Emperor Obama

Custom Search

  

  

Emperor Obama
 

    
 


help fight the media
    


    

 

 

 
 
Items on this page are archived in the order of discovery . . .

Gibbels:  BP Will Be Removed From Claims Process

David S Morgan says in advance of the Obama’s speech to the nation this evening about the government’s and BP’s response to the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, White House press secretary Robert Gibbels confirmed that, one way or another, BP will no longer be directly responsible for processing claims from those affected by the disaster.

So, in effect, Obama has heeded the call from the Communists at International ANSWER and he will Seize BP’s assets.

When asked on CBS’ "The Early Show" this morning on how Obama can prevail upon BP to expedite or streamline the process for Gulf Coast businesses and residents, Gibbels said, "The best way to prevail on BP is to take the claims process away from BP.

"The president possesses the legal authority and will use it to make this claims process independent, to take it away from BP, and to ensure that those who have been harmed economically have their claims processed quickly, efficiently, transparently, and that they’re made whole again for the disaster caused by BP," Gibbels said.

It would be interesting to see what laws they cite for this "legal authority."

"So that’s going to happen?" asked anchor Harry Smith.

"That will happen," Gibbels replied.  "The president will either legally compel them or come to an agreement with BP to get out of the claims process [and] give that to an independent entity, so that the people that have been damaged can get the money that they deserve quickly." …

Whatever happened to that quaint notion of due process?  Has Mr. Obama declared martial law?

"The president understands the challenges, and tonight will outline a plan moving forward to deal with the oil that’s leaked, to respond to those that have been damaged economically as part of this in the claims process, what has to happen going forward to make sure that something like this never happens again, and to discuss with the American people our approach towards reducing our dependence on oil and other fossil fuels."

In other words, Obama is going to punish the nation for BP’s spill by imposing a carbon tax which will destroy whatever is still left of our economy.

But do notice how a tax is always the Democrats’ solution to every problem.
Where Does Obama Get The Authority
Terence P. Jeffrey says Obama’s speech raises a question.  Where does he get the authority to "inform" a private company -- BP or any other -- that it must surrender its money?

In his first-ever address from the Oval Office on Tuesday night, Barack Obama said he was going to "inform" the chairman of BP that he must surrender the company’s money to an independent party that will distribute it to people and businesses determined to have been harmed by the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Obama’s declaration raises a serious constitutional question about his authority: Where does Obama get the lawful power to order any private-sector company -- BP or any other -- that it must surrender its money?  Should not courts and normal legal proceedings determine who is responsible, who has been harmed, and who owes what to whom in regards to the Gulf oil spill?

Leaving aside BP's relative popularity or lack of it today, if Obama, on his own initiative, can tell a corporation to surrender its money because he has determined its culpability in an oil spill, under what other circumstances can Obama or any future American president tell a corporation or a private citizen to surrender money?

What rights do the stockholders in BP have to due process of law to protect their property?  The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says: "No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Does Obama think he can "inform" persons and corporations to surrender or exchange their property without due process of law?

Will Congress, the legislative branch of the federal government, have a say before Obama takes unilateral executive action in regard to how the government treats BP?  Congress never did give him legislative authority to have the federal government take ownership of General Motors.

"Tomorrow," Obama said, "I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company’s recklessness.  And this fund will not be controlled by BP.  In order to ensure that all legitimate claims are paid out in a fair and timely manner, the account must and will be administered by an independent third party."

Tomorrow there will also be serious and legitimate questions about Executive authority under the U. S. Constitution that the White House needs to answer and responsible members of Congress need to ask.
Obama Wants Government Control Of Media
Dick Morris says the chairman of Obama's Federal Trade Commission, Jon Leibowitz, is at the epicenter of a quiet movement to subsidize news organizations, a first step toward government control of the media.

In our book, "2010: Take Back America -- a Battle Plan," we reported that he had commissioned a study to examine plans for a federal subsidy for news organizations.  Among the measures under consideration are special tax treatment, exemption from antitrust laws and changes in copyright laws.

Now Leibowitz has begun to pounce.  A May 24 working paper on "reinventing" the media proposes that the government impose fees on websites such as the Drudge Report that link to news websites, or that it tax consumer electronics such as iPads, laptops, and Kindles.  Funds raised by these levies would be redistributed to traditional media outlets.

While Leibowitz distanced himself from the proposals for the taxes, calling them "a terrible idea," his comments appear to be related only to the levies proposed in the working paper.  Nobody is commenting on the other part of his proposal -- a subsidy for news organizations.

By now, the Obama MO should be clear to all.  As he has done with the banks, AIG, and the car companies, he extends his left hand offering subsidies and then proffers his right laden with regulations.

Should the government follow through on Leibowitz's ideas and enact special subsidies and tax breaks for news organizations, it will induce a degree of journalistic dependence on the whims of government not seen since the days when the early presidents bestowed government advertising on favored periodicals.

Is it too difficult to imagine that the Democrats might pass laws favoring news organizations, only to question -- as former White House communications director Anita Dunn did -- whether or not Fox News is a news organization or an "arm of the Republican Party?"

We can see a future in which news media are reluctant to be too partisan or opinionated for fear that they would endanger their public subsidy.  Once such a subsidy is extended to news organizations, every company in the business must have it.  Otherwise, the competitive advantage for the subsidized companies would prove too steep an obstacle to overcome.

In all the attention that has been given to the idea of an Internet tax on news aggregation sites and on tech equipment -- trial balloons that would obviously be shot down -- very little attention has been focused on the expenditure side of the proposal -- the subsidy of news organizations.

But The Wall Street Journal reported six months ago that Leibowitz had commissioned a study to determine "whether the government should aid struggling news organizations which are suffering from a collapse in advertising revenues as the Internet upends their centuries-old business model."

Among the steps under consideration are changing "the way the industry is regulated, from making news-gathering companies exempt from antitrust laws to granting them special tax treatment to making changes to copyright laws."  These are exactly the kind of subsidies that could and would trigger government oversight and control.

Look at how radio stations squirm when their licenses are up for renewal before the FCC.  We can imagine news organizations pulling their punches in order not to antagonize the hand that feeds them.

The Leibowitz study, and the subsidy proposals that are likely to emerge from it, represent a chilling threat to the First Amendment and to our civil liberties.
Above The Law
Rich Trzupek says America’s growing antipathy to the Obama administration and its liberal policies continues to befuddle the progressive rank and file.  The inherent goodness of the new nanny-state that Obama is creating is so readily apparent to liberals that they are sure that the ever swelling surge of anger directed toward big government must be about something more sinister; latent racism, corporate conspiracies and Fox News are the most popular villains.  Progressives don’t appear able to comprehend that conservatives and a growing number of independents aren’t just upset about what is being done, it’s the how it’s being done part that has the nation in such an uproar.  Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s decision to go back to the well, or rather to turn his back on the wells, by trying to impose a new version of an offshore drilling ban is just the latest example of an administration that has decided it can ignore the will of the people and rule of law.

We first witnessed the unabashed arrogance of the Obama administration when it pushed through the health care bill, using any parliamentary trick it could think of to accomplish its mission despite overwhelming, deeply-felt opposition throughout the country.  Obama’s unwillingness to do take meaningful action to stem the tide of illegal immigration has been disappointing, but Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to take Arizona to court because that state has stepped up to do the job the federal government’s should have been doing is positively infuriating.  Many Democratic governors understand this and have expressed concern that the administration’s pig-headed refusal to understand the mood of the electorate regarding this hot-button issue will ultimately result in disaster for their party come November.

Obama and his advisors have moved beyond the imperial presidency.  To call it the tyrannical presidency would be a little excessive, but not by much.  When Judge Martin Feldman overturned the administration’s six month ban on deep-water drilling, he made it clear that it was both unfair and illegal to punish an entire industry and those who depend on it for their livelihood because of a single accident.  Undaunted, the administration appealed Feldman’s ruling, only to be shot down once again.  Given the fact that most of the nation supports deepwater drilling, despite the disaster in the Gulf, the fact that other countries can and will tap the riches to be found under the sea floor and that two courts had ruled against a ban, one might think it’s time to throw in the towel and concentrate on ways to make deep-water drilling safer instead of trying to make it impossible.  Yet, this administration is tenacious if nothing else.  Once again, Barack Obama is doing his best to emulate Admiral David Farragut: damn public opinion, damn the law -- full speed ahead!
Obama's "National Ocean Council" Power Grab
Cassandra Anderson says thirty states will be encroached upon by Obama's Executive Order establishing the National Ocean Council for control over America's oceans, coastlines and the Great Lakes. Under this new council, states' coastal jurisdictions will be subject to the United Nations' Law Of Sea Treaty (LOST) in this UN Agenda 21 program.  America's oceans and coastlines will be broken into 9 regions that include the North East, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, the Gulf Coast, West Coast, the Great Lakes, Alaska, the Pacific Islands (including Hawaii) and the Caribbean.

Because of the decades of difficulty that the collectivists have had trying to ratify the Law Of Sea Treaty (LOST), Obama is sneaking it in through the back door, by way of this Executive Order establishing the Council.  Because LOST is a treaty, Obama's Executive Order is not Constitutional as treaty ratification requires 2/3 approval from the Senate.  Michael Shaw said that the Agenda 21 Convention on Biodiversity treaty of 1992 failed to pass Congress so it was executed through soft law and administratively on local levels, and Obama's Executive Order is a similar soft law tactic to enact the LOST treaty.

