From his first presidential campaign to the present, the president, his party and his administration have openly flouted existing laws, and it doesn't seem there is any legal means of stopping him short of impeachment.
As you may recall, the Democrats refused to fill vacant spots on the Federal Election Commission so that when the Obama campaign disabled the system to track contributions there was no way in 2008 to challenge and stop the practice and countless suspicious contributions, including many from overseas, found their way into his coffers. This, after he reneged on his promise to use federal funds, a promise John McCain stupidly adhered to his disadvantage. Obama went back on his word and jimmied the system so his lawless behavior would succeed. Yes, years later, after he was elected, the FEC imposed a huge fine for this law breaking, but it really was too late to matter much.
This was prelude to years of simply flouting federal laws at will and demonstrating repeatedly his inability to handle the job.
His agenda is on the shoals:
"The left's agenda is in tatters. Obamacare has crashed on takeoff, after five years of Democratic policies the economy is in the doldrums and we are nearly $17 trillion in debt, and the Obama administration's foreign policy is in disarray. The Democratic Party, as represented by the press, desperately needs sideshows to 1) rally the party's faithful, and 2) distract the rest of us from the failures of the liberal agenda. Thus, I don't think it is a coincidence that liberals are doing their best to portray the summer of 2013 as more or less a replay of 1967. The silliness of the attempt is a measure of how out of ammo liberals are these days."
As the lawless scandals are exposed -- Benghazi, gunrunning in Mexico, misuse of the NSA, the IRS crippling the opposition in 2012 by illegal denials of tax exemptions -- the president and his allies have been fast and furious in ginning up his base by playing the race card so often it's worn to a mere stub.
[W]hile BO and MO try to relax here on the island they're keeping an eye on several controversies that continue to swirl around Washington. No, not the one about 400 shoulder mounted rockets that went missing following the Benghazi "incident," or Ricky Holder's gun running operation that lead to the death of agent Brian Terry; those are phony scandals. Nor are they watching the NSA phony scandal; as we've already put that phony scandal to rest on Jay Leno's show. And not the IRS political enemies list "scandal" either, that issue has already been resolved to Elijah Cumming's satisfaction.
The controversies commanding the vacationing Wons attention are a bit more germane. First, there's the racist allegations that Oprah is a lying prima donna who just made up the story of racism in a Switzerland shop in order to hype her new movie about racism in America. Who would do that? Lie about racism?
Also, attracting the eyes of the Prezzy: the raging controversy over rodeo clowns that has effectively deflected discussion away from all of the other clowns, mimes and garden statuary currently running Washington.
Still, to the outrage of many the media and his followers insist we must treat him as if he were a sacred cow.
Apparently they forgot the past presidents, most surely including President George Bush, were not treated like Gods:they were to the apparent amusement of the press, regularly mocked and vilified.
As both Ann Coulter and Roger L. Simon note, the race card playing is preposterous. In the first case, it induces blacks to vote for a party that doesn't represent their self interests. Looking at the liberal objection to stop and frisk and voter ID laws, she observes:
The New York Times hailed this remarkable achievement [ed: the drop in murders in NYC after stop and frisk policies were adopted] with an article headlined, "New York City Crime Falls but Just Why Is a Mystery."
It was mostly black lives that were saved by Giuliani's crime policies. By the end of his administration, the Rev. Calvin Butts, liberal pastor of Harlem's Abyssinian Baptist Church, was comparing Giuliani to King Josiah of the Bible, who "brought order, peace, the law back to the land." The black minister told The New York Times, "I really think that without Giuliani, we would have been overrun."
Voter ID laws don't actually save black lives the way stop-and-frisk policies do, but it's not clear how such laws hurt them. I suppose the argument is that by allowing Democrats to steal elections, they can pass all those laws that improve black lives immeasurably, like promoting trial lawyers, gay marriage, abortion and amnesty for illegals. You know, the Democratic policies that really enhance black lives.
The claim that modern voter ID laws are a racist Republican plot to prevent minorities from voting is complicated by the fact that, in 2011, such a law was enacted by the overwhelmingly Democratic Rhode Island legislature and, in fact, was pushed through by black Democrats.
Despite the pleas of national Democrats who realized their cover was being blown, the state senate's only black member, Democrat Harold Metts, sponsored a voter ID bill. He said he'd heard complaints about voter fraud for years, telling the story of one poll worker who encountered a voter who couldn't spell his own last name.
A black legislator in the House, Anastasia Williams, complained that when she showed up to vote in 2006, she was told she had already voted. Another time, she saw a Hispanic man vote, go to the parking lot and change his clothes, then go back in and vote again.
If white liberals are so concerned about black votes counting, why don't they ever vote for black representatives in their own congressional districts? Black Republicans are always elected from majority white districts: Gary Franks, J.C. Watts, Tim Scott and Allen West.
But black Democrats apparently can get elected to Congress only from specially designated minority districts. How come white liberals won't vote for a black representative? Can't a black person represent Nita Lowey's district?
Democrats do nothing for black Americans except mine them for votes, which they do by telling tall tales about racist Republicans.
Roger L. Simon says the civil rights movement should just be "extinguished".
The race card is a perfect example of this division and why this movement should be extinguished. Anybody who plays the race card in our country today is less than pond scum. It has become the 21st century equivalent of accusing someone of witchcraft in eighteenth century Salem.
Anyone who uses the race card should be considered a pariah automatically. It's almost always projection. Black and brown people above all would profit from the end of the civil rights movement. We already have strong civil rights legislation. If anyone breaks the law, prosecute them. Meanwhile, move on. Stop dwelling on discrimination. Stop scratching the scab and let it heal.
It would be wonderful if some political figure other than Allen West started responding to this nonsense with honest refutations of this corrupt manipulation. Instead they cave to dishonest mobs by doing things like allowing murals in the Florida State Capitol that juxtapose Trayvon Martin's death with that of Martin Luther King, Jr's, keeping alive the lie that his death was inspired by racism instead of self-defense. (It would also be just -- given Oprah's penchant for making up discrimination stories relating to disappointment while shopping in very expensive stores in Europe to pretend racism is alive in the U.S. -- if the EU just denied her permission to enter the EU whenever she has a new film about to open.)
There was one bright spot this week when the U.S. Court of Appeals, in a case involving the disposal of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain ruled that it was illegal for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to disregard congressional mandates simply because the executive branch disagrees with what Congress has enacted.
President Obama asserted the unilateral power to "tweak" inconvenient laws in last Friday's news conference, underscoring his Administration's increasingly cavalier notions about law enforcement. So it's good that the judiciary -- a coequal branch of government, in case the Administration forgot -- is starting to check the White House.
In a major rebuke on Tuesday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an unusual writ of mandamus, which is a direct judicial order compelling the government to fulfill a legal obligation. This "extraordinary remedy" is nominally about nuclear waste, writes Judge Brett Kavanaugh for the 2-1 majority, yet the case "raises significant questions about the scope of the Executive's authority to disregard federal statutes."
Mr. Obama promised to kill Yucca as a candidate and the Energy Department tried to yank the license application after his election. But an NRC safety board made up of administrative judges ruled unanimously that this was illegal unless Congress passed a law authorizing it. Mr. Obama then teamed up with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada to stack the NRC with anti-Yucca appointees.
"As things stand, therefore, the Commission is simply flouting the law," Judge Kavanaugh continues. "In light of the constitutional respect owed to Congress, and having fully exhausted the alternatives available to us," the court had no option other than the mandamus writ.
So ponder that one: A federal court is stating, overtly, that federal regulators are behaving as if they are a law unto themselves.
That is especially notable given that ObamaCare's employer-insurance requirement and other provisions are precisely such unambiguous statutory mandates, with hard start dates. The executive has broad enforcement and interpretative discretion but not the wholesale authority to suspend core parts of laws, even ones he co-wrote.
All of this highlights that Mr. Obama is not merely redefining this or that statute as he goes but also the architecture of the U.S. political system. As with the judicial slapdowns on his non-recess recess appointments that the Supreme Court will hear next term, Judge Kavanaugh warns that endorsing the NRC's legal position "would gravely upset the balance of powers between the Branches and represent a major and unwarranted expansion of the Executive's power."
The professors and pundits who fret about the Imperial Presidency go into hibernation when the president is a Democrat, so it is crucial that the courts reject Mr. Obama's increasing contempt for constitutional limits.
While this strong rebuke is a promising development, a look at Obama's remedies going forward demonstrates how weak is the judicial tool to reign in executive lawlessness. For example, the government can seek a rehearing, a rehearing en banc (the entire court) or both, which would hold up compliance for several months. Then if the rehearing is denied or the court again rules against it, the government can go to the Supreme Court and seek a writ of certiorari. It's not likely the court would grant the writ and hear the case, but that action if accompanied by a petition for a stay-- would allow the administration to further delay implementing the duly passed legislation.
There is no quick way through the courts, I'm afraid, to stem the Administration's repeated, open flouting of the law. Is anyone on Capitol Hill paying attention?