Archive for the ‘Communism’ Category
I can’t imagine why!
According to a new Pew Research Center poll, the majority of Americans say the federal government threatens their personal rights.
The poll, conducted from Jan. 9th-13th among 1,500 adults, found that 53% of those surveyed think the federal government threatens their own personal rights and freedoms, the highest level found since Pew began polling on this subject in 1995. This outcome also represents the first time since Pew began polling that a majority of Americans saw the government as a threat. In March of 2010, 47% of those polled said that they viewed government as a threat to freedom.
The latest Pew survey also included questions about gun laws. Not surprisingly, given the current national controversy about gun control and Second Amendment rights, 62% of gun owners believe that the federal government poses a fundamental threat to their constitutional rights and freedom.
In addition, the survey found that, over the past two years, the percentage of conservative Republicans who view the government as a threat to freedom has jumped from 62% to 76%. 54% of conservatives consider government to be a “major threat” to their constitutional rights.
Now the question is, what are they going to DO about it?
Learn the lessons of history. This is how third-world dictators marginalize their opponents before grabbing the tyrannical powers necessary to dispose of them.
One of the most remarkable and frightening aspects of President Barack Obama’s inaugural address was his dismissal of his opposition – presumably the House Republican caucus – as “absolutists” who are without “principle.”
They are mucking up Obama’s agenda, and he won’t have it.
[...] Absolutism, as defined by Merriam-Webster, is a form of despotism – “government by an absolute ruler or authority.” That the president of the United States is accusing his democratically-elected opponents of acting in a tyrannical fashion is a remarkable development with potentially profound implications.
Once the president’s opponents have been defined in the American mind as despotically inclined, unsusceptible to reason, and unwilling to play by the normal rules of politics, it is only natural that extreme measures are permitted in response.
This White House has already shown a propensity toward ruling by executive fiat – whether by executive action that effectively enacts rejected legislation, by refusing to enforce existing law, or by crafting rules for legislation to grant vast new powers to bureaucrats.
Once it has de-legitimized the opposition, the White House can claim it is left with no choice but to accelerate and expand its use of executive power. What else can they do, the president and his operatives will argue, when faced with the insanity of the Republicans?
The press, which avidly buys into the notion that much of the House Republican caucus is beyond reason, will lend a sympathetic ear to Obama as he struggles with the forces of darkness.
In the address itself, President Obama made the case that liberty is not timeless; that it must adjust to the times, and that “preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action”–not to defend those freedoms from infringement, but to give them “meaning” through government regulation and redistribution.
White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer put the point more bluntly in remarks published earlier today:
“There’s a moment of opportunity now that’s important,” Pfeiffer said. “What’s frustrating is that we don’t have a political system or an opposition party worthy of the opportunity.”
Note the contempt in Pfeiffer’s words–not just for the political opposition, but for the political system itself–a system designed by the Framers to include checks and balances to hold government power firmly in check.
[...] A year ago, President Obama observed: “[I]t turns out our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change that I would like sometimes.” Back then, facing re-election, he promised to be patient. Today, he is impatient–with the opposition, and the system itself. He will destroy both, if necessary, to achieve his vision of America–one where “government alone” does not do everything, but rather dictates to individuals what they should do, and choose, and want, to serve its sweeping designs.
Ben Shapiro on Obama’s ‘Orwellian’ Inaugural Speech
View on YouTube
Throughout most of human history, transfers of power involved the coronation of a king or emperor, who’s only claim to power was either his birth or the conquest of his rival, whose reign was for life, and whose subjects were at his complete mercy.
Two centuries ago, our founders gave us a radically different system, where leaders were chosen from among the people to be public servants who were held accountable by the people, where no man (regardless of position) was above the law, where power was limited to prevent its abuse, where God alone was our King, and where government was prevented from taking that dictatorial role in people’s lives.
It is an awesome privilege to be the beneficiary of such a gift, and yet it carries a heavy responsibility of civic duty to hold our government and public servants accountable when they overstep their legitimate, constitutional authority.
Today was a day of inauguration, not coronation. We respect the results of the election, but we also remember that the constitutional limits of government power and the rule of law that protects our liberties are NEVER up for a vote.
Today, it was not just a president who is being inaugurated, but also We The People, who must shoulder our responsibility to uphold and defend the constitution against all threats, foreign and domestic. May we take that solemn charge faithfully and honorably, as our founders did.
And we start, by recognizing the threats promised by the newly inauguration president against our liberties:
Sounding the same themes of class warfare that propelled his re-election campaign, President Barack Obama devoted his second inaugural address to laying out his second term agenda: a struggle to undo the seeming injustices of America’s past, and to overcome the army of straw men that stand in opposition to progress.
In the process, President Obama attempted nothing less than an assault on the timeless notion of liberty itself:
Through it all, we have never relinquished our skepticism of central authority, nor have we succumbed to the fiction that all society’s ills can be cured through government alone.
But we have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.
After praising the “collective” and mocking the notion that America is a “nation of takers,” President Obama targeted the political opposition. He targeted those who “deny” climate change, attacked those who allegedly refused to reward the elderly for their contributions, and defied critics whom he said wanted “perpetual war.” He attacked the rich–as he has done so often over the past four years–and painted a caricature of an unjust nation: “…our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it….We do not believe that in this country, freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few.”
President Obama’s address failed to deliver on promises earlier in the day by senior political adviser David Axelrod that the speech would sound themes of national unity on a day of national “consecration.” Instead, the president sounded combative themes familiar from his divisive first term, albeit wrapped occasionally in the lofty rhetoric of “hope” and “tolerance,” and punctuated by the repeated refrain: “We, the People.”
[...] Throughout his address, the President maintained his voice in a near-shout. This was not an historic address, a reflection on a moment in history; it was an exhortation to political action, in contrast to the political reality of a divided Washington, in defiance of the profound economic challenges still facing the American people.
It was a declaration of political war on individual liberty. It was a wasted opportunity–and a warning.
Obama spelled out his true agenda: destroying founding principles about limited government to meet changing times. While paying lip service to “our skepticism of central authority,” Obama said that times have changed, and “so must we”: “fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges … preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.” This was the sheerest form of rhetoric sophistry; equating freedom with government control is an perverse reversal of language. Of course, the Constitution was written based on the notion that human nature does not change – people are not angels, nor devils, but self-interested creatures capable of greatness or evil, who must be checked against each other. But Obama doesn’t believe that. He believes that man can be made anew.
But only by government. And so Obama demonized limited government as anarchism, suggesting that meeting “the demands of today’s world by acting alone” is like forcing American soldiers to meet “the forces of fascism or communism with muskets and militias” – a straw man argument so blatant it appeared Obama would wheel out Ray Bolger to present it. In pursuing his agenda, Obama made clear that he will ignore basic realities – “we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future.” He made clear that he will create false histories – “we remember the lessons of our past, when twilight years were spent in poverty, and parents of a child with a disability had nowhere to turn.” He made clear that he will redefine taking and giving – those who wish to save their money for their families and children are “takers,” and those who wish to confiscate the wealth of others “strengthen us.”
In the end, Obama’s argument was a collectivist one. And it was an argument designed to irreparably tear this nation apart. Obama himself said it: “Being true to our founding documents does not require us to agree on every contour of life; it does not mean we will all define liberty in exactly the same way …”
But this renders the Declaration of Independence Obama cited completely meaningless. The founders may have disagreed on many things, but they agreed on the meaning of liberty: the right to live as an individual, without centralized planning infringing basic property rights, economic opportunities, and religious freedoms. Obama’s fundamental redefinition of liberty to include communitarianism is not merely wrong, it spells the end of the political commonality that has held the fabric of the nation together. If we define liberty differently, then there is nothing to talk about: my liberty is your tyranny, and vice versa. Our goals can never be shared. That gap can never be bridged.
Obama’s Pastor Calls Republicans ‘Enemies,’ Prays For ‘Battle,’ Chants ‘Forward!’ During Church Service
Obama sure knows how to pick the radical wackos. Never, in all my years attending different churches, have I EVER heard a pastor attack a particular group of people as “enemies,” ESPECIALLY over political differences!
I guarantee that if a pastor from a church that a conservative (Sarah Palin?) attended made comments about going into “battle” against Democrat “enemies,” the news media would be freaking out for a week about the “controversy” surrounding his “violent,” “extremist” rhetoric, demanding his resignation, and they’d have all the dirt from his past dug up within 24 hours.
At Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church, Braxton reportedly crafted his speech around Obama’s personal political slogan: “Forward!”
Obama, said Braxton, was just like Moses facing the Red Sea: “forward is the only option … The people couldn’t turn around. The only thing that they could do was to go forward.” Obama, said Braxton, would have to overcome all obstacles – like opposition from Republicans, presumably, or the bounds of the Constitution. Braxton continued, “Mr. President, stand on the rock,” citing to Moses standing on Mount Horeb as his people camped outside the land of Israel.
In case Braxton missed it, America won its freedom 237 years ago, and the slaves were freed 150 years ago – by a REPUBLICAN. Obama isn’t leading anybody out of slavery. He’s leading them INTO slavery – the slavery of dependence on the Welfare State, which black conservatives like Star Parker call “Uncle Sam’s Plantation.”
But it wasn’t enough to compare Obama with the founder of Judaism and the prophet of the Bible. Braxton added that Obama’s opponents were like the Biblical enemies of Moses, and that Obama would have to enter the battle because “sometimes enemies insist on doing it the hard way.”
So anybody who doesn’t immediately bow and cave to Obama’s political agenda is an “enemy?” Funny, I thought Jesus taught believers to LOVE their enemies.
The service ended with the pastor leading the crowd in a chant of “Forward.” Really.
This was no religious service. It was a worship service for the man Newsweek labeled “The Second Coming.” And if Obama thinks anything like the pastor he chose just before taking his oath of office, America is in for a long, narcissistic, imperial four years.
Where is the IRS to challenge the church’s tax exempt status for preaching politics from the pulpit? Oh, that’s right: they only enforce that against conservative churches that don’t worship at the altar of the Almighty Messianic Welfare State.
I’m so sick of this narcissist being compared to my Lord and Savior. This is the kind of crap you see in banana republic dictatorships that worship their leaders as Messianic, god-like figures. In America, our leaders are PUBLIC SERVANTS. NOT gods!
Even the byline, “America expects, can he deliver?” suggests that it’s the president’s job to rise to god-like expectations of those who look to him as their provider and savior. That is NOT the role of ANY government official, least of all the chief executive of a country founded on freedom!
People have been deifying Obama for four years now, and he NEVER speaks out against it. He’s a narcissist and it strokes his ego. He basks in it. It is VERY SICK!
Why would a teacher’s association want an unrepentant domestic terrorist - who participated in three bombings and regretted that he didn’t do more - as their keynote speaker regarding educating America’s youth? This is the equivalent of inviting Timothy McVey to speak.
Is THIS the kind of person they admire, who’s advice on molding young minds they want to follow? Just imagine what they’re teaching their students if they have such little discretion and no moral compass!
The Association of Teacher Educators has recruited Chicago professor – and former domestic terrorist – William Ayers to speak at their the 2013 Annual Meeting in Atlanta, Georgia which will be held next month.
William Ayers, a co-founder of the radical Weather Underground domestic terror group, was a key figure during the 2008 presidential campaign due to his Chicago ties to then-Senator Obama.
The organization’s executive director, David Ritchey, confirmed that Ayers would be a keynote speaker at the conference although he admitted that he wasn’t involved in the selection process.
Ritchey added that although Ayers was a controversial figure he had been invited due to his “work in the education field, apart from all the other stuff.”
The website biography makes no specific mention of Ayers’ controversial background, describing him as the “formerly Distinguished Professor of Education and Senior University Scholar at the University of Illinois at Chicago.”
The only “work” Ayers does in education is indoctrinating students with his radical ideas and training others how to do the same. Although this teachers’ association won’t publicly condone his actions, they don’t condemn them either, and they clearly agree with his radical leftist ideas, or else they wouldn’t have invited him to share them.
Mark Levin Goes Off On ‘Tyranny’ Under Obama’s ‘Imperial Presidency’ To Fox’s Megyn Kelly
View on YouTube
Right on the mark!
On Monday’s broadcast of “America Live” with host Megyn Kelly, conservative radio talk show host Mark Levin made an appearance to elaborate on remarks he made on his radio show last week about the president and his disregard for the Constitution.
Levin referred to Obama as an “imperial president” and pointed to his rhetoric about what he will do in lieu of legislative action by Congress by using executive order.
“I’m not into imperial presidents who act imperial and speak imperial and Obama forgets there’s a Constitution,” Levin said. “Yes, he keeps telling us he won re-election, congratulations. But guess what, the Constitution wasn’t up for election. It’s not up for a plebiscite or referendum. He has to comply with it, too. He was sent back to Washington, but he’s got a strict list of rules that he has to follow as president. So when he gets up there and starts saying, ‘If Congress doesn’t do this I’m going to do this unilaterally,’ it violates separation of powers a lot of the times. And this a man who’s been pushing the edge of the envelope as far as I’m concerned, whether it’s the appointment clause, whether it’s his unilateral on immigration, whether it’s his trashing the commerce clause and tax clause under ObamaCare. Now they’re talking about executive orders on the Second Amendment. They’ve issued regulations on the First Amendment attacking religious liberty. This notion that he might be able to lift the debt ceiling, you know, unilaterally under the 14th amendment.”
“What the hell is this?” Levin said. “He was elected president. Congratulations. This guy makes Richard Nixon look like a man who followed the law all the time. I think we have an imperial president. He sounds imperial, he’s arrogant as hell and so, I’m furious about this and I’m going to tell you why. We are a magnificent country. We don’t need to be turned upside-down. We don’t need to run from crisis to crisis to crisis. He’s bankrupting this country. He says, ‘We’ve had a discussion about the debt.’ When did we have a discussion about the debt? We’ve had a debate about taxes. The man is never around to have a discussion about anything. So, yes, he causes me to be furious when I watch and listen to him.”
There’s nothing “affordable” about it!
Health insurance companies across the country are seeking and winning double-digit increases in premiums for some customers, even though one of the biggest objectives of the Obama administration’s health care law was to stem the rapid rise in insurance costs for consumers.
Particularly vulnerable to the high rates are small businesses and people who do not have employer-provided insurance and must buy it on their own.
Exactly as it was intended to do…they’re driving people off of private insurance plans and onto government healthcare plans, bankrupting the insurance industry in the process.
Why should this surprise? The must-issue regulation built into ObamaCare increases costs for the insurers, who cannot draw all of the needed revenues from the high-risk pool, thanks to mandates on rates. That means those costs have to get spread out to everyone in the pool. This is nothing more than Risk Pool 101, a course that Congress flunked repeatedly in the ObamaCare debate.
And why are rates rising higher on individual premiums than employer-based premiums? First off, the economics of aggregation are always going to work out that way; insurers want large groups of customers, and it’s less costly in the long run to find customers that way rather than one at a time. I’d guess that the employer-aggregate pool might generate somewhat lower costs than the general population too (especially after must-issue), but that’s just speculation. What isn’t speculation is that ObamaCare heavily regulates the individual markets in 2014 based on a law that doesn’t have many details in how that is supposed to be accomplished, based on state exchanges that may never exist in more than half of the states. In that kind of environment, can anyone blame the insurers for basing premiums on worst-case scenarios this year?
None of this surprises those who both understand risk pools and the dynamic reaction to regulation. It’s amusing to see everyone else be shocked, shocked that ObamaCare ends up driving costs upward even further.
Denial…the mantra of every addict.
In an interview with Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal, newly re-elected House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) opened up about President Obama’s utter unwillingness to cut a single dollar from federal spending. In a stunning admission, Obama reportedly told Boehner, “We don’t have a spending problem.”
Boehner added that President Obama continues to maintain that America’s federal deficit is caused not by governmental overspending but by “a health-care problem.” Said Boehner, “They blame all of the fiscal woes on our health-care system.” Boehner told Obama, “Clearly we have a health-care problem, which is about to get worse with Obamacare. But, Mr. President, we have a very serious spending problem.” Obama eventually replied, “I’m getting tired of hearing you say that.”
Obama may be tired of hearing Boehner talk about a spending problem, particularly when Obama has been re-elected on the basis of ignoring government spending. Nonetheless, America does have a spending problem, which Obama is steadfastly ignoring. “He’s so ideological himself,” Boehner explained, “and he’s unwilling to take on the left of his own party.” That’s why Obama refused to raise the retirement age for Medicare after agreeing to it. “He admitted in meetings that he couldn’t sell things to his own members,” said Boehner. “But he didn’t even want to try … We could never get him to step up.”
Someone needs a serious intervention!
PJTV: Afterburner: Rule of Lawlessness
View on YouTube
A sane congress would have impeached him years ago.
President Obama’s supporters love to call him the “cool” President, a “no drama” guy, and generally like to claim he is unflappable in office. Whatever the truth of that claim, there is one thing for sure: he doesn’t sweat the small stuff. Like following the law. During his four years in office this president has shown he couldn’t care less about the laws he’s supposed to be governed by as president.
This lawlessness started all the way back before he even became president. It was widely discussed in 2008 that he blatantly violated campaign donations laws by refusing to put in controls on his website that would prevent illegal, foreign donations. And we’ve only just learned as 2013 began that his 2008 campaign was levied the largest fine ever imposed on a presidential campaign for violations of campaign laws. In January the nation learned that the FEC fined Obama $375,000 for campaign reporting violations.
Once he became President, Obama immediately began misuse his powers to control Washington’s regulatory machinery to pay back pals and warp rules for ideological reasons. This president generally wields his regulatory powers with kid gloves to pay off supporters while at the same time that velvety hand holds a cudgel to smite foes.
One of his very first moves when he was swept into Washington, for instance, was to begin a program to give big payoffs to his union masters.
[...] Obama has also used Executive Orders to skirt both Congress and the law. Take for instance, Obama’s attempt to implement the Disclose Act through the back door using an EO. The Disclose Act was an effort that failed in Congress but Obama thought he could just ignore Congress and implement it anyway.
This fits with Obama’s announced policy that he would go around Congress whenever he feels like it.
Obama has also engaged in a strong campaign to misuse the Department of Justice for political purposes. His emplacement of Eric Holder as Attorney General was only the first move to turn the DoJ into a weapon against Americans he doesn’t like. Writer and former DoJ lawyer J.Christian Adams has chronicledthe extensive damage Holder’s DoJ has done to the country with his and Obama’s politicization of the department.
[...] Obama has used the Environmental Protection Agency as a weapon repeatedly, as well. In only the latest example we find that a federal court has determined that the EPA overstepped its boundaries by idiotically claiming that water is a “pollutant” in order to force its will on state officials.
Another example of Obama’s disinterest in following the law was his responsibility to report his upcoming regulatory changes, the last report of which was due in October but wasn’t bothered with until December — convenientlyafter the election. The earlier April report he never issued at all.
He’s by no means done abusing the rule of law and the constitution to get what he wants. And until the co-equal branches of government grow the spine needed to keep in him in check, he never will be.
For liberal spending addicts, it’s NEVER enough.
With the fiscal cliff deal signed into law, the nation’s attention now turns to the debt ceiling debate, scheduled to hit in the next two months. As America reaches the debt ceiling yet again – an unbelievable $16.4 trillion debt ceiling needs another increase in order to allow us to borrow more cash to pay our bills – Republicans insist that we finally begin dealing with our spending problem. That, of course, was the purpose of the fiscal cliff deal in the first place: to preserve as many of the Bush tax rates as possible, consider tax rates a finished issue, and move on to spending cuts. As Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said on ABC’s This Week, “The tax issue is finished, over, completed. That’s behind us. Now the question is: what are we going to do about the biggest problem confronting our country and our future? And that’s our spending addiction.”
Not so fast.
The bullies in the Democratic Party have no intention of cutting a single dollar. Instead, they want to tighten their stranglehold on the windpipes of job producers and entrepreneurs. This morning, virtually every Democrat on virtually every Sunday show said the same thing: no cuts, more taxes. So much for the Republican attempt to take the tax discussion off the table.
Obama used his weekly address to declare that he “will not compromise” with the co-equal branch of government that constitutionally holds the power of the purse:
In his weekly address, Obama lashed out at Republicans for even suggesting that the debt ceiling issue be used as leverage to cut spending:
As I said earlier this week, one thing I will not compromise over is whether or not Congress should pay the tab for a bill they’ve already racked up. If Congress refuses to give the United States the ability to pay its bills on time, the consequences for the entire global economy could be catastrophic. The last time Congress threatened this course of action, our entire economy suffered for it. Our families and our businesses cannot afford that dangerous game again.
This is nonsense. We’ve racked up bills, and we will not have to default to pay them – we just have to cut. Even if we hit the debt ceiling, we will not need to default on our debts – we will simply stop providing non-essential government services (which, for the most part, we should do anyway) and then use that money to pay our debts.
But Obama is a bully, and so he thinks he can unilaterally dictate America’s debt policy. He demonizes anyone who disagrees. He ignores the Constitution, and instead plays the class warfare card…
Mark Levin: Time To Politically Sabotage Obama Administration
View on YouTube
Let’s give it to him!
“What Obama deserves from us is defiance- what he deserves from Republicans in high elected office is obstruction -political sabotage- we shouldn’t participate as political partners in our own demise, and that’s exactly what’s going on here- this is for all the marbles…I don’t care what Obama ‘wants’ -‘Oh, I want 1.6 trillion’
- who gives a damn what you ‘want’, Mr President…?The US credit rating has already been downgraded, and it’s going to be downgraded again- they’re destroying the financial backbone of this country right before our eyes, and for what? Fora few more weeks of unemployment? So more people can be on food stamps? So Obama can create his paradise? And take money from people who actually earn it… a high price to pay for this experiment, and it’s a failed experiment- it’s been tried over, and over, and over…We have president of the United States who’s chosen to not participate in the free-market, capitalist system - never, ever-
yet today he rules over itWe have a president who’s only success is as a demagogue- where he trashes his opponents… lies and decieves in a serial fashion… he gets elected, and somehow -SOMEhow- he’s qualified to run everything! He’s qualified to re-write the Constitution… how did that happen? I dunno…In America now we’re supposed to despise people who actually achieve the American Dream… we’re supposed to despise people who follow the law, follow the rules, though hard work, through intelligence… long hours… invest everything they have… many of whom began with very modest means- now suddenly, if they don’t contribute to 50% of their income to Obama, to the Sentate, to the Congress, to the massive bureaucracy, SOMEHOW that’s unfair- unfair to whom?Like the mob, they’ve got their hands in our pockets- they’re the first ones there!This isn’t only a financial disaster, it is a constitutional disaster- and that’s the point, ever since the federal government became un-moored from the federal Constitution, it’s become this: an insatiable leviathan monster, it can’t stop- you heard Obama.It’s not about the rich… it’s about YOU- (Obama) hasn’t gotten enough, he wants more…This fiscal cliff discussion- what happened? The Republicans sold their soul to a president who would make Karl Marx and Saul Alinsky proud…
I’m sure we can trust him not to abuse such unconstitutional powers, right?
