Help fight the
liberal media

click title for home page
  
Be a subscriber

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
The complete history of Barack Obama's second term -- click Views/Repies for top stories
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 4 of 7      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   Next
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #76 

We are a nation of laws

And those laws apply equally to every one of us. No matter what color you are, if you break the law and then resist arrest, you are risking your life. Period!

Let me put that another way. Anyone that resists arrest runs the risk of being hurt and potentially killed.

In virtually every case that has resulted in violence, destruction of private property and even as an excuse for looting, the perpetrator would still be alive to plead his case in court if he or she hadn't resisted authority.

Hint; It you know the difference between right and wrong and have not actually been caught on video breaking the law your chances in court improve considerably. If you disagree with the law, we all have the same opportunity to seek to change any law we feel unjust. Granted changing laws are extremely more difficult for some than others. If we get to the point that the police avoid law breakers  because they don't want to deal with the consequences of confrontation we will have sunken to the level of anarchy, Obama will declare Marshall law and he -- or someone like him -- will be in the peoples house indefinitely.

Believe it or not this is exactly what he and the rest of the Obots are hoping for. The overthrow of governments have begun this way for centuries. Sound extreme? Just stay tuned! ~~~ *M*

P.S. -- If you are someone that can't make any sense of Obama's actions, I suggest you read Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals and the Cloward & Piven Strategy Of Manufactured Crisis, if you haven't already done so (note: Cloward & Piven cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration).

These two reasonably short pieces are Obama and his Obots two main play books. Everything that is happening that Obama does falls within the parameters of these two pieces of misguided literature.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #77 

Obama admits "I just took an action to change the law"

After repeatedly saying that he did not have the power to change the law, Obama did. He broke the law. He granted de facto amnesty to 5 million illegal immigrants, circumventing Congress and the Constitution.

But then, he admitted that he did "change the law." he violated the separation of powers principal and the "Take Care Clause," described in the Constitution.

Keith Koffler has a clip of White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, who today tried to claim Barack Obama was speaking "colloquially" when he said last week that he had taken action to "change" the immigration law.

Watch Earnest in a tight spot trying to explain Obama’s obvious Freudian slip.

When Obama’s on script says he is not lawmaking, merely exercising "prosecutorial discretion," or some such thing.

Alternatively, Earnest said Obama was referring to the change in the "impact" of the law.

And here’s Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, questioning Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson about the remarks during a House Oversight Committee hearing today.

At a press briefing with Republican leaders yesterday, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) took Barack Obama to task for his recent unilateral action on immigration, saying his overreach has made "it harder for the American people and their elected representatives to trust his word on any issue."

Well, duh?

It sure is comforting to know we are governed by principled people.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #78 

Obama admits he violated the Constitution --  "I just took an action to change the law" -- calls it a "fact"

Daniel Halper is reporting that the White House has argued that Barack Obama’s executive amnesty order last week was made well within the existing law. But in remarks in Chicago tonight, President Obama went off script and admitted that in fact he unilaterally made changes to the law. […]

"Listen, you know -- here. Can I just say this, all right? I’ve listened to you. I heard you. I heard you. I heard you. All right? Now I have been respectful, I let you holler. All right? So let me just -- nobody is removing you. I have heard you, but you have got to listen to me, too. All right? And I understand you may disagree,  I understand you may disagree. But we have got to be able to talk honestly about these issues, all right?

"Now, you’re absolutely right that there have been significant numbers of deportations. That’s true. But what you are not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law."

And that "action" is unconstitutional and a violation of his oath of office -- specifically the Constitution's  "Take Care Clause":

[The President] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed....


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #79 

When you're strange

Scott Johnson says: I cannot find the text of the memos/orders signed yesterday by Barack Obama to implement the actions announced in his immigration speech this past Thursday evening. (I have looked under Presidential Actions at the White House website.) I have therefore been unable to check the details of Obama's action against the comments below, which are offered by an immigration attorney who works with existing law:

The proposed executive action on immigration (or whatever name you want to give it) will allow [illegal aliens] who have US citizen or green-card children and who have been here for five years to apply for some kind of quasi-status and open market work authorization. That would allow them to work for a period of time at any employer, the authorization presumably renewable until they decide to leave or have an option for US permanent resident status (green card status). This, the administration tells us, is fair and just and Biblical -- yada/yada.

But this option is explicitly NOT available to those in the US in a valid legal status. There are millions of people in the US who have temporary status -- as students or temporary workers or researchers or as investors (lots of Koreans own businesses with E-2 investor visas, for example). These people -- many of them have US citizen children and have been here five years. These people who have been here legally and not violated their immigration status -- these people are explicitly NOT eligible for open market work authorization, renewable indefinitely.

You must be in violation of the law to benefit from this provision.

If Republicans want to begin to push back on this issue, to turn the tables, I believe this is the question that needs to be raised again and again -- why is the administration offering something to lawbreakers that is specifically prohibited for those who comply with the law?

There is no answer -- I guarantee it. And when this point is circulated broadly, including broadly among immigrant and naturalized citizens, there will be resentment.

I realize there are a lot of angles to this issue but I haven't seen anyone cover the above and I think it is one of the strongest points. Obama can fool people on the legal analysis and role of the executive but people know on a basic fundamental level that you should not be offering something to lawbreakers that is not available to the law-abiding.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #80 

MSNBC host can’t find one elected Democrat who can explain how Obama's amnesty plan is legal

This clip is devastating.

When asking Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vermont) about the legal justification for part of Obama's amnesty, Lawrence O'Donnell said last night on his show that he can't find one single elected Democrat who can explain how Obama will be able to grant work permits to the illegal parents of children who are already American citizens. And indeed Welch couldn't answer it either.

