Obama the Lawless

By Eddie Howell

That time has arrived.

O.K., you can put me down as pretty much anti-government, that is, anti-Obama Administration. This administration's continuous power grabs and attacks on constitutional freedom must be stopped. The Administration's outrageous acts cannot be allowed to continue unabated. There are various steps that can be taken to keep them somewhat in check.

Apparently, congressional Democrats in both houses are not up to any kind of constitutional challenge to the dictatorial President Barack Obama. This is likely due to one or more of the following: Fear of jeopardizing their career, being OK with the status quo because they don't know and/or don't care about American freedom, the Constitution, or their constituents (other than as vote sources), or, like Obama himself, they just simply have a very strong Marxist/fascist mean streak. It's hard to believe nice people in high office would have such low regard for Americans' freedom. Many of these people apparently do have a low level of concern for these things, or else they're very afraid.

The Republican leadership has yet to show much of a desire to do anything about it, except for the occasional good-sounding statement. They are upset with their colleagues who are actually voicing concern, people like Senators Rand Paul (R-KY) and Ted Cruz (R-TX). The fact that John Boehner (R-OH) is still House Speaker is rather remarkable in view of the leadership's acceptance of being steamrolled on such issues as the debt ceiling. The GOP controls only one house of Congress, but their leaders behave as though they control nothing. Actually, they control quite a lot since they have the power of the purse. Yet they are so lacking in skill and/or desire to plan any kind of strategy to oppose Obama, that they look helpless.

At this point, the best strategy, to me, seems to be this: Wait until after the 2014 elections, and if the GOP ends up controlling both houses of Congress (and the congressional elections are, after all, theirs to lose), then impeach Obama and remove him from office. Of course this is likely only in some fantasy. But Obama's malfeasance in basically every area rises beyond the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors” because of his lawless behavior.

“When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law.” – Claude Frederic Bastiat

The Administration has plenty of willingness to go after people of opposing political views who might have disobeyed the law, for example Dinesh D'Souza, but care little for obeying laws that inconvenience themselves, such as Obamacare, which has been changed just about weekly, by executive action, without regard to Congress. The Administration has no concern about violating religious freedom, as illustrated by the Obamacare contraception mandates, or economic freedom, as evidenced by Obamacare itself. (Nor can the Supreme Court be relied upon to protect liberty, but that's another article).

“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” – Thomas Jefferson

The history of the Obama Administration is a continuing story of abuse of power, obsession with increasing executive power, stonewalling on scandals, lie upon lie, attempts to destroy their opponents or people who might get in their way and vicious attacks on personal liberty.

The latest attack on American freedom today comes from the Federal Communications Commission, which is going to carry out a “study” of local news broadcasters about whether the regime is pleased with their performance regarding “critical information needs” of various audiences. This is extremely disturbing since the “study” could, and likely will, later be used to exert pressure on any who are politically inconvenient, the FCC being the licensing agency for local broadcasters and having power to shut them down by executive action. It is very clearly an act of intimidation to small, basically defenseless local broadcasters, who may feel the need to please the government and not risk losing their broadcast licenses. One member of the FCC had an op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal warning of the dangers of the “study” (not to mention the million-dollar cost). Conservative House members plan to investigate and probably hold hearings.

As serious and potentially evil as this FCC action is, it is a relatively small thing in the agenda of the Obama Administration. They readily send government agencies (FCC, EPA, IRS, etc.) after people who are effective political opponents of theirs. It is clear that Obama's "pen and phone" Executive Branch is a special interest striving to promote itself and increase its power by whatever means it can get away with. It is foolish to suppose that we can rely on the federal bureaucracy to be concerned about citizens, especially those they don't like. The great irony is that We the People are paying for our own oppression.

I am confident that this state of affairs will not stand. I believe Americans are not so weak and docile as to continuously put up with abuse of their liberties and policies that undermine the economy, harm the United States in the world arena, and create ever-more citizen dependence upon government. To correct this, we should start by voting Democrats out of Congress, and replace a few Republicans as well.

*   *   *

Further reading: Jay Sekulow, "Is Obama trying to kill a free press?," Fox News, 02/20/2014.

Related articles

• Ted Cruz bashes the 'lawless implementation of Obamacare'
• An unconscionable silence

The FCC Wants More Control of Broadcast Media

Image via WikipediaMichael Copps’ speech (PDF here) was on December 2, 2010, but the issue remains open for discussion. Conservatives should target this for fierce debate.

FCC Commissioner Michael Copps says that American journalism is in bad way, and that it’s up to the federal government, specifically the Federal Communications Commission, to fix it. Of course, to the current powers that be in the Executive Branch and Democratic leaders in Congress, it’s the federal government’s duty to define and fix everything they imagine to be wrong, and to assign blame to conservatives.

Copps wants to spruce up traditional media by requiring a “public value test” for licensing, and reducing time between renewals from eight years to four years. How he longs for the days when the FCC could closely control or influence content, based on the fact that spectrum was scarce, and as a public resource, could be controlled to a great extent by government.



If that line of argument ever had merit, it has next to none now. There is no lack of “diversity” (which government claims to want but doesn’t want to allow), as there are innumerable sources of information available to anyone who has cable or satellite TV and the Internet. The only diversity the government wants is ethnic diversity and male-female diversity, and not diversity of ideas that may stray from the liberal-socialist-fascist mold.

Copps’ “enhanced disclosure,” especially in regard to political advertising, serves no real purpose except to place onerous restrictions and red tape on broadcasters.

As reported by CNS News.com, concerning Copps’ speech at Columbia:

Copps said the FCC and Congress in the future will need to examine the rules governing the structure of media ownership. And he advocated increasing support for public broadcasting, which he described as “the jewel of our media landscape.” [1]

Apparently, he’d like all broadcasting to be more like NPR and PBS. Ghastly thought!

The problem with all this is that it seriously would violate the First Amendment. But liberals are a lot less interested in the Constitution and Bill of Rights than they are in silencing their opposition. Where is it written that the federal government shall control public discourse? Not in the Constitution. It is a document which prescribes a government that is strong where it needs to be, but strictly limited in its powers.

As Michael Hurd points out in Capitalism Magazine.com,

Obama undoubtedly realizes that his greatest enemy is dissent. The apparatus is in place for impairing if not crushing dissent, and it’s known as the FCC. It's probably true that no prior President could have gotten away with it. This one might, not because he's widely respected or wildly popular (he's neither). But America, especially in the last few years, has been in a downward spiral of what psychology calls, “learned helplessness.” The more the government takes away our freedoms, the more helpless too many of us feel – leaving the government in a position to take away still more powers. It's a vicious cycle that ends with totalitarianism. [2]

According to Adweek.com,

In a Dec. 6 letter to Copps, [Rep. Joe] Barton [R-TX] asked Copps to explain in more detail what he meant by imposing a public-value test on broadcast news every four years as a contingency of license renewal.

“I hope...that you do not mean to suggest that it is the job of the federal government, through the FCC, to determine the content that is available for Americans to consume,” said Barton.

“Although your concern for providing American citizens information they need to ‘make intelligent decisions about the full direction of their country’ may stem from the very best of intentions, increasing the federal government’s role in the composition of the information Americans have at their disposal—in an information marketplace that is bigger and more easily accessible than ever before—is unwise policy and raises serious questions of constitutionality.” [3]

I would urge the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, as they prepare to defund Obamacare, to also defund NPR, PBS, and the FCC. And while they’re at it, the EPA and a several other government agencies.

When we have officials such as Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC) calling for restructuring the boundaries of free speech, and Michael Copps advocating such federal control of broadcasting, along with the FCC’s other initiatives to censor the internet, we are in danger of losing constitutional freedoms. It doesn’t have to happen. Conservatives in government now have enough power to stop it. I hope they have the courage to do so.


[1] Susan Jones, “FCC Commissioner Wants to Test the ‘Public Value’ of Every Broadcast Station,” 12/03/2010, CNS News.com.


[2] Michael Hurd, “FCC’s ‘Public Value Test’: An Essential Step to Dictatorship,” 12/10/2010, Capitalism Magazine.com.


[3] Katy Bachman, “GOPer Pounds Proposed ‘Public Value Test,’” 12/06/2010, Adweek.com.


Photo: Portrait of FCC Commissioner Michael Copps. Public Domain.

FCC Should Stay Away from Internet Regulation

Image via WikipediaOn December 21, 2010, the FCC issued regulations for “Network Neutrality” for the Internet. Despite FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s stated intention to regulate with a “light touch,” the regulations (found here) weigh in at 194 pages.


There are several reasons why FCC regulation of the Internet is a bad idea.

Nick Gillespie of Reason.tv describes three of them in a YouTube video that takes less than three minutes:



The rules were issued on a 3-2 party line vote and represent simply another Obama Administration power grab. Al least one commissioner agrees that the FCC lacks the authority to do this kind of regulating.

Robert McDowell, a Republican, dissented from the vote, saying the FCC did not have the legal authority to enact Internet regulations. The real effect, he predicted, would be: “Less investment. Less innovation. Increased business costs. Increased prices for consumers. Disadvantages to smaller ISPs. Jobs lost.” [1]

As Gillespie pointed out, these rules would inevitably lead to content regulation as well. The FCC claims the power to regulate TV content and to impose substantial fines. In the past week, a judge has ruled against the FCC’s attempt to levy a maximum fine for a NYPD Blue episode that contained a seven-second shot of a woman’s bare behind. And of course we remember Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” and how that offended the government watchdogs.

AT&T and Verizon claim, with good reason, the right to provide “premium services” that result in handling some customers’ messages in a better way than others’. There are enough ISP’s that if a user is dissatisfied, he/she may choose another provider. The Internet lends itself to innovation and competition. No government regulation such as the FCC has issued has been necessary up to now, and if and when abuses occur, there are already adequate means to deal with them.

Must we have government regulating every detail of our lives? The FCC has long been wanting to regulate cable and satellite TV. They should stick to their original mission of supervising use of scarce spectrum and such narrow issues where regulation is actually needed.

As Larry Downes sees it,

Caught between a rock and a hard place, and with a skeptical Republican majority set to take over the House in January, today's decision is a Hail Mary pass. It was the chairman's last hope of passing something and moving on to other important, and languishing, matters, including spectrum reform and the forgotten National Broadband Plan. If carriers decide to challenge the order, the FCC will have to relitigate the Comcast decision without the benefit of any new authority from Congress. [2]

I have not addressed the idea that the FCC is no longer needed. For me, that is an article for another time. For now, I simply say, let’s hope the courts won’t allow these regulations to stand, and that Congress won’t give the FCC any more power.


[1] Declan McCullagh, “FCC Net neutrality rules reach mobile apps,” 12/23/2010, CNet News.

[2] Larry Downes, “FCC’s Net neutrality ruling: Misplaced nostalgia,” 12/21/2010, CNet News.

Photo: FCC seal. Public domain.

Related articles

• House Republicans Get To Work On Killing Off Net Neutrality (paidcontent.org)
• Net neutrality fight: GOP wields garlic against FCC "vampires" (arstechnica.com)
• Why Net Neutrality Regulation is the Path to Ending Net Neutrality (hustlebear.com)            Caution: strong language

Three Routes the Government Is Following To Take Over the Internet

Image via WikipediaThe Obama Administration has been trying at least three distinct approaches to ending freedom on the Internet, initially under the pretext of copyright protection or consumer protection. The main goal is to take the internet under government control, so that content ultimately has to have government approval or be subject to removal and websites controlled to the point of removal and the banning of “offenders” from using the Internet.

The triple-threat strategy has been to act (1) through a legislative initiative, promoted in Congress by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and sponsored by Hollywood, known as COICA (2) through a treaty styled as a trade agreement called an Anti-Counterfeiting and Trade Agreement (ACTA), and (3) through a decree by the Federal Communications Commission (“Net Neutrality”).

COICA
The COICA (Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act) bill received unanimous approval in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which I find quite disappointing. This bill is a form of generous corporate welfare and collusion with “intellectual property owners,” with government preparing to go after any and all who might displease the mighty RIAA and MPAA, whether or not any law is broken, The Attorney General would become the copyright errand boy for these interests, as well as large content providers, taking over the work they don’t want to be bothered with doing for themselves, i.e. protecting their interests. Why not get the government to do it for them and save them a few millions?

As Daniel Greenfield reports at his Sultan Knish blog,

Some conservatives are defending COICA as a means of protecting private property, but it's not. It creates a privileged status for specific industries through government action, which those specific industries paid for. This is classic 'Rent Seeking Behavior' which uses government force to protect a bad business model. Hollywood is suffering from the plague of piracy because of its own convoluted structure and its need to negotiate every iota of every action with its own unions. Rather than adapt and evolve, it uses lawyers and lobbyists to protect its defective business practices. And having a 'red phone' to the AG's office in order to protect defective business practices does the entertainment industry no favors in the long term. [1]

RIAA, MPAA, Time Warner, etc., can defend their own interests without special help from the government. As usual, most economic and social abuses from the private sector involve the misuse of government power. This is not an example of free-market activity, but its opposite.

Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) has placed a hold on the COICA bill, meaning it must be reintroduced in the new Congress in order for it to be considered. [2]

The final outcome remains to be seen, but, as Webster writes, “It's too early to say for sure, but Oregon Senator Ron Wyden could very well go down in the history books as the man who saved the Internet.” [3]


ACTA
ACTA, according to the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property, has seen its eleventh and final round of formal negotiations, with only a few issues remaining to be resolved. [4]

As mentioned in my previous article, quoting published sources, negotiations have been conducted in secret, and the U.S. denied Freedom of Information Act requests on “national security” grounds.

With ACTA, powerful intellectual property holders are getting several, and eventually many, governments to go after citizens and companies that do things they don’t like, inflicting punishment without sufficient due process or even proof that wrong has been done.

Presumably, nations could modify their participation in the agreement through their own legislation, but there would likely be strong pressure on even non-signatory nations to comply. The agreement would co-opt the present mechanisms for protecting intellectual property and nations which had no input in the negotiations would have to obey, or else face economic consequences.

Worse, since ACTA is structured as a “trade agreement,” it would not need Senate approval like a normal treaty. It’s a bureaucratic takeover of great proportions, aimed largely at the Internet.

Some of the more controversial items have been watered down or removed, but ACTA is still an objectionable, unnecessary, and dangerous agreement.

Net Neutrality
As for “Net Neutrality,” the FCC has overstepped its bounds. In fact, the agency has outlived its usefulness and ought to be abolished. I plan to write another article on the FCC’s issuance of “Net Neutrality” regulations. As of now, the new regulations have been approved, but not released.

Conclusion
The Obama Administration has seen an opportunity to take control of the Internet. As mentioned above, it is a move to use government power to protect “intellectual property” interests of the entertainment industry, using unconstitutional and unethical measures that will destroy Internet freedom.

However, the problem goes much deeper and, if unchecked, must ultimately lead to government control of Internet content. Through claims of copyright violation, the government can go after any Internet site that they oppose, and largely silence opposition. In the hands of a power-seeking government (the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats), partnered with other governments that want bureaucratic control over the people (the EU, for example), the groundwork is being laid for tyrannical rule of the Internet by unelected bureaucrats through means that defy direct opposition.

Traditionally, intellectual property issues have been dealt with as civil matters, but in line with the government’s trend of a few decades, more and more actions have been criminalized. So “violators” may face jail time or fines and a criminal record even where nothing wrong has been done. An allegation might be sufficient.

COICA seems to be off the table for the moment, but don’t doubt that it will be back soon. We’ve yet to see the impact of the FCC’s “Net Neutrality” rules, or how the courts will finally rule in any of these matters. Internet freedom at this moment is more endangered than ever. Our best hope is citizen awareness and involvement putting pressure on our government officials to do their duty and protect our rights. The Tea Party has demonstrated that concerned citizens can affect public policy.


[1] Daniel Greenfield, “$335,906 is the Price of the Constitution,” 11/22/2010, Sultan Knish.

via Free Republic.

[2] Stephen C. Webster, “Oregon Senator Wyden effectively kills Internet censorship bill,”
11/19/2010, The Raw Story.


[3] Ibid.

[4] “Negotiations on an Anti-Counterfeiting and Trade Agreement (ACTA),” last modified 12/14/2010, Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property.



Photo: Portrait of Senator Ron Wyden. Public domain.

Related articles

• Leaked Cable Shows That ACTA Secrecy Is Way Beyond Normal (techdirt.com)
• On Internet Censorship : ACTA and COICA (themoderatevoice.com)
• Scholars Say Intellectual Property Accord Needs Senate Approval (wired.com)
• Wikileaks ACTA Cables Reveal Concern With U.S. Secrecy Demands (michaelgeist.ca)