Comparing Trump & Clinton: Economy - Trade

One of Barack Obama’s last attempts to destroy America’s greatness economically is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).  Like NAFTA before it, the left, and Hillary, will argue that this is the evolution in global economics.

Hillary Clinton once endorsed the TPP as the ‘gold standard’ for global trade.  While she argued in the debate that she didn’t call it the ‘gold standard’, but only ‘hoped’ it would be, fact checks show she did actually call it the ‘gold standard’.

And as Trump has said, once he pointed out the huge problems with the TPP, she changed her tune.

“I will stop any trade deal that kills jobs or holds down wages – including the Trans-Pacific Partnership”, she said at a campaign stop in Ohio back in August. “I oppose it now.  I’ll oppose it after the election.  And I’ll oppose it as President.”

So did Clinton flip on TPP? Context is key.

The deal would be the largest multilateral trade agreement ever negotiated, involving the U.S., emerging economies such as Vietnam and traditional trading partners including Japan, Canada and Mexico. It’s a major priority for the Obama administration, which sees the deal as key to cementing the president’s so-called pivot to the Asia-Pacific region. Obama hopes to persuade lawmakers to ratify it before year’s end, but Clinton’s opposition now exemplifies the political difficulty.

As a member of the Obama Cabinet in his first term, Clinton carried out the president’s priorities. Speaking on a trip to Australia in 2012 as negotiators from the partner nations were still deep in negotiations, she outlined the goals for it.

“This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field,” she said then¹.

Since TPP is still in negotiation stage, we’ll leave judgment of it for later.  However, it is worthy to note that Trump has clearly suggested that Clinton would backtrack on her rejection of it once in office.  Of this, I have no doubt.  She will suggest that whatever concerned her during the campaign has been resolved and she’ll be right back on the trail of being a globalist.

And there in lay the fundamental difference between what Hillary wants to do in trade deals vs. what Donald Trump wants to do.  All Hillary’s trade deals will be rooted in her belief and goal for a global economy run by a global government for global purposes.  As, with Barack Obama, Clinton’s interests lay first with the global community and somewhere down the line with the United States.

This is not to suggest she hates the United States.  Nor does Barack Obama, for that matter.  What they hate is how the United States, as it is now, stands in the way of the global progress, they and their global financiers desire.  They want the US to prosper, but under a global umbrella. 

Let me explain with a little more local example.  Before the 17^th Amendment was ratified, Senators were appointed by State Legislatures.  Now, of course, they are elected in general elections by the people.  You may wonder why that’s such a bad thing.  After all, isn’t it always better for the people to do the voting? 

Yes and no.  In the case of the United States, our Constitution was designed to spread out and separate powers.  The people’s representatives were elected every 2 years into the House of Representatives.  The States were represented by the appointment of two Senators.  And the Nation was represented by the President through the electoral college process.

All were either directly or indirectly voted on by the people.  We’re all well aware that the president isn’t always elected by the popular vote.  And, in fact, the so-called will of the people could be set aside, by the Constitution, through the electoral college.²

With the State Legislatures appointing Senators, they were assured that the interests of the State will represented in Congress.  If it weren’t the Legislature could simply recall the Senator.  Now, no matter what the Senator does, so long as he can convince the majority of state voters (usually the one with the most money) then they can keep their jobs.

This is exactly what is happening with trade agreements like TPP and other agreements.  The global community is slowly forming their own version of the United States.  And the United States is slowly, with the aid of globalists like Obama and Clinton, just becoming another state in that global union.

Donald Trump looks at trade not from a globalist’ perspective, but from a nationalist’s perspective.  He understands that we are involved in a global economy.  We have been for much longer than any of us have been alive.  But when Donald Trump goes out to negotiate a trade deal he’s going out first as an American.  Making sure that deal benefits us, our economy, our workers, our businesses and our people is most important to him.

Does he care about the global economy?  Absolutely.  He knows that a strong global economy aids Americans.  But to him, that is secondary to making sure that we come first.

