In not quite three and one/half years, the Obama administration has given 'Green Energy' grants and loan guarantees for more than $7 Billion to companies that have failed or are failing.
According to Mark Theissen at The Washington Times, fully 71% of those loans and grants were made to people who had contributed large amounts to Obama's first campaign for president.
My question for the night is, "Can ANYONE tell me why this man has not been impeached?"
Um, he is a Democrat?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI can tell you. Besides the fact of his party affiliation.
ReplyDeleteHe has not and will not be impeached because the government has been hijacked. It is now nearing complete autocracy, where governance is solely by Executive edict. The President, this year, by-passes an Act of Congress to provide funds to a foreign entity, in some cases not even a 'government" per se. The fiduciary authority of Congress has thus been usurped. This has occurred previously only in time of declared world war and the civil war. In those instances the normal functioning was restored by a Congress at the end of the emergency. This time it is unlikely Congress can even do it.
Congress is emasculated to the point it cannot perform it's primary function as stewards of tax payer funds ... no budget in nearly 4 years now, thus no template and no accountability. This has essentially made it a non-entity and literally an echo chamber. Laws passed are left untended (think of DOMA).
The Federal court system is now mocked and ignored. Always a potential weak link in the 3 part system, because who enforces court orders? The Justice Department. Who directs every aspect of the Justice Department? The Office of the President, that's who. Therefore, the executive can mock and/or "warn" the courts not to cross it, simply because who will enforce any ruling not approved by the executive? There is precedent for this, famously under President Andrew Jackson.
Today we have a Congress and Justice department that indicts & tries in federal court a baseball player for allegedly not telling the truth to Congress in an investigation of personal behavior that hardly rises to the federal level. We have tried and convicted a household maven for simply fibbing to a federal agent. However, we cannot seem to get indictment of an Attorney General \who outright lies directly to Congress on a matter of serious national and international consequence. Even if cited by Congress, who will arrest him? See the pattern?
Today we have an Executive branch that is an inverted pyramid of management structure, literally 10 times the size, at executive levels, it was when I entered college in 1960. The vast bulk of these "exectives" are appointed, not hired under civil service. Most egregious recent example? The SES executive who arranged the $800,000 plus fandango in Las Vegas for 300 senior people who worked for him ... in direct violation of his agencies own rules ... rules that said agency is the enforcement agency for over all other agencies. Detect a pattern here?
The executive now reveals secret information when it suits his personal purposes, mostly aggrandizement ... most recently costing a man, who provided our intelligence service with key information, 33 years of his life on conviction for treason by an alleged ally of the USA. This immediately after blowing the cover of a British agent for similar reasons, when the British shared information with the USA. Do you think they will continue to do so? Would you?
We no longer have the government, nor the government structure, that our parents had, that the older among us had ourselves 40 years ago had .... we've disemboweled it. Ambivalence has consequences.
In summary answer to the question: even if impeached and convicted, who would remove him from office?
For me, your posts are a learning experience in civics, TY, Aridog.
DeleteOutstanding comment aridog. Reading your words put a chill up my spine.
ReplyDeleteAridog is definitely correct. I was giving the simple answer. However, if Bush had done any of the things Obama has done, a Democratic House and Senate would have had no problem impeaching Bush.
ReplyDeleteWe've sunk to this level over time. Clinton was impeached, was obviously guilty of the charges, and was acquitted of them none the less. The ambivalence was nearly overwhelming nationwide. Now we have a consequence. One of the thousand cuts untreated.
ReplyDeleteEnforcement is critical to both criminal and civil legal systems, and represents a 2nd hurdle, rightly so, in our system where appeals are legitimate and judicial review is de rigueur. A judicial determination is not final until all reviews are finished AND are carried out by a 3rd party. Said simply, once convicted by a court, someone else has to execute the judicial order ...e.g., put the miscreant in jail. In civil matters, you can have a judgment, but if the civil defendant resists the order, then the plaintiff must return to court for an order of execution, to confiscate defendant assets, force compliance in actions, etc.
If you've ever sued anyone for debt collection, you know that when the judge determines your claim is correct and issues a judgment against the debtor ... you know that the collection is only half done. You must return for more hearings and an execution order against the debtors assets, pay, whatever. The debtor in each step will delay repeatedly due to "circumstances" forcing hearing reschedules. If, and only if, you do acquire an execution order for the initial judgment, you may have trouble finding assets ... and back to court you go.
This system is good in that it protects against kangaroo justice, however, it has a weakness ... ambivalence will dilute enforcement, and without enforcement, law is moot. Ambivalence is often generated by ignorance of the responsibilities in a system ... and education barely mentions that today, even in college.
Today, more than ever before (although it began long ago), "rule making" has become the replacement for clear and concise law. Agencies may "interpret" a law to include features never intended, nor vetted in court. (Think CO2 and the Clean air Act for an example) A few more cuts of the thousand. Rule making is not done in Congress or in the Courts ... it the province of the Executive Branch. Agency "rules" are "regulations," and they have evolved into de facto "laws" of the first resort. An agency can find you guilty of infringing one of their rules and pass summary judgment in various was, frequently by assessing massive fines and effectively shutting you down, literally. If you object, you can THEN seek post-facto remedy through the courts ...the courts are a secondary resort. If you can afford it.
A government, a republic, can be killed by a thousand cuts. It begins with ambivalence which encourages selfish interest by others, until no one is looking out for anyone but themselves. Think the #Occupy movement(s) for an example.
I hate being a cynical pessimist, but I'm worried now that a tipping point may have been passed and more than votes will be required to restore the USA.
I want to very much be totally wrong.
Let me clarify my view on "rule making." Laws are passed by Congress that are specific, and rules become part of their enforcement...not the totality of enforcement.
ReplyDeleteHowever, today, agencies take huge latitude in interpretation of vague laws, made vague frequently as a result of political compromise.
The agency makes a rules, then, that effectively ignore the concept of the presumption of innocence. No preponderance of evidence is necessary for said agencies to take unilateral enforcement action....you are guilty if an aparatchik says you are. Period. You object, you go to court and prove the government wrong with a preponderance of evidence, the burden of proof is on you. The agency needs to no proof in the first instance when they cite you, just a presumption. A whim if you will. Think Gibson Guitars...materials confiscated, records confiscated, fines levied, and no one single charge filed. Not one. Don't need to ...anymore.
What would happen if it were established that Obama was born in Kenya? Would anything happen? Even thouigh it is in the Constitution, it is more like a Gentlemen's agreement. No way would Obama be forced out of office if he was found to not meet the qualifications for the office of the Presidency.
ReplyDeleteMatt, I've thought of that too. I think he used Kenya as a birthplace when it was advantageous to his career. When it wasn't, he used Hawaii.
ReplyDeleteImagine if he was born in Kenya and ultimately he was impeached? We would then have Joe Biden as president.
Gaaaaaa
Of course, all that would take much longer than 5 months at which time he will decisively have lost the election.