The Case for Impeaching Barack Obama
Part II – Domestic Crimes
The domestic crimes of Barack Obama detailed here, like the foreign offenses detailed in part one of this feature, are only the most egregious of illegalities committed by this administration. One could make a case for a larger list including things not detailed here. The instances of abuse of executive power and outright criminal behavior are simply too many to document with any brevity. This piece is part 2 of 2 articles. Part 1 can be read here.
Solyndra
By now most Americans have heard of the defunct green energy company Solyndra. Some are even aware that the Obama administration lost $527 million of taxpayer money on the company. Few are aware, however, that an illegal restructuring of Solyndra’s government loan allowed for tax payers to lose while Obama cronies were taken care of.
In September 2009 the Department of Energy issued Solyndra a loan as part of an effort to promote green energy development. Solyndra was tasked with developing solar panels. It will come to no surprise to free market proponents that a company which required a government loan of over a half a billion dollars was not economically viable. Private capital for the start-up was also provided by Argonaut Private Equity, which is owned by Obama donor George Kaiser.
Not only was Kaiser an Obama donor and a frequent visitor to the White House, he was a contributor to Michelle Obama’s Urban Health Initiative at the University of Chicago Medical Center in 2009. Connections with Obama help to explain why the administration committed an illegal restructuring of Solyndra’s loan, ensuring Kaiser’s investment return at the expense of US taxpayers.
In March of 2010, another Obama donor, Ronald Klain, sent an email to the White House warning against President Obama visiting Solyndra. “The company is burning through capital at a rate of $10.0 M per month,” Klain wrote. He warned that many did not believe the company would survive long, and understood that this would be negative press for the President.
Despite his warning, Obama did visit Solyndra on March 26th and touted the company as the new model for green energy. By December of that year Solyndra was already missing its loan payments.
Having made Solyndra Obama’s most public example of government subsidization and green energy development, the DOE failed to take the appropriate action and cancel Solyndra’s loan. Rather than cut taxpayer loses the DOE allowed Solyndra to remain open. Realizing the risk involve, at this point Argonaut demanded the DOE restructure the loan to ensure they were protected. Emails between the OMB and DOE show that administration officials knew they were possibly breaking the law by restructuring the loan so that private investors received returns before any taxpayer money was repaid. In addition to its return, Kaiser and company received nearly $1 billion in federal tax credits.
Solyndra wasn’t the only green energy company to receive taxpayer subsidies. A123, a green battery company which received a federal grant of $130 million, filed for bankruptcy in 2012. The Obama administrations reckless use of tax payer funds and their willingness to circumvent the law in order to take care of their cronies is both irresponsible and illegal. Knowing how bad it looked, the Obama administration tried to keep the Solyndra layoffs quiet until after the 2012 midterm elections.
Fast and Furious
In 2009 the ATF began facilitating the sale of fully automatic weapons to violent criminals thought to be linked to Mexican drug cartels. The idea was that authorities would track the weapons as part of an elaborate sting. [contextly_sidebar id=”905c099d6499dd8506a249f6a2b9dd02″]
In an example of typical government ineptitude, the ATF failed to track the weapons, two of which were discovered on the scene of a murdered US Border Agent. This event triggered an investigation from Congress and obstruction from Eric Holder’s Justice Department which ultimately led to Holder being held in contempt.
In honesty, there is no way to truly tell how much damage was done by this program. Over 2,000 guns were allowed to be circulated into criminal networks. We know the death of US Border Agent Brian Terry was one result of the botched operation. We also know the weapons have been tied to a massacre in Juarez, Mexico, where 16 people were slain—mostly teenagers.
In all, it is estimated that over 300 Mexicans have been wounded or killed with Fast and Furious weapons. Recently, the administration has faced questions regarding a similar operation which let grenades fall into the hands of violent cartels.
Whatever the supposed aim of these operations were, they were clearly ill thought and poorly executed ideas. The result has been bloody. And when Congress pushed for answers from the Justice Department, Attorney General Eric Holder refused to disclose pertinent documents. His obstruction earned him the honor of being the first Attorney General to ever be held in contempt of Congress.
The family of slain Border Agent Brian Terry has since filed suit against the federal government over his death. It is an attempt to receive some type of justice from a government which is responsible for their loved one’s death. For the 300 plus Mexican victims of the operation, no such option exists.
President Obama ultimately shares the brunt of the responsibility for Fast and Furious. His Justice Department conducted the operation and his administration has since not cooperated with Congressional attempts to learn more about it. It is clear that the weapons which were sold to violent criminals were weapons that were illegal for Americans to possess; making the scandal even more damaging coming from an administration that has championed tougher gun laws.
NSA Surveillance
The unexpected celebrity of the year may just NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. Snowden gave up a cushy job with the National Security Agency in Hawaii and went into exile after leaking sensitive details regarding that agency wide-scale warrantless surveillance of Americans. While some called him a traitor, many were appalled by the gross lack of oversight of a government surveillance program grown out of control. The scandal showed not only the Obama administration’s willingness to circumvent the law, but also a complete disregard for American civil liberties.
Prior to the Snowden leak, in August of 2012, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) had warned that he had discovered the US government spying on its citizens had reached unfathomable proportions. ‘Gazillions’ —the US Senator stated was the number of incidents where the US government had illegally surveilled Americans since September 11th, 2001. Many thought the Senator was exaggerating and the seriousness of his warning failed to raise the alarm and notice it should have. The following year Edward Snowden would leak information that would confirm Senator Paul’s warning.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is quite clear: a warrant supported by probable cause is required to search a person, their home, papers or effects. Communication between Americans not suspected of criminal activity is off-limits. There really is no arguing over this point. Despite the ways in which the FISA court, Supreme Court and Congress have all undermined this basic liberty, it is still the law of the land. The NSA scandal revealed a network of government surveillance and data mining that bullied private companies into cooperating in the violation of American’s guaranteed rights. The Obama Administration has not only justified this illegal activity, they have sought to apprehend and punish Snowden as a traitor under the Espionage Act.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” –Amendment IV, US Constitution.
The surveillance scandal has hurt America internationally, as well. It has been revealed that surveillance extended to foreign heads of state. The embarrassment and controversy these revelations have caused have weakened the US’s international position and compromised trust with allies such as Germany. The seriousness of this activity cannot be overstated. It is an affront to the entire notion of a free society. It has violated the Fourth Amendment rights of all Americans and caused harm to our reputation abroad. It is abhorrent and criminal behavior. But it should be expected from an administration that keeps enemy lists and uses the IRS to target those enemies.
Enemies List and IRS Scandal
In a move the Heritage Foundation called “Nixonian,” the Obama administration released a list of political enemies during the last presidential campaign. They were Americans who had donated money to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign. The move was a blatant attempt to stir up public scorn towards individuals who supported the president’s political opposition. It boils down to nothing more than intimidation. This move fits hand-in-glove with the administration’s later targeting of opponents using the IRS. What was sold to Americans as a limited scandal conducted by rogue employees at the IRS, now appears to be directly linked to the Obama White House.
The American Center for Law and Justice has filed its second amended complaint alleging unlawful targeting of nonprofit groups for political purposes. They represent 41 organizations which were singled out for extra scrutiny by IRS officials. Now, one IRS official, Lois Lerner, who previously pled the 5th, is negotiating for immunity, indicating her probable knowledge of a larger conspiracy.
The Obama administration has denied knowledge of and involvement in the political targeting of conservative and libertarian organizations. However, Obama’s rhetoric during that time period and the frequency of his meetings with IRS officials suggest otherwise. A look at speeches Obama gave during the summer and fall of 2010 show his clear concern with these politically involved nonprofit groups. The President spoke of “attack ads run by shadowy groups with harmless-sounding names,” and that groups “pos[ing] as non-for-profit social and welfare trade groups” were “a problem for democracy.” We now know this was the same time the IRS began targeting conservative and libertarian nonprofit groups. It is also known that IRS official Sarah Hall Ingram made 155 visits to the White House during the period which this targeting was being conducted.
A clear pattern of targeting enemies has emerged from the Obama White House. What is truly a threat to democracy is not conservative nonprofit groups but rather this kind of behavior coming from the highest office in the federal government. Intimidation and aggression have no place in the democratic process. Obama has stoked the polarizing flames of partisanship. Rather than governing for all Americans, he has sharply divided Americans and exacerbated ideological conflict.
Keeping a list of enemies which are Americans, solely based on the manner in which they exercise their First Amendment rights and what their political beliefs are is not fitting with the behavior of a government of free people. Using the mechanisms of the State to target those Americans is a step farther. It will be interesting to see what Lerner knows and if she will be granted immunity in exchange for that knowledge.
Executive Abuse of Power on Energy: Cap and Trade and Deep Water Drilling Moratoriums
A recurring theme throughout Obama’s tenure has been the regular, unconstitutional exercising of Executive power where the Executive has no legal authority. The Executive Branch is the most specifically and strictly defined role in the US Constitution. The president is given very strictly defined authority. This was purposely designed by the Founders to keep power in the hands of the people and prevent dictatorship. When Obama uses executive orders to circumvent the Congressional process he is evading the law.
One example of Obama’s executive overstepping concerns the Environmental Protection Agency and the unpopular calls for a Cap and Trade carbon emission regulation system. Disregarding a large campaign designed to promote the need for the regulation of carbon emissions, Congress has failed to pass any legislation of the kind. Despite the failure of Congress to authorize such regulations, the Obama administration has begun implementing those regulations through the EPA. These costly regulations are empowering an already out-of-control agency which had previously treated spilled milk as an oil spill–which is beside the point. The heart of the matter is that President Obama is enforcing regulations which Congress has declined. In doing so, he is driving up energy costs and hurting Americans who already feel the brunt of the current state of the economy.
Executive overreach is a familiar theme when it comes to energy policy and the Obama administration. Following the BP oil spill in 2010 the Obama administration issued a blanket moratorium on deep water oil drilling. The president of the United States has absolutely no authority to ban such activity of private entities. On June 22nd, 2010, a federal judge ruled that the action was unconstitutional and issued an injunction against the Obama administration.
Both instances represent an abuse of power and an overstepping of Constitutional authority by President Obama. In both instances unconstitutional regulation was imposed unnecessarily, causing energy costs to rise, and thus hurting the American people. In a time when Americans were already under great financial stress, the president took unauthorized steps to increase that stress, causing higher prices for gasoline and home heating commodities. The financial burden shouldered by energy companies and American households is inexcusable and demonstrates the president’s ideological motivations outweigh his concern for the American people.
Indefinite Detention of Americans
The Obama administration’s assertion that it may detain American citizens indefinitely without charge or trial may be the most disturbing offense detailed in either part of this piece. Even the notably liberal ACLU slammed Obama for the task, stating that “President Obama’s action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law.”
The notion that an American citizen can be held without charge or trial indefinitely is the antithesis to the notions of Rule of Law and government of the people, which this country is founded upon. It reads more like a law from Soviet Russia or Communist China than anything that would ever be possible the in US. Yet, the practice is now a part of US law.
Domestic Drone Use
The Obama administration has not only asserted the right to detain Americans indefinitely, it has actually assassinated American citizens without due process. These crimes were detailed in part one of this piece. However, what was not fully detailed was their desire to domestically deploy the type of drones used to assassinate four Americans overseas.
Like the NSA surveillance scandal, it was Senator Rand Paul who sounded the warning over domestic drone use. When he didn’t receive clarification from the administration he stage a 13 hour filibuster which garnered massive public support. The desire to deploy machines used in warfare in American skies for the use of policing the American public is more than unsettling.
Conclusion
The preceding has been an impersonal, fact based critique of the criminality of the current administration. It does not excuse any crimes of past administrations, rather it seeks to raise attention to the escalating abuse of authority coming from the oval office.
The Orwellian manner of an administration which has total surveillance of its citizens, publically ousts its political opposition as “enemies,” uses government bureaucracy to target its opposition, and asserts the right to detain or even kill Americans without charge or trial, is disturbing. The tendency of this administration to circumvent or outright ignore the Constitution warrants a response.
While impeachment is a messy, often partisan affair, there comes a time when it is necessary. Future presidents will act on the precedents set today. What we allow to remain unchallenged may become common practice. While Joe Biden may not be any better than President Obama on these matters, impeachment would send a stark message to all future presidents. Maybe if we impeached federal officials more often, we would have less instances of criminality and corruption. As for now, it is sadly becoming par for the course.
About the Author: Keith Farrell is a frequent contributor to The Libertarian Republic and founder and president of Spirits of ’76 nonprofit organization. He graduated with a BA from the University of Connecticut in American Studies and Urban & Community Studies. Follow him on Facebook.
