And, Obama plans to unveil his gun violence proposals at 11:45 a.m. Wednesday (January 16, 2013) at the White House.  [again, emphasis mine]   Obama’s proposals include 19 (count ‘em, 19) executive orders (EO) that Vice President “One Heartbeat Away From Being President” Joe Biden has recommended. All EOs focus upon gun control.

I was in the Army for 22 years. I have been around guns of all types (pistols, rifles, shotguns, even [gasp!] M-16 assault rifles with [double gasp!] 20-round magazines) all of my life. I taught my daughters and son to shoot a shotgun when they were safely (IMHO) able to hold it. Never once did any gun, of its own accord, act violently. And, I have never seen or heard from the (always unbiased) MSM of any gun, of its own accord, acting violently. So, I must conclude that both Obama and Biden have chosen a target that cannot speak for itself or defend itself. Yet, through a lap-dog MSM, Obama will announce his plans to curb (non-existent) gun violence through gun control. The real issue, though Obama and Biden will be loathe to admit it, is control.

True, the shooting in Newtown, CT, were tragic. But why not place the blame where it belongs: Adam Lanza? Lanza, not the guns, was violent. The gun(s) Lanza used did not act of their own accord. The gun(s) Lanza used cannot speak for themselves. But you can bet that Lanza has secured a loud mouth lawyer who will advise Lanza to plead “temporary insanity” and hit the cable TV “news” circuit. And that is what Obama, Biden, and the MSM will play up.

But preventing violence is simply not on Obama’s or Biden’s agenda. They have chosen a target to demagogue that cannot speak for itself, cannot protest the daily violence perpetrated against them. Did you know that there are an estimated 3,562 abortions each day? That is equivalent to 178 Newtown shootings each day. Abortions are certainly violent, especially to the fetus being murdered, I mean legally aborted.

Prevent gun violence? Obama’s way to prevent it is to control guns. Prevent violence? No way.

But that’s just my opinion.
Please visit RWNO, my personal web site.

But “Dear Leader” President (for life?) Barack Hussein Obama announced today (January 14, 2013) that he intends to “infringe” upon the 2nd Amendment through legislation and Executive Order. Obama said:

My understanding is the vice president is going to provide a range of steps that we can do to prevent gun violence. Some of them will require legislation. Some of them I can accomplish through executive action.”  [emphasis mine]

The key phrase here is “prevent gun violence.” I don’t think anyone, even us 2nd Amendment zealots, would have objections to any legislation or executive actions that quell (or even reduce) gun violence. But (and there’s always a “but” with Obama), Obama’s track record and pronouncements are against him. For example, on May 25, 2011, Obama told Sarah Brady, “I just want you to know that we are working on it [gun control]. We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.” And, today, Obama said, “… ban on assault weapons and limits on high-capacity ammunition magazines are all on the table.”

What he says and what he does tend to be two different things. His statements and actions tend to, as Richard Larsen so eloquently pointed out, “exceed his authority.” The legislation he sponsors or asks for, and his executive actions, tend to exceed his authority, to “infringe” upon our right to keep and bear arms. But we can expect any actions taken by Obama to be cast in a “reasonable” light by his lap-dog MSM.

As Richard Larsen, in his excellent article, says:

“The limits of presidential declarations, like the EO [Executive Order], were clarified judicially by the landmark 1952 Supreme Court ruling of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer. By executive order 10340, President Harry Truman declared that all steel mills in the country were to be placed under federal government control. The Supreme Court ruled, however, that the EO was invalid since Truman was essentially creating, or making law, as opposed to clarifying the executive branch enforcement of an existing law.”  [emphasis mine]

So, is Obama going to “create” law? Is the law he “creates” going to infringe upon our constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. History is NOT on Obama’s side.

Or does Obama understand the phrase, “… shall not be infringed,” and just wants his way?

But that’s just my opinion.
Please visit RWNO, my personal web site.

Obama, in the executive order, said:

… the risk of nuclear proliferation created by the accumulation of a large volume of weapons-usable fissile material in the territory of the Russian Federation continues to constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat.

Section 5 (a) is, from our perspective, the most interesting section:

The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Energy, and, as appropriate, other agencies, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA, as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government consistent with applicable law. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their statutory authority to carry out the provisions of this order.

What, you ask, is this IEEPA that the executive order cites? IEEPA is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, enacted in 1977, and it authorizes the President to regulate commerce after declaring a national emergency in response to any unusual and extraordinary threat to the United States which has a foreign source.

By itself, his latest EO would be bad enough, especially if he actually tried to regulate commerce. But, when seen in the light of two other EOs he has recently signed, there may indeed by cause for, if not alarm, then concern. He signed EO 13575 on June 9, 2011, and EO 13603 on March 22, 2012.

EO 13575, Establishment of the White House Rural Council: It authorizes a Rural Council to exert control over “agricultural organizations, small businesses, education and training institutions, health-care providers, telecommunications services providers, research and land grant institutions, law enforcement, State, local, and tribal governments, and nongovernmental organizations regarding the needs of rural America.”

EO 13603, National Defense Resources Preparedness: In peacetime or times of national emergency, heads of Agriculture, Energy, Health and Human Services, Transportation, Defense and Commerce can take food, livestock, fertilizer, farm equipment, all forms of energy, water resources, all forms of civil transportation and any other materials, including construction materials from wherever they are available.

Are we beginning to see a pattern emerge here? Were EOs 13575 and 13606 setting the ground work for his latest EO, the one that declares a national emergency? Is this the first step to Obama declaring martial law and using that as an excuse for suspending elections? Or am I just a conspiracist?

But that’s just my opinion.

Please visit RWNO, my personal web site.

Executive orders, martial law, nuke reductions, scrubbing the media and budget battles. Just what is going on here? Let’s hash it all out together tonight on the Dark Side at 10pm ET, 7pm Pacific on the CDNews Network on Blogtalk Radio.

Thursday night, September 22, 2011,  during the GOP debates presented on Fox News by Google,  Romney stated that he would direct his Secretary of Health to exempt all 50 States (at least he knew there were not 57) from Obama Care. Let us look at that for a minute.

Executive orders, as outlined in my previous article, “Executive Orders,” cannot override any law Congress has made. http://conservativedailynews.com/2011/08/executive-orders-how-do-they-affect-our-country// They can only direct Executive Department agencies on how to implement policies. Romney’s statement would be in line with this requirement, however, any successive President would be able to rescind his Executive Order and re-instate Obama Care.

The only real way to get rid of this abomination of the Constitution would be for Congress to enact a law eliminating it, or for SCOTUS to declare it Unconstitutional.

Romney is disingenuous as a Presidential Candidate for the GOP. His statements expose him as the candidate that the establishment wants the people to choose. He has a great smile and nice hair. I think these are the only two qualities that make him viable as a candidate.

That being said, if he is chosen as the GOP candidate for the Office of the Presidency of theUnited States, I will hold my nose while voting for him (ABO) and then proceed to vomit.