CHARLES: Holder’s undermining of the law deserving of contempt

No attorney general should scorn the people’s right to know

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/18/charles-holders-undermining-of-the-law/

By Robert Charles, April 18, 2014 

Joker Race Card Illustration by Greg Groesch/The Washington Times

Attorney General Eric H. Holder was reminded during a recent congressional hearing that he has been held in “contempt of Congress” — for nonproduction of subpoenaed documents.

He interrupted with a personal rebuke of his questioner.
 

Later, he suggested that questioning of his leadership, nonresponsiveness to congressional oversight, and referring to the contempt vote was evidence of racism.

The accusation was made a second time, perhaps as a political stratagem, by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

 

Let’s stop there — and stop the deflection, too.

 

No attorney general of the United States is entitled, for any reason, to escape scrutiny of Congress, period.

Is the attorney general really mounting a defense to his contempt charges on the basis that Congress is racist and that he need not respond to legal prerogatives they lawfully exercise?

Where would that wild notion put us as a country?

How would any attorney general hiding behind this kind of defense ever be held accountable?

 
Does this mean, for example, whenever this attorney general is questioned for noncompliance with congressional subpoenas — particularly in a case grave enough to earn him criminal and civil contempt citations — an acceptable defense shall be to accuse the questioner of racism?

Is this not a transparent deflection?

 

Of all people, the attorney general should be the American most respectful of lawful prerogatives, one of which is a subpoena, another judgment of contempt for failure to honor a subpoena.

 

Should he not reflexively proffer real answers, not diversions?

 

A few facts are in order here. Congress has exercised an implied constitutional right to find any executive official in “contempt of Congress” since the 1790s.

This means of ensuring accountability by the executive is neither new nor racist, but a matter of balanced powers and constitutional law.

Even an attorney general is accountable to the people and must comply with their “right to know.” Congress enforces that right

Second, no attorney general has ever successfully stiff-armed Congress in a request for material documents, bullheadedly declining to “accommodate,” without eventually disgorging the documents or suffering severe legal consequences.

Even when documents point to the subpoenaed official — indeed, especially then — contempt guarantees visibility into the executive.

Thus, in the top dozen contempt votes since 1975, every vote concluded in material “accommodation” or in severe civil or criminal penalties — until now. Mr. Holder has managed to escape production, accommodation and penalties up to this point. One can see why this bothers Congress — and many Americans.

Third, let us burrow into facts behind this particular vote of contempt. The documents sought relate to the attorney general’s role in a tragically flawed gunrunning scheme, one in which the Obama administration allowed hundreds of guns into Mexico, and then lost track of them.

The gunrunning — more ironic because this attorney general seeks to limit American gun ownership — put firearms in the hands of Mexican drug traffickers, who then reportedly killed hundreds of Mexicans and a U.S. law enforcement officer. The scheme raises issues of judgment, management, civil and criminal law. Any Congress would have a right to ask about origins and approvals — and to get the truth

Curiously, this administration’s response has been coy, dissembling and now, with counteraccusations of racism, deflective — in short, incoherent. Don’t the American people — Republicans, Democrats and independents alike — deserve to know who authorized this deadly and deeply flawed gambit? Exactly what was the attorney general’s role?

What about the Internal Revenue Service targeting groups with a conservative pedigree? Doesn’t the attorney general owe truth — the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help him God? Is that not what his prosecutors ask others every day, and what witnesses before the U.S. Congress must swear to tell? Is this really too much to ask?

Apparently, it is. Instead of respecting the age-old prerogatives of Congress, including compliance with subpoenas seeking material facts, the attorney general and White House have decided to default to charges of racism, seeking to deflect or perhaps silence those who publicly raise noncompliance with that critical subpoena and the subsequent contempt vote.

Result? This demeans the attorney general and the noble institution he represents, as well as demonstrating — again — his contempt for Congress and those of us represented by the institution. Without congressional oversight of the executive, there is no balance of power. Congress is the people; the attorney general is a mere appointee.

