Tuesday, May 5, 2009

Your Witness, Counselor

You are a juror. A man is on trial for “gross incompetence” and possible treason. A prosecuting attorney steps up to the accused on the witness stand and offers, in evidence, a laundry list of verifiable accusations of his malfeasance.

As you listen to these accusations, delivered without benefit of spin by either a press corps or a cover up by a sycophantic bevy of bureaucrats whose self-interest begs your support; would you not take these issues seriously? Would not conviction be a definite option in your deliberations? Would the accused’s response not be of concern?

Here follows, points which the prosecutor would surely raise:

•Obama’s first two major bills alone, the "stimulus" and "omnibus," cost nearly twice as much as was spent on Iraq over six years – $1.2 trillion vs. $650 billion.

•Obama abandoned his campaign promise of "a net spending cut," his first annual deficit – not counting bailouts – being three times the worst deficit under President George W. Bush.

•Obama’s objective in his first G20 summit – commitments to spend our way to prosperity with massive stimulus boondoggles across the G20 – was rejected out of hand.

•Obama’s objective in his first NATO summit – commitments to combat troops for Afghanistan from "our European allies," which Obama and his party imagined were ready and willing to fight if only someone "enlightened" like him were running things – was predictably refused, with some more European non-combat contingents offered as a token.

•Obama’s Defense Department announced cuts of $1.4 billion to missile defense, the day after North Korea test-fired its long-range, multi-stage ballistic missile.

•Obama’s economics were criticized by Warren Buffet, whose endorsement had been candidate Obama’s highest economic credential.

•Obama reversed the free trade Bush policy that had allowed about 100 Mexican tractor-trailers into the United States, which the Mexican government immediately used as an excuse to levy tariffs on 90 American goods amounting to $2.4 billion in U.S. exports.

•Obama’s "tax cuts for 95 per cent" turned out to mean $13 a week from June to December, to be clawed back to $8 a week in January – as compared with President Bush’s 2008 tax rebates of $600 to $1,200 plus $300 per child, which were notably scoffed at during the election campaign by Michelle Obama.

•Obama’s campaign promise of a $3,000-per-employee tax credit for businesses that hired new workers – repeated ad nauseam for weeks before the election – was discreetly retired even before inauguration day.

•Obama abandoned his campaign promise that "lobbyists won’t work in my White House," waiving his no-lobbyist executive order or conveniently re-defining his appointees’ past lobbying work to allow 30 lobbyists into his administration.

•Obama abandoned his campaign promise to reform earmarks, signing the omnibus bill which contained 8,816 of them.

•Obama took more money from AIG than any other politician in 2008 – over $100,000 – and signed into law the provision guaranteeing the AIG bonuses which later had him in front of the cameras "shaking with outrage" and sicking the pitchfork crowd on law-abiding citizens who had fulfilled their end of a contract and had their payment upheld by Obama’s own legislation.

From an evidential prospective, this would have to be one of the easiest cases ever to prosecute. Support for each point is well documented. Additional witnesses would form an army.

The remaining question is then; if an armed felon was charged with such a compelling body of evidence would he be allowed to continue his nefarious practices? Would he not be charged, indicted, incarcerated, tried and his fate placed in the hands of a jury? The issues in the list above are serious to the life of the republic. Will it still be in existence when you go to the jury room (voting booth) to confirm or convict? Are you prepared to make a decision?

I am grateful to Andrew W. Smith, from Cape Sable Island, N.S., who writes and resides in Tulsa, Okla. for the bullet points listed above. I would suggest you read his column for a different perspective. It’s excellent.

In His abiding love,

Cecil Moon

No comments: