Thread: Public Enemies #1, #2, #3 and so on

The mainstream media no longer shocks me.

Where is the mainstream media's coverage of the shocking "memo" issued by nine state attorneys general detailing 21 specific violations of law by the Obama administration?

After reading Phyllis Schlafly’s great piece on Hussein the law-breaker (cynics would say Hussein the criminal), I tried to find out if any of the crimes Schlafly listed rose to the level of an impeachable offense. I settled on this in Article II of the Constitution:

Section I

8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Section 4

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

I’m not certain if Hussein can be impeached solely on a charge of violating his oath of office. Still, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors are inseparable from the presidential oath of office. Committing any crime listed in Section 4 is an automatic violation of the presidential oath. If you read Schlafly’s article you will see that Hussein repeatedly violates the Constitution.

At the very least Hussein’s infractions are misdemeanors although average Americans like me would call them high crimes. I’d go so far as to say Hussein’s picture should be hanging in every Post Office alongside Eric Holder, Lisa P. Jackson, his cabinet, his czars, and top congressional Democrats. They all had a hand in his crimes.

Realistically, nobody is going to be impeached. You’d have more success impeaching the Pope for stuttering while saying mass.

I concluded that impeachment always comes down to Congress and the High Court ignoring the oath of office and Section 4. After all, how can they charge one of their own with a crime without also charging him with a violation of his oath. The same is true the other way around. There is no violation of an oath when there is no crime. That’s what you call a Catch 22 both ways from Sunday.

I’ll be the first to admit that my fixation on the presidential oath is rather silly since the rest of the Constitution means nothing to our resident constitutional scholar. Frankly, the country would be better off if Hussein knew less about the Constitution and more about defending it.

Finally, I was overjoyed to see Ms. Schlafly close with this:

Note: I congratulate WND, which is celebrating its 15th anniversary this week. We can always count on WND to give us news that others fail to cover.

Liberals love attacking sources. WND is their favorite these days. It used to be Newsmax on previous boards.

Anyway, these two links are worth reading if you want to get a handle on why Libs hate WND:

White House locks out WND at U.N. event
25-year veteran journalist says only Obama administration this closed

http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/lockout-u..._orig=politics

And this:

Happy 15th birthday to WND!
'What a long strange trip it's been,' says founder

http://www.wnd.com/2012/04/happy-15th-birthday-to-wnd/

Here are the details of Hussein’s criminal activities, or should I call it a criminal enterprise?:

Obama Is a Big-Time Law Violator
By Phyllis Schlafly
May 1, 2012

Where is the mainstream media's coverage of the shocking "memo" issued by nine state attorneys general detailing 21 specific violations of law by the Obama administration?

That's too many violations to list in this column, but here are some of the more outrageous examples of what the attorneys general call "violations of law" by "an increasingly overreaching federal government."

One consistent aspect of these actions is that the Obama administration is aggressively using administrative agencies to enforce policy objectives that are outside the law and would not be approved by Congress. Not even by Harry Reid's democratic Senate.

In Florida, the Environmental Protection Agency imposed its own unscientific "numeric nutrient" criteria, which would cost billions of dollars for compliance and the loss of thousands of jobs. A federal court found that EPA had violated the law because its rules were not based on sound science and because the EPA failed to prove that its rules would prevent harm to the environment.

In South Carolina, the National Labor Relations Board tried to tell Boeing, a private company, where it could or could not locate a new manufacturing plant and also threatened to sue the state for guaranteeing a secret ballot in union elections. The NLRB backed down after a high-profile battle.

In Arizona, the Obama administration is trying to nullify a referendum passed by the voters requiring individuals registering to vote to show a driver's license or another government-issued document as evidence they are citizens. This case may be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Health and Human Services Agency mandated religious employers, including Catholic, Baptist and Jewish schools, churches and hospitals, to provide all their employees with medical devices prohibited by their religion. Since many are self-insurers, Obama's subsequent "accommodation" only reinforced this attack on religious liberty, so seven attorneys general have filed suit to cancel this anti-religious-liberty mandate.

Obama pressured Congress to pass the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), using procedural shenanigans, against the will of the majority of Americans. More than half the states are now challenging the law's constitutionality in the Supreme Court.

In Oklahoma, the EPA imposed its own federal plan, illegally usurping Oklahoma's authority in the Clean Air Act to determine the state's plan to deal with sources of emissions. The federal plan, which goes beyond the authority granted in the Clean Air Act, will result in a $2 billion cost to install technology and a permanent increase of 15-20 percent in electricity costs, and the Obama administration is fighting Oklahoma's appeal in court.

In Arizona, in violation of the 10th Amendment, Obama's Department of Justice is suing to prevent Arizona from using reasonable means to discourage the illegal entry of aliens across Arizona's border, because they are costing the state so much in medical care, education and crime. This case is now before the Supreme Court.

In Arizona, another violation is that Obama's Department of Justice has granted "reservation status" to a 54-acre plot in Glendale, where the Tohono O'odham Nation plans to build a casino. This means the Obama administration is forcing a family-oriented town, against its will, to become another Las Vegas.

Obama made four appointments to important federal positions (NLRB: three and CFPB: one), which he dishonestly called "recess appointments" in order to evade Senate confirmation hearings on left-wing nominees. Obama ignored the fact that the Senate was not in recess.

The "memo" released by the nine attorneys general confirms that the "administration repeatedly shows disdain for states, federal laws it finds inconvenient, the Constitution and the courts." A statement made by EPA Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz, which became public last week, vividly illustrates the contempt that Obama bureaucrats have for the law.

He described his "philosophy" of EPA enforcement: "kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean. They'd go into a little Turkish town somewhere, they'd find the first five guys they saw and they'd crucify them. Then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years."

That wasn't hyperbole. That exactly describes the Obama bureaucrats' attitude about enforcing their policy goals and dictatorial actions.

It is encouraging that we have patriotic state attorneys general in nine states who know the Constitution and are willing to litigate against unconstitutional administration actions. Cheers to the valiant nine attorneys generals: Tom Horne, Arizona; Pam Bondi, Florida; Sam Olens, Georgia; Bill Schuette, Michigan; Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma; Marty Jackley, South Dakota; Alan Wilson, South Carolina; Greg Abbott, Texas; and Ken Cuccinelli, Virginia. We hope more attorneys general will soon join this brave bunch.

Note: I congratulate WND, which is celebrating its 15th anniversary this week. We can always count on WND to give us news that others fail to cover.

http://townhall.com/columnists/phyll...e_law_violator

I still haven't read the part where he actually violated his oath or committed any crimes. Having something ruled unconstitutional is not committing a crime. Continuing to do the same action after that action has been ruled unconstitutional by a court would be, but I saw no examples of that.

Originally Posted by Junkieturtle

I still haven't read the part where he actually violated his oath or committed any crimes. Having something ruled unconstitutional is not committing a crime. Continuing to do the same action after that action has been ruled unconstitutional by a court would be, but I saw no examples of that.

To Junkieturtle: If you read the OP again you’ll see this:

After reading Phyllis Schlafly’s great piece on Hussein the law-breaker (cynics would say Hussein the criminal), I tried to find out if any of the crimes Schlafly listed rose to the level of an impeachable offense.

I tied the oath of office to Article II: Section 4 as an inquiry not as a statement of fact. Call it opinion if you prefer, but remember this is a message board where opinions, interpretations, predictions, and speculation based on known facts reign supreme.

As to Hussein’s crimes, I based my comments on this fact:

. . . shocking "memo" issued by nine state attorneys general detailing 21 specific violations of law by the Obama administration?

Schlafly went on to list a few of the crimes you obviously missed:

I still haven't read the part where he actually violated his oath or committed any crimes.

"Violations of the law" =/= "crimes".

Even if the Obama administration really did what 21 (Republican) state attorneys general accuse him of, and even if they really were "violations of law", they're not crimes.

And Flanders posts another bogus thread.

Quote the OP

Liberals love attacking sources. WND is their favorite these days. It used to be Newsmax on previous boards.

Things are looking up for WND:

U.N. recognizes WND as 'bona fide media'
Official accreditation comes days after publicity giant refused to mention news site
Published: 12 hours ago

Just a day after it was reported that publicity giant PRWeb refuses even to mention WND, because it’s considered an “unreliable” news source, WND has been officially accredited by the United Nations for all its departments and affiliates worldwide.

Confirmation has been delivered to the independent news site that the U.N. media accreditation department officially has approved WND’s letter and accompanying application.

It was another step in the growth of WND, founded in 1997 by CEO Joseph Farah and his wife, Elizabeth, who is a marketing executive for the site. WND now includes worldwide, national and local daily news as well as one of the best lineups of commentary writers in the world and a book-publishing arm.

Ironically, it was only days earlier when PRWeb, described by some as the “biggest press release factory in the world,” refused to distribute a press release because it cited WND reports.

The press release promoted a plan by leaders of the Beat Obama Committee, or BOPAC.

BOPAC reported that while PRWeb appears indiscriminately to distribute press releases from businesses, politicians, bloggers and activists, it drew the line at sending out a paid report that cited information from WND, which management considered not “credible” and a “biased source of news.”

After days of delay and negotiations with PRWeb management, BOPAC reworked its press release, citing other news agencies – and that did the trick.

The delay in getting its press release out through PRWeb is nothing new, says Robert Mallory of BOPAC. He believes it’s because of bias within the company favoring Barack Obama.

“BOPAC has been trying to issue press releases in a timely fashion, but our releases continue to be held up and delayed based on ideologically biased treatment from PRWeb’s editorial staff,” he said. “There appears to be a double standard in PRWeb’s treatment of conservative anti-Obama groups versus pro-Obama support and fundraising groups.”

But push came to shove when BOPAC submitted a press release promoting a fax campaign directed toward Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett, who was calling on the state of Hawaii to validate Obama’s birth certificate. The release cited WND reporting.

In a conference call with the editorial staff of PRWeb, BOPAC was told it could not cite WND and get its press releases disseminated.

“What’s absurd about this policy is that press releases are, by their very nature, one-sided, biased reports that are based mainly on the claims of those preparing them,” said Joseph Farah, editor, chief executive officer and founder of WND. “It’s astonishing to me that the ‘editorial staff’ is worrying about anything other than spelling errors and typos but is rather making determinations about which news agencies are credible and which are not.”

PRWeb is owned by a publicly held company called Vocus, which doesn’t even include any editorial managers among its top executives.

“The question I have is who might Vocus or PRWeb have within its team with the journalistic credentials to make such a call,” wondered Farah. “I have more than 30 years of experience running major-market daily newspapers, doing investigative reporting, hosting a nationally syndicated talk-radio program, consulting with NBC and other major media outlets, teaching journalism at a major university. The WND editorial staff has hundreds of years of combined experiences like mine. Is there even one person at Vocus or PRWeb who has those kinds of credentials?”

PRWeb did not respond to WND requests for comment.

But the incident was not the first time WND has been maligned. Just weeks ago, the office of U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice at the United Nations rejected a request from a longtime U.N. reporter, writing for WND, to attend a routine event.

WND has fought many previous battles over media access barred by government gatekeepers. One of the biggest was a decade ago, in February 2002, when WND was denied accreditation to the Senate Press Gallery for routine access to cover the Capitol. But 10 days after WND threatened to sue every member of the Senate Press Gallery’s Standing Committee of Correspondents, who decide who is a “legitimate” news organization and who is not, WND was granted accreditation in September 2002. Subsequently, WND’s case against the Senate Press Gallery would be considered a groundbreaking legal precedent, paving the way for other online news groups to enter sacred ground previously reserved only for traditional Beltway news organizations.

More recently, WND was denied access by the Department of Transportation to a routine news conference in which then-Secretary Mary Peters defended the controversial Bush administration program allowing Mexican trucks to travel freely on U.S. roads.

Agency spokesman Duane DeBruyne, who was screening reporters at the security entrance of the federal building at the Navy Yard in Washington, D.C., said he did not have the authority to allow entry to WND senior staff writer Jerome Corsi, who has reported extensively on the program and attended other news conferences on the subject.

DeBruyne telephoned his supervisor, DOT spokeswoman Melissa DeLaney, who declined permission without explanation, demanding that WND leave the premises.

In a phone call to the DOT public affairs office, the agency explained it was requiring “press credentials” for admittance, and no one without them was allowed to participate.

The news conference was only for “credentialed members of the media,” spokesman Bill Moseley told WND. “There’s a specific credential. He did not have a media credential.”

And how can a reporter obtain such a credential resulting in permission to attend?

Responded Moseley, “I don’t know.”

Corsi, however, maintained he never was asked to produce media credentials of any kind, noting he had his usual press ID card issued by WND. Rather, said Corsi, DeBruyne immediately recognized him and apologetically explained that the department would “not accept your press credentials.”

http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/wnd-accre...nited-nations/