In fact, our Constitutional form of government is being completely destroyed because buried in the CLEAR Act (HR 3534) there is a provision for a new council to oversee the outer continental shelf -- it appears that this Regional Outer Shelf Council will be part of the National Ocean Council.  This means that if Congress makes the CLEAR Act into law, then the implementation of the UN Law Of Sea Treaty, as part of the National Ocean Council's agenda, will be "ratified" in a convoluted and stealth manner, in full opposition to the Constitution and its intent.

The excuse for this extreme action is because of the emergency in the Gulf of Mexico.  Obama and Congress have always had the legal and military power to force BP Oil to take all necessary action to stop the gusher and clean the oil spew.  While there is evidence that the problems in the Gulf have been a result of collusion and planned incompetence, it begs the question, why in world should America's oceans and resources be controlled by Obama appointees?

Continue reading here . . .
Whatever happened to the Constitution?
Scott at PowerLine blog says if ObamaCare is constitutional, we have experienced the dissolution of limited government.  If the government can, among other things, command citizens to purchase health insurance of a prescribed shape and size, you can bet it will be using this power in a variety of (other) unpleasing ways in the future.  It's just a matter of time.  As the Tea Party folks recognize, it's time to take a stand.

Yet there has been remarkably little discussion of the constitutional revision involved here.  One wonders if we truly understand or appreciate limited government and the Constitution anymore.  They are at best an afterthought in the debate over ObamaCare.

In May National Review published Charles Kesler's superb essay "The Constitution, at last."  A far more appropriate title for the essay would have been "Whatever happened to the Constitution?"  That having been said, I want to bring this essay to your attention in connection with my own post, "An old argument revisited."
Obama’s Imperial Presidency
Bill McCollum says, in the words of our second president: We are a government of laws, not of men.  This key principle, which places our Constitution above our leaders, set young America apart from the governments of monarchical Europe.  Regrettably, Obama is endangering this venerable tradition by deliberately and systematically seeking to expand executive power well beyond its proper boundaries.  In the process, he is trampling both the constitutional authority of Congress and the sovereign rights of the states.

This bold power grab is directed at immigration, which is predominantly a domestic-policy matter, where unilateral presidential authority is inherently weak.  Obama’s efforts appear to be driven by crass political considerations, making them all the more unprecedented and unfortunate.

The principles of separation of powers and federalism comprise the foundation of America’s constitutional structure.  Separation of powers enables Congress to play a dominant role in domestic affairs and the president to enjoy robust authority in military and foreign affairs.  Federalism limits the authority of the federal government and allows the states to wield ample police powers.  The Obama administration’s immigration policy provides a vivid example of blatant disregard for separation of powers and federalism.

As its first order of business, the administration canceled state and local law-enforcement programs designed to help federal authorities arrest illegal aliens.  Next, it proceeded to rewrite federal immigration laws.  A recently leaked Department of Homeland Security memo describes a detailed plan for back-door amnesty for illegal aliens; it explains how to enact "meaningful immigration reform absent legislative action."  Finally, under White House direction, the Department of Justice has challenged Arizona’s new immigration statute -- because Arizona actually took existing federal immigration law seriously and decided to enforce it.

In the Arizona case, the Obama administration claims that Obama’s constitutional authority over foreign affairs gives him the power to control immigration enforcement within our borders, and that this authority trumps any attempt by Arizona to enforce federal immigration law.  What is truly remarkable about this claim is that the Arizona law is entirely consistent with federal statutory law.  The conflict arises because Obama has conspicuously chosen not to enforce a federal immigration law, even though his first duty is to "faithfully execute" the law.

Continue reading here, he's not done . . .
Obama's Burden Of Being So Bright
David Limbaugh says sorry, but I can't allow Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius' statement that "we have a lot of re-education to do" slip by without comment.  It's amusing when avowed leftists don't even recognize the Marxist buzzwords they're sputtering.

Sebelius is attributing the public's vehement opposition to ObamaCare to "misinformation given on a 24/7 basis. ...  Unfortunately," she said, "there still is a great deal of confusion about what is in (the ObamaCare law) and what isn't."  She is especially peeved about the vulnerability of seniors, who "have been a target of a lot of the misinformation." (The target of Obama's misinformation, perhaps.)

The most remarkable thing is that Sebelius didn't actually use the term "re-education" accidentally, or out of school.  Perhaps unwittingly, she's quite comfortable using a term long associated with tyrannical regimes.  As one of Obama's chief lieutenants, she obviously believes this administration knows better than the public what is good for them.

Indeed, one of the ongoing ironies of liberalism is that it holds itself out as open-minded, democratic and representative of the common man, when it is more comfortable dictating to and indoctrinating the masses.  Just look at our universities alone if you need quick, verifiable proof.  But let's consider a few other examples of this administration's employing that mindset.

When an audience member at a forum at the Kennedy School of Government told Obama adviser and close confidant Valerie Jarrett that Obama's ideas are too complex to be digested by the unwashed, she didn't protest.  The participant affectionately proposed that the White House express its ideas in an easier-to-comprehend form, such as printing simple booklets -- I assume replete with large print and colorful pictures.

Unflinching, Jarrett agreed it was a jolly idea.  "Everyone understood hope and change," she said (NO, THEY DIDN'T), because "they were simple. ...  Part of our challenge is to find a very simple way of communicating. ...  When I first got here, people kept talking about 'cloture' and 'reconciliation' and 'people don't know what that's talking about.'"  Then, the kicker, "There's nobody more self-critical than President Obama.  Part of the burden of being so bright is that he sees his error immediately."  How lonely it must be for these people at their perch high above the masses.

Then there's Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, who, in gloating that he is part of a "transformational administration," intends to "coerce people out of their cars."  Does it bother him that he's basically using government to dictate to people how they should behave?  Are you kidding?  When asked about such unseemly government intrusion, he cavalierly replied, "About everything we do around here is government intrusion in people's lives."  He continued, "I think we can change people's behavior."

Then there is Obama himself.  After his policy agenda was soundly repudiated with the victory of Scott Brown in the Massachusetts U.S. Senate race, instead of showing contrition or promising to modify ObamaCare to more closely align with the people's will, he became further entrenched.  He said, "I want everyone to take another look at the plan we've proposed."  He also said he just hadn't talked enough about his plan, which left me wondering where "Saturday Night Live's" writers were.

With this administration, what we're seeing is not just an arrogant contempt for the cognitive ability and will of the American people, but also a cynical determination to manipulate its will through indoctrination, selective suppression of speech, and trickery.

Obama's regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, wrote a Harvard Law Review article advocating "cognitive infiltration," which amounts to the government's use of phony websites and 501(c)(3) groups to masquerade as independent supporters of government policies and trolling opposing websites to pepper them with pro-administration posts.  In this way, the government can manipulate public opinion surreptitiously, all for the greater societal good, as defined by Obama/Sunstein liberals.  Even certain fellow liberal journalists have described this suggestion as "truly pernicious."

And let's not forget recent Obama Supreme Court appointee Elena Kagan's advocating the government's "unskewing" of speech that she and her fellow liberals believe harmful, i.e., conservative speech.

I truly hope people understand that Kathleen Sebelius' comment was neither offhanded nor out of line with the administration's MO; it was right in line with the administration's Orwellian approach to top-down, autocratic governance.
Obama’s Post-Midterm Strategy
Floyd and Mary Beth Brown say that just in case you have not heard the news, Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are gearing up for the mother of all battles just after the election.  They know that the American people are about to go to the polls and hand them a massive repudiation of their left-wing agenda, and they’re not happy.

Refusing to accept defeat, these three are planning a counterattack.  Instead of taking to heart the unmistakable message of the American people, they’re moving, full steam ahead, in the opposite direction.

Digging in with unprecedented and arrogant defiance, they’ve planned a legislative blitzkrieg during the coming lame-duck session of Congress in order to shove as much of their radical agenda, as humanly possible, down your throat before the new Congressmen and Senators can be sworn into office.

Barack Obama says there’s going to be "hand-to-hand combat."  As David Karki with The North Star National writes: "He [Obama] is not going to make like President Clinton in 1995 and move to the center to survive.  He will force upon us everything else he can, whatever way he has to."

To put it in the words of columnist Charles Krauthammer: "How then to prevent a runaway lame-duck Congress?  Bring the issue up now -- applying the check-and-balance of the people’s will before it disappears the morning after Election Day."

Can it happen?  You better believe it.  Krauthammer cautions: "They could then vote for anything -- including measures they today shun as the midterms approach and their seats are threatened -- because they would have nothing to lose.  They would be unemployed.  And playing along with Obama might even brighten the prospects for, say, an ambassadorship to a sunny Caribbean isle."

As scribe Ben Johnson points out, the threat doesn’t end even with the lame-duck session: "All indications are, if Obama cannot get his legislative agenda enacted by the lame-duck Congress, he will impose it by decree."

In an L.A. Times piece Peter Nicholas and Christi Parsons make clear the "fresh strategy" borders on government by executive fiat.  It begins, "As President Obama remakes his senior staff, he is also shaping a new approach for the second half of his term: to advance his agenda through executive actions he can take on his own, rather than pushing plans through an increasingly hostile Congress."

This rule by edict is confirmed by Obama strategist David Axelrod, who said, "It’s fair to say that the next phase is going to be less about legislative action than it is about managing the change that we’ve brought."

