Golfing While the Constitution Burns

Golfing While the Constitution Burns

Ben Johnson, The White House Watch

 

When Barack Obama and John Boehner played golf this weekend, they played
on the same team
. How appropriate.

Barack Obama has violated the Constitution’s war-making power – reserved by
Article I, Section 8,
to Congress – from the moment he sent American troops into harm’s way without
Congressional approval. He has been violating the War Powers Resolution since at
least the 60th day of that campaign. And he has violated the most
liberal reading of that act – the one Boehner has adopted as his own – since
this weekend. Yet despite the letter
Boehner authored last week, which the media presented as an “ultimatum,”
Obama has neither obtained Congressional authorization nor removed our troops.
Boehner’s
letter weakly supplicated
“I sincerely hope the Administration will
faithfully comply with the War Powers Resolution,” but at least it seemed to set
this weekend as a definitive cut-off point.

The “deadline” has come and gone, and Obama has not answered the most burning
questions of the mission’s legality to anyone’s satisfaction. Instead, the
president has thumbed his nose at Congress in general, Boehner in particular,
and the American people at large, and the Speaker-cum-caddy has made no
meaningful response whatsoever.

Obama insists the American role in Libya is too diminutive to constitute
“hostilities,” so his action is perfectly legal. White House spokesman Jay
Carney repeated
his boss’s party line at Monday’s press conference, stating, “the War Powers
Resolution does not need to be involved because the ‘hostilities’ clause of that
resolution is not met.” However, soldiers in Libya are receiving an additional
$25
a month in “imminent danger pay.”
American drones still rain missiles down
upon military targets. NATO is alternately
bombing
Muammar Qaddafi’s home
and killing the innocent Libyan civilians they are
purportedly protecting. (We had to kill the civilians in order to save them?)
NATO admitted (at
least
) one of its bombs went off target on Sunday, killing
nine civilians in Tripoli
, while allied bombs allegedly killed
15 civilians in Sorman on Monday
.

Not to worry, though; Defense Secretary Robert Gates said over the weekend,
in a confidence-builder worthy of Churchill, “I think this is
going to end OK.”
Gates, who once
opposed
the Libyan adventure, has pulled
a 180
on the matter.

Even Obama’s short-term fellow Illinois Senator, Dick Durbin, agrees
Libya more than rises to the level of hostilities.

So, too, we have learned, do the best legal minds of Obama’s administration
(not a coveted nor much-contested title, I assure you). In overruling
his own lawyers, Obama rejected the
considered conclusions
of Jeh C. Johnson, the Pentagon’s general counsel,
and Caroline Krass, the acting head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal
Counsel (OLC). The New York Times reported
it is “extraordinarily rare” for any president to overrule the OLC. “Under
normal circumstances, the office’s interpretation of the law is legally binding
on the executive branch.”

But then, nothing in the Obama administration transpires under “normal
circumstances.”

Two former OLC lawyers outlined precisely how unusual the dismissal was….

Read
more
.

Obama, the New Caesar

Obama, the New Caesar

June 17th, 2011

Jeffrey T. Kuhner, The Washington Times

President Obama has crossed the Rubicon. He now believes – and acts – as if
he is above the law; the Constitution no longer applies to him. This is the real
meaning behind the U.S. military intervention in Libya
. Mr. Obama is
abrogating the linchpin of our democracy: the rule of law.

He
is violating the War Powers Act
. Passed in 1973, the law clearly stipulates
that the commander in chief can only deploy U.S. forces for 60 to 90 days
without congressional approval. He must then receive authorization from
Congress. If he does not, he
is usurping legislative authority
and expanding
the prerogatives of the executive branch
– concentrating power in his
hands
, especially the
most important act of all: war
. In short, by flagrantly
transgressing the War Powers Act
, Mr. Obama
has sparked a constitutional crisis
.

House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio
Republican, is demanding that the Obama administration explain why it has passed
the deadline
without seeking or getting congressional approval for the
Libyan campaign. The White House’s response: Get lost. The administration sent a
report to lawmakers defending the NATO-led Libyan war. For Mr. Obama, the War
Powers Act does not apply because U.S. forces apparently are not engaged in
“sustained hostilities” with troops loyal to strongman Col. Moammar Gadhafi.
Moreover, U.S. air and missile strikes are only being conducted in a
“supporting” role. Hence, there is no need to have congressional buy-in.

This is postmodern humanitarian interventionism. According to the liberal
apparatchiks in the White House, Mr. Obama can bypass Congress simply by
redefining “hostilities.” War is no longer war. It is whatever Mr. Obama says it
is – or isn’t. George Orwell warned that the perversion of language is the first
step on the dark road to authoritarianism.

Mr.
Obama’s policy contravenes our national interest, is inept, immoral and
illegal
. This is why members of Congress are in open revolt. A bipartisan
group of lawmakers led by Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Democrat, and Rep.
Walter B. Jones, North Carolina Republican, have filed a lawsuit demanding that
the courts force Mr. Obama to end the intervention in Libya. They are right. It
is time Congress reined in an out-of-control administration. There is a growing
alliance between conservative constitutionalists and anti-war liberals…

In addition, the hypocrisy of the liberal establishment is stunning. For
years, progressives, such as Mr. Obama, railed against President George W. Bush.
He was denounced as a “fascist” dictator and compared to Adolf Hitler for his
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “Bush lied, people died,” went the slogan. Yet,
regardless of whether one supported those campaigns or not, Mr. Bush received
congressional authorization…

Read
more
.

Egypt now fears Obama a ‘Manchurian President’

Egypt now fears Obama a ‘Manchurian President’

‘They are trying to understand why he is acting against U.S.
interests’


