Tag Archives: constitution

Are We Clear ?

2nd Amendment Eagle

This is no secret these days:  There are people in this country and within our government that enjoy their role in dissecting the Constitution little by little.  Any infringement on the freedom and liberty guaranteed  the American people by the Constitution, is an abuse of power.  This is written to for  all people in this country, all Americans. It is for those who choose to stand up for their freedom, and sadly for those people who choose to sit in the shadows of everyone else, while life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are all becoming a part of  a distant past.

Although it is important to talk about the Constitution, and all the Amendments, the purpose here is to focus on 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution States: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. “The Constitution of the United States,” Amendment 2.”

The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the individual to keep and bear arms.  But more importantly, it was the intent of the founding fathers to guarantee the people the ability to rise up, if necessary, to a tyrannical government.  James Madison stated, “A well-instructed people alone can be permanently a free people.” The American people understand what is at stake here. They have the right to the freedoms set forth in the Constitution and protection of these rights from all three levels of government including the president of the United States.  They should accept nothing less. Those people who sit behind close doors trying to quietly pass bills which take away the rights of American citizens, and those people in the media who sit in silence, are all despicable and a disgrace to this country and all it stands for.  We speak as a group, as a country united for the same purpose.   We will not sit quietly like obedient children, while our rights are being taken away, because it is personal opinion of our ELECTED officials et.al., that the American people, law-abiding citizens are not capable of understanding these rights and guarantees. Somehow these people in office, and elsewhere feel as though they have some superiority.

A personal opinion is just that – an opinion.  Personal opinions of people are not laws and do not have any basis in law.  Although it would seem fair to say we should respect the personal opinion of others, including those in the house, the senate, and the president, but a personal opinion is not grounds for  Constitutional change.  We the people do not support any legislation that our representatives are submitting to dismantle ANY of our rights as citizens especially the 2nd Amendment.  Because Joe Biden, President Obama, et.al. are on a mission to disarm Americans and put insane restrictions on our right to bear arms, based on their personal opinions, rather than any fact of law suggests how ludicrous this assertion by them truly is.  In addition, they do not possess the right, the power, or the ability, to take away the rights granted to All American’s by the Constitution, of course they rely heavily on the reality that so many Americans are clueless as to what is really going on.

We, the people will not be disarmed.  We need to see support by all elected officials regarding this issue or have some integrity and step down. You are all bound by an oath you took, rest assured We the People also took an oath and it is one we do not take lightly.

Please show your support America by  speaking out against any legislation that would infringe on our 2nd Amendment rights or any other part of the Constitution for that matter. Do not sit passively by while history is repeating itself with the attempt to disarm the people. Cut and paste this if you want to,  send it to your sheriff departments, police departments, and elected officials and find out where they stand and how they will protect you when the time comes.  Don’t be the person who ends up saying, “I wish I would have opened my mouth.”

Sincerely,

Further Information:

The right to arm oneself is viewed as a personal liberty to deter undemocratic or oppressive governing bodies from forming and to repel impending invasions. Furthermore, the right to bear arms was instituted within the Bill of Rights to suppress insurrection, participate and uphold the law, enable the citizens of the United States to organize a militia, and to facilitate the natural right to self-defense.
The Second Amendment was developed as a result of the tyrannous rule of the British parliament. Colonists were often oppressed and forced to pay unjust taxes at the hand of the unruly parliament. As a result, the American people yearned for an Amendment that would guarantee them the right to bear arms and protect themselves against similar situations. The Second Amendment was drafted to provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States through the ability to raise and support militias.
Court Cases Tied into the Second Amendment
In District of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm to use for traditionally lawful purposes, such as defending oneself within their home or on their property. The court case ruled that the Amendment was not connected to service in a militia. 1

1.  http://constitution.laws.com/2nd-amendment

 

 

Ben Shapiro Takes Foreign Gun Control Bully Piers Morgan Down a Notch

Breitbart editor-at-large and author of “Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences Americans” Ben Shapiro took Piers Morgan down a notch on the issue of what should be done after the tragedy at Newtown, Connecticut. Shapiro accused Piers Morgan of being a “bully” who was “standing on the graves” of Sandy Hook shooting victims while characterizing gun control opponents as ‘unfeeling.’

Shapiro makes the important point about how the left mistakes passion for reason when it comes to policy. Those on the left mistakenly believe that because they feel more, and that means they are inherently on the side of right, meanwhile those who disagree with them are wrong. Rationality and evidence don’t enter into the equation.

And as Shapiro drove home, neither does history — the left dismisses the entire notion that citizens should have guns to defend themselves from tyranny. As Judge Napolitano echoed in his Washington Times article, the Second Amendment acknowledges that citizens’ have “the right to shoot tyrants, not deer.”

At one point, Shapiro pulls out a Constitution, which Piers once refers to as “your little book,” and makes the salient argument that the Founders put the Second Amendment in the Constitution not for purposes of protecting hunting and game shooting, but so citizens are legally allowed to defend themselves from government tyranny. He then made the haunting remark that “the fact that my grandparents in Europe didn’t fear (tyranny) is why they’re ashes.”

Cross-posted at Independent Journal Review

The Debt Ceiling, Revenue & The Progressive Overreach

9.4 debt by states-02 (2)Soon, President Obama will stand before the American people, at his inaugural, and take the Oath of Office. He will place his hand on the Holy Bible (we assume) and swear an oath before God and country to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. He did this once before in 2009. But, he has increasingly ignored the dictates and tenets of this Founding Document – one of the documents in the Charters of Freedom. He has disparaged the document as “flawed” and has transparently sought out legal mechanisms – and sometimes not so legal mechanisms – to circumvent the provisions and authorities set forth within. Many Presidents have done the same, although, perhaps, not as egregiously.

Truth be told, a great deal of the partisan gridlock – at least where the finances of the nation are concerned – wouldn’t exist today if the politicians we elect to office would simply cease being politicians upon being tasked with doing the business of government; if they simply followed the rules of government as set forth by the Founding Documents. But then, as James Madison said, “If men were angels…”

In a prior article, Why Is Boehner Negotiating with Obama at All?, I pointed out:

“Article I, Section 7, of the United States Constitution reads:

“‘All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.’

“And while the verbiage that follows outlines the processes by which the presidential veto and congressional veto overrides are to be executed, nowhere is the power of the purse – the ability to create legislation that raises revenue – extended to any other branch of government or congressional body.

“I bring this fundamental tenet of our system of government to the forefront because I am puzzled as to why House Republicans, led by Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH), are negotiating budgetary financial matters, a responsibility and purview exclusively vested in the US House of Representatives, with anyone outside that body, let alone the Executive Branch, which only has the constitutional power of the veto over said legislation?

“Such are the questions that arise when the bully pulpit is used to usurp the constitutional order of our government.”

So, you can imagine how happy I was to read that Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH), has told his fellow Republicans that he is done with private, one-on-one negotiations with President Obama. The simple fact of the matter is that he never – ever – should have entered into negotiations with anyone from the Executive Branch over issues of raising revenue in the first place; not on the fiscal cliff, the debt ceiling, the budget, tax reform, deficit reduction…none of it. Pure and simple, the Executive Branch, other than allocating revenues granted to it to through the constitutionally mandated legislative process, to the agencies and departments under their purview, has no authority over the raising of revenue whatsoever. I defy anyone to find any provision in the US Constitution that contradicts that fact.

The reality that President Obama (and through him his team) can co-opt authority over matters of national finance simply by bullying his way to a “negotiating table” under the perverted guise of “leadership” says a lot about how far we have gotten away from the constitutional process of government. That the elected officials in the Legislative Branch do not howl in protest over the usurpation of the Separation of Powers – and perhaps that they don’t know better to howl in the first place – presents as a frighteningly, but all to true, commentary on just how constitutionally illiterate (or subversive) our elected officials have become. The same, sadly, can be said of the electorate itself.

If, and that is the optimal word here, our elected federal officials adhered to the US Constitution as the rulebook by which government is executed (which it is), legislation would follow a path that goes something like this:

▪ Legislation regarding the generation and securing of revenue (including matters of debt reduction, budgeting and borrowing) would be created working through regular order, letting the House work its will.

▪ The legislation would be advanced to the US Senate where they “may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.” (Note: had the 17th Amendment not been passed allowing for the direct election of Senators by the electorate, Senators would still be charged with protecting the rights of their respective States from the overreach of the federal government.)

▪ The legislation would then go to “conference” where the original legislation would be reconciled between the two chambers.

▪ The legislation would then be presented to the Executive Branch (as is the proper procedure for any piece of legislation), where the President can either sign it into law or veto it.

▪ At this point the House (because the legislation for our purposes has to do with revenue generation) would reconsider the legislation and the objections of the Executive Branch and either override the veto or make changes so as to satisfy the Executive’s objections. The overridden or revised bill would then go to the Senate for a similar procedure.

So, as you can see, the only options available for President Obama (or the Executive Branch), constitutionally, are to either sign the legislation into law or veto the legislation presented. Nowhere – nowhere – in the US Constitution is the Executive Branch afforded negotiating rights on matters of raising revenue but for those two options and at that moment in the timeline.

That understood, what we just witnessed – with the US Senate crafting legislation regarding the raising of revenue and the Executive Branch negotiating from the start with the leadership of the US House – was wholly in usurpation of the constitutional process by which revenue legislation is supposed to adhere. In fact, it could be said that the entire piece of legislation, by way of its origination, is unconstitutional.

Yet, because there will be no constitutional objection to this travesty of process, American taxpayers are now saddled with higher taxes and over $4 trillion in new debt over the next ten years, and we haven’t even dealt with the sequestration, the debt ceiling or the budget, all of which will, most likely, see an arrogant and belligerent Executive Branch bullying its way to yet more “negotiating tables”; negotiating tables at which they do not belong. I am willing to bet that through it all, taxes spending and the national debt will rise, and deficit reduction will remain in the realm of political rhetoric; the filth of political opportunism soiling the futures of our great-grandchildren.

On January 21, 2013, Barack Obama will place his hand on the Holy Bible (we assume) and swear this oath, as mandated by Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) 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.”

Nowhere in that oath exists the caveat, “…unless I think the document is flawed.” Barack Obama’s job as President of the United States is to uphold and protect; to defend the US Constitution. That means adhering to the provisions, limitations and authorities held within, including the legislative process by which revenue is raised for the federal government.

So, when you hear Mr. Obama say: “I will not have another debate with this Congress over whether or not they should pay the bills that they’ve already racked up through the laws that they passed,” two thoughts should come to mind.

First, your eyes should roll, given the fact that all the Obama Administration has done over the past four years is scream that they need to spend more money. Blaming Congress for racking up trillions in new debt with nothing to show for it but fictitious “jobs saved or created” numbers that don’t reconcile with the unemployment and workforce stats is tantamount to piling up debt on your Dad’s credit card and then blaming him for being a spendthrift.

Second, you should be asking yourself – and your elected representatives – this: What gives Mr. Obama the right to say he “will not have another debate with this Congress,” over the debt ceiling when he has no authority to debate it in the first place? More importantly, you should ask yourself why your elected members to the US House would allow their leadership to include Mr. Obama in debates exclusive to House membership…ever.

The time to understand the US Constitution – to become constitutionally literate – is now…as is the time to actually start asking these question. Your great-grandchildren’s’ freedom may just depend on what you do right now.

Pure Defiance – Prostituting Government

“Americans just want us to…not to be concerned if they can be constitutionally justified…Why, if we had to do that (follow the rule of our Constitution) we could not pass most of the laws we enact around here.”
– Senator John Glenn, parentheses added

This man in the oval office has brought in the New Year with an onslaught of abusive measures.

For example, he has signed NDAA 2013, a bill that makes a provision to unlawfully detain American citizens indefinitely (as he gives passes to illegal immigrants).

He also advocated emergencies through the engineered fiscal cliff. Senators received the 154-page bill at approximately 1:36 AM on Jan. 1, 2013 – a mere three minutes before they voted to approve it at 1:39 AM. And, yes, they signed it. The House also passed it the following day.

After receiving news of these treacherous violations, I thought it appropriate to ask the American people, where are they deriving their powers?

It is not from the United States Constitution?

The Constitution is a delegated, or expressed powers document. Case in point: the federal government can “only do” what the Constitution says it can, period! We have progressed from delegated, to suggested, to interpreted, to “if it doesn’t say we can’t… we can,” to “I don’t care what it says.”

Many of this administration’s actions have unlawfully and contemptuously defied the Constitution.

Barack Hussein Obama has attacked our military, attempted to force institutions to fund the murder of babies, sued states who passed laws to prevent illegal immigration, fired CEOs of private corporations, and claimed “executive privilege” to cover for his Attorney General in the deadly gun-running sting, “Fast and Furious.”

To further highlight Obama’s defiance, back in 2011 he was held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling off shore.

Listen carefully to what federal Judge Martin Feldmen said after he placed the injunction on Obama, as it well explains his overall disdain for America and her laws:

“Each step the government took following the court’s imposition of a preliminary injunction showcases its defiance… Such dismissive conduct … provide this court with clear and convincing evidence of the government’s contempt.”

Friends, he is not speaking of a third world dictator, he is speaking of the president of the United States.

The great wonder of this age is that the American people sit back and allow this administration to defy and to desecrate everything our veterans fought, bled and died to give us – the ratification of the Constitution.

America needs to come back to the place where no longer are they magnifying the crime or the criminals, but rather the law against their crimes unto judgment to establish righteousness, especially when it comes to those who work for “We the People.”

Then and only then will we know the peace that God and our forefathers intended to give unto us through our Mosaic Institution.

Thomas Jefferson rightly stated, “When the representative body have lost the confidence of their constituents, when they have notoriously made sale of their most valuable rights, when they have assumed to themselves powers which the people never put into their hands, then indeed their continuing in office becomes dangerous.”

We have clearly seen that the president, Senate, and House have disregarded the precedents of our forefathers and instead have taken Senator John Glenn’s advice: “Why, if we had to do that (follow the rule of our Constitution) we could not pass most of the laws we enact around here.”

Video:

Obama’s proposed plan on the economy implemented an unprecedented 41:1 ratio of tax increases to spending cuts. The bill passed shortly after Obama prostituted out the government by ordering a pay raise for Congress and other federal officials.

So the question is, who is giving him a pass, and why?

The U.S. Constitution in Plain Language

Constitution650In response to the New York Times editorial “Let’s Give Up on the Constitution,” written by esteemed scholar Louis Michael Seidman, it seems like an appropriate time to revisit the U.S. Constitution.

Unfortunately, since the language of the Constitution can be technical and outdated, republishing something as brilliant as The Federalist Papers simply wouldn’t convince many people that so-called “progressives” are actually on the wrong side of history.

Most people do not understand that “progressives” are authoritarians fighting to undo the American political system, which was put into place to keep power-hungry politicians from doing whatever they want with other people’s lives.

Instead of forming another complicated defense of the law of the land, let’s put the U.S. Constitution in terms everyone can understand:

We run this country. Politicians are there to do their jobs and that’s it. Don’t start nothing, won’t be nothing. (See The Declaration of Independence.)

The House of Representatives and Senate pass the laws. This is so we don’t feel stupid for electing dictators who can do whatever they want. Putting more jerks in office makes it harder for them to work together to pass harmful laws. Since they are egomaniacs, they will fight for power and hopefully cancel each others’ idiocy out.

Not just any fool can be a Representative. Just fools of a certain age and citizenship status. Senators have to be a bit older, but certainly no wiser that Representatives.

The Congress has to actually meet once in a while. This is not a problem for career politicians. If you act like a douchebag, we can kick you out. We probably won’t, but don’t push it. No double-dipping.

Spending bills start in the House, even though some political parties act like they don’t. The House decides what stuff and how much of it the government buys. It decides what countries to invade. Don’t go trampling on people’s civil liberties. States aren’t separate countries, and shouldn’t act like them.

If you’re a thirty-five year old citizen with no real record of accomplishment, you too can be an American president! The president has to take an oath to the Constitution. Contrary to popular belief, he doesn’t get elected to rule over other Americans. He gets to make treaties and pick bureaucrats.

Every year, the president makes a nice speech to Congress. He should take care not to insult members of the other branches. Believe it or not, the president can be kicked out of office.

There’s a bunch of judges who decide tough cases called the Supreme Court. They too can be kicked out, but they can generally stay on the court as long as they want to. The Supreme Court gets to rule on certain cases of importance.

It’s possible to commit treason against one’s country, but since most of the founders of the country were called traitors, it’s almost impossible.

We have a republican form of government, not a democracy. That means we have a bunch of somewhat independent states that are supposed to work together, help each other out, and follow the rules.

Don’t like something in the Constitution? We actually have a way to change it built in! That means none of you who don’t like the Constitution gets to say, “hey, why don’t we just forget about the Constitution?” If you have a bright idea, let’s see how much the public agrees with you.

The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It gives the government all of its legitimate powers, and also limits what the government can do to people. Politicians are nothing but citizens who are equal to other citizens and hold office only by the people’s consent. If politicians start bossing people around, and break their oaths of office, then the Constitution is nullified, and the authority of the government is voided.

In that worst case scenario, Washington politicians would be just a collection of 537 guys trying to order around more than 300 million Americans, but they would have no more legitimate authority than anyone else. “Giving up on the Constitution” means we should all forget about what Washington politicians say and why we should listen to them at all.

All of the states whose spokesmen sign this document agree to form a federal government on these conditions only. Without this binding agreement, there is no federal government.

Bonus: The Bill of Rights

1st Amendment — We can say whatever we want and believe whatever we want, and the government has no say in it.

2nd Amendment — We have the right to defend ourselves from the government and criminals using firearms.

3rd Amendment — Soldiers and policemen can’t just bust into your house like they own the joint and crash there.

4th Amendment — Police can’t just search people randomly, go through their stuff, ask for their papers, and all that business.

5th Amendment — The government can’t just take stuff or lock people up without a trial.

6th Amendment — Trials have to be speedy and fair.

7th Amendment — People have a right to be judged by other folks who can understand them.

8th Amendment — Judges can’t just straight up rip people off or do cruel and unusual stuff to them.

9th Amendment — Just because it isn’t written down here, doesn’t mean people don’t have other rights.

10th Amendment — If the Constitution doesn’t say that the government can do something, it can’t do it. The people and the states have all the powers not otherwise given to the federal government.

AN UNREDEEMED PRESIDENCY

As election day draws near and the presidential campaigns execute their final strategies the winds of success appear to be at the backs of the Romney/Ryan team, and it’s not too imperious to envisage a Romney/Ryan victory. It appears that a significant part of the electorate agrees with the title of Niall Ferguson’s cogent essay entitled “Obama’s Gotta Go”. As we eagerly await their promising triumph on November 6th and, risking impetuousness, we deign to contemplate what a Romney presidency will resemble in its maiden year.

From any perspective, looking forward, President Romney will undoubtedly have to play the part of America’s master repairman.  He has the unenviable task of repaving America’s avenue of exceptionalism, a road rendered potholed and fractured by the Obama administration. There are considerable fixes Romney the new renovator-in-chief must undertake, and if anyone is deserved of a “blame Obama” free pass it will be the new Chief Executive. But leaders don’t blame, they take responsibility for their actions, so it’s doubtful President Romney will exhibit behavior beneath his character and the office of the presidency.

President Romney will have to refurbish America’s ruptured domestic economic environment laden with Obama’s absurdist wealth redistribution policies and profligate spending sprees. He will have to remake a hegemonic America in decline due to President Obama’s feckless appeasement of America’s enemies and indifference and disregard towards its allies. But perhaps President Romney’s most daunting task for renovating America’s path of exceptionalism will be to restore a united America torn asunder by an Obama-led class warfare crusade. A crusade pitting American against American to assuage his personal disdain for a hallmark of Americanism embodied by the freedom loving rugged individualist who takes personal responsibility for their successes and failures. These are the very Americans President Obama fears and derides because he cannot control their independent spirit, intimidate their freedom of thought, nor render insecure their confident natures.

While a Romney presidency is committed to a renewal of American exceptionalism, the Obama presidency is only a remembrance of unfulfilled promise. The 2008 Obama pledges are legendary for their hollowness and now have the status of a parlor joke, to wit, “how is that hope and change working out for you?” Space does not permit the entire smorgasbord of utopias (over 500 by some accounts) offered up by candidate and President Obama. But because of their far-reaching consequences a few warrant call outs to capture the essence of his disappointing term. Candidate Obama professed he would revolutionize American governance by replacing backroom political cronyism with a presidency that would be “the most transparent administration in the history of our country”. It was candidate Obama who swore that he would reduce the national deficit in half by the end of his first term. In 2009 President Obama guaranteed that unemployment would be at 5.2% at the end of his first term and there would be 3% to 4% GDP growth in the final three years of his first term. There were the President’s infamous assurances that his ObamaCare legislation would be budget neutral, reduce premium costs and allow individuals to keep their existing coverage. The President avowed he would commence a “new beginning” between America and the Arab world through his policies of appeasement toward America’s enemies. These and the preponderance of other hopeful pieces of paradise promised by an Obama presidency are relegated to a wasteland of deceit and deception.

Obama partisans are chock full of excuses for the president’s fiascos.  Some justify President Obama’s failures due to his executive inexperience, so perhaps Mr. Obama ran afoul of one of the cardinal rules of business, which is to never over promise and under deliver. But his devotees also plead that now since that he has gotten his feet wet give him four more years. But, to quote one of Vice-President Joe Biden’s few lucid remarks, “…the presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.” Some of the president’s acolytes have chalked up his failures as a consequence of his predecessor’s policies igniting the “blame Bush” strategy. If that is at play, and since every president inherits some undesirable policies and unfavorable domestic and geo-political environments, then it is reason enough to man the Oval office with someone who can live up to the challenges of the presidency. Finally, in keeping with the Obama finger-pointing presidency, the President’s disciples accuse the republicans in congress of partisanship and obstruction. This is mendacious and preposterous given that the Obama policies, which laid the groundwork for America’s current decline, were undertaken in the President’s first two years in office, a period in which the democrats controlled both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

The Obama presidency was unique for both it’s promise and it’s fortification. Without any notable experience to speak of on the part of candidate Obama an adoring mainstream media colluded with an ingenious presidential campaign to successfully fabricate the illusion of a candidate that was infallible and omnipotent. Candidate Obama was lauded and praised as the savior for the woes of the American Republic and he would right the injustices of the past with a wave of his majestic hand. From the failed, pork ridden stimulus to the Benghazi tragedy with flyovers to ObamaCare, Solyndra and his Middle East “American Apology Tour” the media’s coddling continued into his presidency while President Obama’s advisers strove feverishly to enable, defend and rationalize his failures. But the President’s aura of entitlement and enablement were ironically the causes of his failures and disappointments.

However it was how he failed that signifies the tragedy of his presidency. America’s post-modern presidential version of the “emperor with no clothes” luxuriated in praise and fumed at criticism. Handed every opportunity to succeed he stubbornly ignored the obvious manifestations of his failed socialist ideologies. He dug in his heels insisting on an economic agenda that wreaked havoc and misery on the middle class, the very group he claimed to champion in his class warfare campaign. His lethargic foreign engagement characterized as “leading from behind” emboldened America’s enemies resulting in a much more dangerous and tumultuous world for America than when he took office.

In spite of the dangers to America’s economic and international well being, the future of the Republic and his disregard for his oath of office the President was obdurate in his single mindedness. The Constitution is clear as to the president’s responsibilities and President Obama disregarded his solemn oath which was “to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Perhaps it is his ability that is at issue.

But the time for entertaining excuses or conjecture is over. In the parlance of the President’s many “let me be clear” moments it is now history’s time to write the Obama epitaph. Historians, unlike the President’s sycophants, will not justify his failures nor inoculate his shortcomings. As with all Presidents Mr. Obama’s presidency will be reviewed and recollected historically on the merits of his accomplishments. He was dealt a hand that he willingly accepted and he failed to deliver. It was President Obama’s personal decision to selfishly satiate his personal dogmata at the expense of his sworn responsibility to act as steward of America’s welfare. For that reason he shall not be forgiven, and for that reason the Obama presidency’s epitaph will forever be known as an unredeemed presidency.

WaPo: To blunt ‘fiscal cliff’, administration could assert broad powers

More than not, it seems as though the Washington Post is from another country – if not another planet. In proposing a solution to the “fiscal cliff”, Washington Post writer Zachary Goldfarb proposes that the White House should take unilateral action and assert broad powers to re-arrange tax and fiscal policy – all from the executive branch.

First, the “fiscal cliff” is only an issue because the White House decided to force sequestration down the throats of Harry Reid and John Boehner in response to earlier budget crisis – a remedy neither leader wanted but saw as a compromise with the President. Reid felt it risked too many cuts and Boehner expressed concerns over using it as a budgeting tool.

Mr. Goldfarb now sees the same opportunity that perhaps the White House did when they pushed sequestration and the fiscal cliff:

The Obama administration could blunt the economic harm caused by the “fiscal cliff” at the end of the year by using its unilateral powers over spending and taxes, for instance, by freezing how much in taxes is taken out of payroll checks, according to former senior officials and other tax and budget experts.

Unfortunately for the ill-informed WaPo writer, taxation is function of Congress. The President cannot simply choose to not collect taxes that Congress has imposed. We don’t have a king or dictator here Mr. Goldfarb. Actions such as the author proposes would be against the President’s oath of office and reason for impeachment – if Congress had the gumption to take action.

What Goldfarb fails to understand is the fundamental framework of our government set forth in the Constitution. Congress debates and passes legislation and the President makes sure those laws are enforced. If the President fails to do so, he is certainly failing in his duties.

The reason the separation of powers are so ingrained in the Constitution is to prevent the type of power-grab that the Post article proposes the administration should enact.

At one point in the article, it’s not even clear if Goldfarb understands what he’s proposing:

But the Treasury Department could try to blunt the impact by freezing withholding tables at 2012 levels. The law gives the Treasury secretary the authority to set withholding tables at his discretion, though they are supposed to comply with the law.

What does that even mean?

Ignorance of our system of government is exactly why liberal/socialistic ideas seem plausible. Only those taking the time to understand the long term consequences of such short-term thinking will see it as dangerous.

The President must not usurp the taxing authority of Congress to ease the pain that the President’s administration caused in the first place. Actually, Congress must not allow the President to usurp its authority at all.

As if to prove that the maneuver would be unconstitutional the author dedicates the final paragraph to quoting Gregory F. Jenner on how the tactic is viable because no one will call the President on it:

“I think it’s possible. Who’s going to challenge him?”

If Congress will not, we will replace them. So to answer Mr. Jenner’s question – We the people will challenge him.

The biggest threat to your freedom that you don’t know about

Every time we have a presidential election, people come out of the wood work to complain about how “unfair” the electoral college is.  These critics insist that we need a national popular vote because it’s more democratic.  But would a national popular vote be a threat to your freedom?  And how close is to actually happening?

Want to know when the next episode of Freedom’s Foundation is posted?  Click here to sign up for Chad’s monthly newsletter!

 

 

In Deep with Michelle Ray

When: Friday, August 10th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: In Deep with Michelle Ray on Blog Talk Radio

What: Join Social Media Director of ConservativeDailyNews.com, Michelle Ray (@GaltsGirl) as she discusses the issues that impact America.

Tonight:Tonight: A Republic, if you can keep it and a quick visit from Brandon Combs on the California SB249 issue he is fighting.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on Blog Talk Radio

People Flock to Chik-fil-A!

Reports are coming in from all over the country – Chick-fil-A stores are jammed. Some people are reporting a two hour wait and drive-thru’s are lined up around the corner.

Conservative former Governor Mike Hukabee declared today to be Chick-fil-A day and people have flocked in to chicken stores across the country to support first amendment rights.

The controversy started when Dan Cathy spoke in favor of one man, one woman marriage in an interview with the Baptist Press.

The interview was followed by threats from the mayors of Chicago and Boston to refuse business licenses to the restaurant chain.

Gay rights activists are calling for a Chick-fil-A “kiss in” on Friday. Many conservatives have vowed on Twitter to come out and buy more chicken sandwiches on that day as well.

GOP Congressman: Fighting For The Constitution Is A Losing Battle

H/T Western Journalism

Republican Rep. Paul Gosar (Arizona Dist. 1) proves there really is no difference between the left and the right. Republican politicians are the same as Democrat politicians. They are spitting all over The Constitution. We are allowing these “elected officials” to give our country away.

YouTube Description:

What happens when a Republican Congressman tells Conservative Activists that fighting for the Constitution is a losing battle? Watch the fireworks as Unite In Action’s Director of Legal Affairs KrisAnne Hall and 912 Project National Co-Chair, Unite In Action President, Stephani Scruggs respond.

This took place at The National Republican Club of Capitol Hill, commonly known as the Capitol Hill Club, in Washington DC on June 28th, 2012 with Michelle Bachmann, Rep Gosar and several other members of congress as well as The Tea Party.Net. with syndicated talk show host Rusty Humphries as the MC. It was broadcast on LiveStream by The Tea Party.Net

 

« Older Entries Recent Entries »