Has this president broken the law, lied under oath, or authorized war crimes?Yes, President Obama has broken the law on multiple occasions. Despite clearly stating, in a 2008 questionnaire, that the commander-in-chief is not lawfully empowered to ignore treaties duly ratified by the Senate, Obama has willfully failed to enforce the torture treaty, signed by Ronald Reagan and duly ratified by the Senate, that compels him to investigate and prosecute torture. As Sullivan put it earlier this year, “what Obama and Holder have done or rather not done is illegal.”Obama also violated the War Powers Resolution, a law he has specifically proclaimed to be Constitutionally valid, when committing U.S. troops to Libya without Congressional approval. Or as Sullivan put it in 2011, “Im with Conor. The war in Libya becomes illegal from now on. And the imperial presidency grows even more powerful.” On the subject of war crimes, Sullivan wrote that “Obama and attorney-general Eric Holder have decided to remain in breach of the Geneva Conventions and be complicit themselves in covering up the war crimes of their predecessors – which means, of course, that those of us who fought for Obamas election precisely because we wanted a return to the rule of law were conned.” In a separate entry, he went so far as to say that Obama is “a clear and knowing accessory to war crimes, and should at some point face prosecution as well, if the Geneva Conventions mean anything any more.” That seems rather farther than Noonan went in her column.Obama has not, as Sullivan points out, traded arms for hostages with Iran, or started a war with no planning for the inevitable occupation that would follow. But there are different questions that could be asked about Obama that would perhaps be more relevant to his behavior.Has he ordered the assassination of any American citizens in secret without due process? Did he kill any of their teenage kids without ever explaining how or why that happened? Has he refused to reveal even the legal reasoning he used to conclude his targeted killing program is lawful?Has he waged an unprecedented war on whistleblowers?Has he spied on millions of innocent Americans without a warrant or probable cause?Does he automatically count dead military-aged males killed by U.S. drones as “militants”?Did he “sign a bill that enshrines in law the previously merely alleged executive power of indefinite detention without trial of terror suspects”?There is more, as Sullivan knows, and it all amounts to a scandalous presidency, even if it happens that few Republicans care about the most scandalous behavior, and have instead spent almost a year now obsessing about Benghazi. The IRS scandal and Department of Justice leak-investigation excesses are worrisome, but the biggest scandals definitely go all the way to the top, and are still largely ignored even by commentators who have acknowledged that theyre happening. Sullivan has noted the stories as they broke, and seemed, for fleeting moments, to confront their gravity, noting the violation of very serious laws, and even once stating that Obama deserves to be prosecuted! Yet in response to Noonan, he writes, “So far as I can tell, this president has done nothing illegal, unethical or even wrong.” How inexplicably they forget.And Sullivan is hardly alone. At the New York Times, Mother Jones, The New Yorker, and beyond, exceptional journalists take great care to document alarming abuses against the rule of law, the separation of powers, transparency, and human rights perpetrated by the Obama Administration. On a given subject, the coverage leaves me awed and proud to be part of the same profession. But when it comes time for synthesis, bad heuristics take over. Confronted with the opportunism and absurdity of the GOP, Obamas sins are forgiven, as if he should be graded on a curve. His sins are forgotten, as if “this president has done nothing illegal, unethical or even wrong.”Yes. He. Has.
The argument is that amnesty should be granted to illegal aliens so that they will pay taxes. The fact is that they do file taxes with an ITIN, an individual taxpayer identification number. A 9-digit ITIN number issued by the IRS provides both resident and nonresident aliens with a unique identification number that allows them to file tax returns. Sounds good? Not really.
By claiming dependents, even ones outside the U.S., as well as EIC (Earned Income Credit) these illegal aliens are getting refunds of thousands and thousands of dollars without paying a single dime in tax revenue. They are not only willing to file their taxes, but look forward to huge refunds while Americans struggle to balance the budget ay home and in their local, state, and federal government. Claims by illegal aliens equalled $4.2 billion in tax year 2010.
Please take time to read this article. This information is vital in understanding the situation. I would love to hear your thoughts also. I have seen this going on for years, and it is proof positive that amnesty will not generate revenue but cost us billions and billions of dollars. Justice Scalia comparing illegal aliens to bank robbers wasn’t so out of line after all.