When he threatens tariffs, he does so, not because he wants to raise prices for products Americans buy, but because sometimes tariffs are necessary to show our trade partners that we are not happy with an unfair trade deal and we’re not playing games.³

The argument some have against tariffs is legitimate.  If not used wisely, it could cause a ripple of negative financial effects.  But when it comes right down to it, are you more at peace having a businessman in charge of our trade negotiations or would you rather have a globalist politician in charge?

    1. http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2012/11/200565.htm

    2. http://www.silentbull.com/17th-amendment-bad-repeal-it/

    3. Tariffs would be necessary in some cases “because they have to understand that we’re not playing games anymore,” – Tampa, FL rally August 24, 2016

Comparing Trump and Clinton: Economy - Taxes

I created a blog back in 2008 during the first Obama election, which I affectionately called Sensible Conservatism.  The meaning of the name was just this: that while I view all issues through the prism of conservative principles, I am not so pig-headed that I automatically reject something a liberal might say just because they’re liberal.  A wise person will listen to all positions and make his decisions off of all the information. Does that make me right all the time?  Goodness no.  But when sensibility is applied to these discussions, I believe right answers and solutions are found far more often. 

I had pretty much abandoned this blog in 2014 leading up to the last midterms.  But I think this is the right time to bring it back out.

                                              -----------

Having been a trained debater, I have to tell you that watching the first presidential debate was torturous.  It was so painful because I could tell that Clinton was the more trained debater.  And yet, having researched the issues so thoroughly, it was even more painful because I knew the right way to respond to her plethora of lies and assertions and yet Trump was, for the most part, not responding well.

That being said, I found it quite intriguing that virtually every snap poll showed Trump winning the debate.  After the surprise and relief subsided I began to wonder how he won so decisively.  And it came down to two issues.  One, that Hillary Clinton is an icon of all that we voters have come to despise about Washington D.C.  And two, that despite her better presentation skills, she still can’t sell her ideas to us.

So I have decided that I wanted to start a process whereby we can study the differences between Trump and Clinton on many of the issues. After all, there are still some people on the fence and we have six weeks to bring them onto our side of the fence.

Let’s begin with the economy.  This subject would include such issues as jobs, taxes, trade, the deficit and the debt.

Let’s be clear about one thing first.  Both candidates…for that matter, all of us…have to accept that the rich have the money and our common goal is for us to find ways to get them to distribute that money to the rest of us.  The difference between Clinton and Trump is in how to get them to distribute it.

To be clear, let me just point out that there are really only three fundamental ways to get money from the rich: 1) they invest it in something like their own business, other businesses, the stock market, whatever…and thus that money is injected into the economy.  Even investing it into a bank, injects it into the economy. 2) they spend it.  In spending it, even on what you or I would consider a luxury item like a yacht, they are injecting it into the middle class.  The person who sold them the yacht.  The company who many the yacht hired employees.  The companies that made the parts that make the yacht hire employees.  The company that transports the yachts hires people.  The companies that repair the yachts hires people. And so on.  3) Its either taken from them or they give it away.  They can donate it to charities and in that case, it gets to the people who need it with few middle men or someone takes it like a thief.  And I would venture to say that we’ve become numb to the idea that even taxation is little more than legalized theft.

To Clinton and the leftists like her, the best way to get the rich to distribute money to the rest of us is to have the government take it from them and let the government decide how to best distribute it to us.  That’s nice, but it has several negative effects.  First, the rich, as any of us would do if the government tried to confiscate our money, will try every means of preventing the government from taking their money.

 

They will find loopholes in tax laws.  They will move their money to other countries where the tax laws are less intrusive. They’ll set up trusts and foundations.  There are hundreds, if not thousands of ways to shelter their money from the government.  Why do they do that?  The obvious reason is that they, like the rest of us, don’t want anyone just taking their money.  And if someone does take their money, they’d like some say so in where it goes.

The end result of this is that it stifles job growth…except for jobs that the government pays, or helps pay, for.  Any growth in the economy occurs where the government wants it to grow…not necessarily where we want it to grow or where it should grow.

Second, when the government gets involved in controlling more and more of the economy, that’s when these artificial bubbles develop and when they burst, we’re all hurt.  And what happens when they burst?  The government steps in as some sort of faux white knight to rescue us and ends up taking more control over even more of our lives.

From my experience, the government does this through three means: 1) economic disasters, 2) wars, and 3) health crises. And we keep falling for it.

Trump, on the other hand, advocates what those on the left have disparagingly called “trickle down economics”.  It is what is more technically known as “supply side economics”.  The basis of all capitalism is supply and demand.  And that’s what Trump advocates for.

In his plan, he lowers taxes on businesses primarily.  Why?  Because when taxes (and regulations) are lowered on businesses, their cost of doing business lowers.  The Hillary’s of the world will suggest that’s bad because they fear that business owners will greedily take that extra cash and hoard it and keep it for themselves.  And perhaps some will.

But the theories of supply side economics suggest that a vast majority of those business owners will re-invest that cash back into their business.  There is a simple reason most people go into business for themselves.  They know that the simple rules of economics suggest that if they can successfully leverage other people’s labor, cash and assets, that they can exponentially grow their own wealth.

The Hillary’s of the world think that’s just evil.  Ironically, that’s exactly what government does as well.  But somehow it’s evil when individuals do it for business purposes, but not evil when the government does it. 

But when individuals and businesses do this, it creates jobs.  And every new job creates more demand…for one product/service or another.  Which creates more jobs and more demand. And what happens with every demand?  A purchase and a local tax is paid.  And what happens with every new job?  Taxes are paid to the state and the feds. And when those businesses successfully leverage other people’s labor and cash and assets, what happens?  They make more profits, which are, of course, TAXED.

So, in the end, the money that the wealthy possessed STILL ends up in the government’s hands.  Except instead of the government simply confiscating it, it goes through millions upon millions of middle class hands on its way to the government. 

There is the appearance that the burden was upon the middle class to pay those taxes.  But who really paid them?  The money still came from the rich.  But instead of running those sticky government hands first, it goes through our hands first before it gets to the government.

Simple question…which would you prefer?

But I’m not done, nor is Trump’s plan.  Once money gets into the hands of individuals, there are individual taxes to pay.  In Trump’s plan, he lowers the overall rate of taxation down to three brackets.  In addition, he raises the threshold on how much someone can earn and NOT pay taxes (aside from FICA). 

The part of this that Hillary attacks is the lower tax bracket for the wealthy.  There’s only one problem with her complaint.  In lowered the bracket, Trump is proposing virtually eliminating tax loopholes for the wealthy.  Without the loopholes, there’s no game of hide and seek played by the wealthy with their money.  They earned money?  Here’s the tax rate for it. 

Tomorrow, I will address trade and its effect on jobs and the economy.  If there is a subject you wish to read about, let me know. 

An Open Letter to the GOP

I grew into the Grand Old Party through Ronald Reagan in 1980.  It was my first presidential election and it laid the foundation for the next 34 years of my political life.  I have supported every candidate with an (R) after their name ever since.  Even when I didn't think Bob Dole stood a chance...even when I thought McCain was not the man to run against Obama in '08...and even during the 2012 primary season when I swore up and down I would support any candidate except Romney, I STILL supported Romney.

However many times I thought the Establishment GOP was taking their conservative base for granted, I kept supporting the party.  Then the way in which the GOP treated us conservatives took a decidedly nasty turn in 2010.  Instead of embracing the Tea Party and the grass roots energy we brought to the political landscape, you treated us like a plague.  Instead of accepting the turn to the right that the conservatives were engendering, you stood in open opposition and defiance to us.  Instead of accepting the will of the voters in several primaries in 2010, you rejected your own people and refused to support a candidate YOU didn't choose for us.  And when those Tea Party candidates didn't win in the general election, you blamed US.

Like some spoiled little kid, when the conservatives in the party wouldn't play by YOUR rules, you took your ball (your money) and went home.  Instead of taking back the Senate in 2010, like we easily could have, you were content to let the Dems keep their power just so you can maintain your unresistant control of the party.  And you blamed US for our loss in the Senate.

I should have walked away then.  I should have seen the writing on the wall.  But for the sake of not letting Obama win re-election, I stuck with you.  I gave you another chance in 2012.  There were some great candidates in 2012...even a couple whom you could have worked with...like Newt or Santorum.  We could have had any number of non-Romney candidates who could have beaten Obama.  Rick Perry...do you really think his flub about naming three agencies compares to the gaffes made by Obama and his 57 states?  Herman Cain...too much of an outsider for your tastes?

But, no.  You made a deal with Romney in 2008 that he could be the next candidate and you were determined to ruin the reputations of some very good men who stood in the way of you nominating YOUR guy.  How'd that turn out for ya?  Not good...and even worse for the country.  Thanks a bunch.

Now things have turned down right nasty.  You don't just support your chosen candidates anymore, you destroy any conservative who stands in the way.  It started in Virginia with their 2013 elections.  If you had show an ounce of support for Cuccinelli there is little question he'd have won and Virginia would have been spared such an uniquely piss poor governor for the next four years.

Then came the primary season...California, Oklahoma, Iowa, Mississippi and many more.  You couldn't just let two good candidates fight it out and save your bias for the general election by supporting whom the party in each state nominated, could you?  You had to lie, cheat, destroy any conservative who stood in your way.  And its quite clear you do so because you are so confident that we'll still vote GOP no matter how many times you piss on us.

But let me point something out to you about that Romney thing.  Barack Obama received 5 million fewer votes in 2012 than he did in 2008...while Romney couldn't even garner as many as McCain got in 2008.  You had the perfect chance to defeat Obama.  His support was never going to be as strong as it was in 2008.  Too many eyes were opened to what he was doing.  But instead of riding the wave of the TeaParty and the conservatives in the party, you shoved a terrible candidate down our throats, the very last one any conservative wanted.  And what was the result?  Millions of us stayed home.  Why do you think we lost house seats and even Senate seats?  Because you forced us to stay home.

You're about to do the same thing again in 2014.  You have pissed on us far too many times.  We won't stand for it anymore.  You may actually survive the election and win the Senate.  But I will tell you this, get your affairs in order, because that may be the last thing the GOP ever wins.  Every time you piss on us, you lose tens of thousands of more voters....you assure that the third party you've been terrified of will emerge and YOU...and the American people will be the ultimate losers.

Why?  Because those liberals you so adoringly embraced in Mississippi to help ole boy Thad win the nomination will show you no mercy.  They will wipe the floor of every political corner with the corpse of the GOP party and frankly I'm not sure our country will survive....thanks to YOU.

Bottom line...you lost me.  I'm out.  The GOP no longer represents my political beliefs.  And I will no longer support it.  You are no longer the party of Abraham Lincoln, Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan.  You wanted to be the party of Bob Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Thad Cochran and that's how you'll be remembered.

A Free Press Is No Longer Free When They Fail To Defend That Freedom

"The only security of all is in a free press. The force of public opinion cannot be resisted when permitted freely to be expressed. The agitation it produces must be submitted to. It is necessary, to keep the waters pure." --Thomas Jefferson to Lafayette, 1823. ME 15:491 

For more than two hundred years our country has stood tall on the liberties afforded us by God, and protected by our Constitution.  But as we have come to realize over decades of progressively more vile corruption in government, the only real security we have against a small ruling elitist group of people from completely reversing the course of individual liberty in this country is us...we, the people.

Every despot, every dictator has known throughout history that their power is only safe so long as they can control the spread of opinions that contradict their authority.  Once the people rise up in opposition to their authority, they have no power to squelch them.  Sooner or later they will fall.

This is exactly why one of the most vital actions any despotic ruler must take in gaining control over the masses is to control the distribution of information...i.e. - Control the Media.  And this is exactly why our Founding Fathers thought so highly about insuring that our press is free from government intrusion, as well as being free from government influence.  

All leaders in any government eventually fall prey to the temptations to cut corners in pursuit of their political agendas.  None have been more emboldened to do so than this generation of politicians.  Not fifty years ago if any of the things that today's politicians do with regularity were even tried by any politician from either side of the aisle our press would have exposed them like a string bikini.

Today, not only are our politicians emboldened by the lack of press scrutiny, they're encouraged by the level of actual unwillingness there is in the press to investigate corruption in government...EXCEPT...when it comes to politicians who don't fit in nicely with the agenda of the ruling class...think Ted Cruz, Ron Paul, Herb Cain, etc. 

The number of scandals in this administration alone could conceivably total more than all previous administrations combined.  I know, I'm being ridiculous.  Or am I?  I don't really know, I haven't really researched it.  I do know, however, that there is little doubt that if any previous administration, especially a Republican one, had done a tenth of the things this administration has done that the press would have excoriated them.

Now days, the press is no long independent of the government.  They are no longer guardians of free access to information.  They are no longer concerned with informing the public with anything more than what their handlers direct them to do.  

The public's perception of the press has followed suit.  Less than 25% of us still trust the media to present us with the truth.  The consequences of this are beyond conception.  How does one make an informed decision when they can't trust the information they're getting as being real or true.

Let me set an example.  We all know of the Sandy Hook mass shooting.  We all know that 26 people died from one shooter.  But did you know there are no death certificates on file.  All people were pronounced dead on the scene by police...not in the hospital by medical personnel...that the shooter, a young boy was supposedly hauling around 50+ lbs of guns and ammo and shooting people with the accuracy of a world class shooter?  Did you know that there is a great deal of evidence suggesting the entire Sandy Hook incident was a staged "wag the dog" event?  

Do I believe it?  I don't know.  I don't know what to believe anymore.  Can our government pull something like that off?  I don't know anymore.  And why don't I know?  Because my ability to trust the press to present me with nothing but the facts is almost non-existent.  Because my ability to believe that there are limits to what these elitists can do with the press sitting completely in their pocket is null and void.  

How does the head of the IRS walk into a hearing in Congress tell us that the emails of seven relevant members of the congressional investigation were destroyed in a computer crash in two different cities that didn't effect anyone else...also happened at a time when there were no redundant back ups for those emails and the copies in the mailboxes of the people to whom they sent mail were also not there...that there were no hard copies of these emails despite the law that requires there be. How does he say that with a straight face and the entirety of the US news corp NOT rush to find answers to how this happened and who's getting fired for it happening.?

How do four Americans die in Benghazi under the cloud of accusations that it happened as a result of illegal gun running to Syrian rebels through Libya and the entirety of the news media NOT rush the White House, State Department and Pentagon demanding answers?  Why is the only personality on any major network who took the time and energy to do her job to investigate this event end up being forced out of her job by the very network executives who hired her to do such work?

The news media in the United States is no longer reliable, trustworthy or worthy of the exemptions and protections our Constitution affords them.  They must begin to, once again, become the watchtowers of our society or face the inevitable consequences of the corruption they have become so willing to protect.

Historical Connection: Nixon and Obama

Everyday I roam through Facebook, news sites, blogs, and various other postings online seeing people call for Barack Obama's impeachment.  The long list of potential violations have been often published, updated and republished.

At one time, recently, I listed off thirty-five different scandals within this administrations.  Admittedly, not all of them would be impeachable offenses.  But no less than 8-10 would be impeachable offenses.  Here's that list (and yes, I would not be surprised that others could be added):

Libya
Benghazi
Bergdahl/5 Taliban Leaders
Solyndra
Fast n Furious
Obamacare (multiple incidents)
The Border (multiple incidents)
IRS
NSA
Assassination of US citizens

Below are the exact Articles of Impeachment of Richard Nixon in 1974.  I've taken the time to highlight the sections of the articles for which I believe our current president could also be impeached.  I invite you to post comments agreeing or disagreeing with those highlights and/or adding others.

For those not interested in doing that activity, read them anyway and tell me WHY this president has not been impeached yet.

Article 1: Obstruction of Justice.

In his conduct of the office of the President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that: On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his subordinates and agents in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede and obstruct investigations of such unlawful entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities. The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan have included one or more of the following:

(1) Making or causing to be made false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States.

(2) Withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States.

(3) Approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counseling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings.

(4) Interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force and congressional committees.

(5) Approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payments of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities.

(6) Endeavoring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States.

(7) Disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability.

(8) Making false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation has been conducted with respect to allegation of misconduct on the part of personnel of the Executive Branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct; or

(9) Endeavoring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favored treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.

In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

(Approved by a vote of 27-11 by the House Judiciary Committee on Saturday, July 27, 1974.)

Article 2: Abuse of Power.

Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, imparting the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposes of these agencies.
This conduct has included one or more of the following:

(1) He has, acting personally and through his subordinated and agents, endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposes not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.

(2) He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.

(3) He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, authorized and permitted to be maintained a secret investigative unit within the office of the President, financed in part with money derived from campaign contributions to him, which unlawfully utilized the resources of the Central Intelligence Agency, engaged in covert and unlawful activities, and attempted to prejudice the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial.

(4) He has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavored to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive; judicial and legislative entities concerning the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and the cover-up thereof, and concerning other unlawful activities including those relating to the confirmation of Richard Kleindienst as attorney general of the United States, the electronic surveillance of private citizens, the break-in into the office of Dr. Lewis Fielding, and the campaign financing practices of the Committee to Re-elect the President.

(5) In disregard of the rule of law: he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch: including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force of the Department of Justice, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws by faithfully executed.

In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

(Approved 28-10 by the House Judiciary Committee on Monday, July 29, 1974.)

Article 3: Contempt of Congress.

In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of the President of the United States, and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, had failed without lawful cause or excuse, to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas. The subpoenaed papers and things were deemed necessary by the Committee in order to resolve by direct evidence fundamental, factual questions relating to Presidential direction, knowledge or approval of actions demonstrated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for impeachment of the President. In refusing to produce these papers and things, Richard M. Nixon, substituting his judgement as to what materials were necessary for the inquiry, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by Constitution in the House of Representatives.

In all this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office.

So, again, I ask, why has this president NOT been impeached. The duty of the House of Representatives to file and vote upon impeachment papers is not dependent upon the political expediency of filing or not filing.  They have their own constitutional obligation to do what is lawfully necessary without bias or prejudice.  They are obligated to do what it necessary whether or not their own individual or party's positions of power are at risk or not.  They are obligated to their constitutional duties whether or not there are social, political or other risks apparent.

Obamacare: A Moment of Enlightenment For Our Young Voters

Obama is so blatantly obvious.  Everything he does is designed to garner votes for either himself or his party.  Look at this.  CLEARLY he knew that he was BSing the Millenium generation about Obamacare.  He knew full well that the only way for Obamacare to not collapse on itself was for him to force tens of millions of healthy AND YOUNG Americans off their current plans and onto the exchanges.  He knew long ago this would mean jacked up rates for those people.  So what does he do to alleviate the fallout?:

1) Letting families keep kids on their plans till age 26.  Why is that important?  Because it keeps those young people from seeing...and worse, feeling...the actual impact of Obamacare on their rates.  Their parents might complain, but what the hell do these young people care...if their parents are paying the premiums.

