‘New’ Lease Power On NOGC and Presidential Predictions

by Jim on 2012/11/04

[Jimbaux should fight the good fight every moment, every minute, every day.]

It’s Your Only Way

Isn’t that song awesome?

For those of you who have come here only for my Presidential election predictions, you can skip down until you find the appropriate subheadline.

Getting Back To The NOGC, Finally

Schedules of work, work, work (mentioned thrice intentionally), life, class, school, and such have really altered my schedule from what it was like prior to Thanksgiving, meaning that it wasn’t until Wednesday 01 February 2012, that I got my first pictures on the NOGC since publishing the “Terrorism” story that generated so much feedback and discussion, a topic that we really don’t need to revisit now, even as my publishing of some military train pictures apparently set off another discussion about freedom, fear, and photography.

Anyway, one of my regrets is that I didn’t sufficiently photograph the group of GP38-3s that are now in NOGC paint, colors, and reporting marks back when they were still wearing their yellow as HLCX lease units.  To be sure, they are still owned by Helm, but they’re on long-term lease to the NOGC and are wearing such paint and reporting marks because of this.

No Longer Hating Yellow?

Back a decade ago, especially after it swallowed my beloved Southern Pacific Railway and didn’t keep its own increasingly ubiquitous locomotives clean, I despised the Union Pacific Railway, but, in recent years, both of us have grown up!  We’ve grown up so much that I actually like seeing armour yellow, even on lease locomotives!  That’s why I actually miss the NOGC locomotives painted yellow; even the old Katy switchers are now painted in NOGC paint, but I really miss them from when they were in their yellow paint.

So, imagine my delight toward the end of January when I saw yet another lease GP38 variety on the property.  It would be a few days before I got any shots of it, and it would be in the rain as it was parked at Gouldsboro Yard.

The GP38-3s that are in NOGC paint now didn’t have that “HLCX” thing on the nose, and it reminds me of those KCS locomotives that were in the UP yellow for awhile.  By the way, what ever happened to those things?  Are any of them still on KCS’s roster?

Do you see that the NOLR 1229 is behind that GP38-3 moving with the train in the background?  I like that old locomotive.

I didn’t know it at the time I took the above pictures on February 1, but my days of being able to photograph the NOGC in the afternoons with ease were numbered.  As far as I know, the railroad doesn’t do much on weekends.  I’ve been prompted to make some changes since the end of January that has resulted in this scenario, hence the choice of today’s song.  Yes, I will be fighting the good fight, just in ways that I have not fought it in a long time, partly inspired by Rie’s life and death.  I still have some NOGC pictures in the queue from as far back as last November, not to mention stuff from 2005 until 2010, but I won’t be getting many more shots on this neat little railroad for awhile.  I hope that you have enjoyed what you’ve seen here of it (and keep in mind that most of what you’ve just read was written in March and that things change!)

Meanwhile, On The NS Back Belt . . .

Seventy-one minutes after taking the previous picture, it’s damned-near-dark, and I’m in New Orleans on the Norfolk Southern Railway’s Back Belt line doing a shot that I have not done in a long time and that if I cared about my own safety and life should never do again.  Here’s a good way to get a few inches shaved off of your rear end.

Yes, that’s the CSX Railway’s Q605 out of Waycross, Georgia, on its way to interchange with the Union Pacific Railway where it will become train MCXLI on its way to Livonia, UP’s major yard in southern Louisiana.

This shot had to be rescued out of the muddy darkness that it was, taken so late in the afternoon as it was.  Thank goodness for photo editing programs, or this shot would not be presentable.

Presidential Election Predictions

So, finally, months after I wrote the above text and a more than a year after I had an epiphany on the Presidential election, I’m finally writing and posting this.  I’m sorry that it has taken so long, but I wanted to get it out before the 2012 election, especially if the bizarre and unique scenario that I prophesize eventuates in reality!  You will shortly, if you have the patience to read onward, see why I felt the need to qualify the election as the “2012 election” in the previous sentence.

You Heard It Here First

Understand, please, that I am predicting something a bit less cut-and-dry than simply who will win on Tuesday 6 November 2012, even though that is part of it.  Please omit from your brain the idea that all that I’ll predict is whether Mitt Romney or Barack Obama will win on Tuesday.  The prediction that I am publicizing here is something that I conceived in August 2011, more than a year ago, and I’ve been meaning to share it for a long time.

