As the first African-American Solicitor General, Thurgood Marshall told a black fraternity, “Neither race nor color nor frustration is an excuse for either lawlessness or anarchy.”
Some five decades later, lawlessness and anarchy have descended on America and on Washington D.C. under the banner of color and frustration. This is no laissez-faire lawlessness, but anarchy toward accountability. Like the rock throwers and Molotov cocktail throwers that Marshall was denouncing, Obama and his people have made their own law out of force while rejecting the rule of law.
Through force they have become the law while disregarding the law. There is a term for that sort of behavior and is it not anarchy. It is crime.
This is the state of affairs that Ben Shapiro describes as “a quasi criminal syndicate” and in his book, The People Vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against the Obama Administration, he discusses how to fight back against it.
“Consolidated government means consolidated power, consolidated power means consolidated corruption,” Shapiro writes. The old system of checks and balances has been undone. Obama Inc. is an integrated political machine whose appointees serve a common ideological goal and a common purpose. And they control the clockwork machinery of government from the top to the bottom.
There can be no plausible expectation that Attorney General Eric Holder will investigate Obama. Not when Holder is corrupt. As corrupt confederates in crime, Obama protects Holder and Holder protects Obama. Likewise, Obama Inc. is composed of such self-serving mutual pacts forming a system of power that makes up its own laws while refusing to be accountable to the law.
Shapiro’s statement that this amounts to a criminal syndicate is not just rhetoric, it is at the very heart of the legal argument that he makes in The People Vs. Barack Obama.
“The Obama administration has become a full-fledged criminal enterprise,” he writes. “Riddled up and down with executive branch appointees engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Listing many of the scandals and the violations of the law involved from the Justice Department to the State Department, from the EPA to the NSA, Shapiro argues that they amount to a criminal conspiracy fit for a criminal complaint and that they can be and should be prosecuted under RICO statutes.
“The crime of conspiracy has typically been defined at the state level as the agreement of two or more people to commit a crime. There is little question that some of the crimes of the Obama administration have been coordinated at the highest level, as the evidence will show,” Shapiro argues.
A pattern of criminal conduct can be established for Obama that would make it difficult for him to argue plausible deniability, as he has in virtually every scandal, pretending to be outraged by the scandal he only learned about this morning from the media before shifting gears and calling it a phony scandal.
“RICO provides that any person who is part of an organization that commits any two on a list of crimes can be prosecuted for racketeering,” Shapiro writes. This list becomes the framework around which The People Vs. Barack Obama is built.
Shapiro is of course well aware that Holder is no more likely to hit Obama or his minions with RICO violations than he is to resign in order to pursue his dream of becoming an Olympic skier, but he points out that RICO suits can be pursued as civil suits turning ordinary people into “citizen attorney generals.”
There are two fronts of RICO proposals in The People Vs. Barack Obama. Aside from individual suits, Shapiro proposes that Congress expand the jurisdiction of individuals to file RICO suits against the Executive Branch. Such a move would put Congress on a collision course with Obama’s imperial abuse of executive power, but it would free Congress from having to do the hard work of engaging in prolonged confrontations with Obama; something they have already shown they lack the stomach and spine to do.
Imagine if the family of murdered border patrol agent Brian Terry were to lodge a RICO suit against the Obama administration, Shapiro suggests.
Ben Shapiro argues that the process can begin with targeting lower level officials, much as the FBI begins at the bottom rungs of a criminal enterprise, using confessions and recovered information to begin building a bigger and bigger case against the mastermind of that criminal enterprise.
The pattern of conduct by Obama Inc is that of a criminal enterprise following its corrupt instincts.
“Fast and Furious,” he writes, “sprang from the bowels of the antigun hysteria of the administration… Obama’s quest to weaken America on the international stage found its apex in the death of four Americans… the Obama administration has made a game of revealing self-serving classified information.”
The pattern is that of ideological complicity in nakedly criminal conduct. Each criminal act stems from an ideological motivation and is covered up for ideological reasons. The first motive is ideology, but the final motive is power. Shapiro writes that Obama has made all law dependent on his whim. That has led us to the lawlessness and anarchy, not of the powerless, but of the powerful.
In The People Vs. Barack Obama, Shapiro makes a compelling case for a criminal case against Obama and his subordinates. A graduate of Harvard Law School, he lays out a road map for fighting back against Obama’s lawlessness and restoring the rule of law.
A majority of Americans agree that the country is headed down the wrong path. Many however have despaired of ever putting it on the right path again. In response to a culture of lawlessness inculcated at the very top, Shapiro highlights legally creative and legally aggressive solutions for preventing the left’s organized crime from turning America from a nation of laws into a nation of thugs.
Barack Obama has pitted his power and popularity against the rule of law. Both can be contested by citizens willing to fight for the truth.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.