Posted: February 02, 2011
8:43 pm Eastern

© 2011 WorldNetDaily

LISBON, PORTUGAL - NOVEMBER 20: U.S. President Barack Obama speaks to the media during a press conference on day two of the NATO summit at Feira Internacional de Lisboa (FIL) on November 20, 2010 in Lisbon, Portugal. The two day summit will address issues including a new strategic concept for NATO. Britain and the US will also seek an agreement to hand over responsibility for security in Afghanistan to local forces over the next four years. (Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images)
Top members of the Egyptian government say they feel betrayed by President
Obama, charging that he is acting against American interests.
“Mubarak’s regime feels Obama is pushing the advancement of the Muslim
Brotherhood against U.S. interests,” said WND’s Jerusalem bureau chief and
senior reporter Aaron Klein. “They are genuinely trying to understand why Obama
is seemingly championing the anti-regime protests.”
Klein said that a top Egyptian diplomat with whom he has developed a rapport
over the last few years asked him earlier this week to explain Obama’s
motivation to support the opposition to Mubarak.
“I told him none of this should be a surprise,” said Klein, “that the Obama
administration has developed an extensive relationship over the last few years
with allies of the Muslim Brotherhood.
“That my investigating has proven that Obama has been closely associated
throughout his political career with radical-left elements who have long
petitioned for policies many believe are aimed at weakening the American
enterprise both domestically and internationally.”
“The Egyptian diplomat seemed surprised,” said Klein. “I told him this
material was thoroughly documented in my latest book.”
The diplomat requested 20 copies of Klein’s New York Times bestselling book
investigating Obama, “The
Manchurian President: Barack Obama’s ties to communists, socialists, and other
anti-American extremists.”
The diplomat said he would deliver the book, which was co-authored by Brenda
J. Elliott, to senior officials in Mubarak’s embattled government.
Obama in recent days urged Mubarak to give up power in Egypt, where the
Muslim Brotherhood forms the main opposition.
Mubarak has been a staunch U.S. ally and a recipient of billions of dollars
in military aid. His regime has long been considered a stabilizing force in the
Arab world.
The Obama administration’s support for the unrest is strikingly reminiscent
of Jimmy Carter’s support of the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979, which
marked the birth of modern Islamist expansion.
(Story continues below)
Some Muslim clerics are already calling the riots in Egypt simply an
extension of 1979’s Islamist conquests.
“Thirty-one years after the victory of the Islamic Republic, we are faced
with the obvious fact that these movements are the aftershocks of the Islamic
revolution,” said Iranian cleric Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami, as reported by Iran’s
Radio Zamaneh. “The fate of those who challenge [our] religion is destruction.”
Speaking of media and government leaders, Khatami added, “They want to
highlight the labor, liberal and democratic issues, but the most important
issue, which is the religious streak of these protests, [is] being denied.”
The leader of Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood, Hammam Saeed, warned that the
unrest in Egypt will spread across the Mideast until Arabs succeed at toppling
leaders allied with the United States.
“The Americans and Obama must be losing sleep over the popular revolt in
Egypt,” Saeed said at a sympathy protest held outside the Egyptian Embassy in
Amman. “Now, Obama must understand that the people have woken up and are ready
to unseat the tyrant leaders who remained in power because of U.S. backing.”
And on the Internet, the Middle East Media Research Institute reports,
prominent Salafi cleric Abu Mundhir Al-Shinqiti issued a fatwa on the website
Minbar Al-Tawhid Wal Jihad encouraging the protests in Egypt, claiming Islamist
jihadis are now on the verge of a historic moment, an “earthquake” he likened to
the Sept. 11 attacks in New York City.
Obama pushes Egyptian ‘reform’
According to a senior Egyptian diplomat speaking to WND, a former U.S.
ambassador to Egypt, Frank Wisner, specifically told Mubarak on Tuesday the U.S.
would not continue to support his rule and he must step down.
Hours later, Mubarak announced he would not seek another term in office.
The Obama administration dispatched Wisner to Egypt last weekend to report to
the State Department and White House a general sense of the situation in the
country.
WND broke the story yesterday
that the Egyptian government has information Wisner secretly met earlier this
week with a senior leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Issam El-Erian.
The Muslim Brotherhood seeks to spread Islam around the world, in large part
using nonviolent means. Hamas and al-Qaida are violent Brotherhood offshoots.
Muslim Brotherhood declares war on U.S.
Prominent U.S. commentators also have been claiming the Muslim Brotherhood is
a moderate organization and denying there is any Islamist plot to seize power.
Last Friday, President George W. Bush’s former press spokeswoman, Dana
Perino, told Fox News, “Don’t be afraid of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. This
has nothing to do with religion.”
Bruce Reidel, a former CIA analyst and adviser to President Obama, wrote a
Daily Beast article in which he claimed, “The Egyptian Brotherhood renounced
violence years ago. … Its relative moderation has made it the target of extreme
vilification by more radical Islamists.”
Reidel’s assertion the Brotherhood renounced violence, however, is
contradicted by its own statements in recent months, including a call to arms
against the West.
In November, the Brotherhood’s new supreme guide, Muhammad Badi, delivered a
sermon entitled “How Islam Confronts the Oppression and Tyranny.”
“Resistance is the only solution,” stated Badi. “The United States cannot
impose an agreement upon the Palestinians, despite all the power at its
disposal. [Today] it is withdrawing from Iraq, defeated and wounded, and is also
on the verge of withdrawing from Afghanistan because it has been defeated by
Islamist warriors.”
Badi went on to declare the U.S. is easy to defeat through violence, since it
is “experiencing the beginning of its end and is heading toward its demise.”
Barry Rubin, director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center,
noted Badi’s speech showed “the likelihood that more Brotherhood supporters in
the West will turn to violence and fund-raising for terrorism.”
Frank Gaffney, president of the American Center for Security Policy, takes it
a step further.
“In short, the Muslim Brotherhood – whether it is operating in Egypt,
elsewhere in the world or here – is our enemy,” he wrote.
Obama quietly builds ties to Muslim Brotherhood
Klein
reported for WND yesterday
that Obama and top administration officials have
troubling relationships with the Muslim Brotherhood and its worldwide allies.
Muslim Brotherhood members were reportedly invited to attend Obama’s 2009
address to the Muslim world from Cairo. Khaled Hamza, editor of the Muslim
Brotherhood website, confirmed at the time that 10 members of the Brotherhood’s
parliamentary bloc received official invitations to attend Obama’s historic
speech.
Also in 2009, the Egyptian daily newspaper Almasry Alyoum ran a report
claiming Obama had met with U.S. and European-based representatives of Egypt’s
Muslim Brotherhood that year
According to the report, the Brotherhood members requested that news of the
meeting not be publicized. They expressed to Obama their support for democracy
and the war on terror.
The newspaper also reported Brotherhood members communicated to Obama their
position that they would abide by all agreements Egypt has signed with foreign
countries, implying that if they took power in Egypt they would continue that
country’s peace treaty with Israel.
Besides contact with the Muslim Brotherhood itself, there have been reports
the past two years of behind-the-scenes contact with Hamas, which was founded as
an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas maintains a close alliance with the
Brotherhood; the Brotherhood’s new leader, Muhammad Badi, serves as a de facto
lead spiritual guide for Hamas.
Top leaders of Hamas in Gaza claimed to WND several times they passed
messages to Obama through dignitaries who visited the Gaza Strip, including
Jimmy Carter and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., – both of whom have a close
relationship with the White House.
Kerry, for example, reportedly accepted a letter for Obama from Hamas leaders
in Gaza during a February 2009 visit to U.N. installations in the coastal
territory.
U.N. relief agency chief in Gaza Karen Abu Zayd told the BBC the Hamas letter
had been received by his agency and passed on to an unnamed American official.
Immediately after that month’s elections, Ahmed Yousef , Hamas’ chief
political adviser in Gaza, called Obama’s win a “historic victory” for the world
and told WND that Hamas was sending a letter of congratulation to the
president-elect.
Obama ties to Brotherhood’s U.S. allies
It is not just Obama’s reported contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood and the
group’s allies in the Middle East that are of concern.
The Obama administration also has evidenced a working relationship with
several U.S.-based Islamist organizations that are listed by the Brotherhood as
“likeminded” organizations.
One such group is the Islamic Society of North America, or ISNA, a radical
Muslim group that was an unindicted co-conspirator in a scheme to raise money
for Hamas.
ISNA was named in a May 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document – “An Explanatory
Memorandum on the General Strategic Goal for the Group in North America” – as
one of the Brotherhood’s likeminded “organizations of our friends” who shared
the common goal of transforming countries into Muslim nations.
The White House relationship with ISNA began even before Obama took office.
One week before the presidential inauguration, Sayyid Syeed, national director
of the ISNA Office for Interfaith and Community Alliances, was part of a
delegation that met with the directors of Obama’s transition team. The
delegation discussed a request for an executive order ending “torture.”
ISNA President Ingrid Mattson represented American Muslims at Obama’s
inauguration, where she offered a prayer during the televised event.
Mattson also has represented ISNA at Obama’s annual Ramadan dinners,
including the last such event in which Obama announced support for the rights of
Muslims to build an Islamic cultural center and mosque two blocks from the site
of the 9/11 attacks.
In June 2009, Obama’s top aide, Valerie Jarrett, invited Mattson to work on
the White House Council on Women and Girls, which Jarrett leads.
That July, the Justice Department sponsored an information booth at an ISNA
bazaar in Washington, D.C.
Also that month, Jarrett addressed ISNA’s 46th annual convention. According
to the White House, Jarrett attended as part of Obama’s outreach to Muslims.
ISNA sponsored a February 2010 question-and-answer session in which Obama’s
top adviser on counter-terrorism, John Brennan, came under fire for
controversial remarks to Muslim law students.

