Monday, July 21, 2014

IMPEACH PRESIDENT OBAMA? JUSTIFIABLE BUT NO



OBAMA'S VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND FAILURE TO FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE LAWS PASSED BY CONGRESS

THIS DOCUMENT DISCUSSES ELEVEN OF PRESIDENT OBAMA’S VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND FIVE BREACHES OF PUBLIC TRUST OUT OF NUMEROUS INSTANCES OF EXCEEDING THE LIMITATIONS OF EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY AS ESTABLISHED IN ARTICLE II OF THE CONSTITUTION. 
 
Some violations and breaches of trust undoubtedly rise to a level to warrant IMPEACHMENT. However, with a strong Democrat majority in the US Senate, impeachment proceedings would surely fail. It would be a fool's errand to attempt it. Perhaps even more compelling is the fact that THE AMERICAN CONDITION IS CRITICAL, so fractured politically, so contentious and government all but totally dysfunctional that an impeachment proceeding, even if it could be brought, would be so divisive and rancorous as to have the distinct possibility, even probability, of creating it's own constitutional crisis. While many have proposed impeachment, it is the strong opinion, and firm conclusion, of this blog owner/editor, as well as CARMA management, that the best alternative is to present the case, as done herein, broadly so as to inform as many people as possible.
 
