“Obama’s Disdain For The Constitution Means We Risk Losing Our Republic”

Forbes openly calls for impeachment proceedings against President Obama:

The main responsibility the Constitution assigns to the President is to faithfully execute the Laws. If the President rejects this job, if instead he decides he can change or ignore laws he does not like, then what?

The time will come when Congress passes a law and the President ignores it. Or he may choose to enforce some parts and ignore others (as Mr. Obama is doing now). Or he may not wait for Congress and issue a decree (something Mr. Obama has done and has threatened to do again).

Mr. Obama has not been shy about pointing out his path. He has repeatedly made clear that he intends to act on his own authority. “I have the power and I will use it in defense of the middle class,” he has said. “We’re going to do everything we can, wherever we can, with or without Congress.” There are a number of names for the system Mr. Obama envisions, but representative government is not one of them.

If the President can ignore the laws passed by Congress, of what use is Congress? The President can do whatever he chooses. Congress can stand by and observe. Perhaps they might applaud or jeer. But in terms of political power, Congress will be irrelevant….

[…]

The shocking fact is that our whole system of representative government depends on it being led by an individual who believes in it; who thinks it is valuable; who believes that a government dedicated to the protection of individual rights is a noble ideal. What if he does not?

Mr. Obama is moving our government away from its traditional system of checks and balances and toward the one-man-rule that dominates third world countries….

[…]

The most important point is that Mr. Obama does not consider himself bound by the Constitution. He could not have made that more clear. He has drawn a line in the concrete and we cannot ignore it.

Those who currently hold political office, and who want to keep our system of government, need to act now. Surely, rejection of the Constitution is grounds for impeachment and charges should be filed. In addition, there are many other actions that Congressmen can and should take—actions that will tell Mr. Obama that we have seen where he is going and we will not let our country go without a fight.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked what form of government had been created. “A republic,” he replied, “if you can keep it.”

We are losing it. If Mr. Obama’s reach for unprecedented power is not stopped, that will be the end. Everyone who values his life and liberty should find some way to say “No!” “Not now!” “Not yet!” “Not ever!”

via Forbes.

Advertisements

“Obama’s clever campaign to constrict the flow of criticism”

Among the many costs of the Barack Obama presidency is an intentional corrosion for its own political gain of public faith in so many American institutions, among them Congress, the Supreme Court and the media.

If numerous sectors of society are feuding or distrustful of each other, then a well-controlled central authority like a chief executive can more easily rule the pieces. It’s classic Chicago politics, the way the mayor there controls the city’s feuding neighborhood fiefdoms of Democrat pols and workers.

via Investors.com.

“White House imposes secrecy rules on first lady’s lavish, celebrity-filled birthday party”

According to reports in People, the Chicago Tribune, TMZ, US Magazine, and elsewhere, among of the attendees were, in no particular order: Beyonce, Stevie Wonder, Paul McCartney, James Taylor, Smokey Robinson, Gladys Knight, Janelle Monae, Mary J. Blige, Angela Bassett, Courtney Vance, Herbie Hancock, Samuel L. Jackson, Grant Hill, Alonzo Mourning, Ledisi, Emmett Smith, Star Jones, Al Roker, Steve Harvey, Magic Johnson, Billie Jean King, Michael Jordan, Angela Bassett, Jennifer Hudson, Gayle King, Ahmad Rashad, Kal Penn, and Ashley Judd. Among the current and former government officials attending were Joe Biden, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Susan Rice, Eric Holder, and Kathleen Sebelius.

[…]

“So great was the secrecy surrounding the party,” the Tribune reported, “that guests were handed an invitation — on their way out, the sources said.”

[…]

Why the secrecy, especially for an event involving so many well-known people? Maybe the Obamas just wanted a little privacy for an important occasion in the first lady’s life, although having 500 guests, including some of the most famous people on the planet, is perhaps not the best way to achieve that goal. Or maybe, since the president has announced he is devoting the rest of his time in office to an “inequality agenda,” the White House felt photos of a champagne-soaked, star-studded party would be somewhat off-message. But the Obamas are well-off, accomplished people. They can have a big party if they want (and if they pay for it). Why hide it?

via WashingtonExaminer.com.

“Only a special prosecutor can get truth about IRS abuse”

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa points to tone deafness to explain the choice of an Obama donor to run the Justice Department’s “investigation” of IRS targeting of conservative, Tea Party and evangelical political groups during the 2010 and 2012 campaigns. But the California Republican is being entirely too diplomatic. Putting a donor in charge is more like flipping the bird to Obama’s critics.

When the IRS harassment abuse first became public last year, Obama promised a complete investigation. Attorney General Eric Holder described the IRS harassment as “outrageous and unacceptable” and ordered a joint investigation by the FBI and the Justice Department.

via WashingtonExaminer.com

Some scandals affect the core of government – that is, they raise the question of whether the nation’s integrity is compromised.

That such scandals should be investigated fully and thoroughly ought to be a bipartisan thing.

“Don’t Dare Call the Health Law ‘Redistribution’ “

“Americans want a fair and fixed insurance market,” said Jonathan Gruber, a health economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who advised Mr. Obama’s team as it designed the law. “You cannot have that without some redistribution away from a small number of people.”

via NYTimes.com

That depends on who gets to define the word “fair”*….

 ________________________________
*…also maybe the word “small”…

“Obama Removes ‘God’ from Gettysburg Address”

I am not a big Abraham Lincoln fan (as anyone who has read this blog already knows) but I do get annoyed when people try to remove “Under God” from things. It’s so petty. Yes, we know you’re an atheist, but that doesn’t mean Abraham Lincoln was – or should be rewritten so that people think he was.

Burns had filmed all living presidents as well as various Hollywood personalities and luminaries to pay homage to the speech which was delivered by Abraham Lincoln 150 years ago, today.Plante broke the story on Washington DC talk radio station WMAL on his mid-morning program, “The Chris Plante Show.

“WMAL reports: Curiously enough, in his version of the speech, President Barack Obama\’s delivery contained an omission – in a line that every other celebrity delivered as “that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom,” the President left out the words, “under God.”UPDATE: A text box now appears on the Ken Burns website http://www.learntheaddress.org which states: “Did you know there are five versions of the Gettysburg Address? We asked President Obama to read the first, the Nicolay Version.” A cached version of the same webpage from several days ago shows no such reference.

via Breitbart.

No, I don’t believe for an instant that “we” (or Ken Burns, or his crew) “asked” Obama to read the ‘Nicolay Version’. That isn’t even plausible. Obama rules by appeal to hatred, and that hatred is aimed at Christianity; he would be nothing if so many young Americans didn’t have a visceral hatred-based need to scapegoat Christians and Christianity for everything that is wrong with America. Obama is the ultimate scapegoat POTUS – it’s his entire schtick.

I’d like to know why there are five versions of this address. Which one did Lincoln give? That is “the” address, isn’t it? Why are there five? Which one is the real one? How come this is not made clear? And how can we possibly expect children (or anyone else) to learn about, quote, or respect this important speech if we can’t even tell the speech from its draft versions?

History belongs to all of us. Nobody has the right to tamper with or attempt to rewrite it for personal – or ideological – gain.

“President shouldn’t encourage panic”

Stocks finished the government shutdown week mostly down, but not nearly as much as they could have fallen, given President Barack Obama’s efforts to panic investors. When Wall Street gave a ho-hum response to the shutdown, Obama went on TV to question why the markets weren’t more concerned by the standoff in Washington, and warned the U.S. could default on its debt.

They were highly reckless remarks by a president whose job it is to cultivate calm and confidence, not fear.

Fortunately, investors had already discounted the shutdown and the Dow fell just 1.6 percent for the week, and the S&P 500 just 0.5 percent. The NASDAQ, meanwhile, was up slightly.

via The Detroit News.

More on “[the] price of victory”, “settled”, and legitimacy

As Politico’s Todd Purdrum has compellingly argued, Mr. Obama is facing the natural and predictable consequences of his decision to force transformative health care legislation without bipartisan support and using every possible parliamentary maneuver after the Democrats lost their filibuster-proof majority in the Senate following voter rejection of the bill in a special election after the death of Senator Ted Kennedy in the very liberal state of Massachusetts. The President and his supporters also used every possible argument without particularly caring whether their case stood up over time—though they insisted before the law’s passage that it was not a tax, they happily embraced the Supreme Court’s decision that the law fell within the Congressional authority to tax. That angry Republicans legislators should show little restraint in response may be tactically unwise but should not be surprising to anyone

via The National Interest.

From Politico:

Twenty years ago, when he was trying to persuade Bill and Hillary Clinton that universal health care was a politically unrealistic goal, the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan repeated one insistent warning: Sweeping, historic laws don’t pass barely. “They pass 70-to-30,’’ he said, “or they fail.”

Four years ago, when he was trying to persuade Barack Obama that he would pay a terrible price for jamming health care reform through a reluctant Congress on a partisan vote, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel begged his boss to settle for a vastly scaled-down plan.

We now know what happened: Obama’s bill made history — and caused all-out political war….

…[T]he president has fair ground for accusing the House GOP of shutting down the government “over an ideological crusade to deny affordable health insurance to millions of Americans,” as he did on Tuesday. But he could have predicted that his own crusade to bring them coverage would unleash the political whirlwind that is now likely to last for years to come — whatever the merits of his cause. And Republicans are doing their best to make sure no one forgets that he rammed through the health law with Democratic support alone.

“You reap what you sow,” said Whit Ayres, the veteran Republican pollster. “When you force through a major and very significant change to our economy, and you do it on a pure party-line vote, and at the very end change the rules to cram it through, you simply set up a long-term political battle that will never end.”

Robert Blendon, a health policy expert at the Harvard School of Public Health, offered a less partisan but equally pungent analysis. “The long-term future of bills that have absolutely no minority support and are not popular when passed is not good,” he said. “This law is vulnerable not just for this week, but for the 2014 elections, and if not then, for whenever the minority party does become the majority.”

…No major law of the 20th century — not Medicare, nor the 1957, 1964 and 1965 civil rights and voting rights acts, nor the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act nor Social Security — passed the Congress by anything like the narrow, partisan margin of Obamacare. The Senate approved that 60-39 — a virtual squeaker by that chamber’s modern standards — and the House by just seven votes, 219-212.

Perhaps only the progressive income tax, which the Senate approved by a vote of 44-37 in 1913, had such a narrow margin of support. And, not coincidentally, it is the one measure among all those landmark laws that remains the subject of the liveliest debate a century later….

…Democrats outlined their goals in terms almost as obdurate as those voiced by Republicans now seeking to overturn or scale back the law.

“We will go through the gate,” then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in January 2010. “If the gate is closed, we will go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we will pole vault in. If that doesn’t work, we will parachute in. But we are going to get health care reform passed.”

…Last week, Obama mocked the extremism of his critics, noting that one state legislator — Rep. William O’Brien (R-N.H.) — had called the Affordable Care Act the greatest intrusion on personal liberty since the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. That infamous measure required states that had once harbored escaped slaves to return them to their Southern owners. It outraged the North and helped lead to the Civil War.

But just for the record, even though 20 senators declined to vote on that noxious law, it still passed the Senate 27-12.

via POLITICO.com.