Malfeasance = Impeachment

Someone in a top congressional position has finally said it, to wit, that passing laws is an empty undertaking because the president will not enforce them. House Speaker John Boehner made the remark in conjunction with his announcement that immigration reform will not likely receive attention this year. The primary element in reform accrues to sealing the borders and Obama has made it clear that this is not a priority for him, thus no enforcement, regardless of what Congress might do.

The president has made it clear publicly that he will do by executive order anything he desires, anyway, so laws mean little now in any area of government. He's already substantially changed Obamacare 25 times, so that the law as written carries only the weight he accords it, not that anyone seems to know precisely what the law is. Obama's made it clear that the law is whatever he says it is. Boehner was actually saying the president is dishonest and will not uphold the Constitution as required by that governing document of the president with regard to laws passed by the Congress. Perhaps his biggest wipe-out of Obamacare at this point was his announced refusal to enforce that part which required businesses to adhere to the law, beginning in January 2014. Presumably, adherence will occur in January 2015; however, the president has friends in business so he may never enforce the unpopular employer provision, which will incur tremendous rises in costs, private and public.

Obama has put himself in the position—emperor—that the founders made impossible (they thought) in instituting a nation of laws, with the chief executive, elected by the people, sworn to uphold them. The Constitution protects individuals and other entities from governmental interference in their rights. By its own admission, however, not to mention mountains of evidence affirming that admission, the Internal Revenue Service targeted specific groups for disallowing them any consideration, through various subterfuges, accruing to their tax-status during the three-year run-up to the 2012 elections.

An investigation of this was ordered, presumably by Attorney General Holder, and the House has been holding hearings on the matter since the investigation has not eventuated in evidence of the crimes to which the IRS has already admitted. Indeed, the investigation, officially led by a federal lawyer, Barbara Bosserman, who invested heavily ($6,750) in Obama's candidacy, has been closed without even an interview afforded the complainants involved. Their only recourse is to sue the IRS, a costly enterprise. In the meantime, they're still in limbo. Bosserman did not appear for questioning.

Actually, Bosserman, who did only as told, didn't close the investigation. The president closed the investigation. In a recent interview with Fox News anchor Bill O'Reilly, he stated unequivocally that no IRS-corruption had occurred, meaning that the investigation was over because he said it was over and that he knew the result. No crimes to which admission had already been made had actually occurred because he said they hadn't. This is what an emperor does. His constitutional violations are abundantly obvious and constitute impeachable offenses.

Impeachment is what Boehner should work toward. Bill Clinton was impeached by a republican House over a simple act of perjury, nothing like a refusal to enforce the laws or just change them willy-nilly. Obama made war on Libya in 2011 without even a nod to Congress, violating both the Constitution and the War Powers Act, an impeachable offense that has turned Libya into a hopeless, bloody nightmare culminating in the Benghazi Massacre (four dead Americans), about which he repeatedly lied through his teeth but not under oath.

Though not under oath, Obama repeatedly lied in the O'Reilly interview about the IRS, even though the appropriate top IRS bureaucrat took the Fifth and refused to admit the obvious. She knew from where her orders came—the top. She resigned rather than face the ultimate music, which meant truth and criminality. Obama threw her under the bus.

So, why bother with immigration reform, especially when the House, cowed by the “race question,” is too weak to call up impeachment proceedings on more than just one illegal presidential action. Impeachment (the evidence absolutely undeniable) would be guaranteed (just a majority vote) but conviction would never happen in the Senate (two-thirds vote needed); however, the nation's interests would have been served and present and future officials put on notice.

And so it goes.
Jim Clark