It sounds like from Welch's answer that he doesn't give a flying crap about the constitutional legality of this move by Obama because in the end someone will have to defend the move in the courts. And that's probably the position of most, if not all Democrats. Which is super lame.

I will also add that this "prosecutional discretion" that O'Donnell touts doesn't really justify the other parts of Obama's amnesty. As we know, "prosecutional discretion" was never made for the masses, it was made for individual cases that warranted special attention, but just as he has in the past, Obama is hiding behind this excuse in order to unconstitutional grant de facto amnesty to illegals all over the country.

And this is why he must be stopped by the Congress.

And Larry O'Donnell is one of the most emotional and hyper-partisan Democrats in America.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #81 

Obama's priority is not protecting Americans

Thomas Sowell says the Ebola outbreak in West Africa is both a danger in itself and a wake-up call for Americans -- about Barack Obama, about the institutions of this country and, most important, about ourselves.

There was a time when an outbreak of a deadly disease overseas would bring virtually unanimous agreement that our top priority should be to keep it overseas. Yet Obama has refused to bar entry to the United States by people from countries where the Ebola epidemic rages, as Britain has done.

The reason? Refusing to let people with Ebola enter the United States would conflict with the goal of fighting the disease. In other words, the safety of the American people takes second place to the goal of helping people overseas.

As if to emphasize his priorities, Obama has ordered thousands of American troops to go into Ebola-stricken Liberia, disregarding the dangers to those troops and to other Americans when the troops return.

What does this say about Obama?

At a minimum, it suggests that he takes his conception of himself as a citizen of the world more seriously than he takes his role as president of the United States. At worst, he may consider Americans' interests expendable in the grand scheme of things internationally. If so, this would explain a lot of his foreign policy disasters around the world, which seem inexplicable otherwise.

Those critics who have been citing Obama's foreign policy fiascoes and disasters as evidence that he is incompetent may be overlooking the possibility that he has different priorities than the protection of the American people and America's interests as a nation.

This is a monstrous possibility, but no one familiar with the history of the 20th century should consider monstrous possibilities as things to dismiss automatically. Nor should anyone who has followed Barack Obama's behavior over his lifetime, and the values that behavior reveals.

A few critics who, early on, sensed something un-American, if not anti-American, in Obama succumbed to the idea that he was not a native-born citizen. That claim blew up in their faces.

Nor was birthplace crucial anyway. People born overseas have put their lives on the line to defend America, and scientists who escaped from Europe in the 1930s played a major role in creating the nuclear bomb that made the United States a superpower. Conversely, the country's most notorious traitor -- Benedict Arnold -- was born on American soil.

Whatever the reason, or combination of reasons, that led to Obama's foreign-policy disasters around the world -- with the crowning disaster of all, a nuclear Iran, looming on the horizon -- it cannot be a simple lack of knowledge or experience. Various former members of the Obama administration are telling the same story, of information and advice from knowledgeable and experienced officials being ignored by this vain and headstrong man.

Back in the 18th century, Edmund Burke pointed out that, whatever the institutions of government, most of the outcomes of what it does "must depend upon the exercise of the powers which are left at large to the prudence and uprightness of ministers of state."

What did the American voters know about the prudence and uprightness of this untried man they elected president, as a result of his glib rhetoric and his racial symbolism? It is not just bad luck when a reckless gamble turns out disastrously.

No one knows at this point how big the Ebola danger may turn out to be. But what we do know is that official reassurances about this and other dangers have become worthless.

The erosion of constitutional government over the years has become, under the Obama administration, a deluge of arbitrary edicts and defiant lawlessness protected by a grossly politicized Department of Justice.

It may be time to consider reorganizing the institutions of government, so that high officials who try to reassure the public about medical crises are not officials who serve "at the pleasure of the president." Nor should the attorney general, whose duty is to enforce the laws, be part of an administration whose law-breakers the Justice Department can protect from prosecution.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #82 

The divine right of Barack Obama

Charles C. W. Cooke says when asked earlier today how long he expected the bombing of Syria to last, Lieutenant General William C. Mayville Jr. advised reporters to think "in terms of years." "Monday night's strikes," Mayville confirmed, "were only the beginning." A mile or so away, on the White House lawn, Barack Obama struck a similarly defiant note. "We're going to do what is necessary to take the fight to this terrorist group," Obama explained, before assuring those present that the United States was but one part of a global alliance that stood "shoulder to shoulder . . . on behalf of our common security." "The strength of this coalition," Obama added, "makes clear to the world that this is not just America's fight alone." This much, at least, was true. Among the nations that have signed on to the attacks are Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates -- all vital accomplices in the winning of hearts and minds. And yet, for all the cosmopolitanism, one crucial ally was conspicuously missing from the roster of the willing: the Congress of the United States.

Since he ordered military action in Libya in 2011, Barack Obama has argued as a matter of routine that Article II of the U.S. Constitution confers such considerable power upon the commander-in-chief that, in most instances at least, Congress's role in foreign affairs is limited to that of advice bureau. The political ironies of this development are sufficiently rich to stand without much comment. (Imagine, if you will, trying to explain to an average voter in 2008 that by his second term the Democratic candidate for president would have adopted wholesale an interpretation of the Constitution that was championed by the likes of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and John Yoo.) Less obvious, however, is what this means for America and her future. The bottom line: It's not good.

In the course of illustrating why we do not accord presidents unlimited power on the world stage, Obama's critics have made much of his apparent hypocrisy, charging that a man who once flatly rejected the notion that the White House may do pretty much as it pleases has, while in office, morphed into Napoleon. This does seem to be the case. American chief executives, Obama told the Boston Globe in a 2007 interview, do not enjoy "power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." "In instances of self-defense," he continued, "Obama would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent." These days, such caution is a distant memory, the White House tersely informing congressional leaders last week that while Obama already possessed the "authority he needs to take action" against the Islamic State, he hoped that the legislature would come along anyway -- not, of course, to confer legality upon any military action, but because he believed that the "nation is stronger and our efforts more effective when the president and Congress work together."