President Obama has signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2013 into law in spite of his earlier threat to veto the bill that includes a section allowing the military to indefinitely detain American citizens on suspicion of terrorism.
The White House had earlier released a statement that threatened to veto the bill because of provisions that prohibit the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.
The White House had likewise said the president would veto the 2012 NDAA because of its indefinite detention provisions, but he finally signed it “with reservations.” According to RT, although Obama, in 2012, released a statement that rejected the indefinite detention clause, the statement he issued late Wednesday after signing NDAA 2013, was silent on the matter. However, he expressed opposition to other provisions in the bill, especially those that prevent the closing of Guantanamo Bay.
[...] The 2012 NDAA’s Sec. 1021, gave the military the power to arrest and detain citizens without a writ of habeas corpus. However, when Obama signed NDAA 2012, he made a promise not the abuse the power.
But in December 2012, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California), introduced an amendment to prevent the government from using the military to detain citizens indefinitely without trial. The Senate passed the “Feinstein Amendment” unanimously. However, a panel led by the senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Michigan), removed the amendment from NDAA bill. In its place, Congress included a provision, Sec. 1029, that states that “any person inside the United States” is guaranteed the right of habeas corpus and other constitutional rights.
The added provision has, however, come under criticism. According to RT, Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) criticized the provision, saying, “The new language [that] ensures the right to habeas corpus (the right to be presented before a judge) is both questionable and not enough. Citizens must not only be formally charged but also receive jury trials and the other protections our Constitution guarantees. Habeas corpus is simply the beginning of due process. It is by no means the whole.”
Paul continued: “Our Bill of Rights is not something that can be cherry-picked at legislators’ convenience. When I entered the United States Senate, I took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. It is for this reason that I will strongly oppose passage of the McCain conference report that strips the guarantee to a trial by jury.”
Boy, did Mark Levin call it.
Speaking Jan. 1 at the White House at 11:20 p.m., less than an hour after the House voted 257 to 167 to approve new tax hikes, President Barack Obama announced that he will assert the authority to raise the debt ceiling for spending approved by Congress.
“One last point I want to make,” said the president flanked by Vice-President Joseph R. Biden Jr., whose Capitol Hill summitry closed the deal on a “fiscal cliff” compromise. “I will negotiate over many things, I will not have another debate with this Congress over whether or not they should pay the bills, they have already racked up through the laws they have passed.
This is a critical pivot for the president, who previously dismissed the idea floated among liberals that Section 4 of the 14th Amendment, one of the three amendments passed at the end of the Civil War, authorizes the executive to borrow the funds to make good federal debt payments.
It reads: The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned…
This is the second time the administration has wielded the debt ceiling as a hammer against the Republicans in Congress.
[...] The president was direct. Either Congress raises the debt ceiling or he will go ahead and borrow the money to pay the bills on his own in order to avoid damage to the U.S. and world economies.
Last I checked, the co-equal branches of government are not required to obey one another’s commands. In fact, they are there to hold one another in check. Congress is under NO obligation to give the president the money he demands. But they are too spineless to hold him accountable for his unconstitutional power grabs and blatant disregard for the separation of powers.
An honorable congress would impeach him and throw him out the door for his flagrant assault on the constitution and grabs for dictatorial powers. Sadly, we don’t have an honorable congress.