Read more: Egypt now fears Obama a
‘Manchurian President’
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=258937#ixzz1CutOqWLT

Talk Show Host: Obama Could be Impeached over Egypt

Talk Show Host: Obama Could be Impeached over
Egypt

February 2nd, 2011

Ben Johnson, FloydReports.com

A nationally syndicated radio talk show host has called for Barack Obama to
be impeached if he is secretly pushing
Egypt to become an Islamist country
ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood. Tammy Bruce called for Rep. Darrell Issa to
investigate whether the Obama administration is helping the radical Islamic
fundamentalist organization rise to power after the departure of Egyptian
President Hosni Mubarak. Media reports indicate a member of the Obama
administration has met with the Muslim Brotherhood,
and the United States may have supported
a plan to take down Mubarak
since at least 2008. “If it is found that Obama
secretly facilitated or *encouraged* an Islamist takeover of Egypt, an ally, he
should be impeached,” Bruce wrote.
Her call came in the form of four separate tweets,
which she posted
on….
Read
more
.

Rush Limbaugh: “We Have an Increasingly Lawless President”

Rush Limbaugh: “We Have an Increasingly Lawless
President”

February 1st, 2011

Joe Kovacs, WorldNetDaily
PALM BEACH, Fla. – Radio host Rush Limbaugh is warning that the Obama
administration might continue to force implementation of its health-care law
that was ruled unconstitutional yesterday, saying, “We have an increasingly
lawless president.” “We do know that this regime violated and ignored a federal
court order on their drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico. So we have an
increasingly lawless president,” Limbaugh said on his program this afternoon.
Asking himself rhetorically if he meant to say that, he repeated himself: “We
have an increasingly lawless president.”
Limbaugh said the Obama administration is “saying they’ll continue to
implement this law. … For the gazillionth time, the judge did not say that they
can continue to implement it while it’s appealed.”
“I think there is abject panic over this ruling,” he continued. “This is the
linchpin. This is the foundation of the new America. They were hoping to sneak
in this ability [that] the federal government mandate people have
something.”

Impeachable Offense: Govt Will Investigate Obama’s IRS Records Snooping

Impeachable Offense: Govt Will Investigate Obama’s IRS Records Snooping

October 6th, 2010

Ben Johnson, Floyd Reports

News has broken today that a federal agency will investigate another impeachable offense. The U.S. Treasury Department will launch an investigation into the Obama administration’s allegedly revealing his political opponents’ private tax information to the media.

In late August, an anonymous Obama official (now assumed to be Austan Goolsbee, one of the president’s economic advisors) revealed the tax structure of Koch Industries to the media, information its lawyer, Mark Holden, said must have been gleaned from confidential IRS forms. The possibly illegal disclosure was part of the administration’s coordinated press offensive against Koch Industries, whose owners, David and Charles Koch, have funded a number of libertarian enterprises that vocally oppose the president’s free-spending agenda. Most notable among these is Americans for Prosperity (AFP), whose state chapters host rallies from coast to coast.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-IA, called for action two weeks ago.

Treasury Inspector General J. Russell George said, “As the inspector general charged with ensuring, among other things, the fair implementation of our nation’s system of tax administration…I have ordered the commencement of a review into the matters alleged.” This adds more material to the snowballing avalanche of investigations into the Obama administration’s skirting of the law that could result in the president’s impeachment.

Read more.

Is Obama’s BP Shakedown an Impeachable Offense?

Is Obama’s BP Shakedown an Impeachable Offense?

By Raymond Richman

As former counsel and trainer in political tactics for ACORN, President Obama used a well-known ACORN tactic, the shakedown, in getting BP to create the $20-billion escrow (slush!) fund without any law, legal controls, or binding rules to guide it on how and how much those injured materially by the oil spill (and whom among them) will be paid. Attorney Kenneth Feinberg, well-respected and well-known for heading the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, was appointed by the president to administer the escrow fund. BP will pay $5 billion into the fund for four years, starting in 2010.
BP announced early after the spill that it would pay all justifiable claims resulting from the disastrous oil spill. It opened 25 claims offices. As of June 15, BP approved initial payments that amounted to $63 million, expected to rise to $85 million by the end of the week, to businesses claiming $5,000 or more in damages. Why did the president insist that his own personal organization take over the job of paying claims? After all, supervising reparations is a judicial function, not an executive function. BP created its own fund, appointed its administrator, and determined how it will be staffed with a view to ensuring only qualified persons, businesses, and governments would be reimbursed for its losses. Now those decisions will be made politically.  

