Defunding: The Framers’ Remedy for Presidential Lawlessness

Photo Credit: American Spectator President Obama does not have the authority to choose which parts of the law are enforced. In 1975, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously against President Richard Nixon’s inflated claims that he could selectively carry out the law. But going to court to keep presidents in line is slow and necessitates finding litigants to sue the president. The framers gave Congress a more practical way to resist a power-hungry president: defunding. Defunding is precisely what members of Congress are supposed to do when a president breaks the law. It’s checks and balances in action. Two centuries ago, the chief architect of the U.S. Constitution James Madison declared in Federalist No. 58 that Congress’s authority over spending is the “most complete and effectual tool” to stop a president from grabbing more power than the Constitution allows.

Utah Senator Mike Lee is taking a page out of Madison’s playbook. On July 17 Lee urged Congress to vote against any continuing resolution to fund the federal government after September 30 so long as it funds Obamacare. “Laws are supposed to be made by Congress, not…[by] the president, who has now amended Obamacare twice. Once by saying individuals have to comply with the law during their first year but employers don’t. Then in saying we aren’t even going to require people to prove their income.” Lee said that if the administration is not prepared to fully enforce Obamacare as enacted, it should agree to delay the entire law and remove its funding from the budget. Eleven fellow Republican Senators and at least 60 Republican House members have signed on to Lee’s defunding stance.

Lee’s constitutional case is air tight. Yet the Democratic Party and Obama’s supporters in the media are trying to label the defunding strategy “government sabotage,” “radicalism,” and “obstructionism.” They need a refresher course on the Constitution.

Read more from this story HERE.

The Small Presidency: Let’s Give It Another Try

Photo Credit: National ReviewAction is something Americans of both parties demand of their presidents these days. This is natural for Democrats, whose heritage is all action, starting with Franklin Roosevelt and his Hundred Days. But Republicans like energy and a big executive as well. Over the course of the campaign this past year, any number of political stars, including Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana, argued that only an energetic candidate would be up to the job of managing the U.S. fiscal crisis. Mitt Romney worked hard to let voters know his party could beat the Democrats in the legislative arena. He swore up and down that, à la Roosevelt, he would get off to a running start, sending five bills to Congress and signing five executive orders on his first day in the Oval Office.

The Grand Old Party’s abiding affection for a “bigger and better” presidency isn’t entirely logical. After all, the Obama presidency commenced with an effort to reenact the Hundred Days. Yet President Obama’s first-term economic performance itself was not “big” but mediocre, tiny even. Perhaps Republicans should consider whether inaction on the part of the White House can be desirable. Perhaps, led by Republicans, the United States could benefit from trying out an unfashionable idea: the small presidency.

Evidence from a near-forgotten period, the early 1920s, instructs us. In those days the country was suffering economic turmoil similar to our own. Because of a crisis — World War I — the government had intruded in business and financial markets in unprecedented fashion, nationalizing the railroads, shutting down the stock market, and entering the debt market with war bonds.

Central bankers warned that the only reason the government’s large debt hadn’t set off a fiscal apocalypse was that interest rates had not yet commenced what they deemed an inevitable rise. Angry veterans, many of them disabled, were having trouble finding jobs, and many people assumed a new federal entitlement, veteran pensions, would be established within the year. A recent and active president, Theodore Roosevelt, had taught the nation that the Oval Office was a “bully pulpit.”

But this was not the view of the two candidates on the 1920 Republican ticket, Warren Harding of Ohio and Calvin Coolidge of Massachusetts. The pair coolly campaigned on the humdrum, underwhelming motto of “normalcy,” meaning a reduction in uncertainty. The White House was no bully pulpit; the Republican elephant should not be an elephant in a china shop. After winning the presidency, Harding continued to endorse inaction. “No altered system will work a miracle,” Harding told the crowds at his March 1921 inauguration. “Any wild experiment will only add to the confusion. Our best assurance lies in efficient administration of the proven system.” Harding wanted to ensure that government did less so that commerce might enjoy free range. He pushed for and got tax cuts for businesses hindered by large levies, and he readied a plan to privatize naval oil reserves.

Read more from this story HERE.

Hey GOP, Take the Palin Cure: She’s hot, she’s blue collar, she’s electable.

The Republican Party has been doing a lot of hand-wringing and finger-pointing since the presidential election. Half the conservative columnists and bloggers say the GOP lost because it overemphasized social issues such as abortion and gay marriage. The other half says the party didn’t emphasize them enough. And everyone denounces Project ORCA, the campaign’s attempt to turn out voters via technology.

But I’ve got a suggestion for cutting short the GOP angst: Sarah Palin for president in 2016.

You think I’m joking? Think again.

In 2008, Palin, running as my party’s vice presidential candidate, was widely supposed to have cost John McCain the election. But that wasn’t so. A national exit poll conducted by CNN asked voters whether Palin was a factor in their voting. Of those who said yes, 56% voted for McCain versus 43% for Barack Obama.

Furthermore, Mitt Romney, the GOP’s anointed contender this year, got almost a million fewer votes than McCain did in 2008. (Meanwhile, President Obama, although winning reelection, lost far more voters than the Republicans, with nearly 7 million fewer voters checking his name on their ballots than did in 2008).

Read more from this story HERE.

Dinesh D’Souza’s 2016 Obama Documentary Blows Away Industry Estimates, Grossing Millions

Dinesh D’Souza felt that President Barack Obama had been telling his story to Americans for years. The conservative author wanted to give them a different version. So he worked on a documentary, “2016: Obama’s America,” that put the president in a more critical light. And apparently, there’s an audience that agrees with D’Souza’s vision.

In its first week in wider distribution, the documentary grossed an estimated $6.2 million, far exceeding industry expectations, according to independent distributor Rocky Mountain Pictures. That was virtually the same amount as the major studio action film “Premium Rush” collected – and “Obama’s America” was playing in roughly 1,100 fewer theaters.

“I realized Obama was telling his own story in his own voice and thought it would be interesting to use his voice in a documentary where it would be indisputable to people that this was Obama’s own narrative,” said D’Souza, who wrote and directed the film with John Sullivan.

The film draws heavily from D’Souza’s own life, as he describes how coming to study in America from his native India helped to shape his political ideology. Throughout the 90-minute film, he often addresses the camera face-forward, pointing out the similarities between his upbringing and Obama’s. Many of the author’s arguments about Obama’s support of anti-colonialism are drawn from D’Souza’s controversial book “The Roots of Obama’s Rage,” and the movie frequently uses dramatic reenactments featuring unknown actors to depict past events.

Heading into the weekend, pre-release audience surveys suggested “Obama’s America” would gross about $4 million – but by midday Friday, ticket sales were so brisk that estimates were lifted to $6 million. The movie debuted seven weeks ago here and had raked in $2.4 million as it expanded from 169 theaters to 1,091 locations this weekend. The film currently is in 12 theaters in the Houston area. In total, the film has sold $9.1 million worth of tickets.

Read more from this story HERE.

Video: Unearthed – Obama calls newborn baby a ‘fetus outside of the womb’

Did Obama vote in favor of infanticide? Pro-life activists have long made the argument that he did, and that a conspiracy of silence from the mainstream media is the only thing that has prevented Americans from knowing the full extent of Obama’s extreme views on the abortion issue.

Now, newly unearthed audio from 2002 shows Barack Obama, then a state senator in Illinois, discussing the bill that has elicited charges that he voted to allow “infanticide.” Read more from this story HERE. Obama’s extreme statements begin at 3:20:

Obama’s race-card gambit

While Vice President Joseph R. Biden’s “back in chains” remark in front of a largely black audience on Aug. 14 definitely can be considered race-baiting, based on the Obama administration’s reaction, it was more an off-the-cuff embarrassment than part of a calculated effort to rile black Americans and engender fear.

Not that there isn’t an effort on the part of the Obama campaign to do so. There most certainly is, and we can count on it to intensify as this presidential campaign wears on. I asserted some time ago that the 2012 presidential race would be “the race card on steroids,” but not necessarily through Mr. Obama’s campaign demonizing his opponent via accusations of racism. A photograph of Mitt Romney’s father, George, participating in a civil rights march in Grosse Pointe, Mich., in 1963 already has become practically iconic in conservative circles and no doubt will be at the ready should race come into play against candidate Mitt Romney.

The reason Camp Obama will continue to foment racial discord is, quite simply, the reason it has done so since 2008. The radical elements with whom President Obama was politically aligned before seeking the presidency were aware of the latitude they likely would enjoy were Mr. Obama to become president. This included black nationalist factions such as the New Black Panther Party, with whom he demonstrated in 2007, as well as the Nation of Islam. Their activities since Mr. Obama was inaugurated bear witness to this fact.

