A Blatant Disregard for the Law


Senator Ted Cruz from Texas wrote an insightful article for the Wall Street Journal where he exposes President Obama’s reckless disregard for the law. It is my opinion that the President should face Impeachment for his offenses to disregard his oath of office to uphold the law of the land and to protect the Constitution.


Of all the troubling aspects of the Obama presidency, none is more dangerous than the president’s persistent pattern of lawlessness, his willingness to disregard the written law and instead enforce his own policies via executive fiat. On Monday, Mr. Obama acted unilaterally to raise the minimum wage paid by federal contracts, the first of many executive actions the White House promised would be a theme of his State of the Union address Tuesday night.

The president’s taste for unilateral action to circumvent Congress should concern every citizen, regardless of party or ideology. The great 18th-century political philosopher Montesquieu observed: “There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates.” America’s Founding Fathers took this warning to heart, and we should too.

Rule of law doesn’t simply mean that society has laws; dictatorships are often characterized by an abundance of laws. Rather, rule of law means that we are a nation ruled by laws, not men. That no one—and especially not the president—is above the law. For that reason, the U.S. Constitution imposes on every president the express duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

Yet rather than honor this duty, President Obama has openly defied it by repeatedly suspending, delaying and waiving portions of the laws he is charged to enforce. When Mr. Obama disagreed with federal immigration laws, he instructed the Justice Department to cease enforcing the laws. He did the same thing with federal welfare law, drug laws and the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

On many of those policy issues, reasonable minds can disagree. Mr. Obama may be right that some of those laws should be changed. But the typical way to voice that policy disagreement, for the preceding 43 presidents, has been to work with Congress to change the law. If the president cannot persuade Congress, then the next step is to take the case to the American people. As President Reagan put it: “If you can’t make them see the light, make them feel the heat” of electoral accountability.

President Obama has a different approach. As he said recently, describing his executive powers: “I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone.” Under the Constitution, that is not the way federal law is supposed to work.

The Obama administration has been so brazen in its attempts to expand federal power that the Supreme Court has unanimously rejected the Justice Department’s efforts to expand federal power nine times since January 2012.

There is no example of lawlessness more egregious than the enforcement—or nonenforcement—of the president’s signature policy, the Affordable Care Act. Mr. Obama has repeatedly declared that “it’s the law of the land.” Yet he has repeatedly violated ObamaCare’s statutory text.

The law says that businesses with 50 or more full-time employees will face the employer mandate on Jan. 1, 2014. President Obama changed that, granting a one-year waiver to employers. How did he do so? Not by going to Congress to change the text of the law, but through a blog post by an assistant secretary at Treasury announcing the change.

The law says that only Americans who have access to state-run exchanges will be subject to employer penalties and may obtain ObamaCare premium subsidies. This was done to entice the states to create exchanges. But, when 34 states decided not to establish state-run exchanges, the Obama administration announced that the statutory words “established by State” would also mean “established by the federal government.”

The law says that members of Congress and their staffs’ health coverage must be an ObamaCare exchange plan, which would prevent them from receiving their current federal-employee health subsidies, just like millions of Americans who can’t receive such benefits. At the behest of Senate Democrats, the Obama administration instead granted a special exemption (deeming “individual” plans to be “group” plans) to members of Congress and their staffs so they could keep their pre-existing health subsidies.

Most strikingly, when over five million Americans found their health insurance plans canceled because ObamaCare made their plans illegal—despite the president’s promise “if you like your plan, you can keep it”—President Obama simply held a news conference where he told private insurance companies to disobey the law and issue plans that ObamaCare regulated out of existence.

In other words, rather than go to Congress and try to provide relief to the millions who are hurting because of the “train wreck” of ObamaCare (as one Senate Democrat put it), the president instructed private companies to violate the law and said he would in effect give them a get-out-of-jail-free card—for one year, and one year only. Moreover, in a move reminiscent of Lewis Carroll’s looking-glass world, President Obama simultaneously issued a veto threat if Congress passed legislation doing what he was then ordering.

In the more than two centuries of our nation’s history, there is simply no precedent for the White House wantonly ignoring federal law and asking private companies to do the same. As my colleague Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa asked, “This was the law. How can they change the law?”

Similarly, 11 state attorneys general recently wrote a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius saying that the continuing changes to ObamaCare are “flatly illegal under federal constitutional and statutory law.” The attorneys general correctly observed that “the only way to fix this problem-ridden law is to enact changes lawfully: through Congressional action.”

In the past, when Republican presidents abused their power, many Republicans—and the press—rightly called them to account. Today many in Congress—and the press—have chosen to give President Obama a pass on his pattern of lawlessness, perhaps letting partisan loyalty to the man supersede their fidelity to the law.

But this should not be a partisan issue. In time, the country will have another president from another party. For all those who are silent now: What would they think of a Republican president who announced that he was going to ignore the law, or unilaterally change the law? Imagine a future president setting aside environmental laws, or tax laws, or labor laws, or tort laws with which he or she disagreed.

That would be wrong—and it is the Obama precedent that is opening the door for future lawlessness. As Montesquieu knew, an imperial presidency threatens the liberty of every citizen. Because when a president can pick and choose which laws to follow and which to ignore, he is no longer a president.


Too Far To Turn Back? My Ass

Small Navy, Weak Commander

The campaign rhetoric is really desperate. Obama wants four more years to completely destroy America. Even if we change course into a more positive direction it will take us a hundred years to undo all the damage he has done. Just taking care of the division between blacks and whites will take that long. There is no doubt in my mind that any gains the blacks have made to gain equality has been undone by Obama’s class warfare. The war on the rich by demonizing them has not been so prevalent since Louis XV in France. We all know how that turned out.

Another hole we must dig out of is the blatant disregard for the laws. In a nation guided by the rule of law, our president has refused and in many cases told his Attorney General to ignore them. Take for instance the law on protecting the borders. He has literally opened the southern border and attacked Arizona with law suits to block any attempt to keep their citizens safe. Arizona asked for federal help to deal with border protection. He sent a small cadre of border patrol agents to protect a five hundred mile long space. How about ignoring New Black Panthers from intimidating polling places? What about gun running to drug cartels in the hopes to make a case against our second amendment rights. What about his latest error in failing to protect US citizens serving the country in embassies?

The real question is what more can he do in four more years? Well, for starters there is Cap and Trade another tax designed to bankrupt companies. There is immigration reform which will officially overload the welfare system. There is abdication of our gun rights to the United Nations by treaty. There is the Islamization of America by requiring schools to teach Islam. His Justice Department Judges attempt to make Sharia law in direct contradiction to the Constitution under separation of church from state. On the flip side of Sharia is the attack on religious freedom of Christians. One of my favorites is his disregard for seniors. He has deliberately raped the Medicare trust fund to fuel his Obama Care. I see this as a Human Rights violation and as discrimination against senior citizens. Don’t we have a right to the health care mandated by Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society?

I see his disregard for working with a lawful budget a disgrace. He argues that he has presented a budget, but Congress overwhelmingly rejected it. Did he re-present an acceptable budget? No.

What I see  happening is that if we give President Obama another four years it will be to put him through the stress of IMPEACHMENT.

Law Breaker in Chief

Obama makes another Alinsky move and breaks another law. Section. 3. of Article II of the United States Constitution states the President’s responsibilities

“. . . he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, . . .”

What can I say? Obama is taking Care not to execute Immigration Laws and  is violating his Constitutional responsibilities. He is clearly The Law Breaker in Chief, and Congress must impeach him for this deliberate dereliction. We continue to hear “we are a Nation of Laws”, but then we fail to enforce them i.e. unless it is not politically correct to do so.

One of my current interests is in Immigration reform. My parents were immigrants who came to America by boat to Ellis Island. Most of my friends proudly claim the same heritage, they are sons and daughters of immigrants, LEGAL IMMIGRANTS. The US has a long history of laws beginning in 1875 when the Supreme Court declared that regulation of US immigration is the responsibility of the Federal Government.

1903: This Act restated the 1891 provisions concerning land borders and called for rules covering entry as well as inspection of aliens crossing the Mexican border.

The complete history is available at Rapid Immigration.com

What is grossly hypocritical is that the US government has several immigration policies. One uses the current law, and makes aliens apply through US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The process takes years and money. The second allows aliens to walk across the border. Another scheme is to  over stay a legally acquired Visa. Who decides which immigrant is to stay? Let’s go back in time and settle on one uniform process.

Roughly one million people enter the USA legally every year, millions more walk over the line and set up camp in our cities.

Law Breaker in Chief

Lincoln freed the slaves and saved the Union. Obama makes us slaves and destroys the Union.

The President’s latest assault on Arizona basically cuts the State from the Union. He has succeeded in becoming the opposite of President Lincoln who freed the slaves, and saved the Union. President Obama is severing a State from the Union, and turning private sector workers into twenty-first century tax-slaves. Essentially, the border between Mexico and Arizona ceased to exist with Obama’s order to not enforce immigration law. It is my opinion that he is making good on a campaign promise to Leftist George Soros to open the border to gain Soros’ monetary support. Somehow, I don’t think we should allow George Soros to pull Obama’s strings.

If we are truly a Nation of Laws, then let us enforce them. If we think a Law is wrong, or out of date, let us repeal it . America is a big country with a huge heart. We are capable of assimilating many Peoples into our land. We are dependent on immigration to keep our country alive and vibrant. Let us face it, many people today begin families later in life, and thus they limit how many offspring they can have. Our current birth rate will not sustain us as a people. We need immigrants to keep our exceptional culture alive.

Here is my take on Immigration Reform:

1. Secure the borders. Don’t let anyone in without proper, lawfully obtained documentation. Open borders will only cause more migration of Peoples and cultures that will destroy the concept of America as a country. Open borders will move North American civilization backwards toward a more Neanderthal time.

2. Create a pathway for those illegals already in the country to become legal citizens. Although Amnesty is an easy out, it does not solve the problem. It didn’t in the past and it won’t now or in the future.

3. Repeal current laws completely and revise immigration quotas based on labor needs, desirability (law breakers, those with communicable diseases excluded, etc.)

4. Enact laws to allow people work permits, for instance, Singapore has a law that permits foreign labor to come to the country using contracts. When a worker completes his contract he must return home. Singapore regulates how many times a worker can come back.

5. All immigrants seeking permanent residency must sign an oath of allegiance to America, and to denounce Sharia law. An immigrant may follow religious laws within his heart, but the must pledge to follow Constitutional Law to live in the country.

6. Immigrants who wish to apply for citizenship must prove they know how to read, write, and speak English.

7. Only citizens may get government benefits.

8. Working citizens and aliens must pay income taxes.

9. Renounce multiculturalism, and embrace American Exceptionalism. Political correctness and multiculturalism is on the brink of destroying Europe. France and Spain are just a few years away from losing their own unique Ethnic cultures to Islamism. Mid Eastern Civilization is conquering Europe without firing a shot by populating the countries, using the countries  own laws and social programs to excess while insisting their culture be honored over that of the host nation. Confused Europeans have allowed their demands only to see their own cultures evaporate.

10. Reject One World Order as a political system until all countries in the world can meet economic and political stability. Example: the European Union is about to fall apart because the many countries do not agree on how to control government expenditures and their economies.

Can I have an Amen?