H.Res.588 - Condemning and censuring President Barack Obama.

[starrmtn001]

H.Res.588 - Condemning and censuring President Barack Obama.

114th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. RES. 588

Condemning and censuring President Barack Obama.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 13, 2016
Mr. Yoho (for himself, Mr. Weber of Texas, and Mr. Rigell) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

RESOLUTION
Condemning and censuring President Barack Obama.

Whereas upon entering the execution of the Office of President of the United States, President Barack Obama affirmed his constitutional oath as follows: “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”;

Whereas President Barack Obama has failed to faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States and has failed to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas President Barack Obama has failed to fulfill his duty in article II, section 2 of the Constitution of the United States that he “shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States”;

Whereas President Obama has willfully failed to follow the counsel and expert advice provided by United States military and intelligence advisors by prematurely withdrawing troops from Iraq, thus leading to further destabilization of the Middle East and increased threats to national and global security;

Whereas President Barack Obama has failed to fulfill his duty in article II, section 3 of the Constitution of the United States that he “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”;

Whereas President Barack Obama has failed to ensure a strong national defense beginning on January 20, 2009, through the present, thus endangering the national security of the United States and its citizens both home and abroad;

Whereas the foreign policy of President Barack Obama has led to increased global instability, jeopardizing national securities;

Whereas the dereliction of duty and miscalculations of President Barack Obama have allowed the combined terrorist organizations of the world to control more land, and increase membership, armament, and resources more than during any other time in history;

Whereas President Barack Obama has failed to instruct the Department of Justice to take action to end the practices of certain State and local governments that refuse to abide by standing immigration laws;

Whereas President Barack Obama has failed to reinforce sanctions on Iran following Iran’s ballistic missile tests on November 21, 2015, and October 10, 2015;

Whereas Iran’s launching of the missiles is in direct violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929 (2010) and United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015), thus violating the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), and President Barack Obama failed to take action against Iran to address these violations;

Whereas President Barack Obama released high-ranking detainees from the detention facility at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, without providing advanced notice to Congress, which is required by law;

Whereas not only was such release in defiance of standing law, there is a high rate of recidivism amongst released detainees who have actively engaged in conflict against members of the Armed Forces of the United States and which continues to threaten national security;

Whereas President Barack Obama led the push within the United Nations for the establishment of a no-fly zone within Libya, while lacking a complete strategy, established a hostile environment for United States diplomatic and military personnel; and

Whereas President Barack Obama has failed to eliminate deficiencies within the Department of Homeland Security’s vetting process of Syrian refugees, which threatens national security: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representativesâ€"

(1) does hereby censure and condemn President Barack Obama for having willfully disregarded the President’s constitutional responsibilities as Commander in Chief of the United States through his continued failed lack of foreign affairs strategy, failure to follow the advice of military and intelligence advisors, and failed national security policy; and

(2) does hereby put President Barack Obama on notice and strongly urges the President to reverse course and begin fulfilling his constitutional responsibilities.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-resolution/588/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22libya%22%5D%7D&resultIndex=25

[=Schlyder=]

Worst US President.. ever. 

[onan]

Obama's approval rating is consistently in the low to mid 50 percentile, not unlike a past favorite of many here, Ronald Reagan.

Although, I have my difficulties with Obama, what the right is offering as a choice is, in many cases pushing moderate republicans away from the party (way to go guys).

[Jackstar]

https://youtu.be/QuK3zSxG4cs

[Juan]

At this point, what difference does it make?

[Jackstar]

At this point, what difference does it make?

applause.mpeg

[ItsOver]

At this point, what difference does it make?

Well, it does give 'O man something more to laugh about on the golf course.

[pyewacket]

Although, I have my difficulties with Obama, what the right is offering as a choice is, in many cases pushing moderate republicans away from the party (way to go guys).

The establishment elite of both parties are corporate controlled and have been acting against the best interests of the people/country for decades. The middle class has borne the brunt of these destructive foreign and domestic policies fracturing our society. We see this happening in Europe as well. Voting 'centrist' or 'moderate' means "business as usual". It appears to be the beginnings of a rebellion and it's no surprise that we're seeing support for the more extreme radical left and far right.

This is more serious than Donald Trump. This reflects the anger of the people for what is happening to them because of the crony capitalism of both parties. We see both parties offering the same solutions and people to fix the problems that they created. People know that they are getting nothing more than lip service and that future policies will serve the big donors and corporate interests. The parties will do what is profitable.

People need to stop fighting each other and work together to break this cycle. Notice how many billionaires are supporting Hillary. Put whatever spin you want on that, but I doubt they favor her because of all the wonderful things she'll do for the middle/working class and the poor.

Is Trump the start of breaking that cycle? Who knows. Is it a surprise that he and Bernie got as far as they did with the working class? Not at all.

[onan]

The establishment elite of both parties are corporate controlled and have been acting against the best interests of the people/country for decades. The middle class has borne the brunt of these destructive foreign and domestic policies fracturing our society. We see this happening in Europe as well. Voting 'centrist' or 'moderate' means "business as usual". It appears to be the beginnings of a rebellion and it's no surprise that we're seeing support for the more extreme radical left and far right.

This is more serious than Donald Trump. This reflects the anger of the people for what is happening to them because of the crony capitalism of both parties. We see both parties offering the same solutions and people to fix the problems that they created. People know that they are getting nothing more than lip service and that future policies will serve the big donors and corporate interests. The parties will do what is profitable.

People need to stop fighting each other and work together to break this cycle. Notice how many billionaires are supporting Hillary. Put whatever spin you want on that, but I doubt they favor her because of all the wonderful things she'll do for the middle/working class and the poor.

Is Trump the start of breaking that cycle? Who knows. Is it a surprise that he and Bernie got as far as they did with the working class? Not at all.

People working together? You're serious? Is the working class getting boned? You bet they are. But unions are bad. Fighting for better wages is either bad or some variation on the evil's of socialism. A stronger safety net... what are you kidding? not as long as there are boot straps. Affordable healthcare? Family leave, fair pay, accessible education and other realistic blue collar necessities are objectionable to many that would benefit.

To work together people have to have common goals. Every common goal has either been politicized or vilified to such an extent few are willing to compromise.

I heard today from some talking head that some that want Trump to win, want that just to see it all fail. People that are angry in many cases are too stupid to have the right to be angry.

[pyewacket]

People working together? You're serious? Is the working class getting boned? You bet they are. But unions are bad. Fighting for better wages is either bad or some variation on the evil's of socialism. A stronger safety net... what are you kidding? not as long as there are boot straps. Affordable healthcare? Family leave, fair pay, accessible education and other realistic blue collar necessities are objectionable to many that would benefit.

To work together people have to have common goals. Every common goal has either been politicized or vilified to such an extent few are willing to compromise.

I heard today from some talking head that some that want Trump to win, want that just to see it all fail. People that are angry in many cases are too stupid to have the right to be angry.

First off, I wasn't challenging you directly, just wanted to comment on the 'moderates'. If they had the trust of the people they wouldn't have this mess on their hands. I have no doubt that there are idiots who are supporting Trump for all the wrong reasons. I heard people on the right make similar remarks in other elections. They would say, "Maybe we have to let them see what the extreme left will do to the county." I never was in favor of that attitude.

I can't all out condemn people for their feelings on this because I have no idea of what problems they face. You mentioned affordable health care and yes, many lacked coverage, but I also know people who are far from rich who lost the plan they could afford and now have to pay for more expensive plans with sky high (for their income) deductibles. More than one has told me that it's like having no insurance on top of paying more. Others who were downsized and now underemployed have said that their hours were cut because of the new health insurance requirements placed on their employers. What can I possibly say to them? That they shouldn't be angry or frustrated?

I understand that the answer always seems to be another government program and I'm sure there are those who benefit from them, but how much more can people support? Is it still helpful when people see everything in life as something that they're entitled to? I've seen people in the system who have little gratitude for what has been provided and are always expecting more. Many in our area are generational recipients. How do we continue to pay for it all? It was another story when we had high paying manufacturing jobs with good benefits that helped maintain a strong economy, but this is no longer the case in many parts of the country and it doesn't look like that will change no matter who is elected.   

I'm not convinced that Trump can change any of this and I have no faith in Clinton. The thinly disguised contempt and near hateful tone in much of the commentary should make us all uneasy. 

I don't know why any of you on the left are upset because it does look like your candidate will be elected and will no doubt implement enough new programs and regulations to choke a whale, with little to no opposition from those moderates on the right.

It can only get better from there- right?

 

[onan]

First off, I wasn't challenging you directly, just wanted to comment on the 'moderates'. If they had the trust of the people they wouldn't have this mess on their hands. I have no doubt that there are idiots who are supporting Trump for all the wrong reasons. I heard people on the right make similar remarks in other elections. They would say, "Maybe we have to let them see what the extreme left will do to the county." I never was in favor of that attitude.

I can't all out condemn people for their feelings on this because I have no idea of what problems they face. You mentioned affordable health care and yes, many lacked coverage, but I also know people who are far from rich who lost the plan they could afford and now have to pay for more expensive plans with sky high (for their income) deductibles. More than one has told me that it's like having no insurance on top of paying more. Others who were downsized and now underemployed have said that their hours were cut because of the new health insurance requirements placed on their employers. What can I possibly say to them? That they shouldn't be angry or frustrated?

I understand that the answer always seems to be another government program and I'm sure there are those who benefit from them, but how much more can people support? Is it still helpful when people see everything in life as something that they're entitled to? I've seen people in the system who have little gratitude for what has been provided and are always expecting more. Many in our area are generational recipients. How do we continue to pay for it all? It was another story when we had high paying manufacturing jobs with good benefits that helped maintain a strong economy, but this is no longer the case in many parts of the country and it doesn't look like that will change no matter who is elected.   

I'm not convinced that Trump can change any of this and I have no faith in Clinton. The thinly disguised contempt and near hateful tone in much of the commentary should make us all uneasy. 

I don't know why any of you on the left are upset because it does look like your candidate will be elected and will no doubt implement enough new programs and regulations to choke a whale, with little to no opposition from those moderates on the right.

It can only get better from there- right?

That might be the biggest problem we all have, as much as one may not like Clinton, if elected she will be as much your president as mine, no matter how petulant a position one takes. When governance becomes more about stonewalling than actually representing their constituency, that regulating body becomes a metaphorical cancer.

As far as regulations, ask a Flint, Michigan citizen about that.

[Humilia Lepus Foramen]

Thinly disguised contempt in some variation of the following argument has been used to keep minorities in the democrat plantation for years:  We know what is in your best interest, vote for us or you hate your own race/class (insert Uncle Tom/coconut/your insult of choice).  It is we, the enlightened intellectual elites who truly care about working families while we simultaneously regard them as too stupid to vote if they dare dissent from our points of view.

Hillary is very likely going to win, she is the appointed philosopher queen of the left, and by God you're going to like her you petulant peasants!

[Jackstar]

It mystifies me that anyone conscious can still identify with the "left-right" paradigm any longer. The system has obviously become wholly corrupt.

The only way to fix it, is to flush it all away. Any fucking time, any fucking day.

[onan]

Thinly disguised contempt in some variation of the following argument has been used to keep minorities in the democrat plantation for years:  We know what is in your best interest, vote for us or you hate your own race/class (insert Uncle Tom/coconut/your insult of choice).  It is we, the enlightened intellectual elites who truly care about working families while we simultaneously regard them as too stupid to vote if they dare dissent from our points of view.

Hillary is very likely going to win, she is the appointed philosopher queen of the left, and by God you're going to like her you petulant peasants!

Horse shit.

Your point of view suggests people, other than you of course, are too simple to understand the complexities of their lives. Utter rubbish.

[pyewacket]

As far as regulations, ask a Flint, Michigan citizen about that.

State officials were responsible for that crisis and the feds had to step in. I never said all regulations were not needed. I was thinking more along the lines of those that might discourage domestic investment and drive businesses out of the country.

We can only wait and see if the one elected has the best plan for our country. I've become a cynic when it comes to politics and I'm always amused by the celebrities (mostly on the left) who threaten to move out of the country if so and so is elected.

Many people are economically vulnerable and expectations are high. We'll see if whoever is elected can deliver.

[Jackstar]

We can only wait and see

'MURICA

[albrecht]

State officials were responsible for that crisis and the feds had to step in. I never said all regulations were not needed. I was thinking more along the lines of those that might discourage domestic investment and drive businesses out of the country.

We can only wait and see if the one elected has the best plan for our country. I've become a cynic when it comes to politics and I'm always amused by the celebrities (mostly on the left) who threaten to move out of the country if so and so is elected.

Many people are economically vulnerable and expectations are high. We'll see if whoever is elected can deliver.

If the theory believed by big-government and leftist types that regulation and law solves all problems were true everything should be perfect and working and everyone healthy, wealthy, and educated considering the sheer volume of laws, and importantly regulations, we already have on the books.

https://www.federalregister.gov/

Here is a way to easily search by subject (fun to see if you can find something that is not regulated in some fashion by the Federal government:)

https://www.federalregister.gov/topics

Here is a way to easily see how many new regulations are made every day:
https://www.federalregister.gov/my/subscriptions/new?

Here you can browse the almost countless laws:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionUScode.action?collectionCode=USCODE

ps: keep in mind that these are just Federal and doesn't include the countless State and local laws, regulations, and zoning laws.

[onan]

If the theory believed by big-government and leftist types that regulation solves all problems were true everything should be perfect and working and everyone healthy, wealthy, and educated considering the sheer volume of laws, and importantly regulation we already have on the books.

https://www.federalregister.gov/

Here is a way to easily search by subject (fun to see if you can find something that is not regulated in some fashion by the Federal government:)

https://www.federalregister.gov/topics

Here is a way to easily see how many new regulations are made every day:
https://www.federalregister.gov/my/subscriptions/new?

How is that Exxon spill in Alaska going?
How about the fine regulation in the Gulf Of Mexico.

I would be much more likely to trust effective safety regulations than the mindset of the Carnegie family.

[albrecht]

How is that Exxon spill in Alaska going?
How about the fine regulation in the Gulf Of Mexico.

I would be much more likely to trust effective safety regulations than the mindset of the Carnegie family.

Regulations stopped those events, right?  All of the tens of thousands of regulations and laws stopped those accidents? 

If your theory of regulation and law will fix everything how many will it take? I still see a lot of ill people, poor people, uneducated people, environmental problems, businesses that go bankrupt, schools that are failing. Surely if regulation and law can fix everything everyone should be healthy, wealthy, educated, and happy by this point.

Actually, I think there is more of a overall threat from the small guys cutting corners or ignoring regulations because now, due to price of oil&gas, they often heavily in debt and just trying to stay afloat, than the big players who have more resources (but of course as you mention above bad stuff can still happen to them.)

Nobody, at least me, is against law or regulation but their are questions about:
1) what those laws and regulations are? (Legitimate concerns or just for regulatory capture or for the sake of creating jobs in a bureaucracy or what?)
2) what agency or level of government is making the law or regulation? (Does everything need to be a "federal case?")
3) what are the costs (economic but also social) of enforcing the law and regulation versus the benefits. (Trade-offs need to be recognized and accounted for.)
4) by what method are the laws and regulations being made. ("Democratic" method via our representatives or, where applicable, referendum, or by fiat?)

[onan]

Regulations stopped those events, right?  All of the tens of thousands of regulations and laws stopped those accidents? 

If your theory of regulation and law will fix everything how many will it take? I still see a lot of ill people, poor people, uneducated people, environmental problems, businesses that go bankrupt, schools that are failing. Surely if regulation and law can fix everything everyone should be healthy, wealthy, educated, and happy by this point.

Actually, I think there is more of a overall threat from the small guys cutting corners or ignoring regulations because now, due to price of oil&gas, they often heavily in debt and just trying to stay afloat, than the big players who have more resources (but of course as you mention above bad stuff can still happen to them.)

Nobody, at least me, is against law or regulation but their are questions about:
1) what those laws and regulations are? (Legitimate concerns or just for regulatory capture or for the sake of creating jobs in a bureaucracy or what?)
2) what agency or level of government is making the law or regulation? (Does everything need to be a "federal case?")
3) what are the costs (economic but also social) of enforcing the law and regulation versus the benefits. (Trade-offs need to be recognized and accounted for.)
4) by what method are the laws and regulations being made. ("Democratic" method via our representatives or, where applicable, referendum, or by fiat?)

Are you serious? did the regulations stop the accidents? no. Had they not been in place what do you think would have been the response from the corporations?

Exxon didn't give a shit and still doesn't over nightmare for which they had responsibility. 

[GravitySucks]

Horse shit.

Your point of view suggests people, other than you of course, are too simple to understand the complexities of their lives. Utter rubbish.

Explain why black evangelical churches, which otherwise would be conservative based on Christian principles support the democrat platform and candidate in nearly every case, even when that platform/candidate is clearly pro-abortion?  I go back to LBJ's quote and the fact that the 200 years he predicted he would own the people on social programs isn't over yet. We are only 50 years in.

[onan]

Explain why black evangelical churches, which otherwise would be conservative based on Christian principles support the democrat platform and candidate in nearly every case, even when that platform/candidate is clearly pro-abortion?  I go back to LBJ's quote and the fact that the 200 years he predicted he would own the people on social programs isn't over yet. We are only 50 years in.

Explain the last black evangelical church you were in.

During the campaign of Bush and Gore, NC went with Bush. A large reason they did was because of the abortion issue. I have and continue to work with a population that is at least 40 percent black. They aren't as beholden as you would like to portray.

[albrecht]

Are you serious? did the regulations stop the accidents? no. Had they not been in place what do you think would have been the response from the corporations?

Exxon didn't give a shit and still doesn't over nightmare for which they had responsibility.

Yes, those big evil companies like Exxon and BP want to crash ships and have oil fields accidents. I've seen the business proposals. In fact, new projects are selected solely on their potential for catastrophic accidents.

But back on the subject why do we have so many problems in society if law and regulations are the solution to everything? Is there any part of your life or business that you think shouldn't be controlled or regulated by someone in DC?

[onan]

Yes, those big evil companies like Exxon and BP want to crash ships and have oil fields accidents. I've seen the business proposals. In fact, new projects are selected solely on their potential for catastrophic accidents.

But back on the subject why do we have so many problems in society if law and regulations are the solution to everything? Is there any part of your life or business that you think shouldn't be controlled or regulated by someone in DC?

You aren't that naive. Deepwater Horizon was drilling below the depth they could safely drill at. The procedure if the drill failed was to use cement to stop the leak. Even though it was known that the cement would fail. Halliburton knew this but said nothing. IS BP evil? I am not a philosopher. I do know they were guilty of improper and unsafe practices. And yet they continued.

Regulations are meant to dissuade practices that look only at profit and ignore safety. It is that simple.

[pyewacket]

Are you serious? did the regulations stop the accidents? no. Had they not been in place what do you think would have been the response from the corporations?

Exxon didn't give a shit and still doesn't over nightmare for which they had responsibility.

Regulations serve as guidelines- penalties cause the pain for breaking those guidelines.

Some states post a sign listing the fines for speeding. I never saw that as a useful deterrent because those who can afford it will shrug it off with the "I can afford it" attitude. Big corporations react in a similar manner- the risk of penalty isn't much of a hardship compared to the profit they'll gain. Look at the automotive industry- how many times have they cut corners willing to take the risk of having to settle any death and injury lawsuits?
   
Regulations don't necessarily guarantee compliance.   

[Jackstar]

The procedure if the drill failed was to use cement to stop the leak. Even though it was known that the cement would fail. Halliburton knew this but said nothing. IS BP evil? I am not a philosopher. I do know they were guilty of improper and unsafe practices. And yet they continued.

Those wacky engineers. Cui bono?

[pate]

That might be the biggest problem we all have, as much as one may not like Clinton, if elected she will be as much your president as mine, no matter how petulant a position one takes. When governance becomes more about stonewalling than actually representing their constituency, that regulating body becomes a metaphorical cancer.

As far as regulations, ask a Flint, Michigan citizen about that.

I did, but he had a cheeseburger stuck in his mouth...  Mike's response was as unintelligible and partisan as he was fat.

[GravitySucks]

Explain the last black evangelical church you were in.

During the campaign of Bush and Gore, NC went with Bush. A large reason they did was because of the abortion issue. I have and continue to work with a population that is at least 40 percent black. They aren't as beholden as you would like to portray.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/black-pastors-pulpit-hillary-clinton/494876/

[onan]

Regulations serve as guidelines- penalties cause the pain for breaking those guidelines.

Some states post a sign listing the fines for speeding. I never saw that as a useful deterrent because those who can afford it will shrug it off with the "I can afford it" attitude. Big corporations react in a similar manner- the risk of penalty isn't much of a hardship compared to the profit they'll gain. Look at the automotive industry- how many times have they cut corners willing to take the risk of having to settle any death and injury lawsuits?
   
Regulations don't necessarily guarantee compliance.

Yes, since bush junior and probably before many people placed in positions to manage and create safety regulations held corporation interests above safety.

Your argument suggests stronger regulation not eschewing regulation.

[onan]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/black-pastors-pulpit-hillary-clinton/494876/

Where were you when Reagan was courting evangelicals?

Is it ok when it is white "compassionate conservatives"?