There's a story (H-T to T. Hilla) over at Western Journalism that sums it up in it's headline "What Obama Is Doing Is Illegal And Will Destroy People On Fixed Incomes." You can watch the video there but for brevity I'll just include the narrative here:
Murray Energy CEO Robert Murray says Obama is illegally using the EPA and the Clean Air Act to take over the US Electric Power Grid–and in the process, destroying low-cost energy.
According to Murray, “Coal is a four cents per kilowatt hour energy, and wind and solar are a 22 cents per kilowatt hour energy…And that’s if the wind is blowing and the sun is shining.”
Murray would later in the interview go on to say, “this is a very dangerous situation and I don’t know if the average American, whose electric rates are already going up, will [know] it will go up a whole lot more with this.”
“The people who are on fixed incomes or are poor, poverty stricken people are gonna be hurt the worst,” Murray added. “And [they] better be scared to death about what Mr. Obama and his EPA are doing.”
“It can’t be done, it’s unachievable, and it’s illegal!”
This is just another example in which Obama is continuing his illegal actions and policies.
Well that story and more like it are ubiquitous all over the Internet...not just the illegal claims, but the lying and foreign policy fiascoes that are pulling this government down the proverbial slope of no return. My one big gripe about the press coverage centers mostly on the right...the left simply does not report. When I hear the professional pundits (this includes everybody from O'Reilly, Hume, Hannity, Wilcow, or whomever) state that Obama makes poor decisions or does not know what it is he is doing, they got it all wrong. Obama knows exactly what he is doing! He's destroying the country! ...and intentionally!
Most of us can agree that Obama lies among other wrong doings but nobody seems to know what to do about it. Some cry for impeachment...and I say no, arrest the wrongdoer and get him off the streets before he can do more harm, then if you want to start impeachment proceedings have at it. The United States Constitution may outline the impeachment process but says nothing about arresting a dangerous person...and if you don't believe Obama is dangerous you have a very big problem. He can be arrested for lying; says so right here:
Title 18 of the U.S. Code Section 1001, states that: “(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any judicial matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years or both.”
When one reads the above Title 18, thoughts of the recent IRS scandals come to mind but my thoughts are, "Get the guy that's in charge...the guy causing all the trouble." Certainly Obama is behind the schemes that are currently in place to destroy this country. He actually admitted to these plans before he was ever elected when he said, "I will surround myself with like-minded people." Every one of Obama's appointees have Communist or other anti-American ties. But lets keep to the lies angle. The following, although a bit lengthy, is excerpted from Pepperdine University's Graziadia Business Review, Lying is a Crime :
American history is replete with cautionary tales about the importance of telling the truth. President George Washington is alleged to have said, “I cannot tell a lie,” about cutting down his father’s cherry tree, and even though this event may not have literally happened, it is a story often repeated to highlight the importance of telling the truth. President Abraham Lincoln was often fondly referred to as “Honest Abe.” However, some of our recent presidents have not exhibited such a high regard for telling the truth. For example, President Richard Nixon was threatened with articles of impeachment in the 1970s and resigned from office when it was clear that the House of Representatives was going to impeach him for lying about the Watergate break-in. The result was different, however, in the 1990s. President Clinton was charged with lying under oath and impeached by the House of Representatives, but the Senate did not convict him and he remained in office.
Businesspersons need to know that the rules regarding lying in business in the U.S. are currently being vigorously enforced. Contrary to the belief of all too many executives, the rules regarding lying are not confused and unclear—at least in the minds of today’s prosecutors. Recently, in case after case, scandal after scandal, American federal law enforcement officials have clearly shown by their indictments and prosecutions that there is no confusion in their minds—lying is a crime.
Lying Alone is Enough to Send You to Jail
After the conviction of Martha Stewart, the former CEO of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc., numerous articles and editorials were written bemoaning the trial and her conviction. The arguments castigating the prosecutors for bringing the criminal case against her went something like this: (1) since Stewart was not in the final analysis being prosecuted for the underlying crime of securities fraud, it was not “right” for the prosecutors to go after her for simply lying to federal investigators, and (2) it was not “fair” for Stewart to be prosecuted for lying when so many other CEOs and top officers behaved so much more atrociously, enriched themselves so much more outrageously, and caused so much more damage to others than Stewart did.
Let’s take a closer look at the first argument—whether or not lying alone is a crime in America. When a witness takes the stand in a judicial proceeding in the United States, the witness is first asked to take the following oath: “Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?” Only after answering yes is the witness allowed to give testimony in a judicial proceeding. After taking this oath, a person who testifies willfully and falsely in a matter material to an issue involved in the proceeding will be guilty of the crime of perjury.[1] Any attempt to influence a witness’ testimony corruptly by promises, threats, or the like is committing the criminal offense of witness tampering.[2] Furthermore, anyone who attempts to prevent or impede the lawful process will be guilty of the crime of obstruction of justice.[3] In each of these crimes, there is no requirement that the person charged and convicted of such crimes first be convicted of some other “underlying crime.” Simply put, lying itself is a crime, punishable with serious jail time. Stewart is not being singled out for special treatment by being convicted solely of lying.
Let’s examine the second argument raised regarding whether it is “unfair” for Stewart to be sent to jail for lying. After all, what she did was not as serious and damaging as the behaviors of other senior executives involved in some of the more notorious scandals (Adelphia, Tyco, Enron, etc.). Again, one who makes this argument may not be thinking through the full impact of accepting lying within our judicial proceedings. If lying were suddenly to become acceptable, why would anyone tell the truth if it meant harmful consequences to themselves? Surely we are not so naïve as to believe that it is human nature to testify against our own interests and that we would automatically do so even if there were not swift, serious, and painful consequences for not telling the truth.
Lying is a crime because those who lie in a judicial proceeding are destroying the essential fabric of the “rule of law,” which has enabled capitalism to be so successful in the United States. Lying is and must be a crime in a judicial proceeding—and must be enforced against everyone—whether he or she is the President of the United States, the president of a Fortune 500 multinational organization, or the janitor. Stewart’s crime of lying must be viewed not only in terms of how it may have impacted her own company and shareholders,[4] but must also be viewed in light of the potential damage to our entire economy if lying were suddenly to be tolerated in our judicial proceedings. After all, if it is okay for Stewart to lie, then how can we complain about accountants who lie about a company’s financial audits, executives who lie about their company’s sales and revenues, or analysts who lie about their stock recommendations? What then makes us think that anyone will continue to invest their money in the American stock market, which has been the driving force of our brand of successful capitalism during the second half of the 20th century?Now why can't Congress put a stop to Obama? Because they don't have the guts!
Norman E. Hooben
No comments:
Post a Comment