Obama’s Chief of Staff Says, Impeach My Boss (A Cato Institute Scholar Agrees)

Ben Johnson, The White House Watch

President Obama’s luck got so bad during the debate over raising the debt ceiling that even his chief of staff said he could be impeached. On July 27, the Cato Institute‘s director of health policy studies Michael F. Cannon heard Bill Daley admit, in not so many words, that it’s okay to impeach Obama:

On NPR this morning, I heard White House chief of staff Bill Daley say, “The president cannot usurp the power that’s in the Congress.” What a relief! Also, this:

I don’t think the American people would find it appropriate for the president of the United States to defy the laws of the nation and its Constitution, without their belief that that president should be impeached. And this president isn’t going to do anything against the Constitution, against the laws of the United States of America.

So if the president were to defy, say, the War Powers Resolution by ridiculously redefining “hostilities,” or if he were to defy the Constitution by signing a law that claims for Congress a power the Constitution does not grant (say, ObamaCare), we should impeach him. Got it.

If Bill Daley — a scion of the Chicago Daleys — opaquely allows that the president is so corrupt he could be impeached, why are the Republicans so timid about following through? It would be a shame if his only good piece of advice went unheeded.

Click here to sign the petition to impeach Obama. Click here to learn more about the Impeach Obama Campaign.

Everything You Need to Know About the Debt Deal

Ben Johnson, The White House Watch

GOP 2012 Contenders (Except Huntsman) Oppose Debt Deal, Blame Obama – CBS News.

Michele Bachmann: If We Pass Debt Deal, “We Embrace Being Greece” — CNSNews.com.

Ron Paul “Strongly Against” Debt Deal – The Daily Caller.

Tim Pawlenty: Debt Deal “Nothing to Celebrate” – Politico.

Mitt Romney Rejects Debt Deal, Says It Could Lead to Higher Taxes – The Huffington Post.

Rick Perry Opposes the Deal – Politico

Gary Johnson, Deal Just “Kicking the Can Down the Road”.

Rick Santorum Opposes Deal, Says Obama “Never Led” – WQAD.com.

Newt Gingrich (Votes Present But) Says Debt Deal “Is Not a Solution” – The Daily Caller.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz a No Vote on Debt Deal; Sen. Mike Lee likely no – The Daily Herald.

Rep. Justin Amash Likely to Vote No – The Grand Rapids Press.

Debt Ceiling Deal Guts Defense Spending to Pay for Politics – Kim Holmes, Heritage Foundation.

President’s Debt Ceiling Agreement A Raw Deal for National Security – James J. Carafano, Heritage Foundation.

Even the Fakery is Fake: Joint Committee is Not Required to Recommend $1.5 Trillion in Deficit Reduction – David S. Addington, Heritage Foundation.

Budget Deal Doesn’t Cut Spending – Chris Edwards, Cato Institute.

Yes, There’s a Real Threat of Higher Taxes – Daniel Mitchell, Cato Institute.

Oh yeah, The Progressive Caucus and Black Caucus Oppose the Deal, Too – Raw Story.

Will Wisconsin’s Chaos Give Obama Room to Push Socialism?

Ben Johnson, FloydReports.com

The protests in Wisconsin are a perfect representation of the American Left: loud, selfish, churlish, anti-democratic, and unshakably assured of their inalienable right to get paid for doing nothing. And make no mistake, the chaos rending Madison is precisely the future Barack Obama wishes for every state in the union, because only such radical paralysis can allow him to press forward with his unpopular agenda. That is why the president has sided with the left-wing crowd in Wisconsin in ways that some liberals believe may be unconstitutional (and thus impeachable).

Although left-wingers continually begged President Bush to demand the American people “sacrifice” during his administration, Big Labor has no intention of putting its own gains upon the altar. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has taken perhaps the most moderate, common sense course for a state facing a $3.6 million budget shortfall over the next two years. Not a single state employee will lose his job, not a single salary will be cut; he merely reduced the benefits package by asking public employees to pay for 12.6 percent of their health insurance. (They currently pay a whopping four percent; for every $40 they pay toward their benefits, taxpayers are on the hook for $960.) They must vote to recertify their union each year, and their pay raises will not exceed inflation – unless the voters approve it. The state will only match their retirement contribution, not pay 100 percent.

It is hard to work up much sympathy for the public sector’s plight. Most employees working in jobs that pay their salaries fear layoffs, are underemployed, or have no retirement plan at all.

Things have gotten so endemically out of hand because public employees are far more likely to be unionized than their private sector counterparts. They can demand larger salaries and, in many cases, threaten to strike if their wishes are not met. Since the state can always pay added benefits by raises taxes and fees, the public benefit structure has grown as quickly as the workforce itself.

Labor unions, violent minority organizations, extreme left-wingers, and illegal immigrants are the privileged caste of Obama’s America. All further the Left’s aims in some way. Big Labor buys its influence the old fashioned way. Former SEIU President Andy Stern stated flatly, “We spent a fortune to elect Barack Obama – $60.7 million to be exact – and we’re proud of it.” Other unions poured in millions more, as well as unleashing a torrent of “volunteers.”

Ironically, since many of these unions get their dues from state employees, that means the taxpayers are funding these protests for more taxpayer money. The protests are aimed at preventing the taxpayers from voting on government employees’ pay raises, or encouraging the legislature’s Democratic minority to ignore the will of the people in the last election.

How can the Left possibly sell a position so outside the mainstream to the American people?

How to Sell a Socialist Revolution

As Van Jones said, “Top-down, bottom-up, and inside-out.” The Obama administration….

Read more.

Obama’s Disarmament is the Key to China’s Dominance

Ben Johnson, FloydReports.com

If Americans were to judge Barack Obama based on how he protects our country’s interests and keeps our nation safe, they would have to conclude either that he is blinded by his ideology or that he favors our enemies. His insistence that the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood have a seat at the table in the post-Mubarak Egyptian government is the most recent, high-level reminder of how this president hurts our allies and rewards our enemies. The question Americans should parse is not whether he is motivated by idealism or antagonism — the results are essentially the same. Instead, they must ask how they can stop his encroachments on their liberties, their wealth, and their security before disaster strikes. Radio talk show host Tammy Bruce has asked if Obama’s foreign policy of empowering Islamic fundamentalists is impeachable.

However, not all of Obama’s policies consist in helping our enemies. Many of his policie undermine our security and leave Americans weaker.

Perhaps the most unexplored of these is the president’s obsession with nuclear disarmament. Obama told the United Nations in the fall of 2009, “we must stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and seek the goal of a world without them.” The previous April, Obama told an audience in Prague, “the United States will take concrete steps towards a world without nuclear weapons.” He appointed Ellen Tauscher, a congresswoman dedicated to unilateral disarmament, as his Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. In February 2009, Tauscher told the Munich Security Conference:

The U.S. would, without question, be more secure in a world free of nuclear weapons. The real question is whether pursuit of such a goal is in our security interests. I believe it is.

To further this agenda, Obama abandoned our nation’s promise to provide Poland and the Czech Republic with the missile defense system we had pledged to them — in order to cut our nuclear arsenal with the New START Treaty. Although he tried to push it through the lame duck session of Congress, Republicans pushed it into the new year. (Sen. Richard Lugar, R-IN, this weekend told the Tea Party to drop dead; he was voting for it. No wonder MSNBC once referred to Lugar as “Barack Obama’s Favorite Republican.”)

Such Pollyanna notions as complete, unilateral nuclear disarmament (and its domestic counterpart, gun control) would be misguided under any realistic circumstances. In a dangerous world, where a debt-riddled American decline threatens to permanently yield to rising Chinese power, it is perilous.

Lavina Lee of the Cato Institute has issued a new paper exposing the futility of Obama’s disarmament push. Obama, et. al., believe the United States must shed as many nuclear weapons as possible to set a “good example” and prove we are “serious” about disarmament. Once we have done so, other nations will follow our lead. Lee concludes the obvious: while America disarms, the rest of the world will pursue its own interests. In fact, such a policy will backfire, causing hostile regimes to demand greater arms cuts than we wish to make in order to achieve nuclear parity — to become equal military superpowers.

Read more.