Barack H. Obama’s Legacy, Part 4

ObamaLegacyPart4   <– PDF

That Mr. Obama and his administration demonstrated contempt for the rights of the people is clearly evident throughout his term in office.

“Operation Fast & Furious” was probably a White-House directed scheme to denigrate the Second Amendment by attempting to show that only drug dealers and murderers would sink low enough to own a gun. This was to be accomplished by having BATFE help straw buyers purchase guns in the US (a felony), then to smuggle them to Mexico (a felony and a violation of Mexican law), and then to hand them over to drug cartels (in violation of Mexican law) so those same weapons could be tracked, the new users caught and prosecuted, all to demonstrate that only evil sinister drug-dealing lowlife criminals have guns and therefore all Americans should be willing to give them up.  But of course, government incompetence being what it was, the drug cartel killed a large number of Mexican citizens and some Americans as well.  But that was not a problem until one of those weapons was used by a Mexican drug dealer to kill a Border Patrol Agent named Brian Terry on 14 Dec 2010.  Then, and only then, did the scheme become a problem (i.e., when a federal employee became a victim).  A few BATFE insiders ratted out their leadership, exposing the plot, and Mr. Obama was forced to use Executive Privilege to cover up the whole episode and his role instigating it.  The net result: raises and promotions all around, as usual.  Fortunately, the propaganda effort against the Second Amendment failed.

Mr. Obama also illegally used Executive Orders to expand background check on firearms transactions.

Ms. Lois G. Lerner, director of the IRS Exempt Organizations Unit since 2006 until 2013, led the office while a scheme was being implemented to deprive conservative organizations their proper tax-exempt status under IRS section 501(c)(4). Specifically, instead of using the usual process to determine eligibility, the IRS, with Ms. Lerner’s full knowledge, proceeded to implement a delaying tactic to prevent the candidate organizations from using their rights under the law to participate in the 2010 and 2012 elections.  They did so by requiring extensive and impossible requirements in the applications:

  1. By demanding information that could not exist (“What books are your members reading”);
  2. By asking whether any of their members intended to run for elective office;
  3. By demanding a list of donors, the amounts donated, and how the donations were spent;
  4. By demanding copies of all web pages, blog posts, and brochures ever used by the organization;
  5. By demanding copies of all emails sent or received by organization members.

After the scandal came out, and the IRS’ own Inspector General castigated the IRS for its use of “inappropriate criteria” conduct, Ms. Lerner testified before Congress on 22 May 2013:

“My professional career has been devoted to fulfilling responsibilities of the agencies for which I have worked, and I am very proud of the work I have done in government. I have not done anything wrong. I have not broken any laws, I have not violated any IRS rules or regulations, and I have not provided false information to this or any other congressional committee.”

After the IRS failed to produce subpoenaed emails (pretending all the hard drives and backup tapes had been destroyed), the Department of Justice then proceeded to conduct an “investigation”, including allegation of harassment of some organizations by the BATFE, FBI, and OSHA, but in the end no action was taken other than to excuse the IRS. On 23 Oct 2015, Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs Peter J. Kadzik issued a report which concluded that although there was considerable mismanagement:

“We found no evidence that any IRS official acted based on political, discriminatory, corrupt, or other inappropriate motives that would support a criminal prosecution.”

Both his and Ms. Lerner’s statements are true: no corruption, no violation of regulations, no political or discriminatory action occurred because the IRS was simply implementing the official ideological policy of the Obama administration. More raises and promotions all around, and Ms. Lerner is now enjoying a quiet happy retirement.  She is also the patron saint of the IRS, having gotten away with everything.

Mr. Obama illegally appointed officials without the consent of the Senate while the Senate was not in recess (Sharon Block, Terence Flynn, & Richard Griffin to National Labor Relations Board, and Richard Cordray to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau).

Mr. Obama illegally granted exceptions and exemptions via Executive Order to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) (aka “Obamacare”), violating and superseding express provisions of the law:

  1. 15 Feb 2013: Abolished the high-risk pool (the money allocated for it had been spent for advertising)
  2. 20 Feb 2013: Insurance companies were allowed to double deductibles
  3. 11 Mar 2103: Delayed implementation of the small business option program
  4. 2 Jul 2013: Delayed employer reporting contrary to the ACA
  5. 30 Sep 2013: Provided subsidies to members of Congress & their staff, not provided for in the ACA
  6. 23 Oct 2013: Delayed the individual mandate from Oct 2013 to Feb 2014

 

Tags:
Posted in elections, government powers, gun control, Second Amendment | No Comments »

Barack H. Obama’s Legacy, Part 3

PDF –>  ObamaLegacyPart3

The racial and political biases within the federal departments during the Obama administration are well-known. At its very start, the Obama administration was faced with complaints that several Black Panther members had openly intimidated white voters at a voting location in Philadelphia.  Since they occurred in the 2008 election, the initial complaints were handled by the Bush administration; its Justice Department filed a civil suit against the New Black Panthers Party and three individual members, King Minister Shamir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz, and Jerry Jackson.  The defendants refused to appear in court, but the newly-installed Obama administration refused to pursue a default judgment, instead dropping the case altogether at the instigation of Attorney General Eric Holder, Deputy Attorney General David Ogden, and Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli.  Imagine what would have happened if it had been the New White Panther Party intimidating black voters.

The Obama administration failed to follow up on complaints that ACORN was involved in illegal political activities. Mr. Obama himself interjected personally whenever a case involving the police and a black person occurred, always criticizing the police, and always siding with the black person in question, even before any of the facts in the cases could be established.  Of course, there are isolated cases of abuse by the police, but to assume that the police are always and immediately wrong is consistent with the Black Liberation theology dictum that white people always and everywhere persecute black people.  A few of the cases: Harvard professor Henry Gates, Cambridge MA (police were wrong), Michael Brown, Ferguson MO (police were right); Alton Sterling (Baton Rouge LA (undetermined thus far); Philando Castile, Minneapolis MN (police were wrong); Trayvon Martin, Orlando FL (legitimate self-defense).  A President should not make a public comment until he has some facts.  But Mr. Obama was not interested in facts: his goal was to use these incidents as a blanket indictment against local police agencies with the end objective of turning all local law enforcement into subdivisions of a federal police force, like they have in totalitarian nations.

Mr. Obama showed how much respect he has for those who embrace traditional values when he stated on 6 Apr 2008:

“They get bitter, they cling to their guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations”.

Mr. Obama ridiculed anyone who was not fully convinced that climate change is man-made. On 1 Sep 2015, he stated:

“We know that human activity is changing the climate. We know that human ingenuity can do something about it.  We’re even starting to see that we might actually have the political will to succeed.  So the time to heed the critics and cynics is past.  The time to plead ignorance is surely past.  The deniers are increasingly alone, on their own shrinking island.”

What he failed to mention is that his remedy, including cap and trade (“carbon taxes”), restrictions on fossil fuels, and abolition of coal, will do nothing to change the current trend in the next 100 years, even according to those who believe the problem is man-made. In other words, it’s not about fixing a problem, it’s about destroying the U. S. economy for ideological reasons.

Candidate Obama stated on 2 Nov 2008 that he was opposed to gay marriage. President Obama praised universal gay marriage when it was decreed by the robed masters on the U. S. Supreme Court on 26 Jun 2015.  Afterward, anyone who opposed gay marriage was the enemy.

Mr. Obama never did get serious about enforcing the immigration laws, but he did fabricate fake deportation numbers in an effort to show that he was. (The deportation number included all who were detained upon initial illegal entry and returned as if they had been deported after already being here.)  The Border Patrol was eventually ordered to stop doing its job altogether.

Last, Mr. Obama appointed outright communists and communist sympathizers to his staff: Valerie Jarrett, Van Jones, and David Axelrod. He also appointed some who had previously been on the payroll of anti-American and former Nazi collaborator George Soros: Rosa Brooks as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy; Mark Lloyd as FCC Chief Diversity Officer; and Cecilia Munoz as Director of Intergovernmental affairs (and former Vice President of the National Council of La Raza (“The Race”).

Tags:
Posted in elections, government powers | No Comments »

Barack H. Obama’s Legacy, Part 2

PDF —>  ObamaLegacyPart2

The “Affordable Care Act” (ACA), commonly known as “Obamacare”, does exactly the opposite of what its title claims, as is typical of many government initiatives.  It promotes evil more than most legislation: it violates several provisions of the Constitution, and it fails to achieve even its most basic objectives.

It violates the Constitution in several ways.  First, it contains provisions by which a taxpayer has to prove to the IRS that he has purchased health insurance; that is a violation of the right to free entry into contracts because the government is forcing a citizen to buy something even if he would rather not.  Under the Tenth Amendment, contracts issues reside solely within the power of the States.  Secondly, every IRS employee has access to these records in violation of the Fourth Amendment freedom from arbitrary searches.  Third, by failing to provide the proof of insurance, the citizen is liable to pay a penalty, later ruled a tax by the Supreme Court.  That apparently innocuous ruling made the entire section unconstitutional since the ACA originated in the U. S. Senate, whereas all tax bills must originate in the House of Representatives.  This proves, if it proves anything, that even members of the Supreme Court cannot or will not respect the Constitution.  Fourth, the ACA requires the citizen to buy coverage for a product which may violate his religious beliefs, since every insurance package meeting the ACA requirements must provide coverage for abortion and birth control expenses.  Thus, since insurance is merely pooling risk, everyone has to share in the cost risks of abortion in violation of the First Amendment respect for religion.  Fifth, doctors are permitted to ask patients about firearm ownership and include their responses in their permanent medical history; another clear violation of the Fourth Amendment as well as being prejudicial to the Second Amendment.  In the future, said records may constitute the basis of an arbitrary sweep to confiscate all privately owned firearms.  Sixth, it does not apply to every citizen equally since many exemptions, exclusions, and benefits have been given to some categories of individuals and groups while depriving the other citizens; this violates the equal protection portion of the Fourteenth Amendment.