VIOLATIONS OFTHE CONSTITUTION

THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBES ELEVEN OF PRESIDENT OBAMA’S CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS INCLUDING NUMEROUS INSTANCES OF EXCEEDING THE LIMITATIONS OF EXECUTIVE AUTHORITY AS ESTABLISHED IN ARTICLE II OF THE CONSTITUTION.
  1. NLRB APPOINTMENTS: In a move to circumvent Congress, President Obama made three appointments to the National Relations Labor Board when Congress was officially in session. Congressional approval of these appointees is required. These appointments were made specifically to tilt the ideological balance of the NLRB to the left to assure unions are favored by the board. A federal appeals court (U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit) ruled that President Obama violated the Constitution in filling these labor board vacancies and the appointments were vacated. This was a breathtaking violation of separation of powers and constitutional abuse of the highest order. The case has gone to the Supreme Court and will be adjudicated shortly. [Editor/Owner's note: This document was prepared prior to the SCOTUS deciding to vacate President Obama's action. We leave it here to indicate the action was known to be illegal by us and others.]
  2. MOROTORIUM ON DRILLING: President Obama placed a moratorium (through the DOE) on new drilling or exploration in the Gulf of Mexico, causing economic hardships in the region. Not only is this action outside the limits of his constitutional authority, it was in direct defiance of several court orders issued by Federal Judge Martin Feldman. Judge Feldman stated the Obama administration showed clear contempt for, and defiance of, the court ruling. He stated specifically, “ Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the re-imposition of a second, substantively identical, blanket moratorium, and in light of the national importance of this case, provide this court with clear and convincing evidence of the government’s contempt”. In October 2010, after much delay, in spite of court orders and economic hardship, Obama finally lifted the moratorium.
  3. WAGING WAR:The President is not authorized by the Constitution to take our nation to war without the consent of Congress—with one exception, that of imminent threat. Although there was no imminent threat caused by the Civil War in Libya, President Obama committed members of the US military to combat missions in a foreign country without the consent of Congress. He based his authority on United Nations and NATO resolutions, which is clearly not in compliance with the US Constitution. And, after 90 days had expired—the maximum days allowed under the War Powers Resolution without Congressional approval-- the White House systematically avoided requesting a formal authorization from Congress for its action.
  4. AUTO COMPANY BAILOUTS: With the Chrysler Corporation facing bankruptcy, President Obama reached well beyond his bounds of authority to force Chrysler bond holders to accept vast losses—to the benefit of his union allies. Well established bankruptcy laws, which favor secured creditors (bondholders), were abrogated by a corrupt federal government, specifically the Executive Branch. The United Auto Workers, who owned no interest whatsoever in Chrysler, was gifted a 55% interest valued at $4.5 billion. Fiat, a third tier Italian auto producer, was given 20% interest. The US government then took a sizable slice for itself, before tossing the remnants back to the secured bondholders who got only 29 cents on the dollar. The President acted well outside of his constitutional limits and clearly violated bankruptcy statutes to take this action. Then he doubled down in abrogation of bankruptcy law by bailing out General Motors largely to the benefit of the UAW.
  5. IGNORED VOTER INTIMIDATION: Another case of failure to uphold federal laws occurred with the dropping of voter intimidation charges against two Black Panthers caught brandishing weapons in front of a voting location in Philadelphia in the 2008 election that put Obama in office. The decision to dismiss the charges has led to accusations that the Department of Justice under Obama is biased against white victims and unwilling to prosecute minorities for civil rights violations. AG Holder intimated as much. These charges have been most notably made by J. Christian Adams, who in May 2010 resigned his post in the Department of Justice in protest over the Obama Administration’s mishandling of the case.
  6. AMENDMENT I VIOLATION: President Obama has violated the freedom of religion, Amendment I of the Constitution, by ordering churches and schools to provide contraceptives and morning after pills. This is in violation of their religious teachings and represents an attack on freedom of religion. [SCOTUS confirmed the extra-constitutionality of this in the Hobby Lobby case, another rebuke of Obama for constitution violations].
  7. DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT: President Obama unilaterally declared that the Defense of Marriage Act passed by the Congress to be unconstitutional and further declared that he will not have the Justice Department enforce it. He has also refused to enforce laws requiring states to purge their voter registration lists of deceased individuals and those that are registered illegally. In addition, the Justice Department is refusing to allow states to enforce laws requiring proof of identity by voters at the polls. President Obama is essentially acting as the supreme ruler of the United States rendering Congress and the Federal Judiciary irrelevant.
  8. ACA UNILATERAL CHANGES: Since President Obama signed the affordable care act, he has changed it often, more than 30 times, to grant special benefits to specific groups. By rewriting, changing laws and voiding laws passed by Congress, he is operating well outside the executive branch's constitutional limits of authority. Mr. Obama does not consider himself bound by the Constitution and he has made this clear by stating: “I have the power and I will use it in defense of the middle class. We are going to do everything we can, wherever we can, with or without congressional approval.”
  9. AG HOLDER'S IGNORING SCOTUS: The attorney general’s office is the branch of government charged with enforcing federal laws. After the Supreme Court struck down the key provision of the voting rights act of 1965, Attorney General Holder announced that he would use other provisions of the act to get around the court’s decision.
  10. OVERRULING CONGRESS: 17-year old Congressional funding ban on gun control research by the CDC was recently lifted by Obama, again willfully and unconstitutionally changing a provision solely the purview of Congress. Obama flaunts the constitutional concept of “three co-equal branches” of government.
  11. DREAM ACT: In 2001, a legislative proposal known as the DREAM ACT (Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors) was introduced in the Senate. This bill would provide conditional permanent residency status for children of illegal immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as minors, met certain criteria, and showed themselves to be solid prospective citizens by accomplishing a prescribed list of goals. This proposal was debated, reintroduced several times but failed to pass Congress. President Obama, in another breathtaking act of lawlessness, announced he would stop deporting young illegal aliens, as required by law, under a program issued by yet another illegal Executive Order, known as DACA (Deferred Action for Children Arrivals). Several ICE agents challenged the DACA amnesty, declaring it forced them to violated federal law, contrary to their oath to bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution. A federal judge in Dallas agreed with the agents that the DACA is illegal, writing that: “Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Department of Homeland Security has implemented a program contrary to congressional mandate.” But he dismissed the case, claiming that the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 establishes an administrative process for resolving employment disputes, and that the court didn’t have jurisdiction. This issue has again come to the fore with 10's of thousands of young people entering the USA illegally.
WHEN THE PRESIDENT ROUTINELY ACTS OUTSIDE THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT'S CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITED AUTHORITY, HE IS DESTROYING THE CONCEPT OF A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC AND HAS, IN ESSENCE, TURNED OUR GOVERNMENT INTO A DICTATORSHIP. HIS USE OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS TO CHANGE LAWS, EVEN IN THE MOST SUBSTANTATIVE ISSUES, SHOWS HIS CONTEMPT FOR CONGRESS—AS WELL AS OUR CONSTITUTION. (not all executive orders are unconstitutional or even egregious, but many of Obama's are).