2) Pushing for increase in minimum wage.  Why is that important?  Because these young people don't understand the consequences of raising the minimum wage.  They just see a bigger pay check.  They hardly notice that their bosses are firing people or cutting hours because as business owners they know full well that they have to have a very specific budget to make ends meet...and if they can't afford to raise prices or do other things to raise revenues to justify the higher payroll costs that their only recourse is to cut hours and/or fire people.  Nor do these young people notice that higher minimum wages merely means prices rise on everyday goods.  And that the rich business owners aren't the ones who'll suffer from higher costs...THEY will, along with their parents.

3) Next on the list...forgiveness of student loans.  Why is that important?  Duh!!  Do these young people give a rip that the debt doesn't just go away? it's still gotta be paid by someone, sometime.  They just know they won't have to make a monthly payment.  But who cares the consequences?  Nor does Obama care the negative consequences so long as he reels the young vote back into the fold.  

After decades of following politics I'm convinced of one thing:  Democrats have no principles.  They will do whatever they have to...spend whatever money they don't have...say whatever lie they must to garner the votes they need to obtain the power they want.  Does that mean the GOP don't do similar things?  No.  But when you have principles, which I think most conservative politicians do (to some small degree at least), those principles hamper the depth to which you go to garner those votes.  Conservatives have thought for generations that the fundamental principles of the American Dream and the possibilities that this country affords it's people would be enough to garner all the votes they need.  The problem is, however, that  the liberals have succeeded over multiple generations in obstructing the view of most people as to what it actually takes to have something in this life.  Generation after generation has become number and number to the values that must accompany freedom and prosperity...the principles of hard work, wisdom, charity and self-reliance.  

Conservatives have a golden opportunity through the eye-opening consequences of Obamacare to enlighten a new generation to the principles of liberty that this country was founded upon.  We have a true chance to win over the minds of our young in a way we've not had in more than 30 years.  Unlike 30+ years ago, however, we have no Ronald Reagan to rally around.  We must join as one to achieve this.  Make it work, friends.  This may be our last chance.

Top 25 Numbers of the Obama Administration

It's been quite awhile since I've written a blog post.  But I think it is time to write again.  This first post is in response to the 47% comment made by Romney at that fundraiser last spring.  Now, you won't get an argument from me about whether he articulated his point well or not.  I don't think he did.  But a simple reading of the text will reveal that the 47%, as he put it, actually represents the percentage of people he surmises would never vote for him no matter what.  He did NOT say that he didn't care about those people.  What he DID say was that he is not going to waste time trying to convince them to vote for him.  That he was more concerned about winning the votes of the 6-10% who are undecided.

That being said, even IF you could turn his 47% into a negative number and attach it to his campaign, let's take a look at the top 25 'numbers' associated with Obama and let's see if they sway any of those 6-10% undecided.

1) +8.0% unemployment - 44 straight months

2) 11.4% TRUE unemployment

3) 14.8% REAL unemployment

4) 23million unemployed or underemployed

5) 47million on food stamps

6) $16Trillion in Debt....YES, Mr. President, WE remember.

7) 1 in 6 living in poverty

8) 8.2% decline in median income per household

9) more new welfare recipients than jobs created last month

10) 6million middle class families paying the Obamacare TAX

11) 4 dead Americans in Libya

12) 100+ golf rounds

13) 150+ fundraisers (including one the day after 4 dead Americans)

14) less than 40%  of intelligence briefings attended


15) who know how many dead because of Fast and Furious

16) 1/3 of the Gitmo detainees to be released...nicely timed announcement after Libya


17) $3.85/gallon gas

18) 40+ czars with no Senate approval

19) $1.8T/year revised cost of Obamacare

20) $716B taken from Medicare to make Obamacare APPEAR revenue neutral

21) $300K...average cost from the stimulus per job created or saved (and that's ONLY if you believe the Obama Administration's claim that the Stimulus created or saved 4 million jobs)

22) >$500M to Solyndra

23) $3000 average increase in the cost of family health insurance.

24) $2500 what Obama said would be the average DECREASE in the cost of health insurance through Obamacare.

25) ZERO - number of budgets passed in the last 3+ years

Let's hope that last number also represents the number of additional years Obama remains our president.