It should come as no surprise the ACA has and will continue to fail in achieving its claimed objectives.  It contains the seeds of its own destruction the same as every other welfare legislation.  In typical welfare legislation, a non-working citizen and politicians decide how much a third person, the working man, is to pay in taxation to support those who are not working.  There is no end to demands made by the non-working, and welfare benefits have traditionally increased over time, with commensurate tax obligations.  Likewise, ACA has no effective cost containment: the doctor and patient decide how much a third entity, the insurance company, is to pay, nor a fourth entity, the working person with health care is to pay in taxes to provide subsidies to the others.  Secondly, there is no requirement for doctors and hospitals to publish their prices for routine procedures, or even room costs; hence the costs are different depending on what type of insurance one has. Secret pricing will always tend to increase costs.  Third, it restricts competition because a citizen can buy insurance only from those companies operating within a State despite the fact that the mandate itself is of federal nature.  Restricting competition will always increase costs.  Fourth, some people simply cannot afford to buy health insurance, and they must (and should be) be treated at public expense; the ACA does not eliminate the charitable and publicly-funded institutions and the costs thereof.   The combined effects of these came about as expected: fewer choices of plan as insurance companies exit the program; constantly increasing insurance premiums, steadily increasing deductibles, and fewer choices of doctors and hospitals.  The ACA is on the cost and quality death spiral; some claim that it was done deliberately in order to make the excuse for universal government-run health care.  If you like what has been happening at the Veterans Administration, you’ll like universal care.

But the most pernicious aspect of the ACA is that it can never be repealed or significantly modified.  History shows that once a welfare provision is granted, it cannot be taken back.

Tags: , ,
Posted in fourth amendment, U. S. Constitution | No Comments »

Barack H. Obama’s Legacy, Part 1

PDF –>  ObamaLegacyPart1

I believe Barack Obama’s legacy, when finally written by the historians, will not be flattering to our 44th President.  This is my opinion of how he should be judged.

The Constitutional requirements to hold the office are simple: to be aged 35 years, a native-born citizen of the U. S., and been a resident for 14 years.  In the absence of any other requirements, every President brings to the office only his own experience and his own moral values to the office.  Mr. Obama has been denounced as a non-citizen (for failing to produce a birth certificate until he had been in office nearly two years), as a Moslem (having been raised in Indonesia and having a Moslem father), and being generally anti-American.  What is certain as a minimum is that he spent twenty years listening to the preaching of Jeremiah Wright; as such it is fair to say that Mr. Obama embraces Black Liberation theology, which consists of 40% socialist ideology, 40% grasping for political power, 10% animosity toward white people, and 10% nod-to-God-marry-and-bury Christianity.  Socialist theory claims that it is the only system that will usher in peace, harmony, and prosperity, although it has never so far done so, mostly because it ignores both economics and human nature, but demands allegiance as if it were the only religion.  Socialism requires the growth of governmental power through force or regulation so that the “experts” can guide the unwashed lowlifes (like you and me) into doing what is best for our own interests.  It seems to me that Mr. Obama’s actions as President reflect the values of Black Liberation politics.

Regarding his domestic policy, Mr. Obama will be remembered for four things: a) acceptance of the status quo among the financial institutions that put the economy into serious recession just before he entered office; b) the “Affordable Care Act”; c) the racial and political bias within the federal departments; d) opposition to the rights of the people; and e) the doubling of the national debt.

It should be remembered that Mr. Obama did face a severe recession upon entering office.  To his credit, he did not make it any worse, but did nothing to correct its causes.  It was caused by the collapse of the housing industry, which was caused by many delinquencies on mortgages, which was caused by too-liberal credit policies in which mortgages were given to people that the banks knew, or should have known, could not repay.  It was made worse by large-scale leveraging of obscure “securities” tied to mortgages, fraudulently assigned as “low-risk” by the ratings agencies (who were paid by the banks) and sold to investors all over the world; and then by bankers betting against those very securities by taking out insurance policies against their default.  In other words, it was caused by banks operating the financial system the way the mafia operated gambling casinos, except the banking mafia was able to call on the taxpayers to bail them out.  It was under President George W. Bush that the large banks and insurance companies were bailed out with taxpayer money. That was Bush’s mistake: the correct policy was to let capitalism do its work of destruction to those who abuse the system.  Mr. Obama, confident that capitalism is a failed system, but appreciating the tax contributions and election donations coming from Wall Street, allowed the banking system to continue with the same potential for abuse as before, simply adding more regulation in the form of Dodd-Frank (signed 21 Jul 2010).  The correct policy would have been to break up the banks that had too much influence or potential for contagion to the credit system should they fail to accurately assess risk.  Dodd-Frank only ensured that the government gained power while limiting the ability of small businesses, essential to the growth of the economy, to obtain the credit they needed.  The banks are bigger than ever, the government is more influential than ever in the financial sector, and there is still no personal liability to those in the financial industry who corrupt the system.  So we see socialism in the restriction of business activity and the grasping for power in the growth of the government.

Tags: ,
Posted in elections, government powers | No Comments »