The significance of Mr. Obama keeping such bedfellows cannot be understated. This differs from the case of Mr. Obama’s former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who is merely an America-damning racist. It has been documented that the Weather Underground, which Mr. Obama’s comrade William Ayers helped found, once advocated killing off 25 million Americans in order to make its point to the remaining 200 million. Outfits like the Nation of Islam and the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) literally view whites and Jews as manifestly evil, if not subhuman, and the NBPP is calling for armed insurrection and the genocide of whites right now.

Analysts and even news junkies are aware that extemporaneous exposition is not Mr. Obama’s strong suit. From Cambridge, Mass., police having “acted stupidly” when they arrested his friend, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, in 2009 to Mr. Obama’s “you didn’t build that” remark this summer, he’s demonstrated a proclivity for getting into trouble when he goes off the teleprompter.

Read more from this story HERE.

Alaskan Navy Seal who wrote book on bin Laden killing identified, faces likely probe

On Wednesday this week, Reuters reported that a Navy Seal had written a book about the mission that killed Osama bin Laden. The book, entitled “No Easy Day: The Firsthand Account of the Mission that Killed Osama bin Laden,” was written by a former Seal Team Six member under the pseudonym of “Mark Owen” along with co-author Kevin Maurer. The publisher states that it will be released on 9/11.

According to Reuters:

The U.S. government was surprised by the news that a Navy SEAL who participated in the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan has written a book about the operation in which the al Qaeda leader was killed, U.S. officials said on Wednesday. . . It was not vetted by government agencies to ensure that no secrets were revealed.

The agencies not consulted included the Pentagon and the CIA. The publisher, Dutton of the U.S. Penguin Group, responded:

The book was vetted by a former special operations attorney. He vetted it for tactical, technical, and procedural information as well as information that could be considered classified by compilation and found it to be without risk to national security.

After a bit of sleuthing, Fox News discovered that the author was part of the elite team that killed three Somalian pirates who had taken control of an American vessel in the Indian Ocean in 2009, and that

“Mark Owen,” the pseudonym under which the book was written, is actually 35 year-old Matt Bissonnette of Wrangell, Alaska. Bissonnette held the rank of chief in the elite Navy SEAL Team 6 prior to retiring. He was one of the first men in the room where bin Laden died, witnessing the occurrence first-hand.

Some have called Fox’s decision to publicize Bissonnette’s name and location “astonishing” as it most certainly puts the former Navy Seal at risk of reprisal by Islamic fanatics.  Fox disagreed, noting that anyone who publishes such a book loses any reasonable expectation of privacy.  The network also contended that Bissonnette’s goal is to publicly confront Obama for “taking credit” for the raid, since he had cited the need to “set the record straight.”

It now appears that Obama may be attempting to preempt this confrontation. According to Reuters, Bissonnette is likely to face a Department of Defense probe over his failure to have the book “cleared” prior to publication:

Colonel Tim Nye, spokesman for the U.S. Special Operations Command, or SOCOM, which directs operations by Navy SEALs and other special operations forces, said on Thursday that SOCOM did not review the book before publication, nor had the SEALs.

Nye said that because the book had not been subjected to appropriate pre-publication review, it could become a target of “potential investigation” by government authorities.

Unfortunately for Obama, “any such inquiry was unlikely to be launched until after the book’s publication, scheduled for the anniversary of the September 11 attacks on the United States.”


Obama plans military intervention in Syria to seize Assad’s chemical weapons

The Pentagon has made contingency plans to send small teams of special operations troops into Syria if the White House decides it needs to secure chemical weapons depots now controlled by security forces loyal to President Bashar Assad, senior U.S. officials said.

President Obama warned this week that any effort by Assad to move or use his arsenal of chemical munitions in the country’s conflict would cross a “red line,” implying it could prompt swift U.S. intervention.

But Pentagon planners are more focused on protecting or destroying any Syrian stockpiles that are left unguarded and at risk falling into the hands of rebel fighters or militias aligned with Al Qaeda, Hezbollah or other militant groups.

Securing the sites would probably involve stealthy raids by special operations teams trained to handle such weapons, and precision airstrikes to incinerate the chemicals without dispersing them in the air, the officials said. U.S. satellites and drone aircraft already maintain partial surveillance of the sites.

U.S. intelligence agencies believe Syria has over the years produced or acquired hundreds of tons of sarin nerve agent and mustard gas, a blister agent, and has sought to develop VX, another powerful nerve gas. The toxicity of some chemical agents degrades significantly over time, so it is unclear how lethal the stockpiles are.

Read more from this story HERE.

Glenn Beck interview with FRC shooting eyewitness General Boykin

Glenn Beck interviewed retired General Boykin, who was at the Family Research Council at the time of the shooting this past week, about what he saw. Although there is a practical media black out on this, it’s fairly clear that the shooter intended a mass murder. Each of the 15 Chick-fil-A bags were apparently intended to be dropped next to each victim:

GLENN BECK: I think — we think that that’s only relevant because they think that’s his plan — that’s where he learned what he was going to do with GM, but that’s another story. We have a friend that works at the Family Research Council, Lieutenant general Jerry Boykin. He is on the phone. There was a tragedy this week, as you may know. A gunman came in, shot a security guard, and, of course, the press hasn’t stopped talking about it. Oh, no. Wait. They did. This one is — this one is significant because the shooter was a volunteer. This is a leftist — this is a political terrorist strike. General Jerry Boykin with us. General, how are you, sir?

GENERAL BOYKIN: I’m good, Glenn. It’s good to be with you. I’m not quite sure why you played that clip from the President in this segment that I’m on.

GLENN BECK: I really think it’s — I really think it’s because — it’s his plan for the economy, but help me out on — you were — you were actually there when the shooter came?

GENERAL BOYKIN: I was. It was about 10:46 on Wednesday morning. He walked in the lobby, set a backpack down in front of the guard desk and then reached in his backpack. Fortunately this guard who was actually the building manager but kind of dual roles as a guard, realized something was up and got out of his chair and approached the man and just as the man pulled a pistol, pointed it at his head, this gentle giant of a guard reached up and grabbed the gun and he shot him — the gunman shot our man Leo Johnson in the wrist but with one arm, Leo wrestled this man to the ground and took his gun away from him and what a hero this guy was. He saved a lot of people and there’s no question, Glenn, this guy’s intent based on the fact that he had about 50 rounds of ammunition and 15 Chick-fil-A bags was this was going to be a mass murder on our — a large scale.

GLENN BECK: You actually talked to the gunman?

GENERAL BOYKIN: I listened as the gunman lay on the floor talking to police and he said, I don’t like the policies here and, you know, he — in fact, he stated that to the guard, as well. So, yeah, it was — there was no question what his motive was. He tied us to Chick-fil-A and I think the scenario is — it doesn’t take much imagination, Glenn. He was going to go through and kill as many people as he could and drop Chick-fil-A bags at every dead body to send a signal that he was reacting to the — our stance on traditional marriage, that being between a man and a woman.

Read more at Page 2 HERE.

Enough on Akin’s ignorance, where’s the media outrage over Obama’s support for infanticide?

In the wake of the Akin controversy, Jill Stanek points out that the US Senate candidate’s verbal missteps do not even register next to Obama’s radical support for infanticide.  She gives a brief history on the President’s endorsement of killing babies born alive after abortions:

“As Illinois state senator Obama opposed the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act, designed to give abortion survivors constitutional rights. Obama said giving premature born babies rights would be unconstitutional. Period. That’s what he said. Read page 86 of the senate floor transcript, when Obama was the only senator to speak against Born Alive. Read what Obama said very carefully:

Whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or other elements of the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – a child, a 9-month-old – child that was delivered to term.

That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute. For that purpose, I think it would probably be found unconstitutional.

Obama’s support of abortion to the point of condoning infanticide could not be clearer. It is grotesque, barbaric, sick and yes, crazy. It is the radical belief of our current president of the United States.

And the press continues to minimize, distort, rationalize, or ignore it, because the press is pro-abortion and likes Obama.”  Read more from this story HERE.

Erik Erickson weighed in as well:

Todd Akin, the Republican Senate nominee in Missouri, made an inarticulate and rather dumb statement about rape and abortion on television in Missouri. He subsequently clarified his remarks. Congressman Akin, like many devout Christians, does not believe in a rape exception for abortion.

Naturally, the very same left that gave Joe Biden a pass on his “put y’all back in chains” comment is horrified by Todd Akin’s remarks.

Todd Akin was inarticulate. Some are now accusing him of being pro-rape. The people horrified by Todd Akin’s remarks are, I’m sure, thrilled to have a President who defended infanticide. I’ll take Todd Akin’s inarticulate remarks over an infanticide supporter any day of the week.

And no, this is not hyperbole. President Obama was the only member of the Illinois State Senate to speak in favor of the position that a child who survives an abortion and fully exits the womb can still be killed by the abortionist.

Read more from this story HERE.