- WND - http://www.wnd.com -
Only Nixon's approval lower than Obama's
Posted By Bob Unruh On 12/17/2013 @ 10:11 pm In Front Page,Politics,U.S. | No Comments
A new poll by the Washington Post-ABC News reveals that of post-World War II presidents, there actually is one whose approval rating was lower than Barack Obama’s is now.
Richard Nixon. In his fifth year, which featured the “Watergate scandal that later brought impeachment and his resignation.”
And blogger J.D. Longstreet at Canada Free Press noted the animus in America today over the Obama administration’s actions “has reached a level only seen between Americans in the years preceding the American Civil War.”
Officials with Stand Up America say that unless Americans do something, they soon will find themselves with “tyrannical centralized rule.”
And the group’s founder, Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, explains, “Clearly America has lost confidence and no longer trusts those in power at a most critical time in our history.’
There are even developing suggestions that a pending congressional plan, which on its face purports to give authority to the U.S. House to sue Obama for failing to enforce the laws of the land, could be converted into articles of impeachment.
The Mr. Conservative blog noted, “We’ve been hearing quiet mutterings lately about the impeachment of Obama, but it seems as if those voices may be consolidating.”
It continued, “The resolution comes on the heels of Obama’s latest act of defiance against the Constitution. When Obama snapped his fingers, changing the law of Obamacare, he willingly and knowingly broke several constitutionally based laws. Our forefathers placed it very clearly in the Constitution that only Congress could legislate. That being said, when Obama took it upon himself to change Obamacare as he saw fit, red flags went up. Certain politicians were quick to point out that this isn’t the only time he has acted this way, and it was well within their legal bounds to legally stop him from doing it again.”
And Dana Milbank at Florida Today noted that some of the rumblings are no longer so “quiet.”
“History will record that on Dec. 3, 2013, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary met to consider the impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama. They didn’t use that word, of course. Republican leaders frown on such labeling because it makes the House majority look, well, crazy.”
But Milbank continued, “One of the majority’s witnesses, Georgetown law professor Nicholas Rosenkranz, encouraged the Republicans not to be so shy. ‘I don’t think you should be hesitant to speak the words in this room,’ he said. ‘A check on executive lawlessness is impeachment.’”
But Milbank actually ended the commentary with a different idea, “Why bother with impeachment. They need a revolution.”
The Washington Post-ABC News poll showed the president’s overall approval rating stands at 43 percent, while disapproval is at 55 percent.
A year ago his approval was 54 percent, and even after the huge losses his party suffered in the 2010 midterms, Obama’s approval rating was higher, at 49 percent.
The Post said, “Obama ends his fifth year in office with lower approval ratings than almost all other recent two-term presidents. At this point in 2005, for example, former president George W. Bush was at 47 percent positive, 52 percent negative. All other post-World War II presidents were at or above 50 percent at this point in their second terms, except Richard M. Nixon, whose fifth year ended in 1973 with an approval rating of 29 percent because of the Watergate scandal that later brought impeachment and his resignation.”
WND reported only a day earlier that the America’s main hope to escape the “tyrannical centralized rule” developing under Obama is a vote of no confidence in Obama and his cronies, according to the founder of Stand Up America, an organization that provides education resources for leaders and activists based on the values of the Founding Fathers.
Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely called for “a vote of no confidence.”
“It’s time for a ‘recall,’” he said.
Vallely believes the “credibility of our current leadership is gone.”
Now, he said, “we listen to their excuses, finger-pointing, lies and all manner of chicanery.”
He admitted there is no legal authority in a vote of no confidence, but he argued it will “take back the power of discourse.”
“What else is our nation to do now that the ‘rule of law’ has effectively been thrown out the window by the Obama administration? How are we to trust our government anymore, now that lying and fraud are acceptable practices?” he asked.
Earlier, it was Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., who said Obama’s actions have reached “an unprecedented level, and we’ve got to do something about it.”
“Assume that a statute said you had to provide two forms of ID to vote. Can the president require three forms? Can the president require one form? Can you suspend all requirements? If not, why not?” he asked. “If you can turn off certain categories of law, do you not also have the power to turn off all categories of law?”
Gowdy cited Obama’s decisions to ignore certain immigration laws, even though Congress did not approve the changes. He also cited arbitrary changes to the Obamacare law and Obama’s “recess appointments” of judges even though the U.S. Senate was not in recess.
The plan is for Congress to take the White House to court over the president’s actions, through the House resolution proposed by Rep. Tom Rice, R-Ga., which would authorize a lawsuit against the Obama administration.
“After carefully researching the standing the House of Representatives has and what action we can take, I have introduced a resolution to stop the president’s clear overreach,” Rice said.
A Fox News interviewer asked Gowdy if Obama could refuse to enforce election laws.
“Why not?” asked Gowdy, “If you can turn off immigration laws, if you can turn off the mandatory minimum in our drug statutes, if you can turn off the so-called Affordable Care Act – why not election laws?”
Gowdy noted that a liberal law professor, Jonathan Turley, agrees.
WND reported Turley’s concerns earlier this month.
Turley has represented members of Congress in a lawsuit over the Libyan war, represented workers at the secret Area 51 military base and served as counsel on national security cases. He now says Obama is a danger to the U.S. Constitution.
He was addressing a House Judiciary Committee hearing Dec. 4. Chairman Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., asked him: “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[s] of Congress affect both the balance of power between the political branches and the liberty interests of the American people?”
Turley replied: “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.”
Turley explained that the “Newtonian orbit that the three branches exist in is a delicate one but it is designed to prevent this type of concentration.”
“There are two trends going on which should be of equal concern to all members of Congress,” he said. “One is that we have had the radical expansion of presidential powers under both President Bush and President Obama. We have what many once called an imperial presidency model of largely unchecked authority. And with that trend we also have the continued rise of this fourth branch. We have agencies that are quite large that issue regulations. The Supreme Court said recently that agencies could actually define their own or interpret their own jurisdiction.”
Turley was appointed in 1998 to the prestigious Shapiro Chair for Public Interest at Georgetown. He has handled a wide range of precedent-setting and headline-making cases, including the successful defense of Petty Officer Daniel King, who faced the death penalty for alleged spying for Russia.
Turley also has served as the legal expert in the review of polygamy laws in the British Columbia Supreme Court. He’s been a consultant on homeland security, and his articles appear regularly in national publications such as the New York Times and USA Today.
WND reported that it was at the same hearing that Michael Cannon, director of Health Policy Studies for the Cato Institute, said there is “one last thing to which the people can resort if the government does not respect the restraints that the Constitution places of the government.”
“Abraham Lincoln talked about our right to alter our government or our revolutionary right to overthrow it,” he said.
“That is certainly something that no one wants to contemplate. If the people come to believe that the government is no longer constrained by the laws, then they will conclude that neither are they.”
Cannon said it is “very dangerous” for the president to “wantonly ignore the laws, to try to impose obligations upon people that the legislature did not approve.”
Several members of Congress also contributed their opinions in an interview with talk-show host Sean Hannity.
See the Hannity segment:
It could be significant, too, that Obama recently added an adviser.
The New York Times reported John Podesta, founder of the Center for American Progress, has agreed to serve as counselor to President Obama for a year.
The Times reported Podesta, a long-time champion of the use of executive powers, including bypassing the legislative branch, will help the White House on “matters related to the health care law, administration organization and executive actions.”
Other members of Congress say the logical response to Obama’s “uber-presidency” is simply to vote Republican in 2014.
In an interview with Hannity, Reps. Steve King, R-Iowa, and Blake Farenthold, R-Texas, offered details of their charges against Obama.
King pointed to the president’s actions on immigration, such as his orders for authorities not to enforce current immigration law.
He said there are multiple violations related to Obamacare and asserted the president’s “recess” appointments of judges when the Senate was not actually in recess also is worthy.
The “uber-presidency,” King said, has little or no respect for the Constitution.
Farenthold said Obama “is grabbing as much power as he can,” but Congress also is doing little to draw in the reins.
The two said that politically, Obama is exercising great power and believes Congress cannot or will not stop him.
“The president knows it; he’s exploiting it,” King said.
He said Obama “will spend money if he decides, will tax if he decides, will defy the Constitution if he decides.”
Farenthold’s solution is for people to vote Republican in 2014, creating a barricade of a GOP Congress against a renegade president.
Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, even handed out copies of a book that has been described by its authors as the “articles of impeachment” for Barack Obama. Stockman suggested that special investigations, and possibly prosecutions, are needed in response to Fast and Furious, Benghazi and other Obama scandals.
Rep. Bill Flores, R-Texas, was speaking at a town hall meeting when he considered the idea. A video of his comments was posted at the Western Center for Journalism.
“I’ve looked at the president. I think he’s violated the Constitution. I think he’s violated the Bill of Rights,” he said.
He said at some point a decision must be made.
“I think if the House had an impeachment vote, it would probably impeach the president.”
But he noted there are only 46 members of the GOP in the U.S. Senate, where an impeached president would be put on trial.
To obtain a conviction, the prosecuting team must have 67 votes, and he wasn’t sure that even all of the GOP members would vote to convict.
Other members of Congress who have made comments about impeachment include Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.; Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.; Rep. Kerry Bentivolio, R-Mich.; Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas; Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Texas; Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.; Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah; Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C.; Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.; R-Texas; Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas; Rep. Trey Radel, R-Fla.; Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa; and Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla.
“I think he”s breaking the law if he strikes without congressional approval,” Hunter told the Washington Times regarding Obama’s plan to bomb Syria. “And if he proceeds without Congress providing that authority, it should be considered an impeachable offense.”
WND previously reported Coburn’s statement that Obama is “perilously close” to qualifying for impeachment.
Speaking at the Muskogee Civic Center in Oklahoma, the senator said, “What you have to do is you have to establish the criteria that would qualify for proceedings against the president, and that’s called impeachment.”
Coburn said it’s “not something you take lightly, and you have to use a historical precedent of what that means.”
“I think there’s some intended violation of the law in this administration, but I also think there’s a ton of incompetence, of people who are making decisions,” he said.
A constituent then responded, “Even if there is incompetence, the IRS forces me to abide by the law.”
Coburn said he agreed.
“Those are serious things, but we’re in a serious time,” he said. “I don’t have the legal background to know if that rises to high crimes and misdemeanor, but I think they’re getting perilously close.”
Days earlier, Bentivolio said it would be a “dream come true” to impeach Obama.
Bentivolio told the Birmingham Bloomfield Republican Club Meeting, “You know, if I could write that bill and submit it, it would be a dream come true.”
He told constituents: “I feel your pain and I know. I stood 12 feet away from that guy and listened to him, and I couldn’t stand being there. But because he is president, I have to respect the office. That’s my job as a congressman. I respect the office.”
Bentivolio said his experience with the president caused him to consult with attorneys about what it would take to remove Obama from office.
Cruz responded to a question about impeachment after a speech.
“It’s a good question,” Cruz said. “And I’ll tell you the simplest answer: To successfully impeach a president, you need the votes in the U.S. Senate.”
Farenthold, who thinks there are enough votes in the House to impeach Obama, said he often is asked why Congress doesn’t take action.
He said he answers, “[I]f we were to impeach the president tomorrow, we would probably get the votes in the House of Representatives to do it.”
But, like others, Farenthold sees the lack of votes in the Senate as a roadblock.
The congressman also worries about what would happen if they tried to impeach Obama and failed. He believes the unsuccessful attempt to impeach President Clinton hurt the country.
In May, Inhofe suggested Obama could be impeached over a White House cover-up after the attack in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012.
He told listeners of “The Rusty Humphries Show”: “Of all the great cover-ups in history – the Pentagon papers, Iran-Contra, Watergate, all the rest of them – this … is going to go down as the most egregious cover-up in American history.”
But even with that searing indictment, Inhofe, too, stopped short of calling for impeachment.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, has offered tentative support for impeachment.
“I’m not willing to take it off the table, but that’s certainly not what we’re striving for,” he told CNN.
One Republican actually has come out and called for the impeachment of Obama, and he did it more than two years ago, before he became a congressman.
Rep. Ted Yoho, R-Fla., posted on his website in June 2011 a list of reasons for impeachment.
Other figures who have discussed impeachment include Glenn Beck, Watergate investigative reporter Bob Woodward, WND columnist Nat Hentoff and a panel of top constitutional experts.
Stockman recently distributed copies of the book, “Impeachable Offenses: The Case for Removing Barack Obama From Office,” to the other 434 members of the House of Representatives to bolster his case for a special investigation of the President.
The bestselling “Impeachable Offenses” presents an indictment that goes well beyond today’s headlines.
The Daily Mail of London has called “Impeachable Offenses” “explosive,” reporting that the book contains a “systematic connect-the-dots exercise that the president’s defenders will find troublesome.”
“Consider this work to be the articles of impeachment against Barack Obama,” stated Klein.
“Every American, whether conservative or liberal, Democrat, Republican or independent, should be concerned about the nearly limitless seizure of power, the abuses of authority, the cronyism, corruption, lies and cover-ups documented in this news-making book,” Klein said.
The authors stress the book is not a collection of generalized gripes concerning Obama and his administration. Rather, it is a well-documented indictment based on major alleged violations.
Among the offenses enumerated in the book:
Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com
URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2013/12/only-nixons-approval-lower-than-obamas/
© Copyright 1997-2013. All Rights Reserved. WND.com.