For him to say to Congress, as he so brashly did, “Don’t go there, buddy” is tantamount to playground bullying, disinterest in Congress’ institutional rights. Is that how we expect the nation’s top law enforcement officer to address Congress on any issue?

Mr. Holder’s attempted sleight-of-hand is more egregious. He undermines the law. The Department of Justice models and inspires respect for law; it should not disparage it. Transparency and trust are central. To throw up a smoke screen of racism in order to avert personal charges of contempt is itself contemptible.

His bluster undermines all who work in the department and the law itself, dangerously dividing two institutions from one another on very personal grounds. By implying that congressional oversight is unworthy, or should be stopped or ignored, he may think he has cleverly advanced some political or personal agenda, but the real victim is respect for law.

Instead of more self-serving trash talk and pique, Mr. Holder should take this moment to seek permanent accommodation on all documents behind that contempt vote, and let disgorgement of these documents lead investigators where it may. By doing so, he would shock his critics. He would demonstrate real leadership, restore respect for law, honor the centuries-old oversight prerogatives of Congress, and confirm the people’s “right to know.”

 

 

Robert Charles is a former U.S. Court of Appeals clerk, civil litigator and counsel to a congressional oversight committee.

 

 

US Senator John McCain: McCAIN REMARKS ON UKRAINE AND RUSSIA IN LITHUANIA

Dear All,

 

It has been noticed that there have been more than a few visits to the "The Truth and Nothing but the Truth" from the Citizens of the Ukraine, over the last week. 

 

For this reason, I am posting this recent "Press Release" by US Senator John McCain for consideration by the readers in the Ukraine. 

 

Just so the Ukrainians know, Americans are very concerned for your country and what the "Bully-Putin" is up to.  

 

Americans overwhelmingly support the Citizens of Ukraine and we fully expect that the Obama Administration and the European Union will take all necessary steps to bring pressure to bear on Russia's Dictator (Vladimir Putin) to cease and desist; leaving you and your leaders to seek peace, freedom, democracy, and a co-existence with your neighbors in the European Union to improve and enjoy the economic freedom and prosperity that democracy and capitalism provides. 

 

"May God Bless the Citizens of the Ukraine"

 

Ron Kirkish, Citizen of America

Apr 16 2014
 
Permalink: http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2014/4/mccain-remarks-on-ukraine-and-russia-in-Lithuania

Washington, D.C. ­– U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) today delivered the following remarks on Ukraine, Russia and European security at an event sponsored by the Ronald Reagan House and held at Vilnius University in Vilnius, Lithuania:

We are here to take your questions and have a discussion.

But first, I would like to make a few words on geopolitics and security, and then invite each of my colleagues to make some remarks.

We come to Lithuania after visiting Norway, Estonia and Latvia.

We have had good discussions in those countries with government, military, and parliamentary leaders, just as we have today in Lithuania.

On our way to Vilnius, we also had a chance to visit NATO's Baltic Air Policing Mission, which is being flown out of northern Lithuania.

Tomorrow we will travel to Moldova.

We are visiting the Baltic countries this week to consult with our allies about how we must respond together to Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea, its ongoing military intervention in eastern Ukraine, and its other efforts to pressure its neighbors, including in this region.

We see the ongoing crisis in Ukraine as you and our other Baltic allies do: It means the United States, Europe, and NATO cannot continue with business as usual.

All of us had high hopes for our relationship with Russia after the Cold War.

We provided billions of dollars of assistance to help Russia's transition from communism.

NATO stated in the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act that it had ‘no need, no intent, and no plans’ to deploy any significant military capability onto the territory of new NATO allies in eastern and central Europe, even as we enlarged the alliance.

So today, while NATO's membership has grown significantly over the past 16 years, the presence of U.S. and NATO forces in Europe has barely changed.

All of these actions reflected the U.S. and European desire to build a constructive and cooperative relationship with Russia, and a new, inclusive security order to sustain our vision of Europe whole, free, and at peace – a vision that we always believed, and still do believe, would benefit Russia, and that we consistently invited and encouraged Russia to join.

Unfortunately, it should now be clear to all of us that Russia under President Putin has taken a very dark turn, and our highest hopes for our relationship with Russia have not borne out.

This should have been clear, and was clear to many of us, the first time President Putin invaded and dismembered a sovereign country – Georgia in 2008.

It should definitely be clear now in light of Mr. Putin's military intervention in Ukraine.

We need to recognize reality, and make our policies on this basis: President Putin, and his desire to restore a kind of imperial dominance over Russia's so-called near abroad, poses a geopolitical challenge not only to Russia's neighbors but to our entire vision of Europe whole, free, and at peace.

This does not mean a return to the Cold War.

But it should mean that we need to prepare, despite all of our best efforts and intentions since 1991, for a more competitive relationship with President Putin's Russia.

This demands more from all of us. It means that all of us in NATO should re-commit ourselves to the alliance's core missions of deterrence and collective defense.

The United States is committed to our obligations to the collective defense of our NATO allies.

It is one thing to say that.

It is quite another to have the allied forces and capabilities present in this part of Europe, on a persistent basis, to deter aggression and demonstrate NATO's resolve and ability to meet our defensive commitments if called upon.

That is what is needed now.

NATO must shift its force posture toward a more even distribution of our presence and capabilities across the alliance, including here in Lithuania and the other Baltic countries.

We are taking some modest steps in this direction.

And that is good.

But this shift cannot be tactical and temporary.

It must be strategic, sustainable, and enduring.

For NATO to do more for its members, its members must do more for themselves and for our alliance.

I understand that economic times are still tough.

And we in the United States, including those of us in the Congress, have our own work to do to reverse the harmful effects of recent cuts to our defense spending.

That said, considering what President Putin is doing right now in Ukraine, it is more important than ever for every NATO ally to spend at least 2 percent of its GDP on defense.

I'm pleased that Lithuania has pledged and is planning to do this, and the sooner you follow through on that commitment the better.

At the same time, we and Lithuania's leaders agree that European countries need to increase their efforts to diversify their supply of energy, as Lithuania is taking the lead in doing.

As Senators Hoeven and Barrasso will explain, the United States can be an important part of that solution in Lithuania and Europe.

Finally, the United States, the EU, and NATO must do more to support Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, and other European countries that aspire to be part of our Transatlantic community.

We cannot bar the doors to a Europe whole, free, and at peace, leaving an unfortunate few outside to be hunted and harassed.

That means the West must provide far greater diplomatic, economic, and military support to Ukraine – including a long-term program to assist them in reforming and rebuilding their armed forces.

We need to provide similar support to Moldova.

We must show all of these countries that, as long as they meet the rightfully high standards for membership, the doors to NATO and the EU remain open, and the fundamental choices about their future foreign policy are for them to make – no one else.

In the last century, the United States always supported the captive nations here in the Baltic region.

I still remember as a boy seeing the flags of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia proudly carried in our Fourth of July parades.

And we would ask what they were, and our parents would tell us about the captive nations, and why your struggle was also our struggle.

All of us must do the same now for Ukraine.

We cannot, we must not, give up on Crimea, or any other part of Ukraine or other sovereign country that Mr. Putin seeks to claim by force.

This kind of aggressive, neo-imperial behavior is fundamentally at odds with our vision of Europe whole, free, and at peace – and indeed, to core principles of the post-war international order that all of us have sacrificed so mightily to build.

We did not seek this challenge from Mr. Putin's Russia, nor did we deserve it.

But we must rise to it all the same – for the interests and values of our Transatlantic community depend on our resolve.

###

 

 

Robert "Bobby" Charles: THE NEW IRON TRIANGLE

 

 

 

By Robert Charles

 

April 17, 2014

http://americanthinker.com/2014/04/the_new_iron_triangle.html

Today, we face a strange, new “iron triangle,” one that our Founders may not have foreseen -- but one that we must understand -- and break by voting in November. 

The carefully designed “checks and balances” bequeathed to us by those who wrote the U.S. Constitution are stuck on this triangle.

The U.S. Constitution created co-equal “branches” of government. 

We all know them, the Executive, Legislative and Judicial. 

The Founders strived to put in place “checks and balances,” imagining their constitutional construct would stand the test of time. 

They sought to anticipate all possibilities, and discussed them in The Federalist Papers.  

To their eternal credit, these efforts have guarded our God-given liberties for more than 225 years. 

Today, however, we confront a new configuration of leaders and behaviors, some of which may go beyond what the Founders foresaw. 

The new burden is on us.

Before reviewing facts, here is a refresher on “checks and balances” -- how they work to assure accountability. 

Article II, Section 2, gives the president the power to “appoint … officers of the United States.” 

In the event that a sitting Attorney General fails to perform his constitutional duties in ways that lack transparency, truthfulness, integrity or conformity with prevailing laws, the Constitution provides a President with full power to remove him. 

Likewise, a sitting President must abide the law. 

Since we expect the Attorney General to uphold his Oath, if a president’s truthfulness comes into question on issues of national security or domestic law; if there are questions about his abuse of office for political purposes, the Attorney General is expected to investigate. 

Assuring checks and balances – until 1999 – we also had an Independent Counsel Act. 

That act allowed appointment of an independent prosecutor to investigate high-ranking officials, beyond politics. 

How else can we keep a President or Attorney General accountable? 

Under Article II, Section 4, if an offense by a cabinet member or president is grave enough, the offending official can “be removed from office on impeachment” by Congress. 

That procedure requires the U.S. House to vote articles, and a trial convened in the U.S. Senate. 

Of course, short of impeachment, the accused official could resign. 

President Nixon took that route. 

To secure impeachment, the Senate Majority Leader must take that issue to the Senate floor for trial and vote.  

So, here is the way it is supposed to work:  These “checks and balances” keep an errant Attorney General “checked” by the President and Congress – assuming the Senate Majority Leader will convene an impeachment vote, if needed.  

The President is “checked” by an honest Attorney General, sworn to uphold the U.S. Constitution and honest Senate Majority Leader. 

Finally, an errant Senate Majority leader – or any member of Congress – is “checked” by an Attorney General who, if he suspects criminality, investigates and prosecutes.

So, what is all this “iron triangle” business?  

Consider the current twist of history, one in which we are all stuck. 

What if the Senate Majority Leader acts contrary to law and the Attorney General refuses to investigate him, recognizing that this could open a counter-measure, namely impeachment? 

What if that same Attorney General’s actions warrant impeachment, but the Senate Majority Leader refuses to act – since this could place him in jeopardy of investigation? 

What if a President -- who hires and fires Attorney Generals – is suspected of abuse, for example: persecuting opponents through the Internal Revenue Service, suppressing material facts on national security (such as Benghazi and information collection), or clamping down unconstitutionally on individual liberties – but the Attorney General allows such abuses to slide, protecting his own job? 

You have an “iron triangle” of unaccountability.

What would the Founders say about the possibility of “criminal equipoise” among top government actors? 

They would be dismayed. 

What would the Founders say about an Attorney General who takes no action against a Majority Leader allegedly giving $16,000 dollars in campaign money to a relative, and then separately taking campaign money from companies under criminal investigation? 

Instead of following facts, this Attorney General halted FBI involvement in the investigation of the Majority Leader.  Why?

What would the Founders say about a Majority Leader who telegraphs that he will take no action against that same Attorney General for activities that should put impeachment in play? 

What would the Founders say about a President who feels no constitutional burden to inquire further into these actions – and, coincidentally, has a number of potential abuses of his own to explain? 

They would recognize the “iron triangle” of unaccountability – an unbreakable and indefensible chess move, clever and illegitimate – and they would be chagrined.  

The U.S. Constitution – and Founders who designed it – assumed a modicum of integrity and commitment to the Constitutional Oath they insisted high officers swear. 

They assumed a degree of honor. 

The President and Attorney General take an Oath to uphold the Constitution in Article II, Section 1, the Majority Leader from Article VI, Section 3. 

Yet today, the very officials meant to check each other appear to be covering for each other.

So, what is the answer? 

The only answer is, for better and worse, found in the U.S. Constitution. 

The U.S. House of Representatives can – with reluctance– commence impeachment proceedings against the U.S. Attorney General, pressuring the Senate to step forward. 

The U.S. Attorney General could reopen FBI involvement in the case involving the Majority Leader, perhaps also accommodating concerns of Congress which produced the contempt vote against him. 

The President could suggest that the Attorney General step down, encouraging a new Attorney General to allow FBI participation in the Majority Leader’s case. 

Probably, however, the only way “We the People” will restore accountability is at the ballot box. 

Thus, we must resolve to vote out this Senate leadership, and vote in a new U.S. Senate, one that cares about fidelity to law and the U.S. Constitution. 

This November, we will have that chance – and we must not forget. 

This is not the end of wisdom, nor the beginning – but perhaps, borrowing from Churchill, the end of the beginning. 

Our Founders expected one other thing – they expected U.S. to care, even so many years later, and to help them get it right.  




Robert Charles is a former U.S. Court of Appeals clerk, civil litigator and counsel to a congressional oversight committee, who taught Government Oversight at the Harvard Extension School, and now leads a Washington DC consulting group.

Robert "Bobby" Charles: The Enduring Presence of the Founders

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/14/charles-the-enduring-presence-of-the-founders/?page=all

By Robert Charles, originally published on February 14, 2014 - The Washington Times

History casts important shadows that don’t fade with time.

The year was 1774. The Declaration of Independence was still two years off, and liberty for those who called themselves Americans was far from inevitable.

What all Americans recognized, however, was a simple truth.

The imperial British government was, with inordinate haste, promulgating laws intended to snuff out provincial and individual liberty, aiming to shut down opposition to its central authority.

Moreover, laws protecting individuals against that authority were suddenly going unenforced.

The toxic mix — aggressive criminalization of formerly noncriminal acts and blatant nonenforcement of liberty-assuring laws — was more than unsettling.

It created a wave of fear. It also awoke the sleepiest of early Americans, who saw it was not right.

Thomas Jefferson took up his pen.

He produced a short piece about basic rights, not the Declaration for which he would later be famous, but a little piece titled “The Rights of British America.”

He hoped to convince the overreaching British government to pull back, show restraint, slow the juggernaut of oppression, and remember that sovereignty belongs to the people, not to a government.

In his essay, Jefferson wrote that “unwarrantable encroachments and usurpations” were curbing basic liberties.

He noted that, since the beginning of time, these liberties had belonged to individuals.

He explained that “his majesty” had begun unilateral assertion of formerly legislative powers, and that the crown was undertaking imperial exercise of “wanton power,” and that “rights of human nature are deeply wounded by this infamous practice.”

Jefferson, in his inimitable way, noted that “this is so shameful an abuse of power trusted with his majesty for all purposes, as if not reformed would call for some legal restrictions.”

He closed noting that “your majesty or your governors have carried this power beyond every limit known or provided for by the laws.”

There he left it.

Meantime, Benjamin Franklin had a word to say.

He penned a piece in 1773 titled “Rules by Which a Great Empire May be Reduced to a Small One.”

Among Franklin’s “rules,” in this sardonic parody, he listed what a government should do to properly alienate the people.

He noted “a great Empire, like a great Cake, is most easily diminished at the Edges.”

He suggested the king “contrive to punish” those who appeared to be “friends of liberty.”

When appointees did something “odious,” the king should “recall and reward them with pensions,” putting them to pasture with profit.

He suggests veterans be “harassed with novel taxes,” that the empire find ways to reduce “security in property,” and “remember to make your arbitrary tax more grievous for your provinces” than those at the seat of power.

That was the last humorous piece Franklin wrote about the king.

We inhabit a world that was once founded on the words of these great lovers of liberty.

In this new world, we now find novel “encroachments and usurpations,” either by regulation, executive order or one-sided, vote-then-read legislation.

We find growing confusion over the sanctity of individual liberty, with invasions of privacy, incursions into formerly sacrosanct constitutional rights in the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth and 14th Amendments to our Constitution.

We witness the criminal investigation of seasoned reporters and celebrated moviemakers, gun banning, and selective political prosecution of future contenders to the throne.

We find that state laws no longer matter, except when they excuse nonenforcement of inconvenient federal law or parts of the Constitution that the president does not like.

We find that agents of the president, such as the Internal Revenue Service, go unpunished as former leaders are recalled, retired and rewarded with pensions.

We see veterans who defended our liberty held in minimal respect, facing enormous delays in promised medical benefits, heaped with novel taxes and kept from seeing monuments to their service.

All this is patently unsettling, even if we now live under a Constitution and electoral system that allows us to peaceably right a listing ship.

Today, we need not make recourse to the only measure Jefferson, Franklin and early America had.

The truth is that, because of their sacrifices and insights, we are today free to vote out leaders who act like kings and their legislative minions.

It does help, now and again, to see how easily power rides up on the backs of those who feel unaccountable.

If history does not exactly repeat itself, that is only because we have levers of a constitutional government to pull.

The shadows from our Founding endure, reminding us why we feel ill at ease.

That is why it is worth recalling the writings of the great men to whom we owe vigilance over our precious liberties.

Robert B. Charles, a former counsel to then-House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert and an assistant secretary of state, heads the Charles Group LLC.

Robert "Bobby" Charles: US Foreign Policy Retreat - Why?

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/203320-us-foreign-policy-retreat-why#ixzz2yrsyNhqi

By Robert B. Charles -  (Originally published on April 12, 2014, 09:00 am - The Hill)

 

 

 

Charles was an assistant secretary of State under Colin Powell, is author of the book Narcotics and Terrorism, and is principal of a Washington D.C. consulting group.  

Just six years ago, U.S. foreign policy remained highly respected.  We were peacemakers and defenders of liberty.  Our allies trusted us and our record was unrivaled – and undoubted.   By way of example, the Colombian ambassador to the U.S. declared that the U.S. had saved her country, helped Colombia to restore order, deterrence and democracy to Colombia.  That particular ambassador declared Plan Colombia “the greatest U.S. foreign policy victory since World War II.”  Whether it is, leadership abroad was a bipartisan affair.  Today, we are in reverse mode.  The question is “why?”

Look at Colombia, example of a larger problem.  American leadership – particularly former U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert and then-President Bill Clinton – produced a consensus around commitments to rule of law, deterrence and not negotiating with terrorists.  Their resolve to defend a U.S. ally helped turn the tide of terror and lawlessness in Colombia into security and prosperity.   Colombians – and Americans — deserve credit for leading a comprehensive, unified push toward peace – with unabashed U.S. military and civilian support.  Strength came through idealism and commitment, collegiality and resolve.

Now, wind the clock … to 2014.  Not only has America – under President Obama – lost foreign policy credibility by his failure to anticipate or adequately manage relations with Ukraine, Syria, Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Russia, Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Venezuela and Chile, but he is now losing gains made in Colombia. 

Our closest allies doubt our word; they are openly leery of this U.S. president.  Count the growing number, to include Israel and Taiwan, Japan and South Korea, Eastern Europe and all those near Russia.  There is deep-seeded doubt about what this president will do when push-comes-to-shove, as it already has.  Are all his reactions destined to be non-reactions?  And if so, why?

Consider the record.  The Middle East Peace process is now dead under Obama.  Iran, a totalitarian theocracy and sworn enemy of our closest allies, an overt detractor of U.S. Constitutional ideals, is fawningly coddled.  Iran’s nuclear program thus gets room to bloom.  Israel is told go along, Saudi Arabia withdraws from the United Nations Security Council in protest.  As allies doubt us, others press their advantage, autocrats from Venezuela and Cuba to North Korea.  Security gains of decades are slipping away fast, as are hard-won international norms.  U.S. leadership is silent.  Why?

Bulletin:  Mr. Obama, pay attention to places like Colombia, because your foreign policy apparatus and dearth of leadership are producing major losses for U.S. credibility, reversing gains for which Americans in places from DEA and State to Defense and the heartland paid dearly.  We have no “Status of Forces” Agreements with Iraq or Afghanistan. Will you not now work to sustain American-blood-secured security.  A fictitious “line in the sand” on Syrian use of chemical weapons allowed Syria’s dictator and Russia to laugh you to red-faced silence.  Forget the dozens of smaller missteps around the globe.  Return to Colombia.

Presidential disinterest in one of America’s strongest allies in our own hemisphere is triggering a measurable slide.  In Colombia’s prime drug growing region, the Putumayo, coca cultivation fell early this decade by nearly 100 percent year over year, as alternative crops replaced drug crops.  Homicides, terrorism, kidnapping and public fear were all halved or better.   Legitimate markets opened, and all but the most depraved terrorists gave up, rejoined civil society.    With U.S. congressional support, human rights improved.   Peace returned to this democracy.  

How?  Uncompromising U.S. vision, action and support for an ally promoted respect for rule of law, deterrence, drug eradication, counter-terrorism, alternative development, legitimate markets, human rights and security, that is, peace and order, pluralism with liberty.  Colombians believed we would stand by them, and we did. America’s commitment to free society was unquestioned.  

By contrast, today, terrorists are now active again, resurgent.  What we all had is drifting away. Colombia was no small victory.  Peace there translated into safer streets across South, Central and even North America.   International drug traffickers, insurgents and criminal gangs found themselves on defense, law was ascendant.  The reverse is now true.

Today, in place of American leadership and bold commitments, our leadership minces and parses words, plays fast and loose with commitments, and demonstrates an inveterate sense of practiced listlessness, that is, dodge, drift and hold a press conference, then encourage forgetting.  There is no roadmap.  Gone is fidelity to American ideals that have shined for more than two centuries.  On foreign soil, gone is the American commitment to championing free speech and religion, free markets and press, proportional use of force and non-political enforcement of laws, hallowed respect for legislative prerogatives and individual liberty. 

Why?  Could we be seeing abroad the mirror reflection of something happening at home?  Could a retreat from U.S. Constitutional ideals in our foreign policy reflect a concurrent retreat from individual liberties at home?  Look at the list of ideals abandoned abroad – for which we no longer fight – and then compare that to the gaping silences and disrespect for the U. S. Constitution at home. What you see in that mirror may be revealing, certainly unsettling.  I will say no more, but ponder the sources of America’s foreign policy drift.  The deficit and inexperience could be one, but a retrograde foreign policy – and spinning compass in places like Colombia – may reflect something bigger, and far closer to home.

Robert "Bobby" Charles: Obama and the Napoleon-Nixon Gene

 http://americanthinker.com/2014/03/obama_and_the_napoleonnixon_gene.html

By Robert B. Charles (originally posted on March 07, 2014 - American Thinker)

March 7, 2014

Robert B. Charles is a former Assistant Secretary of State under Colin Powell and former Counsel to Speaker Dennis Hastert.  He taught Government Oversight at the Harvard Extension School, and is now head of The Charles Group LLC in Washington DC.  

 

Like something from the Human Genome project, one feels like announcing discovery of the long-lost Napoleon-Nixon gene.  Obama apparently has the Napoleon-Nixon defensive, arrogant, and unaccountable gene -- albeit with none of Nixon's redeeming expertise in international power politics, and none of Napoleon's record for strategy and war. More worrisome is that Obama’s lack of stature is now paired with an embarrassing preoccupation for proving he has some.   

What other president would ramrod an incompressible de facto nationalization of America’s healthcare system (embodied in legislation he himself never read or permitted others to read) down the nation's throat, then turn around and break every single promise he offered to compel its party-line passage? 

What president would fail to admit he had boldly lied about the law's intended effects (insert cameo of Nixon: "I will never tell a lie.") even when millions of Americans were being summarily stripped of their doctors, dumped from home health care, or bounced into higher deductible, lower coverage policies, often at higher premiums?  The travesty is only compounded by the president’s audacity.   

What president in the history of this Republic would then turn on Americans as a whole, twisting down the screw by penalizing hardworking Americans who refuse to be shoehorned into a travesty, who refuse to put their families or their own healthcare in the hands of those who cannot even put up a website?  The average American -- it seems -- must ‘say uncle’ or pay a sizable annual fine.  What American president, admitting no fault and dissembling to cover up a fraud in the inducement -- let us be honest, that is what this was -- would then have the temerity to unilaterally suspend major and minor provisions of the noxious law a full 27 times (that experts have so far counted, and we are still counting)?  Recall that a president must “faithfully execute the laws” which have been passed, even on a party-line vote that barred a reading by opponents.  Or was that Oath of Office just another piecrust promise, easily made, easily broken?

What president would have the gall to suspend a law he had forced on the American people, lied about and then penalized them under, in what was a transparently political way?  What president would intentionally delay business-crushing penalties until after the 2014 congressional elections? 

While both Obama and Nixon abused the power inherent in the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), at least Nixon kept his ‘enemies list’ short, and prosecutors out of the mix. Obama has put the entire Nation at risk of prosecution and is swinging the sword of Justice at journalists, anti-Obama moviemakers, and two Republican governors, one for acts legal in his state and the other for staff who closed a bridge. 

Add the overreach of groundless White House directives, executive orders, and coercive guidance, including usurpation of a million acres of the state of Wyoming and repeated unilateral decisions not to enforce laws. What we have is a concept -- the executive, legislative, and judicial authority all rolled into one -- at least in Obama’s mind. 

And that is where the problem lies. When the U.S. Supreme Court, public opinion, and those in his own party complain that Obama has asserted authority to which he is not entitled, something is wrong.  From illegal recess appointments to suspensions of law, one is reminded of the headlong pitch Nixon took in the "Saturday Night Massacre."  You can only stiff-arm the American people so long.  Even calm protestations, such as "I am not a crook" and “I never promised…” go only so far. There is an eerie resemblance even in Obama’s carriage and cadence to the tone deaf nature of the Nixon White House, until it cracked up.  

Only this is worse. Articles of impeachment for abuse of power, although possible, would die in the Democrat-controlled Senate. The Independent Prosecutor Law died in 1999. The sitting attorney general, against whom contempt has twice been voted, is deaf, period. The nation seems stuck, like Paris as Napoleon marched northward and America as Nixon denied wrongdoing.  At least Obama keeps his hand out of his waistcoat and curses the "establishment" in the residence.  Has he misread Lord Acton's warning that "if power corrupts, then absolute power corrupts absolutely" as a prescription? Perhaps the civil lawsuit, now signed by more than 100 members of Congress, will moderate Obama’s Napoleonic march.  Maybe a heart-to-heart discussion by leading Senate Democrats will restore proportion and respect for law (i.e. ala Congressman Rodino’s talks with Nixon).  

We know this: defensive, arrogant, and unaccountable does not play well with Americans -- and never has. It is no way to win midterms, boost standing in polls, correct catastrophic damage to a healthcare system, or reassure Americans that you know when to stop asserting prerogatives you never had. 

To ignore the curse of this nasty gene and carry on with impunity, as if the White House needs reminding, ended poorly for both Napoleon and Nixon.  It surely would be a sad legacy, especially for someone so intent on finding one, to misread our Constitution for another three years.  Like the best laid plans of mice and men, second terms and second empires, it may be noted, often go astray.