International News
See other International News Articles
Title: Impeach President Obama—Why When Where and How
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/67752
Published: Nov 22, 2014
Author: Dr. Robert R. Owens
Post Date: 2014-11-22 20:19:45 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 3516
Comments: 13
In America today, just like in Lake Woebegone, every child is above average and every child gets a trophy. We may score low in international grade comparisons but we rank number one in self-esteem. In other words, American students may not be doing well but they think they are. Those of us old enough to remember how Dad could control the situation with a look and when you got in trouble in school your parents didn’t sue or contact the School Board you got in trouble at home too are also old enough to remember Watergate. This scandal that the general public still does not understand brought down a president and led to the Watergate Congress which threw away the victory in Vietnam and solidified the Progressive control of Congress until 1994. Today we are confronted with contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law that makes the Watergate Scandal look like the tempest in a teapot that it actually was. How many people died as a result of the Watergate Scandal = 0. How many have died as a result of the Fast and Furious debacle = at least 200 and still counting, including an American law enforcement officer. How did Richard Nixon disrespect, disregard or violate the Constitution in the Watergate Scandal = 0 (although his use of Executive privilege did spark a constitutional crisis). How many times has Barack Obama disrespected, disregarded or violated the Constitution during his time in office = at least twice as documented below by making recess appointments while Congress was still in session and refusing to enforce laws. There is an old saying, “That’s good enough for government work.” This saying comes out of the big government make-work programs of the 1930s and has been used ever since as short hand for “Approximate is close enough,” which might as well be the new national motto. In societies that rob Peter to pay Paul the stage before all the Peters change their names to Paul is typified by government bean counters picking winners and losers. This process discourages producers and encourages non-producers assuring you get less of the former and more of the latter. As an educator I have a belief that if you don’t teach someone to do something right you are teaching them that doing it wrong is acceptable. In the past seven years President Obama has said repeatedly that he does not have the power to act unilaterally through executive orders to re-write the nation’s immigration laws. In October of 2010 President Obama told the Washington Press Corps that he was not a dictator and thus could not impose immigration reform on his own without Congress. In 2013, in interviews with Spanish language media he said, “I am not a king” and that he could not impose immigration reform on his own without Congress. In all, he has said things similar to this 22 times since becoming president. In 2008 when then Senator Obama was running for president he attacked President Bush for using executive orders in a bold over-reach to illegally extend presidential power. In 2008 he tried to back up his critique of Bush’s use of executive orders by claiming to have been a constitutional law professor. A claim not supported by investigation. If President Obama is now doing what he has consistently proclaimed he didn’t have either the power or the authority to do and no one at least tries to stop him. What is there that he can’t do? If Congress does not assert its place as a co-equal branch of government, the Imperial Presidency of Barack Obama will continue to usurp power. From recess appointments while Congress is in session to refusing to enforce the laws of the land to unilaterally remaking immigration law this President is fundamentally transforming our system of government. Not through the amendment process, but through a campaign of unconstitutional and therefore illegal actions designed to buy him enough votes for a second term. Whether it is through the money laundering schemes that are government negotiations with public service unions, pork barrel payoffs to political donors, or back-door amnesty, this is nothing more than buying votes; a time-honored Chicago tradition. Combine this with a campaign to resist any attempt to verify who is voting and the stage is set for an election that would make any managed society proud. His supporters may call it the Audacity of Hope Campaign, but if it is successful it will be the audacity which crushes any hope of limited government, personal liberty, and economic freedom. The dreams from his father will become the nightmares of our children and grandchildren. With no authority Mr. Obama is attempting to rule by decree. Executive orders have previously been used to direct the Executive Departments how to implement laws. Mr. Obama is using them to legislate, and that is in direct contravention to the separation of powers clearly outlined in the Constitution. President Obama has built a shadow government that parallels and is standing ready to supplant our constitutional government. He has appointed more Czars than most of his predecessors and these Czars are not just advisers they are actually tasked with duties that under our traditional American governmental structure have been the responsibility of Cabinet Secretaries. These Czars are not confirmed; they are anointed, and none of them are accountable to anyone but the President. Even though Congress voted to defund his Czars, President Obama has said he will ignore that part of the Budget and keep them anyway. A cult of personality surrounds him typified by a compliant media which fawns over his every action and defends his every transgression. As if to add icing to the cake the Obama Administration has invoked Executive Privilege to support Attorney General Holder in his refusal to surrender all requested documents in the Fast and Furious Scandal. What national security issues could there be in this matter? If the documents proved that the operation really did start under the Bush administration, as Mr. Holder contends, does anyone doubt they would have been on the table yesterday? Either the President is attempting to protect his Attorney General, some member of the White House staff or himself. Either way, this may eventually provide a real similarity to the Watergate Scandal. Though in this case the cover-up could not be worse than the crime it could lead to enough fallout to make his own supporters leave a sinking ship to avoid the stigma of a failed presidency and a looming constitutional crisis. Now think of the IRS scandal and Benghazi and it is obvious we have a rogue president who is becoming exactly the threat to liberty the Constitution was written to prevent. If this slide into tyranny is not stopped it will continue. If it is not protested, it will be accepted. I know that just as with Clinton in the ‘90s there are not enough Senators to convict but if these blatant attacks upon the checks and balances are not punished, at least by the shame and reproach of an Impeachment Resolution, they are being silently condoned. Speaker Boehner stand up and lead the House! Don’t just make a speech; present a case. Don’t just give us a photo op; give us a fighting chance to save this great experiment in human freedom. If you don’t stand for something you will fall for anything. America it is time to stand up to this Southside Chicago bully, and let him know he can’t have our lunch money anymore, and he can’t subvert our Republic either, at least not without us protesting and using every legal means available to stop him and preserve limited government. We, the lovers of freedom and the supporters of limited government, cannot merely wait the clock out on the Obama presidency. Because with all these affronts to constitutional government unchallenged combined with his presidential campaign in 2012 based upon class warfare and the redistribution of wealth he and his statist backers will declare it a mandate for more of the same, on steroids. An oligarchy of the perpetually re-elected veneered over a permanent nomenclature of federal bureaucrats will easily fall in line behind a complacent and complicit media to cheer the new order as the soft tyranny of the central planners tell us what is best for us and then forces us to say thank you. As Hilary or someone like her along with their tens of millions of imported voters wait in the wings to be the nail in our coffin. Protest the lawless Progressive counter-revolution! Contact your Representative and demand an impeachment hearing to investigate President Obama for the High Crimes of subverting the Constitution. He should be investigated for: For making recess appointments while Congress was still in session For ignoring his obligation to enforce the laws of the land in the areas of Immigration and the Defense of Marriage Act For incorrectly using a claim of Executive Privilege to cover up reckless and possibly criminal activity in the Fast and Furious scandal. For stonewalling the congressional investigations into the IRS and Benghazi For unilaterally doing what he himself has said he doesn’t have the constitutional authority to do, legalize those who have broken into our land Act today! Contact your Representative and let them know patriotic Americans want this tyranny ended and limited government restored. Keep the faith. Keep the peace. We shall overcome.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)
(Edited)
The House can impeach. The Senate can't convict. Impeach if it will make some folks feel better. It will change nothing. (Rather, it will simply drive Independents and Hispanics into the booth for Democrats next cycle.) The Supreme Court or government shutdown are the only two viable options to stop amnesty and Obamacare. But the Republican Supreme Court is feckless, and Obama will go to the mattresses of default in a shutdown, while the Republicans will flinch. As long as the opposition to the Democrats is controlled by the super-rich, the Democrats will always have the whip-hand, because Democrats can always dig in and force the issue into the "power of the purse", which ends in default, which would wipe out the rich. Only by having a middle class and working class party that is NOT beholden to the rich can the whiphand be transferred. And people on the Right are not willing to give up their sugar daddies. So we're ruled by a mack-daddy instead. That's the way it is. Until things change on the ground, we can work ourselves up into a fine lather, have our hopes dashed by the economic ties of men with names like "Reince Priebus", and keep repeating the cycle over and over as the Democrats extend the reign of their philosophy into the 42nd consecutive election cycle. Lather, Reince, Repeat.
No it will not. The whole country hates Obama. Even the liberal bitch across the street is sick of him. Nolu chan voted for Obama and he is sick of him. The list goes on and on. On the contrary if the Republicans don't impeach people like me may sit out and they will surely lose. When the democrats were going to impeach Nixon it gave the Democrats a lock on the House as the article says. You have to do the right thing not stick your finger in the air and predict where you think the political winds are blowing. Which is what you seem to be doing here. You do the right thing if it is popular or not. It is popular with Americans. They have a duty to act. He broke the law. It is their job and duty to impeach.
I don't understand why federal departments or programs can't be individually funded. They're individually budgeted. Without that, there is no way to defund Obamacare or amnesty without a shutdown -- making that option non- viable. And I agree that impeachment is a waste of time since there aren't enough votes in the Senate, we're running out of time for hearings, and it will result in making Republicans look vindictive. Which leaves the USSC. Eliminating the subsidy along with imposing the mandates Obama has been postponing should end Obamacare. Republicans should be ready with an alternate. I would expect the USSC to rule Obama's amnesty to be unconstitutional -- if for no other reason than to stop a future Republican President from doing the same to liberal laws (ie., non-enforcement of EPA regulations or IRS tax laws).
I don't understand why federal departments or programs can't be individually funded. The alternate is the parent legislation, RomneyCare. They love ACA, but want to change the name. Mitt and Gruber invented the dang thing. They can't be individually funded because the Republican wing loves them as much as the Democrat wing does. It's ONE party, masquerading as two. You've been conned.
States have powers the federal government doesn't. Because a state can do it doesn't mean the federal government can (or should).
They can be. But Obama can veto and demand omnibus allocations, saying that piecemeal is unacceptable.
Nolu chan voted for Obama and he is sick of him. The whole country does not hate Obama. A large and growing share of it does. Yes, I voted for Obama in 2008. I was disgusted with Bush/Cheney, as was much of America. It is the only vote I have cast for a Dem for President. After eight years of Bush/Cheney, the GOPe served up McCain to ratify Bush/Cheney with what could have been seen as a third term. I also voted twice for Perot. My vote for Obama was my small protest against the GOPe, not my radical shift to the left. A few times I was inspired to stay home. Consider the GOPe candidates since Reagan - G.H.W. Bush, Dole, G.W. Bush, McCain, Romney. An impeachment with an acquittal hurts more than it helps. Legislation can be passed through both houses and planted on Obama's desk. He can veto, and the Dems can sustain the vetoes, but if the people want the legislation in great enough numbers, such that it will hurt the Dems in 2016, incumbent support of Obama, at the expense of their own political lives, will dry up and vetoes will be overridden. Obama cannot afford to veto and be overridden. He would rapidly become Mr. Irrelevant. The Dems saw what happened in 2014 and are reminded on a daily basis by the absence of friends who are now former senators and representatives. Obamacare will still be a burning issue in 2016, unless it is killed earlier. Giving work permits to ~4 million unlawful aliens in a down economy will add to Dem candidate woes. Incumbents care more about their own ass than Obama's (or anyone's) dubious legacy. Incumbents stand for the greatest number, and the greatest number is the number one. A real challenge to the GOP would be if Obamacare died by judicial challenge or collapsed under its own weight. What would they replace it with?
And, as we have seen, should Congress not pass an Omnibus bill, Obama will run out of funds and start shutting down governmental functions, starting with what will cause the most public pain, doing it in the most painful way, designed to result in the loudest public hue and cry. Last time, the GOP caved. This time, we would be two years out from an election and the President has much less popularity. The GOPe would probably still cave. Twelve individual spending bills is the regular order of congressional business, with one bill coming out of each of the relevant congressional sub-comittees. An Omnibus spending bill, combining two or more of the twelve required funding actions, is not the regular order of congressional business. It allows pork that could not pass on its own to be hidden behind something like benefits for small furry little creatures. The congressman who votes against it is assailed as being against all small furry little creatures. That makes a 30 second sound bite. Explaining the porkulus provisions of an Omnibus bill does not make a sound bite.
Obama's just-proclaimed immigration that-which-is-not-to-be-called-amnesty. This has lots of people fired up. Could be that John Roberts, having felt the hate for his Obamacare decision, will use this opportunity to strike down the law and strike down amnesty to boot. But I wouldn't bet on it.
Supposedly, John Roberts voted the way he did because he was influenced by the public's desire for Obamacare (before they knew what it really was). If true, then let's see if he's influenced by the last election -- both for Congress and for the governorships. (The House is going to have hearings on Gruber. Let's get his sworn statements on record about how the Democrats knew what was going on, but decided to lie to the public. And send a copy of the hearings to Roberts to show how they used him and made a fool out of him.)
If true, then let's see if he's influenced by the last election -- both for Congress and for the governorships. (The House is going to have hearings on Gruber. Let's get his sworn statements on record about how the Democrats knew what was going on, but decided to lie to the public. And send a copy of the hearings to Roberts to show how they used him and made a fool out of him.) This is all plausible.
But I wouldn't bet on it. SCOTUS could very well change with the new political climate. But you are right not to bet on what they will do. Immigration judicial challenges may well fail to overcome the hurdle of standing. As the INA does not prosecute criminal actions, technically prosecutorial discretion would not be an issue and the better term would be enforcement discretion. Not that that makes any big difference. Worth remembering: with all the talk of DREAMers, one might think that the DREAM Act had been passed by Congress rather than having failed as it surely did. Of possible interest: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43782.pdf Congressional Research Service CRS Report R43782 Kate M. Manuel Michael John Garcia fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42924.pdf Congressional Research Service CRS Report R42924 Kate M. Manuel Todd Garvey December 27, 2013 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144031 Robert J. Delahunty
Legal research pretends that powerful men are really bound by precedent. The most determined of them are only bound by their own assessment of horsetrading. Obama wants many things, some more than others. He knows that if he orders something illegal, if he wants it badly enough, it'll be done. His people will find the people willing to do it, and they'll do it. So, the question is really whether or not he is willing to take the heat for something that he forces if its against the law. By "willing to take the heat", I certainly do not mean a hung head "I was wrong" admission or cooperation. I mean simply whether he calculates that the COST to something else he wants will be too great. Unless he commits some sort of insane atrocity, he can't be removed from office. So actual existential threat is no on the table. He is not worried about being prosecuted after he leaves office. That is a precedent that hasn't been broken yet, with good reason (having to do with horsetrading. For the same reason the filibuster had not been done away with in the Senate until Reid tampered with it. So, the range of risk to Obama has to do with what he wants to put up with listening to from his own allies and friends, versus what he really wants. I think he really wants Obamacare, and will make it stick by hook or by crook. And immigration amnesty I think he also wants, enough to throw down the gauntlet. I expect he will prevail on both.
#2. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
The House can impeach. The Senate can't convict. Impeach if it will make some folks feel better. It will change nothing. (Rather, it will simply drive Independents and Hispanics into the booth for Democrats next cycle.)
#3. To: Vicomte13 (#1)
"The Supreme Court or government shutdown are the only two viable options to stop amnesty and Obamacare."
#4. To: misterwhite, *The Two Parties ARE the Same* (#3)
(Edited)
end Obamacare. Republicans should be ready with an alternate.
The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#5. To: hondo68 (#4)
"Mitt and Gruber invented the dang thing."
#6. To: misterwhite (#3)
I don't understand why federal departments or programs can't be individually funded. They're individually budgeted.
#7. To: A K A Stone (#2)
No it will not. The whole country hates Obama. Even the liberal bitch across the street is sick of him.
On the contrary if the Republicans don't impeach people like me may sit out and they will surely lose.
#8. To: Vicomte13, misterwhite (#6)
But Obama can veto and demand omnibus allocations, saying that piecemeal is unacceptable.
#9. To: nolu chan (#7)
A real challenge to the GOP would be if Obamacare died by judicial challenge or collapsed under its own weight. What would they replace it with?
#10. To: Vicomte13 (#9)
#11. To: misterwhite (#10)
Supposedly, John Roberts voted the way he did because he was influenced by the public's desire for Obamacare (before they knew what it really was).
#12. To: Vicomte13 (#9)
Could be that John Roberts, having felt the hate for his Obamacare decision, will use this opportunity to strike down the law and strike down amnesty to boot.
Executive Discretion as to Immigration: Legal Overview
Legislative Attorney
Legislative Attorney
November 10, 2014 Prosecutorial Discretion in Immigration Enforcement: Legal Issues
Legislative Attorney
Legislative Attorney The Obama Administration, the DREAM Act and the Take Care Clause
John C. Yoo
#13. To: nolu chan (#12)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]