MISLEADING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE – BREACH OF PUBLIC TRUST AND CONFIDENCE
PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS DEMONSTRATED A CONSISTENT PATTERN OF MENDACITY THAT, IN AND OF ITSELF, IS CAUSE FOR PROFOUND CONCERN FOR ALL AMERICANS. NUMEROUS VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION AND HIS OATH OF OFFICE PLEDGE, WOULD BEG FOR CONGRESSIONAL IMPEACHMENT IF POLITCAL BALANCE AND INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRITY PERMITTED IT. SADLY IT DOES NOT. THE FOLLOWING ARE INSTANCES OF IMPROPER BEHAVIOR
  1. ACA PROMISES: Before and after passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), President Obama repeatedly told the American people that, “If you like your insurance you can keep it. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” If he was not aware of the truth of this, he should have been! Americans now know the truth. He is guilty of dereliction of duty, unacceptable management practices in not ascertaining the truth, misrepresentation of information critical to Americans. All acts of poor leadership and a breach of trust. If he was aware, it is criminal fraud. And, based upon internal analysis, which he was aware of 3 years prior, millions of Americans would lose their policies. This prompted some of the unilateral changes in the ACA stated in the above section.
  2. GUNS INTO MEXICO: Acting through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms the Obama administration was involved for months in getting legitimate and law-abiding gun store owners to supply weapons to straw buyers who the government knew would deliver them to the drug cartels in Mexico. This operation has been termed “Fast and Furious.” This was used to produce fraudulent data showing that large numbers of weapons were going from the US to the Mexican drug dealers. These data were then to be used, and are being used, to try to justify new gun control regulations to limit the rights of American citizens to keep and bear arms (2nd amendment). This illegal operation resulted in Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry being shot and killed with one of these weapons. Obama continues to impose gun control laws by Executive Order so he will not have to deal with Congress. He is also refusing to cooperate with the committees in the House of Representatives that are investigating “Fast and Furious.” He has even defied Congressional subpoenas.
  3. BENGHAZI COVER-UP: A huge breach of trust with Obama's administration occurred after the Benghazi attack. Almost immediately, President Obama knew this was a terrorist attack. As president and CEO of America, he again exhibited mendacious behavior by holding back information. Then false stories were fabricated to confuse Americans as to what had actually happened. He and the Secretary of State then engaged Ambassador Susan Rice, to appear on five Sunday talk shows days after the attack, and when he and the administration knew what had happened, to offer bogus accounts of the incidents. He subsequently covered up, delayed, and impeded the follow-on investigation.
  4. IRS SCANDAL, ARGUABLY THE MOST SIGNIFICANT BREACH OF TRUST AND DERELICTION OF DUTY: The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Inspector General has revealed that the tax collection agency had been targeting conservative organizations for added scrutiny and delaying their application for tax exempt status. While he promised to “get to the bottom” of this egregious activity, he has done nothing. Further, it is instructive to note that the person who first got the IRS involved in this nefarious activity was a Mr. Bob Bauer, general counsel to Obama’s campaign and later counsel for the White House. With our major source of national income based upon voluntary contributions of individuals, the repercussions of the IRS losing credibility are frightening. How will Individuals react when they finally realize the IRS is corrupt and the president is complicit?
  5. CONTEMPT FOR SCOTUS: The contempt in which president Obama holds the Supreme Court was on full display when, during the 2010 State of the Union address, he excoriated Supreme Court justices sitting defenselessly in front of him. The charge President Obama was making was even a false one. What the Supreme Court decision had done was to restore freedom of speech to corporations and unions. To criticize any branch of government during a State of the Union address serves as a major power grab by him and it lessens the public confidence in our government. To say this was non-presidential behavior would be an understatement. An appalling and tasteless act.
THE REMEDY FOR PROFOUND EXTRA-CONSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER EGREGIOUS ACTIONS, AS THOSE OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, IS POLITICAL, NOT LEGAL. IT IS IMPEACHMENT AND REMOVAL. “HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS,” THE CONSTITUTION’S PREDICATE FOR IMPEACHMENT, NEED NOT BE INDICTABLE OFFENSES UNDER THE CRIMINAL CODE. AS HAMILTON EXPLAINED IN FEDERALIST PAPER NO. 65, THEY RELATE TO “INJURIES DONE IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOCIETY ITSELF.” THEY INVOLVE SCANDALOUS BREACHES OF TRUST (E.G., FAST AND FURIOUS, BENGHAZI, IRS ILLEGAL ACTIONS) “BY OFFICIALS IN WHOM SOLEMN FIDUCIARY DUTIES ARE REPOSED.”

