Truth Before Dishonor

I would rather be right than popular

Posts Tagged ‘lies’

Is This Malfeasance in Office By Obama???

Posted by Yorkshire on 2013/11/05

The By-Stander President has said over and over “if you like your insurance plan, you can keep it, Period. if you like your doctor you can keep him, Period.” I believe these statement in plain everyday English and Diction to make a clear declarative statement that do stand on their own. These need no interpretation or explanation to be understood. Obama has said this and recorded over 20 times. Now lets look at Malfeasance.

mal·fea·sance
mælˈfizəns/ Show Spelled [mal-fee-zuhns] Show IPA noun Law.
the performance by a public official of an act that is legally unjustified, harmful, or contrary to law; wrongdoing (used especially of an act in violation of a public trust). Compare misfeasance ( def 2 ) , nonfeasance.

Now at least 20 times or more Obama has said this: “If you like your plan, you can keep it PERIOD”

Now, within the last few days, Obama has taken the word “Period” or end of statement and turned it to another New Lie. Now Obama has dropped PERIOD and now has a new qualifier since people have lost their insurance and doctor. The worst is a woman being treated for FOUR YEARS for Cancer lost her plan and can not find another one to replace it.

It is clear the President has Lied, Misled, stretched beyond all recognition THE TRUTH.

Constitution says:
Section II
Section 4.

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Meaning of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”

by Jon Roland, Constitution Society

The question of impeachment turns on the meaning of the phrase in the Constitution at Art. II Sec. 4, “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. I have carefully researched the origin of the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” and its meaning to the Framers, and found that the key to understanding it is the word “high”. It does not mean “more serious”. It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.

Under the English common law tradition, crimes were defined through a legacy of court proceedings and decisions that punished offenses not because they were prohibited by statutes, but because they offended the sense of justice of the people and the court. Whether an offense could qualify as punishable depended largely on the obligations of the offender, and the obligations of a person holding a high position meant that some actions, or inactions, could be punishable if he did them, even though they would not be if done by an ordinary person.

Offenses of this kind survive today in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It recognizes as punishable offenses such things as perjury of oath, refusal to obey orders, abuse of authority, dereliction of duty, failure to supervise, moral turpitude, and conduct unbecoming. These would not be offenses if committed by a civilian with no official position, but they are offenses which bear on the subject’s fitness for the duties he holds, which he is bound by oath or affirmation to perform.

Perjury is usually defined as “lying under oath”. That is not quite right. The original meaning was “violation of one’s oath (or affirmation)”.

The word “perjury” is usually defined today as “lying under oath about a material matter”, but that is not its original or complete meaning, which is “violation of an oath”. We can see this by consulting the original Latin from which the term comes. From An Elementary Latin Dictionary, by Charlton T. Lewis (1895), Note that the letter “j” is the letter “i” in Latin.
periurium, i, n,, a false oath, perjury.periurus, adj., oath-breaking, false to vows, perjured. iuro, avi, atus, are, to swear, take an oath.iurator, oris, m., a swearer.iuratus, adj., sworn under oath, bound by an oath.ius, iuris, that which is binding, right, justice, duty.per, … IV. Of means or manner, through, by, by means of, … under pretense of, by the pretext of, ….

More here: http://www.constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm

Posted in ABJECT FAILURE, Constitution Shredded, Health Care | Tagged: , , | 2 Comments »

Word Of Honor? Or Contract?

Posted by John Hitchcock on 2012/03/29

Which is more valuable to you? Your word of honor or a legally binding contract you sign? There is at least one modern, industrialized nation that to this day culturally values your “gentleman’s handshake” more greatly than your signature on a piece of paper. Likely, there are more than one, due to a cultural thing.

From my reading and from my experience, Japan is such a place. And I expect it’s a trans-national cultural thing, and something we used to have in the US, before people of low morals de-stigmatized breaking one’s word of honor.

In Japan, your signature on a piece of paper carries much less weight than your actual word of honor, your actual promise. If you break your promise (which would be lying), you dishonor yourself. You also dishonor your employer and your associates and your friends. But most importantly, you dishonor your family (sometimes irreparably). You become an absolute disgrace to all who have connections to you, and they will do their best to distance themselves from you. And, ya know, I think that ain’t such a bad idea, yo. If people who break promises became Pariahs, the world would become a much healthier place.

In my last Ohio job, I worked for a Japanese-owned company. A large percentage of the employees there were Japanese citizens on US work visas. They absolutely valued personal honor. They absolutely valued your word. And if you broke your word you were a disgrace, not to be trusted in anything at all.

What brought this up? That’s the wrong question, actually. As the saying goes, “the answer is only important if the right question is asked”. Who brought this up? Perry Hood brought this up. If you’ve been a follower of this site for any time, you’ll know Perry Hood is a radical Leftist “absolute relativist” who comments on The First Street Journal under the name “Wagonwheel” (generic link in deference to the blog owner, who allows anonymity, even of malignant sorts, on his site (which means this link will not trackback to any article there)). Perry Hood made a promise some time ago not to comment on my articles, in my threads. He has previously “accidentally” done so, and when called on it, he has “given permission” for me to delete his comments. But in each of the most recent three days, Perry Hood has knowingly and intentionally commented on my TFSJ articles, claiming he has chosen to retract his promise (as if that is even honorably possible).

What made the difference? Convenience. Perry Hood found it highly inconvenient to keep his promise to not comment on my articles, thus Perry Hood decided he would be Dishohorable and disgrace himself by breaking his sworn oath not to comment on my articles. And in doing so, Perry Hood tried to lay the blame on others because I have forced him to keep his promise (by deleting all or most of each of his comments) and because the site owner has given me leeway to enforce Perry Hood’s promise.

In Modern-Day Japanese culture (and likely in the culture of the entirety of the Pacific Rim, as I have found occasion to speak in-depth with a Filipino businesswoman who lives in the same culture and has traveled to the US (only to be disgusted by San Fransisco elevator eyes)), Perry Hood would be a Pariah, a disgrace to himself, his family, his associates (and his employers if he weren’t already retired), and be cast out of civilized conversation and associations, due specifically to his Dishonorable actions. But, in Modern-Day radical Leftist US culture, it’s perfectly alright to lie and make an oath that you repeatedly break later under one condition: Keeping the oath you made inconveniences you to any degree whatsoever.

So, Perry Hood, the radical Leftist, self-proclaimed “Progressive” (read Socialist) from Delaware, has declared his promises to not be worth the breath it takes to make them, if they inconvenience him in the least, and that everyone else is to blame if they even deign to hold him to his self-admitted oaths.

UPDATE
I received a query from someone on FaceBook for whom I have great respect. The query went along the lines of “Isn’t a written contract a verbal agreement, only in writing?” That is absolutely right in an American world. And the written contract holds much greater weight in an American world, because it provides proof of the agreement. I’ll note that the promise Perry Hood made was, actually, in writing and posted for the entire world to see. So, that difference does not provide a mitigating factor for Perry Hood.

But let’s take it out of the Dishonorable Perry Hood realm (where he fails on both counts) and into the hypothetical realm, comparing cultures.

In much of modern, industrialized Japan: (In many areas and in many families)

A business contract is business.
If you violate that contract, it’s business and to be dealt with as business.

If you give a personal promise, it’s you, standing there naked with just your honor to clothe you.
If you dishonor your personal promise in any way, YOU are dishonored by your own actions.
If your family does not disown you and turn you into a Pariah, your family is likewise dishonored by accepting you. And they forever live in the shame and dishonor you have heaped upon them as being family of a loathesome, dishonorable person. (Think Star Trek TNG and the Klingons.)
If your friends and acquaintances do not turn their backs on you, they, too, become dishonorable because they kept their ties with a dishonorable person.
Likewise, a business who honors the dishonorable is dishonorable.
And the snowball grows large enough to tear an automobile from the road, sending it and its occupants into destruction.

No, in some cultures, even modern industrialized cultures, it is far worse to dishonor your personal oaths than to violate your business agreements.

And that is exactly what Perry Hood did, in intentionally violating his personal oath at least 5 times in 3 consecutive days. He not only brought shame upon himself but upon all who closely affiliate themselves with him, and upon all with whom he closely affiliates himself.

Posted in Blogging Matters, Character, Liberal, Personal Responsibility, Philosophy, politically correct, politics, Socialists, society, truth | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

 
%d bloggers like this: