Obama’s New Republic, Obama’s First Attempt To Impose Socialist Law

// Last updated on //

O bama made a sweeping statement today to impose a restriction on what CEOs of companies that accept US bail-out money can earn. This is not only misguided, it is illegal and in direct conflict with the Constitution Obama swore he would uphold.

This is Obama’s first attempt at passing socialist legislation, and he is attempting to do it without the approval of Congress, America or the Supreme Court, which would have no choice but to strike down any such law.

salary_cap_ceoObama said, “As part of the reforms we are announcing today, top executives at firms receiving extraordinary help from U.S. taxpayers will have their compensation capped at $500,000 – a fraction of the salaries that have been reported recently. And if these executives receive any additional compensation, it will come in the form of stock that can’t be paid up until taxpayers are paid back for their assistance.”

Unless new legislation is passed that would allow the government to restrict salaries, Obama has no legal ground on which to stand. If such legislation were to pass, the United States would have its first truly socialist law, but it would have to pass Congress and most likely would be contested in the courts as clearly unconstitutional.

Many of the naive cheering this action are not contemplating the slippery slope on which Obama is attempting to take America. America deciding to bail out or assist companies in their operations does not give America the right to take away any employee’s Constitutional rights. The CEO’s pay and his position is governed by the shareholders in the company. For a salary reduction to become corporate law within that company, shareholders must vote on that bylaw.

NEXT READ:  Obama Dined On Wagyu Beef Last Week; Today He Ate Crow

obama_barack

One could, in a weak moment, insist that the US is now a shareholder. As such, we do have every right to apply pressures to make the CEO’s comply to our desired objectives, but we have no legal right to impose those objectives on the CEOs or any other American. Our President does not have the legal authority to cap salaries for anyone. It is not his job nor is it his legal right to destroy capitalism. Obama is President of the United States, not its dictator.

The next step, if we were to allow such socialist actions by our President, may be to restrict pay and benefits to all Americans, governing what we all can earn. That is not government’s place in a Democracy. We did not vote for a socialist government, or did we? If Obama had run as a socialist, would you have voted for him?

When Obama ran for President, he did not speak of taking away our freedoms. What he is now suggesting is criminal and a direct violation of the laws on which this nation was founded. If there are responsible parties for the collapse of our banks and economy, by all means prosecute them for any crimes they committed. They will be tried and given due process and imprisoned if deserving under our laws. That is perfectly fine. However, what Obama is trying to accomplish is clearly stepping over the line, and has now revealed his true doctrine is to gradually destroy the freedoms we all cherish.

Obama apparently thinks of himself as the New Castro, but there was no revolution, and America did not vote for this deception. Until our vote is gone, and until the Constitution is changed, we also have the right to impeach him, and we should do so immediately to prevent what is an apparent attack on our fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed to us by our forefathers.

NEXT READ:  Making A House Into A Home, HuffingtonPost Lies About Obama Staged Incident

Read the full transcript, click here.

Facebook Comments

Related Post

19 Responses to "Obama’s New Republic, Obama’s First Attempt To Impose Socialist Law"

  1. Robert   February 5, 2009 at 1:21 pm

    ..do you think our congress votes on when they set minimum wages! is that illegal ? and if he did decide to take legal actions, i’ll bet my next paycheck you’d find something wrong with that too.. and in case you haven’t figured it out yet i’m all for capping Ceo’s.. they should be getting minimum wage.

    Reply
  2. nfv   February 5, 2009 at 1:50 pm

    So for eight year rushthugliclans don’t see anything wrong with the most criminal administration in the history of this country (killing over 1 million people) but want to impeach Mr. Obama for doing what is right for America.

    I guess you agree with turning America into a gated community only for the top 2%.

    Reply
  3. socialismisunamerican   February 5, 2009 at 1:56 pm

    Let me answer your question Robert. Minimum wage was enacted by Franklin Roosevelt to protect a worker from being essentially enslaved and kept in poverty. It was specifically enacted to provide support for the individual, not to restrict them. Note also, it is a law, not an edict. It was passed by Congress.

    The law is more akin to any other law intended to protect the worker, such as laws to prevent abuse in the workplace or against discrimination.

    This edict (no it is not law, which is vastly different) does not protect the interest of the individual on which it is applied at all, nor does it protect him or her in any way. It’s sole purpose is to benefit the government.

    The article does not say it is against pressuring CEOs to accept a lower salary, it says you cannot impose it as an edict.

    Minimum wage is also applied across all citizens. It does not target a specific individual or set of individuals. Applying it to only a small subset of individuals is unconstitutional based on equality for all Americans. In other words, if you apply a salary cap to a CEO, to be fair, you must cap everyone’s salary.

    You and I both know, or at least I hope you do, that companies can set salaries and are governed by their shareholders. And even the largest shareholder cannot tell the employees what to do. There are procedures for controlling the operations of any business, and Obama’s sweeping edict does not abide by these procedures nor does it pass Constitutional muster.

    Reply
  4. BDCable   February 5, 2009 at 2:04 pm

    Perhaps a dose of Socialism is in order. I recently returned from Swizterland, and you know what? Their so-called Socialist system seems to be working beautifully, the people are free and happy, health care is available to all, and believe me, there is no shortage of money being made there, or executives making enormous amounts of money. The only catch? Their companies have to perform. Most American’s are more concerned with saving our country, than saving these Fat-Cats’ salaries, while they allow their companies to fail. Time to get real…………….

    Reply
  5. obamaisafool   February 5, 2009 at 2:33 pm

    Obama is a complete buffoon. Why should a CEO’s salary be capped? Is he saying that a CEO can’t make more than 500K, but a board member or any other employee can make a billion bucks a day?

    Guy graduated from Harvard Law School and sounds more like he just got out of grade school.

    Reply
  6. Agent420   February 5, 2009 at 3:52 pm

    There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents the president from capping everyone’s salary. There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents any socialist legislation. You are confusing a financial system with a system of government.

    Reply
  7. Tayo   February 5, 2009 at 3:53 pm

    I guess we shouldn’t ask anything of CEOs of companies taking tax payer money. Or have you forgotten that part? No, he’s not going to march into every boardroom and smack the money out of the mouths of all the entitled know-nothings. But please, if you’re taking in government money to save your company, the public’s confidence trumps your precious golden parachute.

    Reply
  8. Larry   February 5, 2009 at 4:26 pm

    @obamaisafool
    You gotta be kinding…
    Obama is not attempting to cap the earnings of all CEO’s. You are lying just like all the other re-thugs. He is setting limits on the salaries of those firms that have or are receiving TARP funds. These are our tax dollars. It’s ok with those like you that some of these characters have stolen $18bil from us tax payers (your children as well) to give to themselves.

    What kind of world do people like you come from?

    You re-thugs are all liars

    Reply
  9. TimothyJ   February 5, 2009 at 4:48 pm

    The choice is the corporation’s: if they want government funds they have to adhere to these conditions of executive pay. If they don’t want to limit executive pay, they don’t have to, they just don’t get the funds.

    It’s simple, it’s the same type of condition put on millions of organizations or individuals who choose to accept outside funding. You want the money, you play by the rules. They are free to decline the money.

    My workplace has a dress code. If I choose to collect my salary I’ll follow the code; otherwise I can leave. They aren’t violating my right to free expression; I can leave.

    I admit I am a childish infant (redundant too)… But to conflate this with socialism or some abridgement (Sorry I can’t spell either) of Constitutional rights is not as idiotic as I and I demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of both law and public policy. Go ahead and throw your neocon tantrum–I have an 8-year old’s IQ. I don’t get it anyway.

    Reply
  10. DiracMan   February 5, 2009 at 5:09 pm

    OK. They can keep their millions and their Golden parachutes. Then let’s go with this instead:

    Put all the executives above a certain pay level in the bailed out banks on Wall Street into a “Guillotine Lottery” that will include them, their wives, and their children. Children will be exempt if they either serve in Iraq or Afghanistan or denounce their parents as criminals. Or if they murder their parents we will also accept that as making them exempt.

    Once a month one name will be drawn and that person will be executed on National Television in Prime Time. We’ll have as many camera angles as used in the Super Bowl (24). Instant replay too. One execution every Sunday night in Prime Time. This will concentrate the mind wonderfully for these fools and criminals that have destroyed the financial markets of the United States through both incompetence and greed. “Death by guillotine” will be the final “derivative”. And there will be no side bets allowed on whether the person selected pleads for their life on camera or not. Again, there will be no side bets permitted. That, after all, was declared illegal after the Panic of 1907…until the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (1999) and Commodities Modernization Act (2000).

    How’s that for a solution? Oh, and let’s add essayists for “The Nation” by reader vote. The writers, their wives, and children too. And if they, themselves, never served in the Armed Forces of the United States but benefited from the sacrifice of others, their family stays in the “Guillotine Lottery” for seven generations (let’s get Biblical about it).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillotine

    Reply
  11. Anonymous   February 5, 2009 at 5:47 pm

    “This is not only misguided, it is illegal and in direct conflict with the Constitution Obama swore he would uphold. ”

    Seriously? Since when did the constitution guarantee we would hand over free cash to failing companies. I guess corporate welfare is too hard, we should just hand them blank checks instead.

    If I give you money, it comes with strings attached. Welcome to the real fucking world.

    Reply
  12. obamaisafool   February 5, 2009 at 8:26 pm

    A few points for the imbeciles and children in the house, including Anonymous, DiracMan, Timothy and Larry.

    1. What Obama is trying to do is a complete violation of the Constitution because it is inequitable. You cannot target one individual to pay for the entire company’s problems or target a small group of people to pay for the nation’s. If you pass wage laws, and they actually got through Congress, etc., you can do what you like, but they apply to everyone.

    2. The government created most of the problems themselves and thrust them on the businesses. The government is just trying to deflect the blame. And you suckers are falling for it because your eyes are so glazed over in love with your foolish icon Obama.

    3. If you say you will place a salary cap the CEO only, he can just change jobs within the company or leave and retain his salary. If you place them all in the same situation, then the CEOs that are best will leave. Any way you cut it, you lose. Obama’s plan is not only illegal, it is stupid on its face, as are all of you.

    4. You can definitely attempt to place some kind of bylaws to control the companies you give money too. But you have no more rights than the shareholders. They invested too. When you buy a stock, you can call the company and complain about something as a shareholder. The more shares you have, the more leverage you have. You can even force actions through proxy. But you can’t willy nilly pass edicts. Try calling Intel if you have Intel in your IRA and tell them what to do, see how far you get.

    5. Obama has no idea for how these companies operate or any knowledge at all of their business model. And this isn’t Obama’s money folks. It is America’s. Mine too. I have a say as much as you. The fact that people like you are so dense you can’t understand that boggles the mind. Don’t you value your freedoms and equality? So do the shareholders! Among which the major stockholders are often the board themselves, including the CEO. He has more of a right to run his company as he sees fit than Obama, and is likely way better at it, even given our economic condition brought on by government. You make it sound like the fuggin’ money came out of Obama’s pocket and he bought the company. Obama used my money for Wagyu steak and my money to bail out these companies. Now he is trying to take credit for spending my money!

    5. The government bailed these companies out for its own benefit and supposedly yours. The downfall of some of these institutions could have led to disaster. Many companies were saved as a result. Those companies benefited. So, should Obama now dictate how all those companies should operate and you as well? Should he hold your wiener when you pee too?

    6. Most importantly, what is being promoted here is government dictating the operation of businesses. That by definition is socialism. Socialism in and of itself is not unconstitutional. Socialist edicts from one man in government are. Obama has no right to pass such edicts. If you understand how laws are enacted, what Obama says means squat until it passes through Congress. The point in the article best made is Obama is a President, an elected President, and a servant of the people. He is not a dic-tator, even though he is a dic-k.

    7. Obama told me to reduce my salary, I would give him a one finger salute, and I am guessing he will get exactly that in the long run.

    Finally, no one in this nation voted for socialism. Obama did not run on a socialist ticket or agenda. I would never have voted for a socialist and I voted for Obama. Now I want the dirtbag liar out.

    Reply
  13. ALex Great   February 5, 2009 at 10:34 pm

    The CEO’s that got their salaries regulated are failures. Of course they are responsible for their companies failure! Who else is? The doorman? But then if it is the doorman how come the poor guy doesn’t get CEO’s bonus if the company is successful?
    Practically, these CEO’s are on the dole now .Nor reason to complain. Only in the US you get half a million for failure. That’s not socialism just yet.
    Still there is danger too big part of the American economy is government dependent if you add military spending, bailout an social security that’s a scary amount of money. We might as well rename the country to the United Socialist States of America. But it’s not Obama’s fault. At least not very intelligent to blame him for the destruction of the economy and lost opportunities started by Reagan and led to an ignominious climax by Bush junior.

    Reply
  14. tryreading   February 5, 2009 at 11:03 pm

    Alex, you seem rather illiterate and anything but great.

    The article is not about who was at fault. If it were Barney Frank, Bill Clinton, Alan Greenspan and maybe even Bush should all be in the article.

    The entire article does not address fault at all, it addresses the attempted unconstitutional actions of Obama.

    It does not matter at all who is at fault. That is fortunately not for people like you to determine.

    The point is it does not give Obama the power to make up his own unconstitutional laws. That is all the article is about. It also argues against socialist laws. I am all for stringing up a CEO or two, but the last thing I want to see is a socialist America.

    Fault is not the issue here. Can’t believe so many of you place words or meaning into the article that just aren’t there. No wonder why the HuffingtonPost can brainwash you with a simple misleading headline.

    Reply
  15. Teresa   February 6, 2009 at 8:31 am

    @obamaisafool

    I disagree heartily. If your company is on the public dole, then the public (with President Obama as it’s head and spokesperson) has the right to put restrictions on that LOAN. If you don’t want the country running your private company, get your hands out of the country’s pocketbook!

    Reply
  16. Evelyn   February 8, 2009 at 7:08 pm

    Unless we get a big healthy dose of social programs, this country is going to be in a world of hurt. The baby boom, the largest population bulge, is on the cusp of retirement with their portfolios destroyed, home equity gone and not alot of time to make that money back assuming they can find a job. I do not want my grandparents, who did all the right things and saved for retirement sitting on a street corner begging because they are broke. This crisis is not their fault. I cannot imagine anything worse than being old and broke. If helping people to have a secure retirement is socialism, if making sure kids get the medicines and food they need to be productive in school is socialism, I say bring it on. Sure beats this trickle down crap which never trickled down and “greed is good” mentality.

    Reply
  17. Berkana   February 9, 2009 at 7:52 am

    Honestly, pay caps for these CEOs are perfectly reasonable. The Republican legislators supported essentially the same restrictions on welfare recipients for welfare reform, arguing that if a welfare recipient is taking money from the government, he or she must adhere to government rules. What are these bank executives but extreme versions of welfare recipients? If the Republicans wanted to have strings attached to welfare, it is nothing but hypocrisy and catering to the rich to argue against this when the banking fat cats come betting for government money. If they really are too big to let fail, and if they come crying with hat in hand to the government to be bailed out, capping the ridiculous salaries of their executives is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. There is no good reason for these executives to be receiving multi-million dollar compensation when they’re operating on tax payer money.

    Reply
  18. tryreading   February 9, 2009 at 8:20 am

    Once again, people seem to be getting off track. The article was not about whether any of you think CEOs deserve to have their pay capped.

    The aritcle says that the act is socialist. It is.

    The article says that it is inequitable and therefore unconstitutional. It is.

    The article says it is foolish because based on Obama’s own words, the CEO could have his pay capped, but the janitor could make a million bucks a day.

    This has absolutely nothing to do with your opinions as to whether the action would be right or wrong, no one cares about what you think in that regard.

    It is all about America being forced into socialism by a lying black man and liberal Democrats.

    Reply
  19. Memorie   March 22, 2009 at 12:42 am

    Wow I would GLADLY give my money to fund your idea!! I have been saying all along–perhaps if we followed China’s lead and started executing greedy worthless idiots like Madoff, it might send an extremely clear message that we are not going to allow CEO’s to continue to screw up not only their companies but also the nation (since they get their funds so tied up into many things that eventually effect all our livelihoods) all in the name of their greed. Then they might think twice before placing an order for a $25million jet instead of taking coach like most of the rest of us do!

    I don’t necessarily agree with Obama stepping in and taking over on behalf of the government–socialism hasn’t worked so far–however, I don’t see anyone else punishing these CEO’s and other idiots that have been allowed to run rampant ,so someone needs to take charge. Personally, I feel that I should have a say in my tax money and I certainly wouldn’t have picked to give these fools a dime…I think they should have had to take their OWN money, investments, salaries, etc. and used that to fix the companies they broke in the first place!!

    Originally Posted By DiracManOK. They can keep their millions and their Golden parachutes. Then let’s go with this instead:

    Put all the executives above a certain pay level in the bailed out banks on Wall Street into a “Guillotine Lottery” that will include them, their wives, and their children. Children will be exempt if they either serve in Iraq or Afghanistan or denounce their parents as criminals. Or if they murder their parents we will also accept that as making them exempt.

    Once a month one name will be drawn and that person will be executed on National Television in Prime Time. We’ll have as many camera angles as used in the Super Bowl (24). Instant replay too. One execution every Sunday night in Prime Time. This will concentrate the mind wonderfully for these fools and criminals that have destroyed the financial markets of the United States through both incompetence and greed. “Death by guillotine” will be the final “derivative”. And there will be no side bets allowed on whether the person selected pleads for their life on camera or not. Again, there will be no side bets permitted. That, after all, was declared illegal after the Panic of 1907…until the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (1999) and Commodities Modernization Act (2000).

    How’s that for a solution? Oh, and let’s add essayists for “The Nation” by reader vote. The writers, their wives, and children too. And if they, themselves, never served in the Armed Forces of the United States but benefited from the sacrifice of others, their family stays in the “Guillotine Lottery” for seven generations (let’s get Biblical about it).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillotine

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.