That’s one hell of a high tax for “cheap lettuce!” Add to this all of the other facts, and we are paying a huge crippling cost to appease and take care of people who don’t belong here. It is national insanity to avoid doing what is right for America. The federal government doesn’t even want states to verify citizenship to vote. Many areas have come up with idiotic laws to protect illegals while penalizing their own, such as Los Angeles‘ impound policy which will take the vehicles of citizens and not illegal aliens.
All Americans will benefit when and if the United States should finally resolve to deport and punish those who violate our laws, including those businesses that hire illegal aliens. Automatic citizenship for anyone who can come here and have a baby needs to stop. Eisenhower deported them, we can too.
A nation without borders is not a nation at all. To do otherwise is national suicide. We have always had controls in the past. To regulate who can come here and who can’t is well within the rights of any nation. There is nothing racist about it. The poem on the Statue of Liberty was not an eternal pact for open borders. It’s a poem, not a Constitutional Amendment!
This issue needs to be addressed. Both sides have ignored it far too long, and “We the People” are left holding the bill. A bill of $113 billion a year and growing. $1.6 billion a year in Los Angeles County alone, and yes, Los Angeles is broke!
One of the most fundamental roles of government is securing the national borders. Both Republicans and Democrats have failed miserably in this basic task. Any nation that does not have borders is not truly sovereign. Arizona has stepped into the void, standing on the front lines of this invasion and paying a heavy price for the federal governments unwillingness to enforce our laws. In this Arizona has come under much fire from various groups and the federal government itself.
They’re even having to face Mexican drug gangs armed by our Justice Department!
I still find the argument strange that the feds would say that this is our responsibility and not Arizona’s. Where the federal government has failed to fulfill its role, is it not imperative for the state to step in and protect their own people? I am sharing a petition in support of Arizona, and I ask all of you who do support Arizona and SB 1070 to take time to sign this petition and share it with others.
The independence of the states within the Union once served as a check on coercive social experimentation. One size does not fit all, nor should everything be dictated from Washington. If Massachusetts wishes to socialize the state, while Texas limits the role of government, so long as it is within the framework of Constitution, should that even matter? Let Massachusetts and Texas each pay for their own government, and show the views of their own people, different though they are.
Much of what the Federal government decides should be decided at the state level.
Laws that may seem perfectly right and reasonable to the people of California may not hold the same importance or logic to the people of North Dakota or Alaska. The one size fits all mentality of the Federal government, which tends to cater to the urban experiments at the cost of rural folk, does not work. It only serves to breed resentment and deny the people their rights within the framework of the Constitution.
For a society that claims multiculturalism is a good thing, why do we not allow for regional differences? Is difference of culture and view something that we will only allow to foreigners?
Being one people does not mean that we surrender our regional differences. Truly, there are things we should agree upon, as we are a nation based on an ideal and not a race, but is there not room within that ideal for individual rights and regional color? I believe there is, and to force a one size fits all approach is to force a great number of people to all conform to one mindset. It is a gross misrepresentation of the American ideal.
When Bush was President, some people talked about liberal States seceding from the Union. With Obama as President, some people talk about conservative States seceding from the Union. It seems to me that there is a simple solution whereby ALL can have the government they wish.
Imagine IF the Federal government was limited, like in say, the U.S. Constitution, and the conservatives could have conservative States and the liberals could have socialist States all within the Union, and we could see who has the better idea. Instead we have a HUGE Federal government that grows like a tumor, forcing centralized politics on the nation and destroying the Constitution while the States are left wondering if secession wasn’t such a bad idea after all.
Let the States have the power that is theirs in the Constitution. Let the States reflect the value and make up of their people. Let’s stop pretending that there is a one size solution for all the States and recognize that there are regional differences.
Maybe it is simple, but it is far more in line with the Constitution and it allows each State, each group, to define their place in the Republic as they see fit. It makes no sense for policies to be dictated to the States by people who don’t live there, who don’t understand the people and the State. It makes far more sense to allow Alaska to have laws that are right for Alaska, and New York laws that are right for New York. Whatever the people want the State to be, let it be, within the framework of the Constitution, and let the other States likewise be what they wish to be.
To continue as we are, looking to the Federal government to dictate policy to the States will only lead to increasing talk, and talk will eventually lead to action. Just ask John C Calhoun!