Conspiracy Theories?

The House of Representatives has taken it upon themselves to openly punish political opponents via taxation. Today:

The House, responding quickly to public outrage over the bonuses after the giant insurer received up to $180 billion in U.S. aid, voted 328-93 to approve a 90 percent tax on bonuses for certain executives at companies getting government aid. -- Source

I wish I could cite the bill number, but the story didn't say. And a search of the word "bonus" in OpenCongress pulls six bills purporting to amend the tax code. AIG gets fed money and uses it to pay big bonuses. The people get pissed off. But, for some reason the people are not pissed at the fed for allowing it in the first place. And those same people cannot see the individual rotting at the root structure of the tree of liberty. Why? No one can see the tree for the forest of a congress that needs to get reelected?

Why am I pissed off? Why am I afraid that Mr. Obama and the Democrat Congress are in collusion to strip my country of the things that make us unique in the world? Why do I fear Eurofication? Please, Read on and Please Comment.

I am afraid because Mr. Obama has betrayed the special trust and confidence that should be held between the US Military & Vets and thier Commander-in-Chief. As mentioned in the previous blog post "Mr. Obama is Not My President" he is openly supportive of abrogating the US Governments moral responsibility to care for and pay for the care of her veterans with service connected disabilities.

I am afraid because HR45, Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 will impose licensing of your second amendment rights from sea to shining sea. Once that is done, what will be licensed next? Your religion? Maybe the right to peaceably assemble? Perhaps the Free Press. Pravda anyone?

I am afraid because a punishment tax is about as King George III as you can get. When the majority of the House is so afraid of voter backlash that they immediately rush to impose a tax.... So much for moral courage. Apparently the fact that such an action is unconstitutional is merely another unique Americanism to be swept away.

Don't take my word for it. Instead read what Techlaw says.

Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."

"The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature." U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).

"These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment." William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.

"Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community." James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.

Supreme Court cases construing the Bill of Attainder clause include:

• Ex Parte Garland, 4 Wallace 333 (1866).
• Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wallace 277 (1866).
• U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965).
• Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S.425 (1977).
• Selective Service Administration v. Minnesota PIRG, 468 U.S. 841 (1984).

See also, SBC v. FCC.

I am afraid because suddenly, after the election of course, the congress wishes to un-term-limit the office of the president. Amazingly, according to history, the last un-term-limited President was famous for rounding up American citizens of Asian decent and placing them in interment camps guarded by the US Army on American soil. So, it can't happen here right? Sure thing President-for-Life (fill in your blank).

How many other dangers are lurking in the Congressional minefield that we don't know about?

hrj5 Obama congress hr45 taxation bill of attainder unconstitutional Conspiracy+theories Conspiracy+theory

More Catching Up

   I am optimistic. Things will get better even if it is a slow road instead of a direct route. Now that the election is in the bag I am going to advocate for the basics again just to keep my Senators/Representative honest.

•    No bailout
  
•    Restructure the Regulatory System to be incentive driven. If we are going to regulate and throw money at things then we might as well make it graduated and pay the folks who get into compliance the quickest. The CAFE standards right now are unworkable from what I have read. Instead let's say to them.... The first company to show us a 40 mpg average SUV that is affordable to the average buyer gets a billion dollar bonus.
  
•    Enact the fairtax. It is past time to blow up the outhouse and put indoor plumbing in place.
  
•    Enact the Enumerated Powers Act. If you are going to stretch the Constitution, then at least put it into words in the front end of the law.
  
•    Either enact a balanced budget amendment or a line item veto for the President.

Since windmills are all the rage, I will play the part of Don Quixote.

The 1st Debate: First impressions

I'm watching the debate now. Boring. Obviously rehearsed in spite of Lehrs assertions that no one knew the questions. I want a debate where the candidate says anything he wants for two minutes and the other guy gets a minute to respond. Then switch out. The only reason for a moderator is to cut the mike at the 2 and 1 minute marks respectively.

Sunday Funnies

I used to post at dailykos. I enjoyed the idea of discussion with folks who didn't agree with me. I don't post there now, but I have to give them props for a huge apparatus that gets a lot of media time. Right now, DK is hugely anti-Palin. A poster on DK accused her daughter of giving birth to the downs baby. And now another poster is comparing her to Nazi's. Be careful when you visit. If you post, don't even be close to anti-O. That's what brought out the sharks and triggered my autoban. Kos has some thinking liberals that are worthy of discourse. But, the Nazi story is a bit much y'think? Clink the link and read more Sunday funnies.

Since Gov Palin is becoming the news story that won't go away... didja hear about the alleged banning of books? It turns out that it wasn't true.
I will be glad when the election cycle is all over. The losers can all go on the talk show circuit and their cohorts can start the next generation of conspiracy theories. Imagine if the McPalin ticket wins. God forbid they should win in Florida or Ohio. There are some people who would spontaneously combust. I can already hear the twilight zone music in the background.

And in closing let's go ahead and give you the wasted tax dollars legislation found today. It's called "For the relief of" legislation (my term) and appears to be a case of patronage by using the power of your office to circumvent the law. Check out the legislation by Rep Pastor.

Back to Football.

... The more they stay the same

The question before us today is whether to subscribe to limited self government ala the Constitution or succumb to a creeping brand of big brother.

This argument has been going on longer than I have been alive. I was born in 1964, and even then we were debating freedom v. government. During this election cycle we had a candidate who could have set us back on the path of small government and individual liberty. But, we chose John McCain and Barack Obama.

There is no perfect candidate. No one man or woman can occupy the white house and fix everything that is wrong or going wrong. And that is the beauty of our system. With the checks and balances set up by the constitution no one can become the American Caesar.

I found this video on Mikechurch.com. Watch and listen. It's only seven minutes but it shows that the more things change the more they stay the same. The message is just as real and the need is there. No matter who you vote for, here is the best standard to hold them to.

Presidential Qualifications (JAG Format)

Inquiry into the qualifications to hold the office of the President or Vice-President of the United States of America in the case of John McCain, Sarah Palin, Barack Obama, and Joe Biden.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Per the Constitution of the United States the legal requirements to become President of the United States are: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States." Source
2. Per the Constitution of the United States the legal requirements to become Vice-President of the United States are: "The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice–President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves;..." and further in the same amendment "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice–President of the United States." Source
3. John McCain is from Arizona and was born in the Panama Canal Zone on 29 August 1936. Source
4. Sarah Palin is from Alaska and was born February 11, 1964, in Sandpoint Idaho. Source
5. Barack Obama is from Illinois and was born August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii. Source
6. Joe Biden is from Delaware and was born November 20, 1942; Scranton, Pennsylvania. Source

OPINIONS

1. That each candidate for President and/or Vice-President does in fact meet the requirements for election to the respective offices sought per the findings of fact numbered one through six above.

ASSUMPTIONS

1. That the sources identified above in the findings of fact section are accurate and reasonably unbiased in their statements.
2. That a literal reading of the United States Constitution alone fails to note any other qualifications such as prior experience as a lawful criteria for election to the office of President or Vice-President of the United States. Thus we can safely assume that the lack of elaboration indicates that only those items cited in findings of fact numbered one and two respectively are to be considered when evaluating a candidates legal qualification to serve in the office(s) sought.
   

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. That the question of whether each candidate is legally qualified to hold the offices to which they seek be finalized in favor of each candidate. (Opinion 1 and Assumption 1 and 2)

Obama Survives Denver

Whew, earlier this week the feds arrested what appeared to be a hit team intent on removing Senator Obama from the ballot, permanently. A scope mounted .22 caliber rifle isn't really a great long range snipers weapon. It can hurt, it can even kill, but it has nothing like a .308 or even a .50 killing power. There wasn't enough range and apparently the would be killers had no real shot at getting thru the security setup.

Hillary and Bill did their best to look good, revise history, and give BHO a backhanded boost. I don't think it will work. Buyers remorse is going to set in and the folks who fell under his spell are going to be scratching their heads wondering what they got themselves into.

All week the DNC raked in the bux both figuratively and literally. Let's face it, Hillary was the one shot for a convention fight and she bailed out. Without a fight, what is the point of a convention? The point is that while the DNC likes to posture about ethics, the convention is also a feeding frenzy of lobbyists. So we have the single biggest money pit in Colorado and the nations largest pep rally.

Next week, the RNC gets to do their thing. The only real interest I will have in it is statistical. How much money, how many people, and what promises made that won't be kept?

At least now that the conventions are half over, we can look down the road and see the light at the end of the tunnel. Hang in there.

Sunday Funnies

Well, there is more than enough stuff in the news to create a Sunday Funnies post.

First of all, there is the persistent rumor that Hillary is setting Barack up to get the run pulled out from under him at the convention. OTOH she is also publicly telling her supporters to back him. Only the convention will tell. This is the kind of buildup that the networks wish they could get for the fall TV schedule.

Then, in the sex scandal of the week category, John Edwards had an affair and then denied he's the father of the (alleged) resulting child. I feel more for his wife than for him. I feel for the child. And I can take a bit of comfort that at least he won't be nominated. Like Bill, John is a faithless liar and obviously cannot be trusted.

Yesterday we showed the truth-o-meter. Today, we look at Polifact's Flip-O-Meter. I understand that one can change their mind over time. I even understand that one can change thier mind in response to a sudden paradigm shifting trauma. But, our pols have made flipping a high art.

On using the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Barack Obama >>Details
On offshore drilling. Barack Obama >>Details
On offshore drilling. John McCain >>Details
On the Bush tax cuts. John McCain >>Details
On public financing of his campaign. Barack Obama >>Details

I guess that is enough for now. Remember, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Never trust a pol with your life or your money. Thanks for reading.

Truth_O_Meter

I love the internet. It's just like America is supposed to be. Free, unfettered by excess regulation. You are the only one responsible for your actions. You are responsible to fully defend yourself. It's great. I'm sure that within my lifetime the internet, like the wild west, will fade and a more structured model will emerge.

I don't make any bones about not supporting any of the current crop of Presidential Candidates. But, I really don't like seeing distorted stuff. I would prefer that the candidates sit down and publicly debate the issues without excess rules. I'd like to see a Q&A where the McUSA's can ask a direct question and get a reasonably direct answer. Finally, I would love to see a candidate admit that the Constitution doesn't allow him to do the things he's promising.

Here is the latest from the Truth-O-Meter:

# John McCain: "Obama voted to raise taxes on people making just $42,000."
The Truth-o-Meter says: Barely True | Obama voted for budget resolution, not taxes.
[Thursday, August 07, 2008 11:00:00 PM]

# John McCain: Barack Obama promises higher taxes on "the sale of your home."
The Truth-o-Meter says: Barely True | Only the wealthy who make big profits.
[Thursday, August 07, 2008 11:00:00 PM]

# Barack Obama: John McCain refuses to support a new bipartisan energy bill "because it would take away tax breaks from oil companies like Exxon Mobil."
The Truth-o-Meter says: False | McCain opposes taxes but hasn't commented on bill
[Wednesday, August 06, 2008 11:00:00 PM]

I have another idea: Let's have a debate on which Candidate will actually support the Constitution as written.

Until Later, Thanks for reading.

Obama Challenges McCain to a Duel on Taxes

Let me get this straight, Obama challenges John McCain to a duel over taxes!! Oh my freakin gawd. This will be so priceless that Master card will have to make a commercial out of it.

I am going on record to say that I hope they do it, the "duel" I mean. After all, where else can you listen to two men who are so well versed in deceiving the public? What is the deception you ask?


The first deception is the implication that any President can raise or lower taxes. This deception is used widely by both parties with both a positive and negative spin. The most common current negative example is the so-called "Bush Tax Cuts".

Anyone with a hint of education beyond using crayons knows that no President can monkey with the tax code. They can only recommend to the Congress a direction to travel. They can either sign or veto changes. And of course they can make promises they cannot keep. "Read my lips", said Bush the Elder.

So we must welcome any duels over taxes as a chance to see both candidate lie in real time. And you must remember the lies. Then you must do your own research and find for yourself that while the income tax is eminently not unconstitutional it is certainly anticonstitutional.

From there I would hope that you would recognize the evil inherent in our current income tax system. Then ytou would logically search out alternatives to it. Your search for alternatives would bring you to the concepts of abolishing the income tax.

One of those options is to simply scale back our spending and live on the income from the myriad other sources of the governments revenue.

The other option is a national sales tax.

Realistically, neither candidate will endorse any action that would modify the governments power to reward or punish via taxation. Neither would they willingly lose the money they get from the lobbyists.

So yes, let's get to the debate, then let's count the lies on both sides.

Sources:
Here's a Wild one for you
Obama and McCain Tax Proposals

Obama Shuns Wounded American Soldiers

Presidential hopeful Barack Obama apparently shunned visiting American Servicemembers wounded during the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan according to Brietbart. Now, I will admit that Brietbart is not a paragon of neutrality. However, the facts don't appear to be in dispute.

BERLIN (AP) - Sen. Barack Obama scrapped plans to visit wounded members of the armed forces in Germany as part of his overseas trip, a decision his spokesman said was made because the Democratic presidential candidate thought it would be inappropriate on a campaign-funded journey.

Interesting that he visited millions of non-voting people over several countries on a campaign funded journey. But it would be inappropriate to visit the Americans that have sacrificed the most? As they said on Star Trek: Does Not Compute.

I wonder if his visit to the non-voting nations and people means he will scrap his presidential campaign and instead run for Secretary General? After all, in that instance, the American Soldiers would not get a vote.

Politics Burnout

My problem with politics as a whole is that none of them live up to what I was taught a leader is. Most of y'all are older than I am by a minute or two and so you have more life experience. Me, I was a military brat and then in the service my entire adult life. Hell I've only been a civilian for a couple-three years now. So, I still judge the world by a really uncompromising set of standards.

To put a point to it, none of the likely candidates for President measure up. As usual, I am settling for the lesser of X number of unworthies.


Our system of government isn't perfect. And, the only office that could possibly elect a statesman vice a pol is the Presidency. If you elect a statesman to Congress he or she will be buried under the crapola and unable to be effective.

Take Ron Paul for example. He appears to be the exception that proves the above paragraph true. I haven't researched him in depth yet but from what I have noticed he seems to be a constitutional conservative He acts according to the Constitution. I mean, he actually says "There is nothing in the Constitution that allows (fill in the blank). Frankly I am surprised that he keeps getting reelected.

I think GWB would actually be less popular with Republicans if 911 had not occurred. His domestic policies are far too moderate to sit well with the conservative middle. But, in his defense, he never said he was a hard right conservative. He always said what he intended to do, and he did it. But, his forthright statements were lost in the war.

He never asserted that closing the borders was his idea of good action. He has always supported NAFTA on the grounds that it did the most good for all. He has ALWAYS tried to include the other side (except where the opposition was intractable, CIP
: Iraq) as a major part of the team. He ran on that platform if we take the time to remember clearly.

The fact is that the winner of the 00 election would have been reviled and hated no matter who was sworn in. Had Gore been selected, the republicans would have eviscerated him. And just like the liberal left and democrats in general, the republicans would have balked, stalled, lied, cheated, and otherwise been as obstructionist as possible. In the intervening years has anyone noticed that with all the hatred we never really reformed the election process to avoid a repeat?

I'm glad that folks are passionate about the politics of the USA. But frankly, I am getting bored since it isn't anything new, original, or unique. Same ol Same ol.