The L.A. Times continues:"So the best arena for Obama to execute his plans may be his own branch of government.  That means more executive orders, more use of the bully pulpit, and more deployment of his ample regulatory powers and the wide-ranging rulemaking authority of his Cabinet members."

Nicholas and Parsons note how the president has replaced the few appointees with ties to Capitol Hill in place of Chicago insiders.  They specifically state the "the Environmental Protection Agency is determined to use its regulatory power…to begin lowering [carbon] emissions, in the absence of congressional action."

The Associated Press also reported, "The Obama administration says it would prefer that Congress enact climate change legislation, but has used the threat of EPA regulations to goad lawmakers into action."

Congressional Republicans have accurately called the regulations "job-killers," and Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia has sponsored a two-year freeze on certain EPA regulations.  Now it looks as though Obama will ignore Rockefeller, the Republicans, and the will of the voters.

Rather than triangulate as Bill Clinton successfully did or take an electoral chastening, Obama plans to ram his agenda down the American people’s throats "by any means necessary."
Podesta:  Obama Can Use Armed Forces To Enforce Progressive Agenda
The Blaze is reporting that the liberal Center for American Progress doesn’t believe significant GOP gains in the House and Senate should stop Obama from implementing more of his polices.  The group released a report Tuesday suggesting ways he can bypass Congress to accomplish a progressive agenda, and it cites Obama’s power as [alleged] commander-in-chief to make its point.

"I think most of the conversation since the election has been about how President Obama adjusts to the new situation on Capitol Hill," Center for American Progress head and former Bill Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta told the Daily Caller.  "While that’s an important conversation, it simply ignores the president’s ability to use all levels of his power and authority to move the country forward."

How does one "move the country forward?"  In the center’s report, Podesta explains that Obama can use executive orders, rulemaking, and even the armed forces "to accomplish important change" and that such means "should not be underestimated."

What exactly does Podesta think Obama should use such powers to "accomplish?"  Among others, the report suggests "job creation," "quality affordable health care," "sustainable security," and "a clean energy future."

The report cites specific goals such as mitigating the effects of the military’s "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" policy, supporting a Palestinian state, and reducing greenhouse gasses by 17 percent by 2020.

"The U.S. Constitution and the laws of our nation grant the president significant authority to make and implement policy," Podesta writes. "Congressional gridlock does not mean the federal government stands still."

The Center for American Progress is funded by liberal billionaire, and NAZI collaborator, financier George Soros.

Related:  Trevor Loudon has found a new website called "Six Degrees of George Soros."  It was founded 4 days ago.  Currently they have 94 pages and are creating more as he writes. The idea is that you go to the site, type in a name, that person's page will come up with a brief bio, and the number degrees of separation between the named person and the man with the money, George Soros.  The producers of the website explain:
    

"Six Degrees of George Soros is a non-partisan web search game which shows the connections between Soros and the rest of the progressive machine.  Progressive/Liberals/Democrats can use this information to ease their minds in knowing George Soros’ influence is everywhere.  Conservatives/Tea Party Patriots/Republicans can use this information to freak out by knowing George Soros’ influence is everywhere."

    
The website is including individuals and organizations -- backing up much of their research with articles from KeyWiki -- the ever-expanding encyclopedia on the covert side of U.S. and Global politics.  They haven't got a whole lot of connections done yet, but check back from time to time for a play with the nifty search tool on their website.
Frustrating But Necessary
Obama said today he sympathizes with passenger complaints about aggressive body pat-downs at airports, but his counter-terrorism aides say they are necessary to guard against hidden explosives.

Balancing privacy and security is a "tough situation," Obama told reporters at a news conference following the NATO summit in Lisbon, Portugal.

"One of the most frustrating aspects of this fight against terrorism is that it has created a whole security apparatus around us that causes a huge inconvenience for all of us," Obama said.
        
Necessary?  Nonsense!

Obama is violating the constitutional rights of 99.9% of the flying public, because he refuses to psychology (not racial) profile the .1% of people who are a threat.

And what's with the, "...huge inconvenience for all of us," crap?  Obama doesn't have to endure this humiliation.

Remember the philosophy of this administration is, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."

Obama is using this "crisis" to eliminate your constitutional rights and further impose his brand of fascism on the American People.

Profile!  Profile!  Profile!  And leave Americans alone.

Related:  CAIR: TSA Can Only Pat Down Muslim Women’s Head, Neck
You Do Have a Messaging Problem, When Your Message Is Sheer Arrogance
Jeff Durstewitz says the latest attempt at rationalization from our friends on the left is that their devastating electoral rebuke is the result of "bad messaging."  In other words, Barack Obama, the man who evoked hosannas as the most eloquent and effective communicator since FDR, if not Lincoln (if not Jesus Christ and/or Julius Caesar), was a victim of his own unfortunate tongue-tiedness.  If only he could have gotten out his message of hope and change, his dwindling admirers lament, we could have kept marching toward the New Jerusalem of social justice and universal entitlement.

The subtext of such remarks, of course, is that we, the lumpen bozos, are too dense to appreciate the brilliance and moral superiority of the vanguard elite who bring us, out of the goodness of their hearts, "progressive" policies.  Leaving that problematic idea aside for a moment, it should be noted that the Democrats have actually begun to get a glimmer of a hint of a clue when they say they have a messaging problem.  That’s because you really do have a problem when the main thing you communicate is arrogance.

The latest proof of this is soon-to-be-ex-Speaker Pelosi’s act of noblesse oblige: She’s determined to keep leading (and pushing) the congressional Democrats off a cliff, thus helping preserve (to the Republicans’ glee) a constant reminder of the three amigos of the Dempocalypse: Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.  How to explain such a comically bone-headed move?  Simple: It’s the very essence of arrogance.

It’s the same arrogance that withheld what we wanted (a growth-friendly government) while giving us what we didn’t want -- a "stimulus" that mainly transferred money to unionized public workers (and thus back to the Democrats themselves via the dues siphon), a "cap-and-tax" bill, and a government takeover of Detroit, student loans, and health care.  And that congratulated itself at every turn.  And the same arrogance that sees us as small-minded wretches who can’t understand all this beneficence.  Such overweening arrogance is a byproduct of delusion.

And Pelosi actually does see herself as an avatar of progressive enlightenment.  For our own good, mind you, she’s determined to drag us, kicking and screaming, toward cradle-to-grave bliss.  As she no doubt firmly believes, the work of improving benighted humanity must continue, and she’s just the one to do it.  Could there be a better example of deluded arrogance?

Well, how about Barack "The Shining One" Obama?  When he said, "We are the ones we’ve been waiting for," wasn’t he really saying, "I’m the one you’ve been waiting for?"  He sold himself as the messiah not only of a weary United States but of a world weary of the United States back in ’08, when so many voters seemed to be guzzling Kool-Aid.  And now, his delusions of grandeur having fallen around his ears, he has the epic gall to tell us that we’re the problem!  If only we could have put aside our petty fears and focused on his sheer epoch-making magnitude, he’d still have both houses of Congress.  (And a virtual lock on creating a more radical federal judiciary to boot.)  If there were a Richter scale for self-regard, he’d drive the cursor off the chart.

Compounding their arrogance is the fact that the Democrats have largely become the party of people fundamentally ashamed, in some sense, of being Americans.  Affluent tri-coastal Obama-Pelosi liberals, with their high IQs, advanced degrees, and jobs that often seem, at least to them, to owe nothing to the grubby world of commerce, manufacturing, and marketing, are desperate to create an America that won’t embarrass the Harvard faculty.  Of course, that would imply that they don’t think very much of the country most Americans are actually quite fond of, a stance that could be expected to have harsh repercussions in a democracy.  But they see that as our problem, not theirs.

Just as the ancient Croesus is still associated with unimaginable wealth and Pyrrhus with unaffordable victory, so may Obama be associated, down the ages, with unfathomable arrogance.
Defying The Will Of The People
The Washington Examiner says sitting presidents whose agendas are soundly rejected by voters in midterm congressional elections have two options: They can either accommodate the new political reality, as President Clinton did after 1994; or they can use bureaucratic edicts to advance their unpopular programs, as Obama is clearly doing now.

Given the historic drubbing his party just suffered at the polls, Obama's defiant strategy may prevent a second term for the man who began his first buoyed by an outpouring of good will.

Predictably, Obama's regulatory imperialism focuses on labor and environmental issues, as Big Green activists and labor unions, especially those representing government workers, are the core of support for the Democratic president and his congressional allies.

At the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, for example, Administrator Lisa Jackson is moving forward with a massive new program to subject the entire U.S. economy to an anti-global warming regulatory straitjacket aimed at reducing carbon emissions.  Obama warned Congress last year that EPA would do this if the legislature failed to enact an Obama-supported version of cap and trade.  Cap and trade passed the House in 2009 but never got out of the Senate because of intense public opposition, especially in energy-rich states like West Virginia.  Now Jackson is following through on Obama's threat.

At the Department of Labor, Secretary Hilda Solis wasted no time after taking office last year in gutting long-standing rules requiring unions to disclose important details about how they spend members' dues.  Now, Patricia Smith, Obama's Labor Department solicitor general, is working with Solis to implement an unprecedented new enforcement directive designed to put businesses at the mercy of union bosses.  The directive provides, according to the Wall Street Journal's John Fund, for aggressive use of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration to compel business cooperation through "shaming" and to "engage in enterprise-wide enforcement."