It is obvious that BP’s CEO agreed to create this fund and allow the president to administer it to prevent President Obama from bankrupting their company. After all, the president was on record saying that he would “kick BP’s ass,” and a cabinet members declared he would “put his boot on BP’s neck.” The president, when announcing the creation of the fund, stated that the terms of the fund would keep BP viable. He cannot know this. BP’s liability is not affected by the fund except to the extent claims are voluntarily settled. Those refusing to settle and their lawyers are not bound by it, nor are juries that will hear their lawsuits.

The president has no legal authority to create the escrow fund and no authority to compel BP to contribute to the fund. Forcing BP to agree to the terms of the escrow is ultra vires (i.e., illegal), beyond the powers of his office. Rep. Barton (R-TX) accurately described the slush fund as a “shakedown” (i.e., blackmail), a felony. If so, Pres. Obama has committed an impeachable offense. Congress itself does not have the authority to create the escrow fund retroactively. Congress will have no voice at all except to vilify any Republican who raises questions about it. All the ACORN employees who lost their jobs when the banks stopped paying “blackmail” to ACORN may be getting better-paying new jobs processing claims.
No doubt the media, which show pictures of the spill and pelicans covered with oil 24 hours a day, seven days a week, will hail the president’s tough dealing with BP. But BP’s oil spill deserves the strongest action under the law, not above the law. A few miles away, there are pelicans flying “free as a bird” with no oil on them. Not a single photo of them. And more than 10,000 barrels of the spilled oil are being recovered by BP daily with no photos at all; vessels are skimming oil near the spill, and no photos. And the federal government has yet to grant exception to the Jones Act that is preventing foreign vessels ready to skim oil from getting closer to shore to prevent more serious damage which would, incidentally, help save a lot of pelicans. No wonder BP believed it had to surrender to the president.
You don’t have to be paranoid to suspect the president (and many in the media) of ulterior motives, a hidden agenda. If you can get enough people to hate the oil companies, you might get the cap-and-trade bill passed. By the time they regret such hasty action, it will be too late to undo the damage. Cap-and-trade was given no chance for passage before the spill. The president pacified the environmental extremists by banning drilling in the Gulf for six months, adding to the rolls of the unemployed and increasing our dependence on foreign oil. To make the hidden agenda more believable, the president overreached by getting BP to agree to pay the lost wages incurred by workers who lost their jobs as the result of the president’s six-month moratorium on drilling in the Gulf. The hidden agenda obviously includes getting cap-and-trade passed. It looks like “cap-and-trade, cap-and-trade, cap-and-trade” has displaced “jobs, jobs, jobs.”
The president employed a similar tactic when he nationalized GM, violating the bankruptcy laws by denying bondholders their rightful control of the future of those enterprises, and he gave the bondholders’ interest in GM to the unions instead, literally. He gave Chrysler to Fiat. The bondholders of both gave their consent, being afraid of having their asses kicked or having a boot on their necks.  
When an executive uses threats to secure the “cooperation” of private businesses, we have a name for it: fascism. It is the kind of act we expect from Venezuela’s Chávez, not from a president who swore to uphold the U.S. Constitution and its separation of powers. I believe the President’s behavior is ultra vires and that he has committed an impeachable offense.
Raymond L. Richman, J.D., Ph.D., is a member of the Illinois Bar and has a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Chicago. He and his son and grandson maintain a blog at www.idealtaxes.com and co-authored the 2008 book Trading Away Our Future: How to Fix Our Government-Driven Trade Deficits and Faulty Tax System Before it’s Too Late, published by Ideal Taxes Association.