Crimes Against Liberty Page 16

  The administration is steeped in an end-justifies-the-means culture, committed to doing whatever it takes to advance their agenda, details like the Constitution or legislative rules be damned. When criticized for resorting to secrecy, political bribery, intimidation, and other legislative shenanigans to enact ObamaCare, Obama advisor David Axelrod said the American people didn’t much care about the legislative process—they just wanted results. Axelrod had long subscribed to this cynical view; eight months earlier he said, “Ultimately, this is not about a process, it’s about results. If we’re going to get this thing done, obviously time is a-wasting.”4

  In dismissing as mere “process” the kind of transparent, honest governance he had promised on the campaign trail, President Obama has exercised significantly greater power than our constitutional framers intended in his quest to transform America from free enterprise to socialism, from a nation primarily of earners to one primarily of dependents. Along those lines, Obama’s congressional ally Nancy Pelosi, speaking of ObamaCare, said, “We see it as an entrepreneurial bill, a bill that says to someone, if you want to be creative and be a musician or whatever, you can leave your work, focus on your talent, your skill, your passion, your aspirations because you will have health care.”5 In other words, don’t worry about your healthcare bills, someone else will pay them.

  Obama and his team are liberal ideologues who believe their mission is to impose on the rest of us—by whatever means available—their vision of a virtuous society. They view the Constitution, as originally understood, as an impediment, but reinterpreted, as a marvelous vehicle for transforming society in their image, which is the same way they regard the rule of law. But the rule of law is blind to ideology, a concept so foreign to the Obamites as to be unintelligible. As veteran conservative columnist George Will wrote, “Anyone could govern as boldly as their whims decreed, were it not for the skeletal structure that keeps civil society civil—the rule of law. The Obama administration is . . . careless regarding constitutional values and is acquiring a tincture of lawlessness.”6

  “JUST LIKE YOUR TEENAGE KIDS”

  A key reason why this administration feels justified in flouting the rule of law is that they see themselves as benevolent tutors who cannot let trivial technicalities like the Constitution impede their mission to enlighten the unwashed American masses. At a seminar on reconstructing America’s electrical grid, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu commented, “The American public, just like your teenage kids, aren’t acting in a way that they should act. The American public has to really understand in their core how important [energy conservation] is.” Chu has incorporated that patronizing attitude into the administration’s energy policy. As the Wall Street Journal’s Ian Talley observed, “The administration aims to teach [the American public]—literally.” Translating this outlook into practice, the Environmental Protection Agency is going to partner with the Parent Teacher Organization on a cross-country tour of 6,000 schools to teach (read: indoctrinate) actual children about climate change and energy efficiency. “We’re showing people across the country how energy efficiency can be part of what they do every day. Confronting climate change, saving money on our utility bills, and reducing our use of heavily-polluting energy can be as easy as making a few small changes.”7

  After Chu’s patronizing comments were publicized, Energy Department spokesman Dan Leistikow assured us Chu was not comparing the public to teenagers, but merely insisting we need to educate teenagers about ways to save energy.8 Since they believe the Constitution doesn’t mean what it says, it’s unsurprising the administration would insist Chu’s actual words—that Americans were acting improperly “just like your teenage kids”—are infinitely flexible as well.

  GOING WHERE NO MODERN PRESIDENT HAS GONE BEFORE

  Obama’s lawless tendencies are starkly evident in his dealings with NASA and the space program, which he has subordinated to environmental projects like developing alternative energy—an effort he suggested should be our “next Apollo Program.”9 First, some background: during the Democratic primary, Obama indicated his $18 billion education plan (including his misguided ambition to federalize preschool) would be funded, in part, by delaying for five years NASA’s Constellation program, which would return humans to the moon.10 This plan stoked criticism about the futility of defunding one of the federal government’s greatest investments in math and science in the name of renewing its investment in math and science education. There are also national security implications: Obama’s plan could leave the United States unable to send people into space for a decade absent the aid of foreign nations, such as Russia and China; we might not be able to service the International Space Station; and we risk falling behind China, which could beat us back to the moon.11

  After coming under sustained criticism, Obama attempted to “clarify” his plan, vowing to continue developing the next generation of space vehicles and complete the international space station. He said he “endorses the goal of sending human missions to the moon by 2020, as a precursor in an orderly progression to missions to more distant destinations, including Mars.”12 He also declared, naturally, that global warming monitoring would have to be a major part of the space program.13

  Upon taking office, however, Obama made it clear space exploration was not a high priority. In addition to delaying any return to the moon and abandoning the manned space program, he showed a preference for largely turning over space travel to the private sector. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that when Obama finally found a government program he wanted to leave to the private sector, it would be one of the few that is best controlled by the government, because of its national security implications.

  It also follows he would abandon a program that has long symbolized American exceptionalism, a concept Obama rejected with his famous comment, “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” As one blogger noted, “From now on, whenever we remember with pride the courage and sacrifice of the Mercury astronauts, or Neil Armstrong taking ‘One small step for a man, one giant step for mankind,’ or Jim Lovell and the crew of Apollo 13 calmly tinkering with the duct tape to repair their capsule, we’ll quickly deflate with the afterthought: ‘Oh yeah. Now the Russians do that. We don’t.’”14

  Once he was elected, Obama’s funeral plans for Constellation quickly became clear, notwithstanding his campaign promises to retain the program. Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag announced, “We are proposing canceling the program, not delaying it.” The New York Times reported Obama had no other space exploration mission planned to replace the moon voyage. “What the administration calls a ‘bold new initiative’ does not spell out a next destination or timetable for getting there,” the Times noted, adding Obama’s NASA would be “fundamentally different” from today’s NASA. It would cease to “operate its own spacecraft, but essentially buy tickets for its astronauts.”15

  All too typically, the Obama administration skirted the law in implementing its new space policy. Obama’s proposed 2011 budget envisioned canceling Constellation and its Ares rockets and Orion crew capsule. So NASA notified bidders, including Boeing and United Space Alliance, that it was withdrawing a 2009 bid for work on the Constellation program. 16 This angered Congressman Bill Posey, who argued the “administration’s unilateral decision to cancel contracts associated with the Constellation program absent congressional consent is a direct violation of the law and of congressional intent.... Congress has not directed the administration to cancel the Constellation program, in fact it has done just the opposite in recent legislation.”17 Posey was referring to “The Consolidated Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2010,” which expressly prohibits the “termination or elimination of any program, project or activity of the architecture for the Constellation program.”

  Posey joined with some thirty congressmen in sending a letter to NASA administrator Charles Bolden accusing
the administration of further violating the law by forming five “tiger teams” and setting aside FY2010 Constellation funds to shut down Constellation and “transition to the new program” without congressional approval. NASA administrator Bolden fired a letter back to Congress claiming NASA had not broken the law because it was only looking into canceling the program, but had not actually canceled it yet.18 This was hard to take seriously, since NASA had already canceled Constellation’s bidding process.

  A month later, six Republican senators began an effort to save Constellation. Citing Congress’s rightful authority over the space program, Senator George LeMieux declared the program’s cancellation “would reverse nearly 50 years of U.S. space policy and would effectively end the United States’ leadership role in space.”19

  It turns out the senators’ concerns were not exaggerated. By June, NASA had begun to wind down construction of the rockets and spacecraft that would have transported our astronauts back to the moon, dismantling the program in defiance of the congressional ban on canceling it.20

  Obama’s unilateral decision would “force as many as 30,000 irreplaceable engineers and managers out of the space industry,” and the “human exploration program, one of the most inspirational tools to promote science, technology, engineering and math to our young people,” would be “reduced to mediocrity,” according to an open letter signed by former NASA administrator Michael Griffin, legendary flight director Gene Kranz, and several NASA astronauts. 21 Lockheed Martin issued a statement saying the program’s elimination would cause the loss of “significant investment [that] has already been made by the nation and private industry.”22

  The administration gave short shrift to planning how private firms would take over the program, to attendant safety concerns, and to the poor record of commercially oriented NASA programs. Indeed, it is remarkable how casually Obama approached such a crucial decision that could, according to Democratic congresswoman Donna Edwards of Maryland, “essentially decimate America’s human space-flight capacity.”23

  Aside from the dubious legality, Obama’s restructuring of NASA fit another pattern of his governing style. He made a firm decision early on, then pretended to consider other viewpoints as he systematically built a phony case to support his decision. He employed the same chicanery with ObamaCare, when he pretended to the end he was “open to all ideas,” and with his “jobs summit,” which was a mere prop to validate his “jobs bill.” Likewise with NASA, he convened the “Human Space Flight Plans Committee” to review NASA’s plan to return to the moon by 2020.24 Coincidentally, the panel reached conclusions that bore a striking resemblance to Obama’s own preferences, including the evaluation that returning to the moon by 2020 was just too ambitious. Author Mark Whittington aptly observed that Obama’s “selective fiscal discipline” with NASA “suggests a president who is not prudent with spending public funds, but rather a president who will shower resources on programs he likes—socialized medicine and a pork laden stimulus bill—and defund programs he does not like—space exploration and national defense.”25

  It also suggests a president who is not at all about “hope” and “inspiration,” but about dampening our dreams and expectations and relegating this nation to second tier status—it would appear—by design. His “vision” is to redirect billions of dollars toward the quixotic pursuit of a utopian “green” economy run on windmills and solar panels. As the Washington Times wrote, when it comes to space, ‘“Yes we can,’ has become ‘mission impossible.’”26

  Responding to heavy criticism of his NASA policies, Obama, in a speech to NASA employees at the Kennedy Space Center in April 2010, suddenly seemed to reverse course, saying he wanted crew missions beyond the moon and deep into space by 2025 and orbiting Mars by 2030. He also announced the revival of the NASA crew capsule concept he had canceled along with the moon program earlier in the year. Notably, he did not back off his plans to subcontract these missions to commercial industries or to cancel the moon mission. But he at least paid lip service to the program’s potential for inspiring “wonder in a new generation—sparking passions and launching careers.... If we fail to press forward in the pursuit of discovery, we are ceding our future and we are ceding that essential element of the American character.”27

  The administration’s overall confusion and lack of vision in space policy was captured in a May 2010 preliminary report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which concluded that U.S. leadership in space is threatened by poor coordination in establishing space policy. CSIS reported there are some twenty-nine “recently completed or ongoing space launch studies within the U.S. government,” but no entity has oversight over all of them. Gregory Kiley, a lead analyst on the report, said Defense secretary Robert Gates had stated publicly he was “not adequately” consulted on the policy shift at NASA. “Making a decision in one sector without thinking through the implications and ramifications for the others is not good policy,” said Kiley.28

  The confusion, it seems, comes from the top. According to a July 5, 2010 article on FOXNews.com, Bolden told Arabic-language TV network al Jazeera that when Obama appointed him to head NASA, “Perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science...and math and engineering.” Making Muslims feel good—a very strange charge for the head of America’s space agency.

  THE POLITBURO

  Believing his administration possesses vast authority over the private sector, Obama colluded with the Democratic Congress to intimidate corporate executives of AT&T, John Deere, and Verizon when those companies disclosed, in required regulatory filings, that ObamaCare will dramatically raise the cost of their employees’ health insurance. Democratic congressman Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, summoned these CEOs to Capitol Hill and demanded they provide Congress internal company documents detailing their healthcare finances. One Republican on the committee called it “an attempt to intimidate and silence opponents of the Democrats’ flawed health care reform legislation.”29 Here we see some of the magnificent “change” Obama has delivered—we are becoming a country in which corporate executives, for fear of offending powerful politicians, are not allowed to state that new laws will cause higher costs.

  Then again, there is hope. Waxman’s attempt to bully the CEOs fizzled quickly. The Committee on Energy and Commerce majority staff issued a memorandum stating that the companies had properly compiled their estimates, which they were legally required to disclose to their shareholders.30 Amidst growing criticism of this blatant bullying, Waxman called off the witch-hunt, seeking to avoid a major embarrassment to Obama and his party should the CEOs be given a public forum to detail the “unforeseen” consequences of ObamaCare.

  In his memo to committee members canceling the hearing, Waxman tried to save face and candy-coat the facts. The memo stated, “Several companies and their representatives expressed the view that the new law could have beneficial impacts on large employers if implemented properly.” But as writer Jed Babbin noted, “There is nothing to support the implication” that the summoned companies “were being less critical of the new healthcare law.”31

  Regardless, it’s none of Waxman’s business whether the companies were critical or supportive of the law—they have the right to express their views. Waxman’s thuggish behavior in service to this thuggish administration was an extraordinary abuse of power. But it was nothing new; Republican congressman Joe Barton had previously denounced similar bullying by Waxman in launching an investigation into the American Farm Bureau’s opposition to the cap and trade bill. Barton even suggested it was Waxman himself who should be investigated.32

  Obama’s Democrats were routinely unapologetic about their abuses. When CNS News asked Senate judiciary chairman Patrick Leahy under what authority the Democrats passed ObamaCare, including its mandate forcing nearly all Americans to purch
ase health insurance, Leahy exclaimed, “We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority? Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there’s no question there’s authority. Nobody questions that.” Nobody that matters to congressional liberals, that is—as in the majority of Americans.

  Other Democrats answered the question with similar evasions. An incredulous House Speaker Nancy Pelosi demanded, “Are you serious? Are you serious?” Democratic senator Mark Warner declared, “There is no place in the Constitution that talks about you ought to have the right to get a telephone, but we have made those choices as a country over the years.” Senator Roland Burris stammered, “Well that’s under certainly the laws of the—protect the health, welfare of the country. That’s under the Constitution. We’re not even dealing with any constitutionality here. Should we move in that direction?” Senator Bob Casey confessed, “Well, I don’t know if there’s a specific constitutional provision.”33

  EXECUTIVE ORDERS

  The Left, which had railed against “King George” Bush for his supposed abuse of presidential powers, didn’t seem to mind when Obama and his veto-proof Congress broke the rules and shredded the Constitution to pass ObamaCare. When the bill’s passage seemed questionable due to opposition from Democratic congressman Bart Stupak and other allegedly pro-life Democrats, Obama promised to issue an executive order denying federal funding for abortion in exchange for the “pro-lifers’” vote for the bill. The proper procedure would have been for House Democrats to adopt new abortion language in their bill and then send the bill to the Senate, but Democrats couldn’t risk that, having lost their veto-proof majority in the Senate with Republican Scott Brown’s election in Massachusetts.