Friday, May 29, 2009

Can Federal Government Punish Civilians for Supporting Opponents?

90% is a pretty big number. If a baseball player hit the ball 90% of the time at bat, he would be in the record book, probably on page 1. Or if I flipped a coin over and over and and it came up heads 90% of the time, I would start looking closely at the coin to see if someone is playing a trick on me.

2% is also an impressive number. If a student were in the top 2% of her high school class, her parents would probably have a special bumper sticker on their car.

Keep those numbers in mind.

As I have mentioned before on this blog, the Founding Fathers who wrote our Constitution were very, very concerned about not letting the Federal Government take too much power unto itself. This blog focuses on the First Amendment, which keeps the government from limiting our religious rights. And the 10th Amendment, also mentioned a few times on this blog, says that the Federal Government has ONLY the power specifically designated by the Constitution.

While I haven't mentioned it before, the 5th Amendment to our Constitution says that a person may not be "...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Recently I have seen some rather major assumptions of power by our Federal Government. For one thing, they are investing in private companies in return for a share of or even control of the company. But most disturbing is the takeover of the automobile companies and some of the actions following.

If you read the papers or follow any news source, you will know that the Government is now controlling both General Motors and Chrysler. As part of their effort to make Chrysler profitable, they have insisted that the company eliminate many of its dealers, now announced at a total of 789.

In some cases, the owners of the dealerships have been in business for decades, have purchased a Chrysler franchise (i.e. they "own" the franchise), have an inventory of cars they purchased, and have an inventory of parts. The company is not reimbursing them for their property. They are taking back the franchises. They are taking back their ability to sell the cars as new cars. They are taking back their ability to do warranty repairs. This will force owners who have done nothing wrong into bankruptcy.

The Government is running this operation. But, since the 5th Amendment bars the Government from taking property without either due process of law or reimbursement, how is this possible? That's my first objection. My second one is possibly MUCH more serious.

The 90% Number
The information that follows is still being filled in, but so far the numbers are very troubling. Looking at political donor records, it has been shown that of the 789 dealers whose dealerships and livelihood are being taken away, and who actually contributed to political campaigns, 90% of them donated to Republican causes in the last few years. And of those same people, only 10% gave to Democrats.

The 2% Number
The formula that the Government used to determine who got closed is not totally disclosed, but sales are part of the consideration (logically enough). One of the dealers on the closing list stated that his dealership was in the top 2% of dealers in sales. If you were cutting back dealers, would you eliminate one that was doing so well?

One has to wonder - after I publish this post, will my name suddenly appear on a list of those the IRS needs to audit?

IF the facts above are supported as more data is made available, we should all be concerned. At least I can still pray about it (quietly, if I don't let anyone know I am praying).

More detail on World Net Daily


New stats are now available showing the historic percentage of car dealers who donate to Republicans vs. Democrats. In the last 3 election cycles it has averaged 76% to Republicans. So that makes it less overwhelming. However, it is still out of balance. It off by about 20% (76 vs. 90+) - in other words, about 20% more Republican donors were axed than would be statistically expected.

No comments: