TIM WILDMON: Obama becomes a lame duck a year early

TIM WILDMON

TIM WILDMON

With three years left in his presidency, Barack Obama is already, in many ways, a “lame-duck.” This is a year earlier than most presidents who serve two terms.

Obama was able to convince a majority of Americans he was better than Mitt Romney, but now, because of a series of damaging self-inflicted events and, quite frankly, lies such as “if you like your insurance and doctor you can keep your insurance and doctor,” the likelihood of his being able to get legislation through Congress is slim. That’s the good news.

However, Obama has a “king complex,” thus, he has vowed to use “a pen and a phone” to advance his agenda meaning more executive orders in order to bypass Congress. He’s not big on the constitutionally prescribed separation of powers. No president in recent history has done more to expand the power of the executive branch of the federal government than has Obama. Whatever your political persuasion, this is not good for our constitutional republic.

It’s interesting that this unconstitutional power-grab by the president is being pointed out by people, to their credit, who are identified with the political left. In early December, noted law professor Jonathan Turley, who teaches at Georgetown University, appeared before congress and was questioned about Obama changing laws without going through Congress. Here was an exchange between Turley and Congressman Bob Goodlatte:

REP. BOB GOODLATTE (R-VA): Professor Turley, the constitution, the system of separated powers is not simply about stopping one branch of government from usurping another. It’s about protecting the liberty of Americans from the dangers of concentrated government power. How does the president’s unilateral modification of act of Congress affect both the balance of power between the political branches and the liberty interests of the American people?

JONATHAN TURLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The danger is quite severe. The problem with what the president is doing is that he’s not simply posing a danger to the constitutional system. He’s becoming the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid. That is the concentration of power in every single branch.

Turley, a liberal, noted that he voted for President Obama.

What Obama has been doing with Obamacare is taking White House white ink and changing dates of implementation because he feels like it. The problem is he does not have the authority to do that. The dates are part of the Affordable Health Care Act more commonly known as Obamacare. If he wants the dates changed he is supposed to go to Congress and appeal to them to change the law which he can then sign.

In addition to Turley’s warnings that Obama is acting lawlessly, we have this from editorial editor of the New York Times no-less, Jill Abramson: “I would say it is the most secretive White House that I have ever been involved in covering, and that includes – I spent 22 years of my career in Washington and covered presidents from President Reagan on up through now, and I was Washington bureau chief of the Times during George W. Bush’s first term.

“I dealt directly with the Bush White House when they had concerns that stories we were about to run put the national security under threat. But, you know, they were not pursuing criminal leak investigations. The Obama administration has had seven criminal leak investigations. That is more than twice the number of any previous administration in our history. It’s on a scale never seen before. This is the most secretive White House that, at least as a journalist, I have ever dealt with.”

We will now see if anyone can stop Obama from expanding his kingdom with his pen and his phone.

Community columnist Tim Wildmon is a Lee County resident. He is president of the American Family Association, but the column represents his personal opinion unless otherwise noted. Contact him at twildmon@afa.net.

  • TWBDB

    Still wasting good editorial space I see. Obama officially entered lame duck land the moment the Tea Party took control of the House of Representatives. That was what – almost four years ago. And nothing, let’s repeat, nothing has been done in Congress since.

  • TWBDB

    Let’s not trip over the facts: At this point in his Presidency, Obama has issued 168 Executive Orders. At the same time in his Presidency, Bush had 291 and Reagan came in with 381.

  • 1941641

    If you could buy the Fundie braggart Wildmon for what he’s worth and sell him for what he thinks he’s worth you would be the richest man in Mississippi! And, no doubt, the most appreciated.

    Latest Mississippi news: Starkville is now Mississippi’s “All American City” the city beat Tupelo out for the title by passing pro-gay standard.

  • tom Neiman

    TWBDB, instead of quoting the number of executive orders given by Bush and Reagan, give me specifically those executive orders issued that were in flagrant violation of the constitution. Don’t just say these were in flagrant violation of the constitution but show specifically from the constitution where the orders were in flagrant violation.

    • FrereJocques

      George W. Shrub issued enough Executive Orders after 9-11 that violated the civil rights of ALL Americans to last me a lifetime, and makes me want to puke every time I think about them. We’re STILL stuck with the Patriot Act (a misnomer if there ever was one) which treats all Americans as if they are terrorists. Shrub should have been prosecuted and sent to Guantanamo for what he did to our civil rights and liberties.

      • tom Neiman

        First of all, how many executive orders did George W. Bush issued that violated the civil rights of all Americans. Be specific, don’t just say “alot, several, or a bunch.” Secondly, specifically, how did each of these executive orders violate the civil rights of all Americans. Thirdly, give specific reasons why George W. Bush should have been prosecuted.
        Remember, be specific, not spurious or specious!

        • FrereJocques

          All right, here’s three:

          1. Bush signed an EO (Executive Order) that allows a person to be charged as an “Enemy Combatant”. THIS APPLIES TO AMERICAN CITIZENS AS WELL AS FOREIGNERS. A person so designated automatically loses ALL CIVIL RIGHTS guaranteed under our Constitution, and can be arrested, imprisoned, tortured, and with no rights to challenge or appeal said designation.

          2. In another EO, he authorized the CIA to kill designated so-called “Enemy Combatants” EVEN IF THEY ARE AMERICAN CITIZENS.

          2. Bush signed an EO giving the NSA the right to eavesdrop on ALL phone calls WITHOUT A WARRANT, even those of American citizens.

          Now it’s YOUR turn, Mr. Nieman. Please list some EO’s that President Obama has issued that violates our Constitution.

          • barney fife

            Aww, you scared him off with specifics.

          • dontbelieveeverythingyouhear

            LOL! Tom has been furiously researching for 3 days…but still can’t come up with anything. That’s funny! Classic ignorance from the right.

    • TWBDB

      Tom, I never claimed any EO was in violation of the Constitution. Many have been issued: quite a number simply expired or became obsolete: others were overturned by subsequent Presidential EO: Obama actually reinstated some of Reagan’s EOs. I’m certain the GOP / Tea Party will drag Obama’s EOs they don’t like through the judicial system during the election year to drum up business: it’s just politics

  • barney fife

    Quality versus quantity?