The rest of the bureaucratic blitzkrieg will be carried out by Smith's eager staff of 400 labor lawyers.  Nathan Mehrens, Americans for Limited Government general counsel, says their agenda includes:
    

•  A focus on "cases against employers in priority industries."

•  Plans to "litigate cases that cut across regions."

•  Working to "identify and pursue test cases" to "challenge legal principles that impede worker protections; successful challenges will advance workers' rights, as will successful enunciation of new interpretations."

•  Engaging "in greater use of injunctive relief."

    
Meanwhile, as Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell wrote in last Friday's Examiner, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is pushing the lame-duck Congress to pass his Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, a laughably misnamed measure that will force public employee unions on all local and state police, fire and emergency medical technicians.  Obama supports Reid's bill, but its passage is far from assured.  Nobody will be surprised if, shortly after the Reid proposal fails on Capitol Hill, Obama unveils a new regulatory gambit to achieve the same end.
Not Triangulation But Regulation
Quin Hillyer says Obama laid down the marker, in early October.  His approach to new Republican strength on Capitol Hill, he said, will be nothing but "hand-to-hand combat."  The combat, however, may not take the form of traditional legislative battles.  Again and again, news stories in the fall cited Obama officials saying blandly that they will "use executive authority when blocked by Congress."  None of the reports seemed to find these statements remarkable.  Yet if officials in the Reagan or Bush administrations had spoken that way, Newsweek would have been warning of "an imperial presidency" and the New York Times would be hyperventilating about a proto-dictatorship.  Yet Republican teams' inclinations run to less regulation rather than more, and the Obama regime favors executive actions far more likely to limit freedom and seriously intrude on daily American life.

Indeed, the Obama team's disdain for small-r republican norms is breathtaking.  Even when enjoying huge Democratic congressional majorities, Obama already had pushed rule-by-administrative-fiat to a stunning degree.  What awaits, when Obama sees no chance of legislative success, is sure to be an audacious expansion of claimed executive powers -- unaccountable, unlimited, and quite arguably unconstitutional.  (Whether the courts recognize it as unconstitutional will be a close call, based on how effective Republican senators are at blocking Obama from seeding federal courts with radical leftists.)

It's not only conservatives who recognize this administration's aggressiveness.  OMB Watch, a respected but decidedly left-leaning nonprofit that tracks regulatory affairs full time, quite approvingly reported this in September: "In stark contrast to the George W. Bush administration, the Obama administration… has been far more active in pursuing its rulemaking responsibilities."  And: "[Environmental Protection Agency] Administrator Lisa Jackson...has set an active agenda.…  At the Department of Labor, [there have been] efforts to jumpstart a rulemaking engine…."  The NHTSA [National Highway Traffic Safety Administration] engaged in "a minor surge of rulemaking."  And so on.

No wonder an October 26 report by the Heritage Foundation succinctly concluded that "the burden of regulation on Americans increased at an alarming rate in fiscal year 2010.  Based on data from the Government Accountability Office, an unprecedented 43 major new regulations were imposed by Washington.  And based on reports from government regulators themselves, the total cost of these rules topped $26.5 billion, far more than any other year for which records are available."

Those costs are just for the new rules.  Overall, as Clyde Wayne Crews of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) reported, "a very rough extrapolation from an evaluation of the federal regulatory enterprise by economist Mark Crain estimates that annual regulatory compliance costs hit $1.187 trillion in 2009.…  Regulatory costs are equivalent to 63 percent of all 2007 corporate pretax profits of $1.89 trillion.…  Regulatory costs exceed estimated 2009 individual income taxes of $953 billion by 25 percent."  It's all so overwhelming, in fact that U.S. Chamber of Commerce president Thomas Donohue in a recent column called it "a regulatory hurricane."

Of course, not every regulation is more harmful than helpful, and not every new rule is an abuse of power.  But when bureaucrats consistently push to and beyond the outer limits of what Congress might possibly have intended, and when an administration implements by fiat what Congress repeatedly has considered and refused to pass, the collective diminution of freedom becomes alarming.

"This administration is unique in the scope of EPA's overreach," said Rosario Palmieri, a vice president at the National Association of Manufacturers.  "For example, the previous administration finalized a rule on a new ozone standard that was extremely costly.  This administration re-opened the rule and decided to make it even more stringent -- unnecessarily so -- and a new study we've commissioned says the new, more stringent ozone rule will cost us 7.3 million jobs by 2020."

With so many regulatory abuses occurring on so many fronts, it's hard to pick just a few to focus on.

Click here for some of the most egregious (some of them by quasi-independent agencies, but controlled by Obama appointees), both already enacted and/or pending . . .
Tyranny By Decree
Robert Knight says that over the past year, it has become obvious that what leftists cannot win at the ballot box, they will accomplish via bureaucratic dictate.  After the U.S. Senate in 2009 rejected the massive cap-and-tax scheme on carbon credits, the Obama administration rode to the rescue of global-warming fanatics.  On Dec. 7, 2009, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa P. Jackson issued a ruling that the EPA would begin regulating five "anthropogenic" (man-made) greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, the air we exhale.  The EPA based its finding on research from the now discredited U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and rejected at least 10 petitions for reconsideration.

So the EPA is now preparing to hound power plants and refineries by drafting carbon-emissions limits by July 2011, with a final rule due by May 2012.  Never mind the faltering U.S. economy and China's growing economic power.  The greenhouse gods must be appeased.

Not to be outdone, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in December began regulating the Internet.  Ignoring a recent court decision and Congress' pointed refusal to grant the FCC this power, the Democrat-dominated body simply voted 3-2 on Dec. 21 (the darkest day of the year) to adopt "net neutrality" rules.

They stopped just short of redefining the Internet as a telecommunication carrier, much like telephone services.  But the FCC's move puts the federal government in a position to begin meddling with content, something the left has salivated over ever since Obama began stacking the FCC staff with veterans of Marxist Robert McChesney's Free Press think tank and the far-left Center for American Progress.

Finally, the dreaded "death panels" are back.  Recall that on Christmas Eve 2009, Nevada Democratic Sen. Harry Reid's U.S. Senate rammed through the national health care system takeover.  They ignored public opposition and mocked the idea that federal bureaucrats would institute end-of-life counseling.  But, in deference to the public's growing alarm, they took out Section 1233.

It was a bait-and-switch.  A year later, on Christmas Day 2010, the New York Times broke the story that Donald Berwick, Obama's unvetted czar who heads the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, issued a rule to pay doctors for end-of-life counseling.  That was the essence of Section 1233.  The Times acknowledged that the counseling "may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment."  Exactly.

Continue reading here . . .
What State’s Rights?  What Constitution?
Jerry McConnell says this country is becoming one big pot for our usurper president and imminent dictator.  He shows his ignorance and unfamiliarity with the United States Constitution when he starts telling state Governors how to run their provinces which THEY were duly elected to govern.

This man who stole his way into the highest office in this land is either the most brazen, or the most stupid, or perhaps equal parts of each, iconoclast or rule breaker.

His position and statements against the elected authority of the Governor of the State of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, are a violation of states’ rights and the Constitution and are absolutely out of order; a brazen attempt to coddle labor unions as payback for the many millions of dollars of their members’ dues money that they used to get this charlatan elected in 2008.

Unions have outlived their usefulness and have become rotten and corrupt to the core by stealing the dues money their members pay for their illicit activities not the least of which is currying favor with highly elected officials in return for favorable assistance from those officials to gain added advantages in the union workplace through strong-arm and illegal tactics.

Just one look at the Black Panthers menacing presence at the voting polls in Philadelphia recently is enough to know where these cretins are coming from.  They want total control over all of America’s workers, including the places of business in which they work. And they’ll say or do anything to make it possible.

With incredible arrogance, the usurper president of the United States has accused Wisconsin Republican Governor Scott Walker, of unleashing "an assault" on unions by pressing legislation that would end collective bargaining rights for public employees and sharply increase their health care and pension payments, according to a February 18, 2011 FoxNews.com online report.

This double talking, conniving, deceiver is falsely accusing the recently elected state governor of "assaulting" unions "by pressing legislation that would end collective bargaining rights for public employees" just by having the public employees increase their health care and pension payments.  Wisconsin is not on an island where they pay insignificantly as their share for these benefits.  In private industries, the employees share of these costs are considerably higher than for those on the public payrolls.  But Obama, in deference to his friends in the union leadership roles, tries to pretend otherwise.

Continue reading here . . .
Obama Assaults Democracy By Rejecting Popular Consent
Does the "Will of the People" matter when government is run by a cadre of demigods?  After all, is it really immoral to force Americans to do the good and avoid the bad?  Contra, one can argue the very cornerstone of US constitutional theory is summed up in the doctrine of Consent of the Governed, since without acknowledging the popular will, every other act by government is tyranny.  Yet, former constitutional instructor Barack Obama constantly ignores and even flouts this principle in action.

Remember the Declaration’s immortal words:
    

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.  That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…

    
In ignoring America’s convictions, the current administration forfeits legitimacy, because each act done against consent furthers bitter reaction to non-representational government.  For example, 75% of Americans want ObamaCare amended.  Yet the liberals in power treat us as children.  Such a posture is an inversion of historic European Natural Law doctrines of self-government.  Does Obama believe himself so wise to want all rights of the people vested in him for safe-keeping?  Hasn’t this idea been attempted already in the USSR?

This essay, by Kelly O'Connell, examines "Obama and the Consent of the Governed"
Obama In Open Defiance Of Courts And Constitutionality
Robert Laurie says that last May, after millions of barrels of oil had been pumped into the ocean, Barack Obama issued an order to halt all U.S. deep sea drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Immediately, constitutionalists began to rail against the moratorium, which appeared to be a severe abuse of Presidential authority -- a quick grab for powers that the commander in chief simply doesn’t wield.  The courts agreed, and on June 22, an injunction was issued by U.S. District Judge, Martin Feldman, who argued that Obama’s directive was "overly broad."

A few hours after their defeat, U.S. Interior Secretary Kenneth Salazar issued a statement stating that the Obama administration would be presenting a "new order in the coming days that eliminates any doubt that a moratorium is needed, appropriate, and within our authorities."

A second drilling ban was enacted last July, only to be rescinded in October -- before Judge Feldman could rule on it.  Since then, the government has used a cadre of regulators to deny drilling and enforce a de facto ban.  In fact the government has not issued a single drilling permit in the last 9 months.

Two weeks ago, Judge Feldman found the Obama administration in contempt of court.

"Each step the government took following the court’s imposition of a preliminary injunction showcases its defiance," Feldman ruled.  "Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the re-imposition of a second blanket and substantively identical moratorium, and in light of the national importance of this case, provides this court with clear and convincing evidence of the government’s contempt."

The Obama administration has remained silent on the issue but, tellingly, their refusal to grant permits has not wavered.

This pattern is repeating itself in regards to Barack Obama’s landmark healthcare overhaul.  First, in December, U.S District Judge Henry E. Hudson determined that ObamaCare’s individual mandate was unconstitutional -- though he angered conservatives by refusing to extend his ruling to the entire bill.  A month later, however, Florida U.S. District Judge, Roger Vinson, did exactly that.

According to the Florida ruling, "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void."  Vinson went on to say that there was no need to issue an injunction against implementing the law since it’s illegal for the government to enforce an unconstitutional law in the first place.

"There is a long-standing presumption that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court, Vinson wrote in his judgment.  "As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.  There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here.  Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary."

Apparently, Obama simply doesn’t care.

Continue reading here . . .
Obama Is violating Article IV Of US Constitution
Political Junkie Too says it's time for Wisconsin Gov. Walker to take Obama to federal court on the grounds that Obama is violating Article IV of the US Constitution by leading the insurrection in Wisconsin.

Article IV Section 4:
    

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

    
Obama is openly working to undermine the Republican Form of Government in Wisconsin by blocking the state's legislative process, essentially attacking it by using its apparatus against itself.  He is effectively supporting the overthrow of the newly elected government and legislative process in Wisconsin by ignoring the Wisconsin State Constitution, just as he is ignoring the United States Constitution.

Obama, and his henchmen should be blocked and restrained from approaching Wisconsin legislators on the grounds that it violates the federal government's Article IV requirement to "guarantee... a Republican Form of Government" in Wisconsin.
Obama Goes Too Far By Mobilizing Opposition
Kyle Wingfield says there are many lessons to be learned from the protests and outright abdication of duty by public labor unions and Democrats (but I repeat myself) in Wisconsin.  One of them is that there can no longer be any doubts that Obama has radical ideas about the proper balance and relationship between the federal and state governments.
    

From the Washington Post:

President Obama thrust himself and his political operation this week into Wisconsin’s broiling budget battle, mobilizing opposition Thursday to a Republican bill that would curb public-worker benefits and planning similar protests in other state capitals.

Obama accused Scott Walker, the state’s new Republican governor, of unleashing an "assault" on unions in pushing emergency legislation that would change future collective-bargaining agreements that affect most public employees, including teachers.

The president’s political machine worked in close coordination Thursday with state and national union officials to get thousands of protesters to gather in Madison and to plan similar demonstrations in other state capitals.

Their efforts began to spread, as thousands of labor supporters turned out for a hearing in Columbus, Ohio, to protest a measure from Gov. John Kasich (R) that would cut collective-bargaining rights.

By the end of the day, Democratic Party officials were organizing additional demonstrations in Ohio and Indiana, where an effort is underway to trim benefits for public workers.  Some union activists predicted similar protests in Missouri, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

   
Let me make my position perfectly clear: The president of the United States has no business whatsoever interfering, especially by using his campaign apparatus, with a state government’s dealings with its employees.

No. Business.  Whatsoever.

His eagerness to jump into the fray in Madison, like his ill-advised wading into the dispute over the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates two summers ago, not only betrays his disturbing instinct to think nothing is beyond the bounds of his office.  It actually demeans the office itself.

Continue reading here . . .

Related:  Obama's Organizing for America's Facebook page

Related:  The CPUSA describes union action as "an historic action by workers."
Has Obama Crossed the Line?
Liz Blaine says, and so it begins.  As Islamist insurrections erupt across the world, Obama incites a battle at home between producers and parasites that his union supporters parallel with the struggle of the Egyptian people.  Interjecting himself into the sovereign matters of state governments Obama moved to directly violate the expressed will of the Wisconsin People by actively mobilizing his political organization to affect contractual relationships between the state and its employees, and supporting the shut down of the Wisconsin state government -- a direct violation of his oath of office.  Ignited by Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s proposal to limit public sector collective bargaining rights for benefits by requiring union members to contribute 12.6% of their income towards their healthcare plans and 5.8% towards their pension, DNC Chairman Timothy M. Kaine worked in close coordination with Obama’s political apparatus, Organizing for America (OFA), and state & national union leaders to rally public sector employees to protest at state capitals across the nation this month.

A Community Organizer is paid to foment resentment and class envy.  That’s how they gain power and influence.  The Agitator-In-Chief fueled the flames of union dissension, declaring limits on collective bargaining rights an "assault on unions," encouraged mob rule across the nation to negate the last elections, and directly violated the powers reserved to the States in the U.S. Constitution’s 10th Amendment.  Quoting Mark Jefferson, executive director of the Republican Party of Wisconsin, in an RPW press release,
    

"To willfully prevent elected officials from performing their official duties in order to circumvent the legislative process flies in the face of democracy."

    
Obama has radical ideas about the relationship between the federal and state governments.  As head of the federal government, he has no standing to organize or allocate resources to interfere with a state’s contractual relationship, to openly encourage an illegal strike by militant protestors to shut down a state government, or interfere in any way with a state’s ability to conduct its business.  All are impeachable offenses.  But as the Heritage Foundation Morning Bell outlines, this is precisely what Obama did.
    

"President Barack Obama has federalized the issue, throwing the full weight of the White House, the Democratic National Committee, and his own Organizing for America operation behind government unions, with the assistance of the SEIU and AFSCME unions."

    
At no time in American history during a period of non-war has a president’s violations of the Constitution and utter disregard for the separation between state and federal rights been so prevalent.  Obama’s infringements range from ordering the Department of Justice to partner with eleven countries to sue Arizona for passing an immigration enforcement law to intimidating Oklahoma over its English-only referendum, denying Texas federal monies if the state refused to violate its own constitution, and forcing an unconstitutional healthcare law down our collective throats.  But his latest abuse of power threatens to undermine democracy by emboldening mob rule against any state government or legislature that threatens the Left’s pot of gold.

The current trend in states re-evaluating their collective bargaining agreements creates a life or death struggle for the unions and the Democratic Party -- a threat to their criminal partnership.  Unions overwhelmingly support left-wing causes with their financial war chests and Democrats, in return, funnel taxpayer money back to the unions, robbing taxpayers and draining state treasuries into a fiscal abyss.  Between 1990 and 2010 unions spent $734 million in campaign contributions, with $668 million going to the Democratic Party.  That’s 91% of all union political contributions!  In short, without labor unions and their millions pouring into DNC coffers, there would be no Democratic Party.
    
    
The stakes are extremely high.  The Left has invested a tremendous amount of time, energy, and money into the redistribution of private wealth and, like pigs at the trough, will not rest until every dollar is sucked from the public coffers.  Union leaders are planning for battles and pouring resources into states facing budget crises, setting aside $30m for upcoming campaigns across the nation.  Leftwing activists are instructing protestors on how to use class warfare, and declaring their commitment to "breaking up America."  The perceived threat to Obama, the DNC and the unions is inescapable as they define this as their signature issue for the 2012 elections.  Democrats, union thugs, anarchists, socialists and communists are uniting against their opponents to wage war throughout the country in coming months using intimidation and threats of violence.  Wisconsin is ground zero in their battle and the reports of violent, threatening, destructive, and uncivil behavior coming out of the state indicate the Left is willing to turn the streets of America into Egypt.

CNS News reports,
    

"[Mark] Jefferson said that the signs that they have seen both inside the Capitol building and in the streets have led many to fear for the safety of the governor and Republican supporters of the legislation."

"There is fear for Scott Walker’s safety but also for that of the Republican legislators as well.  We’re very concerned when we see signs out there with crosshairs over Scott Walker’s photo, when we see the disgusting comparisons to Hitler.  Right now there is a sign hanging in the Senate wing of the Capitol with all of the photos of the entire Senate Republican Caucus and it says 'Republican Senators Want to Take Your Rights.  Don’t Continue to Let Them Walk Through the People’s House Unnoticed.'"

