Will Obama Become a Lame Duck?

George Washington, on April 30, 1789, in New York City, took his oath of office as the first president of the United States.  He was president until power was passed to John Adams, the second U.S. president.  The U.S. has seen an orderly, peaceful transfer of power ever since.  But will that be the case when it comes time for President Barack Hussein "kill list" Obama to leave office?  Or will executive orders he has signed prevent peaceful, orderly passage of power?  Or even inure him from having to leave office?

Paul Begala, a Bill Clinton adviser, is reported to have said in July 1998, about Clinton's use of executive orders, "Stroke of the pen, law of the land, kinda cool."  That pretty well characterizes Obama's attitude toward executive orders. 

Joseph Farah of World Net Daily said, "The greatest fear of the Founding Fathers was the establishment of a strong central government and an ambitious, power-hungry political leader at the center of that government."  He continued, "They believed the best assurance against centralized authority was a loose association of sovereign states, which maintained most governmental power at the local level."

Here is the concept expressed in Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution: "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."  The Supreme Court tried to establish some limitations on executive orders, saying that they must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself, and that an executive order must not be "incompatible" with the express or implied will of Congress.

So, with that background, let's see what Obama has been up to.

Obama signed Executive Order 13618 ("Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions") on July 6, 2012, giving him control, through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), over private communications in the event of a "national emergency."  The problem is that nowhere in Executive Order 13618 is the term "national emergency" ever defined, either succinctly or abstractly.  The closest thing to a definition can be found in Section 2.2 (b): "... advise the President on the prioritization of radio spectrum and wired communications that support NS/EP [National Security and Emergency Preparedness] functions."

By Executive Order 13618, DHS has the power to "prioritize" (whatever that means -- not defined either) "government communications over privately owned telephone and Internet systems in emergencies."  The "Electronic Privacy Information Center [EPIC] warn[s] that it ['prioritize'] really means 'seize'."  EPIC lawyer Amie Stephanovich said:

The previous orders did not give DHS those authorities over private and commercial networks. ... That's a new authority. This should have been done by Congress, so there could have been proper debate about it.  This is not authority that should be granted by executive order.

Under Executive Order 13618, Obama can say that any news not favorable to him is subversive, that it provokes the peace achieved by his declaration of a national emergency, and have it removed.  So much for the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  But that's what the U.S. Constitution says, not what Executive Order 13618 says.  Where is the Supreme Court when we need it?

Obama has extended the "national emergency" declaration annually, most recently on July 24, 2011, through Executive Order 13581. Obama said (emphasis added):

On July 24, 2011, by Executive Order 13581, I declared a national emergency pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy and economy of the United States constituted by the activities of significant transnational criminal organizations.

Executive Order 13617 ("Blocking Property of the Government of the Russian Federation Relating to the Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium Extracted From Nuclear Weapons"), signed June 27, 2012, says, "... the Russian Federation continues to constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat."

Obama signed, on March 22, 2012, Executive Order 13603 ("National Defense Resources Preparedness").  It claims powers in peacetime and in times of national emergency to take control of the U.S. economy for the "national defense," and to control the distribution of any material "in the civilian market."  The problem here is that arms are distributed in the civilian market.  Executive Order 13603 makes "it easier for law enforcement agencies ... to seize the lawful weapons of US citizens without arresting the weapon's owner or offering them any semblance of due process."  Has Obama ever heard of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, or that "the Supreme Court held that the president does not have authority to seize private property in the absence of either specifically enumerated authority under Article Two of the Constitution or statutory authority conferred on him by Congress"?  Does his signing of Executive Order 13603 have anything to do with the government's "accidental order" of millions of rounds of ammunition?

Here is a very interesting 11-page article about Executive Order 13603 by Jim Powell entitled "Obama's Plan To Seize Control Of Our Economy And Our Lives."  Powell says, "He [Obama] aims to have his way by issuing more and more executive orders."  Powell also states that "[e]xecutive orders arise from 'implied constitutional and statutory authority'."  He continues, "There isn't anything in the Constitution that authorizes an executive order[.]"

Now we discover that there is a proposed executive order to "work with the National Institute of Standards and Technology to establish the cybersecurity standards" to supposedly protect the "U.S. power grid from electronic attacks."  The problem is that the power grid is not under attack.  Is this yet another attempt by Obama to control every aspect of our lives?

Look for a "national emergency" to occur on November 7, 2012, because Obama was not re-elected on November 6.  Alternatively, by signing Executive Order 13603, Obama has given himself martial law powers and can cancel the election.  So if polls are not going his way (despite desperate MSM efforts), he may just declare a national emergency before November 6 and dispense with the election altogether.

What's worse is that Obama himself is not the author of these executive orders. 

Am I paranoid?

Dr. Beatty earned a Ph.D. in quantitative management and statistics from Florida State University.  He was a (very conservative) professor of quantitative management specializing in using statistics to assist/support decision-making. He has been a consultant to many small businesses and is now retired.  Dr. Beatty is a veteran who served in the U.S. Army for 22 years.  He blogs at rwno.limewebs.com.