SPECIAL NOTE: If blatant mismanagement were impeachable offenses, there would be virtually innumerable reasons to impeach President Obama. Ignoring for 5+ years the incredibly damaging scandal of mismanagement of the Veterans Administration would top the list. Obama didn't create the problems, but he acknowledged the situation early on and promised to correct them. He didn't. Rather, he exacerbated them by appointing an inadequate agency head unqualified by applicable experience. Such appointments have characterized Obama's entire tenure. This is explained in a post on May 1, 2013 in this blog titled “Obama – Inept or Deliberately Trying to Destroy Traditional America.”
 
Submitted for the Colonial Area Republican Men's Association (CARMA)






Saturday, July 12, 2014

ACADEMIC TENURE -- IDEOLOGICAL BIAS LEFT

Editor/owner's note: Quote from a 2004 article I wrote and published: "Colleges and universities are no longer sanctuaries  for learning but are now havens for political activism." The article here by Dr. Robert Warren is but one of many examples of how this is true. The quote was pulled from the article and run as a banner headline across the top of the page. JAM

Tenure and Ideological Bias:
By Dr. Robert A. Warren, PhD

The Young American’s for Freedom (YAF) recently surveyed the Forbes “top 50” colleges and universities. They reported “of the schools that institute a freshman reading program, no conservative books were assigned to incoming students over the past three years”. Although I don’t have access to the YAF data, its conclusion supports conservative complaints about a progressive bias in higher education.

Assuming it exists, what is the origin of such bias? Is it as a result of a tenure process that has protected a particular ideology and discouraged different points of view? If so, then tenure, once intended to protect academic freedom, is now suppressing it. Admittedly, ideological bias swings on a pendulum from right to left and back again. Nevertheless, when such bias is discovered, corrective action should be taken. Unfortunately, this is not always the case.

A lawsuit involving the University of North Carolina at Wilmington shows that institutions can and do punish advocates of opposing points of view. Mike Adams was denied promotion to full tenured professor of sociology. Adams alleged that this denial was because of his conservative positions, and that his personal ideological conversion from atheist liberal to Christian conservative was involved. The university countered this claim by alleging that Adams hadn’t done enough to meet promotion standards and that political bias did not occur. Adams provided evidence showing that he met the university standards. He also produced documents showing ideologically based criticism from other faculty and the university administration itself. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury agreed with Adams.

Tenure is now being challenged in the courts by parents of public high school students who are concerned that it is depriving their children of equal access to quality teachers. Although the situation is different at the college and university level, a legal challenge to tenure on the basis that it is depriving students of equal access to an unbiased and classically apolitical education may be appropriate. In closing, I pose the following question: Who is “John Galt” and what is “Atlas Shrugged”, and do students know the answer because they learned it in the classroom.

Tuesday, July 1, 2014

GDP DROP 1ST QUARTER 2013 REVISED TO 2.9% FROM 1%... VERY SIGNIFICANT

UPDATE: GDP SHRANK 2.9% REVISED CALCULATIONS SHOW --- JUNE 27, 2014

 

THIS SHRINKAGE IS BEING PROMOTED BY SOME, MOSTLY APOLOGISTS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION, AS A "NOT-UNEXPECTED" BLIP.  BY OTHERS AS THE BEGINNING OF CATASTROPHIC DECLINE IN THE ECONOMY. I CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE EITHER, RATHER TO THINK THERE WILL BE A CONTINUED DECLINE AS  CONSUMER CONFIDENCE DECLINES AND THE FED MORE AGGRESSIVELY REDUCES QE AND BEGINS RAISING INTEREST RATES. WE CAN EXPECT A STOCK MARKET DECLINE AS WELL,  BUT NOT FOR THE REASONS ROBERT REICH WROTE....POSTED EARLIER AND REFERRED TO ON JUNE 1 BELOW

 

 

EARLIER REPORT ON JUNE 1, 2014


GDP SHRINKS BY 1% IN 1ST QUARTER 2014

Another report that suggests Robert Reich's commentary, previously posted and written about, is inaccurate.

 

From The Wall Street Journal, May 27, 2014

U.S. GDP Contracted at 1% Pace in First Quarter

The U.S. economy contracted in the first quarter of 2014, the latest stumble for a recovery that has struggled to find its footing since the recession ended almost five years ago.
Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of goods and services produced across the economy, contracted at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1.0% in the first three months of the year, the Commerce Department said Thursday. It was the first time economic output contracted since the first quarter of 2011, when it declined at a 1.3% pace