Men in all walks of life change their minds from time to time, and they are often left better off for the shift. But there is something rather slippery about the manner in which this president has managed to transpose himself from a champion of the legislature's prerogative to an uncompromising advocate for the divine right of kings. At no point have we heard a renunciation of his past position; nor, for that matter, has an explanation of his evolution been forthcoming. Instead, Obama has engaged in what, ultimately, is a semantic game, holding theoretically to the "self defense" exception of which he spoke so passionately in 2007, but construing it so broadly as to render it operationally meaningless. The effect of this has been a volte-face, for if, in practice, "self-defense" can be held to justify each and every form of unilateral preemption, there is nothing that a president is not able to do without Congress. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States explicitly reserves to the legislative branch the power "to declare war" -- a reservation that the document's primary author, James Madison, considered to be of utmost importance. "In no part of the constitution," Madison explained in a 1793 letter, "is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department." Nowhere in the missive, it must be noted, did Madison outline an exception for those executives that display a talent for parsing language, and nor did he include a caveat that this rule was to be considered inoperative should Obama elect to play down the language of "war" or to refuse to accept that an armed encounter met the threshold. As George Will noted trenchantly last week, "The Constitution's text, illuminated by the ratification debates, surely does not empower presidents to wage wars, preventive as well as preemptive, against any nation or other entity whenever he thinks doing so might enhance national security." Is this principle to be dissolved by linguistic sleight of hand?

If so, the consequences will be deleterious, for if Obama's malleable criterion is to be our standard, future presidents will be permitted to act internationally at any point and for any reason without the need for the consent of Congress. This, suffice it to say, has not been how things were done for most of the nation's history. Why, one has to wonder, if "self-defense" is our all-encompassing arbiter, did President Roosevelt bother to go to Congress after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941? Why, too, given that American ships were routinely sunk by German submarines, did Woodrow Wilson ask for a declaration of war in 1917? And why, one might ask, did George W. Bush, whose supposedly reckless behavior paved the way for Obama's rapid ascent, ask for authorization before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq?

Those hoping for satisfying and consistent answers to these questions will presumably be confounded by the White House's caprice. Last week, the executive branch considered it necessary to ask for congressional approval before it set about arming the Syrian rebels; this week, the same people are arguing that it does not need approval to send fighter jets to drop bombs. It is standard for those who ask why to be told that the rules in this area are complex. But if we are dealing here with a legal grey area -- as all advocates of carte blanche power like to tell us we are -- it seems peculiar that Obama would consider that a minor arms transfer requires justification but that the launching of ordnance in anger does not. Indeed, if there are any lingering questions whatsoever, prudence should surely dictate that we err on the safe side -- especially given that Obama's own Department of Defense is conceding that the United States will likely be involved in Syria for the long haul. If, as they were instructed to this morning, journalists are expected to conceptualize this battle "in terms of years," should Washington, D.C., not too? Barack Obama will be out of office in just over two years. Then what?

The truth of this matter, as has so often been the case with this administration, is that the law is playing second-fiddle to cold-blooded political expedience. Simply put, Obama calculated that he would be able to persuade Congress to acquiesce to one measure but not to the other -- or, at the very least, that permitting the legislature to weigh in on the latter question would create political problems that his beleaguered party could at present do without. And so, confined by little more than the scope of his ambition, he invented a new set of rules for the day, making it clear to one and all that if getting his way requires him to adopt the legal theories that he rejected so vehemently just six years ago, then so be it; that if achieving his ends requires further entrenching precedents that he was sent into office to smash, then so be it; that if his team must apply to Syria laws regarding Iraq, and to the Islamic State laws that relate to al-Qaeda, then so be it; and that, internationally as well as at home, if Congress insists upon maintaining a mind of its own, then it will just have to be bypassed, too.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #83 

Team Obama is issuing illegals new passports and Social Security numbers

Here’s a citizen video of a concerned citizen walking up to a bus of illegal immigrants in Memphis, TN.

These invaders have only been in America for one day, and are being issued Social Security numbers and new Mexican passports by our Social Security Administration.

Since when does the SSA issue foreign passports?

It takes longer than one day for an American to get an American passport!


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
snowyriver

Registered:
Posts: 107
Reply with quote  #84 
When the Democrats in the House and Senate realize Obama is a lost hope they will leave him like rats leave a sinking ship.
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #85 

22 Democrats vote with House Republicans to condemn Obama's Bergdahl prisoner swap

Matt Fuller is reporting that the House voted 249-163 to disapprove of Barack Obama's transfer of five Guantanamo Bay detainees for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, providing a soft rebuke of Obama's actions on the prisoner swap.

On the nonbinding resolution vote, 22 Democrats joined all 227 voting Republicans to condemn the administration for not providing the 30 days of notice required by law before transferring a prisoner at the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center.

Armed Services Chairman Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., called the prisoner swap an "obvious" violation of the law, and he said Congress needed to understand the national security risks posed by transferring detainees before such a swap takes place.

…But the sponsor of the resolution, Republican Scott Rigell of Virginia, argued his legislation was not about partisan politics. Rigell said it was about holding Obama accountable for breaking the law.

"And if we don't hold the administration accountable for this, who will?" Rigell said.

And exactly how does a "non-binding" resolution hold Obama accountable?


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #86 

Government report declares Obama broke the law -- judge thinks he deserves prison

B. Christopher Agee is reporting that there is little question that the deal approved by Barack Obama to trade five dangerous terrorists for an Army sergeant accused of desertion struck many Americans as ill-advised and potentially dangerous.

The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, however, took the criticism to a higher level in a report released Thursday. By failing to give Congress 30 days' notice before releasing the prisoners, the agency found the Defense Department in clear violation of a federal law.

Tweet103.jpg

According to the report, "because DoD used appropriated funds to carry out the transfer when no money was available for that purpose, DoD violated the Antideficiency Act."

The GAO cited one specific section of the law, signed by Obama himself, it determined was violated in the widely criticized prisoners swap.

"None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this Act may be used to transfer any individual detained at United States Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to the custody or control of the individual's country of origin, any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity except in accordance with section 1035 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014."

According to the report, the GAO attempted to determine when the Defense Department provided the requisite notification enumerated in section 1035; and in its response, the department indicated that it alerted Congress on the same day as Bergdahl's release.

"In our view, DoD has dismissed the significance of the express language enacted in section 8111," the report concluded.

Calling the law's mandate "clear and unambiguous," the GAO ultimately sided with a number of critics who, from the beginning, asserted that the deal was inherently illegal.



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #87 

Feds: Obama broke law with Bergdahl swap

Joel Gehrke is reporting that Obama violated a "clear and unambiguous" law when he released five Guantanamo Bay detainees in exchange for Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl, the Government Accountability Office reported Thursday.

"[The Department of Defense] violated section 8111 because it did not notify the relevant congressional committees at least 30 days in advance of the transfer," the GAO report said. "In addition, because DoD used appropriated funds to carry out the transfer when no money was available for that purpose, DoD violated the Antideficiency Act. The Antideficiency Act prohibits federal agencies from incurring obligations exceeding an amount available in an appropriation."

The GAO rejected the idea that the action was legal and sidestepped the Obama team's suggestion that the law is unconstitutional.

"It is not our role or our practice to determine the constitutionality of duly enacted statutes," the report says. "In our view, where legislation has been passed by Congress and signed by the President, thereby satisfying the bicameralism and presentment requirements in the Constitution, that legislation is entitled to a heavy presumption in favor of constitutionality."


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
snowyriver

Registered:
Posts: 107
Reply with quote  #88 
The question now is do we fall to anarchy or do we remove the perpetrator? And continue this great Republic. Of the people by the people and for the people.
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #89 

If Obama doesn't have to follow the Constitution . . .

Michele Kirk is reporting what happens when a sitting president shows a repeated willful defiance to follow the law?

This New Jersey cop says it all:

"If Obama doesn't have to follow the Constitution, we don’t have to"

Update:  This cop was forced to retire the day after making these comments.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #90 

Is it too much to ask Obama to faithfully execute the laws?

Article II of the Constitution commands each president to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

Allan Brownfield says that from the beginning of recorded history to the present time, very few societies have lived in freedom. The Founding Fathers understood very well that freedom was not man's natural state. Their entire political philosophy was based on a fear of government power and the need to limit and control that power very strictly.

That government should be clearly limited and that power is a corrupting force was the essential perception held by the men who wrote the Constitution. They limited government power and divided it between three branches (the legislative, executive, and judicial) so that one branch could serve as a check on the others.

In The Federalist Papers, James Madison wrote: "It may be a reflection on human nature that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed, and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

In recent years, under both Republicans and Democrats, the power of Obama, the so-called "Imperial Presidency," has dramatically expanded. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war. Yet, we have gone to war repeatedly since World War II without a declaration of war, most recently when George W. Bush invaded Iraq to remove alleged "weapons of mass destruction" that did not exist.

Under Barack Obama, declares Jonathan Turley, professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, "This trend…has accelerated. Obama has succeeded to a degree that would have made Richard Nixon blush. Indeed, Obama may be Obama Nixon always wanted to be. … His unilateral actions are redrawing the lines of separation in our system in a way that I believe could prove destabilizing and even dangerous in the future."

When it comes to war, Turley notes that Nixon's impeachment included the charge that he evaded Congress' sole authority to declare war by invading Cambodia. Obama "went even further in the Libyan war, declaring that he alone defines what is a ‘war' for the purposes of triggering the Constitutional provisions on declarations of Congress. That position effectively converts the entire provision in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution (‘Congress shall have power to…declare War') into a discretionary power of Obama."

With regard to immigration, health care, welfare, education, and drug policy, Obama has suspended, waived, and rewritten laws, including the Affordable Care Act. That law required the employer mandate to begin this year. But the administration wrote a new law, giving to companies of a certain size a delay until 2016 and stipulating that other employers must certify that they will not drop employees to avoid the mandate. Doing so would initiate criminal perjury charges. In this case, Obama, by executive action, created a new crime.

Obama's decision to exchange five high-ranking Taliban leaders for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in May violated a federal law that required him to notify Congress 30 days in advance of releasing detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The Dream Act, a legislative proposal first introduced in Congress in 2001, would provide conditional permanent residence to certain illegal immigrants who graduated from U.S. high schools and arrived in the country as minors. Congress never passed this legislation. Yet, in June 2012, Obama declared that, even though it was not the law, he would implement it.

In June, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated Obama's use of recess appointments. In January 2012, Obama appointed senior officials to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the National Labor Relations Board, taking advantage of a period when the Senate was not actively in session. Legal experts regarded the move as risky, given that historically, recess appointments have been made when the Senate is formally out of session for an expanded period.

"This White House chose to take on that battle and has now received some diminution in the power Obama can pass on to his successors," said John Clooney, a former assistant to the solicitor general and deputy general counsel at the Office of Management and Budget. "That's an object lesson for the White House who risked triggering the separation of powers question."

The Court said Obama has the authority to make appointments only to vacancies that arise during a recess, which would significantly limit a president's ability to use the recess appointment power.

Justice Antonin Scalia noted that, as the current case showed, presidents have become enamored of the recess appointments because this relieves them of the more difficult task of persuading the Senate to give its "advice and consent" as is constitutionally required. The recess power is an "anachronism," he wrote, from a time when the Senate was away for long periods of time and could not be easily convened for business.