George Washington, on April 30, 1789, in New York City, took his oath of office as the first president of the United States.  He was president until power was passed to John Adams, the second U.S. president.  The U.S. has seen an orderly, peaceful transfer of power ever since.  But will that be the case when it comes time for President Barack Hussein "kill list" Obama to leave office?  Or will executive orders he has signed prevent peaceful, orderly passage of power?  Or even inure him from having to leave office?

Paul Begala, a Bill Clinton adviser, is reported to have said in July 1998, about Clinton's use of executive orders, "Stroke of the pen, law of the land, kinda cool."  That pretty well characterizes Obama's attitude toward executive orders. 

Joseph Farah of World Net Daily said, "The greatest fear of the Founding Fathers was the establishment of a strong central government and an ambitious, power-hungry political leader at the center of that government."  He continued, "They believed the best assurance against centralized authority was a loose association of sovereign states, which maintained most governmental power at the local level."

Here is the concept expressed in Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution: "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."  The Supreme Court tried to establish some limitations on executive orders, saying that they must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself, and that an executive order must not be "incompatible" with the express or implied will of Congress.

So, with that background, let's see what Obama has been up to.

Obama signed Executive Order 13618 ("Assignment of National Security and Emergency Preparedness Communications Functions") on July 6, 2012, giving him control, through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), over private communications in the event of a "national emergency."  The problem is that nowhere in Executive Order 13618 is the term "national emergency" ever defined, either succinctly or abstractly.  The closest thing to a definition can be found in Section 2.2 (b): "... advise the President on the prioritization of radio spectrum and wired communications that support NS/EP [National Security and Emergency Preparedness] functions."

By Executive Order 13618, DHS has the power to "prioritize" (whatever that means -- not defined either) "government communications over privately owned telephone and Internet systems in emergencies."  The "Electronic Privacy Information Center [EPIC] warn[s] that it ['prioritize'] really means 'seize'."  EPIC lawyer Amie Stephanovich said:

The previous orders did not give DHS those authorities over private and commercial networks. ... That's a new authority. This should have been done by Congress, so there could have been proper debate about it.  This is not authority that should be granted by executive order.

Under Executive Order 13618, Obama can say that any news not favorable to him is subversive, that it provokes the peace achieved by his declaration of a national emergency, and have it removed.  So much for the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  But that's what the U.S. Constitution says, not what Executive Order 13618 says.  Where is the Supreme Court when we need it?

Obama has extended the "national emergency" declaration annually, most recently on July 24, 2011, through Executive Order 13581. Obama said (emphasis added):

On July 24, 2011, by Executive Order 13581, I declared a national emergency pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy and economy of the United States constituted by the activities of significant transnational criminal organizations.

Executive Order 13617 ("Blocking Property of the Government of the Russian Federation Relating to the Disposition of Highly Enriched Uranium Extracted From Nuclear Weapons"), signed June 27, 2012, says, "... the Russian Federation continues to constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat."

Obama signed, on March 22, 2012, Executive Order 13603 ("National Defense Resources Preparedness").  It claims powers in peacetime and in times of national emergency to take control of the U.S. economy for the "national defense," and to control the distribution of any material "in the civilian market."  The problem here is that arms are distributed in the civilian market.  Executive Order 13603 makes "it easier for law enforcement agencies ... to seize the lawful weapons of US citizens without arresting the weapon's owner or offering them any semblance of due process."  Has Obama ever heard of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, or that "the Supreme Court held that the president does not have authority to seize private property in the absence of either specifically enumerated authority under Article Two of the Constitution or statutory authority conferred on him by Congress"?  Does his signing of Executive Order 13603 have anything to do with the government's "accidental order" of millions of rounds of ammunition?

Here is a very interesting 11-page article about Executive Order 13603 by Jim Powell entitled "Obama's Plan To Seize Control Of Our Economy And Our Lives."  Powell says, "He [Obama] aims to have his way by issuing more and more executive orders."  Powell also states that "[e]xecutive orders arise from 'implied constitutional and statutory authority'."  He continues, "There isn't anything in the Constitution that authorizes an executive order[.]"

Now we discover that there is a proposed executive order to "work with the National Institute of Standards and Technology to establish the cybersecurity standards" to supposedly protect the "U.S. power grid from electronic attacks."  The problem is that the power grid is not under attack.  Is this yet another attempt by Obama to control every aspect of our lives?

Look for a "national emergency" to occur on November 7, 2012, because Obama was not re-elected on November 6.  Alternatively, by signing Executive Order 13603, Obama has given himself martial law powers and can cancel the election.  So if polls are not going his way (despite desperate MSM efforts), he may just declare a national emergency before November 6 and dispense with the election altogether.

What's worse is that Obama himself is not the author of these executive orders. 

Am I paranoid?

Dr. Beatty earned a Ph.D. in quantitative management and statistics from Florida State University.  He was a (very conservative) professor of quantitative management specializing in using statistics to assist/support decision-making. He has been a consultant to many small businesses and is now retired.  Dr. Beatty is a veteran who served in the U.S. Army for 22 years.  He blogs at rwno.limewebs.com.

RECENT VIDEOS