Tag Archives: Defense of Marriage Act

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

Posted on by
Reply

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 affirmation — 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.*

“* 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

Posted on by
Reply

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

Related articles

Obama Bogged Down by Scandals

Posted on by
2

By Phyllis Schlafly via Eagle Forum

Increasing public disapproval of Barack Obama is based not only on his extravagant spending that hangs debt like an albatross around the necks of our children and grandchildren.  He is presiding over the most scandal-ridden administration in decades, from Colombia to Las Vegas, to the Mexican border, to Solyndra, and more.

The Secret Service’s prostitution party in Colombia is an international embarrassment.  It’s not sufficient punishment that a few guilty men have been allowed to resign or retire with benefits because many questions are still crying to be answered.

Who arranged the party at the now-notorious Pley Club Cartagena, which apparently supplied enough girls for eleven Secret Service and ten U.S. military men staying in separate rooms at the historic Hotel Caribe, where prostitution is openly tolerated?

Is there any connection between this moral scandal and our recent trade agreement with Colombia?  Were there any similar parties to con the United States into going along with this free-trade deal favorable to Colombia?

Another embarrassing scandal is the General Services Administration’s $823,000 junket to Las Vegas.  Obama Administration bureaucrats apparently think parties are perks that go along with their jobs.

Living high on the hog, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has been charging the Pentagon $32,000 per flight to jet to California every few weeks.  And don’t forget the half-billion-dollar gift to Solyndra before it took bankruptcy and left U.S. taxpayers on the hook.

“Fast and Furious” turned out to be a bloody scandal after the U.S. Justice Department okayed the sale of guns to Mexican drug cartels, under the ridiculous excuse that this would give us the opportunity to get more information about the drug dealers.  Somebody should be held accountable for the fact that one of these U.S. guns was used to murder U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry.

Operation Fast and Furious allowed over 2,000 weapons to be smuggled to the violent Mexican drug cartels.  A new book by investigative journalist Katie Pavlich, called “Fast and Furious: Barack Obama’s Bloodiest Scandal and Its Shameless Cover-up,” asserts that a third gun was involved whose existence was covered up by the FBI and the Justice Department.

Another scandal is that the Obama Administration is suing several states.  We need more aggressive Tenth Amendment advocates to publicize and overturn these travesties.

Obama is suing Arizona to try to knock out its law to protect its citizens against illegal aliens, a law that polls show Americans support by two-to-one.  The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments this week.

The Arizona law allows local law enforcement to question the legal status of anyone who is stopped on suspicion of a crime, and then detain anyone who cannot prove legal U.S. residency.  Illegal immigration is already a federal crime, and the Arizona law is an attempt to do some enforcement that the feds are failing to do.

The Obama Administration wants the courts to prevent the states from enforcing laws that Obama refuses to enforce.  Similar lawsuits have been filed against Alabama, Georgia, and Utah.

In the Supreme Court case against Arizona, nine states have filed amicusbriefs supporting Arizona, including Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma and South Carolina.  They say they “have a manifest interest in ensuring that their sovereignty is accorded proper respect,” and that each state should be able to decide for itself how to protect its citizens from the crime and costs associated with illegal aliens.

Amicusbriefs from foreign governments opposing the Alabama and Georgia laws were filed by Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, El  Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and Peru.  We need federal and state laws to prevent our courts from considering foreign laws, treaties, court decisions, or briefs in interpreting U.S. laws.

It looks like voter fraud is one of the ways that Barack Obama plans to be reelected in November.  He has had his Justice Department block Texas and South Carolina laws that require showing a photo ID in order to vote, even though polls report that 70 percent of Americans support voter ID.

In defending Texas’s law, Governor Rick Perry said it “requires nothing more extensive than the type of photo identification necessary to receive a library card or board an airplane.”  At least eight states have passed similar laws, and even the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Arizona’s 2004 ballot initiative requiring voters to show photo ID in order to vote.

The Constitution makes it a major duty of the President to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”  Despite the fact the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is the law of the land, passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, Obama is instead ordering his Justice Department not to defend this law in court.

Further reading:

For more information click here.

Related articles

Obama’s bullying pulpit – President goes out of his way to shake America’s foundations

Posted on by
1

By Robert Knight via The Washington Times

I don’t know which was more embarrassing: Barack Obama trying to bully the Supreme Court – again – or The Washington Post trying to clean up after him.

Warning the court not to rule against Obamacare, Mr. Obama said it would be an “unprecedented, extraordinary step” of judicial activism. He chided conservatives for long complaining about judicial activism, “that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.”

Because this hasn’t ever happened at the Supreme Court, according to the man who lectured about constitutional law at the University of Chicago, court watchers must have been smoking something since 1803, when Chief Justice John Marshall established judicial review in Marbury v. Madison.

Mr. Obama knows all about judicial activism. He’s fine with the court’s Roe v. Wade (1973) decision creating a “right” to abortion and overturning all abortion laws, a ruling Justice Byron White called “an exercise of raw judicial power.” Mr. Obama’s Justice Department is working to have a court overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, which passed in 1996 with overwhelming, bipartisan majorities.

His warning to the court was a shocker, and The Washington Times and Wall Street Journal ran it on their front pages above the fold. Not so The Washington Post, which relegated this mighty clash of the federal branches to Page A5. Writer David Nakamura noted that “Obama made his argument in unusually blunt language that was rare for a sitting president.” Indeed. Even Franklin D. Roosevelt, who threatened to “pack the court” when it wouldn’t rubber-stamp his New Deal, didn’t dare explicitly claim the court could not overturn legislation that it found unconstitutional. Or maybe he did and Mr. Obama is channeling him.

The next day, Mr. Obama did some damage control with help from his friends. In an editorial headlined “A more judicious view,” The Post summarized Mr. Obama’s clarification: “He made clear that he was not questioning the court’s power to strike down a statute, just that exercising it in this situation, involving Congress‘ ability to regulate commerce, would be remarkable.”

Oh, that’s what he meant. The Post then gently chided Mr. Obama like a rambunctious child, advising him, “Given the power of the bully pulpit, presidents are wise to be, well, more judicious in commenting about the high court.”

Yes, sounding like a president instead of a frustrated Caesar would be better.

In 2010, Mr. Obama bullied the court in front of the nation during his State of the Union address, brazenly mischaracterizing the justices’ Citizens United ruling. He had Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius bully pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies that wouldn’t knuckle under to Obamacare. He has made a sport of bullying Israel. He is bullying the oil companies and crushing the coal industry. Recently, he sent Hillary Rodham Clinton around the world to bully nations that won’t buy the homosexual political agenda.

The other day, he even bullied journalists at his fawnathon press conference, telling them how to report. Face it, folks. America elected a bully in 2008, and he shows no sign of mellowing.

Mr. Obama has stepped on the Constitution six ways from Sunday since the day he took power. Speaking of Sunday, Mr. Obama once again made Christians suspicious of his professions of faith when he told a group of clergy on Wednesday, according to CNS News, that Easter reminds us of “all that Christ endured – not just as a Son of God, but as a human being.”

“A Son of God,” not “the Son of God.” It could have been a slip of the tongue, or perhaps it revealed more than he intended. The New Testament says God has only one Son, and it’s Jesus Christ, through Whom “all things were made” (John: 1:3).

I’d be inclined to give Mr. Obama the benefit of the doubt, because everyone misspeaks, but he has let slip other clues before and after gaining the bully pulpit.

On Sept. 5, 2008, on ABC television, Mr. Obama answered a question from former Clinton press secretary George Stephanopoulos with the line, “You’re absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith.” Mr. Stephanopoulos quickly saved Mr. Obama by noting that he meant to say his “Christian” faith.

Three times in 2010, Mr. Obama omitted the words “by their Creator” when reciting the passage about unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence. In November 2010, he said the national motto was “E pluribus unum” (out of many, one) instead of “In God We Trust.”

In 2009, in Cairo, Mr. Obama quoted from the “Holy Koran,” used his middle name, Hussein, and indicated that the United States and Muslim nations have the same commitment to tolerance and freedom.

Also in 2009, he told a press conference in Turkey, “Although we have a large Christian population, we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values. I think modern Turkey was founded with a similar set of values.”

WallBuilders, a Christian research group headed by David Barton, has compiled “America’s Most Biblically Hostile U.S. President,” an extensive list of Mr. Obama’s statements and actions that suggest less than fidelity toward Christianity or the Bible and a weakness for Islam. Taken as a whole, it’s devastating.

On March 6, 2007, New York Times writer Nicholas D. Kristof wrote in “Obama: Man of the World”:

“Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as ‘one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.’ “

Here are the opening lines of that prayer, courtesy of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission: “Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme! Allah is Supreme! I witness that there is no god but Allah! I witness that there is no god but Allah! I witness that Muhammad is his prophet!”

To a devout Christian, this “call” is not pretty, however it once sounded to a young boy being raised as a Muslim in Indonesia.

The bully pulpit, whatever it once was, has never sounded quite like this.

Robert Knight is senior fellow for the American Civil Rights Union and a columnist for the Washington Times.

For more information click here.

Related articles

Obama’s war on decency

Posted on by
Reply

By Robert Knight – The Washington Times

Official photographic portrait of US President...
Image via Wikipedia

Three incidents in recent days tell us all we need to know about the Obama administration’s “values.”

On Dec. 1, the story broke that Bethesda-based Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, where wounded veterans convalesce, apparently had banned visitors from bringing in Bibles or other religious items.

Walter Reed’s Chief of Staff C.W. Callahan issued a memo in September that said, “No religious items (i.e., Bibles, reading material, and/or artifacts) are allowed to be given away or used during a visit.”

Telling wounded soldiers and their families that their First Amendment freedoms have been suspended should be a firing offense.

Rep. Steve King, Iowa Republican, who serves on the House subcommittee on the Constitution, conveyed the gravity: “The idea that these soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines that have fought to defend our Constitution – and that includes our First Amendment rights to religious liberty – would be denied that religious liberty when they are lying in a hospital bed recovering from wounds incurred while defending that liberty is the most bitter and offensive type of an irony that I can think of.”

The policy was rescinded, but that it was imposed at all is a reminder of the culture President Obama has fostered in the armed forces and executive agencies, where extreme environmentalism, moral relativism and sexual immorality have replaced traditional American values. We shouldn’t really be surprised when a bureaucrat tries to bar Bibles in a U.S. military stateside hospital while other bureaucrats make sure terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, get copies of the Koran.

You almost have to feel sorry for poor Col. Callahan, who is part of the new metrosexual military, which values “diversity” more than combat readiness, so long as it doesn’t include Christianity.

Recall ArmyGen. George Casey’s comment after a Muslim extremist was charged in the slaughter of 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, in November 2009: “Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”

Announcing an end to the rule, Walter Reed public affairs officer Sandy Dean said a new policy “will be written to articulate our initial intention, which was to respect religious and cultural practices of our patients.” Say what?

Ms. Dean went on to insist that the policy was “in no way meant to prohibit family members from providing religious items to their loved ones at all.”

But that’s exactly what it said. Time for Groucho’s defense when caught in the act: “Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?”

Here’s more from the hapless Ms. Dean: “We appreciate Congressman King bringing this to our attention. We don’t want our instructions to be ambiguous.”

Ambiguity is not the problem. It’s the Obama administration’s hostility to religion, except for Islam.

From the prevarications that helped sell Obamacare, to the lies surrounding Operation Fast and Furious, to the periodic emissions of horse pucky about Mr .Obama’s “evolving” view of marriage while he’s sabotaging the Defense of Marriage Act, it’s getting so bad that Obama administration spokesmen really should consider donning Groucho noses, glasses and mustaches. That would help disguise them, at least, and pave their way to enter the Witness Protection Program.

The second news item was Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s speech in Geneva on Tuesday, announcing that American taxpayers will be paying for homosexual activism around the world through a $3 million Global Equality Fund. That’s right. In a time when the United States is facing massive debt, plus a rising China and militant Islam, we’re going to use foreign aid money to promote “gay rights” to the world. Speaking to a crowd of diplomats, many of whom do not equate race or ethnicity with volitional sexual behavior that has moral implications, Mrs. Clinton urged everyone to come around to her point of view, saying, “I come here before you with respect, understanding and humility.” (Now do what I tell you.)

Once upon a time, foreign aid was allocated as an incentive for other nations to support the interests and security of the United States. Countries did not get the money if they worked with our enemies. But now, under left-wing Democrats, foreign aid is a tool to force a radical agenda on the rest of the world, regardless of America’s interests. I’m waiting for protest marches and cries of “cultural imperialism” from the Occupy This Squalid Dump crowd, but I think I might be waiting forever.

The third item is the Food and Drug Administration’s evil idea to allow the Plan B “morning-after pill” to be sold over the counter to anyone – regardless of age. After the story hit the fan, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued a directive on Wednesday to stop it. Plan B, which can act as an abortifacient, will continue to be sold over the counter without a prescription to anyone at least 17 years old. But 10-year-olds won’t be able to slip it onto the counter next to their gummy bears.

Is it really necessary to explain why children should not be allowed to buy a powerful drug? Should it be necessary to explain why wounded soldiers who risked their lives should be allowed to receive Bibles from their families, or why many Americans don’t want their country exporting the values of Sodom and Gomorrah instead of Valley Forge?

In Obama’s America, yes.

Robert Knight is senior fellow for the American Civil Rights Union and a columnist for the Washington Times.