Scalia wrote:  "The need it was designed to fill no longer exists, and its only remaining use is the ignoble one of enabling Obama to circumscribe the Senate's role in the appointment process."

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) calls for a national discussion of "the erosion of legislative authority within the evolving model of the federal government. There has been a dramatic shift of authority toward presidential powers and the emergence of what is essentially a fourth branch of government, a vast network of federal agencies with expanded legislative and judicial power."

The power of Obama seems to grow, regardless of which party is in power. Richard Nixon, we remember, was accused of putting a handful of reporters under government surveillance. The Obama administration seems to have gone further, admitting to putting Associated Press reporters and a Fox News reporter under surveillance.

There has, under the Obama administration, been repeated obstruction of Congress. It has refused to provide evidence sought by oversight committees in a variety of scandals, such as those relating to Benghazi and the IRS. In one case, Congress voted to move forward with criminal contempt charges against Attorney General Eric Holder, which Holder's own Justice Department blocked.

In testimony before Congress, James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, lied under oath about government surveillance programs. He later admitted that he had given the least untruthful statement he could think of. The Obama administration has refused to investigate Clapper for perjury, and has made no move toward firing him. More recently, the administration was accused of searching Senate computers in an investigation of the CIA and trying to intimidate Congressional investigators.

"In my view, Obama has not faithfully executed the law," says House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), who is planning a civil lawsuit against the White House.

Professor Jonathan Turley declares that, "This downward spiral may have reached its ultimate expression this year. Framers such as Madison would have been mortified by the scene from the most recent State of the Union address. Obama appeared before a joint session of Congress (and members of the Supreme Court) to announce that he intended to go it alone in achieving his policy goals, refusing to yield to the actions of Congress. One would have expected an outcry, or, at least stony silence, from a branch that was being told it would be circumvented. Instead, there was rapturous applause that bordered on a collective expression of institutional self-loathing."

For Obama to, in effect, execute laws that have been proposed in Congress, but never enacted (such as the Dream Act), is to reject our system of Constitutional government. "Under this approach," states Turley, "Congress is being reduced to an almost decorative element in governance, free to approve but not to block presidential demands."

The Founding Fathers would be disappointed to see the growth of government, the increase in executive power, and the erosion of our system of checks and balances. But they would not be surprised. In a letter to Edward Carrington, Thomas Jefferson wrote that, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

To the question "Is it too much to ask Obama to faithfully execute the laws and respect our Constitutional system of checks and balances?" The answer, for Obama, seems to be, "Yes, it is too much to ask."

How the Congress, the courts, and the American people will respond remains to be seen.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #91 

Obama goes around Congress again -- to expand health coverage for federal workers
 
Pete Kasperowicz is reporting that today, Team Obama will publish a proposed rule that would give thousands of temporary and seasonal government workers access to the government's health care program, even though current law would appear to prohibit them from using that program.

The rule from the Office of Personnel Management would let these federal workers sign up for coverage under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, and also allow some of them to enjoy a government contribution to their insurance premiums. Both steps would be done through OPM's proposed regulation, and not through an act of Congress.

The proposed rule indicates that OPM is trying to expand health coverage for workers who work a full-time schedule, using ObamaCare's definition of full-time work (at least 30 hours a week), but not for a full year.

But the change would appear to go against a 1978 law that, according to the Congressional Research Service, does not make temporary or intermittent workers eligible for the FEHB program. (An earlier version of this story said the change would violate ObamaCare, but OPM confirmed to TheBlaze that ObamaCare does not set any conditions on FEHB eligibility.)

Today, temporary federal workers with less than a year of service can't enroll in FEHB. Seasonal employees working six months or less are also prohibited, as are many intermittent employees. And temporary workers with more than a year of service can sign up, but get no government contribution.

OPM's rule would change all that:

"This proposed rule would allow newly eligible employees (employees on an appointment limited to one year and employees working on a seasonal or intermittent schedule) to initially enroll under the FEHB program with a government contribution to premium if they are expected to be employed on a full-time schedule and are expected to work for at least 90 days," the proposed rule states.

It would also let temporary employees with more than a year of service "to enroll in a FEBH plan… (with a government contribution to premium) if the employee is determined by his or her employing office to be newly eligible for FEHB coverage under this regulation."

The proposed rule indicates that OPM is not very clear on how much these changes would cost taxpayers, and is seeking comment on that aspect of the rule. It did say it expects that the rule should not be seen as economically significant, since it believes it would cost less than $100 million.

OPM reaches that conclusion by assuming that only 10 to 20 percent of currently ineligible federal workers would sign up for an FEHB plan. But a quick calculation using OPM's own figures indicates that the cost could be much higher than that.

OPM estimates that about 1 to 2 percent of the federal workforce is now not eligible for an FEHB plan -- with an estimated 2.6 million federal workers, that's something on the order of 25,000 to 50,000 people.

OPM also estimates that it costs $700 a month to put a worker on an FEHB plan, or $8,400 a year.

If 50,000 ineligible federal workers signed up for an FEHB plan, that would cost the government about $400 million. OPM's estimate that only 20 percent at most would sign up would bring that cost down to $80 million a year.

A determination that the rule is economically significant would trigger a broader review of the proposal by other agencies.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #92 

This is a clear violation of the Hatch Act

Jason Howerton is reporting that Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is sounding the alarm regarding new alleged audio of former Labor Secretary Hilda Solis leaving a voicemail for someone "off the record" to ask the individual to contribute and help organize a fundraising event for Barack Obama's campaign. Issa says Solis violated the Hatch Act, which prohibits political activity on official time.

In his opening statement during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on Wednesday, Issa played the voicemail Solis reportedly left to pressure a Labor Department employee to donate to Obama's re-election campaign.

