Tag Archives: US Constitution

Obama Spies on His Enemies in Congress

30871_large_Obama_Watching_WideOriginally posted at American Thinker

Remember when Obama, the guy with big plans to resettle America’s neighborhoods, clashed with Bibi Netanyahu for refusing to abandon construction and resettlement plans in East Jerusalem? The president was so incensed that Netanyahu hesitated to comply with his demands that he left the prime minister sitting in a room alone while he went upstairs to eat.

That’s when, out of fear of being wiretapped, Netanyahu and his delegation chose not to use White House phones.

As usual, Bibi’s discernment was on target because recently it was revealed that Obama, concerned about his nuke deal with Iran, directed the National Security Agency to spy on Israel, American Jewish groups, and friends of Israel in the U.S. Congress.

For eight years, in addition to displaying open hostility toward the Jewish state, here in America, the president has pushed the boundaries on everything from limiting First and Second Amendment rights to passing a failed stimulus package to ramming through healthcare reform to making a nuclear deal with Iran to promising amnesty to illegal aliens.

Yet despite the U.S. Constitution being shredded, the law flouted, and domestic and worldwide chaos being stirred up by a philosophically driven Obama, time and again, the onslaught of detrimental policy pronouncements have been met with an insipid response from the president’s supposed political adversaries.

Now, after learning that the Executive branch of the U.S. government spied on the Legislative branch, it’s less confusing as to why the former Speaker of the House, John Boehner (R-OH), and his compadre in the Senate, Mitch McConnell (R-KY), seemed so reticent in resisting this president.

At first, it appeared as if former Speaker Boehner acquiesced out of fear that Republicans would be blamed for things like government shutdowns, or accused of not showing compassion toward hordes of “unaccompanied minors,” or worse yet, perceived to be the “Party of No.”

Now we find out that although John Boehner was likely spared the wrath of the battery cables, the antique dental drill, and duct tape, before grabbing his Coppertone and heading back to Ohio, Chicago-style coercion may be what caused teary-eyed Boehner to consistently fold like a cheap lawn chair.

Next up: Kevin McCarthy the Republican from California who was the shoo-in to replace Boehner.

After receiving an email from a “conservative activist” that threatened to expose an alleged extramarital affair, McCarthy withdrew his candidacy to be Speaker.

Ironically, McCarthy’s decision coincided with a cryptic letter written by Congressman Walter Jones (R-NC) to Republican Conference Chairperson, Cathy McMorris Rodgers. In the letter, Jones asked that candidates with “embarrassing… misdeeds … committed since joining Congress ” withdraw from running for positions of leadership.

What exactly did the North Carolina representative know, and what was his letter really alluding to?

Finally, there’s newly ordained Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan (R-WI). Paul’s the guy who, besides being Romney’s running mate in 2012, stood firmly against the Affordable Care Act. After being insulted publically by the president for daring to try to reel in the debt and deficit with actual numbers, Ryan had the guts to label Obama “the Campaigner-in-Chief.”

Unfortunately, somewhere between 2011 and 2016 Ryan lost his determination. Suddenly, the solutions the new speaker criticized so strongly in the past have become solutions he seems willing to live with.

Atrocities such as the $1.1 trillion Omnibus Spending Bill, which subsidizes the president’s plan to accept into America Syrian refugees who will likely be infiltrated by ISIS and leaves conservatives wanting on issues like defunding Planned Parenthood.

Worse yet, the spending bill contains provisions totaling over $1 billion to help fund the implementation of the same healthcare reform bill the new speaker spoke harshly against just five years earlier.

Speaking of surveillance and Obamacare, let’s not forget Republican Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ baffling decision that doubled down on defying the Constitution and helped pave the way for socialized medicine.

Now, The Wall Street Journal’s eye-opening piece titled: “U.S. Spy Net on Israel Snares Congress” may shed light on why two branches of the U.S. government have rolled over and accommodated Obama on every front.

According to the article, Barack Obama employed the NSA to spy on foreign leaders like Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Bibi Netanyahu, a practice he promised to discontinue doing to “friendly heads of state” two years ago.

An anonymous senior official quoted by the WSJ said that when the administration secured the NSA’s services the president’s goal was to ensure that Netanyahu did not stand in the way of Iran attaining the bomb they plan to use to annihilate Israel.

During the Iran deal negotiations, the NSA also listened in and reported back to the president conversations Benjamin Netanyahu had with friends in Congress. So, while targeting our allies, also “swept up …were the… content of private conversations with U.S. lawmakers.”

In other words, politicians that fit the president’s enemy criteria probably include any turncoat who attended Netanyahu’s March address to a joint session of Congress where Bibi argued against the president’s nuclear deal with Iran?

The 44 Democrat protesters who chose not to attend exempts only 8% of Congress from snooping.

Therefore, 92% of Congress may have had their private conversations wiretapped, which might explain why Republicans consistently grant a paranoid Obama unprecedented leeway on things they swear they oppose.

With that said, and although pure speculation, could the majority party’s consistent pusillanimous posture be based on their knowledge that America’s first black male president blackmails those he considers enemies in Congress? And didn’t Richard Nixon resign for much less?

Based on the seriousness of the spying accusation, if true, Barack Obama should step down or be impeached, which may require the Republicans in Congress to pull up their pants, place concern for self aside, and finally do something that’s long overdue — put the survival of America first.

Time for Congress to Declare War on Obama

obama-2Originally posted at American Thinker

Article I, Section 8, Clause II of the U.S. Constitution states the following: “The Congress shall have Power to …declare war.” Currently, America is at war — not only with the ISIS types, but also with a president whose flagrant actions against our nation’s interests indicate that he is, in essence, at war with us.

Historically, when it comes to declaring war, presidents tend to defer to Congress. A declaration of war affects legalities and duties related to acts of aggression against America. Regrettably, right now we have a president who defers to absolutely no one and he’s the one guilty of committing those aggressive acts.

America’s Styrofoam-cup-saluting leader is supposed to be “repelling sudden attacks,” not coordinating them. That’s why, however unconventional it may sound, Congress should consider this illegal raid against our sovereign nation, regardless of who the alien army’s leader is, an act of war.

During the Constitutional Convention, framer James Madison wrote that Congress should be given the power not to “make war” but to “declare war.” If promoters of congressional power are correct, doesn’t Congress — whether they like it or not — then have a moral responsibility to “declare war” on any force that initiates hostilities against the United States?

In 1863, the Supreme Court argued the Prize Cases. At the time, the court determined that the president “has no power to initiate or declare a war,” and yet 150-plus years later it’s President Obama who has initiated and declared war. Unfortunately the war he’s declared is against America.

That’s right — the U.S. is grappling with a leader whose greatest achievement thus far is ruining the world’s finest healthcare system. Next on his agenda of destruction is to outdo himself by completely rejecting the clear midterm election message conveyed to him by the American people concerning immigration.

America has a Commander in Chief who’s gutting our armed forces, and although one aspect of the president’s stated powers is to repel invasions, this president is aiding and abetting an all-out invasion against our homeland. As a matter of fact, as each minute passes Barack Obama is adding numbers and manpower to an apostate force.

Barack Obama, “who is [Constitutionally] bound to resist by force” an invasion by land, sea, and air, has plans to ignore the will of the people and instead favors the desires of trespassers who continue to disrespect the laws of the land they’re in the process of illegally claiming as their own.

In other words, the very person with the “executive power” and the express commission to protect this nation from outside incursion is helping to incite what he was elected to prevent.

Maybe someone should remind the Enemy Within the Oval Office that the 2014 election resoundingly declared that the direction in which America is being pushed is not the path the people of this Constitutional republic want to take.

Meanwhile, a new Congress has been voted in whose unspoken charge is to thwart an army of invaders being guided by a renegade president planning to unilaterally grant amnesty to untold millions of illegal aliens, a formidable number of whom Americans know harbor ill will and/or carry with them infectious diseases.

Constitutionally, to prevent unbridled actions that veer dangerously close to treason, there are orthodox means for Congress to deal with loose-cannon presidents who refuse to submit to the balance of powers instituted by our Forefathers.

But in this case, the self-appointed Commander of Illegal Immigrant Forces has made it quite clear that as far as he’s concerned, for his purposes, America’s founding document has a “fundamental flaw” and is irrelevant. Therefore, although Congress declaring war on a president is not possible, based on Obama’s disregard for the fidelity of the Constitution, doing so seems like an acceptable option, however far-fetched.

Why? Because never in the history of the republic have we witnessed a leader who has commenced hostilities against his own nation with such vigor, determination, and pigheadedness. Moreover, right under our noses the person responsible for repelling invasions is exploiting one to create eclectic armies of individuals, some of whom have threatened to one day subjugate our nation’s citizens physically, economically, spiritually, and culturally.

By declaring war on a president who is clearly an adversary of America, the Congress can then exercise the legal power to round up, detain, and deport ISIS terrorists, MS-13 gang members, illegal alien criminals of every stripe, as well as the thousands of human time bombs harboring deadly diseases that have already sickened and killed scores of our people.

Based on his subversive actions, by definition Barack Obama is indeed making war against America, and it’s high time Congress responded by declaring their own war on a man who became a domestic enemy the day he violated his oath by refusing to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Under different circumstances, Barack Obama’s contempt for the very document that protects him would make him subject to a separate set of rules. As tempting a fantasy as it might be, we do know that Congress cannot literally declare war on a sitting president. But then again, Obama’s uncompromising refusal to defer to the U.S. Constitution does warrant a historic rebuke.

Either way, it is incumbent upon the new U.S. Congress to rise to the occasion and save this Republic. That’s why congressional consent is now needed for an entirely new purpose: to stop the one exercising the use of force against America from within. Congress must do whatever is necessary to deprive Barack Obama of the power to continue his ongoing attack against the nation he was elected to protect.

Barack Obama Celebrates the Slaughter of 55 Million Americans

55 million

Originally posted at The Blacksphere

Today marks the 41st anniversary of Roe v. Wade: 41 years over which 55 million human beings have been systematically slaughtered.

And on this infamous occasion, Barack Obama, abortion’s most ardent advocate, had a few words to say in favor of disposing of 3,000 American babies a day.

Here’s the president’s full statement:

Today, as we reflect on the 41st anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, we recommit ourselves to the decision’s guiding principle: that every woman should be able to make her own choices about her body and her health.

We reaffirm our steadfast commitment to protecting a woman’s access to safe, affordable health care and her constitutional right to privacy, including the right to reproductive freedom. And we resolve to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, support maternal and child health, and continue to build safe and healthy communities for all our children.

Because this is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams.

And THIS from the man who has severely impacted the right of Americans to exercise choice in every area besides abortion.

Just like his definition for ‘Hope and Change’ is nothing of the sort, his definition for health is Baby-killing.

While access to healthcare is slowly being frittered away, Barack Obama is doubling down on his commitment to ensure access to abortion. Moreover, as he circumvents the fidelity of the US Constitution, he exploits the right to privacy, which has nothing to do with destroying the unborn, just to give credibility to bad law.

Then, like an executioner pretending to have a vested interest in the living, the president “resolves to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies” with taxpayer dollars. In addition, he vows to “support maternal and child health, and continue to build safe and healthy communities for all our children.”

Translation: Push free contraception and deny Second Amendment rights.

Why?

Because according to Barack Obama, ” this is a country where everyone deserves the same freedom and opportunities to fulfill their dreams” — as long as the freedoms and opportunities are controlled by Government Central.

And as long as the dreams yet to be fulfilled don’t belong to the unborn.

Preserving Liberty in Libya

Originally posted at American Thinker

Lately, President Barack Obama has been assuming some surprising policy positions.  First, he changed his mind and decided to leave Guantanamo Bay prison open and, instead of in a New York City civilian court, chose to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to trial before a military tribunal. Then the President verbally supported the anti-Mubarak rebellion in Egypt, after which he voluntarily involved the US military in a NATO-led rag-tag civil war in Libya.

In another unexpected turn of events, a normally Second Amendment-shy Obama publicly supported possibly supplying guns to everyday citizens displeased with overbearing leaders and governments. Seems the President is all for the right to bear arms as long as those bearing the arms are not protected by the United States Constitution and are either foreign rebels or Mexican drug cartels.

The National Rifle Association Institute of Legislative Action claims careful review of “real records … votes taken, political associations, and long standing positions, shows [that] Barack Obama,” rather than a proponent of the right to bear arms is, in fact, “a serious threat to Second Amendment liberties.”

Scholar, pro-gun researcher, and gun advocate John Lott claimed that, prior to mulling over supplying armaments to Libyan street rebels, Obama, try as he might to pretend otherwise, was not a big Second Amendment fan.  Which made it surprising that, despite enacting a ban on the importation of semiautomatic guns in America based on the excuse that “imports of the aging rifles could cause problems such as firearm accidents,” the President actually entertained the idea of putting military hardware into the hands of rebels infiltrated by al Qaeda.

If Obama can manage to justify denying responsible Americans the right to bear arms based on preventing a catastrophe, why not follow through and ban other hazardous activities such as street crossing, propane tank usage, and lawn darts?

Accident prevention aside, the subject of concern is not whether the United States ultimately arms or chooses not to arm Libyan rebels, but that a President whose policy decisions and appointments point to a future where America is disarmed would even mull over such an idea.

On the one hand, the President verbally maintains support for the Second Amendment, while covertly the same President proposes extensive reporting requirements on sales of long guns, nominates an “anti-gun zealot” like Andrew Traver to head the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Then, to seal the deal, Obama appoints two anti-individual gun ownership Supreme Court Justices whose presence on the bench promises to deliver regulations that will be more restrictive for gun owners across America.

According to Gun Reports:

In 2003, Obama voted in support of SB1195, which, if passed, would have banned most of the privately held hunting shotguns, target rifles, and black powder rifles in [Illinois].

If the ban was enacted, law enforcement officials would have been authorized to forcibly enter private homes to confiscate newly banned firearms.

On the 2008 campaign trail, Obama attempted to portray himself as a “Hope and Change” Charlton Heston.  Then the newly-elected supposedly pro-gun Obama administration went ahead an strongly supported the U.N.’s Arms Trade Treaty.  And, although still refusing to acknowledge knowing about “Fast and Furious” arms to drug cartels, Obama continues, along with Eric Holder, to make less than truthful statements about Mexico’s acquisition of US-provided weaponry.

If ATF testimony proves correct, that means the guy who said “I don’t believe that people should be able to own guns” has no problem with drug cartels possessing the rights he believes should be denied law abiding citizens who need guns to protect themselves from the Mexican criminals America has apparently armed.

The Second Amendment, which “James Madison drafted …the First Congress proposed… and the states ratified in 1791,” established the following Constitutional principle: “A well-regulated Militia [is] necessary to the security of a Free State [and] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Besides giving American citizens the right to protect themselves and their families from crime, “The Second Amendment of the Constitution also gives [Americans] the right to protect … our nation from a corrupt government or foreign invasion.”

Similar to what Libyans are doing on the streets of small towns like Ajdabiya.

Yet on the revisionist left, which is populated by the party of the President, it is often argued that the Second Amendment is not applicable in today’s society.  However, Obama weighing the possibility to arm Libyan rebels proves otherwise. Isn’t protecting those who cannot protect themselves from Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddafi the reason Obama considered sending arms to street rebels in the first place?

In both Egypt and Libya, dissenters revolted against tyrannical governments and supposedly, in the pro-democracy spirit, Barack supported foreign guerrillas and pondered equipping a “body of the people” in order to “constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.” Such a stance presents Obama with a quandary, because at the podium the President may talk the “insurrectionist model” but on paper, where it counts, the truth is that the same man who overlooks gunrunners smuggling guns across the border would rather Americans didn’t have guns.

 

In other words, but for the presence of al-Qaeda in their midst, Obama seemed open to supporting and possibly even arming citizen uprisings against oppressive governments.  However, if legislative direction is any indication of his true gun philosophy, the President is squarely in opposition to a Constitutional precedent for American citizen/militias to be able to protect our own nation from oppression.  Obama’s policies seem intent on purposely leaving Americans defenseless if a situation similar to the one in Libya should arise here in America.

Consistently cogent Founding Father Thomas Jefferson posed an important question in his 1787 letter to William S. Smith, which said: “And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?” Maybe a President of two minds, when not arming far-off insurrectionists and Mexican criminals, can answer Jefferson’s question for the American people he seems determined to disarm.

The Constitution and the 112th Congress

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

The Republicans are up to no good.  The 112th Congress is coming to Washington DC with the Republicans in the majority, and the Right plans to stir things up. In fact, Republicans are arming for war with the ultimate ammunition, the US Constitution!

That’s right – the Radical Republicans plan to open Congress by reading the Constitution on the floor of the House. Newly elected legislators are planning to drag out the source document to remind Congress what guidelines should be adhered to when imposing legislation on the American people.

Democrats, who have an affinity for passing bills without reading them, may very well run toward the escape exits when the reading commences.  What could be worse than having a standard held up that proves nothing you’ve done for years even comes close to resembling the type of governance laid down in America’s founding document.

Those backing the plan said the goal is to “underscore the limited-government rules the Founders imposed on Congress – and to try to bring some of those principles back into everyday legislating.” Does that mean revisionist Democrats are going to have to actually listen, or will the Republicans allow conscientious objection?

The rabble rouser extremist who came up with the idea, Robert W. Goodlatte (R-Va), said the proposal “stems from the debate that we’ve had for the last two years about things like the exercise of authority in a whole host of different areas” from the EPA to health care to cap and trade.

Godlatte said:  “This Congress has been very aggressive in expanding the power of the federal government, and there’s been a big backlash to that.”

No offense to Congressman Goodlatte, but adherence to the letter of the law isn’t exactly the Left’s strong suit.  Even if Democrats know what the Constitution says, the copy they prefer is the “not deeply flawed” edition.  Liberals cling to a newfangled “living-breathing” Constitution, marked up and made up as they go along. How else could the Left justify bad law like Roe v. Wade? Liberals contend that the guidelines set forth by a group of angry-white-male slave owners need revision, not revisitation.

In fact, the Constitution is why Obama is on the “defensive over the new health care law.” Democrats were so busy drafting the health care bill they had no time to heed bothersome clauses, especially those that would prevent the Left from transforming the nation into a centralized system that rejects the basic tenets laid down in what they consider an antiquated document.

In Obama’s revisionist world, “sharing the wealth” takes precedence over the Constitution. So when an unsubmissive “federal district judge in Virginia ruled … that the general welfare and commerce clauses do not give the federal government the authority to require individuals to purchase health coverage, under pain of a financial penalty,” the Left, true to form, immediately attempted to discredit the judge.

Thus, Liberal reaction could be extreme. Let’s face it – reciting the US Constitution to Democrats would be like forcing Madalyn Murray O’Hair to participate in a prayer meeting.

Establishing the 112th Congress upon a Constitutional foundation could incite a reaction in Democrats similar to Regan in the Exorcist being splashed with holy water.

However, there is an upside. One or two lines into the recitation and the minority party will probably run from the House floor and crash through the double doors, holding their ears, screaming and begging for mercy, which will make getting the nation back to founding principles a whole lot easier for Republicans.

%d bloggers like this: