The Amazing Presidential Power-Grab (And Disregard for Rule of Law – He Makes Up His Own)

By Kyle Stone via The American Thinker

With  little consternation or lasting opposition, the Obama administration has  dramatically usurped congressional power at the expense of popular will and the rule of law.  Numerous dastardly bureaucratic coups — motivated by the  president’s progressive and political agenda — have amazingly failed to  engender a serious response.

What  began as a trickle of presidential power-grabs has turned into a cascade of  executive roguery.  A list of them is worth some review and  reflection:

  •   In June 2012, President Obama circumvented Congress’s refusal to pass the DREAM  Act by instituting a portion of it on his own. Through executive order, the  administration has directed federal officers to no longer deport large swathes  of younger illegal immigrants, with an inclusive  net that could impact over a million. Conservative sage Charles Krauthammer summed  it up pithily: “This is out-and-out lawlessness. You had a clip of the president  himself say[ing] months ago, ‘I cannot do this on my own because there are laws  on the books.’ Well, I have news for the president — the  laws remain on the books. They haven’t changed.”
  •   Earlier this month, the Obama administration quietly stripped away a central  component of the 1996 bipartisan welfare reform act — the lynchpin work  requirements — passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President  Clinton. The regulations allow states to  substitute education programs as “work” for their residents to enjoy welfare  benefits. Self-described “neo-liberal” pundit Mickey Kaus reacted  to the “surprising (and possibly illegal) attempt to grant waivers of the work  requirements” as follows:

A  great deal of effort was put into defining what qualified as work, and making  sure that work actually meant work and not the various BS activities (including  BS training activities) the welfare bureaucracies often preferred to substitute  for work[.] … To the extent the administration’s action erodes the actual and  perceived toughness of the work requirements, which it does, it sends the  opposite and wrong signal.

In  effect, the administration is taking the teeth out of the reform.  So long  as states believe that new methods might achieve employment goals in the long run, the feds can approve the  changes, and those not working can enjoy sustained welfare benefits.  All  this without consulting those charged with actually making  law.

  •   The so-called Affordable Care Act (ACA) is one mammoth legislative concession to  executive-branch lawmaking. The Act is hardly a law at all, but rather a series  of directives and mandates, providing the secretary of HHS (i.e., the Obama  administration) immeasurable power in implementing the Act’s policy aims. One  example from earlier this year is the HHS religious mandate, requiring employers  to include abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception in their  employee health insurance. The regulation  applies to religious institutions like Catholic hospitals, schools, and  charities — regardless of whether these institutions object to such services on  moral grounds. Want to find the portion of the 2,700-page bill that deals with  this issue? Good luck. It’s not there.
  •   Less publicized examples are numerous. The Wall Street Journal‘s  Kimberly Strassel, in a recent superb  column, outlined a laundry list a few weeks ago:

o   The president opposes a federal law  criminalizing medical marijuana.  No problem — he merely instructed his  Justice Department not to prosecute violators.

o   He disapproves of the federal Defense  of Marriage Act.  No need to work with Congress on repealing it — he  merely stopped defending it in court.

o   With no love for the federal No Child  Left Behind Act, he ordered his Education Department to issue waivers “that are  patently inconsistent with the statute.”

o   Congress falls  short of passing cap-and-trade?  The administration had the Environmental  Protection Agency enforce something similar though unilateral  regulations.

o   Congress demurred in taking up “net  neutrality” internet regulations, so the president’s Federal Communications  Commission did it instead.

This  list could go on.

When  presidents past overstepped constitutional or statutory boundaries, the Fourth  Estate would lecture on “imperial” presidencies.  For President Obama,  however, the media’s progressive core prompts compliments of bravery and  perseverance, while journalistic duty turns a blind eye to procedural  lawlessness.  One wonders what their reaction would have been had President  George W. Bush and his administration acted similarly.

Politically  combatting this lawlessness is difficult, as a public debate about procedural  malfeasance invariably morphs into disputes of the substantive policy itself.   Attempts to highlight procedural strong-arming are blurred by political  attacks — “wars” on women, immigrants, the poor, and the like.  It may  also be said by political strategists that when one argues about procedure, he  has already lost the policy debate.

Political  challenges, however, are no excuse for allowing this administration to peel away  constitutional checks and balances.  A coordinated effort by conservative  and Republican (big “R” and small) causes must be brought to bear to inform the  voting public on these knavish executive end-runs.  John Adam famously  warned that our Constitution sought “a government of laws and not of men.”   Process matters.  Our constitutional framework depends on  it.

Kyle  Stone is a practicing attorney in Chicago, co-chair of Maverick  PAC Chicago, and board member for the Chicago Young  Republicans.  He can be reached at  kyle.evan.stone@gmail.com.

Read more at The American Thinker

Has Chief Justice John Roberts Forced Dems to ‘Own’ a Massive New Tax Hike Just Before Elections???

By Kasey Jachim

Many Conservatives are calling Chief Justice John Roberts a ‘traitor’ for upholding the individual mandate – the backbone of Obamacare.  Unlike many, I was not convinced today would be a slam-dunk victory for conservatives, especially in light of the Court’s immigration decision throwing Arizona under the bus – with the help of Justice Roberts.

Although I am very disappointed, I wonder whether or not there is a method to his apparent ‘madness’.  By striking down the individual mandate as unconstitutional via the Commerce Clause, did he just force Obama and the Democrats in Congress to ‘own’ the massive tax hikes soon to be imposed on many middle class Americans?  If so, has the Court just given Congress unlimited taxation powers?

“If courts agree that Congress can use its taxing authority to mandate the purchase of health insurance, that decision will have huge ramifications, says Randy Barnett, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University Law Center. “If Congress could do this for this reason, [it] could do anything for this reason” as long as it can call the consequence for noncompliance a “penalty.”  Congress “could make you have an abortion. They can make you buy a car from [General Motors]. They can make you work in the defense industry,” Barnett adds.”   DC Bar

If individuals don’t ‘purchase’ health care, IRS can withhold tax returns and even impose fines and liens on their homes.  The Obama administration is going to have massive damage control ahead of them, especially since the President vehemently denied the individual mandate was a tax in a 2009 ABC interview.

According to Eric Erickson in Red State:

“…while Roberts has expanded the taxation power, which I don’t really think is a massive expansion from what it was, Roberts has curtailed the commerce clause as an avenue for Congressional overreach.  In so doing, he has affirmed the Democrats are massive taxers.  In fact, I would argue that this may prevent future mandates in that no one is going to go around campaigning on new massive tax increases.  On the upside, I guess we can tax the hell out of abortion now.  Likewise, in a 7 to 2 decision, the Court shows a strong majority still recognize the concept of federalism and the restrains of Congress in forcing states to adhere to the whims of the federal government.”

Most Americans are already aware of the Democrats record of ‘Tax and Spend’.  Those on the receiving end love it because most of them do not pay taxes and are the recipients of the spending.  The Democrats will face a tougher battle in November and can no longer distance themselves from this Obamanation.

Did Justice Roberts just punt the ball back into the ‘political’ arena and out of the ‘constitutional’ arena?  In light of the Court’s decision, Republicans must now decide how to proceed with Obamacare.  There are many options floating around – Should they defund it?  Repeal it?  Repeal and replace it?

Let’s face it, as long as Harry Reid, his minions and Rinos have control of the Senate and there is a Democrat in the White House, none of the above are feasible.  The only way we can get out of this mess is to win them both in November.  I think Justice Roberts just helped pave the way!

Paybacks are hell and I think Justice Roberts just delivered his. If Obamacare had been overturned by the SC we would have seen a tremendous swelling of support and money for Obama and he would have had the momentum heading into November. Instead WE have the support, money and momentum!

Please let me know what you think…..

Obama is a domestic enemy of the U.S. Constitution

By Joseph Curl via The Washington Times

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

“Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmationI 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.*

“* Unless, you know, 224 years from now, whoever happens to president simply decides he really doesn’t want to do that.”

— Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 of Barack Obama’s U.S. Constitution

The Founders set the course in a simple, concise, 35-word affirmation — the president’s top job is to “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution. The chief executive does, of course, have other responsibilities, but his guardianship of the document they had just written was deemed by the Founders to be of such great import that they made him swear it — aloud, in front of witnesses.

In 1884, Congress, having no set oath of office, wrote its own: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same …”

Little did they know then that 128 years later, America would face just that: a domestic threat to the U.S. Constitution.

From the very beginning, the president and his administration made clear they had no intention of enforcing laws they didn’t like. Mr. Obama and his minions decided that they would simply stop enforcing the Defense of Marriage Act, no longer prosecute growers of “medical” marijuana, and let some states walk away from provisions in the No Child Left Behind law (which, by the way, was co-authored by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, and passed the Senate by a 91-8 vote).

Mr. Obama’s Justice Department has even more flagrantly flouted the laws of the land. Out of the blue, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, reinterpreted America’s gambling laws (and dumped the decision on Christmas Eve so as to avoid scrutiny). More recently, Mr. Holder has decided to thwart congressional oversight by refusing to release documents on the disastrous “Fast and Furious” gun-running scheme, and he is actively fighting Florida for trying to expunge dead people from its voter rolls.

Now comes Mr. Obama’s decision to stop enforcing America’s immigration laws. The new policy states that illegal immigrants who were younger than 16 when they entered the country are eligible for a two-year exemption from deportation. Of course, the “deferred action process,” as Homeland Security Secretary Janet A. Napolitano called it, will apply to illegals up to age 30. (Think when they legally get their driver’s licenses they will also be handed a voter registration card?)

The increasingly desperate Mr. Obama, once a constitutional professor, knows full well he is circumventing Congress. In March 2011 he told a group of young Hispanics: “America is a nation of laws, which means I, as the president, am obligated to enforce the law. I don’t have a choice about that. That’s part of my job.

Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws,” he said. “There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as president.”

So why now? Politics. The Hispanic population in Florida, Virginia, Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado may well decide the November election, and with working-class whites, religious blacks, disenchanted young people and Jews fleeing in droves, Mr. Obama is looking to shore up his support, even if that means violating his oath to protect the Constitution.

Continuing his nonstop campaign of division — black against white, rich against poor, straight against gay, religious against secular, race against race — the president is seeking to build whatever loose coalition of support he can. Forget bipartisanship; a coalition of the middle, Mr. Obama’s sole path to victory, he thinks, is to stir up so much discontent within different strata that he can win re-election.

Of course, the liberals who whined about President George W. Bush’s signing statements haven’t made a peep about Mr. Obama’s Napoleonic power grab.

“What’s ironic,” columnist Charles Krauthammer noted, “is for eight years, the Democrats have been screaming about the imperial presidency with the Bush administration — the nonsense about the unitary executive. This is out-and-out lawlessness.”

But that doesn’t matter when you are King Barack. The Founders were determined to make sure no American leader ever had the power King George III enjoyed. Which is why they also wrote this in the Constitution: “The president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

For more click here.

 

Related articles:

If We Took the Constitution Seriously, Obama Would Be Impeached

By Michael Filozof via The American Thinker

If  the citizens of this Republic still took the Constitution seriously, Obama would  be impeached for his decision to unilaterally grant amnesty to certain illegal  aliens.

Article  1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution, which enumerates the power of Congress, states  that “Congress shall have the Power To… establish an [sic] uniform Rule of  Naturalization.” Congress has passed numerous laws pertaining to immigration and  naturalization, including laws requiring the deportation of  illegals.

The  role of the President, according to Article II, Sec. 3, is to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Obama’s  refusal to execute Congress’s immigration  laws (or, for that matter, Congress’s Defense of Marriage Act) is an  impeachable offense. Article II, Sec. 4 states that the President “shall be  removed from Office on Impeachment for… Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes  and Misdemeanors.” The deliberate failure to enforce valid immigration law and  allow hordes of foreigners to live and work in the U.S. is, arguably, “treason,”  and doing so in an election year to appease Hispanic voters could certainly be  considered “bribery.”

In  theory, Obama could exercise his power in Article II, Sec 2. to “grant Reprieves  and Pardons for Offenses against the United States” and offer a blanket pardon  for all violators of immigration law. He’s not doing that, because he’d  certainly lose in November if he did. (However we should be concerned that if he  does lose in November, he’ll do it anyway on his last day in  office).

The  upshot of Obama’s policy not only to allow hundreds of thousands of illegals to  live and work in the U.S. during a time of 8 to 10% unemployment, but even  worse, since the vast number of illegals we’re talking about are Hispanics  eligible for affirmative-action preferences, to actually get preferential treatment over native-born  Americans.

Remember  Obama’s speech in Berlin in 2008? Well, now you know what “citizen of the world”  means: instituting an illegal and unconstitutional policy that favors Third  Worlders, and disadvantages people actually born as U.S.  citizens.

Of  course, he’ll get away with it… if you think the gutless Republicans in the  House actually represent the interests of their native born constituents  and will introduce articles of impeachment, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell  you….

For more click here.

H/T News You May Have Missed

Congressional Leaders Call for Investigations of Muslim Brotherhood Penetration of the Obama Administration

Reblogged from The Counter Jihad Report

Center for Security Policy | Jun 15, 2012

Washington, DC, June 14, 2012: Five influential Members of Congress called yesterday for the inspectors general (IGs) of government departments with national security responsibilities to investigate whether their agencies are being subjected to influence operations mounted as part of what the Muslim Brotherhood calls its “civilization jihad.” This initiative holds out hope that a grave, and largely unremarked, threat may thus be recognized and thwarted in time.

 

The authors of letters sent to the IGs for the Departments of State, Justice, Defense and Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence are:

  • Rep. Michele Bachman, a member of the House Intelligence Committee and Chairwoman of the House Tea Party Caucus
  • Rep. Trent Franks, Chairman of the House Judiciary’s Subcommittee on the Constitution a member of the House Armed Services Committee
  • Rep. Louie Gohmert, Vice Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security
  • Rep. Tom Rooney, Deputy Majority Whip and member of the House Armed Services Committee
  • Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee’s Oversight Subcommittee

Read the rest here.

Obama Warns Supreme Court

By  LAURA MECKLER and CAROL E. LEE Via The Wall Street Journal

President Barack Obama predicted Monday that the Supreme Court would uphold his signature health-care law and said that overturning it would be a prime example of judicial overreach. 

President Obama said at a Rose Garden press conference he is “confident” the Supreme Court will uphold his health-care reform law.

It was a rare instance of a president laying out his own arguments about a Supreme Court case before the justices are set to reach their decision.

In his first public comments about the case since the justices took it up last week, Mr. Obama appeared to be framing the political argument he would make should he have to face voters this fall after a loss at the high court.

“For years, what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or the lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,” he said at a news conference. The health-care case is a good example of just that, he said. “And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”

White House officials have said they were reluctant to appear to lobby the Supreme Court, which is partly why the president didn’t speak out on the case until after it was argued before the court last week.

Rather, the president’s comments indicate how he might deal with the political fallout should he lose, framing the court as a potential villain that substitutes its judgment for that of elected legislators, and Americans who lose benefits of the law as victims. Mr. Obama ticked off a string of popular benefits that would disappear if the law is shot down, such as barring insurers from discriminating against people with pre-existing conditions.

Obama aides argue the election is likely to turn on the economy, but others say a negative court decision would be a severe blow to his re-election. Aggressive questions from several justices last week made it clear that the law, or at least its central tenet, could be struck down.

But Mr. Obama, a former constitutional law professor, said he was confident the high court would not take that step, partly because conservatives—who are in the majority on the court—have long argued against what some refer to as legislating from the bench. He noted that two conservative appellate judges who heard the case found the law constitutional.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R., Utah), among the first to argue that the mandate to buy insurance was unconstitutional, responded, “It must be nice living in a fantasy world where every law you like is constitutional and every Supreme Court decision you don’t is ‘activist.'”

Mr. Obama said the court would take an “unprecedented, extraordinary step” if it overturns the law because it was passed by “a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” The vote actually was close—it passed with 60 votes in the Senate, just achieving the supermajority needed to overcome a Republican filibuster, and by 219-212 in the House.

The Supreme Court sometimes overturns laws passed by Congress, as it did in 2010, when major parts of campaign-finance restrictions were nullified in the Citizens United decision. It would be more unusual for the court to strike down an entire law with hundreds of provisions over constitutional problems with just one part.

The challengers’ case against the Obama law centers on its provision requiring most Americans to carry health insurance or pay a penalty. Several conservative Supreme Court justices suggested at last week’s arguments that if the provision is found unconstitutional, the entire law must fall because it would be too messy for the court to untangle which provisions were connected to the insurance mandate. The Supreme Court ruling is expected by the end of June.

Conservatives have long complained that liberals turned to the courts for victories they couldn’t win at the ballot box, deriding judges who overturn popularly enacted laws as “judicial activists.”

In this case, the president said, it was conservatives who were betting Republican-appointed judges would nullify the legislative victory he and fellow Democrats achieved after the 2008 elections.

Challengers, including 26 states and a small-business group, argue that Congress has never required Americans to buy a product, in this case health insurance. The Obama administration says Congress properly used its authority over interstate commerce to regulate how consumers finance something they are bound to require: health care.

The two conservative appellate judges who found the law constitutional were Judge Lawrence Silberman in Washington, D.C., and Judge Jeffrey Sutton in Cincinnati. “The right to be free from federal regulation is not absolute, and yields to the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems,” Judge Silberman wrote last November. An appellate court in Atlanta ruled against the insurance mandate, finding it “breathtaking in its expansive scope.”

Democrats have been trying for more than three years to make the case for the mandate to buy insurance, and Mr. Obama tried again on Monday. He said that without the mandate, it would be impossible to require insurance companies to cover everybody, including those with pre-existing conditions, at a reasonable price.

Sean Spicer, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said Republicans would concede some provisions of the law were popular but argue the Democrats went too far by imposing the insurance mandate.

James Simon, a professor at New York Law School, said, “I can’t think of a president anticipating a court decision as Mr. Obama has done and basically arguing in favor” of his side. Mr. Simon, the author of several books on conflicts between presidents and the court, said, “Jefferson was very angry at the Marshall Court, but he [complained] in private,” as did most other presidents.

President Franklin Roosevelt “usually waited until they handed down a decision” before fulminating against the court, Mr. Simon said, such as when FDR blasted a 1935 ruling striking down portions of the National Industrial Recovery Act.

Mr. Simon said he doubted the justices “are going to be influenced one way or the other” by Mr. Obama’s words.

—Jess Bravin contributed to this article.

For more click here.

List of Barack Obama Lies…..and they keep coming!

Via Obama Lies

Excellent chronology of lies from our leader – will he ever be thoroughly vetted?

Below is a list of Obama’s documented lies so far with the most recent lies first.

Lies During Third Year

I’ve done more for Israel’s security than any President ever Obama aided Islamic Extremists take over of Egypt/ LibyaWeapons pour into Gaza

Virtually every Senate Republican voted against the tax cut last week Examiner

“Every idea that we’ve put forward are ones that traditionally have been supported by Democrats and Republicans alike.” Like Raising taxes?

Obama met highly qualified out of work teacher Robert Baroz He wasn’t out of work and Obama never met him.

GOP Responsible for Obama Jobs Bill Not Passing Dems Rejected Jobs Bill

You have 80 percent of the American people who support a balanced approach. Eighty percent of the American people support an approach that includes revenues and includes cuts. So the notion that somehow the American people aren’t sold is not the problem Gallup Poll: Only 69%

These are obligations that the United States has taken on in the past. Congress has run up the credit card, and we now have an obligation to pay our bills. Looks like it’s been incurred mostly in the years of Obama

Jobs Bill Paid for Seems not so much Paid for

Then you’ve got their(GOP)which is dirtier air, dirtier water, less people with health insurance Barack Obama, campaiging in Asheville, NC, 10/17/11

I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it. American.com

USA producing more oil than ever before Petroleum Insights

Fence between US and Mexico is “Practically Complete” Department of Homeland Security says 5%

Rich doesn’t pay their fair share. National Taxpayers Union

Lies During Second Year

No signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law Obama Lies to Keep Czars

No “boots” on the ground Libya Anyone that has worked with the AC-130 gunship can tell you, you need spotters to let aircraft know where the targets are.  Usually it is Special Forces, Rangers etc trained for this mission. It’s CIA Agents in Libya on the ground

Reform will also rein in the abuse and excess that nearly brought down our financial system. It will finally bring transparency to the kinds of complex, risky transactions that helped trigger the financial crisis. Obama Lies About Financial Reform Bill

All Americans WILL BE were, “surprised, disappointed and angry” about lockerbie bomber Obama Memo

I will not rest until the BP Oil Spill stops Obama’s Schedule

The health care bill will not increase the deficit by one dime. Campaign and Presidency

If you like the health care plan you have you can keep it TownHall

“Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.” U.S. Capitol, Washington, D.C., September 9, 2009.

ObamaCare Fee is not a new tax Obama denies healthcare is a new tax on all Americans

We have run out of places in the US to drill for oil. Obama’s oval office speech in June 2010

Now suddenly if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you can be harassed, that’s something that could potentially happen. Arizona Immigration Law

Doctors choose amputation because they get better compensation. Greedy Doctors taking out tonsils for more money. Claims never documented

The Health Care Package will pay for itself Time

Republicans don’t have a single idea that’s different from George Bush’s ideas — not one. Hmm Immigration?

We shouldn’t Mandate the purchase of health care Democratic Debate Lies

Obama says he’ll save average family $8,000 in gas Video Proof

I am immediately instituting PayGo “Pay as you go” Said during a speech immediately after the Trillion Dollar “Shovel Ready” bill.

I got the Message from Massachusetts Daily Bail

Lies During First Year

We began by passing a Recovery Act that has already saved or created over 150,000 jobs.” – caught cooking the books and now changed to ‘jobs supported’ versus ‘created/saved’ AP fact Checker

Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit. … That wasn’t me.” – Congress, under Democratic control in 2007 and 2008, controlled the purse strings that led to the deficit Obama inherited.Obama supported the emergency bailout package in Bush’s final months — a package Democratic leaders wanted to make bigger. AP fact Checker

Collective salvation Obama calls himself a Christian

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. Obama Inauguration. 20 Jan 2009

Cut Deficit in Half by end of first term Associated Press Video

Health Care deals will be covered on C-span Obama Lies

As President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide ABC

Recovery Act will save or create jobs ABC News

Unemployment rate will be 8.5% without stimulus. Obama Lies

No Earmarks in the $787 Billion Stimulus CNN

I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care plan Specator.Org

We have launched a housing plan that will help responsible families facing the threat of foreclosure lower their monthly payments and refinance their mortgages. Obama Lies

I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage. NPR

Guantanamo bay to be closed within a year Council on Foreign Relations.

Won’t Raise taxes on those making less than 250,000 per year. Businessweek: Obama Agnostic on taxes List of Tax Promise Violations

2008 Campaign Lies

No more wiretapping of citizens Youtube

Mr. Ayers as “a guy who lives in my neighborhood,” but “not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. News Busters

I had a uncle who was one of the, who was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz and liberate the concentration camps United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

Obama campaign would accept public funding ABC

Minimum Wage will increase to $9.50/hr A Socialist

Ann Dunham spent the months before her death in 1995 fighting with insurance companies that sought to deny her the coverage she needed to pay for treatment. Mounting Heath Care Lies

Didn’t know Jeremiah Wright was Radical Dreams of My Father – A radical Socialist.

Would have the most transparent administration in History Cato Institute

We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way. Boston Globe

I have visited all 57 states. Snopes

I’ll get rid of earmarks Source: Any bill passed during presidency

When a bill lands on my Desk, The American people will have 5 days to review it before I sign it. Campaign Speech

My father served in World War II. The Videos and the Facts

Have troops out of Iraq by March 31, 2009 News Video

Seniors Making less than 50,000 will not have to pay taxes YouTube

Would not vote for any bill supporting troop funding without a firm withdrawal commitment from the Bush Administration. He has done nothing but continue the Bush admins strategy and to explain how the “surges total failure” has now become his greatest achievement.

Present Votes Are Common In Illinois NPR

I Won Michigan Huffington Post

I won Nevada The Nation

I don’t Have Lobbyists US News

My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad Crooks and Liars

I Have Always Been Against Iraq Washington Post

My Wife Didn’t Mean What She Said About Pride In Country CNN

Barack was never an ACORN trainer and never worked for ACORN in any other capacity. Obama Campaign Video

I Barely Know Rezko Sun Times

My Church Is Like Any Other Christian Church ABC News

For more information or to submit a lie we may have missed, click here.

H/T Melinda Campanale Galiano

Obama Bypasses Congress, Gives $1.5 Billion to Muslim Brotherhood

By AWR Hawkins via Breitbart

During a trip through Colorado in December of last year, President Obama spoke of his intention to implement his economic policies with or without the approval of Congress. Said Obama, “And where Congress is not willing to act, we’re going to go ahead and do it ourselves.” It now appears that such a mindset applies not only to economic matters but to the distribution of foreign aid as well–in particular, foreign military aid for the Muslim Brotherhood, who now hold the reigns in Egypt.

Congress has restricted and, in fact, halted military aid to Egypt until and “unless the State Department certifies that Egypt is making progress on basic freedoms and human rights.” After all, Christians and other practitioners of non-Islamic religions have had a tough go of it there. And of course, many Egyptian officials harbor such hatred toward the U.S. that one of the candidates for the Egyptian presidency has openly referred to America as the “infidel country” in media interviews.

Nevertheless, the news breaking now is that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will soon announce that President Obama will “resume funding for Egypt’s military, despite Congressional restrictions and objections from human rights and democracy advocates.”

Even Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT), a man with whom I’ve never agreed on anything, sees the foolishness of this endeavor: “I believe [sending the aid] would be a mistake. The new [restrictions were] intended to put the United States squarely on the side of the Egyptian people who seek a civilian government that respects fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, and to clearly define the terms of our future relations with the Egyptian military.”

Who knows; perhaps the Obama administration can also circumvent Congress and give the Iranians some nuclear materials or give Hamas some advanced weaponry? I know both ideas sound crazy, but they’re no crazier than giving $1.5 billion in military aid to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Read more here.

H/T American Freedom

Oust Obama – President’s globalist doctrine undermines American sovereignty

By Jeffrey T. Kuhner – The Washington Times

The Obama administration believes it is above the law. It now openly claims that President Obama can go to war without congressional authorization. This is a flagrant – and dangerous – violation of the Constitution. It is a naked abuse of power. It begs the question: Is this an impeachable offense? A congressional resolution has been introduced to warn that such high crimes and misdemeanors will trigger impeachment proceedings. It’s about time.

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta recently gave congressional testimony saying that the United States no longer needs the approval or consent of Congress before launching a major military offensive. In particular, Mr. Panetta – to the amazement of Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican – argued that the administration needs only “international permission” to engage in war. In other words, Mr. Panetta stressed that international approval from the United Nations or NATO trumps the sovereign authority of Congress. The administration is now contemplating whether to topple the brutal regime in Syria or wage devastating airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Mr. Obama seems to view Congress and our system of checks and balances as a nuisance. He is engaged in a massive power grab, behaving more like a Roman emperor unfettered by the will of the people and its duly elected representatives. His worldview is clear – and ominous: America is no longer a self-governing republic, but a supranational state.

This brazen assault upon congressional constitutional prerogatives has inspired remarkably little resistance. Like ancient Rome, republican institutions are slowly being drained of authority, power flowing to an arrogant, ever-growing leviathan. One congressman, however, finally has drawn a line in the sand. Rep. Walter B. Jones, North Carolina Republican, has issued a resolution stating that should Mr. Obama – or any other president – use offensive military force without prior and clear authorization by Congress, this would constitute an impeachable offense.

“The issue of presidents taking this country to war without congressional approval is one that I have long been concerned about,” Mr. Jones said. “Just last week, President Obama’s Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta told the United States Senate that he only needed to seek ‘international’ approval prior to initiating yet another war, this time in Syria. Congress would merely need to be ‘informed.’ This action would clearly be a violation of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.”

He added: “Enough is enough. It is time this country upholds the Constitution and the principles upon which this country was founded.”

Mr. Jones is a patriot. He is a rare breed in Congress: a conservative constitutionalist who believes in putting America first. He rightly seeks to reimpose constitutional and legal limits upon the president’s ability to make war. Mr. Jones has implemented a trigger mechanism to potentially rein in the lawless, scandal-ridden administration. His resolution enshrines one absolute principle: The Constitution applies to Mr. Obama – as it should to every president.

Mr. Obama has already pushed the constitutional limits. Take his war in Libya. The decision to overthrow Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi was done without congressional authorization – something President Bush received for his military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Hence, the Libya adventure was arguably unconstitutional. It was a war undertaken without even the legal fig leaf of congressional consent. It violated the War Powers Act, which insists that any military action past 60 days must receive congressional approval. Mr. Obama simply circumvented Congress. His behavior was that of a creeping dictator.

Moreover, he insisted that the Libya operation was legitimate because it had U.N. approval. Unaccountable international bureaucrats are to have more authority over U.S. armed forces than Congress. Mr. Obama also encoded the pernicious principle of “leading from behind.” In other words, the world’s superpower must engage in national self-abnegation for fear of upsetting Washington’s coalition partners. Instead of leading NATO, Mr. Obama wants America to be subsumed by it. The results of the Libya war were disastrous. Gadhafi’s murderous regime has been replaced by an Islamist Libya. Al Qaeda and the Taliban have infiltrated the country’s military, its large stockpiles of weapons plundered. Shariah law is being imposed. Libya is becoming a hotbed of jihadist radicalism. In other words, Mr. Obama waged an illegal war that ended up empowering America’s mortal enemies. If that is not a “high crime and misdemeanor,” then what is?

The administration is hoping to entrench the Libya model. This was the purpose of Mr. Panetta’s comments. From now on, Mr. Obama will launch military interventions based on a new doctrine: globalism. He hopes to erect a new world order where international bodies supersede American national sovereignty. U.S. military power is to become a tool of transnational socialists. George Soros is in, George Washington is out.

It is not just foreign policy. Mr. Obama has repeatedly behaved in an authoritarian, lawless fashion. He abused congressional procedures to ram through Obamacare. He has named numerous policy “czars” with Cabinet-like powers without the Senate’s advice and consent. He has made recess appointments while Congress was not in recess – a blatant transgression of constitutional authority. He has sued states, such as Arizona and Alabama, simply for trying to enforce federal immigration laws, which the president is legally obligated to uphold.

This is why voters must conduct the ultimate impeachment: Remove him from office in the November election. Until then, should Mr. Obama attempt an October surprise by bombing Syria or Iran in order to cynically win re-election, Mr. Jones has given Republicans the firewall to stop him. We don’t serve the president. He must serve us.

Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute.

For more click here.

Our choice: Impeachment or dictatorship

By Tom Tancredo via WND

Almost every week brings a new reason for the United States House of Representatives to bring impeachment charges against President Obama. The question of the day is not why he should be impeached but why it hasn’t already been done.

 

This week it was Secretary of Defense Panetta’s declaration before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he and President Obama look not to the Congress for authorization to bomb Syria but to NATO and the United Nations. This led to Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introducing an official resolution calling for impeachment should Obama take offensive action based on Panetta’s policy statement, because it would violate the Constitution.

Well, really, folks: Is Obama’s disregard of the Constitution really news? No. He has done it so many times it doesn’t make news anymore. Democrats approve it and Republicans in Congress appear to accept it – not all Republicans, of course, but far too many.

The list of Obama’s constitutional violations is growing by the day and ought to be the topic of not only nightly news commentary but citizens’ town-hall meetings and protest rallies.

President Obama can only be emboldened by the lack of impeachment proceedings. His violations typically arouse a short-lived tempest among some conservatives, yet impeachment is not generally advocated by his critics as a realistic recourse. That must change.

That Obama can be voted out of office in eight months is not a reason to hold back on impeachment. Formal impeachment proceedings in the House of Representatives would help alert the nation’s 120 million likely voters that more is at stake in Obama’s power grabs than Syrian human rights and contraception subsidies for college students.

The grounds for House impeachment proceedings have been laid by Obama’s own actions. A list of his unconstitutional and illegal actions would embarrass any honest public official and makes Nixon’s Watergate cover-up look like a college fraternity house panty raid.

Obama’s policy on the use of military force abroad raises grave issues – both policy issues and constitutional issues. When Defense Secretary Panetta tells a Senate committee he will rely on NATO and the U.N. for “permission” for use of military force, that is an affront to and direct assault on the Constitution.

Those Panetta statements propelled Rep. Jones to introduce a House resolution stipulating that any use of military force by the president without an act of Congress, except to repel a direct attack on the United States, is an impeachable offense under the Constitution.

But this is only the latest Obama assault on the Constitution. There are many other examples of Obama’s disregard for constitutional limitations to his power.

  • Obama violated the Constitution with his “recess appointments” while the Senate was not in recess. It is up the Senate to decide when it is in recess, not the president. That distinction between executive and legislative authority is what the Separation of Powers doctrine is all about.
  • Obama is an obvious participant and co-conspirator in Eric Holder’s approval and later cover-up of the illegal “Fast and Furious” gun-walking program. Unlike the Watergate case, people have actually died as a result of this illegal program.
  • Obama undoubtedly has knowledge of and has approved Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano’s project to require Border Patrol management to falsify apprehension numbers on the southwest border. This is a clear violation of Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution, which requires the federal government to protect the country against foreign invasion.
  • The president’s open refusal to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act is a violation of Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution, which does not authorize the president to choose which laws to “faithfully execute.” The oath taken by a new president on Inauguration Day does not say, “… to defend the Constitution of the United States… to the best of my ability except when I disagree with it.”
  • Did the president violate the law when he instructed Labor Secretary Solis to negotiate agreements with foreign governments to expand the “labor rights” of illegal aliens?

The precedent of Clinton’s impeachment over his perjury in the Monica Lewinsky case established the principle that the legal definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is what Congress wants them to mean. Have Obama’s actions met the constitutional standard for impeachment? Absolutely, yes.

Unless the House of Representatives acts to begin impeachment proceedings against this bold usurper, we are headed for dictatorship. Either the Constitution limits the president’s powers or it does not. If it does, Obama must be impeached for his actions. If not, then a dictatorship is not only inevitable, it will be upon us soon.

Tom Tancredo is the founder of the Rocky Mountain Foundation and founder and co-chairman of Team America PAC. He is also a former five-term congressman and presidential candidate. Tancredo is the author of “In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America’s Border and Security.”

For more click here.