Here is a transcript of the controversial Solis voicemail:

"Hi! This is Hilda Solis calling, um, just calling you off-the-record here -- wanted to ask you if you could, um, help us get folks organized to come to a fundraiser that we're doing for Organizing for America for Obama campaign on Friday at La Fonda at 6 p.m.

Steven Smith, an attorney, and his staff are helping us [inaudible]. There are a lot of folks that we know that are coming but wanted to ask you if you might help contribute or get other folks to help out.

I would encourage you to call this number, [inaudible]–that's his assistant -- at [phone number] and you can call [the attorney] yourself who's a good friend, an attorney, good friend of mine, at [phone number]. And it's for a Friday event at La Fonda [inaudible] we're just trying to raise money to show that we have support here in [inaudible]."


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #93 

The People vs. Barack Obama

PeopleVSBO.jpg

Daniel Greenfield says as the first African-American Solicitor General, Thurgood Marshall told a black fraternity, "Neither race nor color nor frustration is an excuse for either lawlessness or anarchy."

Some five decades later, lawlessness and anarchy have descended on America and on Washington D.C. under the banner of color and frustration. This is no laissez-faire lawlessness, but anarchy toward accountability. Like the rock throwers and Molotov cocktail throwers that Marshall was denouncing, Obama and his people have made their own law out of force while rejecting the rule of law.

Through force they have become the law while disregarding the law. There is a term for that sort of behavior and is it not anarchy. It is crime.

This is the state of affairs that Ben Shapiro describes as "a quasi criminal syndicate" and in his book, "The People Vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against the Obama Administration,"[image] he discusses how to fight back against it.

"Consolidated government means consolidated power, consolidated power means consolidated corruption," Shapiro writes. The old system of checks and balances has been undone. Obama Inc. is an integrated political machine whose appointees serve a common ideological goal and a common purpose. And they control the clockwork machinery of government from the top to the bottom.

There can be no plausible expectation that Attorney General Eric Holder will investigate Obama. Not when Holder is corrupt. As corrupt confederates in crime, Obama protects Holder and Holder protects Obama. Likewise, Obama Inc. is composed of such self-serving mutual pacts forming a system of power that makes up its own laws while refusing to be accountable to the law.

Shapiro’s statement that this amounts to a criminal syndicate is not just rhetoric, it is at the very heart of the legal argument that he makes in The People Vs. Barack Obama.

"The Obama administration has become a full-fledged criminal enterprise," he writes. "Riddled up and down with executive branch appointees engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors."

Listing many of the scandals and the violations of the law involved from the Justice Department to the State Department, from the EPA to the NSA, Shapiro argues that they amount to a criminal conspiracy fit for a criminal complaint and that they can be and should be prosecuted under RICO statutes.

"The crime of conspiracy has typically been defined at the state level as the agreement of two or more people to commit a crime. There is little question that some of the crimes of the Obama administration have been coordinated at the highest level, as the evidence will show," Shapiro argues.

A pattern of criminal conduct can be established for Obama that would make it difficult for him to argue plausible deniability, as he has in virtually every scandal, pretending to be outraged by the scandal he only learned about this morning from the media before shifting gears and calling it a phony scandal.

"RICO provides that any person who is part of an organization that commits any two on a list of crimes can be prosecuted for racketeering," Shapiro writes. This list becomes the framework around which The People Vs. Barack Obama is built.

Shapiro is of course well aware that Holder is no more likely to hit Obama or his minions with RICO violations than he is to resign in order to pursue his dream of becoming an Olympic skier, but he points out that RICO suits can be pursued as civil suits turning ordinary people into "citizen attorney generals."

There are two fronts of RICO proposals in The People Vs. Barack Obama. Aside from individual suits, Shapiro proposes that Congress expand the jurisdiction of individuals to file RICO suits against the Executive Branch. Such a move would put Congress on a collision course with Obama’s imperial abuse of executive power, but it would free Congress from having to do the hard work of engaging in prolonged confrontations with Obama; something they have already shown they lack the stomach and spine to do.

Imagine if the family of murdered border patrol agent Brian Terry were to lodge a RICO suit against the Obama administration, Shapiro suggests.

Ben Shapiro argues that the process can begin with targeting lower level officials, much as the FBI begins at the bottom rungs of a criminal enterprise, using confessions and recovered information to begin building a bigger and bigger case against the mastermind of that criminal enterprise.

The pattern of conduct by Obama Inc is that of a criminal enterprise following its corrupt instincts.

"Fast and Furious," he writes, "sprang from the bowels of the antigun hysteria of the administration… Obama’s quest to weaken America on the international stage found its apex in the death of four Americans… the Obama administration has made a game of revealing self-serving classified information."

The pattern is that of ideological complicity in nakedly criminal conduct. Each criminal act stems from an ideological motivation and is covered up for ideological reasons. The first motive is ideology, but the final motive is power. Shapiro writes that Obama has made all law dependent on his whim. That has led us to the lawlessness and anarchy, not of the powerless, but of the powerful.

In The People Vs. Barack Obama, Shapiro makes a compelling case for a criminal case against Obama and his subordinates. A graduate of Harvard Law School, he lays out a road map for fighting back against Obama’s lawlessness and restoring the rule of law.

A majority of Americans agree that the country is headed down the wrong path. Many however have despaired of ever putting it on the right path again. In response to a culture of lawlessness inculcated at the very top, Shapiro highlights legally creative and legally aggressive solutions for preventing the left’s organized crime from turning America from a nation of laws into a nation of thugs.

Barack Obama has pitted his power and popularity against the rule of law. Both can be contested by citizens willing to fight for the truth.



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #94 

CNN's Jeffrey Toobin says Obama's executive actions are "not necessarily the way the Constitution set it up"


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
CAPTAINMACK

Registered:
Posts: 256
Reply with quote  #95 
You know someone has really lost it when they start believing their own bovine excrement!
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #96 

Obama reasserts his intention to "go it alone"

     "The system is rigged!"

Keith Koffler says that’s the conclusion of Barack Obama about the essential unfairness and repression that exists in the United States, used as justification for continuing to "go it alone" without Congress.

The system. What system?

Is this some college dorm bullshit session where we toss around the latest observations from our favorite Marxist Poli Sci professor?

No, it’s this week’s weekly presidential address, in which President Obama makes clear the important work of fixing the system and fighting Republicans who hate middle class Americans is too important for him to be bothered by John Boehner’s lawsuit, which seeks to rein in Obama’s use of the West Wing to craft legislation.

From the address:

Republicans in Congress keep blocking or voting down almost every serious idea to strengthen the middle class.  This year alone, they’ve said no to raising the minimum wage, no to fair pay, no to student loan reform, no to extending unemployment insurance.  And rather than invest in education that helps working families get ahead, they actually voted to give another massive tax cut to the wealthiest Americans.

This obstruction keeps the system rigged for those at the top, and rigged against the middle class.  And as long as they insist on doing it, I’ll keep taking actions on my own -- like the actions I’ve taken already to attract new jobs, lift workers’ wages, and help students pay off their loans.  I’ll do my job.  And if it makes Republicans in Congress mad that I’m trying to help people out, they can join me, and we’ll do it together.

The point is, we could do so much more as a country -- as a strong, tight-knit family -- if Republicans in Congress were less interested in stacking the deck for those at the top, and more interested in growing the economy for everybody.

What a crappy country this must be in the mind of Obama. Rigged for rich. Nothing for the poor. Nothing for the middle class.

And people like Obama actually have the nerve to think of others as simplistic.

Obama's hypocrisy is overwhelming.  Everything he has done -- and is doing -- is harming the middle class.

As I have often said, Marxists -- and Obama is a Marxist -- have always destroyed the middle class. They must. For it is the middle class that has historically resisted their freedom-destroying socialism and communism.

His attacks on the rich are a smokescreen.

His printing of $55 billion per month of "paper money" is keeping Wall Street booming and twice a week, he addresses rooms full of rich people at $32,500 a head.

Obama is the guy that's "rigging" the system for the rich and they kick back tens of millions to thank him for it.

And don't forget the billions and billions of taxpayer money squandered on Obama's cronies for loony "green" projects that have universally failed.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #97 

Boehner to file suit against Obama over alleged abuse of executive power

Fox News is reporting that House Speaker John Boehner announced Wednesday he plans to file suit against President Obama over his alleged abuse of executive power.

"This is not about impeachment -- it's about him faithfully executing the laws of this country," Boehner said.

The speaker alleged that Obama not only has ignored the law but "brags about it," decrying what he described as "arrogance and incompetence."

Boehner had been weighing such a lawsuit in recent days, over concerns that Obama exceeded his constitutional authority with executive actions. Republicans have voiced frustration with Obama's second-term "pen and phone" strategy of pursuing policy changes without Congress -- particularly environmental rules via the Environmental Protection Agency. Republicans also complained about numerous unilateral changes to the implementation of ObamaCare.

The lawsuit has not yet been filed. But asked Wednesday whether he intended to proceed, Boehner said: "I am."

"My view is the president has not faithfully executed the laws," he said. "What we have seen clearly over the last five years is an effort to erode the power of the Legislative Branch."

He did not detail his plans at the press conference, but elaborated in a memo to House Republicans sent later Wednesday. In it, he said he plans to bring legislation authorizing the suit to the floor in July, citing concerns that Obama's executive actions could shift the "balance of power decisively and dangerously" in favor of the White House -- giving the president "king-like authority."  He cited concerns over policies on health care, energy, foreign policy and education.

"On one matter after another during his presidency, President Obama has circumvented the Congress through executive action, creating his own laws and excusing himself from executing statutes he is sworn to enforce -- at times even boasting about his willingness to do it, as if daring the America people to stop him," he wrote.

The decision to sue still would have to be formally approved by a group of House leaders, and then the House. The plaintiff would be the House of Representatives.

Jonathan Turley says Obama crossed the "constitutional line" -- could lose Boehner lawsuit

On Wednesday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s "Hardball," George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley made the case to fill-in host Steve Kornacki that Barack Obama has exceeded his constitutional authority.

STEVE KORNACKI, MSNBC: Jonathan, let me bring you in now. We covered the explicitly political, let's get to the legal then. Okay, the Speaker of the House is intent on suing the president of the United States. It's unclear, apparently, from the remarks John Boehner made today from the information they put out exactly what the specific examples they are using here. Presidential overreach, executive orders they think sort of undercut Congress, but you know, you've been following this, their complaints for the last few years, really. Legally speaking, is there any kind of a case here?

JONATHAN TURLEY, PROFESSOR OF LAW: Oh, I think there is a case against the president for exceeding his authority. I happen to agree with the president on many of his priorities and policies, but as I testified in Congress, I think that he has crossed the constitutional line.

KORNACKI: Where has he crossed it? Like what specific issue has he crossed it on?

TURLEY: When the president went to Congress and said he would go it alone, it obviously raises a concern. There's no license for going it alone in our system, and what he's done, is very problematic. He has shifted $454 million of the ACA from appropriated purpose to another purpose. He's told agencies not to enforce some laws, like immigration laws. He has effectively rewritten laws through the active interpretation that I find very problematic. While I happen to agree with him, I voted for him, I think this is a problem.

Video here . . .


