by Bruce Eden on June 4, 2012 –
– Comments by Irwin Ironstone Bob Vinik – 6.25.2016 –
Obama’s – UPDATED — Acts Of Treason & Violations Of Federal Laws  -Index –
Obama’s Acts Of Treason & Violations Of Federal Laws ……… 1
As A Constitutional Scholar, POTUS Ignored The Law? ……. 6
Damage Done By POTUS Obama …………………………… 7
POTUS Obama And Foreign Policy …………………………….. 12
Trading For Our Soldier Bowe Bergdahl, American Traitor. Freed By Taliban In Prisoner trade – Another Very Mixed Success Story …………………….. 13
The POTUS Obama Executive Agreement With Iran …………………. 14
The Trans-Pacific Partnership Pros & Cons ……………………………..15
The Hillary & Susan Rice Affairs Benghazi …………………………….15
Hillary’s Open Invitation For Hackers? …………………………………15
The Clinton Fund Donations While She was Secretary Of State ………….16
Do All Presidents Abuse Executive Agreements ………………………….16
Obama’s Abuses …………………………………………………………..16
The title of the article and the fox news report is “GREEN SCAM:
80% of Green Energy Loans Went to Obama Donors …………………….19
Companies Went Bust (Video)”…………… ………………………………….20
IRS & Immigration Scams ………………………………………………………………… 20
Obama Used Executive Privilege To protect His Attorney General – Holder …21
I spoke with Bruce Eden about his article and received his approval to post it and also to expand the scope of his article. Bruce’s list of Obama’s acts of treason are direct and to the point. Bruce noted that the list was obsolete and had to be updated.
There are so many different areas where Obama has acted in ways that not only may not be in compliance with the law, but where he has acted in ways that are very questionable.
Obama’s Acts of Treason:
Bruce has indicated that the executive branch has failed to uphold the laws of the country.
In addition to what has been said, there are many additional areas where the POTUS has acted very questionably.
AS A CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR, POTUS IGNORED THE LAW?
Although he has been touted as a constitutional scholar by those who support him, the POTUS appears to have frequently acted contrary to that document. [ii][ii] Based upon his thoughts and conversations with others, it appears that POTUS was an instructor not a professor. He taught three limited classes about the constitution and never published anything about the constitution (It appears that POTUS has not always been truthful.)
I have read several articles and books that raise many more issues that should be addressed and used to expand Bruce’s list of possible high crimes and misdemeanors.
Mr. Eden (Bruce) points out, the list he wrote was from 2012, four years ago. There are so many areas that can be added to a list that accuse the POTUS of acting improperly. After reviewing articles, law reviews, and newspapers, one has to wonder if this is the most corrupt, worst run government, in the country’s history.
THE DAMAGE DONE BY POTUS?
One difficulty with evaluating a POTUS during or soon after their time in office is that the impact of their actions are not complete. For about 6 years of the time Obama was in office, a common response to any problem was I did not do it. It was Bush!
No matter who is elected for president, expect the same type of response, blaming Obama for the state of the country.
POTUS AND FOREIGN POLICY??
Trading For Our Soldier Bowe Bergdahl, American Traitor. Freed By Taliban In Prisoner trade – Another Very Mixed Success Story
The negotiations by the POTUS was done without consulting other branches of government. It is always nice to get an American home. Even one who is later charged with desertion by the army. I am sure that Israel would have done the same type of trade to save any of their soldiers even if the odds were five to one. Some of the statements by “senior POTUS officials are very interesting. For example: “This is the only issue we’ve discussed with the Taliban in recent months,” said one senior Obama administration official involved in the talks. “We do hope that having succeeded in this narrow but important step, it will create the possibility of expanding the dialogue to other issues. But we don’t have any promises to that effect.” Another interesting issue is that POTUS signed a law with an executive waiver. Effectively, he said that he did not have to follow the congressional edict.
THE POTUS’ EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT WITH IRAN?
This is an interesting deal. POTUS has made another deal with the devil. In order to make a deal with IRAN, the POTUS had congress pass a law or agreement to allow his secret deal with the worlds foremost exporter of terrorism. I do not know if anyone knows what is in the treaty because like most of the other “open” documents that the administration has made available to both congress and the public, the deal was negotiated in a secret setting.
At one time, we used to have a senate and House that understood the concept of separation of powers. Obama has followed a policy where executive orders have replaced congress and now treaties that must be verified and approved by a two thirds vote of the senate. This is one of the most difficult issues to evaluate and can only be determined after the fact if an agreement has been successful.
Iran has made out like a bandit because most of the sanctions have been removed and money being held by western banks is now available for Iran to use. The methods for monitoring Iran’s nuclear programs is a little sketchy at this time. In some instances, Iran can delay inspection of possible nuclear labs for up to 24 days.
THE TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP PROS AND CONS
This is another of Obama’s questionable foreign policy actions. In the review of this treaty (TPP), it appears that the United States will not get the best deals available. However, it appears that special interest groups have carved out areas where they can make out like bandits. The only reason that Obama is pushing this treaty is that he wants credit under his name. That in no way means that it is in the best interest of the United States. Some of the studies about the TPP suggest that it will not be best for us, but will assist several sectors. I wonder who is negotiating for the larger businesses?
HILLARY’S OPEN INVITATION FOR HACKERS?
THE CLINTON FUND DONATIONS WHILE SHE WAS SECRETARY OF STATE?
There were about 700,000 hits when using Google with the key of ” contributions to the Clinton foundation while Hillary was secretary of state.” It is very likely that some of these donations not only required Clinton’s approval but also Obama’s approval. In any case, it appears that there were contributions made to the Clinton foundation while she was Secretary of State.
DO ALL PRESIDENTS ABUSE EXECUTIVE AGREEMENTS?
One may question why congress has not impeached or tried to impeach him or even brought up impeachment charges against him. There are many reasons that he has not been impeached. The simple explanation is that it may be more productive to keep him in the spotlight rather than bring charges against him. Some of the reasons include:
* failure to get out of wars for eight years;
* taking 8 years to triple the national debt. From 1789-2008 the debt went from 0 to about 6 trillion dollars. From 2009-2016, the national debt increased to almost 19 trillion dollars.
* The next economic downturn that is expected in 2016 or 2017.
* The new Asian trade agreement that will not be favorable to the United States. Using a search key of “problems with the trans pacific partnership” resulted in more than 4 million hits. Evidently, it is not an open trading system but favors a select group of partners. As Americans this agreement was hidden while negotiations were going on. Hopefully, it will not be signed by approved of by congress or agreed to in an executive agreement by a lame duck president.
* The high-cost of PPACA insurance and the reduction in medical services to the elderly.
* Open government and whistle-blower protection. Obama has gone after more whistle-blowers than any other president. They have exposed violations of the constitution. He has however, protected agency administrators who appear to have violated the law. See the IRS scandal.
* Constitutional limits on the executive office- Limits may be necessary on the next executive after reviewing the many abuses by the current POTUS.
* Immigration policy and law reform – Again – this is being contested in court.
* International treaties where enforcement takes away our national sovereignty.
The events that are reviewed are not reviewed chronologically. Almost all of Obama’s actions have come under scrutiny by the world not just by those in the United States. Not only have the president’s acts come under scrutiny but so have some of the acts of his family come under scrutiny. As an example, the Obama no-bid contract to develop a web based interface for the Affordable Care Act was granted to a company where Michelle Obama’s classmate worked as a senior vice president. 
Another interesting exposure that was “supported by taxpayers” was POTUS’ adventures into renewable energy. To view some of the taxpayer failures in this area Google ” which solar company went belly up that were supported by Obama? ” It appears that many of the government supported “green job companies” have failed. There were over 200k matches using the key noted.
The title of the article and the fox news report is “GREEN SCAM: 80% of Green Energy Loans Went to Obama Donors – 19 Companies Went Bust (Video)”
This Green Bust was reported by Fox News. Some of those who went belly up were reimbursed by the Federal government. Any money they lost was covered by the government. Now only were they reimbursed, but they also tried to write off the companies losses on their taxes. Finally, someone at the IRS stopped the tax loss write-off. Some things cannot be covered up even by the POTUS.
IRS AND IMMIGRATION SCAMS –
The Obama IRS scandal resulted in selective enforcement of IRS rules that gave non-profit status to some political groups over other groups. Evidently, the OBAMA IRS was not granting non-Profit status to any conservative organization so that donors would not get tax contributions as tax write-offs. Take a look at the way Obama has independently extended stays for unlawful immigrants or has sold citizenship for 500k, or has taken positions that allow unlawful immigrants to remain in the country.
OBAMA USED EXECUTIVE PRIVILAGE
TO PROTECT HIS ATTORNEY GENERAL
Eric Holder who was the U.S. Attorney General was involved in “fast and furious” a program that gave or sold arms to drug dealers. Rather than supply the information to the congressional committee investigating this matter, Obama asserted “executive privilege” to protect someone who acted improperly and possibly criminally.
REPEAL OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT?
It has been expressed that Obama will take actions to limit the second Amendment. Alternatively, he may want to leave this to Hillary. This is another complex issue because those who now get guns criminally will still obtain guns. Those who do not have guns have to rely upon police to arrive and protect them. It appears that Bars are gun free zones so that even if some of the people in the Orlando Florida club have permits, they could not bring them into any bar or club. The result was that a terrorist (who had a Muslim Background) was able to start killing people before the Police were able to contain him (This may have taken hours.) I wonder what laws will be put on the books to try to stop and search individuals? In New York City, a federal judge determined that the stop and search law was unconstitutional based upon the fourth amendment.
In this limited review, it is clear that patronage during the second term of Obama’s administration expanded. There were exclusive deals made where the taxpayers donated money to those who contributed to Obama’s favorite endeavors and apparently for those of Ms. Clinton. I am concerned that the same political favors that favored a few select contributors will continue under Hillary. However, the next president will not have the same tools available to recover the disasters that have been left by Obama. The society is divisive. The military has been ripped apart. The national debt cannot be reduced and the interest rate cannot go under zero. Thank you POTUS for destroying our country in just eight years.
 The Original post is located at the site below. last visited 05/25/2016 https://nationalwriterssyndicate.com/content/view/2833/2/obamas-acts-of-treason-violations-of-federal-laws/
Rather than refer to our president as Barack Hussein Obama, he will be referred to as Obama or POTUS (President of the United States).
Please verify the information because some of it is considered controversial.
 In reviewing the almost eight years that Obama has been in office, I really cannot determine which of his many criminal activities is most damaging to the country. After looking at his record, Obama has done things that may not be criminal but certainly do not meet my sniff test. The gun running by the U.S. Justice Department that resulted in the killing of hundreds of innocent people. The lying by Justice Department lawyers before federal judges. The Lying by Susan Rice our U.N. ambassador before the world (She was then given another post in the Obama administration.) The scam loans to people who donated to the POTUS campaign. Some of these loans were guaranteed by “we the People.” Hundreds of Millions of dollars were wasted as political payoffs on businesses that had no chance of success. The tripling of the national debt. The PPACA (OBAMA Care The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)).The Abuse of the executive branch when issuing orders. The failure to prosecute directors of the IRS for covering up misconduct and contempt of congress. The list is so long that it would take at least several books to review all activity.
 U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 4 is where Impeachment is defined : 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
 One of the problems with the constitution is that the definition for impeachment is not clear. The issues were discussed by the original members who debated what constituted impeachment. However, no clear definition exists. For example, when a president grants or has one of the executive branch agencies give loans based on political contributions does that constitute bribery? In addition one must determine what constitutes ” other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
 Article 1, Section 8 lists congressional powers and it appears that our POTUS ignored sections of the constitution. It starts out by saying “The Congress shall have power to” – Those powers include to ” To declare war” and to ” To establish a uniform rule of naturalization,”
 For a more complete review of these powers Google “U.S. Code Title 50″ and then select chapter 33.
 Article I, Section 9 Clause 8. No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
 with a search key of ” Andrew Romanoff Colorado offered anything not to run? ” there were about x 157,000 matches one strongly suggests a job offer to drop out of a contested election see https://americaswatchtower.com/2010/06/02/the-white-house-offered-andrew-romanoff-a-job-to-drop-out-of-the-colorado-primary/
 Using Google these three congressmen appear to have made some contacts related to compromising their political positions -there are implications of deal making that violate several federal criminal statutes.
 Article II, Section 3- The part of this that appears to be ignored is that rather than following the law, the POTUS has decided that he can take over the job of congress and ignore this section of the constitution that says” he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.”
 Article III, Sections 1 & 2 establish the federal courts and limit jurisdiction of the federal courts based on the constitution .
See also the U.S. v. Texas action before the U.S. Supreme Court where a federal judge held the Justice Department lawyer “in contempt” for lying to him about the implementation of the PPACA (health care system) and the changing of status of unlawful immigrants. Recently, the POTUS Justice Department has been sanctioned by a federal judge in Texas (See Texas v. U.S.) for lying in court.) The POTUS has continued to force policies on states using executive orders even when ordered not to continue by the federal courts.
 POTUS (Obama) was a lecturer about the constitution. He taught three subjects about the constitution. Based on information and belief, Obama was not a constitutional law professor? Some say it is alright to refer to him as a law professor. He taught at the University of Chicago’s law school for about twelve (12) years.
 What is the standard line in response to: How can you tell if a lawyer (politician) is lying ? His/her lips are moving. How many times has POTUS covered up crimes in his administration? He refused to require Eric Holder to review information about fast and furious. he refused to have Older ?
 The 2013 lie of the year award is located at http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/
 The Affordable care act contains more than 20,000 pages and with additional agency regulations there are now more than 33,000 pages. this was as of 2013, were hundreds of new federal agencies have drafted rules and regulations that have the strength of law. Recently, more and more federal agencies have been subject to court review based on their political positions by bureaucrats who are appointed by the executive branch of government.
ACA was passed and authored was intended to pass a law that would be impossible to read and interpret without taking years of staff time. This law like many others passed while POTUS and the democratic party had total control of congress. It was shoved down the throats of democratic legislators who supported it. To my information and belief, it shows just one of the many problems with the way our federal government is run and the two party system.
It is a time to take a step back in time before the Supreme Court, the POTUS, and our legislatures allowed non-elected bureaucrats to write, interpret and try cases based upon their own determinations. (bureaucrat – an official in a government department, in particular one perceived as being concerned with procedural correctness at the expense of people’s needs.)
 See the order Signed this 19th day of May, 2016. by federal Judge Andrew S. Hanen. See also earlier orders where the Justice Department lied to the judge. http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/07/08/federal-judge-orders-top-obama-officials-to-court-for-possible-contempt-action/
 Most courts give deference to agency rulings. However, recently the Supreme Court has overturned agency determinations that were excessive. In addition to agency rules and rulings, POTUS has the power to enter into agreements and make executive decisions. These executive orders are not usually overturned because it takes a 2/3 vote by congress. The result is that it requires a court action or a new president to reverse an executive determination.
 There were more than 5 million hits for the search ” how can executive orders be reversed ” It is very difficult to reverse a POTUS’ executive orders. It has been done very infrequently in the past. That is why it is so dangerous. In order to reverse an executive order, it must be challenged in court. This has happened twice in more than two hundred years. Congress can pass a law defunding a program or reversing an executive order. Because POTUS can veto congressional acts, it would require two thirds of both houses to reverse the order.
The country can elect a president who can reverse the prior president’s executive orders. All of these processes take years to accomplish. There have been a couple of times where courts have found that the POTUS has acted beyond his powers. One such action is now before the Supreme Court (See U.S. v. Texas related to immigration policies “dictated” by the POTUS who appears not to want to follow current laws related to immigration. Another way to change executive orders is to try to impeach the POTUS. This is another long shot because it also requires a two thirds vote by the senate.
 This issue is interesting because the U.S. Justice department has refused to review this policy as a monopoly with complicity by large cable companies. See https://www.academia.edu/23306259/Bulk_Cable_TV_Pricing_is_a_monopoly_and_the_practice_impacts_millions_of_consumers
 It appears that the tax payers have to support the policies pushed by the first partner? I am not sure that I like a two for one scheme since I did not vote for a partner, wife or husband. Imagine what type of costs might be associated with Bill Clinton as first husband? One must question why any citizen must support the policies of an unelected person who does not have to pass any congressional muster.
 Doing several searches on ACA and limited services resulted in millions of matches but most are from the ACA. However, several newspapers have reported that hospitals and doctors receive bonuses for limited tests.
 During his presidency, POTUS has regularly blamed others for his decisions. First, it was Bush and Chaney. They got us into wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wonder if anyone has ever done an accounting of all of the money spent and squandered in these two countries. Just as in other areas of the Military, someone has to take the responsibility. That has not happened with OBAMA and most likely will not happen with Hillary.
 See http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/01/us/bowe-bergdahl-american-soldier-is-freed-by-taliban.html
 The POTUS spokesmen said: Among other complications, there was a potential legal obstacle: Congress has imposed statutory restrictions on the transfer of detainees from Guantánamo Bay. The statutes say the secretary of defense must determine that a transfer is in the interest of national security, that steps have been taken to substantially mitigate a future threat by a released detainee, and that the secretary notify Congress 30 days before any transfer of his determination.
In this case, the secretary, Chuck Hagel, acknowledged in a statement that he did not notify Congress ahead of time. When Mr. Obama signed a bill containing the latest version of the transfer restrictions into law, he issued a signing statement claiming that he could lawfully override them under his executive powers.
The signing statement said: “The executive branch must have the flexibility, among other things, to act swiftly in conducting negotiations with foreign countries regarding the circumstances of detainee transfers,” he wrote in the signing statement, adding that if the restrictions “operate in a manner that violates constitutional separation of powers principles, my administration will implement them in a manner that avoids the constitutional conflict.”
This does appear to be another POTUS lie. Obviously, he was negotiating this because he could announce it on memorial day. I would not trust Obama with anything that requires honesty or integrity.
 Using a Google search key of ” the Iran nuclear treaty” there were about 1 million matches.
 Susan Elizabeth Rice is a very bright woman who was a worked in the Clinton Whitehouse and then in the Obama Whitehouse (However, she apparently does not always tell the truth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Rice
 When using a Google search key of ” American uranium sold to Russia ” there were about 5,220,000 hits. the one below suggests that not only was Hillary not to blame entirely, but the responsibility belonged to OBAMA See http://www.factcheck.org/2015/04/no-veto-power-for-clinton-on-uranium-deal/
 In order for congress to impeach a federal officer two thirds of the senate must vote in favor of impeachment (67 votes are required).
 It appears that the POTUS is dreaming about the number and types of jobs being created. The U.S. debt is now greater than 19 trillion dollars. http://www.davemanuel.com/us-national-debt-clock.php
 The United States does not do well when negotiating foreign trade agreements.
 Patient Protection and affordable care act? Will it be changed? How will it be changed?
 See https://www.riflestock.com/thanks.html for an explanation of how Lois Lerner pleaded the fifth before a congressional investigation and the Obama Justice Department has refused to take any action.
 See http://www.judicialwatch.org/obamas-vacations/ and http://www.judicialwatch.org/obamas-vacations/for the costs of the first family’s vacations. it is estimated that over the last seven+ years it has cost more than $70 million. The known total expense to the American taxpayers thus far for all Obama travel is now $70,880,035.78! It is frequently difficult to separate how much of the presidents travel expenses should be borne by his political party based on his campaigning and political fundraising. Using a search key of ” cost of Michelle Obama’s trips” resulted in hundreds of thousands of matches. Many of the trips are written off as part of the duties of the first lady. However, to my information and belief, these costs are excessive.
 First Lady Michelle Obama’s Princeton classmate at Princeton is a top executive at the company that earned the contract to build the failed Obamacare website. Toni Townes-Whitley, Princeton class of ’85, is senior vice president at CGI Federal, which earned the no-bid contract to build the $678 million Obamacare enrollment website at Healthcare.gov. After the contract was granted, the president of the company appeared to contribute to the Obama Campaign (See http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/25/michelle-obamas-princeton-classmate-is-executive-at-company-that-built-obamacare-website/
See http://www.factcheck.org/2013/12/michelle-obama-and-cgi-federal/ for alternate views of the granting of the contract. The process does not meet my smell test.
 Look at the video at fox news that evaluates the government failures. See http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/06/green-scam-80-of-green-energy-loans-went-to-obama-donors-19-companies-went-bust-video/
[i][i] See The constitution outlines the requirements for impeachment. However, it is just that. An outline. The following is from a website that follows. It is a minimal explanation but is sufficient to show some of the weaknesses in the process, language and also some of the strengths.
The Constitution, Article II, Section 4 says:
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.
The problem with this section is that it is vague. For example, what is the meaning of “other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Does this include a blow job in the “oval office” by consenting adults who are not married or is that “oval orafice?” (An opening, especially to a cavity or passage of the body; a mouth or vent.)
Another example of questionable language is “Bribery.” Although it has many definitions, it is usually very difficult to determine when an act constitutes bribery. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribery ). last visited 5/23/16
The Affordable care act website was developed by a company that was granted a no-bid contract. It just so happens that one of the company’s official just happened to be classmates with Michelle Obama. The contract was worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
The Constitution, Article I, Section 3:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachments shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust, or Profit under the United States, but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment, and Punishment, according to Law.
The Framers’ Debates on the Impeachment Provisions (from the notes of James Madison, taken at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, 1787):
See the congressional debate about impeachment at the link below: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/impeach/constitution.html
[ii][ii] Written by The Analytical Economist on January 14, 2016
I had to cringe during a particularly elitist remark that left Obama’s mouth during his teary town-hall on gun control; “I believe in the Second Amendment. It is there, written on the paper. It guarantees a right to bear arms. No matter how many times people try to twist my words around — I taught constitutional law, I know a little bit about this — I get it.”
Well, a colleague of Obama’s at the University of Chicago, economist John Lott quoted Obama as having told him that he doesn’t believe that people should be able to own guns when the two worked together in the 1990s. So the belief in the Second Amendment is questionable, but let’s turn to his second claim, that he taught constitutional law.
As Karin McQuillan at the American Thinker writes, that claim is deceptive:
Obama was never a professor; he was a lecturer. He did not have the qualifications to be a professor. Obama never published a single law paper. He was hired by the University of Chicago when they learned he had been given a book contract on race and law directly after graduating from Harvard. There was no book – just the contract, which he later reneged on. This is not the normal level of accomplishment for a University of Chicago professor or even lecturer.
So what did he teach at U Chicago?
Obama did not specialize in the Constitution. Obama cared about and taught only one subject: race. One course was about race in the Constitution. It is on this flimsy basis that he attempts to pawn himself off as a constitutional scholar.
As the New York Times explains, Obama the lecturer taught three subjects only: “race, rights and gender.”
His most traditional course was in the due process and equal protection areas of constitutional law. His voting rights class traced the evolution of election law, from the disenfranchisement of blacks to contemporary debates over districting and campaign finance. …His most original course, a historical and political seminar as much as a legal one, was on racism and law…
Referring to himself as a professor of constitutional law is overstating his credentials a bit. Not like we should expect anything else from the man who calls himself the most fiscally conservative president in more than half a century.
[Note: This post was authored by The Analytical Economist]