ARCHIVE - FEBRUARY 2015
The Best of The Best
Who will be the
THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW USURPER
2015/02/19 - “Winning isn’t everything; it’s the only thing”, a quotable quote attributed to the football coaching legend Vince Lombardi. Unfortunately, some people actually take it seriously. But, the fact is, there are many things more important than winning, and one of them is to protect the integrity of the game.
Consider this: would you really want your favorite baseball team to win Game 7 the World Series if you knew that the home plate umpire was being bribed to shape-shift the strike zone? Obviously, not just the game but the entire league implodes if it deteriorates into nothing better than a bidding war for the umpire’s sympathies. Then there is no more game, and no more winning, because you can’t win a game that isn’t played.
Notwithstanding Coach Lombardi’s wit, the integrity of the process is more important than winning, and when people can’t see that, it calls into question their judgement, even their character. They are what we call "cheaters".
Just like football, baseball, or any other sport, countries also have rule books that are a prerequisite for orderly function. In the United States, our rule book is the Constitution, and it is crucial for our elected officials conduct the Nation's affairs according to the rules, to adhere to the Constitution. It is more important than a policy victory. Violating the Constitution undermines the integrity of our institutions, our government, our country, our culture, our very selves.
And it is through this lens that we view the President's executive order. It is not a debate about immigration, it is a debate about the functioning of our Democracy. Irrespective of which policy outcome we might support, and seek to achieve, we must pursue our objectives within the constraints of the Constitution.
President Obama’s executive actions are clearly unconstitutional. He has said so himself. Twenty-two times, in fact, he has made comments like “With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed”.
But after Obama issued his executive order on immigration back in November he said he "just took an action to change the law". According to our Constitution the President simply does not have the power to change a law. The legislative branch – Congress – legislates (passes law), and the executive branch – the President – executes (enforces laws). It’s very simple. And when a President usurps the power of Congress by changing laws, he becomes a tyrant.
So it was good and appropriate that Judge Andrew Hanen this week issued an injunction blocking the Department of Homeland Security from proceeding with Obama’s changes to the law.
The judge pointed out that while the Administration does have some leeway in terms of prioritization and passivity of enforcement, and case-by-case prosecutorial discretion, not enforcing the law at all amounts to prosecutorial dereliction. Further, actively rewarding those illegally present with benefits such as social security, rather than deporting them, is the complete opposite of the intent of the law.
Obama tried to change the law, he even said so. And now a judge has said so too. And no, Obama does not have the power to change a law, he said that as well. Twenty-two times. And now a judge has said so too.
President Obama, this self-styled constitutional law professor, has had a bad record on challenges to his actions. For example, in NLRB v. Noel Canning, his recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board were unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court 9-0, and thus all of that illegal board's decisions were also overturned.
Funding for the Department of Homeland Security runs out next Friday, February 27. The House has passed a bill to fund the Department through the remainder of the year, except for Obama’s unconstitutional changes to immigration law.
We are calling on the Senate to pass the House bill and send it to the President. We are calling on ALL Senate Democrats to vote with Senate Republicans, to support our Constitution, and defund the President’s usurpation of your Congressional power. If you will not stand up for yourself, how can we, the people, expect you to stand up for us?
We are calling on these six Senate Democrats and Independents by name, who have expressed objections to the President’s power grab, to stand up for our democracy, and vote with Senate Republicans to pass the House bill:
To us, it seems obvious that Obama's executive order is illegal. We believe the debate should proceed through our legal system, and we believe that ultimately the Supreme Court will shoot down Obama's machinations. There is no way Congress should vote to use our taxes to fund this program until the Courts have come to complete and final resolution of it Constitutional basis.
Senators must vote to defund Obama's scheme, both to protect their Constitutional authority, and to protect taxpayers from illegal spending.
THE PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR ARMS UNDER OBAMA
2015/02/10 - The Obama Administration’s bumbling in Iran, and in Ukraine, have more in common than just the fingerprints of its namesake. The common thread is nuclear weapons, which, as we all know – but this Administration seems to have lost sight of – have the power to destroy humanity. Nuclear proliferation is not something to be trifled with, not something to be politicized.
Iran, of course, is developing a nuclear program, and is on a track from which it could join the nuclear club. Presently there are nine countries with nukes. North Korea is the most volatile of the nine, but the constant tension between Pakistan and India also keeps these two members in the forefront when modeling doomsday scenarios.
It would seem axiomatic that we would do anything practicable to reduce, or failing that, to limit the number of nuclear nations. Alas, as Commander-in-Chief of the greatest nation on the planet, and the leader of the free world, this solemn responsibility falls, unfortunately, on the feckless shoulders of Barack Obama. A vain man who, it seems, just wants a treaty named after him, irrespective of how good or bad that treaty is.
Instead of tightening the screws on the Iranians, providing every carrot to cancel and eliminate their program, and inflicting every stick if they continue, Obama, renowned as one of the worst negotiators in history, is obsessed with providing concessions and freebies – it is Obama, after all – and allowing them to go 99.9% of the way.
We have seen this before. North Korea is a miserable country ruled by a cruel despotic regime that perpetually torments its people. Ideally the regime should have been eliminated long ago and the two Koreas merged into a single free peaceful nation. Instead our leaders – our Chamberlains – allowed them to slow walk their way to nuclear weapons, and now they are a scourge that is a growing threat to world peace, indeed, world survival. And in the meantime, they use the threat of nuclear weapons to extort concessions from their peaceable neighbors. We can thank Bill Clinton for that (more on the Clintons later).
Iran is hardly better than North Korea. These two despicable regimes, along with Saddam Hussein's Iraq, made up the "Axis of Evil", a classification that still holds true. Why Obama would allow Iran to proceed down the nuclear path, so they can play North Korea's odious games, is beyond any rationale.
Consider the billions of dollars in foreign aid that Pakistan receives from the United States. Does anyone doubt that their stock of nukes adds a zero to the end of the checks they receive courtesy of the American taxpayer? Why would anyone want Iran to obtain the leverage that the power to destroy civilization provides?
Now we have Obama capitulating to Iran the way Chamberlain did to the Nazis. Chamberlain’s folly did not end well, neither will Obama’s. Fortunately, we have someone coming to pay us a visit and explain the facts. Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, will be addressing Congress on March 3. Maybe this will set the narrative passionately against Obama.
So what does Ukraine have to do with this? Ukraine was a nuclear power at the time of the breakup of the Soviet Union. However, In 1994, they agreed to de-nuclearize. The Budapest Memorandum, which the United States, the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation were signatories to, guaranteed the integrity of Ukraine’s borders. But Russia has flagrantly violated the agreement by annexing the Crimean Peninsula, and invading the mainland under the thinly-veiled ruse of an insurgency.
Yet we hear nothing about Crimea, as if the US and UK have given up, and have surrendered it to the Kremlin Kleptocrat. We do nothing to help Ukraine – OK, some MRE’s and blankets. That’s all our guarantee is worth? Some TV dinners? Many in Ukraine feel cheated and sold out, that if they had kept their nukes Russia would have been deterred from attacking.
And then there’s Libya. After the US bombardment of Afghanistan and subsequent invasion Iraq, Muammar Gaddafi voluntarily gave up his nuclear program in order to normalize relations with the United States. Then look what Clinton and Obama did to him. Does anyone think we would have bombed a nuclear Libya?
Libya paid the price for giving up its nukes, and now its Ukraine’s turn. North Korea has gained the benefits of going nuke, and now its Iran’s turn, apparently. This is the Hillary Clinton / Barack Obama foreign policy doctrine in action. Appease your enemies, punish your allies.
The Obama Administration has made a total mess of nuclear non-proliferation. In Obama’s fantasy world in the twilight zone (as Pat Caddell put it) there is every incentive for countries to bulk up on nuclear weapons – if you have them, do NOT give them up like Ukraine foolishly did. And if you don’t have them, get them.
Someone on the world stage needs to school Barack Obama. We look forward to the visit to Congress from Benjamin Netanyahu.
|© Copyright 2015 Challenge The Premise. All rights reserved.|