Search This Blog

Saturday, June 23, 2012

Drip, Drip, Drip…………………IT”S A FLOOD!!!!!

After the last few weeks with their rather alarming displays of extralegal conduct, I was thinking about what another four years of president Obama would be like. While, as the ads say, past performance is no guarantee of future results, we have to judge Obama by what he has already done. In thinking back over the last four years, I came to the conclusion that the one thing that ties most of Obama’s actions together is his belief that he is somehow above the laws, his view that he can do whatever he wants. If you look back, you realize that what seem like a few isolated instances are a pattern; you “connect the dots” as they say. The steady drip, drip, drip of these actions become a flood when looked at in their entirety. Let me illustrate with some of Obama’s Greatest Hits.
1. In 2009, Obama stepped into the domain of the bankruptcy courts and forced an outcome that was contrary to law. When GM filed for bankruptcy, there were bondholders who had the legal first claim to the assets of the company. Normally, this results in the stock of the new company going to these bondholders in exchange for their bonds when the bankruptcy ends. This protection of the bondholders enables shaky companies to be able to borrow funds even when their futures do not look too rosy. The lenders, in this case the bondholders, know that they will get first call on the assets of the company in a bankruptcy, so the risk of loss is not as great. Obama, however, forced the bondholders to give up most of their claim and gave the assets instead to the United Auto Workers. Obama just ignored the law.
2. In 2010, Obama pushed through Obamacare. The centerpiece of the statute was the individual mandate, a requirement that every American had to buy insurance or face a fine. On the day the law was passed, multiple states filed suit to overturn this law as unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court is about to rule on that suit. Obama knew that the law went beyond the constitutional power of the federal government, but he pushed it through anyway.
3. In 2010, Obama pushed through the Dodd-Frank law. This law set up a board to oversee banks and consumer protection measures, but it made that board free from the normal supervision of the courts. In other words, the board could do what it wanted and there was no way to challenge its decisions. It is Elizabeth Warren’s version of tyranny. (Warren supposedly was heavily involved in drafting the statute.) Once again, a major piece of legislation went beyond what is constitutional. The challenge to this statute is also pending in the courts.
4. Obama also decided that the federal government would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act against challenges that it is unconstitutional. Obama is supposed to uphold and enforce the laws of the United States. That means that the Department of Justice is supposed to appear in Court to defend all claims that any duly enacted law is unconstitutional. Obama, however, announced that he was going now to pick and choose which laws to protect. The fact that Congress passed and president Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law no longer was to be considered important.
5. Obama also decided that he was now to become the ultimate arbiter of which “terrorists” were to be struck by missiles from drones. We recently learned that Obama personally sat and decided who shall live and who shall die. These were not targets selected for their military merits; it was a personal hit list set forth by Obama. It is unprecedented in American history. That is especially so since some on the list were American citizens.
6. Obama told us over and over again that he was powerless under our constitutional system to make changes to the immigration laws. Then two weeks ago, Obama announced that he was doing just that. Obama basically granted his protection to about 800,000 illegal aliens. This was not prosecutorial discretion as the Obamacrats now claim. There was no consideration of individual cases as would apply were it prosecutorial discretion. This was just a move by Obama to change the immigration laws by executive fiat. Obama did the unconstitutional act that he had previously told the country was beyond his legal powers.
7. Obama granted waivers to hundreds and thousands of entities from the requirements of Obamacare. This was not a situation where there were special circumstances; thousands of entities got the waivers. Obama basically picked those who had to obey the law and those who did not have to obey the law. The law did not matter; what mattered was who you knew. It is the very definition of tyranny.
8. Obama last week asserted executive privilege in connection with thousands of documents which could not possibly be privileged. Let me be clear about this one. Obama can always assert executive privilege if he thinks it applies. The problem here is that there is no way in the world that these documents can be subject to the privilege. Executive privilege only applies if the president or one of his close staff either received or sent the documents in question. Obama and all the Obamacrats have told us over and over that neither Obama or any of his staff were involved with Fast and Furious in any way, so they could not have received or sent any of these documents. In other words, Obama asserted a privilege with no basis to do so; he acted just to delay disclosure of the documents until after the election. Were such conduct to be carried out in a court, the perpetrator would be severely sanctioned by the judge. Obama violated the law.
9. Obama has sat by while national defense secrets of the highest importance have been disclosed in the New York Times and Washington Post. This perhaps understates the severity of Obama’s transgression. Most likely, Obama had the secrets leaked to the press in order to help with his re-election effort. Think of the effect of what Obama did. He leaked the fact that the USA had put a computer virus on the Iranian nuclear centrifuges with the result that the Iranian equipment was destroyed. In order to get that virus on these machines, someone had to actually take a drive into the Iranian facility and connect to the machines; they are not accessible from the internet. Whoever took that virus into the facility is now being hunted by the Iranians. They know! Obama put the life of this person at risk to help his re-election campaign. And he did the same thing with the bin Laden affair. In a rush to look good, Obama had many of the details as to how bin Laden was caught released to the public. We all now know that Pakistan has imprisoned a local doctor who had helped the CIA verify that it was the bin Laden family in the suspect compound. Thanks to Obama, this courageous doctor who helped the USA is in prison for the rest of his life.
There are many more, but the point is clear. Obama does not care one whit about the requirements of law. He thinks he is above the law and can do whatever he wants. In a second term, Obama would not even fear what the voters might do in a re-election campaign. Indeed, he has already told the Russians that he could be flexible in agreeing to nuclear disarmament during a second term. Obama is well aware that the November election is the last check on his power.

Four more years is a truly frightening prospect for anyone who loves America.

1 comment:

hotpanera said...

Jeff,

Excellent list bringing together various egregious actions by Obama which in the aggregate would arguably justify impeachment, though I'll take a decisive loss in November.

I do take issue with your No.4 which I put in a different category. When a constitutional challenge is put forth against a law which, though on the books, is not one that the President is enamored with, he could instruct the Justice Department to go through the motions and argue in favor of the law. More honestly, he could request that the Court appoint outside counsel to argue in favor of the law, assuring that the law's proponents get their best shot at sustaining it.

Unlike all of your other examples, this is not Obama arrogating onto himself what laws to enforce or unilaterally altering the law. If he ordered the Justice Department to stop enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act, that would be as outrageous as your other examples. But as far as I know he never did that, at least in a way that is provable. The courts, not the Congress or the President, are the arbiters on the constitutionality of any law. Allowing that process to go forward with strong advocates on both sides is extremely salutary.