"Jefferson also said that he was trying to confirm reports that union protesters were attempting to figure out if there were escape routes that Republican legislators might try and use to get away from the Capitol."

    
Michelle Malkin disclosed that the Wisconsin Assembly was forced to abruptly adjourn their session because,
    

"Enough credible threats to the security of the Assemblymen and their staff came into the Capitol Police to cause them to tell the Assembly leadership that their safety could no longer be assured."

    
Obama made his stand in support of Wisconsin’s Egypt-like moment.  In doing so he violated the boundary between state and federal rights by allocating federal resources for the purpose of preventing elected officials from performing their official duties and interfering with a state’s ability to conduct its business.  Obama had full knowledge of the militant protestors' historical use of threats and intimidation to achieve their goal.  These are impeachable offenses -- direct violations of the Constitution.  A sitting president continues to violate his oath of office, putting the interests of his campaign supporters ahead of the interests of the American people.  What will prevent him from further abdication of his constitutional duties?
   

"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men." ~ John Adams, 1776

    
Obama Flouts The Rule Of Law
The New York Post asks, just what is it about the rule of law that Obama doesn't get?

The Justice Department announced Wednesday that it now believes the federal Defense of Marriage Act -- which defines marriage as being a legal union between one man and one woman -- is unconstitutional, and said it will no longer defend the law in court.

So, just like that, Obama & Co. effectively declare null a law duly passed by Congress, signed by a previous president -- and presumptively binding on the government until either the courts or Congress declare otherwise.

It's a breathtaking act of arrogance, a precedent so fraught that it threatens one of the nation's bedrock founding principles: That America was to be ruled by law, not by individuals.

Presidents have found particular laws vexatious for as long as there have been presidents.  Still, when Franklin Roosevelt decided he didn't like legislation forced on him by Congress, he had sufficient respect for the law itself to attempt to pack the Supreme Court with friendly justices.

He lost.  He should have.

And it's not as if Obama, et al., don't understand the basic issue: Last October, the administration got it right in similar circumstances.

While disagreeing with the "Don't ask, don't tell" law blocking gays from serving openly in the military -- and despite objections from his left-wing base -- Obama declared that he was obliged to follow and defend the law.  He added that he wanted DADT repealed by Congress rather than by the courts -- which is exactly what happened two months later.

But now this.

It's hard to see anything other than politics driving the announcement: Obama is pandering to his lefty base, because the newly Republican House won't be doing away with DOMA on its own.  It's a dangerous game.

What happens if -- a few years from now, should ObamaCare finally be fully installed as the law of the land -- a different president deems that law unconstitutional and refuses to defend it?

That president could just point to Obama's DOMA precedent -- and would he be wrong?  Precedent matters, after all.

Not that Obama seems to care.

Related:  Obama Not Just Above the Law; He Is the Law

Related:  Obama's Homosexual America
Will Obama Declare Constitution Unconstitutional?
John Lillpop accepts that conservatives are not always the sharpest knives in the drawer.  We right-wingers sometimes have difficulty grasping the deep, elusive logic of intellectual elitists on the left like Barack Obama when it comes to great and serious questions concerning the U.S. Constitution.

For example, we find it difficult to understand how it is that the man who invented ObamaCare, which has been ruled unconstitutional by two separate courts, feels qualified to unilaterally decide that the Defense of Marriage Act, law of the land for 15 years, is suddenly unconstitutional, thereby freeing himself from the responsibility to defend said law in fulfillment of his Oath of Office.

According to unreliable sources, it appears that Obama will make a major announcement that will CHANGE everything in America.

The gist of that announcement: The U.S. Constitution is unconstitutional because women and racial, sexual preference, and religious minorities were all under represented in 1776.  Indeed, without any openly gay men or transgender people involved in the crafting of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, all such documents must be declared null and void.  Other excluded minorities include women, terrorists, and illegal aliens.  Without factoring in the wishes and needs of terrorists and illegal aliens how in the world can our democracy function?

The answer, of course, is that it cannot, which is why Obama will soon declare the Constitution itself unconstitutional!

Of course, if Obama really gave a tinker’s dam about the Constitution, he would scrap his outrageous law suit against the state of Arizona for protecting its citizens from invaders.

He would move to scrap ObamaCare, which was rammed down the throats of unwilling Americans with legislative sleight of hands and bribery when the votes were not there to follow the rules.

He would understand that forcing citizens to purchase health care insurance, or face the ravages of the IRS, is barbaric and unconstitutional.

He would understand that the Constitution is very specific when it comes to the eligibility of any person to serve as president.  Thus, he would make every effort to be completely honest and transparent with the American people concerning questions about his own eligibility.

He would understand that the Constitution sets forth provisions for separation of powers, meant to assure that the Executive Branch is accountable to the people through the oversight function performed by Congress.

He would understand that installation of stealth Czars in order to circumvent Congressional oversight is a repudiation of the Constitution.

He would understand that voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party is not acceptable simply because the intimidated are not people of color.

He would understand that actions taken to grant rights reserved for citizens to terrorists are anti-American acts of treason.

He would understand that the Constitution requires the president to secure our borders and enforce our immigration laws so as to protect the American people.

He would understand that it is the president’s Constitutional obligation to serve as America’s Commander-in-Chief, which requires him to use war powers prudently to defend the American people, rather than using those powers as political footballs.

Above all else, if he were genuine, Obama would understand that the will of the people should be the first priority for any political entity wishing to govern, and that that applies to taxes, illegal invasions, health care, terrorists, and all major issues of the day.

The fact is that Barack Obama views the Constitution as an impediment to his Marxist agenda, and he MUST be stopped.
Obama Has Become The Law
David Limbaugh says Obama's brazenly calculated move to unilaterally abandon the federal Defense of Marriage Act showcases his attitude that he is above the law.

DOMA defines marriage as "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" for purposes of all federal laws, rules and regulations (Section 3).  It specifies that no state shall be required to honor laws of other states that treat same-sex relationships as legal marriages -- effectively carving out an exception to the Constitution's full faith and credit clause (Section 2).

Congress passed this law by enormous majorities (Senate 85-14, House 342-67) in response to political pressure in some states to redefine marriage, especially a Hawaiian court's decision suggesting the Hawaii Constitution conferred the right to same-sex marriage.  Congress was worried that, among other things, same-sex couples living in other states might go to Hawaii to marry and demand that their home states recognize their marriages.

It seems that in enacting this law, the federal government was quite scrupulous in deferring to the sovereignty of the states by pronouncing a federal standard for marriage applicable to federal laws but not presuming to encroach on states' authority to set their own standards.  It affirmed the states' prerogative by providing that their marriage laws would not be abrogated or diminished by conflicting laws of other states, but did not preclude them from honoring, if they so choose, laws of other states validating same-sex marriages.

During his presidential campaign, Obama stated that he did not support same-sex marriage but that he did believe that DOMA should be repealed.  He gave no hint that he would take it upon himself to issue a presidential edict, without a congressional bill placed before him, forbidding the executive branch from enforcing the law.  But that is precisely what he did this week.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced that Obama had concluded that the administration would no longer defend Section 3 of DOMA.  Holder acknowledged that the Justice Department had previously defended DOMA in court under a "rational basis standard."  (It's interesting they chose Section 3, because many legal scholars believe Section 2 is more vulnerable to a constitutional challenge.)  But he said Obama now believes that "a more heightened standard of scrutiny" should be required for laws involving same-sex marriage -- the same standard that applies to "laws targeting minority groups with a history of discrimination."

To understand the magnitude of Obama's action, we must again consider the above-cited fact that both chambers of Congress passed DOMA by overwhelming majorities reflecting the will of the people that marriage be defined, for legal and policy purposes, as it always had been.  Also, no federal appellate court has ruled the statute unconstitutional.

As he has in so many other areas (EPA, the offshore drilling ban, IMF), Obama has usurped the authority of the other two coequal branches of government to make himself, in effect, not just chief executive but super-legislator and a supreme judicial authority.

Holder admitted in his statement that the Justice Department "has a longstanding practice of defending the constitutionality of duly-enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense," but not otherwise.

But it is preposterous to suggest there are no reasonable arguments to defend the statute when 5,000 years of human history and the express act of Congress fly in the face of that statement.  According to professor John Yoo, "in the few cases that the Supreme Court has heard gay rights cases, it has never adopted (the standard Obama is applying)."

In announcing a new standard, Obama claims that the legal landscape has changed in the 15 years since DOMA was passed.  You know the drill: Society has "evolved."  That's highly dubious in view of the fact that even people in some liberal states have expressed their preference for preserving the traditional definition of marriage.  Further, it is not Obama's place to make this determination, especially when the people have already done so in such emphatic terms through their duly elected congressmen.  If the people want the law changed, they can lobby their congressmen to change it or marshal their lawyers to argue their position in actual cases before the courts.

In response to leftists arguing that President George W. Bush also declined to enforce a federal statute, Yoo says that Obama's action is distinguishable.  Bush did so in cases in which he was resisting congressional intrusions into the executive's constitutional authorities in the area of national security.  Here there are no alleged encroachments on executive authority; it's just that Obama has a different opinion than the American people and has decided to implement it unilaterally.

So now we have an imperial president who is refusing to enforce a law passed by powerful congressional majorities while persisting in enforcing a law (ObamaCare) that two federal courts have already ruled unconstitutional.  The only common denominator is that Obama believes he is the law.
 
