Hat Tip: BB
By: Tom Tancredo
Urges House to begin proceedings against Obama ASAP
Almost every week brings a new reason for the United States House of Representatives to bring impeachment charges against President Obama. The question of the day is not why he should be impeached but why it hasn’t already been done.
This week it was Secretary of Defense Panetta’s declaration before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he and President Obama look not to the Congress for authorization to bomb Syria but to NATO and the United Nations. This led to Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introducing an official resolution calling for impeachment should Obama take offensive action based on Panetta’s policy statement, because it would violate the Constitution.
Well, really, folks: Is Obama’s disregard of the Constitution really news? No. He has done it so many times it doesn’t make news anymore. Democrats approve it and Republicans in Congress appear to accept it – not all Republicans, of course, but far too many.
The list of Obama’s constitutional violations is growing by the day and ought to be the topic of not only nightly news commentary but citizens’ town-hall meetings and protest rallies.
President Obama can only be emboldened by the lack of impeachment proceedings. His violations typically arouse a short-lived tempest among some conservatives, yet impeachment is not generally advocated by his critics as a realistic recourse. That must change.
That Obama can be voted out of office in eight months is not a reason to hold back on impeachment. Formal impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives would help alert the nation’s 120 million likely voters that more is at stake in Obama’s power grabs than Syrian human rights and contraception subsidies for college students.
The grounds for House impeachment proceedings have been laid by Obama’s own actions. A list of his unconstitutional and illegal actions would embarrass any honest public official and makes Nixon’s Watergate cover-up look like a college fraternity house panty raid.
Obama’s policy on the use of military force abroad raises grave issues – both policy issues and constitutional issues. When Defense Secretary Panetta tells a Senate committee he will rely on NATO and the U.N. for “permission” for use of military force, that is an affront to and direct assault on the Constitution.
Those Panetta statements propelled Rep. Jones to introduce a House resolution stipulating that any use of military force by the president without an act of Congress, except to repel a direct attack on the United States, is an impeachable offense under the Constitution.
But this is only the latest Obama assault on the Constitution. There are many other examples of Obama’s disregard for constitutional limitations to his power.
- Obama violated the Constitution with his “recess appointments” while the Senate was not in recess. It is up the Senate to decide when it is in recess, not the president. That distinction between executive and legislative authority is what the Separation of Powers doctrine is all about.
- Obama is an obvious participant and co-conspirator in Eric Holder’s approval and later cover-up of the illegal “Fast and Furious” gun-walking program. Unlike the Watergate case, people have actually died as a result of this illegal program.
- Obama undoubtedly has knowledge of and has approved Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano’s project to require Border Patrol management to falsify apprehension numbers on the southwest border. This is a clear violation of Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, which requires the federal government to protect the country against foreign invasion.
- The president’s open refusal to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act is a violation of Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution, which does not authorize the president to choose which laws to “faithfully execute.” The oath taken by a new president on Inauguration Day does not say, “… to defend the Constitution of the United States… to the best of my ability except when I disagree with it.”
- Did the president violate the law when he instructed Labor Secretary Solis to negotiate agreements with foreign governments to expand the “labor rights” of illegal aliens?
The precedent of Clinton’s impeachment over his perjury in the Monica Lewinsky case established the principle that the legal definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is what Congress wants them to mean. Have Obama’s actions met the constitutional standard for impeachment? Absolutely, yes.
Unless the House of Representatives acts to begin impeachment proceedings against this bold usurper, we are headed for dictatorship. Either the Constitution limits the president’s powers or it does not. If it does, Obama must be impeached for his actions. If not, then a dictatorship is not only inevitable, it will be upon us soon.
It is our distinct honor to now carry the commentaries and reports of Tom Tancredo, former Representative to Congress of the State of Colorado and 2008 candidate for U.S. President. His CongressmanTomTancredo.com regularly features his articles, as does WorldNetDaily.
Former Congressman Tancredo currently serves as chairman of Rocky Mountain Foundation, co-chairman of the anti-illegal immigration Team America PAC, and honorary chairman of Youth for Western Civilization. He speaks frequently on cable news, talk radio, and on college campuses – where his mere presence has led leftists to riot on multiple occasions. His book, In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America’s Border and Security was published in 2006.
By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media
Another story in The Washington Post, under the title of “Student loans seen as potential ‘next debt bomb’ for U.S. economy,” continues the paper’s practice of ignoring how a Post subsidiary is contributing to the problem.
The student “debt bomb” is a real problem. The Post article is based on a report entitled, “The Student Loan ‘Debt Bomb:’ America’s Next Mortgage-Style Economic Crisis?,” which was published by the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys and examines the fallout from higher tuition, higher interest rates and a bad job market for graduates. Total outstanding student loans exceeded $1 trillion for the first time last year, it says. But it is not just a problem stemming from practices at state-funded or public colleges and universities.
Rusty Weiss, who wrote the AIM investigative piece, “Scandal at The Washington Post: Fraud, Lobbying & Insider Trading,” says, “Today’s article on student loans becoming the ‘next debt bomb’ on the U.S. economy is yet another example of the Post reporting on an industry-wide problem, while ignoring the role of one of their own in the process. They speak of the perils of student loan defaults without ever mentioning the company’s personal lobbying efforts to allow default rates at for-profit colleges, such as Kaplan, to rise as high as 40 percent annually.”
The Post story is by Eric Pianin, identified as “Washington editor for the Fiscal Times, an independent news organization that provides original reporting and analysis on fiscal and economic matters.” The Fiscal Times is owned and funded by Peter G. Peterson, a respected businessman who serves as senior chairman and co-founder of The Blackstone Group, founding chairman of the Institute for International Economics, Chairman Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, and founding president of The Concord Coalition. The latter is devoted to fiscal discipline and eliminating federal deficits.
Although Pianin is writing for Fiscal Times, he is a former Washington Post editor and budget reporter and is in a position to understand how the Post subsidiary known as Kaplan has come under scrutiny for its questionable educational practices. Indeed, Pianin worked for the Post for 28 years, leaving in 2009, and benefited from Kaplan subsidies for the paper. The Post Company bought Kaplan from its founder, Stanley Kaplan, in 1984 for $45 million.
Kaplan “has provided the handsome profits that have helped to cover this newspaper’s operating losses,” admitted Post reporter Steven Pearlstein. “Although we in the Post newsroom have nothing to do with Kaplan, we’ve all benefited from its financial success.”
But the Weiss piece notes that the profits have come at a cost of putting many students into deep debt with degrees that don’t translate into good jobs. Weiss documents how the Post, including Chairman Donald E. Graham, lobbied to water down federal regulations which would have cleaned up the way the company does business and protected students from rip-offs.
One of the chief complaints against Kaplan has been that it enrolls students using federal loans that leave low-income students indebted and unemployed. Congressional hearings featuring victims of the company have been held and lawsuits have been filed over its practices.
Weiss noted, “Any company, such as Kaplan, that has been subject to so many government investigations and lawsuits, would be reported on by most responsible news organizations. Why does the Post bury its head in the sand on the Kaplan story, and is Graham personally responsible for suppressing such information?”
Calling this scandal The Washington Post’s Watergate, we have argued that the paper’s reporters have a vested interest in ignoring the serious nature of the scandal because the bad news could affect Post profits and their livelihoods, even their jobs.
Ignoring Kaplan, the Pianin article in the Post, courtesy of Fiscal Times, emphasizes the case of David Ingham, a 70-year-old disabled Vietnam War veteran, who co-signed about $50,000 worth of student loans for his son to attend a fine-arts school in Minneapolis as well as Catholic University in Washington.
The article notes, “Ingham’s son held a couple of jobs after he left Catholic University, but he was laid off in October 2009 and has not found work since. When his son could not repay his loans, a Sallie Mae collection agency took the family to court, seeking to place a lien on the Inghams’ condominium in suburban Edina.”
Heart-wrenching stories can also be found regarding Kaplan, as Weiss detailed in his article.
A search of the Fiscal Times website discloses that, rather than subject Kaplan and other for-profit educational companies to such scrutiny, it has gone so far as to question the official attention that has been paid to them. “Assault on For-Profit Education Will Hurt Economy” is one notorious example. The article by Liz Peek stated, “Undoubtedly, some career schools engage in deceptive and fraudulent recruitment and financing practices, which are illegal and should be stamped out. However, we should not undermine the prospect of significantly widening educational opportunity.” Peek is a former Wall Street research analyst.
This is essentially the same line that has been taken by Post chairman Graham, who is trying to protect his profits while claiming to crack down on questionable practices at Kaplan. The company hired former Obama aide Anita Dunn to lobby on its behalf.
Weiss argues that the Post in particular has a pressing obligation to report on problems in this area. However, he says, “Despite student loan default rates over 30 percent, recruiting tactics which prey on an individual’s ‘pain and fear,’ and a history of generating massive profits while saddling their most vulnerable students with massive debt, Kaplan University continues to escape scrutiny by their parent company, the Washington Post.”
He adds, “What is worse here? The fraudulent tactics and questionable lobbying efforts, or the journalistic malpractice being exercised in failing to report on Kaplan?”
Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at [email protected].
By: T F Stern
T F Stern’s Rantings
Public Information Officer
Galveston – Port Bolivar Ferry System
Texas Department of Transportation
Topic: Unwarranted Searches of Vehicles
A follow up to Goons and the 4th Amendment
This letter will be posted on T F Stern’s Rantings and The Moral Liberal. Regardless of our ongoing disagreement as pertains to random searches of vehicles, I wanted to thank you for your phone call and associated email regarding how the Texas Department of Transportation and Bolivar Ferry Operations have addressed the Coast Guard’s and Department of Homeland Security’s mandated random search measures.
“33 CFR Chapter 1 (7-1-10 Edition)
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security
CFR104.265 Security measures for access control
(a) General: The vessel owner or operator must ensure the implementation of security measures to:
(1) Deter the unauthorized introduction of dangerous substances and devices, including any device intended to damage or destroy persons, vessels, facilities, or ports;
(2) Secure dangerous substances and devices that are authorized by the owner or operator to be on board;
(3) Control access to the vessel.
As I explained, operations such as ours that are subject to these regulations formulate a plan in response, this plan is reviewed and approved by the Coast Guard, and upon such approval it becomes law. As I also mentioned, the plan under which we operate is intended to be the least intrusive possible within the limitations imposed by the regulations.”
I’m aware of your desire to protect the good people who use the Bolivar Ferry and would agree with your approach if searches were carried out in a manner which showed respect for an individual citizen’s constitutional right to be free from unwarranted searches. The fact remains, as you stated in your correspondence, you formulated the procedures at the local level and sent the details of how to carry out the procedures on to the Coast Guard for approval knowing the content of such a plan would become the law of the land. The framework for the law was approved with an understanding that the particulars, that is, the procedures for implementation would be filled in later. The term for such transfer of power actually has a name, the Intelligible Principle.
The Intelligible Principle has been applied in far too many pieces of legislation and has been abused in just about every instance since this usurpation of power was approved by the Supreme Court as I wrote in regard to licensing locksmiths in the State of Texas.
“According to a Supreme Court ruling made by Chief Justice John Marshall many years ago, such shifting of authority is constitutional under certain guidelines which have become blurred to the point of irrelevance.”
“Marshall explained: If Congress delegates quasi-legislative powers to another body, it must provide a “general provision” by which “those who act” can “fill up the details.” In other words, Congress cannot give an outside agency a free hand to make law, but it can authorize the agency to flesh out the particulars of a law Congress has already shaped.”
“Not surprisingly, with such open-ended authority, the power and discretion of agencies expanded rapidly. In recent years, the Court has refused to limit agency power whenever the statute is silent or ambiguous on delegation and the agency’s regulations are based on a “permissible” interpretation of the statute. In practice, the vast majority of regulations are now deemed permissible.”
“This does not erase the issue of government having usurped authority in the Utopian desire to protect the general citizenry at the expense of individual constitutional rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is not the purpose of government to sacrifice individual God-given rights in the name of public safety; to do so turns individual citizens into subjects of the state.”
The public has entrusted elected representatives with upholding basic individual rights and we hold them, along with those who are employed as officers charged with enforcement of the law, responsible for destruction of principles and foundations of our constitutional republic; either through neglect of duty or by intent to transform our nation into a totalitarian socialist/communist society. That having been expressed, the closing line in my original letter to the Texas Department of Transportation remains. You cannot excuse yourselves by saying, “I was only doing my job,” when you violate any citizen’s unalienable rights as protected by the Constitution.
“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Benjamin Franklin
This article has been cross-posted to The Moral Liberal, a publication whose banner reads, “Defending The Judeo-Christian Ethic, Limited Government & The American Constitution.”
Hat Tip: Dan Friedman
By: Jay Loeffers
Greetings my fellow truth seekers… today will be the start of a multi-part article on FDR. The hyped up myth, verses the ugly truth and please remember to compare FDR’s failings to other modern presidents and see if you notice any repetition of presidential blunders, mistakes and over-reaching. I will look at his early life, his progressive views and agenda and his protectionism. Make no mistake, I will be looking at this elitist snob with a fine tooth comb and how he ALMOST became the dictator of the United States with backing from close friends and his wife.
Now, as memory serves me, my history on FDR as a child goes like this: FDR was one of America’s greatest presidents of the last century. He defeated the Japanese empire, he defeated the Nazis, he saved America from itself using the New Deal and by spreading the wealth, while getting back at all those evil big businesses. He protected the little guy from insecurity as well. This is the grand myth that’s been played out through the media, high school and college history literature and by rank and file Democrats all through the years.
Let’s do an overview on the ugly truth of FDR: he passed the most radical tax regulation of his day and used the IRS as his own personal secret police to destroy all who disagreed with him or that were no longer useful to him. He trampled on the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and was the most crushing president to civil liberties at that time and even went so far as to put in jail a dry cleaner over a matter of 30 cents! (It was his price control regulations that allowed this.) He was a blatant racist and implemented the wrongful internment of loyal and hard working Japanese-Americans. Then the highly praised NEW DEAL came along with the idea of providing cradle to the grave entitlements. FDR even tried to get a second Bill of Rights passed that was so socialist in nature that the brakes were put on it immediately.
How about FDR’s turning a blind eye to the communist Russians and what Joseph Stalin was doing to us with his spy network in America? Or how FDR just about gave the communists the keys to the patent office? Or how the communists were stealing America blind of gear and military tech by the ton? Just how do you think the Russians got to build an A-BOMB and NUKES? Oh hell, the Russians had spies in the White House at this time and were helping the Communist Party of America to recruit. They later on helped out the so-called peace movement of the 1960s.
The early World War II build up was no picnic either. America suffered through labor union sabotage, budget problems, the wrong people were hired for inappropriate jobs, cost overruns and guns and ammo were in very short supply. FDR had to hold back his anti-business beliefs to get war production up and running. He used Hollywood, radio, media and music production to sell both his bad tax hikes and to support the war.
So, the next time you hear from some rank and file clown on how FDR was the greatest president of this century, please let them know otherwise and tell them to do their own homework and history research. Of course, I have files on this subject, so please e-mail me at [email protected], free of charge. Let’s remind these guys that the two best presidents of the last century are, drum roll please… Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan. (Reagan looked up to Coolidge, what does that tell you?)
FDR Exposed Part 2: Taxes and the IRS – next time…
Hat Tip: Nancy Jacques
Hat Tip: BB
John Podhoretz and Patterico highlight a close connection between Barack Obama and Khalid Muhammad. Obama, as we know, was a disciple of Derrick Bell; in the video that Breitbart.com released a few days ago, he urged his listeners to open their hearts and minds to Bell’s teachings. So, what were Bell’s teachings?
Bell was a fervent admirer of Louis Farrakhan and Khalid Muhammad of the Nation of Islam. Podhoretz quotes a 1994 interview in which Bell said, “We should really appreciate the Louis Farrakhans and the Khalid Muhammads while we’ve got them.” Our readers are well aware of the repellent Farrakhan, but who was Khalid Muhammad? Patterico gives us Muhammad’s “Kill the Cracker” speech, in which Muhammad, whom Derrick Bell so admired, advocated genocide:
So: Barack Obama was a very public admirer of Derrick Bell, and Bell was a very public admirer of the genocidal Khalid Muhammad. There is at least one more connection that may be relevant:
In 1998 Muhammad became Chairman of the New Black Panther Party (NBPP), which evolved from a number of small, loosely connected groups in Milwaukee and Dallas that had been established around 1989 by Aaron Michaels. … Muhammad continued his work with NBPP, striving to foster interracial hatred and ultimately a full-blown race war in the United States, until he died unexpectedly of a brain aneurysm on February 17, 2001, at the age of 53, in Atlanta.