“ACTS OF TYRANNY”
by Dr. Tom Davis, Col., USA (Ret.), ©2015
“The Constitution contains 4,543 words, including the signatures, and has four sheets, 28-3/4 inches by 23-5/8 inches each. It contains 7,591 words, including the 27 amendments. The Constitution was ratified by specially-elected conventions beginning in December 1787.”
A propensity toward verbosity by our arrogant, pompous and imperious legislators has only a few days ago produced a document. “This 2,009 page omnibus bill contained a whopping $1.1 trillion for funding the entire government for the remainder of fiscal year 2016, or $547 million per page.” But contrary to promises, this bill was passed without the five-day review and comment by citizens.
It has become patently clear; the politically-operated and scamming bureaucracy is rife with criminals and those who kowtow to the leadership to get party funding assistance to remain in office. Who or what is to blame? #1 is Party Politics; politicians have as their PRIMARY LOYALTY their criminal party leaders; #2 Money, i.e., $$$$$$$$, Paul Ryan has built a Mansion surrounded by a protective wall. His total wealth has come from his political activities. Far too many politicians leave office as voraciously wealthy, and usually respected by their party hacks. #3 Citizen apathy. Failure by each and every citizen to take an active interest/action in the machinations of the criminal enterprise known as The Federal Government, And #4 the lazy, indolent, rapacious pseudo-humans demanding to be “Taken care of by the honest workers, via government handouts.”
Is there a viable remedy? Absolutely! That remedy was carefully considered by our Founding Fathers. They thoughtfully entertained other remedies, such as assassination, beheading, drawing and quartering to deal with ‘obnoxious’ civil servants – “Political assassination and impeachment have long been closely tied, as both involve removal of a leader outside of elections. Conservative firebrand Ann Coulter may not have realized this when, in 1998, she wrote (and was roundly condemned for) saying that President Clinton should be either impeached or assassinated. (To be fair, I recall hearing people routinely say that, perhaps facetiously, about George W. Bush.)”
Eventually, the Founders settled on Impeachment.
“…But perhaps, most ironic were the words uttered by an Arkansas law school professor who was running for Congress in 1974. In February of that year, Bill Clinton explained “high crimes and misdemeanors” as follows: ‘I think the definition should include any criminal acts plus a willful failure of the president to fulfill his duty to uphold and execute the laws of the United States. [Another] factor would be willful, reckless behavior in office; just totally incompetent conduct of the office and the disregard of the necessities that the office demands.’
“And, on August 8, 1974, the young professor was quoted in the Arkansas Gazette: ‘I think it’s plain that the president should resign and spare the country the agony of this impeachment and removal proceeding. I think the country could be spared a lot of agony and the government could worry about inflation and a lot of other problems if he’d go on and resign. [There is] no question that an admission of making false statements to government officials and interfering with the FBI and the CIA is an impeachable offense.'”
“The founders were well aware of the tyranny of the Crown, so they established the process of impeachment as a legislative safety valve against a tyrannical executive. The founders designed this safety valve for abuses so grave that, in Franklin’s words, they suggested assassination as a remedy. Impeachment was the founders’ civilized substitute. Under our Constitution, since impeachment is a remedy for Presidential tyranny, only acts of tyranny can justify impeachment. That may explain why, after more than two centuries’ experience in our democracy, not a single President has been removed and only one has been impeached.”
“The second pattern is that members of Congress, particularly in the Senate, have agreed with the view that impeachable offenses are not necessarily indictable crimes but rather are political crimes in which a critical element is serious injury to the political order or the constitutional system.”
It is clear from the previous quotation, that “Impeachable Offenses are not ‘necessarily’ indictable crimes but most certainly ‘imply’ that indictable crimes are of greater magnitude and criminality than ‘political crimes.’”
Thus the leadoff question may be easily answered; no one is “running,” i.e., leading this great nation. Those elected “servants of the People” are “ruining” this nation. There are few remedies left to us by our well-intentioned Founding Fathers, brilliant as they were, and as seriously as they considered the bad acts of the Chief Executive.
Of virtually the same magnitude of criminality are the misdeeds (Crimes) of:
* Eric Holder-Dereliction of Duty, violation of his Oath of Office, Accessory to Murder (Brian Terry) and Treason.
* Hillary Clinton- Violation of the Oath of Office, falsifying federal records, Dereliction of Duty, Violation of secrecy protocols, maintaining an illegal server, and Treason.
* Lois Lerner-Perjury and Contempt of Congress.
* Jeh Johnson-perjury
* John Boehner- Misprision of Treason
* Kevin McCarthy- Misprision of Treason
* Harry Reid- Misprision of Treason
* Richard Durbin- Misprision of Treason
* Charles Schumer-Misprision of Treason
* Debbie Wasserman-Schultz- Misprision of Treason
* Nancy Pelosi- Misprision of Treason
Dr. Thomas E. Davis, Colonel, USA
326 F Nantucket Lane
Monroe Twp, NJ 08831
“The telling illustration of Congress’s lack of purpose: For 10 years, it hasn’t passed an authorization bill for the Department of Homeland Security, a measure that would spell out policy priorities. Instead, the department operates on routine appropriations every year.
“Sandy Maisel, a political scientist at Colby College, in Maine, who specializes in Congress, says that oversight is effective only when it is bipartisan and adjusts to changing circumstances. Neither is true now.
“Politically, a role in homeland security is a credential lawmakers like to boast about, and politicians on both sides fight ferociously to protect their privileges.”