This from our president at the National Prayer Breakfast? Really.. He really said it, and in doing so demonstrated his complete ignorance of biblical giving and taxation. There are any number of fools out there who believe Jesus was a liberal, but it's a shame our president is one of them. Ignorance of biblical tenet is nothing new in the halls of Liberal thought.
Last year there was a tiff between Leftist MSNBC'er Lawrence O'Donnell and Rush Limbaugh on, of all things, the budget. O'Donnell's question: 'What would Jesus cut?' Limbaugh instead, and rightly so, asked, 'What would Jesus TAKE?'
Here's the video. At 1:53 in, O'Donnell scolds Rush, saying, he has "no working command of the Bible," then proceeds to brutally demonstrate his own complete ignorance as to the true meaning of Jesus' teaching.
Gary Demar, who is the last person I'd look to for proper exegesis of scripture, calls them all out with the opening of his piece at Godfather Politics...
"Don’t you just love it when Liberals turn to the Bible for support of their policies? How many times have you heard Liberals tell us that “Jesus never got mixed up in politics” or “We’re not supposed to Judge” or “You can’t impose your morality on other people” or “There’s a separation between church and state”? Liberal hypocrisy knows no bounds."Over at American Vision is perhaps the best refutation I've encountered on the Left's love-affair with Jesus' non-existent Leftist philosophy... specifically concerning taxation. Here's your link: What Would Jesus Take?, by Joel McDurmon.
...these leftists think Jesus is a leftist — that He would support the modern leftist Welfare State, take from the rich, cut from the rich, and give to the poor using government coercion.In a nutshell: taxation is coerced "giving" and, when used to support an ideological stance that condones taking greater percentages from others in the name of charity, is antithetical to the biblical idea of tithes and giving. Jesus never supported taxation, though he did recognize the need of people to stay on the state's good side by obeying the laws the state imposed on them. In effect, render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, but this is not an endorsement of Caesar's theft.
Every verse with which O'Donnell used to chastise Limbaugh was both misapplied and misinterpreted. Jesus was not a Marxist. He wasn't a Liberal. Nor a progressive. He was God in human flesh, and even God doesn't ask for more than ten percent (or, to quote, Bono, "God's not short of cash, mister..."). If anything, as McDurmon points out, Jesus' policy is regressive, treating everyone the same; ten percent of one's income is harder on the poor than on the rich.
It's true, as well, that 'to whom much is given, much shall be required,' but this is neither license nor endorsement of governments robbing the rich via a progressive tax system, for whatever reason, including the funding of social welfare programs.
Obama can believe what he wants about what the Bible has to say. Just because he's president, however, doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about. If Obama's faith had even a tibia of genuine biblical understanding he wouldn't have made such an egregious error.
Assuming the error wasn't intentional.
Yes, we do have an obligation to help those less fortunate, but it is not for government to determine the level of obligation he person is obliged to perform; what Obama is suggesting borders on a theocracy. He is using the pretense of Christ's teaching which, as is outlined in the post above, he has taken entirely out of context, and worse, is using the above quote of scripture as justification for government to do what we as individuals are asked to do. No where in scripture does Jesus give the state authority to take from the rich to subsidize the poor. That is theft anyway you look at it. Jesus isn't going to judge the government for not feeding the poor, He's going to judge the individual (each and every one of us) for not doing what they could for the poor, when it was in their power to do it.
It's not 'faux-outrage', though I can see how it can be construed as political demagoguery. Anyone who thoroughly dislikes Obama will likely use any club to beat him with. For myself, I just want him to stop using the Gospels as justification for stealing from the rich to give it to the poor; taking a generous cut off the top to feed government.
If he were truly concerned about the poor, and doing those things the Bible teaches why doesn't he stand behind 2 Thessalonians 3:10 which says:
"For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat."
It is not government's job-- spiritually, constitutionally, or otherwise --to take from one class to subsidize another. End of story.
A believing Christian would reply with the Parable of the Rich Fool. Jesus's own words teaching that "for unto whom much is given, much shall be required." or perhaps Mark 12:41-44, Jesus and the Widow's offering.
But even this doesn't matter because the United States has a secular government. Our federal policies and laws are not governed by theological lessons. The founding fathers may have been Christian, but they shaped a nation founded for all faiths favoring or beholden to the beliefs of none.
As to taxation, perhaps Ben didn't read any or all of McDurmon's piece that addressed the Widow's Offering story. Again, not a taxation issue, but a free will offering of an individual.
As to 2 Thessalonians, my reading of it only increases the understanding that it was intended that everyone should work so as to avoid being a burden on anyone. This echoes 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12. This is a primary trait of the conservative philosophy regarding personal responsibility. There was a time when being on the public dole was shameful to the point where personal suffering was more desirable to an individual than to be known as one who took a handout. It wasn't seen as worthy of a man to depend upon anyone, and the Thessalonian passages encourage this belief.
Think about that for a moment and reflect on how it might impact our culture, should everyone abide. We are called to be generous with our personal wealth, even to the point of personal hardship if necessary, while on the other hand, those in need refuse the generosity so as not to be anyone's burden. What we have now is the opposite. The O'Donnells of the world want to force money from the haves and redirect it to the have nots who regard themselves as entitled to it. THAT is not Christian in any sense.
Our progressive tax system is unjust because it doesn't require ALL citizens to pay the same amount. Think about it... God asks everyone to pay 10% of their increase (income) in tithes (tithes, not offerings-there is a difference). In this system a poor person pays more, proportionally, than a rich person. The rich man pays more in terms of amount, but the poor widow gives more proportionately, and yet Jesus didn't condemn the rich who paid according to their means. Is God therefore unjust because the poor suffer more than the rich? God forbid. Jesus, likewise, didn't condemn the rich, nor did He ever condemned the God-established requirement of Tithing.
God calls 'not' tithing 'robbing God'... Malachi 3:8 "Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings." And it's not government's job to insure the people aren't robbing God. But Malachi doesn't leave it there. God always offers two paths: the path of judgment, as in the parable of the rich fool; and one of blessing as in Malachi 3:10-11... "Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it. And I will rebuke the devourer for your sakes, and he shall not destroy the fruits of your ground; neither shall your vine cast her fruit before the time in the field, saith the LORD of hosts."
If you want a fair system of taxation in this country, make everyone pay the same percentage.
Here is where the hypocrisy lies in Obama's argument... here he is telling us the government has the right to institute what he deems Christ-taught "Christian" values (values he claims are his own), while simultaneously, via the institution and imposition of Obamacare, is forcing (demanding that) Catholics and other religious institutions provide abortion services against their religious convictions, as part and parcel of Obamacare. It's okay for Obama to insist HIS religious convictions be the standard of the land, but no one else has the right to uphold their own religious convictions. But then, anyone with eyes to see, and ears to hear, knows that Obama's "faith" is a selective one; he clings to those articles of faith which support his political ideology, while casting aside all those which don't. In other words, his faith isn't faith at all... it's political convenience.
I'm not going to argue your faith lessons with you. I don't believe in your faith and my interpretations of your holy book you are certain to disregard. However, you might want to explore these views with another Christian, because there are a large number of people of your faith that come to a different perspective on these verses and parables.
I want to take this phrase apart because to me it seems to concatenate a large number of false assumptions from conservatives of your stripe.
First there is an intrinsic element of force in all government requirements. Whether it is the threat of jail or the force of law enforcement, we accept these requirements because they are seen to be for the common good even if we personally disagree with them.
Even committed pacifists must register for selective service, and pay all of their federal taxes. Those opposing abortions and the criminalization of marijuana, also are "forced" to pay all their taxes even though some will go to anti-drug efforts and groups that support women's choice.
Why? Because the US isn't ala carte. If you're a citizen you have to take the entire package laws you like and laws you don't. So phrasing a discussion about tax policy change in terms of force and seize and take is needless hyperbole.
Back to Marshall's quote, there seems to be this assumption that the "haves" are morally superior to the "have nots" They have more right to their wealth and income than those at the bottom of the ladder. Is there something better about making your living from capital gains instead of straight labor? And from my perspective there may even be an intrinsic economic danger in having too much wealth concentrated at the top. What is it that is always credited with growing the US economy? consumer spending and confidence. But action by the wealthy have been the driving force of our economic disasters, securitization of home mortgages and CDO's most recently, dot-com speculation in the 90's, Saving-and-Loans of the 80's.
And last is the idea of those receiving federal or state assistance feeling entitled. I've never seen polling data on this question, so can't speak empirically, but if you have please pass it along. What I can comment on is that the largest parts of the federal budget are Defense-20% (I image soldiers feel they're entitled to their pay) Social Security-20% (mostly seniors, who probably feel they have a right since they paid in all their lives) Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP-21% (seniors, children, & poor with their claim to health care, darn those entitled layabouts) and then you have the entire rest of government in 18% which includes welfare, school lunches, the FDA, FCC, NTSB, Education Dept., CDC and EPA (you probably feel entitled to some of these benefits).
I can't read your mind, but I'd bet money when you wrote that phrase, you were thinking of Reagan's welfare queen riding around in a Cadillac. Such images are a thing of the past thanks to bipartisan reform of welfare by Pres. Clinton and Congress led by Newt Gingrich in the 90's.
I don't see you having any reasons left to object to raising the tax burdens on upper incomes, but I'm sure you'll think of something.
They are the same reasons that have always existed, but are routinely ignored by bad leftist thought: they are both confiscatory and unfair. They penalize the success of some by making them support the failures of others.
What you first forget or refuse to acknowledge is that one's income, one's wealth, one's money is one's property and the founders were strongly in support of the right of the people to their own property.
Secondly, you assume what most on the left do, that wealth is "concentrated" anywhere because there is only so much of it to go around. If the "1%" have it, then what is there for the 99? How about if some of the 99% created their own? What is "concentrated at the top" has nothing to do with what is possible for anyone at the bottom to acquire.
As to who is entitled and how it can be known who that is, simply look to yourself and others like you who are voting for those who would continue to tax the wealthy at higher rates for the purpose of reducing and redistributing that "concentration at the top". You obviously feel entitled to that extra percentage with wish you insist on burdening them, or you wouldn't support it. Or are you part of the 1% and like Buffet, pretend you care without donating voluntarily?
"Back to Marshall's quote, there seems to be this assumption that the "haves" are morally superior to the "have nots" They have more right to their wealth and income than those at the bottom of the ladder."
Of course they have more right to their wealth because it's their wealth. They did what was necessary to acquire and grow it and as such are the only one's entitled to it.
But there was no suggestion in my comment of moral superiority possessed by the "haves" over the "have nots" simply because they "have", but only a morally superior understanding of what belongs to whom and to whom the wealth is entitled.
"First there is an intrinsic element of force in all government requirements."
What a news flash, but that's not the issue at all. What is the issue is equal application of that force, or more accurately, equal application of the law. A progressive tax is simply not equal application of the law, obviously. So it is not a matter of those laws and policies to which our tax dollars go to support, but that we all pay the same percentage of our income to support them. (Indeed, it is bad enough to have to pay for those laws with which we disagree, such as the legal murder of the unborn, but to have to pay an unequally higher percentage to do so is singularly heinous.)
You list a number of gov't programs. Aside from military personnel receiving their wages, there is little, if anything there, to which I feel entitled. Certainly, if I am forced by law to contribute to something like SS, I do indeed expect to collect from it at some point. But only because of my contributions to it, not because I believe the fed gov't should be providing for my retirement. I'd much prefer not contributing to SS at all and providing completely for myself. Of the federal gov't, I only feel entitled to its defense of Constitutional principles and the rights the Constitution explicitly spells out. If that is our starting point, and should always be so, then we can discuss to what I feel entitled.
I stand by the quote you dissected so poorly.
I do take exception to one statement you made...
"there seems to be this assumption that the "haves" are morally superior to the "have nots" They have more right to their wealth and income than those at the bottom of the ladder."
There is no assumption I'm aware of that the Haves are morally superior than the Have Nots... morally speaking. They are superior, however, in their ability to set aside immediate gratification for future gratification, which is, for the most part, what motivates people to achieve/amass larger sums of capital than those who choose immediate gratification over future gratification. People who choose the latter see denying themselves comforts and pleasure today in order to have comfort and security later. There is no moral superiority for those who manage to achieve greater wealth than, let's say, the "poor." But in terms of goals and personal growth, perhaps they Haves are "superior."
Not everyone who tries, achieves. That's just simple truth. Neither can any government guarantee any of its citizens equality in terms of achievement. What government CAN do, and has done via the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, is ensure that everyone has equality of opportunity.
Secondly, the second portion of your statement is antithetical to the principles laid out in both the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. And not just those two documents but the Golden Rule itself... Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. Your phrasing suggests that the Haves DON'T have more of a right to THEIR wealth and income than do the poor.
The rhetoric Obama is employing in his "Rich Folk Need to Pay Their Fair Share" meme is dishonest on at least two fronts. First he assumes a tax bracket of, let's say, 39% is somehow fair to the Haves, while the Have Nots pay much less or not at all in the end. Again, to be truly fair, and Biblical (since Obama himself is the one who's opened this door) a flat tax would be most just. Churches and charities are not going to let anyone starve if government will step back and allow them to do what God has ordained them to do.
Secondly, Obama has framed his argument on "Christian" values which he personally espouses; values he and most everyone one else on his side of the political fence claim have no place in government. There is, after all, a supposed separation of church and state. But it appears more and more that that separation is only relevant when pertaining to issues the left do not share with Christianity.. namely, as I stated above, in the abortion debate, as it pertains to religious organizations who provide healthcare services under Obamacare.
By their own standard, there exists a separation of church and state. The state therefore must cease and desist in using the Bible to justify its policies, if it is to be just, and not viewed as hypocritical. If Catholic hospitals cannot opt out of the abortion on demand provisions within Obamacare, then Obama's government cannot use scripture to justify anything.... let alone lecturing the American people on what the left deems moral. Because, quite frankly, what Obama and the left deem moral, more often that not, in their application, is anything but.
But leaving the Bible entirely out of the argument, at what point (a point I've yet seen a liberal articulate, let alone defend), as a percentage point, will government declare any rich man to have paid his or her fair share? In a few states the current percentage is already over 50% when you consider state and city taxes. Are they not paying their fair share? Will government decide that 49% is the highest bracket it will demand the richest Americans pay in federal income taxes? Before State, County and City? I know in the past the highest bracket reached 80 and 90%, but tell me, if you can, what moral high-ground does government have which allows them to pit rich against poor, claiming the rich doesn't pay their fair share, when the rich pays far more, both personal percentage-wise and total revenue percentage-wise, while many poor pay nothing at all after their tax-returns are filed? What is moral about taking 50, 60, 70, 80 or even 90% of one hard earned wages while it allowing others to pay nothing, and even some who receive monies back they never even paid in (EITC)?
Why is it government demands the "rich" pay their fair share, but cannot even curb its own appetite for spending other peoples money? I know you've heard it before, but it's true all the same... Washington doesn't have a revenue problem... It has a spending problem. Washington is doing far more with its revenues than what the Constitution originally allows.
From where I stand, there is nothing moral at all about making one pay 50 or 60-plus percent in total taxes on his income, simply because they were "fortunate" (which for the most part is a misnomer... they are, instead, in possession of a harder, more consistent and persistent work ethic) enough to have done well.
The is no moral justification for taking more than (and I'll be generous here...) 25% of ANYONE's income in taxes. God only demands 10%. And government is no god to me. Although it is, unfortunately, to some.
And there it is again the idea that the successful are better than the less so. Being well off is just as much a factor of birth as being born into a poor family. You assume every rich person worked and earned their wealth through hard labor and every poor family is out buying beer and cigarettes. It's an idea from America's sanctimonious Puritan roots that is pure hokum.
You in fact want the benefits of one of the federal gov't biggest expenditures.
There are both moral and practical reasons to increase taxes on the upper income brackets here are the practical ones.
1. Americans want expensive services from their government. You may not want all of them but a majority of Americans do. Currently the government can not pay for all these services (including Defense) that Americans want. If we want to pay down the deficit, keep funding our defense and all the other services people want then government revenue must increase. Incomes in upper brackets have been growing at double digit rates for the last thirty years while those in the lower brackets have stagnated.
2. For the past few decades all significant tax cuts have benefited the upper income brackets more than the lower income brackets. Today the wealthy pay less of a percentage of their income because of special loopholes than average workers. Why is capital gains or carried interest different then regular income?
3. A family that is 30x wealthier than average does not stimulate the economy 30x more. They don't buy 30x the number of cars, or houses or shirts or McDonald's hamburgers. That's why it's better to increase the income of 30 families rather than just one. So in as much as all tax policy is redistributive it is better for money to go from one wealthy family into the government, and out to 30 lower income families in services.
4. The financial sector of the economy has already recovered from the Great Recession. The Dow Jones is hitting high marks it hasn't seen since 2007-08. While at the other end of the spectrum demand for social safety net programs continues to be high. In lean times the government must provide more services, so extra income to pay for those services should come from sectors which are thriving.
There are four practical reasons for increasing taxes on upper incomes, returning to a historical balance between the classes, paying for the increased need for services during poor economic times, and paying for government services in general.
If you want to reply to this please keep your arguments focused on non-moral reasons. In a post tomorrow I'll post what I see as the moral arguments for increasing taxes on the wealthy.
First of all, I gotta hit this:
"And there it is again the idea that the successful are better than the less so."
You're seeing what you want to see. The statement...
They penalize the success of some by making them support the failures of others.
...does not in any way make a judgment on which group is "better". Simply put, one group is successful at creating and maintaining wealth and the other is a failure at doing so. If there is any "better" in the equation, it's simply the the former is "better" at creating and maintaining wealth.
Note "maintaining". For those who were born into wealth, they do have work to do in order to maintain it. It is no news flash that there have been many Lotto winners, winners of millions of dollars, who now have nothing left because they did all those things about which Eric spoke, rather than all the things that the wealthy do to maintain their holdings. Does that make them better people? Of course not. It only makes them better stewards of their cash. So you can stop playing that game now.
Now to your list...
1. Americans can want anything that comes to mind. But the federal gov't is restricted by the Constitution as to what its purpose is and to what its duties are. If every person in the nation demanded free food, the federal gov't is obliged to tell them to pound sand, because it ain't the duty of the federal gov't to provde free food. Nor is it to provide most of the things now sucking our tax dollars.
Also, you speak of incomes growing and incomes stagnating. One of the things the wealthy does is to find ways to increase their incomes, but also to use their incomes to further enrich themselves. What are you doing with YOUR paycheck? How much do you put aside for investing? If you answer "zero", then you're probably committing your dough to things that don't increase your wealth. That's YOUR problem. The income of other people ISN'T, nor is it your business.
2. This is humorous. The gov't numbers show that since the Bush tax cuts, the top earners pay a greater percentage of the tax burden than they did before the cuts. What's more, fewer people on the other end of the spectrum pay income taxes than before the cuts. And still you bitch and concern yourself with the business of other people.
"That's why it's better to increase the income of 30 families rather than just one."
Then start a business, hire 30 employees and pay them as much as you want. OR, gather as many like-minded socialists like yourself who have benefited by increasing their wealth under capitalism and you all can donate.
"So in as much as all tax policy is redistributive..."
...it is so as a result of jamokes like you voting for buffoons like Barry who will take money to which they have no right to give to others who haven't any right to it, either. But tax policy is supposed to be a means by which our nation, states, cities and municipalities are funded to do the things which they are mandated to do. Nothing more.
4. "In lean times the government must provide more services, so extra income to pay for those services should come from sectors which are thriving."
They caused much of the lean times with their spending and regulations. Now they want those who succeeded despite the extra burdens to pay even more than they already do. It's a never ending story with people like you. If times are lean, then the federal gov't must do what its citizens do when times are lean and cut the hell back on all the crap on which it should never have been spending our money.
Those are four BS reasons, thus not very good reasons at all, for sticking your hand deeper into the pockets of other people, otherwise known as "cheap rationalizations" that don't address the issues that would lead to prosperity for more people. We don't need handouts. We need the federal gov't and their enablers (like you) to stand the hell back and let people do what they do best---create wealth.
I'd like to know where the left get's the idea that government is supposed to provide social welfare/safety net programs in the first place, because there's nothing in the Constitution that allows these things.
"Americans want expensive services from their government. You may not want all of them but a majority of Americans do."
It doesn't matter that a 'majority' of Americans want services from the government. Our Constitution doesn't allow government to do much of what it's already doing. Besides which, a majority of Americans don't want abortion on demand, but we have it anyway. Most Americans don't want Obamacare, but we're getting it anyway, unless Obama is defeated in November. It doesn't matter to the Obama administration if a majority of Americans don't want a policy, if that policy is something the Obama administration wants to give us. And, again, much of what government has given us, and wants to gives us, isn't even within government's purview to do so.
"Why is capital gains or carried interest different then regular income?"
Because the money used to invest in the stock market had already been taxed. This 'outrage' that Warren Buffet pays less of a percentage rate in taxes than his secretary is a canard... an outright deception, because Buffet pays taxes on Capital Gains, while his secretary pays taxes on Income... two entirely different species of taxes. She works for a wage, while he lives off his investments.
If the money you receive in a paycheck is then used to invest in the stock market, those funds have already been taxed. Which is why capital gains taxes are lower than regular income tax rates. This is as it should be. It's only fair.
"So in as much as all tax policy is redistributive it is better for money to go from one wealthy family into the government, and out to 30 lower income families in services."
"CURRENT" tax policy leans toward redistribution, but that is not what the 16th amendment was enacted to do. Government has, since the 16th amendment was enacted a hundred years ago, chosen to buy their continued electability by expanding, unconstitutionally, the scope and intent of not just the 16th amendment, but the Constitution as well. The first income tax was enacted in the 1860's to fund the Civil War, but when the war ended so did the tax soon after. Before the 16th amendment, the only income the government made was through tariffs, and that was enough to do what government was constitutionally mandated to do, but it was not enough to fund WWI. When the 16th amendment was enacted this country ceased to be a republican style government and instead became an empire. Put another way, the birth of the income tax was also the birth of empire in the United State. With the income tax government has been able to (as liberals in general decry ad nauseum, and rightly so, I might add...) insert itself into the affairs of other nations without welcome, and without Constitutional mandate.
...more to follow.
Furthermore, this idea that "extra income to pay for... services should come from sectors which are thriving," is likewise anti-constitutional, if those services are not themselves constitutionally mandated responsibilities. Now, if you're talking about public sectors, and not private citizens, then I'll agree in spirit. If the US Parks Service was thriving with huge surpluses of capital, then yes, shift those funds to other sectors, but not to anti-constitutional programs.
"A historical balance between the classes"
Wha??? You mean the balance the Declaration of Independence describes? That each man, woman and child are endued by their Creator with certain unalienable right? That among these are the right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness? Because if you're talking about "classes" as in 'lower class', 'middle class', 'upper class' as taken from the Obama/liberal speak lexicon, i.e., the class warfare currently being egged on by the Obama administration, this is not constitutional. The Constitution does not describe, nor does it lay down a foundation for, "classes". If we are to be divided into economic classes, let it be understood that the Constitution does not establish such; that in point of fact it is the exercising of our individual right to Pursue Happiness that PUTS us in one class or another. It is not government's job to put anyone in a "class" but, rather, it is governments responsibility to ensure everyone has equal opportunity to decide for themselves, though actions or in-actions, via a strong or weak work-ethic, which class they desire to be in. Free enterprise, when it is truly free, allows anyone willing to work and persevere to reach whatever 'class' their efforts takes them. Our Constitution does not guarantee anyone success. Success is wholly dependent upon individual effort. No one need ever be poor, but there will always be people poorer than others. And it is not any politician's right or responsibility to ensure equality of outcome.
Furthermore, the Constitution doesn't give any rights.... it guarantees them. Our rights, according to the Declaration of Independence are granted by our Creator. The language of the first ten amendments do not confer rights, they guarantee rights; they curtail government from the infringement of our rights.
....
I used to talk about how if we didn't do something soon to change what government is doing to us, this country would cease to be the America I and many others knew. But I've come to realize that the America I was thinking about hasn't been around for near a hundred years. But the sentiment is still true... unless we change what our government is presently doing to us, we will lose the America we have. It's not the America we were given by our founders, but it's still far better than the one our present leaders are trying to give us.
“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
--Barack Obama, Oct 30, 2008
What gives ANY president the right to say such a thing, let alone implement unconstitutionally?