Required.--The Commission shall take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.
``(b) Construction.--Nothing in section 303A (the section created by Demint’s Amendment – MD) shall be construed to limit the authority of the Commission regarding matters unrelated to a requirement that broadcasters present or ascertain opposing viewpoints on issues of public importance.''.
(b) Severability.--Notwithstanding section 7(a), if any provision of section 2(a)(1), 2(b)(1), or 3 or any amendment made by those sections is declared or held invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the amendment made by subsection (a) and the application of such amendment to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected by such holding.
Looking at the money-quotes there:
- The Commission shall take actions to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership
- ...to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest.
- Nothing in section 303A shall be construed to limit the authority of the Commission
- ...regarding matters unrelated to a requirement that broadcasters present or ascertain opposing viewpoints on issues of public importance.''.
Written with specific language intended to thwart the spirit of Demint’s amendment – with the application of Durbin’s oh-so-thinly-veiled amendment language – the FCC may not be able to specifically dictate the content of a particular radio station’s programming…
But they can determine that the “decisions” of a particular radio-station-owning company indicate that their ownership of said radio-stations does not sufficiently “encourage and promote diversity” – demonstrating, in turn, that license is not being used “in the public interest”.
Ownership & Licensing decisions that “Nothing in Section 303A” shall limit.
In short:
While Durbin couldn’t find a way to allow the FCC to dictate “diverse-broadcast-content”, he could make sure that no-one could stop the FCC from shutting-down a radio station for lack of “diverse-broadcast-ownership”.
[Click on the title above, or date stamp below, to see the full article.]
In the face of losing the Fairness Doctrine, Dick Durbin has created a back-door.
- How wrong is it, that I find it strange to hear that coming from someone not sitting at my keyboard?
Would that the majority of our elected officials saw 'Honor', 'Courage', 'Integrity' & 'Decency' as other than just voice-over noise for their campaign commercials...
So - Instinct over @ Life in 3D dropped me an email this morning, pointing out an odd bit that he found on the White House website.
Just so that there’s no confusion or question, I’ve left the URL in place – this really is the WH:
Fine – good – the White House website has a section on the Constitution… but here’s the odd bit:
Um,… I’m sorry… “GIVES”?
The Second Amendment “GIVES” citizens the “right to bear arms”?
Nnooo… Let’s take a look at the Second Amendment as it’s actually written:
One of the finest and most straight-forward pieces of legislation in the history of our country, the Second Amendment clearly acknowledges the RIGHT of the American Citizen “to keep and bear arms” as pre-existing – inalienable enough to require no law or writ to “allow” it in the first place – a RIGHT so basic to the citizenry that the only mention of it necessary is that inherent in the explicit statement that it “shall not be infringed.”
Now, my brother (younger brother – but such wisdom) keeps telling me that we should always assume stupidity before actual malfeasance in matters like this...
...but it’s the White House website.
You’d think that they MUST have access to a lawyer there – maybe even one possessing a passing familiarity with the United States Constitution.
"Republic. I like the sound of the word. It means people can live free, talk free, go or come, buy or sell, be drunk or sober, however they choose.
Some words give you a feeling. Republic is one of those words that makes me tight in the throat.
The same tightness a man gets when his baby takes his first step, or his first baby shaves, and makes his first sound like a man.
Some words can give you a feeling that make your heart warm. Republic is one of those words.
-John Wayne, “The Alamo”
As the events of the “First 100 Days” continue to unfold, I find that many of the really BIG mistakes (by which I mean ‘those likely to have the farthest-reaching negative effects on the fabric of our country) to which I am forced to bear witness seem to have a single common thread – that they stem from a loss of understanding of one very basic precept that has guided the very existence of our nation – perhaps “The” basic precept:
The United States of America is a Republic.
You’ll notice that I said “loss of understanding” rather than “lack of understanding” – that was on purpose, because it is something our elected officials used to know, but seem to have lost – It’s also something that cannot adequately be imparted, but something that may be regained by people familiar enough to recognize it.
At its heart, the problem is that they seem to have fallen into a trap of shoddy linguistics, so that they have come to mistake our “Republic” for a “Democracy”, confusing the essence of each as many people confuse the terms themselves, considering them to be synonyms … which they most assuredly are not.
In the immortal words of MuscleDaddy-the-Elder: “Let’s Review”
The difference between a Republic and a Democracy lies in their respective sources of official power.
A “Republic” is a political entity governed by a charter, which directs a restricted group (citizens) to elect representatives who will govern the state. Republics are free societies preciselybecause they are bound by their charters, which restrict the responsibilities and powers of the state.
It is this restriction, along with the legal consistency and rationality of the charter, as well as the people’s willingness to observe and live by it, that keeps people free.
A “Democracy” is a government whose prevailing force is always that of the majority. There is still a restricted group (citizens) in a democracy, but this group rules directly and personally runs everything. The group may delegate specific tasks to individuals, (governorships, etc) but there is no question that the ruling force in a democracy is not a charter, but the vote of the majority.
Unbound by any sort of charter, democracies are free only so long as the citizen-rulers are consistent in their application of freedom. If the citizens (or, more specifically, a majority of the citizens) come to a point where they no longer understand what freedom is then the mob-rule of a democracy can slide into a tyranny every bit as complete as any central-planning dictatorship (think: Socrates' suicide, forced by the “democracy” in Athens.)
The United States of America is, and has always been, a Republic – bound by the charter of the United States Constitution which, by its design, limits the amount and type of power the government may wield over the individual.
This is where the understanding has been “lost” among our elected officials, who have either fallen to the siren-cries of mob-rule or (and infinitelty worse) are using its cacophony to mask their own intended movements.
Examples of this abound, but two of the most glaring and blatant examples have intersected with current events in just the past several days.
Consider H.R. 1388 – the camouflage-named “GIVE Act”.
I wrote about this one the other day – pointing out that while none of its provisions are specifically “Mandatory” in themselves right now it is, at best, economically coercive - and veryplainly lays all of the necessary groundwork and installs the necessary infrastructure to open the door to making its form of “volunteerism” mandatory in the future.
But, however “good” it might make a democratic-majority majority “feel” to pass into law a bill that so prominently speaks of “volunteerism”, the merest suggestion – the slightest hint – of making any form of work “Mandatory” for American citizens should have seen this piece of legislation squashed… by the binding charter of our country:
"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
“Mandatory Volunteerism” makes no provision for a person’s desire (or lack of) to volunteer – it is simply “mandatory”, and as such goes directly against the country’s binding charter of the United States Constitution and our Republic (by design) has no power to impose it.
Here’s another…
Consider H.R. 1586 – the so-called Bonus Tax bill.
Aside from all of the finger-pointing-outrage of who may have “allowed” the situation at AIG to develop as it has, the form and function of this proposed law (and make no mistake, tax-law is LAW) is writ plainly on its cover:
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES March 18, 2009
A BILL To impose an additional tax on bonuses received from certain TARP recipients.
“..certain TARP recipients” - plainly singling out specific individuals, and when combined with the last line of the bill:
g) Effective Date- This section shall apply to disqualified bonus payments received after December 31, 2008, in taxable years ending after such date.
…again, leaves it in such direct opposition to our nation’s binding charter of the United States Constitution, that it never should have seen the light-of-day:
“No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”
In the context of the Constitution, a "Bill of Attainder" refers to a bill that has a negative effect on a single person or group (say, a specific group of people from a specific handful of companies) – while ‘ex post facto’ naturally refers to making a law against a specific act or situation after it has already occurred, so that it may now be made subject under the law “after the fact” (say, enacting a law today that makes subject an act or occurrence from 3 months ago).
However “justified” the outrage of the mob, waving their signs and shouting their chants in the streets, may be,
However badly our elected officials may want “do-overs” for their own mistakes or malfeasance,
However fair-or-unfair it may be spun-up by the media to seem at the time...
None of that matters when exerting the authority and power of government.
We Are Still A Republic.
…not just when we like the outcome – not only when the media-led public outrage agrees.
We Are Still A Republic.
…and we follow our own rules for a reason.
“Now I may sound like a Bible beater yelling up a revival at a river crossing camp meeting, but that don't change the truth none. There's right and there's wrong. You got to do one or the other. You do the one and you're living. You do the other and you may be walking around, but you're dead as a beaver hat.”