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #98 

The Obama administration is a "Mafia-esque organization"

TruthRevolt founder Ben Shapiro spoke on the government's perpetual lack of accountability lead by a president who conveniently avoids taking responsibility for his own scandals.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #99 

Obama is going all "Vanishing Point"

Victor Keith says the stunning defeat of immigration reform proponent, Republican Congressman and House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor, in Tuesday's Virginia primary, provided a major setback for establishment Republicans who were bound and determined to pass some form of legislation addressing the issue before the November mid- term elections.  The common wisdom, therefore, was that amnesty, or anything paving the way to it this year, disappeared along with Cantor's political career. As the first Congressional leader ever to lose his party's primary, the premature obituaries for the Tea Party and any candidates who agreed with them showed Republicans who sympathized with Cantor's goals that it would be best not to tweak the nose of that tiger again. At least, not during  this election cycle.

For the Democrats, however, elections, the Constitution, the voters and the concept of equal branches of government are quaint and amusing anachronisms that should not interfere with the wisdom and will of the more enlightened political class. Enter Democratic Representative Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) who, nonplussed by the defeat of his political ally on the other side of the aisle, simply stated that the decision will simply transfer solely to the White House.  As in a banana republic where the Hugo Chavez type leader will brush aside the annoying trappings of legalities and equal rights, Gutierrez apparently looks forward towards action by a president who understands that government is too important to be left to the hands of the people and their elected representatives. How can the cause of amnesty not trump the concerns of Americans of their loss of national sovereignty and damage to their overburdened social services and health care systems?

"I believe the president has, within existing law, the power to take action to protect the immigrant community, and I think he will take those actions." Gutierrez declared. There are three very interesting points in that brief sentence. The first is the odd notion that this president cares a whit about whether or not anything he does is within the law. He has not shown any hesitation to violate or interpret laws as he sees fit from day to day. Another curious proposition is that the immigrant community either needs or deserves "protection" in the form of amnesty in order to insulate them from the results of illegal acts. Apparently American citizens and legal immigrants do not merit protection from the results of those acts. The most troubling suggestion, however, is the one most likely to occur. The president, probably will "take those actions."

Historically, a lame duck president focuses on two personal political goals: his legacy and the strengthening of the political position of his party. This president has made it clear, however, that his vision stops at his legacy and that legacy is reflected only by the image he sees every day in the mirror. He rammed through the Affordable Care Act without a single Republican vote because he does not recognize the legitimacy of political opposition. Even though that health care program is steadily cracking around the edges and now exhibits the likelihood of survival of an ancient World War I biplane held together by bailing wire and chewing gum, he still looks for another cause, this time amnesty, to stuff, once more, down the gullet of the country, whether they like it or not.

Obama has already shown he no longer cares about his party as it faces a crushing defeat in November.  So, since he places no importance on the success of his decisions but only the fact that he forced them upon the nation despite resistance from an electorate which is on the verge of giving the majority power in Congress to the party that opposes his wishes, he seems to be choosing the "Vanishing Point" climax to his administration. The only chance the country would seem to have to prevent him from driving headlong into the bulldozers with him is a Republican majority that finally shows some spine and stops him by using the power of the purse and the Constitution. If the GOP does not develop this backbone, the majority in the Senate and House will not matter, as Obama will rule for the next two years by executive orders and federal agency rule-making, and the opportunity to not only stop the bleeding but heal the wounds to this country may be lost for decades to come.

If you miss the metaphor, here is the ending of "Vanishing Point."


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #100 

Prosecute Obama

Ben Shapiro says Barack Obama believes he is above the law.

That's because he is.

This week alone, Obama announced that he would unilaterally change student loan rules, allowing borrowers to avoid paying off more of their debt; he signaled that he would continue his non-enforcement of immigration law, even as thousands of children cross the border; he defended his non-disclosure of a terrorist swap to Congress.

And, he said, more such actions were in the offing. "I will keep doing whatever I can without Congress," Obama explained.

This is not just executive overreach. In many cases, Obama's exercise of authoritarian power is criminal. His executive branch is responsible for violations of the Arms Export Control Act in shipping weapons to Syria, the Espionage Act in Libya, and IRS law with regard to the targeting of conservative groups. His executive branch is guilty of involuntary manslaughter in Benghazi and in the Fast and Furious scandal, and bribery in its allocation of waivers in ObamaCare and tax dollars in its stimulus spending. His administration is guilty of obstruction of justice and witness tampering.

And yet nothing is done.

Impeachment, which has been suggested as a solution by many, is a non-starter. In the entire history of the republic, the House has impeached just 19 officials, and just eight were actually removed from office after Senate trial. Impeachment is a political solution to a criminal problem -- and politicians are far too fearful of blowback to use it as a tool in upholding law.

Thanks to presidential immunity and executive control of the Justice Department, there are no consequences to executive branch lawbreaking. And when it comes to presidential lawbreaking, Obama could literally strangle someone to death on national television and meet with no consequences.

As Professor Akhil Reed Amar of Yale Law School has written, "a sitting President is constitutionally immune from ordinary criminal prosecution -- state or federal."

So what can we do? We can tell Congress to delegate its power to check the executive branch. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act creates a broad capacity for prosecution of criminal conspiracies; it also provides for civil lawsuits against such conspiracies, turning American citizens into, as the Supreme Court puts it, "‘private attorneys general' on a serious national problem for which public prosecutorial resources are deemed inadequate." Minor changes to the law should allow citizens to sue federal officials within the executive branch under RICO, unmasking criminal enterprises within the Obama administration and future administrations.

The checks and balances of the Constitution have failed. The result has been, for a century, the nearly unchecked growth of the power of the executive branch. That growth has created an executive tyranny, unanswerable and inescapable under law. Our legislators have proved themselves too cowardly to fight back using the tools at their disposal. They are obviously happy delegating their power to the executive branch. Now it's time for them to delegate their power to the People.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

Help fight the
ObamaMedia

The United States Library of Congress
has selected TheObamaFile.com for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscriber

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2017
All rights reserved