First, Though, I Take The Easy Way Out

What I am about to predict is something that I have not seen or heard anywhere else.  If anyone else has thought of it, he apparently didn’t really publicize it.  However, although, I think that the bizarre scenario that I am about to predict has a good chance of happening, I think that it has a less than 50% chance of happening.  So, before I tell you the odd prediction, let me take the easy way out and say that if I had to bet my next meager paycheck on it, I’d say that Obama gets re-elected in 2012, but, no, wait!  Don’t stop reading yet!

Obama 2016 – Only Grover Cleveland Has Done It Before

My Massachusetts friend Ann very astutely figured out my prediction back in February in the comments section of a Sunday Sermon, as you can see.

Yes, that’s right, kiddies; I am predicting that Romney will squeak out a victory this week and that Obama will be “re-elected” by defeating Romney in his bid for re-election in 2016, thus making Barack Obama and Grover Cleveland the only two Presidents in US history to serve non-consecutive terms.

Remember, once again, that you heard it here first, okay?

There’s one very simple but very important question that you need to ask me, though, now that I’ve told you what I have been predicting since last August.


Yes, why would I predict that Obama would be elected in 2016 when no President in more than a century has served non-consecutive terms?  There are several reasons, and this is the first time in since FDR that we have the confluence of all of these factors at once.

The Stars Have Aligned

As I just said, several factors would come together to make Obama only the second President to serve non-consecutive terms.  I’ll describe two of those factors here.  Let’s start with the most important one and work our way to the second most important.

The Economy, Stupid

Before you make assumptions about my intentions and my beliefs (which is a big theme of Jimbaux’s Journal, as you should know), understand, please, that this has everything to do with voters’ perceptions about the effect that a US President has on the economy and nothing to do with the reality of that effect.  I could tell you that I’m not here to argue about what Obama has or has not done for the economy, and I could tell you that that would be irrelevant anyway because the President has a far smaller effect on the economy than so many angry voters (in any election year) think, but I can best illustrate this point to you by telling you that back in September 2008 when the financial markets crashed causing the economy to crash right during a Presidential election campaign, I said to myself, “I feel sorry for whoever wins this election, because, regardless of who wins, things will still be bad four years from now, and whoever is President will rightly or wrongly get blamed for it.”  So, although I said that I first thought of the Obama 2016 scenario in August 2011, the truth is that its genesis goes back to September 2008.

My friends, most of you, my intelligent readers, know that it wouldn’t have mattered had Hillary Clinton or John McCain or Mike Huckabee or even Mitt Romney won four years ago.  The economy would still be basically like it is now, but most people don’t seem to know that, and most people seem to be simple-minded and shallow, correlating economic conditions with whoever the leader is at the time, giving him entirely too much credit.  (“Credit” here also means “blame” since even if you “blame” the President for the bad economy, you are still giving him too much “credit” by suggesting that he has that much power at all.)

Yes, the President does have some effect over the economy in very indirect ways, picking leaders of various departments and regulatory agencies based on their philosophies, but he doesn’t decide what you purchase at the store, how much your employer pays you, and, most importantly, he doesn’t decide demand for the products and services made by your employer!  (Well, one exception to that is that he and Congress – and not without Congress – can cut the military budget, meaning fewer jobs for defense contractors.  So, there are exceptions.)  The President  also does not decide the price of housing (the reason for the current recession), and to whatever degree our government did indeed affect the price of housing before the recession – and I believe that it did do so – by doing so, it exhausted any capacity that it had to affect those prices now.  It’s too late.

It would be easy for me to criticize House Speaker John Boehner and President Obama for arguing with each other publicly about who is doing more damage to the economy, but how can I really criticize them when they are both facing unrealistic demands from angry voters (and remember that when emotion is high, logic is low, even for people who are normally logical) that they “do something” about the economy?  I don’t really have plenty of hatred for politicians because they are just a reflection of the people who put them there, and the media fan the flames of anger about the President’s effect on the economy because it helps them sell more advertisements for penis pills.  Much of what you see on CNN, FoxNews, and MSNBC is just a side show.

The Great Recession that started in 2008 is the worst since the Great Depression, and for the purposes of this discussion, that means that it is the only recession since the 1930s that is lasting longer than the length of one Presidential term.  Furthermore, because it all goes back to housing prices, things won’t be rosy by 2016 either!  Yes, regardless of who is President, the economy will be better by 2016, but not “enough” better for most people, and that’s why I think that whoever wins in 2012 would not be able to win in 2016 (if eligible.)

So, many of those people who voted for “hope and change” in 2008 and who have been disappointed by Obama since then and will vote Romney this week will be sick of Romney in four years and miss Obama and will vote him back into office in 2016.

Now, I’ll give you a reason why a President serving non-consecutive terms has not happened since Grover Cleveland, which takes us to our second reason why I think it could well happen.

Compare – Or, More Specifically, Contrast – Obama to Recent One-Term Presidents

Let’s go in reverse chronological order to see why other one-term Presidents could not have come back for a second term.  George H. W. Bush would simply have been too old in 1996.  Do you see where this is going?  Obama will still be young enough in 2016, unlike any other one-term president four years after the end of his term in the modern era.  Jimmy Carter may have been too old to run in 1984, but Reagan was really popular because of (among other things) the economy.  Obama  does not have that advantage now, and Romney will not have it in 2016.  If the economy is good, people won’t so easily question you, regardless of what else you do.  I don’t think that I need to mention Nixon, and LBJ died not long after his presidency ended.

So, do you see what I mean?  We have not since the Great Depression had a recession nearly this long, and the only two Presidents we’ve had who are as young as Obama – Bill Clinton and George W. Bush – won re-election despite whatever unpopularity they had partly due to the fact that they didn’t have a crumbling economy and housing market.  It’s a bit shallow, but it’s human nature to conclude without deeper examination that a struggling economy – which you and I know is struggling due to decades of policy before it as well as technological changes, increasing free trade (which should theoretically balance out eventually, even if not in your lifetime), and your own overspending – must therefore be the creation of whatever leader is in charge at that time, as if whatever effects he has can all be felt immediately.

And There You Have It

So, that’s it, amigos.  I’ve predicted that Obama will be the first President in the modern era to serve non-consecutive terms, and I’ve told you why.  I’m not so much saying that it will happen so much as I am saying that it has a better chance of happening than any time in 100 years.  Remember that you heard it here first, and if you think I’m on to something, show a friend.  If you think I’m full of fluff, use the comments section!

All for now . . .


{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }

1 NotAFoamer November 4, 2012 at 21:03

Doom! Death! Destruction! Actually unless the Democrats find wonderboy 2016 you may have a point. But the problem is the government is a bloated mass which continues to grow and multiply like a really bad virus. The govt. should not be in the business of creating jobs because the invisible hand has been long forgotten and Keynes can’t ever be wrong. I don’t think Romney will work miracles but perhaps he won’t be as divisive as Obama has been.


2 Fotaugrafee November 4, 2012 at 22:52

OK, if not governement, then who should be in the business of creating jobs?

I don’t necessarily think government should be in the business of job creation either, but I think they should be the reigns of SEVERE restrictions to the private sector about what they’re allowed, and not allowed, to do. Minimum wage in any skilled labor job should be no less than $12/hr. If you fuck with worker’s right to unionize, you should be jailed AND have your company taken from you…forfeited,…period.

Do you think it’s fair for the private sector, under leadership the likes of Romney / Addleston / Koch to create jobs, when they’re low-paying scab jobs that USED TO BE good-paying union jobs here on our own shores, but pawned away for the almighty dollar in the first place? Instead of pleasing the customer and the people who made YOUR business possible (the labor, b/c the only thing boss man did was start it up, let’s be honest), we’re too worried about stockholders & futures – thus crippling this system of capitalism that so many pride themselves on.


3 Greg November 4, 2012 at 21:30

Interesting proposition, but I have one reason that it won’t happen, that you nor most others have not likely considered. The reason has nothing to do with the economy, defense, politics, energy or any other number of “typical” reasons for voting or not voting for someone. Whether the majority of people believe this or not, and I’m sure they don’t, is that BO has violated not only his oath of office, but actually committed a long list of impeachable offenses during his term. No, this is not just political hyperbole, but is verifiable and factual, and is the dirty little secret that no one wants to consider, at least not yet. One reason I think that the current Congress has not yet brought impeachment to the table is the simple knowledge that if found guilty, the current bumbling V.P. would be even worse for the country, so they’ve let it slide. Another reason is that the spineless majority among them is afraid of being charged with racism for wanting to impeach the first black President. Whether he or Romney wins, I believe there will be a long and incredibly revealing investigation into his deeds, or more accurately, his mis-deeds that will bring that investigation about. And, in fact that investigation may well drag on well into the next four years because not only of the quantity of his misdeeds, but the degree to which they violate the Constitution. For that reason, I do not believe it will be possible for him to even consider running again. Just sayin’.


4 Jimbaux November 4, 2012 at 21:36

and . . . which offenses are these?


5 Fotaugrafee November 4, 2012 at 22:56

And because Obama is guilty in YOUR court of opinion, what makes Romney so special that he is worth our vote to lead this country? The man, and his VP, are complete scum.

I’m a railroad worker by trade. Paul Ryan introduced into his budget proposal increasing our retirement age, despite us going from 62 to 60 only a decade ago. OUR retirement system is stable, and paid for by the employees & employers of the railroad industry — NOT THE TAXPAYERS. But, they wanted to raid that, doing away with my Tier II benefits and paying down the debt caused by giving their rich (Republican) buddies tax relief that they knew could NOT be repaid. So let’s screw the working man some more.

I don’t see Obama doing that, and quite frankly, that is where a majority of my interest lies. Not some moral crusade or some religious agenda by a bunch of bible-thumpers who I’d just as well see burned at the stake for continually trying to do away with separation of church & state.


6 Bisonbill November 6, 2012 at 11:05

Fotau, I am not sure where you are coming from. You seem to invent facts. First, you really can’t tax teh rich any more than they will allow. And right now, the welthiest 5% are paying over 80% of all taxes, or so says the CBO and IRS. If you raise the taxes they will just move their money overseas. Clinton passed the largest peace time tax increase in American history and tax revenues went down. It led to the little recognised Clinton recession that brought down the economy beginning in August 2000. Bush’s tax cuts restored teh rates to pre-Clinton levels, but reduced to 0% those who had been in the 11% bracket. Then, everyone else got a 3-4% reduction. Besides, if you raised the wealthiest 5% to a 75% tax bracket it would not generate enough revenue to pay off one of the 8 trillion dollars in debt we have generated in the last 4 years.

In the meantime, businesses create jobs. Romney created more jobs every year while in the private sector than Obama’s plan has in four years. Yes, sometimes he had to eliminate jobs. When a company becomes bloated and inefficient it is a diservice to everyone to keep it open. If Obama had loaned the Stimulus money to construction companies instead of his multi-millionaire banker friends in NYC there would have been an immediate increase in jobs. Why didn’t Congress use that money to rebuild the tens of thousands of dangerous bridges, roadways and other infrastructure. Millions of direct and indirect jobs would have been created. Instead, they loaned it to banks that supported Obama in the election, closed those that opposed him, and allowed those banks to use teh money borrowed at half a percent to loan it back to the Treasury at 4% non-taxable…they put it into government bonds and notes. That’s government creating jobs???
My father is retired. Since he was fully vested under Railroad Retirement he was told he could not file for Social Security but had to file for RR. So he did…at teh Social Security Office. LBJ “borrowed” every dime from RR so there is no money in the fund. It may still be listed on your check stub as RR, but it all goes to SS. My Dad gets $23 per month more under RR than SS.

Second, where did you find a “Right” to organized labor. That was imposed on companies through intimidation and extortion, both prohibited by labor laws. By the way…I’m sure you will appreciate Obama for saving the GM and its Union. GMs major economic problem was legacy costs of the Union retirement plan. GM was paying more to retired employees than it pays current workers. Obams’s plan (and this was Obama’s, Jimbeaux) was for taxpayers like you and me to take over paying GM’s retirement obligations…the government assumed responsibility. So now my Soc Sec and my Income taxes are going to pay retired GM workers. (I pay dues to three unions)

Final point, there is no such thing as seperation of church and state in the Constitution. The phrase itself comes from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a group of ministers that the government could not interfere with religious matters. That’s it! The First Amendment clearly states that the government cannot establish or interfere with religion, but no where does it say that religious citizens cannot use the democratic system to take over the government.


7 Nathan Kaufman November 4, 2012 at 23:33

In this day and age, I feel like if Barack Obama is not re-elected, that will essentially be his downfall from the top of the Democratic party. Whether a perception from the general party or a self-imposed fall and step out of the spotlight to pursue lower leadership in the federal government (back to Congress) or some other worthwhile project. As young as he is, I feel like the Democrats will shove someone else into the forefront to be their next fearless leader because if America doesn’t want Obama now, why would we want him in 4 years?

I don’t feel like I’ve picked sides, not the point of my argument.

Cool gray end-cab switcher. Being far from any big yard, I don’t see them much. I got lucky and caught a pair as part of a consist headed toward Houston. The nearest yard to me is Hearne, Texas, but they run GP60s paired with GP40-2s (one of the 60s is in pure Cotton Belt paint though).

Also, a heads up to you, there should be a pair of Santa Fe F-units coming through New Orleans on a NS to probably BNSF transfer. Maybe UP. They’re ultimately headed for Galveston and the grand reopening of the museum, which has been out of commission since Ike came through.

Nathan Kaufman


8 Moose November 5, 2012 at 06:27

Interesting scenario Jimbaux! I could see it happening given your rationale. It’s going to be close!


9 Greg November 5, 2012 at 19:02

The oath of office of the President of the United States is simple and concise. It reads:
“I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Instead of living up to that oath, President Obama has actively attempted to subvert, ignore, and completely destroy large parts of the Constitution. I believe the President of the United States is well aware of what he is doing, and it is completely intentional. Based from my years as a constitutional attorney, listed below are what I believe are impeachable offenses, and the list continues to grow.

1. President Obama has appointed numerous people to cabinet level positions without the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate, as is required by the Constitution. These individuals are given extraordinary power and independent funding, and are not under the scrutiny of Congress. The fact that Obama calls them Czars does not make them legal. He has also made illegal recess appointments of other members of his cabinet that required Senate approval. He simply declared that the U.S. Senate was in recess despite the fact that no such declaration had been made by the Senate. The President has no Constitutional authority to do this.

2. The push by Pres. Obama to pass healthcare legislation in the Congress of the United States that he was fully aware was unconstitutional. He has continued to use his powers and executive branch of government to implement this legislation despite the fact that a federal judge had declared the entire law unconstitutional, and ordered that it not be implemented. In addition, Obama has directed members of his administration to violate the right to freedom of religion protected by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.
Religious institutions such as churches and schools have been ordered to provide contraceptives and abortion inducing morning after pills to employees as part of the health care bill requirements. The fact that this is a direct violation of their religious teaching is of no concern to Obama.

3. Despite the fact that the United States Senate refused to pass the Cap and Trade bill, the President has ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to use regulations to implement key portions of the bill, including those regulating so-called greenhouse gases. Obama himself has acknowledged that this will force energy prices in this country to skyrocket. He is taking these actions in direct defiance of the will of the people of the United States, the will of Congress, and the Constitution. The actions of the EPA include regulations that will force many coal burning power plants to close.

4. Through the Department of the Interior (DOI) Obama has placed a moratorium on offshore oil drilling or exploration off both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the United States and in parts of the Gulf of Mexico. He has also prohibited new drilling exploration on federal land in any state within the United States. These actions by the DOI have continued in direct defiance of several court orders issued by Federal Judge Martin Feldman in New Orleans, Louisiana declaring that the department had no authority to issue such a moratorium on drilling in the Gulf. In fact, the Secretary of the Department of the Interior (DOI) has been held in contempt by the same judge. The administration has claimed to be complying, but has tied up the drilling permits in so much red tape that the effect is the same.

5. Instead of allowing American companies to drill for oil domestically, Obama has betrayed the American people and authorized loans of billions of dollars to countries like Brazil and Mexico so that they can drill for oil, and then sell that oil to the United States. This will dramatically increase our dependence on foreign nations including Venezuela, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, and even Libya that do not serve the interest of America or the American people.
Obama has also refused to approve the keystone pipeline from Canada to the United States that would not only lessen our dependence on oil from countries like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, but create thousands of new jobs in the United States. The decision on the pipeline is one that belongs in the hands of the members of Congress, not the President.

6. President Obama has abdicated his responsibility to enforce the laws of the United States against illegal immigration. He has virtually declared our southern border an open border by declaring certain areas of federal land in states like Arizona as off-limits to federal, state, and local authorities. This is despite the fact that these areas are being used to bring in thousands of illegal immigrants, massive amounts of drugs, and also being used by foreign terrorists to infiltrate the United States. He has also ordered the border patrol not to arrest most illegal immigrants entering the country, and has stopped deportation proceedings against thousands of people in this country illegally. He is in effect instituting the so-called “dream act” bypassing the Congress of the United States which has sole authority over immigration matters.

7. The President and his Attorney General Eric Holder have clearly violated their oath of office by joining with foreign countries such as Mexico, Bolivia, and Columbia, in lawsuits against the sovereign states of Arizona, Georgia, and Alabama to stop them from enforcing the federal immigration laws.

8. President Obama has ordered the Federal Communications Commission to adopt regulations giving the federal government control of the Internet and its contents, including providing Obama with a kill switch that gives him authority to shut down the Internet if he sees fit. This is in direct violation of a decision by the United States Supreme Court that the FCC has no Constitutional authority to control the Internet.
There were two bill pending in Congress to effectively give Obama the kill switch he wants over the Internet. When these two proposals, the Stop Internet Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) were withdrawn amid public outcry Obama announced he will sign an international treaty that purports to give him the same authority. He has signaled his intention to do this as an “Executive Act” and not bring the treaty to the Senate for ratification as required by Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution. I believe he intends to take the same action in regard to the United Nations Small arms treaty and the UN Law of the Sea treaty that are both unlikely to get Senate approval.

9. One of the paramount responsibilities of the President of the United States and his executive branch of government is to enforce and defend laws adopted by Congress unless they are declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court. Obama has decided that he should ignore this Constitutional mandate, and that as President he is more powerful than either the Congress of the United States or the Supreme Court. He has unilaterally declared that the Defense of Marriage Act passed by the Congress is unconstitutional, and further declared that he will not have the Justice Department defend it against lawsuits.
His administration has also refused to enforce laws against voter intimidation and federal law that requires states to purge their voter registration lists of deceased individuals and those that are registered illegally. In addition, the Justice Department is refusing to allow states to enforce laws requiring proof of identity by voters at the polls. Obama has essentially said that he is the supreme ruler of the United States, and that the Congress and the Federal Judiciary are irrelevant.

10. It has been widely reported that acting through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms the Obama administration was involved for months in getting legitimate and law-abiding gun store owners along our southern border to supply weapons to straw buyers who the government knew would deliver them to the drug cartels in Mexico. This was billed as a sting operation against the cartels when in fact it was designed to produce fraudulent data showing that large numbers of weapons were going from the United States to the Mexican drug dealers.
This data was then to be used, and is being used, to try to justify new gun control regulations to limit the rights of American citizens to keep and bear arms. It has nothing to do with arresting members of the drug operations. The administration has, in effect, armed our enemies, and one border patrol agent has already been killed by one of these weapons. Now, Obama continues to impose gun control laws by Executive order so he will not have to deal with Congress. The administration is also refusing to cooperate with the committees in the House of Representatives that are investigating the entire operation. It is even defying Congressional subpoenas.

11. The President of the United States is not authorized by the Constitution to take our nation to war without the consent of the Congress of the United States. The only exception to this is the authority granted to the President by Congress under the War Powers Act. This law allows the President to take immediate action without the consent of Congress if there is an imminent threat to the security of the United States, or its citizens. Although there was clearly no such imminent threat caused by the Civil War in Libya, the President committed members of the United States military to combat missions in a foreign country without the consent of Congress. He based his authority on a United Nations resolution, and a resolution by the Arab League.
Now, the President has carried it one step further. During testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 7, 2012, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told Senators that the President has authority to take our country to war without the Congressional approval required by Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution. The administration is taking the position that it can ignore Congress as long as it has United Nations approval or NATO approval.
However, these actions may be the least of the worries facing the American people. The White House insisted that language be included in the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that gives the President sole authority to order the military to arrest and indefinite detain American citizens on U.S. soil if the President suspects them of terrorist ties. This was amazingly passed overwhelmingly by Congress. It appears to be another situation where few members read the bill before voting on it.
This was almost immediately followed by another unconstitutional executive order titled the National Defense Resources Preparation order. It is similar to orders signed by past Presidents, but this one includes language that appears to give Obama the authority to declare martial law in peacetime, and take over the allocation of everything from food and fuel to transportation and health care. This violates the Constitution in a number of different ways.

12. Last but not the least of my dirty dozen of impeachable offenses, is the fact that since taking office the President has used executive orders, laws pushed through Congress in the dark of night, and administrative actions by his departments to nationalize and control automobile manufacturers, banks, insurance companies, and portions of the healthcare industry. This is designed to take our country from a free enterprise economy to a socialist economy. There is absolutely no authority in the Constitution of the United States that allows the President to do this.

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution provides as follows:
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
I contend that among those high crimes and misdemeanors is the intentional violation of the oath of office administered to the President and all other federal officials. In fact, federal law at 5 U.S.C. 7311 specifically provides that violation of the oath of office includes advocating the overthrowing of our constitutional form of government. This is specifically declared a criminal offense in 18 U.S.C. 1918 and is punishable by both a fine and imprisonment.


Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: