Recently in Obama the Lawless Category

SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS BLASTS CONGRESS AND OBAMA FOR BETRAYING AMERICAN WORKERS.

Republicans in Congress are cooperating with Obama in bringing in foreign workers to replace American workers desperate for work. American workers are being betrayed by the President and a Republican-controlled Congress. It doesn't matter with the voters want. No wonder, Senator Jeff Sessions says, that voters are in open rebellion.

The elites of both parties led by Speaker Paul Ryan and Senator McConnell are ignoring the interests of American workers. With the worst labor force participation rate in decades, Congress passed a bill at 2 a.m, the morning of December16th that made things worse.

Betrayal.


|

CONGRESS SHOULD KILL THE IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL.

Iran.

We know Obama was born a Muslim. What we didn't know is that apparently he is a Shiite or Shiite sympathizer. How else to explain his extreme favoritism towards Iran at the expense of Israel and long time Arab allies Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan?

What did Obama buy with his deal with Iran for which the U.S. is turning over some $150 billion? A delay of five years in opening up free trade in all kinds of weapons for Iran, eight years in ballistic missiles and ten years for nuclear weapons. While continuing to hold rallies chanting "Death to America," Iran has assured the world it will continue funding and supplying weapons to its terrorist accomplices Hezbollah worldwide (not just in Lebanon and Syria, but in Argentina, Paraguay, Venezuela and Brazil) and Hamas in Gaza.

Are we crazy?

Obama asserts that in that period of delay he has bought Iran will see the light and leave behind its desire to conquer the world for Islam and embrace the benefits of being a member in good standing of the peaceful world community. Sunni nations will breathe sighs of relief.

In this morning's Wall Street Journal (July 25, 2015), British-born historian and now Harvard Professor Niall Ferguson (married to the courageous, outspoken, targeted-for-death by fatwas ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali) had this to say:

No one can say for sure what will come of the president's strategy. It may magically produce equilibrium in the Middle East, as he hopes. But all the evidence points the other way: toward a continuing escalation of violence in the region, and indeed throughout the Islamic world.

According to the International Institute of Strategic Studies' Armed Conflict Database, total fatalities due to armed conflict increased world-wide by a factor of roughly four between 2010 and 2014. The Middle East and North Africa accounted for more than 70% of the increase.

According to the statistics on terrorism gathered by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, the number of terrorist incidents world-wide quadrupled between 2006 and 2013, while the number of fatalities rose by 130%. In that period, the percentage of fatalities attributable to Muslim groups rose to 92% from 75%....

We bought time. We postponed Iran's nuclear breakout. But we also stoked the flames of a conflict that doesn't need nukes to get a lot more lethal than it already is.



The obvious course is for Congress to vote to reject the deal. The first votes are likely to be majorities in both houses to disapprove the deal. The president will no doubt veto the resulting bill. The definitive vote to override the veto will be in the Senate: It will take 67 votes in the Senate to override. All Republicans will vote to override.

The safety of the nation will rest in the hands of 13 Democrat senators who must join the 54 Republicans to safeguard Americans and avoid enabling Iran's murderous plans.

Where will our two senators Edward Markey and Elizabeth Warren stand, with America or with Obama? Action on this veto will be the most important vote of 2015.

Massachusetts citizens, regardless of party, should do all in their power to get Markey and Warren to override the veto. The safety of Americans should be a nonpartisan issue. Governor Baker should lead the way in rousing the Massachusetts public..

|

OBAMA DEFYING CONSTITUTION AND CONGRESS TO LET IRAN GET NUCLEAR WEAPONS. WHY? CAN HE BE STOPPED?

Does anyone think America will be safer if Iran gets nuclear weapons? Why is Obama enabling that?

Andy McCarthy makes this chilling observation:

It is otherworldly to find an American administration conspiring against the Constitution and the Congress in cahoots with a terror-sponsoring enemy regime, with which we do not even have formal diplomatic relations, in order to pave the enemy’s way to nuclear weapons, of all things.

That is exactly what is going on.

Read the whole report from National Review.

Obama Can’t Force His Iran Deal on the Country without Congress’s Consent
by Andrew C. McCarthy March 14, 2015 4:00 AM

Having the U.N. Security Council bless a deal wouldn’t make it binding under our
Constitution.

So, as we warned earlier this week, the international-law game it is. It is no secret that Barack Obama does not have much use for the United States Constitution.

It is a governing plan for a free, self-determining people. Hence, it is littered with roadblocks against schemes to rule the people against their will. When it comes to our imperious president’s scheme to enable our enemy, Iran, to become a nuclear-weapons power — a scheme that falls somewhere between delusional and despicable, depending on your sense of Obama’s good faith — the salient barrier is that only Congress can make real law.

Most lawmakers think it would be a catastrophe to forge a clear path to the world’s most destructive weapons for the world’s worst regime — a regime that brays “Death to America” as its motto; that has killed thousands of Americans since 1979; that remains the world’s leading state sponsor of jihadist terrorism; that pledges to wipe our ally Israel off the map; and that just three weeks ago, in the midst of negotiations with Obama, conducted a drill in which its armed forces fired ballistic missiles at a replica U.S. aircraft carrier.

This week, 47 perspicuous Republican senators suspected that the subject of congressional power just might have gotten short shrift in Team Obama’s negotiations with the mullahs. So they penned a letter on the subject to the regime in Tehran.

The effort was led by Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.), who, after Harvard Law School, passed up community organizing for the life of a Bronze Star–awarded combat commander. As one might imagine, Cotton and Obama don’t see this Iran thing quite the same way.

There followed, as night does day, risible howls from top Democrats and their media that these 47 patriots were “traitors” for undermining the president’s empowerment of our enemies.

Evidently, writing the letter was not as noble as, say, Ted Kennedy’s canoodling with the Soviets, Nancy Pelosi’s dalliance with Assad, the Democratic party’s Bush-deranged jihad against the war in Iraq, or Senator Barack Obama’s own back-channel outreach to Iran during the 2008 campaign. Gone, like a deleted e-mail, were the good old days when dissent was patriotic.

Yet, as John Yoo observes, the Cotton letter was more akin to mailing Ayatollah Khamenei a copy of the Constitution. The senators explained that our Constitution requires congressional assent for international agreements to be legally binding.

Thus, any “executive agreement” on nukes that they manage to strike with the appeaser-in-chief is unenforceable and likely to be revoked when he leaves office in 22 months.

For Obama and other global-governance grandees, this is quaint thinking, elevating outmoded notions like national interest over “sustainable” international “stability” — like the way Hitler stabilized the Sudetenland.

These “international community” devotees see the Tea Party as the rogue and the mullahs as rational actors. So, you see, lasting peace — like they have, for example, in Ukraine — is achieved when the world’s sole superpower exhibits endless restraint and forfeits some sovereignty to the United Nations Security Council, where the enlightened altruists from Moscow, Beijing, and Brussels will figure out what’s best for Senator Cotton’s constituents in Arkansas.

This will set a luminous example of refinement that Iran will find irresistible when it grows up ten years from now — the time when Obama, who came to office promising the mullahs would not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons, would have Iran stamped with the international community seal of approval as a nuclear-weapons state.

Down here on Planet Earth, though, most Americans think this is a bad idea. That, along with an injection of grit from the Arkansas freshman, emboldened the normally supine Senate GOP caucus to read Tehran in on the constitutional fact that the president is powerless to bind the United States unless the people’s representatives cement the arrangement.

Obama, naturally, reacted with his trusty weapon against opposition, demagoguery: hilariously suggesting that while the Alinskyite-in-chief had our country’s best interests at heart, the American war hero and his 46 allies were in league with Iran’s “hardliners.”

(Yes, having found Muslim Brotherhood secularists, al-Qaeda moderates, and Hezbollah moderates, rest assured that Obama is courting only the evolved ayatollahs.) When that went about as you’d expect, the administration shifted to a strategy with which it is equally comfortable, lying.

Obama’s minions claimed that, of course, the president understands that any agreement he makes with Iran would merely be his “political commitment,” not “legally binding” on the nation.

It’s just that Obama figures it would be nice to have the Security Council “endorse” the deal in a resolution because, well, that would “encourage its full implementation.” Uh-huh.

Inconveniently, the administration’s negotiating counterpart is the chattiest of academics, Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. Afflicted by the Western-educated Islamist’s incorrigible need to prove he’s the smartest kid in the class — especially a class full of American politicians — Zarif let the cat out of the bag. The senators, he smarmed, “may not fully understand . . . international law.”

According to Zarif, the deal under negotiation “will not be a bilateral agreement between Iran and the U.S., but rather one that will be concluded with the participation of five other countries, including all permanent members of the Security Council, and will also be endorsed by a Security Council resolution.”

He hoped it would “enrich the knowledge” of the 47 senators to learn that “according to international law, Congress may not modify the terms of the agreement.” To do so would be “a material breach of U.S. obligations,” rendering America a global outlaw.

This, mind you, from the lead representative of a terrorist regime that is currently, and brazenly, in violation of Security Council resolutions that prohibit its enrichment of uranium.

Clearly, Obama and the mullahs figure they can run the following stunt: We do not need another treaty approved by Congress because the United States has already ratified the U.N. charter and thus agreed to honor Security Council resolutions. We do not need new statutes because the Congress, in enacting Iran-sanctions legislation, explicitly gave the president the power to waive those sanctions. All we need is to have the Security Council issue a resolution that codifies Congress’s existing sanctions laws with Obama’s waiver.

Other countries involved in the negotiations — including Germany, Russia, and China, which have increasingly lucrative trade with Iran — will then very publicly rely on the completed deal. The U.N. and its army of transnational-progressive bureaucrats and lawyers will deduce from this reliance a level of global consensus that incorporates the agreement into the hocus-pocus corpus of customary law. Maybe they’ll even get Justice Ginsburg to cite it glowingly in a Supreme Court ruling. Voila, we have a binding agreement — without any congressional input — that the United States is powerless to alter under international law.

Well, it makes for good theater . . . because that is what international law is. It is a game more of lawyers than of thrones. In essence, it is politics masquerading as a system governed by rules rather than power, as if hanging a sign that says “law” on that system makes it so.

At most, international law creates understandings between and among states. Those understandings, however, are only relevant as diplomatic debating points. When, in defiance of international law, Obama decides to overthrow the Qaddafi regime, Clinton decides to bomb Kosovo, or the ayatollahs decide to enrich uranium, the debating points end up not counting for much.

Even when international understandings are validly created by treaty (which requires approval by two-thirds of the Senate), they are not “self-executing,” as the legal lexicon puts it — meaning they are not judicially enforceable and carry no domestic weight.

Whether bilateral or multilateral, treaties do not supersede existing federal law unless implemented by new congressional statutes. And they are powerless to amend the Constitution. The Supreme Court reaffirmed these principles in its 2008 Medellin decision (a case I described here, leading to a ruling Ed Whelan outlined here). The justices held that the president cannot usurp the constitutional authority of other government components under the guise of his power to conduct foreign affairs.

Moreover, even a properly ratified treaty can be converted into domestic law only by congressional lawmaking, not by unilateral presidential action. Obama, therefore, has no power to impose an international agreement by fiat — he has to come to Congress. He can make whatever deal he wants to make with Iran, but the Constitution still gives Congress exclusive authority over foreign commerce.

Lawmakers can enact sanctions legislation that does not permit a presidential waiver. Obama would not sign it, but the next president will — especially if the Republicans raise it into a major 2016 campaign issue. Will the Security Council howl? Sure . . . but so what?

It has been said that Senator Cotton should have CC’d the Obama administration on his letter since it, too, seems unfamiliar with the Constitution’s division of authority. A less useless exercise might have been to CC the five other countries involved in the talks (the remaining Security Council members, plus Germany). Even better, as I argued earlier this week, would be a sense-of-the-Senate resolution: Any nation that relies on an executive agreement that is not approved by the United States Congress under the procedures outlined in the Constitution does so at its peril because this agreement is likely to lapse as early as January 20, 2017.

International law is a game that two can play, and there is no point in allowing Germany, Russia, and China to pretend that they relied in good faith on Obama’s word being America’s word.

It is otherworldly to find an American administration conspiring against the Constitution and the Congress in cahoots with a terror-sponsoring enemy regime, with which we do not even have formal diplomatic relations, in order to pave the enemy’s way to nuclear weapons, of all things.

Nevertheless, Republicans and all Americans who want to preserve our constitutional order, must stop telling themselves that we have hit a bottom beneath which Obama will not go. This week, 47 senators seemed ready, finally, to fight back. It’s a start.

— Andrew C. McCarthy is a policy fellow at the National Review Institute. His latest book is Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama’s Impeachment.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/415401/obama-cant-force-his-iran-deal-country-without-congresss-consent-andrew-c-mccarthy

|

DO WE HAVE A BORDER PROBLEM?



What did the mid-term elections tell us about American attitudes towards immigration?

Victor Davis Hanson observes:

It would seem that Americans appreciate the vibrancy, energy, and new ideas that immigrants bring. But a great many Americans also insist that immigrants come legally, in manageable numbers, in ethnically diverse fashion, and that they be eager to learn English and assimilate quickly.

Read it all.

|

OBAMA AND SENATE DEMOCRATS ARE POISED TO ROB AMERICANS OF THEIR JOBS AND GIVE THEM TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

Everything that Senator Sessions writes about the dagger Obama is readying to plunge into the hearts of working Americans with his immigration amnesty executive action must be read and heeded. Obama must be stopped. He can be stopped.

Obama and the Democrats have sold out to the billionaires who fund their campaigns.

The first step must be taken tomorrow: Working Americans and their families must vote Republican in every senatorial and congressional election.

Senator Sessions: Obama wants immigration amnesty; your vote can stop it.


By Sen. Jeff Sessions November 2, 2014 FoxNews.com

A nation’s first loyalty must be to its own citizens.

But the immigration policies of President Obama and Congressional Democrats help only billionaire special interests, amnesty activists, and the citizens of other countries – while reducing jobs and pay for our own.

Every single Senate Democrat voted for the Obama-backed plan to provide immediate work permits to 12 million illegal immigrants – allowing them to compete for any job in America. This legislation would also double the rate at which low-wage guest workers are brought into the U.S. to fill jobs throughout the economy.

Further, the legislation would triple the rate of permanent immigration, giving lifetime work permits and citizenship to over 30 million immigrants over the next ten years.

Immigration lobbyists have so little regard for you, that they are meeting in secret with the White House right now to plan executive amnesty orders. These orders, planned for after the election, would implement by executive fiat the sweeping amnesty that was rejected by the Republican House.
America already has the world’s most generous immigration policy. The foreign-born population is at record levels, quadrupling since 1970. Since 2000, the U.S. has issued nearly 30 million lawful visas to foreign guest workers and permanent immigrants. During that time, all net employment gains among the working-age went to immigrant workers.

This large surplus of labor has also pulled down wages –family incomes are down more than $3,000 since 2009 alone.

Harvard Professor Dr. George Borjas estimates that our current high immigration rates result in a wage loss of $402 billion every year for competing American workers.

Imagine then what will happen if we double the supply of foreign labor. For many Americans, who will be pushed out of the workforce altogether, their wages will be reduced to zero.

Democrats running for Senate pour millions into ads complaining special interests have too much influence. And yet every Senate Democrat candidate has voted for the crown jewel of the corporate lobbyist agenda: mass amnesty and uncontrolled immigration.

Their plan is championed by open borders billionaires like Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg – global CEOs who don’t think you’re entitled to the same protections their gates and fences provide them.

In fact, these immigration lobbyists have so little regard for you, that they are meeting in secret with the White House right now to plan executive amnesty orders. These orders, planned for after the election, would implement, by executive fiat, the sweeping amnesty that was rejected by the Republican House.

The planned order would include work permits for millions of illegal immigrants while substantially boosting the supply of new foreign labor– taking precious jobs directly from struggling Americans.

Efforts by Republican Senators to block this illegal amnesty were repeatedly thwarted by Leader Harry Reid’s Senate Democrat majority.

Immigration enforcement has already been decimated. Interior removals have plummeted more than 40% since 2009. Forty thousand illegal immigrant family members who had just recently crossed the border were released by the feds and failed, predictably, to appear in court. People just show up at the border and are simply released into the country – free to claim local benefits funded by U.S. taxpayers.

Seventy percent of asylum applications show warning signs of fraud. ICE officers report that they are barred from enforcing immigration law against the millions who illegally overstay their visas – a number surging every single day.

Internal DHS documents show that there are 167,000 convicted criminal aliens who were ordered deported but are at large in the U.S. and released from custody.

The administration’s non-enforcement directives have placed almost the entire illegal immigrant and overstay population beyond the reach of law enforcement. The president’s own former ICE director explained: “If you are a run-of-the-mill immigrant here illegally, your odds of getting deported are close to zero.”

If the president’s promised executive amnesty goes through, we will functionally have open borders in America.

But the citizens of this country, through their vote, have the power to stop it.

The elite denizens of Washington and Wall Street scorn and mock the good and decent people of this country for wanting their laws enforced and their communities protected. They try to make you feel bad for having sensible and rational concerns about how uncontrolled immigration impacts your jobs, schools, neighborhoods, and community resources.

After years of mass immigration, falling wages, and surging joblessness, isn’t it time we focused on the needs of the people living here today? Isn’t it time we got our own people back to work?

But these cosmopolitan elites, these great citizens of the world, turn a blind eye to the suffering and poverty in their own backyards. These “Masters of the Universe” have forgotten that a nation owes its first loyalty to its own citizens.

And they want you to believe that you can't win.

But they are so wrong.

And with your vote, you have the power to prove them wrong. You have the power to deliver a message they won’t forget.


Republican Jeff Sessions represents Alabama in the United States Senate. He is ranking member of the Budget Committee.

|

OBAMA CONDEMNED: HE'S BETRAYING WORKING AMERICANS.

Although the American public overwhelmingly are opposed to the President taken unilateral action on immigration, that is just what Obama plans to do after the mid-term elections.

The U.S. senator who has been fighting hardest and longest against Obama's plans that would do great damage to working Americans is Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama. He accuses the president and Senate Democrats working for global CEOs and special interests rather than their own people.

"The world has turned upside down. Instead of serving the interests of the American people, the policies of President Obama and every Senate Democrat serve the needs of special interests and global CEOs who fail to understand the duty a nation owes to its own people.

Read the whole thing.

"The Wall Street Journal confirmed today that the President is planning to issue a massive unilateral executive amnesty after the election.

"In its report, the WSJ certifies that this executive amnesty would provide work permits for illegal immigrants—taking jobs directly from struggling Americans.

"Based on the USCIS contract bid and statements from USCIS employees, we know this executive immigration order is likely to be broader in scope than anyone has imagined.
"Earlier this week, President Obama’s former head of Homeland Security revealed that she overrode resistance from administration lawyers and law enforcement agents in implementing the President’s earlier unlawful amnesty and work authorization program for illegal immigrants 30 and under. This was an open admission by one of the most senior people in government of violating one’s oath of office in order to accomplish a nakedly political aim.

"The President is assuming for himself the sole and absolute power to decide who can enter, work, live, and claim benefits in the United States. He has exempted virtually every group in the world from America’s immigration laws: people who enter before a certain age, people related to people who enter before a certain age, adults traveling with minors, minors traveling with adults, illegal immigrants who are not convicted of serious crimes, illegal workers who are convicted of serious crimes but not enough serious crimes, almost anyone who shows up the border and demands asylum, the millions who overstay their visas, and, as was recently exposed, illegal immigrants with serious criminal histories. The list continues to grow.

"A nation creates borders and laws to protect its own citizens. What about their needs?

"The President is systemically stripping away the immigration protections to which every single American worker and their family is entitled. He doesn’t care how this impacts Americans’ jobs, wages, schools, tax bills, hospitals, police departments, or communities.

"But it gets worse still. The WSJ reports that the President is ‘expected to benefit businesses that use large numbers of legal immigrants, such as technology companies.’ Those changes include measures to massively expand the number of foreign workers for IT companies—measures aggressively lobbied for by IT giants like Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates. Yet we have more than 11 million Americans with STEM degrees who don’t have jobs in these fields. Rutgers professor Hal Salzman documented that two-thirds of all new IT jobs are being filled by foreign workers. From 2000 through today, a period of record legal immigration, all net gains in employment among the working-age have gone entirely to immigrant workers.

"And now, in order to help open borders billionaires, President Obama is going to deny millions of Americans their shot at entering the middle class and a better life.

"The world has turned upside down. Instead of serving the interests of the American people, the policies of President Obama and every Senate Democrat serve the needs of special interests and global CEOs who fail to understand the duty a nation owes to its own people. But the citizens of this country still hold the power, and through their voice, they can turn the country right-side again."

|

OBAMA SWINGS THE WRECKING BALL

What Obama has done, is doing and is planning to do is pushing America into chaos, danger and fear.

There can be conclusion other than that he is doing all this deliberately to punish this great country for the wrongs he claims we have done to the oppressed peoples of the world. In their name with the power of the chief executive of the United States, he is sticking a dagger into the country's heart.

When President Lincoln said the nation would never be defeated except from within, he could not have imagined that a successor of his would be the cause of such intentional destruction.

The Constitution? An old piece of paper to be ignored. Congress' authority to make laws? Nonsense, I have a pen and a phone, so "sue me." Enforce the laws? They oppress, let's let the oppressed in to take back what you've stolen from them.

Victor Davis Hanson writes at National Review Online and all too accurately captures the horror of the Obama wrecking rampage. And no one is stopping him.

Our Roost, Obama’s Chickens
From the Middle East to Russia to our own southern border, Obama’s bills are coming due.

By Victor Davis Hanson

Often, crazy things seem normal for a time because logical catastrophes do not immediately follow.

A deeply suspicious Richard Nixon systematically and without pushback for years undermined and politicized almost every institution of the federal government, from the CIA and the FBI to the IRS and the attorney general’s office. Nixon seemed to get away with it — until his second term. Once the public woke up, however, the eventual accounting proved devastating: resignation of a sitting president, prison sentences for his top aides, collapse of the Republican party, government stasis, a ruined economy, the destruction of the Vietnam peace accords that had led to a viable South Vietnam, the end of Henry Kissinger’s diplomatic breakthroughs, and a generation of abject cynicism about government. Did Nixon ever grasp that such destruction was the natural wage of his own paranoia?

In the post-Watergate climate of reform, for nearly three years a naïve Jimmy Carter gave utopian speeches about how American forbearance would end the Cold War and create a new world order based on human rights — until America’s abdication started to erode the preexisting global order. Scary things followed, such as the fall of the shah of Iran, the rise of Iranian theocracy, the taking of American hostages in Tehran, revolutions and insurrection throughout Central America, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, radical Islamists taking over Mecca, more gas lines, continued stagflation, and China invading Vietnam. Did the puritanical Carter ever understand what might be the consequences of his own self-righteousness in an imperfect world?

Barack Obama likewise has done some crazy things that seemed for years to have no ramifications. Unfortunately, typical of the ways of Nemesis (a bitter goddess who waits until the opportune moment to demand payment for past hubris), suddenly the bills for Obama’s six years of folly are coming due for the American people.
When a president occasionally fails to tell the truth, you get a scandal like the monitoring of the Associated Press reporters. When a president serially fails to tell the truth, you get that plus the scandals involving the IRS, the NSA, the VA, Benghazi, and too many others to mention.

The same is true abroad. The American public hardly noticed when Obama recklessly withdrew every peacekeeper from Iraq. Did he not boast of “ending the Iraq War”? It did not mind when the U.S. posted dates for withdrawal from Afghanistan. Trashing all the Bush–Cheney anti-terrorism protocols, from Guantanamo to renditions, did not make much sense, when such policies had worked and, in fact, were of use to Obama himself. But again, most Americans took no note. Apparently the terrorists did, however, and they regrouped even as the president declared them “on the run.”

Lecturing Israel while praising Islamist Turkey was likewise ignored. America snoozed as its president insidiously redefined its role in the Middle East as secondary to the supposed pivot to Asia. Each new correction in and of itself was comparatively minor; but in aggregate they began to unravel the U.S.-inspired postwar global order.

At first, who cared whether Iran serially violated every Obama deadline on halting nuclear enrichment? Did we worry that Libya, where Obama was proud of having led from behind, was descending into Somalia? Few Americans were all that bothered over Obama’s empty order to Syrian president Bashar Assad to step down, or over Obama’s later vacuous red-line threats that bombs would follow any use by Assad of chemical weapons.

Few noted that Obama lied to the nation that a video had caused the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, that Obama had known who the real terrorist perpetrators were but had ordered no immediate action to kill or capture them, and that Americans had been engaged in mysterious and still unexplained covert activities in Benghazi. After all that, we still shrugged when the president traded five top terrorist leaders for an alleged American deserter.

Trashing George W. Bush’s policy toward Vladimir Putin while promising a new reset approach (illustrated with a plastic red button) to an aggressive dictator raised few eyebrows at the time. Nor did many Americans worry that our Pacific allies were upset over Chinese and North Korean aggression that seemed to ignore traditional U.S. deterrence.

We were told that only Obama-haters at home had catalogued the president’s apologies abroad, his weird multicultural bowing to authoritarians, his ahistorical speeches about mythical Islamic achievements, his surreal euphemisms for radical Islam, terrorism, and jihadism, his shrill insistence about civilian trials for terrorists and closing Guantanamo, or the radical cutbacks at the Pentagon, coupled with the vast increase in entitlement spending.

But after six years of all that, our allies have got the message that they are on their own, our enemies that there are few consequences to aggression, and neutrals that joining with America does not mean ending up on the winning side. The result is that the Middle East we have known since the end of World War II has now vanished.

Supposedly crackpot fantasies about a worldwide “caliphate” are becoming reified. What were once dismissed as conspiracy theories about an “Iranian arc” — from a nuclear Tehran through Syria to Hezbollah in Lebanon to the borders of Israel to the Shiite minorities in the Gulf kingdoms — do not seem so crazy.

The idea of visiting the Egyptian pyramids or hoping to reengage with a reforming Libya is absurd. The best of the Middle East — Israel, Jordan, Kurdistan — no longer count on us. The worst — ISIS, Iran, Syria — count on us to remain irrelevant or worse. Old allies in the Gulf would probably trust Israel or Russia more than the Obama administration. In the next two years, if Obama continues on his present course, we are going to see things that we could not have imagined six years ago in the Middle East, as it reverts to premodern Islamic tribalism.

The same trajectory has been followed on the home front. Americans at first were amused that the great conciliator — and greatest political recipient on record of Wall Street cash — went after the rich with an array of hokey epithets and slurs (fat cats, corporate-jet owners, Vegas junketeers, limb-lopping and tonsil-pulling doctors, business owners who should not profit, or should know when they have made enough money, or should admit they didn’t build their own businesses). Few connected the dots when the polarizing attorney general — the John Mitchell of our time — referred to African-Americans as “my people” and all the rest of the nation as “cowards.” Did we worry that the craziest things seem to come out of the president’s own mouth — the Trayvon-like son he never had, the stereotyping police, the absence of a “smidgen” of corruption in the Lois Lerner IRS scandal, or the mean Republicans who “messed” with him?

The president before the 2012 elections lamented to Latino groups that he did not have dictatorial powers to grant amnesty but urged them in the meantime to “punish our enemies” — a sort of follow-up to his 2008 “typical white person” incitement. Who was bothered that with “a pen and a phone” Obama for the first time in American history emasculated the U.S. Border Patrol, as part of a larger agenda of picking and choosing which federal laws the executive branch would enforce?

Those choices seemed to be predicated on two extralegal criteria: Did a law contribute to Obama’s concept of social justice, and did it further the progressive political cause? If the answer was no to either, the statute was largely unenforced. No president since World War II has done more to harm the U.S. Constitution — by ordering the executive branch not to enforce particular laws, by creating by fiat laws never enacted by Congress, by monitoring the communications of journalists and average Americans, by making appointments contrary to law — to the apparent yawns of the people.

Too few also seemed to care that almost everything the president had promised about Obamacare — keep your health plan, retain your doctor, save money on your premiums, sign up easily online, while we were lowering the annual deficit and reducing medical expenditures — was an abject lie. In such a climate, Obama felt no need to issue accurate data about how many Americans had lost their health plans, how many had simply transferred to Obamacare from Medicaid, how many had actually paid their premiums, or how many were still uninsured. The media ignored the serial $1 trillion deficits, the chronic high unemployment and low growth, the nonexistence of the long-promised “summer of recovery,” and the nonappearance of “millions of shovel-ready and green jobs.” The fact that electrical-power rates, gasoline prices, and food costs have soared under Obama as wages have stagnated has never really been noticed. Nor have the record numbers of Americans on food stamps and disability insurance.

Meanwhile, as Obama has refused to enforce immigration law, the result is chaos. Tens of thousands of children are flooding across our border illegally, on the scent of Obama’s executive-order amnesties. Advocates of open borders, such as progressive grandees Mark Zuckerberg and Nancy Pelosi, assume that these impoverished Third World children will not enroll in the private academies attended by their children or grandchildren, or need housing in one of their vacation estates, or crowd their specialists’ waiting rooms. They do not worry about the effects of illegal immigration on the wages of low-income Americans. Dealing first-hand with the ramifications of open borders is for unenlightened, illiberal little people.

Obama’s economic legacy is rarely appreciated. He has institutionalized the idea that unemployment between 6 and 7 percent is normal, that annual deficits over $500 billion reflect frugality, that soaring power, food, and fuel costs are not proof of inflation, that zero interest rates are the reward for thrift, that higher taxes are always a beginning, never an end, and that there is no contradiction when elite progressives — the Obamas, the Clintons, the Warrens — trash the 1-percenters, while doing everything in their power to live just like them.

We are the roost and, to paraphrase the president’s former spiritual adviser, Obama’s chickens are now coming home to us.

— NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author, most recently, of The Savior Generals.

|

U.S. CONSTITUTION, Article II, Section 2:..."he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"

Lawbreaker-in-Chief.jpg

PRIME EXAMPLE OF PRESIDENTIAL LAWLESSNESS!

Sen. Jeff Sessions: Obama created border crisis

Senator Jeff Sessions
USA Today
July l9, 2014

The president has failed to enforce the law and is hurting American citizens.

The crisis on our border is the direct and predictable result of President Obama's sustained effort to undermine America's immigration laws. As the president's previous director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), John Sandweg recently acknowledged: "if you are a run-of-the-mill immigrant here illegally, your odds of getting deported are close to zero." Enforcement has collapsed.

Today President Obama says he needs $3.7 billion from Congress to handle the crisis his lawless policies are creating. Amazingly, the funding request further advertises his administration's amnesty efforts and our fraud-riddled asylum programs, while explicitly omitting any request for expedited deportation authority. The request is also not paid for. The administration wants to borrow every penny.

President Obama has yielded to the demands of open borders groups, to whom he pledged amnesty in 2008. He has dramatically abandoned his lawful duty to the American people. Immigration enforcement for the world's most powerful nation is now held hostage by a small band of radical immigration activists. That is why the administration still refuses to deliver the crucial message necessary to halt this flow: if you attempt to cross our border illegally, you will be apprehended and deported.

Most egregiously, the president has announced his intention to yet again bypass Congress in order to expand his far-reaching non-enforcement directives. His unlawful actions guarantee that the $3.7 billion will be only the beginning, and that the deluge of illegal immigration — and the huge costs — will only grow.

And growing with it will be the crisis for the American worker. This flood of illegality adds to an already massive flow of low-wage labor into the US. Between 2000 and 2013 the federal government issued 26 million visas to foreign workers and new permanent immigrants — corresponding with falling wages, soaring joblessness, and rising poverty in our struggling communities.

When did we forget that a nation owes its first allegiance to her own citizens?

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., is the ranking member of the Budget Committee and a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

|

WHY IS AMERICA LOOKING LIKE A FOOL IN EVERYTHING IT IS DOING?

Is Obama grossly incompetent? Or is he creating these messes intentionally? What is he trying to do?

Denesh D'Souza maintains that Obama is intentionally cutting back America's power and position in the world. He believes that Obama, like many left Democrats from Jane Fonda on raised in the 1960s, believes most of the world's problems are to be blamed on America, that America is a bully, an oppressor, a thief who has stolen riches from the colored people of the world. The bully needs to be reined in, it's payback time and he's the one to make it happen.

So whether it's creating a major threat to America in Iraq and Syria, or obliterating our border, Obama is "leveling" the field, bringing America down towards the third world conditions that he believes America has plunged much of the world into.

D'Souza's book "America" is out in Kindle and print and his movie "America" opens July 2nd.

So, is Obama grossly incompetent or is he pursuing a plan do harm to America and Americans, to punish us for our past behavior, to chop us down in size?

Megyn Kelly was startled, but rushed away from the comparison of America to an evil father that could still be loved by his child.

|

OBAMA HAS DONE MORE DAMAGE TO AMERICA THAN ANY OTHER PRESIDENT. IS IT BY INCOMPETENCE OR INTENTION?

Dennis Prager wrote this column back in October, 2013. He would be more horrified today than he was when he wrote this all too accurate piece.

THE PRESIDENT WHO HAS DONE THE MOST DAMAGE TO AMERICA
By Dennis Prager

I have been broadcasting for 31 years and writing for longer than that. I do not recall ever saying on radio or in print that a president is doing lasting damage to our country. I did not like the presidencies of Jimmy Carter (the last Democrat I voted for) or Bill Clinton. Nor did I care for the “compassionate conservatism” of George W. Bush. In modern political parlance “compassionate” is a euphemism for ever-expanding government. But I have never written or broadcast that our country was being seriously damaged by a president.

So it is with great sadness that I write that President Barack Obama has done and continues to do major damage to America . The only question is whether this can ever be undone.

This is equally true domestically and internationally.

Domestically, his policies have had a grave impact on the American economy.
He has overseen the weakest recovery from a recession in modern American history.

He has mired the country in unprecedented levels of debt: about $6.5 trillion — that is 6,500 billion — in five years (this after calling his predecessor “unpatriotic” for adding nearly $5 trillion in eight years).

He has fashioned a country in which more Americans now receive government aid — means-tested, let alone non-means-tested — than work full-time.

He has no method of paying for this debt other than printing more money — thereby surreptitiously taxing everyone through inflation, including the poor he claims to be helping, and cheapening the dollar to the point that some countries are talking about another reserve currency — and saddling the next generations with enormous debts.

With his 2,500-page Affordable Care Act he has made it impossible for hundreds of thousands, soon millions, of Americans to keep their individual or employer-sponsored group health insurance; he has stymied American medical innovation with an utterly destructive tax on medical devices; and he has caused hundreds of thousands of workers to lose full-time jobs because of the health-care costs imposed by Obamacare on employers.

His Internal Revenue Service used its unparalleled power to stymie political dissent. No one has been held accountable.

His ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were murdered by terrorists in Benghazi , Libya . No one has been blamed. The only blame the Obama administration has leveled was on a videomaker in California who had nothing to do with the assault.

In this president’s White House the buck stops nowhere.

Among presidents in modern American history, he has also been a uniquely divisive force. It began with his forcing Obamacare through Congress —the only major legislation in American history to be passed with no votes from the opposition party.

Though he has had a unique opportunity to do so, he has not only not helped heal racial tensions, he has exacerbated them. His intrusions into the Trayvon Martin affair (“If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon”) and into the confrontation between a white police officer and a black Harvard professor (the police “acted stupidly”) were unwarranted, irresponsible, demagogic, and, most of all, divisive.

He should have been reassuring black Americans that America is in fact the least racist country in the world — something he should know as well as anybody, having been raised only by whites and being the first black elected the leader of a white-majority nation.

Instead, he echoed the inflammatory speech of professional race-baiters such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

He has also divided the country by economic class, using classic Marxist language against “the rich” and “corporate profits.”

Regarding America in the world, he has been, if possible, even more damaging. The United States is at its weakest, has fewer allies, and has less military and diplomatic influence than at any time since before World War II.

One wonders if there is a remaining ally nation that trusts him. And worse, no American enemy fears him. If you are a free movement (the democratic Iranian and Syrian oppositions) or a free country ( Israel ), you have little or no reason to believe that you have a steadfast ally in the United States .

Even non-democratic allies no longer trust America . Barack Obama has alienated our most important and longest standing Arab allies, Egypt and Saudi Arabia . Both the anti–Muslim Brotherhood and the anti-Iran Arab states have lost respect for him.

And his complete withdrawal of American troops from Iraq has left that country with weekly bloodbaths.

Virtually nothing Barack Obama has done has left America or the world better since he became president. Nearly everything he has touched has been made worse.

He did, however, promise before the 2008 election that “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America .” That is the one promise he has kept.

|

WHY VOTE? WATCH THIS VIDEO ABOUT HARRASSMENT BY THE OBAMA ADMINISRATION'S IRS AND OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES OF A WOMAN EXERCISING HER CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

It isn't only the Obama administration that is at war with people opposed to their far left Democrat agenda. This cancer of war against the people has now spread to Democratic allies in the sprawling federal bureaucracy who answer the bell when they get the call to attack.

Take seven minute to watch the congressional testimony of this fearless Texas woman Catherine Engelbrecht recount how she has been intimidated by agencies of the federal government after filing an application to establish an organization to ensure fair voting will take place.

This corruption of our Constitution must be stopped. This November vote every Democrat out of Congress.

|

DOES OBAMA'S LAW BREAKING UPSET ANYONE IN CONGRESS? YES.

In his Oath of Office, the President swears to uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws, neither of which he is doing. Republican South Carolina Congressman Trey Gowdy of South Carolina objects.

|

OBAMA'S WAR ON JOBS

Policies of the Obama administration, especially those integral to Obamacare, are providing incentives for one-time workers to settle into relatively comfortable government dependent poverty. They may not have gainful work to do for anyone, but they will have votes for the Democratic Party. It is shocking that policies are being deliberately deployed favoring votes for Democrats over the economic health and strength of the nation. But wasn't Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty just that? It provided government incentives to do without marriage with subsidies for single mothers and fatherless children, resulting in the tragic reality of today of millions of lost black youths but 90% Democratic black voters.

Lincoln freed the black millions of Americans in servitude so they could lead independent, successful, self-sufficient lives. After decades of progress under Republican administrations Democratic policies have put millions back into dependency, this time dependent on a new master, the government. And they don't have to work. Just idle the time away with predictable results.

Currently, 93 million Americans are without work. In large part this is due to the slow growth economy resulting from the anti-growth policies of the Obama administration. Too much regulation, demonization of the successful and government destruction of private sector jobs such as Obama is doing with his Obamacare health care weapon. The consequence is that millions are being forced into government dependent poverty for Democratic votes.

Charles Krauthammer sizes up the Obamacare War on Jobs in its pursuit of more Democratic votes from government dependents, the economic catastrophe for individual lives and the nation be damned.

NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE FEBRUARY 13, 2014 8:00 PM

Obamacare’s War on Jobs

In the new opportunity society, you are given the opportunity for idleness while living off others.
By Charles Krauthammer

In the ongoing saga of the Affordable Care Act, oddly referred to by Democrats as the law of the land even as it is amended at will by presidential fiat, we are beginning to understand the extent of its war on jobs.

First, the Congressional Budget Office triples its estimate of the drop in the workforce resulting from the disincentive introduced by Obamacare’s insurance subsidies: 2 million by 2017, 2.3 million by 2021.

Democratic talking points gamely defend this as a good thing because these jobs are being given up voluntarily. Nancy Pelosi spoke lyrically about how Obamacare subsidies will allow people to leave unfulfilling jobs to pursue their passions: “Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance.”

Nothing so lyrical has been written about work since Marx (in The German Ideology) described a Communist society that “makes it possible for me to . . . hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner.”

Pelosi’s vision is equally idyllic except for one thing: The taxes of the American factory worker — grinding away dutifully at his repetitive, mind-numbing job — will be subsidizing the voluntary unemployment of the artiste in search of his muse. A rather paradoxical position for the party that poses as tribune of the working man.

In the reductio ad absurdum of entitlement liberalism, Jay Carney was similarly enthusiastic about this Obamacare-induced job loss. Why, Obamacare creates the “opportunity” that “allows families in America to make a decision about how they will work, and if they will work.”

If they will work? Pre-Obama, people always had the right to quit work to tend full time to the study of butterflies. It’s a free country. The twist in the new liberal dispensation is that the butterfly guy is to be subsidized by the taxes of people who actually work.

In the traditional opportunity society, government provides the tools — education, training, and various incentives — to achieve the dignity of work and its promise of self-improvement and social mobility. In the new opportunity society, you are given the opportunity for idleness while living parasitically off everyone else. Why those everyone elses should remain at their jobs — hey! I wanna dance, too! — is a puzzle Carney has yet to explain.

The honest liberal reply to the CBO report is that a disincentive to work is inherent in any means-tested government benefit. It’s the unavoidable price of helping those in need because for every new dollar you earn, you lose part of your subsidy and thus keep less and less of your nominal income.

That’s inevitable. And that’s why we have learned to tie welfare, for example, to a work requirement. Otherwise, beneficiaries could choose to live off the dole forever. That’s why the 1996 Gingrich-Clinton welfare reform succeeded in reducing welfare rolls by two-thirds. It is not surprising that the same Obama administration that has been weakening the work requirement for welfare is welcoming the disincentive to work inherent in Obamacare.

But Obamacare’s war on jobs goes beyond voluntary idleness. The administration is now conceding, inadvertently but unmistakably, Obamacare’s other effect — involuntary job loss. On Monday, the administration unilaterally postponed and weakened the employer mandate, already suspended through 2015, for yet another year.

But doesn’t this undermine the whole idea of universal health coverage? Of course it does, but Obamacare was so structured that it is crushing small business and killing jobs. It creates a major incentive for small businesses to cut back to under 50 employees to avoid the mandate. Your business becomes a 49er by either firing workers or reducing their hours to below 30 a week. Because that doesn’t count as full-time, you escape both the employer mandate to buy health insurance and the fine for not doing so.

With the weakest recovery since World War II, historically high chronic unemployment, and a shockingly low workforce-participation rate, the administration correctly fears the economic consequences of its own law — and the political fallout for Democrats as millions more Americans lose their jobs or are involuntarily reduced to part-time status.

Conservatives have been warning about this for five years. This is not rocket science. Both the voluntary and forced job losses were utterly predictable. Pelosi insisted we would have to pass the law to know what’s in it. Now we know.

— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2014 The Washington Post Writers Group

|

HOW CAN A PRESIDENT WITH A CONSCIENCE LIE AS HE DOES?

In the O'Reilly interview, Obama airily lied again and again and again. He is more expert than Clinton ever was and he was the all time champion. While the left wing Democratic media (that's all the mainstream media) knows he's lying they accept it and don't even raise an eyebrow. Those committed to truth, like Michael Ramirez, beg to differ.

Ramirez smidgen.jpg

|

OBAMA'S DEMOCRATIC INTERVENTIONIST GOVERNMENT IS CHOKING THE ECONOMY

Don't let anybody, including Obama, kid you. We are still in a recession and it is the Democratic government's fault. There's lots of evidence this is true and here is a sensible observation about what Republicans should campaign about.

Republicans have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to roar back to power given the miserable performance of the economy on Obama’s watch. But they still could fall on their faces.

The problem is NOT government spending, contrary to the well-meaning obsession of the Tea Party. That will BECOME the problem a decade or two from now. The problem now is obstacles to investment: the highest corporate tax rate in the world, onerous regulation, the crazyquilt uncertainty of Obamacare. America needs aggressive tax cuts and regulatory rollback. It also needs to spend more on infrastructure, which is becoming a major obstacle to growth. It needs to spend more on R&D, particularly on cutting-edge military R&D. The way to do this, I’ve argued for years, is to emulate Roosevelt’s alphabet-soup federal agencies and put unemployed Americans to work repairing infrastructure at $20 an hour, rather than paying $50 an hour to the construction unions. That’s heresy from a free-marketeer like me, but it makes economic sense and will drive the Democrats crazy. Highlighting added

Read it all.

|

WHO IS THE MOST CORRUPT PRESIDENT?

Professor Victor Davis Hanson calls out Obama for his corrupt, lying dictatorship favoring cronies who bundle campaign gifts and sending the IRS and FBI after his critics.

The filmmaker and arch-critic of Barack Obama, Dinesh D’Souza, is now under indictment for improper campaign contributions. If he deliberately violated campaign-finance laws and compounded the violation by conspiring with others, then by all means he should face the full force of the law. The problem, though, is that even if D’Souza proves to be guilty as charged, others with far greater culpability — but with the correct political views — have not met the same degree of administration scrutiny.

Note, for example, what D’Souza did not do: He did not, as an Obama insider in the heat of the reelection campaign, leak classified information about vital national-security secrets like the Stuxnet virus attacks, the bin Laden raid, the drone protocols, or a double agent in Yemen in order to bolster the anti-terrorism credentials of the president; he did not, as a high-level Obama official, lie under oath to Congress about the NSA program; he is not a former Democratic governor who defrauded thousands of investors out of billions of dollars. Apparently none of that will get you arrested by this administration.

Mr. D’Souza also did not, as did Obama himself, have a soon-to-be-jailed felon sell him a lot next to his own house at below-market rates, without paying gift taxes on it, in exchange for perceived political favors. He did not pass illegally into the United States and reside here illegally by habitually lying on documents about his resident status. He did not go to the polls with clubs to intimidate voters. He did not bundle $500,000 to buy an ambassorship to Norway without knowing much of anything about Norway. He did not pitch green ideas to friends now in the Obama administration in order to land millions of dollars in federal loans that he would default on.

He did, though, make a movie critical of Barack Obama, and this is most likely what brought him under administration scrutiny, as did the activities of a video maker arrested for producing a politically incorrect video about Islam, or those of unduly audited Tea Party groups or Hollywood conservatives who have criticized the president. All of that, in this age of pen and phone, can get you arrested, audited, or on the IRS watch list.

Such lawlessness and corruption of power for personal and political gain is reminiscent of gangster Chicago where Obama learned his politics. Yet the cowardly Republicans are afraid to attack him for what he has done and is doing in violation of the Constitution and laws of Congress because he's half black and the biased media will call them "racist." The media doesn't criticize and Democrats in Congress go along.

Read all of what Professor Hanson has to say.


NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE
JANUARY 28, 2014
Governing by Pen and Phone

Obama used to sigh that he was not a dictator who could act unilaterally. No more.
By Victor Davis Hanson

Lately a weakened President Obama has fashioned a new attitude about consensual government: “We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need. I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone,” Obama boasted Tuesday as he convened his first cabinet meeting of the year. At least he did not say he intended to govern by “pen and sword.” If Obama used to sigh to supporters that he was not a dictator who could just implement progressive agendas by fiat, he now seems to have done away with the pretense of regret.

Obama has all but given up on the third branch of government since he lost control of it in 2010: “And I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward in helping to make sure our kids are getting the best education possible, making sure that our businesses are getting the kind of support and help they need to grow and advance, to make sure that people are getting the skills that they need to get those jobs that our businesses are creating.”

There are lots of creepy things about such dictatorial statements of moving morally backward in order to go politically “forward.” Concerning issues dear to the president’s heart — climate change, more gun control, de facto amnesty, more massive borrowing supposedly to jump-start the anemic, jobless recovery — Obama not long ago had a Democratic supermajority in the Senate and a strong majority in the House. With such rare political clout, he supposedly was going to pass his new American agenda.

Continue reading "WHO IS THE MOST CORRUPT PRESIDENT?"

|

NOBODY'S LISTENING TO OBAMA ANYMORE

The State of the Union address by the president is Tuesday.

But Peggy Noonan says nobody's listening to Obama anymore. Why?

He has been for five years a nonstop windup talk machine. Most of it has been facile, bland, the same rounded words and rounded sentiments, the same soft accusations and excuses.
The bigger problem is that the president stands up there Tuesday night with ObamaCare not a hazy promise but a fact.

When the central domestic fact of your presidency was a fraud, people won't listen to you anymore.

And every Democrat in the House and the Senate knew he was lying to the American people and they supported him and said nothing. Anyone hear a protect or criticism from the all Democrat Massachusetts congressional delegation? Everyone of them is complicit, guilty of dereliction of duty and deserves to be defeated.

The Democrats saw Obamacare for what its would be and liked it. It was a giant opportunity to make more and more people beholden to and dependent on government for free stuff to pay for health care costs. Citizens will turn into subjects and thank their masters with their votes.

It was worth ramming Obamacare down the throats of the American people without a single Republican vote. Who cared that 85% of the American public were happy with their health plans? Obama is pro-choice for abortion, but for no other choice for Americans who don't want a government-dictated health plan.

Who will follow the "talk machine" now that he's been exposed as the liar he is? And letting men in Benghazi die without making an effort to save them is inexcusable.

Peggy Noonan thinks even the Democratic congressman thinking ahead to the Obama speech know that

Americans aren't impressed anymore by congressmen taking to their feet and cheering. They look as if they have electric buzzers on their butts that shoot them into the air when the applause line comes. "Now I have to get up and enact enthusiasm" is what they look like they're thinking.

Obama has done untold damage to America both at home and abroad. It has been so bad it is difficult to believe it wasn't deliberate, that he really thinks the U.S. has been on its high horse too long, done a lot of bad things and deserved to be denigrated and humiliated.

In 2014 we have a the chance to elect Republicans to Congress to start restoring honesty, honor and competence to the national government. In Massachusetts there are nine members of the House of Representatives and one U.S. senator up for re-election. Everyone of them deserves to be sent packing.

Read all of Peggy's column entitled "The Sleepiness of A Hollow Legend."

|

OBAMA HAS LOST THE YOUNG: A MAJORITY WOULD THROW HIM OUT TODAY IF THEY COULD

Millennials Abandon Obama and Obamacare
A majority of America's youngest adults would vote to recall the president.
By Ron Fournier in the National Journal

Young Americans are turning against Barack Obama and Obamacare, according to a new survey of millennials, people between the ages of 18 and 29 who are vital to the fortunes of the president and his signature health care law.

The most startling finding of Harvard University's Institute of Politics: A majority of Americans under age 25--the youngest millennials--would favor throwing Obama out of office.

The survey, part of a unique 13-year study of the attitudes of young adults, finds that America's rising generation is worried about its future, disillusioned with the U.S. political system, strongly opposed to the government's domestic surveillance apparatus, and drifting away from both major parties. It blows a gaping hole in the belief among many Democrats that Obama's two elections signaled a durable grip on the youth vote.

Indeed, millennials are not so hot on their president.

Obama's approval rating among young Americans is just 41 percent, down 11 points from a year ago, and now tracking with all adults. While 55 percent said they voted for Obama in 2012, only 46 percent said they would do so again.

When asked if they would want to recall various elected officials, 45 percent of millennials said they would oust their member of Congress; 52 percent replied "all members of Congress" should go; and 47 percent said they would recall Obama. The recall-Obama figure was even higher among the youngest millennials, ages 18 to 24, at 52 percent.

Continue reading to see full polls. . .

|

REPUBLICANS MUST WIN A NEW BIRTH OF FREEDOM FOR ALL AMERICANS IN THE 2014 ELECTIONS! ABRAHAM LINCOLN IS OUR GUIDE.

There is a lot to catch up on!

The Chatham RTC and our colleagues in the Lower Cape - the RTCs of Harwich, Orleans, Eastham, Brewster and Truro -- worked hard to put together what I will call a magnificent observance of the 150th anniversary of President Lincoln's Gettysburg Address on November 19th, 2013. It was held exactly 150 years to the day after President Lincoln put into words what the war had achieved -- fulfilling the promise in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal.

We chose the elegant Wequassett in Harwich as a fitting location to celebrate such a momentous day in America's history. It was also fitting that Massachusetts was one of just a handful of states honoring the day -- Gettysburg itself, the Lincoln Library in Springfield, Illinois and Lincoln, Nebraska, renamed that shortly after the assassination.

More than 100 citizens of the Lower Cape gathered to honor President Lincoln and reflect on the meaning packed into his 272 words. Our special guest Republican candidate for Governor Charlie Baker not only came out of respect for President Lincoln and his message, but the urgency that should be directed towards winning all Republican contests in November 2014 to achieve yet another Rebirth of Freedom. As Charlie said,"I am proud to be the heir of Abraham Lincoln and his concern for freedom and equality before the law for all." His words were enthusiastically received. It is clear that Charlie Baker cares deeply that Lincoln's message is a message for our times.

It is fitting for Massachusetts to join in the celebration because the heart and soul of the abolitionist movement was in Boston. Massachusetts was the second state (right after Vermont) to outlaw slavery in 1783.

The leading publication of the movement was The Liberator, begun in Boston by William Lloyd Garrison in 1831 and continued right through the Civil War. When the Republican Party was formed on an anti-slavery platform in 1854, abolitionists en masse became Republicans and swept Lincoln to victory in 1860.

The anthem of the anti-slavery cause in the Civil War, The Battle Hymn of the Republic, was a poem penned by a Boston abolitionist Julia Ward Howe.

The Republican Governor of Massachusetts John Andrew was such a fervent and active supporter of freedom for slaves that a hospital at what was an all-black college in Tuskegee, Alabama is named after him.

During the war it was the Republican abolitionists with Massachusetts in the forefront who kept putting pressure on President Lincoln to unilaterally "do something" to free the slaves. Trouble was, for Lincoln, a President sworn to uphold the Constitution and a lawyer as well, slavery was legal under the Constitution in states which allowed it. And the Supreme Court had ruled that Congress could not restrict slavery in the new territories of the Louisiana Purchase. What could he do?

Beset daily with demands from his most loyal and demanding supporters, he searched for an answer and, as the inventive lawyer he was, he found it in that troublesome document the Constitution itself.

Preserving the Union was the President's paramount duty under the Constitution and he was waging a war to do just that. Just perhaps, under his War Powers as Commander in Chief, he could indeed "do something."

Lincoln delivered an ultimatum to the rebel states: Return to the Union by January 1, 1863 or he would free all the slaves in rebel territories and order the Union Army to protect them. His war aims were two-fold: To encourage slaves to flee the plantations, thus weakening the agricultural output of the South, the source of almost all of its external revenue and, hopefully, to get freed slaves to sign up for Union Army. He achieved both purposes -- and his Emancipation Proclamation was never legally challenged.

Until 1963 the South was winning most of the battles. By mid-summer, the effects of the Emancipation Proclamation were beginning to be felt. On the first three days of July, the bloody battle of Gettysburg was fought and the Union forces were victorious, forcing Lee to quit the battlefield and retreat.

Cheering crowds stormed the White House on July 4th wanting to hear from the President, but we waved them off. It wasn't yet time to say what he sensed had occurred: The war had turned in the Union's favor and the Union would be preserved. And something just as great if not greater was being accomplished.

The citizens of Gettysburg decided on a Soldiers' Cemetery and that a solemn dedication was called for. The date set was November 19, 1863. Edward Everett, himself a Massachusetts abolitionist, probably the most distinguished man of his times, was chosen to deliver what would be a two-hour oration. The invitation to Lincoln was a courtesy by the committee, which politely indicated he could make "a few remarks" after the principal talk. Lincoln told his aides before leaving Washington that was fine, he would be "short, short, short."

After what would have been Edward Everett's oration, Abraham Lincoln, in his long black coat with white flecks in his beard, walked through the crowd at Wequassett, took his place at the front and began, "Four score and seven years ago,...

"Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Scott Hamilton." The crowd rose with enthusiastic applause in appreciation of this stirring rendition.

President Lincoln had put things in context. Acceptance in the Constitution of slavery as life as it had been in America since the early 1600s was a betrayal of the Declaration of Independence. Now the promise that all men are entitled to the enjoyment of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" had been made fact by the brave men who had fought and died. There had been A NEW BIRTH OF FREEDOM.

There was still "unfinished business" for "us the living." It is to ensure that "government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth."

Lincoln spoke not only to the people of his times, but to all those generations to come in America who would be threatened by the loss of freedom. Lincoln had warned that if America were to suffer decline, be defeated, it would be from within. Every generation had to be on guard, every generation had to fight for a new birth of freedom to ensure the perpetual continuation of a government controlled by the people, not by those who from time to time would be in power.

President Reagan had his own warning, that freedom can be lost in a single generation.

When we see the overreaching in Democrat-controlled Washington eroding our freedoms, limiting our choices,refusing to enforce the laws of the land, intruding into our private lives, taxing and regulating the productive and denigrating the accomplishments of the successful, we must take heed of Lincoln's message and gird ourselves for the elections ahead. It isn't just the White House, it is every Democrat who supported its policies, voted for them and did not protest the constant lying to the American people about how they had been deceived.

And the one-party tyranny in the State House is spending our taxpayer money on government handouts to those who aren't entitled to them, imposing taxes and more taxes, even automatic taxes on gas, and more and more regulation, it is time for change there, too. Contrast the Weld to Romney years of balanced budgets without tax increases and low unemployment and strong job growth in a business-friendly economy with the past seven years.

President Lincoln's spirit will be with us as we fight to reclaim the freedoms which are being stolen from all Americans by those in power who are telling us how to live our lives.

2014 is the time the people must fight to win back our freedoms. We must bring about a new birth of freedom. It is Republicans who must lead the charge as they did to free the slaves of 150 years ago.

Fran Meaney, Chairman, Chatham RTC

|

LET US BE THANKFUL THIS THANKSGIVING THAT WE STILL HAVE THE POWER AND WILL TO FIGHT TO PRESERVE OUR FREEDOMS

On this Thanksgiving Day let us be thankful for those who would open the eyes of those who are blind to how the government is stealing from us the rights guaranteed to us by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Ask yourself these questions which Judge Napolitano poses and you will understand how important the 2014 elections will be. And, if we are not the ones called to fight for freedom, who?


The Grinch who stole Thanksgiving

By Andrew P. Napolitano Wednesday, November 27, 2013

What if another Thanksgiving Day is upon us and owing to the government, we have less to be thankful for than we did at the last one? What if at every Thanksgiving, liberty is weakened and the government is strengthened? What if Thanksgiving’s warm and breezy seduction of gratitude is just the government’s way of inducing us to think we should be grateful for it?

What if we don’t owe the government any thanks for anything? What if the government owes us back all the freedom and property it has stolen from us? What if the government has produced nothing and owns nothing, save what it has coerced us to give it? What if the courts have ruled that the government can lie and cheat with impunity in order to acquire our property or assault our freedoms?

What if the government lies and cheats regularly to enhance its own wealth and power? What if the government claims that its power comes from the consent of the governed? What if no one consented to the government’s spying and lying except those who personally and directly benefit from it?

What if the government is afraid to tell us all it is doing to us, for fear we might vote it out of office? What if that vote would change nothing? What if the spying and lying continued no matter who ran the government? What if those who spy and lie don’t lose their jobs no matter how they lie, upon whom they spy or who gets elected?

What if this holiday of turkey and football and family is the modern-day version of bread and circuses? What if bread and circuses — which Roman emperors gave to the mobs to keep them sated — are just the government’s way today of keeping us sated at the end of every November? What if the government expects us to give thanks to it for letting us have Thanksgiving Day and Black Friday off?

What if the president thinks he's a king? What if he claims the power to kill people outside the Constitution? What if some of these people were your sisters, neighbors or friends? What if he thinks he's so smart that he knows what choices we should make? What if he makes those choices for us?

What if we each have the natural right to choose how to care for our own bodies, but he has used the coercive powers of the law to tell us how to do so? What if that law compelled all persons to pay for more health insurance than they needed, wanted or could afford? What if the president deceived dupes in Congress into voting for that law? What if the president deceived millions of Americans into supporting that law? What if the president forced you to pay for a health insurance policy that funded killing babies in their mothers' wombs?

What if the president knows what you want and need because his spies have captured your every telephone call, text and email? What if the Declaration of Independence says that our rights are personal, inalienable and come from God? What if the Constitution says that among our inalienable rights are the right to be left alone and the right to be different?

What if the president took an oath to uphold the Declaration and the Constitution but believes in neither? What if he believes that our rights come from the collective consent of our neighbors, whom he can influence or, worse yet, from the government, which he can control? What if he believes that he can invade our right to be left alone by spying on us and lying to us, and destroy our right to be different by killing us? What if he actually did all these things?

What if only individuals foolish enough to do so give up their own rights but cannot give up the rights of those of us who refuse to surrender them? What if the government can only constitutionally take away personal freedoms when a jury has convicted someone of a crime? What if the government thinks it can take away our rights by ordinary legislation or by presidential fiat? What if it has done so?

What if someone who once worked for the government knew all this and risked life and limb to tell us about it? What if the government at first denied that it lies to and spies upon all Americans? What if it demonized the whistleblower? What if it chased him to the ends of the Earth because he revealed awful truths? What if everything Edward Snowden revealed about the government turned out to be true?

What if it is the personal courage and constitutional fidelity of Mr. Snowden for which we should be thankful? What if the government hates and fears our freedoms just as it hates and fears the revelation of the awful truths Mr. Snowden possesses?

What if our thanks are a result primarily of the Author of our freedoms, who made us in His image and likeness, and to those who have exercised those freedoms to seek and reveal the truth? What if it is the truth, and not the government, that will keep us free?

What if we have the right to pursue happiness, no matter what the government says? What if we have the right to be unique, no matter what the government wants? What if the freedom to seek the truth will bring us happiness?

What if that freedom, which is still ours, is a just cause for a happy Thanksgiving, after all?

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. Judge Napolitano has written seven books on the U.S. Constitution.

|
WE ARE THE PARTY OF LINCOLN.
WE STAND FOR FREEDOM AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL.



Contact: Diane Bronsdon 508 945 9218
C R Facebook
GREATEST THREATS TO THE U.S.
ISLAMIC SUPREMACISM
ISLAMIC TERRORISM
RADICAL ISLAMIC IMMIGRATION
ISLAMIC HATRED OF CHRISTIANS AND JEWS
Watch
To help us do our part to keep America strong and well informed, just click below. Donate Now!

News
Syndication
rdf
rss2
atom

Links
Michael O'Keffe District Attorney
Leo Cakounes Barn.Cty Commish
Sheriff Cummings
Hot Air
Legal Insurrection
National Review
Power Line
Pajamas Media

Causes:

Semper Fi Fund
Cape Cod Cares for Our Troops
Wounded Warrior Family Support
New England Center and Home for Veterans
Search
Chatham Info
Archives
Monthly Archive

Category Yearly Archives
Archives

Categories