True leadership is a rare attribute.  While many people have exhibited an ability to get elected, even to the presidency, that doesn’t make them a great leader.  To demonstrate the point, ask yourself how many great presidents we have had over the last 100 years.  If you count four or less, and you should, then you understand the point.  Based on nearly a year and a half of the Obama Presidency, it is likely he will be closer to the bottom four, instead of the top four, as he demonstrates his leadership by litigation mentality.

Leadership by litigation is reference to his penchant to litigate, not solve problems – to attenuate them, not end them.  Consider that Obama, the attorney, is facing a growing number of crises:  (1) a failing economy, (2) a growing number of terrorist attacks, and (3) the gulf oil crisis.  Each of those crises is getting worse, not better, and it is Obama’s lack of leadership skills that are to blame.

Working backwards, rather than demonstrate action on the gulf oil spill, i.e. approving Bobby Jindal’s request to form barrier islands or to approve the Saudi mid-ocean cleanup method, Obama is stalling on those suggestions and many more – but he is willing to file a lawsuit against BP.

With regard to terrorist attacks, the facts demonstrate that, despite Obama’s talking to the World, the number of domestic attacks rose dramatically.  Obama’s response? – have attorneys prosecute them.  And on the economy, Obama has done nothing more than talk and pander – mostly blaming Business and Bush for the problem but not acting in rational manner – unless you are one of the few people in the world who think that mimicking Greece represents economics.

At the outset of this editorial, I quoted the legendary CEO of International Telephone and Telegraph (ITT) Harold S. Geneen.  He said that “Leadership is practiced not so much in words as in attitude and in actions.”  That could be a diplomatic way of saying you cannot talk your way out of a challenge – at least not for long – you must act.

All of which brings us back to attorneys.  Many in that profession are far more interested in fighting over issues rather than resolving them.  After all, that is how they make money: fighting.  It becomes their mentality.  That is why, in part, the American historian Will Durant famously and derisively said that “[a]nimals claw each other to death; men consume each other by due process of law.”

The Presidency should be a place where problems are resolved – not argued.  That is why true leadership is not about litigating but about being decisive and acting – and boldly at that.

Admiral Grace Murray Hopper once said, “You manage things; you lead people.”  Lawsuits are managed – the American people, and the crises they face, have seen Obama the attorney, what we need is a leader.

In that lively spirit, I give you my Top 10 Anti-Taxation Quotes with my annotations:

No. 10.

“In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes.” Benjamin Franklin. It is hard to start anywhere else. The little known full quote is “Our Constitution is in actual operation; everything appears to promise that it will last; but in this world nothing is certain but death and taxes.” The Founders, who framed a Constitution to protect us from government, did not dare consider an income tax. Franklin obviously did not trust future politicians.

No. 9.

“I am in favor of cutting taxes under any circumstances and for any excuse, for any reason, whenever it’s possible.” Milton Friedman. The 1st of two Friedman quotes in this countdown brings up the question: Why the Republican Party is (or should be) so anti-tax? Franklin obviously warned us. Friedman accepted his warning and knew that unless we fought them at every turn, taxes would be more than inevitable.

No. 8.

“Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one’s taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands.” Legendary Judge Learned Hand. I guess it turns out Joe Biden was wrong?

No. 7.

“The power to tax is the power to destroy.” The first of John Marshall’s 2 quotes in the countdown: Simply stated, but sadly not well understood: that maxim also applies to income as well – which is why higher rates result in less tax revenue. Later Alan Greenspan would say that “Whatever you tax, you get less of.” It REALLY is that simple – if only our politicans would learn that lesson.

No. 6.

“We have a system that increasingly taxes work and subsidizes nonwork.” Milton Friedman. In just 11 words, Friedman philosophically explains (a) socialism’s internal flaw and (b) how the tax system is used to undermine a nation’s vitality. Churchill was equally smart when he noted that “We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”

No. 5.

“You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot lift the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot establish security on borrowed money. You cannot build character and courage by taking away men’s initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.” William Boetcker.  Wrongly attributed to Lincoln, Boetcker explains with clarity 10 reasons why welfare state proponents, including Obama, have it all wrong.

No. 4

“A democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it.” Alexis de Tocqueville. One of history’s most brilliant men, de Tocqueville makes clear, in the early 1800s, the very dynamic that is so badly harming American today: Only 53% of Americans pay income tax. The others are simply voting themselves temporarily “rich” at the cost of our economic health, their own long term welfare and our Liberty. Under Obama, that dynamic will worsen.

No. 3.

“Excessive taxation … will carry reason and reflection to every man’s door, and particularly in the hour of election.” Thomas Jefferson. The last 8 Presidential winners was the perceived tax cutter. Is Jefferson’s message not simple enough? Why any Republican ever forgets Jefferson’s maxim is so very hard for me to understand.

No. 2.

“The collection of taxes which are not absolutely required, which do not beyond reasonable doubt contribute to the public welfare, is only a species of legalized larceny.” Calvin Coolidge, our last “Libertarian Republican” President, evokes our memories of a time when government was actually limited and people actually believed that people had a right to their money. Coolidge summarized what every Republican should repeat when asked about our tax system: “The wise and correct course to follow in taxation is not to destroy those who have already secured success, but to create conditions under which everyone will have a better chance to be successful.”

Del Beccaro’s No.1 Anti-Tax Quote!

“Indeed, in a free government almost all other rights would become worthless if the government possessed power over the private fortune of every citizen.” John Marshall, Founder and seminal US Supreme Court Chief Justice. Without question this is the fine point of the matter. The income tax – instituted by Democrat Woodrow Wilson – is an involuntary tax that requires citizens to disgorge their hard earned property. Since, as Will Durant said, “communism begins where private property ends,” Marshall is right to point that there are precious few rights remaining if government can take away your private property. We must come to understand that lower taxes literally are the equivalent to greater freedom. We can begin to restore our freedom by scrapping the involuntary income tax in favor of a voluntary sales tax.

Thanks for reading and remember that dissent is no substitute for action. Get involved and help us take back the America this Fall.

According to the American Historian Will Durant, “Animals claw each other to death, men consume each other by due process of law.”  And with that sentiment in mind, it is easy to see why the Obama Administration has made one of the worst foreign policy decisions in American history.

Of course, I am talking about the decision to try terrorists for “crimes” in New York City in a criminal court using the laws of our land.  Let us count the ways this decision is beyond negligent; it is a gross dereliction of duty:

1.  An Unprecedented Act Providing A Terrible Precedent.  Throughout our history, we have treated enemy combatants as those committing an act of war.  That is so because (a) they are not US citizens, and (b) their acts were acts of war.  In other words, they were not criminal acts of a US citizen committed during peace time.  Now however, Obama has allowed at least one enemy combatant to be tried in a US criminal court subject to the constitutional laws of our country.

Here is what logically can flow from that legal precedent, keeping in mind that the first right granted is never the last:

a)      Other enemy combatants will claim that they are not being treated “separately but fairly,” that they too have a right to due process, and so they will claim that they have a right to tried in a US criminal court as well – effectively ending military tribunals; and

b)      Thereafter, enemy combatants will not only make use of our appeal process, they will also claim that they have a right to sue in our civil courts for any claimed “civil rights” injustices as a result of the process by which they were captured, detained and/or questioned – regardless of any existing laws to the contrary which they will claim are  – you guessed it  – unconstitutional;  and

c)      Non enemy combatants will seek access to the US system claiming that their lesser “criminal” conduct is no less protected, i.e. illegal aliens and on and on; all of which means that

d)      Non citizens will eventually claim full constitutional rights – including rights to government programs – in other words the loss of our legal borders.

If you think that is an exaggeration, consider how far the US has come –  at one time allowing for interment during World War II of US citizens (essentially taking away existing rights of people) to today granting foreign terrorists Constitutional protections (to which they never should be allowed to have).  The latter would have been unheard of in the 1940’s.  Now it is a reality.  Those are far bolder steps than the steps that I have suggested above.

2.  War Decisions Will Be Hampered by Due Process of Law Issues.   Once you move from a military tribunal to a criminal court, issues of admissibility of evidence change dramatically.  Given that these events happen on a battle field, are we expecting our soldiers to collect evidence?  To read terrorists Miranda rights?  Are we to call in CSI?  Of course, that seems laughable given the dangers of the battle field, but as a lawyer, I can tell you that those issues will come up.  Of course the solution to that for the military will be not to take prisoners but instead to simply shoot on sight – a decision that would lead to lawsuits as well.  All of which will lead to the worst result of all.

3.  Unilateral Disarming.    Of course, Osama bin Laden, living in a cave, has no use for due process.  He views such niceties as a weakness in his war.  At no point will terrorists modify their behavior in response to separate but equal treatment – after all, someone willing to murder civilians by thousands does not specialize in equity.   The US, on the other hand, has by its own hand weakened its ability to fight wars – it will have unilaterally allowed others to consume at least part of us by due process of law.

Of course, that may well be part of the Left’s strategy.  So too tearing down the barriers between citizens and non-citizens – making terrorists citizens of the world.  How long is the process from that decision to Obama then deciding that our Constitutional review of these terrorists must be judged by international standards?

After all, if he has disarmed us of our ability to fight, why not disarm us of our constitution or as they refer to it – Internationalism?

Taking all of that into consideration, incredibly, Obama admits that he didn’t sign off on the decision.  Now that is the only crime I can see in this scenario.