On December 20, 2007, during the presidential campaign, the Boston Globe published a list of 12 questions to and answers from Barack Obama under the title, "Barack Obama's Q&A."  The second question put to Obama was:
    

2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress?  (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

    
Obama's response:
    

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States.  In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.  History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch.  It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that "any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress."  The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon.  While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

    
Obama's offensive military action taken by the United States against Libya WAS NOT explicitly authorized by Congress.  It was authorized by the United Nations.  The elected representatives of the American People had no say in the matter.

Obama acted on his own authority -- an authority he does not have, and which he affirms by his own statement above.
One World Government Obama
Ben Stein says maybe I missed something, but wasn't that The Constitution of the United States of America that we just laid to rest this weekend?

It was buried in a private ceremony by Mr. Barack Obama of Chicago as he silently signed America on to the One World Government some of us have been worried about for decades.

Look at it this way: Where did Mr. Obama get the authority to commit United States forces to war in Libya?  There was no declaration of war.  There was no authorizing resolution by Congress allowing money to be spent on a war against Col. Gaddafi.  As far as I know, there was no meeting of Mr. Obama and top leaders of Congress to discuss the subject in even rough form, let alone detail.  There was no lengthy buildup in which the Congress was "allowed" to express the people's opinion on whether we want to be in a third concurrent war.

There was just a vote by the United Nations Security Council, a very far from unanimous vote, and suddenly, Obama's Secretary of State, Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton, solemnly announced that we were at war.

But, when did we amend the Constitution to declare that the United Nations had control over our military?  When did we abolish the part of the Constitution that said Congress had the right to declare war?  Now, I well know that in recent postwar conflicts, we don't have declarations of war.  But we have Congressional debates.  We have funding votes.  We have a sense of the Congress or some kind of resolution.

This time, zip.  Nada.  Nothing.  Just France and the U.K. and Norway saying that it's time to go to war, and off America goes to war.  And off Mr. and Mrs. Obama go to a South American "fact finding" trip for the POTUS and a fun sightseeing junket for the Obama girls.

(I wonder if there has ever before in history been a national leader who sent his country to war -- and the same day went off on vacation.  Has that ever happened before? )

Something's missing here.  Libya and Col. Gaddafi were and are no threat to the United States.  It is sad and cruel that the Gaddafi regime was murdering its own civilians, but so do many governments all across the world, including North Korea, Iran, the Ivory Coast, Zimbabwe, and Cuba.  Are we going to war with all of them, now?

Meanwhile, again, what the heck happened to the Constitution?  Is this Mr. Obama's legacy to our children?  The junking of the Constitution in the middle of the night and the turnover of our sovereignty to the United Nations?  (By the way, this is the same UN where Libya until recently sat on the Commission on Human Rights.)  Why aren't any questions being asked?  Is the Constitution that meaningless to us?  Are we that pitiful now?  Are we willing to toss overboard the Constitution for the writ of the United Nations?  I guess so.  Sad days.
Obama’s Unilateral Choice
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett says Obama’s unilateral choice to order U.S. military force against Qadhafi is an affront to Our Constitution.

Congressman Roscoe Bartlett released the following statement today concerning the situation in Libya.  Congressman Bartlett represents Maryland’s Sixth District and he is the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces of the House Armed Services Committee.
    

"The United States does not have a King's army.  President Obama's unilateral choice to use U.S. military force in Libya is an affront to our Constitution.  President Obama's administration has repeated the mistakes of the Clinton administration concerning bombing in Kosovo and the George W. Bush administration concerning invading Iraq by failing to request and obtain from the U.S. Congress unambiguous prior authorization to use military force against a country that has not attacked U.S. territory, the U.S. military or U.S. citizens.  This is particularly ironic considering then-Senator Obama campaigned for the Democratic nomination based upon his opposition to President George W. Bush's decision to invade Iraq."

"Moammar Qadhafi is a tyrant despised throughout the Middle East and North Africa.  His brutal and merciless attacks against his own citizens are horrific.  It is self-evident that the tragic situation in Libya is not an emergency since the Obama administration sought and obtained support from both the Arab League and the United Nations Security Council to authorize military force against Qadhafi.  The Obama administration also had time to organize a 22-nation coalition to implement a no-fly zone with military attacks led by U.S. Armed Forces against Qadhafi’s forces.  Nonetheless, the Obama administration failed to seek approval from the American people and their elected legislators in the Congress.  Failing to obtain authorization from the U.S. Congress means that President Obama has taken sole responsibility for the outcome of using U.S. military forces against Qadhafi onto his shoulders and his administration."

    
The War Powers (Resolution) Act is found as 50 USC S.1541-1548, passed in 1973 over the veto of President Nixon.  It's supposed to be the mechanism by which the president may use US Armed Forces.  It purports to spell out the situations under which he may deploy the Forces with and without a Congressional declaration of war.

The particularly relevant portion is S.1541(c), which reads:

(c) Presidential Executive Power as Commander-in-Chief; Limitation: The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

None of those situations exist in Libya.
Amateur Hour At The White House
Jeffrey T. Kuhner says Obama has lost his legitimacy to remain in office.  The Libyan war has exposed the administration's lawlessness and rampant criminality.  If Republicans and conservatives are serious about restoring constitutional government, they will demand that Obama be impeached.

The war is going badly.  The coalition is cracking; the strategic aims of the military intervention are not clear; Russia, China, India and Brazil oppose it; the Arab League is condemning the deaths of innocent Libyans caused by Operation Odyssey Dawn; and it appears that Moammar Gadhafi will succeed in clinging to power -- defying the international community and humiliating the United States.  Obama has called for Col. Gadhafi to step down.  He has staked American prestige and power on helping bring about that end.  The failure to achieve this will render America a paper tiger on the world stage.  We will no longer be feared or respected.

NATO forces launched air strikes in order to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya.  The goal: to prevent Col. Gadhafi's forces from slaughtering civilians.  As Gadhafi loyalists marched toward the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, Obama decided to implement an American rescue mission.  This mission, however, differs from previous ones in Kuwait, Bosnia and Kosovo.  The United States is not taking the lead; rather, it is following the French and British.  America is no longer acting like a superpower but a poodle of Paris and London.

Obama has engaged U.S. forces -- risking precious blood and treasure -- without a clear strategy for victory.  He recklessly has allowed his country to be sucked into a conflict without a real national debate or consensus.  His policy is shoddy, half-baked and irresponsible.  It is amateur hour at the White House.

The most disturbing aspect, however, is the intervention's lack of constitutional and legal authority.  It is an illegal war.  The Constitution clearly stipulates that only Congress can authorize the use of military force -- unless American territory has been invaded, is under imminent threat, or U.S. citizens have been directly attacked, the president must first ask for congressional approval before ordering any kind of military action.  To do otherwise is to behave like a despot.

That is why the Founding Fathers insisted that going to war could be sanctioned only by the people's representatives.  The most serious act of any state is to use military force -- to demand that countrymen risk their lives on behalf of their nation.  Hence, congressional input and approval is necessary as a fundamental check and balance against an imperial president.

Obama claims he does not need congressional authority.  His behavior reflects contempt for the rule of law and American democracy.  His arbitrary will trumps legal restraints.  Unless he is stopped and removed from office, we are a constitutional republic in name only.

His blatant abuse of power is illegal, immoral and hypocritical. During the war in Iraq, then-Sen. Barack Obama criticized President George W. Bush for not asking Congress for a formal declaration of war.  On Dec. 20, 2007, Obama said in a speech that the "president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

Continue reading here . . .
Obama Continues To Ignore Congress
Jonathan Allen and Meredith Shiner say Barack Obama’s foreign policy "A" team -- led by Cabinet secretaries Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates -- failed to quiet criticism of U.S. military action in Libya Wednesday during a pair of classified briefings on Capitol Hill.

More than anything, the meetings served to underscore how little influence Congress has in shaping the war.

Lawmakers said they weren’t told much by Secretary of State Clinton, Secretary of Defense Gates, Joint Chiefs Chairman Michael Mullen or Director of National Intelligence James Clapper that they couldn’t read in the newspaper or see on television.

They said one dynamic was very clear: The administration doesn’t much care what Congress thinks about the actions it’s taken so far.

Challenged on whether Obama overstepped his constitutional authority in attacking Libya without congressional approval, Clinton told lawmakers that White House lawyers were OK with it and that Obama has no plans to seek an endorsement from Congress.

And, as if to add insult to injury, news broke during the House briefing that Obama had already signed an order authorizing covert action in support of the rebels.  When asked about it after the first briefing, House members were unaware Obama had taken that action.

"I have no knowledge of what he signed," said Maryland Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

Continue reading here . . .
The Attack On Libya Crossed A Very Bright Constitutional Line
Rep. Tom McClintock (R–CA) says that when Obama ordered the attack on Libya without Congressional authorization, he crossed a very bright Constitutional line that he himself recognized in 2007 when he told the Boston Globe "Obama does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

The reason the American Founders reserved the question of war to Congress was that they wanted to assure that so momentous a decision could not be made by a single individual.  They had watched European kings plunge their nations into bloody and debilitating wars and wanted to avoid that fate for the American Republic.

The most fatal and consequential decision a nation can make is to go to war, and the American Founders wanted that decision made by all the representatives of the people after careful deliberation.  Only when Congress has made that fateful decision does it fall to Obama as Commander in Chief to command our armed forces in that war.

The authors of the Constitution were explicit on this point. In Federalist 69, Alexander Hamilton drew a sharp distinction between the American President’s authority as Commander in Chief, which he said "would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces" and that of the British king who could actually declare war.

To contend that Obama has the legal authority to commit an act of war without Congressional approval requires ignoring every word the Constitution’s authors said on this subject -- and they said quite a lot.

There seems to be a widespread misconception that under the War Powers Act, Obama may order any attack on any country he wants for 60 days without Congressional approval.  This is completely false.  The War Powers Act is clear and unambiguous: Obama may only order our armed forces into hostilities under three very specific conditions: (quoting directly from the Act): "(1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

Only if one of these conditions is present can Obama invoke the War Powers Act.  None are present or alleged to be present, and thus Obama is in direct violation of that Act.

The United Nations Participation Act requires specific congressional authorization before American forces are ordered into hostilities in United Nations actions.  The North Atlantic Treaty clearly requires troops under NATO command to be deployed in accordance with their country’s constitutional provisions.  The War Powers Act specifically forbids inferring from any treaty the power to order American forces into hostilities without specific congressional authorization.

The only conclusion we can make is that this was an illegal and unconstitutional act of the highest significance.

Obama has implied that he didn’t have time for Congressional authorization to avert a humanitarian disaster in Libya.  He had plenty of time to get a resolution from the United Nations.  I would remind him that just a day after the unprovoked bombing of Pearl Harbor, Franklin Roosevelt appeared in this very chamber to request and receive congressional authorization.

Some have said that Obama can do whatever he wishes and that Congress’s authority is limited to cutting off funds.  War is not a one-sided act that can be turned on and off with Congressional funding.  Once any nation commits an act of war against another, from that moment it is AT WAR -- inextricably embroiled and entangled with an aggrieved and belligerent party that has casus belli to prosecute hostilities regardless of what Congress then decides.

Finally, I’ve heard it said, "we did the same thing in Kosovo."  If that is the case, then shame on the Congress that tolerated it.  And shame on us if we allow this act to stand unchallenged any longer.

This matter strikes at the heart of the Constitution.  If this act is allowed to stand, it will fundamentally change the entire character of the legislative and executive functions on the most momentous decision a nation can make and take us down a dark and bloody road the American Founders fought so hard to avoid.
DoJ:  Obama Can Send U.S. Troops To Do The UN's Bidding By Decree
The Justice Department has decided: it is perfectly acceptable for Obama to send American troops into foreign military adventures without so much as consulting Congress, as long as he is carrying out the will of the United Nations.

Just before Barack Obama's speech on the budget on Wednesday, the White House revealed that American jets have continued to bomb Libya, after giving the impression this would end.  Since the "hand-off," U.S. troops have operated under NATO command.  And some figures are beginning to catch on that there is no evidence the Libyan intervention prevented genocide.

With the evidence piling up, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) weighed in on Obama's war-by-decree in Libya.  Although figures as diverse as Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich have declared the military adventure is grounds for impeachment, the OLC found that Obama acted within his "constitutional authority."  James M. Lindsay of the Council on Foreign Relations mentioned the report on the CFR's blog last Friday.  The OLC's opinion states:
    

As we advised you prior to the commencement of military operations, we believe that, under these circumstances, the President had constitutional authority, as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive and pursuant to his foreign affairs powers, to direct such limited military operations abroad, even without prior specific congressional approval.

    
It states "a variety or national interests…alone or in combination, may justify use of military force by a President."  Among them is "maintaining the credibility of United Nations Security Council mandates" or "enforcing UNSC mandates," citing such national mistakes as Haiti, Bosnia, and Somalia.  Libya involved "the combinations of at least two national interests…preserving regional stability and supporting the UNSC's credibility and effectiveness," and this "provided a sufficient basis for the President's [sic. -- government entities always capitalize their titles as though they were Oriental deities] exercise of his constitutional authority to to order the use of military force."

This means two things: 1) Barack Obama had time to consult with the OLC, as well as the Arab League, NATO, and the United Nations Security Council before war, but not Congress; and 2) the OLC could not care less about the Founding Fathers' interpretation of our founding document.

Indeed, the OLC says as much in its opinion.  Obama's top legal advisers state their "understanding of the President's constitutional authority reflects not only the express assignment of powers and responsibilities to the President and congress in the Constitution, but also, as noted, the 'historical gloss' placed on the Constitution by two centuries of practice."

Under this scheme, violations of the Constitution become as important as the words of the Constitution.

Continue reading here . . .
President Rambo's Extralegal War In Libya
The Washington Examiner says, "The auto rescue succeeded in no small part because we did not have to deal with Congress," writes Steve Rattner, Obama's former car czar. Had Congress exercised its constitutional duty of authorizing and overseeing the bailout, Rattner adds, "we would have been subject to endless congressional posturing, deliberating, bickering, and micromanagement. ..."  This excerpt from Rattner's book "Overhaul" expresses what appears to be the Obama administration's deep impatience with the carefully designed deliberative processes of our constitutional republic.  Concerning Congress and the U.S. role in Libya, however, Obama's attitude seems to be passing from impatience to contempt.  It is all the more upsetting because, as our own Timothy P. Carney notes in these pages today, Obama ran against precisely the sort of imperial presidency he is now running.

When he began his "kinetic military action" in Libya, without any serious debate or consultation with our country's elected representatives, Obama justified himself by invoking the War Powers Resolution of 1973.  Under its loosest possible interpretation, that law gives a wartime president a 60-day grace period before he must seek congressional authorization to continue.  Those 60 days ended Friday, as several members of Congress reminded Obama in a letter last week.  His response to that letter, which Obama's communications staff deliberately buried in the Friday afternoon news dump, demonstrated that he wants to have it both ways.  He was happy to take advantage of the purported 60-day grace period -- which may itself be too permissive to meet constitutional muster -- but he is not so keen on obeying the same law's requirement to obtain authorization from Congress for further involvement.

Obama argued in his letter that the Libyan action, in which the United States continues to participate in bombing raids, is sufficiently nonkinetic as to obviate the need for congressional approval.  Under Obama's theory, presidents can start and wage low-intensity conflicts indefinitely without any approval from Congress, despite the Constitution's clear position that only Congress can commit this nation to war.  We are not alone in recognizing this inconsistency.  Last week, liberal Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., complained that Obama is "shredding the Constitution" with his refusal to submit to congressional authority.  He told CNN: "When a president defiantly violates the law, that really undercuts our effort to urge other countries to have the rule of law."  It is a sad statement that Turkey, whose parliament authorized its involvement in Libya, is in that respect a shining example of democracy in comparison with the U.S.

It is Congress' prerogative to debate the merits of the Libyan intervention.  And were Obama to seek Congress' approval, he might even receive it.  But his refusal to ask evinces a dangerous and arrogant lawlessness.  Perhaps Obama thinks he is Rambo after the successful American mission that killed Osama bin Laden.  Perhaps he thinks he is still in Chicago, where elected officials routinely flout the law without consequence.  Whatever his delusion, it is time for Obama to snap out of it and obey the law.
The Subversive
Scott at PowerLine takes note of Caroline Glick's Jerusalem Post column on Prime Minister Netanyahu's close encounter with Obama last week, we find this condensed account of the challenge raised by Obama's leadership style:
    

Obama's leadership model is the model of subversive leadership.  Subversive leaders in democracies do not tell their citizens where they wish to lead their societies.  They hide their goals from their citizens, because they understand that their citizens do not share their goals.  Then once they achieve their unspoken goals, they present their people with a fait accompli and announce that only they are competent to shepherd their societies through the radical shift they undertook behind the public's back.

    
Several examples spring to mind, but for the moment let us just note that this explains a lot.
Bipartisan Congress Rebuffs Obama On Libya Mission
Stephen Dinan is reporting that the vast majority of the House voted Friday for resolutions telling Obama he has broken the constitutional chain of authority by committing U.S. troops to the international military mission in Libya.

In two votes -- on competing resolutions that amounted to legislative lectures -- Congress escalated the brewing constitutional clash over whether Obama ignored the founding document’s grant of war powers by sending U.S. troops to aid in enforcing a no-fly zone and naval blockade of Libya.

The resolutions were non-binding, and only one of them passed, but taken together, roughly three-quarters of the House voted to put Obama on notice that he must explain himself or else face future consequences, possibly including having funds for the war cut off.

"He has a chance to get this right.  If he doesn’t, Congress will exercise its constitutional authority and make it right," said House Speaker John A. Boehner, the Ohio Republican who wrote the resolution that passed, 268-145, and sets a two-week deadline for Obama to deliver the information the House is seeking.

Minutes after approving Boehner’s measure, the House defeated an even more strongly-worded resolution offered by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Ohio Democrat, that would have insisted Obama begin a withdrawal of troops.

Most lawmakers said that was too rash at this point, and said they wanted to give him time to comply.  Some also said immediate withdrawal would leave U.S. allies in the lurch.

The Kucinich resolution failed 148-265.  In a telling signal, 87 Republicans voted for the Kucinich resolution -- more than the 61 Democrats that did.

Still, taken together, 324 members of Congress voted for one resolution or both resolutions, including 91 Democrats, or nearly half the caucus.  The size of the votes signals overwhelming discontent with Obama’s handling of the constitutional issues surrounding the Libya fight.
Comments . . .
***  
 

© Copyright  Beckwith  2010 - 2011
All right reserved