On March 30, 2007, during a fundraiser he said, “I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president [George W. Bush] I actually respect the Constitution.”

Well now; he has never been a constitutional law professor, and he clearly does not respect the Constitution.

Apparently he thought that padding his resume by claiming a history that is untrue would be something nobody would check.  He was a “senior lecturer,” not a “constitutional law professor.”  If you think there is no difference, just refer to a full professor as a “senior lecturer” and see what happens.

Mr. Obama thinks the U.S. Constitution is a flawed document because it “is a charter of negative liberties.  Says what the states can’t do to you.  Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted…” and the U.S. Supreme court, “…didn’t’ break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution…”  Clearly it is his desire to overthrow the Constitution.

He hates the fact that the Constitution tells the government exactly what it can do, and that all other powers belong to the states or to the people.  He hates this because he wants to exercise the powers of a dictator in order to make America in his own image.  His presidency is defined by his use of unconstitutional powers.

The Preamble of the Constitution begins, “We the people…” If the Constitution is to remain the people’s document and not to be turned into an interesting but out dated artifact of history, we must fight against the attempt by anyone to ignore, flout, violate, or overturn our Constitution.

The Obama administration – aided and abetted by the Democrat Party is openly engaged in the greatest theft of constitutional liberty in history.  If our constitution needs to be changed, “we the people” have the power to do it; we have amended it 27 times since it was ratified in 1788.

Our current dictator chaffs at his constitutional limitations; so he ignores them.  He has no desire to encourage the people to amend the constitution because he knows we don’t want to do it.  This must not stand, or our liberty is gone forever.

Below I offer four examples of the illegal exercise of powers he is forbidden from exercising in the last 3 years.  This should not surprise us given Mr. Obama’s Marxist ideology,  and here, and here.  Marxism is the organizing principle of Barack Obama which is why he wants to redistribute your wealth, and why he hates the limitations of the Constitution.

After his election and five days prior to his inauguration Mr. Obama publicly announced his intention to ignore the U.S. Constitution

“We are five days away from fundamentally changing  the United States of America,” he said.  A “fundamental change” is certainly more than signing legislation that operates within the Constitutional parameters; it is something more than that.  Mr. Obama has not proposed one amendment to the Constitution, so it is clear that he planned from the beginning to make “fundamental” changes in the United States through the exercise of powers he is forbidden to use by the Constitution.

Mr. Obama publicly announced his intention to violate the Constitutional limits on appointments

He stated that he would appoint a high official while the Congress was in recess.   The Constitution requires that all such officials be ratified by the U.S. Senate.  A president can make a “recess appointment” to keep the government running if necessary when the Senate is in recess.

The problem is that the Senate was not in recess, so Mr. Obama cannot make a recess appointment.   Rather than follow the Constitution, which told Mr. Obama “no” to this appointment, he said, “I refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer, I’m not going to stand by while a minority in the Senate puts party ideology ahead of the people that we were elected to serve.”    He may not like it that a minority in the Senate uses “party ideology” as a stumblingblock to his plan, but he cannot ignore the Constitution.  That is, he cannot unless we let him.

Mr. Obama is Attempting to use the Commerce Clause to force you to force you to purchase a product he wants you to buy

I have written about it elsewhere  and the campaign by the Democrat Party under the leadership of Mr. Obama continues to try to use the Constitution as a means of forcing you to make purchases of things you may not want and if you refuse you will be fined.

His plan to create socialized medicine in America as it exists in Britain and Canada was forced through the Congress by Democrats who announced that they had to pass it so we would know what was in it.

A part of ‘Obamacare’ is a mandate that everyone in the country purchase health insurance.  If we don’t we will have to pay a “tax” (previously called a fine).   The communist leaning Democrat Party wants to justify this by the Commerce Clause in the U.S. Constitution which says, “The Congress shall have Power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.”  Only a “constitutional law professor” with a political agenda could interpret this to mean that you have to purchase health insurance or be fined.

By simply declaring the requirement that everyone purchase health insurance to be  a matter of interstate commerce – which it clearly is not – the dictator in the White House usurps your constitutional freedoms in order to “fundamentally change the United States of America.”

It this is permitted to stand, there are no limits to what the government can require you to purchase.  They will require you to purchase specific kinds of food given that diet is intrinsically tied to our health that the government will now control.  Expect hamburgers to be outlawed.  The can require you to purchase a gym membership because if you exercise it will lower the cost of government healthcare.  It could require you to purchase only electric automobiles made by General Motors, or purchase only clothes made in America.

Mr. Obama has publicly misappropriated Government Money in Violation of the Constitution

Mr. Obama arranged for $17 billion of TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) money to go to financially bail out General Motors as part of his campaign to keep UAW union jobs which will help the Democrat Party in general and Mr. Obama in particular.

This is in clear violation of the U.S. Constitution Article 1; Section 9:  “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”

That is, no money from the accounts of the U.S. government can be spent on anything, “…but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law…”  That means that the legislation providing TARP funds can only be spent on what the legislation specifically stated the money could be spent for.

I will use a few quotes regarding the purpose of the TARP legislation:

The purposes of this Act are—

(1) to immediately provide authority and facilities that the Secretary of the Treasury can use to restore liquidity and stability to the financial system of the United States; and

(2) to ensure that such authority and such facilities are used in a manner that–

(A) protects home values, college funds, retirement accounts, and life savings;

(B) preserves homeownership and promotes jobs and economic growth;

(C) maximizes overall returns to the taxpayers of the United States; and

(D) provides public accountability for the exercise of such authority.

Note that there is absolutely nothing in the stated purpose of the law that would permit it to be spent on an automobile manufacturing company – General Motors.

But there’s more!

(9) TROUBLED ASSETS- The term ‘troubled assets’ means–

(A) residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before March 14, 2008, the purchase of which the Secretary determines promotes financial market stability; and

(B) any other financial instrument that the Secretary, after consultation with the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, determines the purchase of which is necessary to promote financial market stability, but only upon transmittal of such determination, in writing, to the appropriate committees of Congress

(Read the whole text of the legislation here.)

General Motors is a manufacturing company, not a bank, not a mortgage holder, is not a financial instrument; and so there is no way it qualifies to receive funds under this legislation.  Any money given or loaned to GM constitutes an impeachable offense because it violates the Constitution.

The Obama administration gave GM $17 billion in money they borrowed from China and others while guaranteeing that you would pay the loans back with your tax dollars.  Mr. Obama clearly engaged in a criminal violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Mr. Obama has violated his oath of office by refusing to insure domestic tranquility or provide for the common defense

The Constitution prescribes the oath every person assuming the Presidency must take: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

The preamble of the Constitution says, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

In violation of the purpose of the existence of the government of the United States, Mr. Obama and his administration used Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) gun running campaign called Fast and Furious  to justify more gun control which is another violation of the Constitutional Second amendment:  “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

These circumstances are absolutely disturbing.  A bureaucracy of the government, the ATF Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms), devised a plan to prevent gun shop owners from complying with U.S. law in order that sham gun purchasers could illegally buy the guns that our government wanted to be delivered into the hands of violent, criminal citizens of a different country to be used for illegal purposes against the U.S.

They had no plan to follow the guns or trace them nor did they make any attempt to do so.  IN other words, the plan was to enable illegally obtained guns to travel from the U.S. to Mexico without being traced; they had no intention of capturing the criminals who obtained the guns.  Our government under Mr. Obama wanted violent criminals to obtain illegal weapons in order to dramatize the importance of more gun control!  This is a clear violation of the whole purpose of the U.S. government to, “…establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…”

Mr. Obama has also violated the Constitution by presiding over this program that clearly is not intended to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States,” or to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

The President announced that while he is reluctant to take such action he felt he had to act since grave concerns have been expressed by a large number of Muslim leaders that such public displays of Christianity are an affront to Muslims throughout the world.  Mr. Obama announced that in order to preserve religious freedom for both Christianity and Islam; and in order to not offend the deeply held convictions of Muslims, he would institute these minor restrictions.  “No one’s right to exercise their freedom of religion is infringed by these intelligent reforms,” he said.  The President added that he was confident that Christians would understand the actions and follow the example of Christ and turn the other cheek.

No, wait; he didn’t say that because that would be a violation of the U.S. Constitution; he couldn’t possibly be so brazen as to openly thumb his nose at the document that controls his powers of office and willingly violate his oath of office.  But what if he did say that?  Would you be upset about it?  Would you be demanding impeachment proceedings begin immediately?

No, he didn’t say that at all; what he did announce is that he plans to violate the Constitution in a different way.  He is appointing a person to a high position in the Executive Branch that requires the Advice and Consent of the U.S. Senate.

Breaking:  Now Mr. Obama has made more recess appointments while the Congress is not in recess.  This time there are three new members for the National Labor Relations Board requiring Constitutional Senate Advise and Consent approval who won’t have to be approved.  Apparently Mr. Obama is under the illusion that he gets to make decisions for the U.S. Congress – you know…like when they are in session and when they aren’t.  Since he refuses to get Advise and Consent for all his Czars, makes recess appointments when the Congress is not in recess, stacks the Supreme Court so his healthcare bill will be declared constitutional it is apparent he knows little about the Constitution.  Or perhaps he just plans to ignore it.  The upside is that now we know why he has paid $millions to prevent his undergrad and law school transcripts from seeing the light of day.

The Congressional Research Service – which is part of the Senate shows that Mr. Obama is in violation of the Constitution; even lefties show that he is in violation.

Executive Appointments

The Constitution requires that the President must submit the names of high Executive Branch officials to the U.S Senate for the process of Advice and Consent except when Congress is in recess.  This insures that there is some legislative oversight helping to prevent the very kind of dictatorial Executive power Mr. Obama is trying to achieve.

Article II, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the Constitution states:

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the Supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.  (Emphasis mine)

Because the Congress is not always in session, and because sometimes these “public Ministers” are needed to make government function well, the President has the power to make what is called a “recess appointment.”

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution:

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Mr. Obama made the appointment of Richard Cordray to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (created by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank – just so you know who to thank) last summer, but the Senate refused to approve the appointment as they have the Constitutional right to do.  So today, Mr. Obama made a “recess appointment” that will place this person in power through 2013.  Only problem is that the Congress is not in recess.

The creation of this new bureau assumes that people are stupid, and cannot make a financial decision without government bureaucrats telling them what to do, and that no one should be responsible for their own choices.  It has broad new powers to drive up the cost of doing business in the U.S., and will cost $billions every year in more government employment and litigation.  As a consequence, Congress could not agree to Mr. Obama’s appointment in keeping with their constitution duty to Advise and Consent.

The Congress – following a precedent created by Former Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in 2007 – kept the Senate in session during the holiday “break” in order to prevent this appointment being done during a recess.

(Mr. Reid , who used the technique in 2007 said at the time, “While an election year looms, significant progress can still be made on nominations,” Reid said. “I am committed to making that progress if the President [Bush] will meet me halfway. But that progress can’t be made if the President seeks controversial recess appointments and fails to make Democratic appointments to important commissions.”)

President Bush actually took his oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States” seriously and so did not make the appointments which would violate the Constitution.

Mr. Obama obviously does not take his oath of office seriously.  Despite the radical spin today, he went ahead with the “recess appointment” even though the Congress is not in recess.  Spin doctors are saying he did so to bypass Republicans, but he did not bypass Republicans in the Senate; he bypassed the Constitution; “I refuse to take `no’ for an answer,” he said.  Being a dictator must be so much fun.

Mr. Obama does not take the presidential oath of office seriously because he does not take the Constitution seriously.  In fact, he hates the our Constitution, hates the limitations it places of federal power, and he seeks to overturn the document.  These are not unfounded speculations.

Mr. Obama’s view of the U.S. Constitution

First, Mr. Obama sees the Constitution as deeply flawed

In this interview he states that the Constitution – including the post Civil War Amendments requiring equality for every person regardless of race – remains colonial, and “deeply flawed.”  The President clearly does not support equality of status nor equal opportunity in the United States – he wants something more.  What are the “flaws” he wants to correct?

Second, we know the “flaws” Mr. Obama desires to correct

He has stated publicly his desire to do so: (Complete quote context and link below)

1. He laments that the Federal Courts dealing with minority rights so far haven’t broken, “free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution.”
2. He said, “…the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.”
3. He said, “…the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.”

What can we learn from these three quotes?

1. He believes that the courts have the power to overturn the Constitution.  That is a breathtaking and unconstitutional view.  The Constitution provides for the manner in which it can be changed, but Mr. Obama says nothing of that.  He only states that 5 people of 9 sitting on the Supreme Court should overturn the Constitutional federalism that our Founders created and which the states ratified.
2. He despises the Constitutional limits placed of federal power thinking that government should have the right to control the lives and fortunes of every person in the United States.  Mr. Obama longs for oligarchy.
3. Mr. Obama revealed in particular what power he wants to exercise as an oligarch: since the courts have not ventured to redistribute the wealth of the nation he intends to do it himself.  In this sense, Mr. Obama is indistinguishable from Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, or Daniel Ortega.  He despises equality of opportunity; he seeks to enforce equality of condition.  How is this to be distinguished from the proposals of Karl Marx?
4. Mr. Obama thinks equal opportunity and equal rights are meaningless.  In his view the Civil Rights movement focused on the wrong things  They became so interested in attaining equal opportunity; they failed to put together a “coalition of powers” that will enforce “redistributive change.”  He then goes on to say that “…we still suffer from that.”  What does he mean by this?  Equal opportunity, and equal status are meaningless; they fixed nothing.  What is meaningful is if the civil rights movement could have gained the power to take the wealth from those who produced it, and spread it equally among those who did not.  This is Mr. Obama’s goal as president; remember his statement to Joe the plumber, “I think when you spread the wealth around that’s good for everybody.”

To put all this together, remember this statement just prior to his inauguration, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

Now you know Mr. Obama’s view of the Constitution, so you know why he is willing to violate it.  He has no respect for the Founders of our country who fought and died to provide the government we had.  He does not respect the 600,000 who died in the Civil War to be among the first of nations to outlaw slavery.  He has no respect for the 13th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution providing equal rights and equal opportunity to every person regardless of race.  He has no regard for the Civil Rights Movement and the price paid by those who fought to overcome barriers placed in the way of minorities.  No, his sole concern is redistribution of wealth he thinks was garnered because of vile capitalism and slavery and exploitation.  When you wonder what Mr. Obama is about, and why he is doing what he is doing,  just remember this post.

So what about you?  Will you demand a retraction?  Will you demand impeachment proceedings?  Do you think minor adjustments in how the Constitution is followed present any danger to our freedoms?  If you are concerned, be in touch with your Senators and Representative in Washington, DC.  Demand that they take this case to the courts.  Demand that they act to cut off money for the White House to spend on this effort since it has been done unconstitutionally.

As an afterward, Mr. Obama’s opinion about recess appointments has also “fundamentally changed,” from when he was in the Senate.

In 2005, Mr. Obama was serving in the U.S. Senate, and when George Bush legally appointed John Bolton as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. Obama had this to say, “To some degree, he’s damaged goods. I think that means we’ll have less credibility and, ironically, be less equipped to reform the United Nations in the way that it needs to be reformed.”

 Full text providing the quotes above:

“If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court…I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.”  Link

Western Civilization gave the world the concepts of the infinite value of every individual, government by consent of the governed, and the rule of law; we are losing them all.

The U.S. has been reluctant to follow the path of Europe into perdition – although the Democrat Party has tried its best for the past 98 years beginning with the election of Woodrow Wilson.

How We Got Here

Citizens in the U.S. who desire to preserve the government our Founders created with the Constitution have mostly resisted this tendency – and have lost most of their engagements with the resident enemies of the government we inherited.  With the exceptions of Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929) and Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) every president of the U.S. during those 98 years has been a liberal bent on changing America.  Every one of them, with these two exceptions, expanded and centralized government in times of peace as well as in times of war.

(Eisenhower, when he wasn’t busy sleeping, presided over the period in which we had “peaceful coexistence” with the Soviet Union.  During this time, the Soviets were rebuilding their military after the war, and we were dismantling our military and partying.  They were using scientists to develop rocketry and satellites, while Eisenhower golfed in the glow of post war popularity.  Richard Nixon took his own counsel and “ran right, and governed left.”  He gave us the onerous Clean Air Act, and the Endangered Species Act – both of which have cost millions of jobs and $trillions.  Nixon didn’t believe in free markets or capitalism:  he was the last president to impose wage and price controls, August 15, 1971.  Both George Bush the first and second increased the power and scope of the central government.  Neither was conservative.)

The American Faust is finally now considering whether to make our bargain with the socialist Mephistopheles.  The Democrat Party has denounced its past record on insisting that slavery is morally right, and has gone to negotiating with Mephistopheles to trade our Constitution for eternal, carnal delights.

Having played the role of mountebank stirring the passions of the quarter educated about not getting “their fair share,” our leaders have created a mob of tens of millions clamoring for the property earned by others.  Who are they?  from ‘occupy’ scum to minority companies which don’t have to compete for contracts; from race-baiting hustlers to Wall Street banks; from generations of welfare recipients to millions of government employees; from dynastic Senate seats and eternal federal judgeships to millions of America occupiers who have moved into our home as squatters without permission; the bed wetting ninnies we have in office have given the ankle-biters everything they want and yet they are not full.  The transfer of wealth from private citizens to favored political allies and lard-butt bureaucrats would cause a revolution if it had been done in the sunshine.

“We do not steal privately earned wealth from those who earned it to give it to favored constituents!” they thunder, ‘We believe in fairness; it’s a good thing to spread the wealth around.’”

Unfortunately, the number of takers is close to surpassing the makers.  When we reach that point, the Republic is terminal.  All that remains are the autopsy, embalming, and burial.  Our leaders have permitted the Republic to become colonized by life forms which exist only by drawing life from others who work to produce it.  And they have used this energy to multiply themselves.  I fear we are at last succumbing to the innumerable parasites we have permitted to inhabit our body politic.

The Religion of Liberalism

Not only have our leaders resorted to accommodating these life forms for political and personal gain, they have converted to a false religion of works.  Many, if they believe in God at all, don’t believe Him to be of much consequence; and have been genuflecting to another god in another temple.  But rather than an idol at this altar there is a mirror.  In this religion the rules are that one can never make judgments about what is right and wrong.  In fact, that is the only rule there is; all other rules are rescinded.

“Thou shalt not lust after women who dress like whores in public, instead thou shalt admire their mind only; thou shalt not make judgments about taking the name of the LORD in vain, or talking potty; thou shalt make no judgments about adultery;  thou shalt not consider anything holy, thou shalt trivialize everything.”

“Thou shalt not make judgments about stealing (my God we’d have to shut down the Senate!); or envy; or covetousness (we would make the ‘occupy’ people feel bad about themselves!); or murder (FREE MUMIA! and while we’re at it, let’s look for the evil elements of American culture that drove him to commit homicide and root them out!); or lasciviousness (that would destroy MTV); or human sacrifice (women must have the right to choose don’t you know).”

“Thou shalt not make judgments about those those who announce their plan to kill you (we must reach out to the Islamic world “with our hand unclenched;” after all, “Islam has always been a part of America’s story;” and we all know about, “Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings”).  Thou shalt make no judgments about the fat, the ugly, the smelly, the short, the indigent, the stupid, or the lazy.”

“Thou shalt finance, at public expense, the National Endowment for the Arts so everyone can see the Piss Christ not just the elite; the dung covered virgin Marys, the naked women on stage covered with chocolate and bean sprouts, or whores using a speculum to display their ‘inner self’” – you know, the art that truly needs public financing.  The government uses your money to pay for Christian blasphemy while our Secretary of State waxes strident, loud, and shrill demanding your free speech not include any statement that denigrates Islam.

“Thou shalt never call things by their real name, as this may cause someone somewhere to receive insufficient approval for their loser attitude, criminal activity, exhibitionistic behavior, or stupid choices.  All judgments are forbidden except the judgment against judgments.”

“Thou shalt refer to any group of sexual deviants using only the word ‘family;’ thou shalt approve all spending bills and all tax increases, all government employee salary increases, all perks for elected officials; subsidized home loans, free lunches, subsidized higher education, money for not growing crops, and free government cheese; world without end; blessed be the name of the Democrat Party!  Amen and amen.

We cry foul and accuse them of what they are publicly doing, and they quote their favorite philosopher Groucho Marx, “Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes…you heartless, lying, homophobic, misogynistic, Evangelical bigot.  The higher you climb the pole the more your butt shows!”

And the people intone, “Oh; huh, I’m terribly sorry; I must have misunderstood.  Sorry I made a judgment.”

In keeping with the tenets of this religion we only fight against “terror,” not Islamic radicals.  (During the war in the Pacific in the early 1940’s the U.S. Navy fought against boats, don’t you know)  The manner in which Antonio Gramsci taught Marxists to take over the world is being followed by Islam: don’t fight, just employ cultural hegemony: take over the arts, the music, the styles, the public places…

Helping the People Who Are Trying to Kill You

Our leftists – too stupid for words – drool all over the Islamic death cult the same way they drooled over rapes committed by Black Panthers in the 1960’s as a political statement (Norman Mailer, Elaine Brown, Angela Davis among them); they prove black manhood; soooo cool.  The idiotic left are falling for this tired tactic again as it is used by radical Muslims.  The fake world they live in is permitting Islam to make inroads into the Christianized world in a manner never thought possible by Saracens of the Middle Ages.  For these traitors, America is no “empire of liberty,” “shining city on a hill;” America is not “the last best hope of Earth,” in Lincoln’s words; is not the “leader of the free world,” the “indispensable nation” – not to the rats who presently run it.  No, Saudi Arabians think their country is the greatest too, we are told.  No doubt the North Koreans think the same thing when they’re not thinking about food.

This is the problem: these people refuse to make judgments about what is right and what is wrong about culture.  You know, they don’t actually want to live in Nigeria in a hut; or in a Chinese commune but they think the people who live like that think their culture is “exceptional” and are as proud of it as we are of what America has done for the world over 221 years.  Yeah, right.  They don’t want to live in Sudan where Arabs buy and sell black slaves in slave markets, but darn, those Sudanese think their country is exceptional just like us!  We know they think this because our psychotic, juvenile president said so.  Nobody should make judgments, you know.

Think of the culture of Japan  and Germany following their total industrial and economic destruction following WWII.  Now think about Iraq as the war ends.  Notice any difference?  Culture matters.

We have no Charles Martel; no Charlemagne.  There is no Alfonzo VIII of Castile to drive the Moors from our Andalusia; our nitwits greet them at the gate.  There is no Battle of Tours; there is only the multicultural approval of everything anti-American; anything that smells sort of primitive – gotta love that!  There is no Battle of Tours because our enemies don’t need to fight – we are letting them in through the front door.  Our leaders have misunderstood the poem; they think it says:

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to [destroy our civilization]; the wretched refuse of your teeming shore, send these, the homeless, tempest tossed, I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

They see our lamp, and here they come; through our airports, across our borders, flying jets into our offices and shooting our servicemen on military bases.

Who is looking out for them?  Well, nobody actually – they are tied up frisking 90 year old great grandmothers, hand checking retarded children, and checking out babes on the Whole Body Image Scanner.

Doing All to Help Us Fail

We have an administration that refuses to protect the capacity of the country to have sufficient energy to remain economically viable.  They desire to use “alternative” fuels instead.  Recently the Navy was required to purchase alternative fuel at $16 a gallon in place of regular fuel for military ships at $4 a gallon.  Drive your aircraft carrier right up and say, “Fill it with that premium stuff.”  I wonder how much it costs to fill up an aircraft carrier?  Maybe we should find out – we paid for it.

They take over most of the American automobile industry and then begin producing Chevy Volts.  Nobody wants them, of course, so they will give anyone who purchases one of the $41,000 dogs $7,500 as a gift for taking it off GM’s hands; GM loses money on every car they sell – probably make it up in volume since it’s now owned by the government.  Most of the cars are purchased as fleet cars by companies who feed at the government trough, and by various levels of government.  I guess they can afford the price.  Gee, I wonder if they get the rebate?

We are confronted by an Iran who has announced they plan to close the Straits of Hormuz cutting off 20% of the world’s oil supply while they build their nuclear bomb.  The duly elected bed wetters in Washington respond by castrating our military then wailing because we can’t produce.  Then they announce another round of “unclenched fist” negotiations with those who publicly vow to murder us all.  (And while we’re at it, let’s put Saudi Arabia, China, and Pakistan on the United Nations Human Rights Council of the United Nations just to show we have no judgment at all.)

We have the chance to import huge supplies of oil from friendly Canada, and the “leader” in the White House is so insecure can’t decide whether we should build a nation-saving oil pipeline from Canada, or spend more years in environmental impact studies.  Meanwhile the oil will be sold to China.  Great.  Remind me, who loves this country; who hates it?

We have leaders who arrange for citizens of other countries to vote in American elections while the Justice Department refuses to protect American citizens trying to vote from intimidation by New Black Panther Party members in black jumpsuits and berets carrying nightsticks.  So now Mexican nationals will find it easier to vote in our elections than white Americans.

We have leaders who engage in vote fraud here to get into office and then travel at public expense to Egypt and Iraq and Afghanistan making sure their elections are honest.  These leaders helped ensure that radicals in Egypt and Libya have the power to turn their countries into radical Islamic states at war with Western Civilization; with Syria, Tunis, Lebanon, and “Palestine” soon to follow.  What can we do for an encore?  I know, let’s insult and isolate Israel!

Alexander Pope first said, “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.”  The phrase was used by Burke as he considered the insanity of the French Revolution in Reflections on the Revolution in France.

The thing about fools is that they are absolutely convinced that the psychotic world they are seeing is the real world; their hallucination is so powerful to them they develop absolute conviction and any attempt to wake them up to the real world is dismissed as right-wing bigotry.

If “the best lack all conviction,” then fools rush in and occupy the space.  Americans are “the best,” and it is high time we re-occupy the space and move the fools aside.  Quit listening to those who rule now; who are “full of passionate intensity” about “fundamentally transforming America.”  We cannot permit them to do it.

We have an election in a year.  Let’s throw the traitors out, and reclaim America; the Beautiful.

Imagine that in January of 1942 one month after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor that President Roosevelt – excited to make himself look good – announced with great fanfare that the U.S. had broken the Japanese naval encryption code JN-25.  Further, imagine him telling all the cool information about Japanese military strategy and naval movements in the pacific that would now enable us to really go after them.

Well, it just can’t be imagined – it’s too stupid to imagine.

Is there any difference between this imagined blunder, and the real life stupidity president Obama has shown by announcing the “treasure trove” of information on computers, hard drives, thumb drives, phone numbers and CD’s taken from Osama’s house in Abbottabad, Pakistan?

If you had been funding al Qaeda and Obama told you that your bank account information had been discovered, would you close your account before the U.S. froze your money? What? do bears sleep in the woods? If you were close to Osama bin Laden and your phone number was likely known to him would you cut it off and change it immediately to avoid discovery?  If you were a nation that had close ties to bin Laden and had provided arms and explosives to his organization, and Obama announced he had found a “treasure trove” in Osama residence, would you take steps to frustrate being found through that information?

Why on God’s green earth would these dolts make such an announcement?  No, wait, I know – they really did want to “spike the football.”  They wanted to brag about how important they are.  They wanted to burnish Obama’s national security bona fides. They considered it more important for Barack Obama to look good than to protect our Republic from terrorists.

“Fire! Ready! Aim!”

But what I find ironic is that very famous, very public people are also trying to overthrow our government but nobody says anything about it.  What’s the big surprise?

Consider the move by Franklin Roosevelt, the mama’s boy who had to be constrained by the U.S. Supreme Court in his attempt to overthrow the U.S. government.  

This may come as a surprise to you, but it was the Supreme Court which stated that the Roosevelt regime was attempting to take over the constitutional authority of the Congress.  This was only a very public attempt to overthrow the government of the United States. 

The court further said that even if the Congress was willing to go along with the unconstitutional plan and wanted the Executive branch to take over these duties, they could not constitutionally do it.  The Constitution forbids one branch of our government to abdicate their power to a different branch – even if they want to.  The question of our time is whether or not the Supreme Court of the United States still has the courage to protect the Constitution for us during this present Democrat Party assault against it.  If they don’t, then we will have to revisit our government and make the changes we require.  It is our government; not theirs.  We must not let them take it away from us.

A Closer Look at Attempts to Overthrow American Constituted Government  

Democrat politicians including Mr. Obama have conspired to use the powers of the government through the Internal Revenue Service to force you to purchase a service from a private company.  If you fail to do it, they will know about it because they also force you to tell them the last details of your private financial income and expenses because of the income tax system they have implemented.  They have the power to take money from your bank or Credit Union without your permission and without notice.  They have the power to seize your property, your real estate your boat – anything – without warning and sell it.  Then when you can no longer provide for your children, then can take them too.  Should you seek to hide from them by using cash – living off the grid so to speak – if they find you, you will be sent to jail.

A number of states and other organizations are filing suits in federal courts in order to overturn all or parts of this unconstitutional monstrosity.  Mr. Obama and his regime will count on the Supreme Court to declare that the U.S. Constitution permits the Congress to institute these provisions because of the “Commerce Clause.”

What is the Commerce Clause?

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3: “The Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”  That’s it.

During colonial times prior to the U.S. Constitution, some colonies would exact huge taxes on goods shipped through their territory as a means of raising money.  As an example, tobacco grown in Virginia going to Massachusetts would have to pass through Pennsylvania or New Jersey, and then New York.  These colonies could charge whatever taxes they wanted on the commerce being moved through their territory.  This created disunity among the colonies, and if we were to have a union, this problem had to be resolved in the Constitution.  The writers of the Constitution wrote the “Commerce Clause” in order to stop the practice.

Almost universally for the first 156 years of our Republic these words in the Constitution were used exclusively to solve the problem they were written to address.  Progressives like Teddy Roosevelt, William Taft, and Woodrow Wilson routinely tried to overthrow the federalist system outlined in the Constitution, but the federal courts denied them the power they wanted.  But the Great Depression gave Franklin Roosevelt the opportunity to begin the overthrow of our Constitution.  Remember the immortal words of that great philosopher Rahm Emmanuel, “You never want to waste a crisis.”  Especially if it will help you overthrow constituted government.

Enter Franklin Roosevelt, Progressive

During the early years of his presidency, Roosevelt and his allies in the Congress passed a dizzying number of laws that sucked power away from the people and the states to the federal government.  Which our Constitution was written to prevent.  Many of these were challenged in the federal courts, and most of the challenges were upheld by the Supreme Court declaring Roosevelt’s attempts as unconstitutional.

The Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937

In the weeks following his re-election and taking office in January 1937 – out of sheer frustration with the Constitution and the Supreme Court seeking to uphold it – in February 1937 Roosevelt proposed the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937.

This legislation would give him the power to “pack the court” as it was referred to.  Despising the members of the court upholding the Constitution and opposing its overthrow; and desiring to impose his own vision of federal power by subverting it, Roosevelt proposed that for every sitting Justice on the Supreme Court who was 70 ½ years old, he could appoint an additional Justice up to a maximum of 6 additional Justices which would make a total of 15 instead of 9.  Everyone knew why he wanted to do this – he wanted to create an imperial presidency;he wanted the power to implement the laws he wanted regardless of whether or not they were constitutional.  He wanted to make himself a ruler rather than a temporary administrator complying with limitations imposed by the Constitution.  He wanted a Supreme Court that was actually part of the Executive Branch – a group of “yes” men who would help him dismantle the U.S. Constitution by rubber-stamping his power grab.

Almost immediately following his death a move was begun to amend the Constitution to prevent any other person from grabbing the power Roosevelt had.  On February 22, 1951 the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified by the people of the United States limiting any one person from being elected President for more than two terms; Roosevelt was elected 4 times.  He will live in as much infamy as the the assault on Pearl Harbor which he, himself said would live in infamy.  He did much more to destroy the constituted government of the United States than did Imperial Japan.  What an awful man he was.

West Coast Hotels Co. v. Parrish (1937)

Congress proposed the legislation but was wary about the outcome.  While the legislation was struggling in Congress, the Supreme Court made a ruling in the case of West Coast Hotels Co. v. Parrish in March of 1937.  In this case, Justice Owen Roberts who had consistently ruled in favor of the Constitution and against Roosevelt reversed his previous positions and gave the federal government the power to rule in cases of state minimum wage laws.  This power is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution, but the “Commerce Clause,” they said, gives them the power.  The reasoning of the court was that the restriction of liberty of contract by state law is a legitimate function of government if the government is only trying to protect someone’s health, and, they said, minimum wage laws protect a person’s health.  Note: if your motives are compassionate, restricting freedom is no problem.  (Nose thumb at the Constitution.)

Everyone knew that the Justices were afraid of Roosevelt and the Progressives in Congress and their attempt to pack the court.  Everyone also knew that Justice Roberts had gotten cold feet, backed down, and participated in opening the door to the end of the federalism the Framers had created in the U.S. Constitution.  So his change of heart was “the switch in time that saved nine.”

NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp (1937)

The next domino to fall undermining the Constitution was NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp (1937).  The Justices ruled that the federal government (through the newly created National Labor Relations Board) had the power to regulate all activities between business and labor unions throughout the United States because of the “Commerce Clause.”

Wickard v. Filburn (1942)

Then Wickard v. Filburn in 1942 decided that the Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1938 – which among other things set quotas on wheat production – was Constitutional.  Now, the Executive Branch of the federal government could decide who much wheat you could grow in your own land.  Complements of the “Commerce Clause.”

The Agriculture Adjustment Act was designed to keep wheat prices artificially high even during a time when people in the U.S. were on the verge of starvation, visiting soup kitchens by the millions, and hitching rides on trains around the country to try to find work.  Secretary of Agriculture Claude Wickard was charged with carrying out this abomination, and fined a farmer by the name of Filburn.  Farmer Filburn grew wheat, and was permitted by his masters in Washington D.C. to sell some of it under this legislation. 

Filburn complied with the amount of wheat he was permitted by Roosevelt to sell, but he grew some extra wheat he did not sell – he used it to feed his chickens, he didn’t sell any of it.  For this, the federal government issued him a fine for violating a federal regulation made up in the Roosevelt White House.

He refused to pay the fine, and the case eventually got to the Supreme Court which ruled that not only does the federal government have the power to control the amount of wheat you can sell; it also has the power to control how much you grow for your personal use!  Here’s how distorted the thinking was.  They ruled that if Filburn grew wheat for his personal use, it violated the Commerce Clause because that might mean he wouldn’t need to buy wheat to feed his chickens from someone else who might have grown it in another state!  By not purchasing wheat from someone else for his chickens, Filburn violated federal control on interstate commerce.  By growing his own wheat for his own personal use, he violated the dictates of the President!  Pay the fine.

A Few Other Observations about how the Courts Interpret the “Commerce Clause”

The federal government spends $billions of your tax dollars to keep the prices of cotton, wheat, peanuts, sugar, milk, soy beans, corn, rice, and about 15 more artificially high.  So your taxes provide corporate farmers money to keep the price of all these commodities higher than they would be if there were a free market.  You pay taxes to keep the price of milk high, and then you are taxed to pay to subsidize milk for schoolchildren because the price is too high!  I’m not joking.  All this is accomplished through the “Commerce Clause.”   Progressives call this “progress.”  Some of you vote for people like this.

To further irritate you, I point out that a recent Washington Post investigation discovered 75 acres of Texas farmland that had been converted into a housing development. Today, the homeown­ers on these properties (which are worth well over $300,000 each) are eligible for fixed payments for the lawn in their backyards because of its “historical rice production.“ Residents never asked for these subsidies and have even stated that as non-farmers they do not want the government mailing them checks.  They’re still coming.

Besides this, we have about 40 million acres of cropland for which the owners are paid to not grow crops in order to keep the prices high.  “Commerce Clause” as implemented and interpreted by liberals and Progressives. See here.

Other Things Our Government Masters Control Because They Define Them as “Interstate Commerce”

Today, the federal government controls the racial complement of school classrooms, property taxes for racial balancing of public schools – without representation, racial hiring quotas, affirmative action, federal crimes not listed in the Constitution, the FBI, information required on restaurant menus everywhere, all tobacco products, what you can do with your own land through the “Endangered Species Act,” ( including many species which reside in only a small plot in one state – Delhi Sand fly, Delta Smelt, toads, worms, and more; mud puddles on your own land through Wetlands, Clean Water Act, Navigable Waterways legislation) automobile gas mileage, turn signals and endless other accessories on your car, the breath you exhale…All of this and much more has been permitted by the Supreme Court through the “Commerce Clause” which I remind you says, “The Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” 

However noble, however compassionate the motives of those who enact and support such travesties; to define these issues as impacting interstate commerce is a travesty.  If some of these things need to be done, let us find a better; a legal, a constitutional way.  Otherwise, we will have permitted our own Congress and federal courts to destroy our document – the people’s document; our declaration on the limitations of governmental power – the U.S. Constitution.  If they want to change it, let them follow the Constitution on how changes are to be made.

Leslie Salt Co. v. United States (1995)

The Leslie Salt Company dug shallow ponds on their own property permitting sea water to flood in filling the ponds.  The company would then let the water evaporate leaving the salt from the ocean which they could then harvest, purify, and sell.  A suit was filed and finally Leslie Salt Co. v. United States (1995) was decided by the Supreme Court. 

In spite of the fact that it was their own property, and in spite of the fact that they were not altering existing ponds in any way, the Supreme Court determined that before the water might evaporate, it’s possible that migratory birds could land on the water thus making these ponds subject to federal jurisdiction because these birds constitute interstate commerce under the “Commerce Clause!”  There was no ‘commerce’ related to the birds because it was not a vacation spot, no one came to see them; the ponds were not involved in any way with the birds’ ability to fly from one state to another because they were recently created; and there was no evidence that the birds actually stopped briefly at the ponds.  No matter, it’s just another power grab on the part of the federal government.  The “Commerce Clause” has become an excuse for the federal government to overturn constituted government in the United States with the willing complicity of the Supreme Court.  The’ migratory bird’ gambit has been used over and over to protect mud puddles and shut down otherwise permitted uses of private property.

Planning to Completely Overthrow Constituted Government

Despite the aggregate damage to our Constitution so far, now the Obama regime would have us go even further to create an imperial presidency by creating legislation that would command you to make a purchase from a private company solely because you are a citizen of the United States.  Because they think you should do it.  Through the “Commerce Clause” of course they get to control the price you can be charged for this service.  Wow, the price of citizenship has gone up.  This gang of Progressives wants illegal aliens and felons to vote, but want you to pay a fine if you refuse to spend your money the way they want you to.

Do you actually think the U.S. Constitution permits the government to force you to purchase what some bureaucrat deems to be a public good from a private company?  Do you?  Are you really willing accept what they are trying to do with your country?   I don’t have time here to deal with it, but the Constitution itself denies all of these powers to the federal government be declaring itself to be a document of enumerated powers listed in Article 1, Section 8; all other powers belong to the states or to the people themselves.  Amendment 10 – part of our Bill of Rights says, ”The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” 

The federal government exercises powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution all the time.  I really hate to sound like a radical, but where in the Constitution does it say Social Security would be constitutional?  Where is that enumeration about giving tax dollars for education purposes?  Where in the list of enumerated powers does it say the government can pay for your health care?  None of this is constitutional.  If we need to do it, let’s find a way to do it without overthrowing the people’s government.

If the Constitution is not a document of enumerated powers, it is a document of unenumerated powers.  Either it has the limitation of the powers granted to it in the Constitution or it has no limitation on its power at all.  Remember why there is a United States of America: to create a government of limited powers so the people can thrive.  Do you really want the United States federal government to be able to do whatever they want to do?  Seriously?

By the Democrat Party Interpretation of the Constitution the Following Could Become Reality:

What if a future Administration and another Congress decide that you need to be required to purchase a certain kind of food only available at stores regulated and approved by the federal government?  What if you didn’t want to buy it or eat it?  By the logic of the current regime in Washington and their supporters, you would be forced to do it.  There is no difference whatsoever between forcing you to purchase health care or forcing you to purchase a certain kind of food.  In fact, they go together.

Since the government is taking over your state of health and paying for it, they get to determine what constitutes health, and which foods hurt your health and which help it.  No doubt Mr. Obama will have us purchasing government subsidized arugula from Whole Foods in the near future because it’s good for your health.

What if another administration and another congress decide that you need to be required to purchase a bicycle for transportation because they control carbon dioxide and don’t want you driving your car anymore?  (With subsidize public transportation; you won’t need it anyway.)  What if the government controls the construction and safety of bicycles?  They do, of course.  What if the government had a controlling interest in one of the major bicycle manufactures and wanted you to purchase their bikes?  Would you buy one?  What if you didn’t buy it, but the government took the price of it out of your tax return?  Would you then be celebrating Mr. Obama?  By the logic of the current regime, you will learn to like the health care bill once you understand what’s in it. Ditto for the new bicycle and health food bill.

What if a future Regime in the U.S. determines that certain races of people are more prone to costly diseases than others because of inherited genetic issues?  What if they determine that the restriction of liberty is a legitimate government enterprise if the motive is to improve health, and that not treating these people is in the public interest?  Would you then support the principles espoused by Mr. Obama?  Would you then want the Supreme Court to continue the dismantling of constituted government in the U.S?  Would you then be silent about what is happening during your lifetime?  What if a future government determined that gay people cost more to treat medically than heterosexual people and therefore the restriction of liberty is a legitimate government enterprise if the motive is to improve health and refuses to treat them?  Would you sit by and let that happen?

If the Supreme Court permits the government to force you to purchase one commodity or service, they can force you to purchase anything they choose.  Anything.  Think about it.

Many utopian, ideological Progressives; along with people who went to public schools for too many years, and those who are disappointed with their present state of affairs are vulnerable to the slick promises of those who would be their masters.  They are subjected to the smooth, slick propaganda of the mountebanks in Washington D.C., and end up supporting ideas and programs that will impoverish their lives, and stifle their freedom.   Like Esau, they are willing to sell their Constitutional birthright of freedom and opportunity for the short term benefit of a bowl of lentil soup.  It is our task to talk them out of it.

If you think the Democrat Party including Mr. Obama are not trying to overturn the Constitution by redefining what it means and making it the antithesis of what it clearly states, please make a coherent comment on this post.  Declaring through legislation that 2 plus 2 equals 7; or 19, or whatever they decide it should be does not mean that they have changed the laws of mathematics.  Nor does their declaration that the Constitution gives the federal government powers that the Constitution clearly does not give the federal government mean that it suddenly has those powers.

Mr. Obama and the Democrat party are engaged in an open attempt to overthrow the constituted government of the United States. It’s tough to hear it stated in such a way, but I think I have made my case.  The charge will be denied, of course.  I will be labeled as inconsequential and uninformed; but my thesis is true.  The attempt to overthrow our constituted government legitimated by the Constitution on the part of the Democrat Party by means of creating unlawful legislation is no less illegal and immoral than those who would try to overthrow our government by other means.  A pox on both their houses.  Let’s prosecute anyone who would attempt it regardless of their motive, position, status, or means of operation.

So What do we do About this Attempt to Overthrow Constituted Government in the United States? 

• We must support those states which are mounting a defense of the U.S. Constitution against the Congressional attempt to overthrow it. 
• We must raise the level of communication from those of us who love our country and those in the Congress who would overthrow it. 
• We must always keep our communication appropriate. 
• We must support and elect only people of whatever political party that we are absolutely certain want to retain the historic limitations placed on federal government by the Constitution as it is legally amended.
• We must make clear our position, and make clear to them that we expect them to follow the Constitution and not subvert it.  
• We must be articulate and not make any statements that can be used against us.  If we give them any reason, they will find fault with the messenger and pretend that there was no message. 
• We must not lose heart; we will reap in due time if we don’t faint. 
• We must stay winsome. 
• We must not make false accusations against those who are engaged in overturning constituted government – the truth itself is bad enough. 
• We must not be confused by slick, pedantic, side-stepping rhetoric from those who want to divert us from our task of saving the Union. 
• We must realize that taking the country the framers gave us back will take years.
• We must cut through the “newspeak,” think critically and make coherent arguments.

“If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say this or that even, it never happened—that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death.”

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed—if all records told the same tale—then the lie passed into history and became truth. ‘Who controls the past’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’” 

“Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record. All history was a palimpsest, scraped clean and reinscribed exactly as often as was necessary.”  1984

Let Mr. Obama make idiotic statements about there not being any earthquakes the day after the legislation was passed; no asteroids destroying the earth…  I don’t think Mr. Obama is any towering intellect, but I think he is smart enough to know what we are talking about when we say this is the end of legally constituted government in America – he only wants to belittle people who disagree with him.  Nasty sarcasm shrinks Mr. Obama to a 25 inch inseam, and he knows better.  It’s just his well hidden anger leaking out when he goes off the teleprompter.

Here is a link to a post at www.americanthinker.com with some more suggestions about how this power grab may be overcome.  Hat tip, Larrey Anderson.

It was created this way because the people forming it had real life experience with a hegemonic, central governmental power – that of King George III.  The Parliament and the King instituted whatever they wanted – even if the people didn’t want it.  (This may sound vaguely familiar.)

This exercise of the power of the few over the many has been the experience of all humans from the beginning.  Dictators, Kings, Pharaohs, Emperors, and military Generals have forced the common citizens to comply with the leader’s vision of what was the good society in every corner of the world in every time throughout history.

The brief experiments at democracy and republicanism during the existence of the Greek city states are not a real exception.  Yes, citizens had input on the influence and structure of government, but in almost every case, there were many more slaves than citizens living in those cities.  Slaves had no input whatsoever, and could not vote, so government by consent of the governed wasn’t practiced at all.

Following the Dark Ages, the influence of Christian ideas about the central value and importance of individuals began to chip away at the concept of the divine rights of Kings.  Having to listen to the concerns of noblemen and barons and Pope Innocent III diminished the power of the central government in England.

The major liberty sought by those who finally left the British Isles and parts of Europe for the Americas was freedom of religion.  They came to these shores and created – over a couple of centuries – a republican, federalist system designed to forever constrain the power of the central government from gaining increased hegemony over individuals.  This is why the Constitution is a document of enumerated powers; the founders created it so the federal government could not do anything other than what the Constitution stated specifically it could do.

Unfortunately, at this period in our history the Constitution has long been disfigured beyond recognition by political manipulation on the part of Representatives, Senators, and Presidents; but most of all by the federal court system including the Supreme Court.  For some 80 years our republic has existed on the accumulated goodwill, and  moral and economic capitol of previous generations.  Not that many lately have not pursued moral and economic success, but only that our effort has been increasingly seen as immoral and bigoted by those who desire to return power to the king.

With the recent overstepping of our Congress at the urging President Obama imposing their vision of what your your life should be, we have indeed returned to government without the consent of the governed.  The imposition of what the few believe to be ‘good for us’ rather than continuing the concept of freedom for citizens probably puts any return to Constitutional federalism and the Bill or Rights out of reach.  The Democrats have just denied you significant parts of your Bill of Rights.

Mr. Obama has said in the past that the U.S. Constitution is an impediment to his vision. He has stated, “…the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf.”  With those words, Mr. Obama reveals that he sees the U.S. Constitution as a roadblock to imposing the laws, rules, regulations, and benefits he wants to implement.

It also shows that his vision for the country is entirely different from what the founders created it to be, and what most Americans think it is.  He wants the government to have powers the framers denied to it.  He wants to take powers of freedom away from the people and give it back to the government as if our War for Independence to end coercive powers of government never occurred.  He does not believe in the divine rights of Kings, but it is clear that Mr. Obama believes in the divine rights of Presidents.  Because he believes in his right to force you to live the way he wants you to live rather than the way you want to live.

By his willing and open overthrow of  the U.S. Constitution with its prohibitions on any activity by government other than what is explicitly permitted, he reveals his belief that he should be free to choose for you, and you should not.  Under this regime, the government does not owe you independence from its coercive powers to control your speech, your economic welfare, your freedom to assemble with those you choose; no - in Obama’s world it owes you retirement, healthcare, income of a certain level, and so on.  This means, of course, that it will have to confiscate money from other people in order to hand out these new ‘positive rights.’

Mr. Obama has also been quite open about his intentions of taking money away from some people and giving it to others – some special people he personally wants to support.  He lamented the direction of the civil rights movement because they followed the Constitution; because they had “…a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.”

By “redistributive” he means that he sees wealth earned by those who sacrificed, denied themselves, and worked hard to accumulate as not belonging to them at all.  Rather, it actually belongs to the government; in his view, your wealth is a government commodity.  It is a commodity that the government has the right to “redistribute”  to the people Mr. Obama sees as more deserving of it than you.  Certainly in his mind, those who earned it and sacrificed to accumulate it are not deserving of it, else he would not use the coercive powers of government to take it away from them so he can give it to people he deems worthy of it.  And so the concept of “private property” dies with most of the remaining parts of the Constitution under President Obama.

There is no longer any doubt about what he meant when he said just prior to his inauguration that he was just 5 days away from fundamentally transforming America. Forcing us to pay taxes without our consent, forcing us to purchase a product from a government controlled entity against our will, denying us the right to enter into contracts with people of our choosing for purposes of healthcare – all of this and more is breathtaking.  We have just witnessed a coup d’état sans violence.  The Constitution was written in order to protect us from people like Mr. Obama.  Now it is gone.  The smiling, benevolent, suffocating bureaucracies he is imp0sing are no less coersive than the Politbureaus, Oligarchies, and Star Chambers we have seen elsewhere.  Denying you freedom is denial if it comes with a fist or a smile.

It only remains to ask if you are willing to throw them out of office before we lose another Constitutional right – the right to vote.  This one is no more or less sacred than the others we have already lost.

The pattern

The pattern for Hitler as well as the Soviet dictators was to reach out and grab territory that didn’t belong to them.  Then when the world complained, jumped up and down and said this can’t stand; the dictators would say, “We have interests here,” or “We were invited in.”  Under more pressure, they would say, “Let’s negotiate!”  Unfortunately, the liberals and pacifists in the U.S., Britain, and France said “Yes, negotiation is the way to go,” and began to negotiate.  The dictators would give half of the country back, and the green weenie liberals in the west would declare it a victory.  This is how National Socialism expanded under Hitler, and how the Soviet Union expanded throughout the world.

Hitler and the National Socialists 

Hitler took over Austria March 17, 1938 and the west did nothing; the Sudetenland part of Czechoslovakia without firing a shot September 29, 1938 and the west complained.  Then he violated the peace agreement he made with Poland by invading in the fall of 1939 and the west complained even more.  In 1940 he invaded France and finally the west had to get involved; he later invaded Russia. 

The Communist Dictators Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko, and Gorbachev 

The Communists of the Soviet Union were allies with Britain and the U.S. during the later part of WW2.  Following the end of the war, Stalin agreed that all the nations his army occupied at the end of the war would be able to have free elections. 

That didn’t happen, of course; the ‘iron curtain’ descended around East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Bulgaria and Albania – all of which Stalin had agreed would have free elections.  Besides this, the communists occupied Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Georgia, Tajikistan, Armenia, and Moldavia among a few others. 

Then they began to covertly take over Cuba, Nicaragua, Paraguay, and other western hemisphere countries, along with the attempt to gain access to a year-round warm water port by invading Afghanistan and then going through Pakistan.  

The Obama Democrats

Now, neither the Nazis nor the Soviets are engaging in the same activity, but it worked so well for them that the policy is being followed by the Obama administration and the Democrat Party rewrite the U.S. Constitution without citizen participation; and to carry out a domestic peaceful coup of the United States.

The pattern in health care is to try to take it over 100% in two weeks.  When that didn’t happen, try to do it in the next month or so.  When that doesn’t happen, go home, hold town hall meetings and try to muscle people into giving up.  When that doesn’t work, give away the ‘public option;’ when that fails give away the community ‘non-profit cooperatives;’ when that fails, give away the government controlled private health care company; and when that doesn’t work spend the people’s money to purchase votes; and when that doesn’t work, say you will pass anything in order to declare it a victory.  And it will be a victory because all the boards, commissions, taxes, and control will still be there.

These anti-democrats do not want your input; they plan to dictate everything.  They reach out and steal what belongs to the people, and when we demand they give it back, they want to negotiate.

We have dictators in the Congress and White House; the way to deal with them is by power not negotiation.  Their thirst for power over every aspect of your life is insatiable, you cannot negotiate with dictators.  (I’m wondering if anyone can think of a better name for these people other than ‘dictators.’)  The power of the people must be used in next year’s elections, and the presidential campaign of 2013.  Follow the Nancy Reagan dictum: Just say no.

We show up at rallies only to be called an unwashed mob, Nazis, obstructionists; we show up at town hall meetings with our elected representatives and are pushed out of the meeting by union thugs, delayed until the room is filled with supporters only, ignored, denounced, degraded, treated like junk.  We are considered evil by the mainstream media outlets even as they are going broke for loss of audience share.  Without doubt we terrify the assorted communists, fascists, socialists, pinkos, bureaucratic totalitarians, and new age relativists in power now; we would ruin their (almost completed) takeover of American cultural, economic, political, and religious life.  We point our that their vaunted new clothes are only imaginary, and their naked hatred of the human condition is unsightly.

We are aghast at why they insist on instituting programs that stifle the human spirit; why they think the imposition of their utopian ideas is a better approach than the principle of liberty.  We are baffled by their naïve, child-like approach to evil wherever it exists in the republic itself or the world at large. 

For 23 years I did talk radio in Portland, Oregon, and one of my most memorable interviews was with British philosopher Dr. Roger Scruton regarding his book The West and the Rest, ISI Books 2001.  Recently Dr. Scruton wrote a brief essay titled “Totalitarian Sentimentality” you can (and should) read the essay here.   Purchase the book at a discount here.

“Conservatives recognize that social order is hard to achieve and easy to destroy, that it is held in place by discipline and sacrifice, and that the indulgence of criminality and vice is not an act of kindness but an injustice for which all of us will pay.  Conservatives therefore maintain severe and – to many people – unattractive attitudes.  They favor retributive punishment in the criminal law; they uphold traditional marriage and the sacrifices that it requires; they believe in discipline in schools and the value of hard work and military service.  They see welfare provisions as necessary, but also as a potential threat to genuine charity, and a way both of rewarding antisocial conduct and creating a culture of dependency.” 

“Liberals are of course very different.  They see criminals as victims of social hierarchy and unequal power, people who should be cured by kindness and not threatened with punishment.  They wish all privileges to be shared by everyone, the privileges of marriage included.  And if marriage can be reformed so as to remove the cost of it, so much the better.  Welfare provisions are not rewards to those who receive them, but costs to those who give – something that we owe to those less fortunate than ourselves.”

For liberals, “Far preferable to the hard life in which disciplined teaching, costly charity, and responsible attachment are the ruling principles is the life of sentimental display, in which others are encouraged to admire you for virtues you do not possess.  This life of phony compassion is a life of transferred costs.  Liberals who wax lyrical on the sufferings of the poor do not, on the whole, give their time and money to helping those less fortunate than themselves.  On the contrary, they campaign for the state to assume the burden.  The inevitable result of their sentimental approach to suffering is the expansion of the state and the increase of its power both to tax us and to control our lives.”

 Read this essay; read the book – you’ll love them both.

Below is a list of 26 specific examples of the use of raw, abusive, force used by Mr. Obama during his campaign in 2008, and the first 10 months of his presidency.  Since the list is long, and I am writing it to permenantly document the abuses, you may want to print this post for future reference.  Feel free to use the links I have provided as proof of Mr. Obama’s malfeasance and calumny.

I am not including the abuse of power Mr. Obama is practicing through the unconstitutional use of so-called “Czars” creating policy without Senate Advise and Consent; nor am I writing the larger questions of circumventions of the law with regard to unauthorized spending of government money for things other than approved by legislation or the attempt to nationalize manufacturing, health care, banking, personal incomes, and more.  I will treat those issues in other posts, I am dealing here with Mr. Obama’s disposition. 

Threatening political opponents

In July of 2008, at a fundraiser, Mr. Obama – quoting the Untouchables who had to fight Chicago gangsters revealed his disposition toward civil debate, “If they bring a knife, we will bring a gun,” speaking of how the campaign would be waged.  As you will see, he was prophetic. 

Intimidation to prevent personal embarrassment of Barack Obama

During his campaign for president, Mr. Obama appealed to the Justice Department to asking them to file criminal charges against individuals helping to fund the American Issues Project because the group was running a political ad that was embarrassing to Mr. Obama. 

Intimidation of WGN in Chicago

The Obama campaign sent instructions to his supporters through an “Obama Action Wire” to harass radio station WGN in Chicago because a guest on an interview show discussed documents proving that Mr. Obama was lying when he said he had no connection to terrorist Bill Ayers. 

Intimidation of Joe the plumber

During the campaign while stopping in Ohio, Mr. Obama was asked by Joe Wurzelbacher, “I’m getting ready to buy a company that makes $250 to $280 thousand dollars a year.  Your new tax plan’s going to tax me more isn’t it?” 

Mr. Obama replied, “It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance at success.  My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s going to be good for everybody.  If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s a good thing for everybody.”  (Never having operated a company, Mr. Obama couldn’t explain how taking profits away from the plumbing company to give it to potential customers so they pay the plumber back his own money would make anyone better off.) 

Immediately following this encounter, supporters of Mr. Obama who worked in the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services began combing through Wurzelbacher’s government files releasing privileged information to Obama supporters in media outlets in an attempt to embarrass a private citizen who had the nerve to ask Mr. Obama a question. 

Intimidation of media in Missouri

During the campaign state prosecutors and county sheriffs in Missouri who supported Mr. Obama were asked by the Obama campaign to threaten any media outlet if they broadcast or printed anything the Obama campaign determined to be embarrassing to Mr. Obama. 

Intimidation of the Washington Times, Dallas Morning News, and the New York Post

Another strong-arm tactic that Mr. Obama used during the campaign should have warned the voters about his disposition to abuse power was to throw reporters from his campaign bus.  Reporters from the Washington Times, Dallas Morning News, and the New York Post were denied access to the media bus traveling with Mr. Obama immediately after the three newspapers endorsed Mr. McCain. 

Threatening a whole political party

On the third day of his presidency Mr. Obama lectured Republicans in Congress telling them that they better not listen to Rush Limbaugh.  This was an attempt to silence Mr. Limbaugh, and to intimidate elected officials with regard to whose opinions they listen to.  The Bill of Rights be damned. 

Voter intimidation

Not long after his election, Mr. Obama’s hand-picked (and incompetent) Attorney General Eric Holder squashed a Department of Justice investigation in process. DOJ attorneys were building a case against thugs from the New Black Panther Party in a number or states who were obstructing and intimidating voters - white voters they suspected might vote Republican. 

The lawyers investigating were not politically motivated – they were staff attorneys, not political appointees.  They had video and audio of members of the New Black Panther Party dressed up like Nazi’s brandishing police batons threatening and intimidating white voters who they thought might support John McCain for president.  Despite clear violations of the Constitution and federal laws, Mr. Obama is clearly willing to permit street thugs to take care of intimidating his political opponents and then use the U.S. Department of Justice to let them get away with it.  This will no doubt encourage more abuse in the future since denying potential conservative voters the opportunity to vote is obviously a goal of the Obama administration.

Intimidation of pro-lifers, gun owners, and military veterans

In April of this year, the Department of Homeland Security under the direction of Janet Napolitano wasted no time attacking conservative people in the United States as potentially planning terrorist attacks inside the country.  The report named people who are “pro-life,” who support “the Second Amendment;” those who take a stand against “illegal aliens,” and “returning military veterans,” as risk groups for committing terror attacks in the U.S. 

This had no basis in fact of course, and the outcry about this brazen Democrat attempt to suppress what they think is disagreeable political thought was so loud the White House had to distance itself from the report; soon it was retracted.     

We know this act by Homeland Security was in keeping with Mr. Obama’s disposition regarding conservative citizens in America.  We have him on tape denouncing people who disagree with him as people clinging to their guns or their religion, who oppose immigration; and includes them with those who don’t like the idea of a black man in the White House.  This is Mr. Obama’s view of people who support legal immigration, who are serious about their Christianity, and who support the Constitution.    

Intimidation of Gerald Walpin to protect fraud committed by supporters of Mr. Obama

Inspector General of the Corporation for National Community Service, Gerald Walpin, was charged with insuring that government money given through grants to organizations promoting community service was summarily fired. 

Inspectors General are independent from the entity they audit in order to ensure honesty.  They are to provide oversight to help prevent fraud, waste, and criminal activity with involving your tax dollars.  The Corporation for National Community Service is the government entity that distributes $millions to various groups including AmeriCorps (highly favored by Mrs. Obama) and Mr. Walpin’s audit found a great deal of fraud in an organization founded by Kevin Johnson the former NBA basketball player and ardent supporter of Mr. Obama.  The money was given to St. Hope to provide tutoring for poor kids in the Sacramento school system. 

He found that more than $800,000 of government grant money was misspent on Sacrament School Board political activity, salary increases for St. Hope employees, paying personnel to provide personal services for Mr. Johnson like mowing his lawn, washing his personal car, and running errands. 

Soon after Mr. Walpin issued his report he received a call to his mobile phone on a Wednesday night from attorney Norman Eisen, the Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform.  ‘Mr. Walpin, the president wants me to tell you that he really appreciates your service, but it’s time to move on,’” Walpin recalls.  “Eisen said, ‘You can either resign, or I’ll tell you that we’ll have to terminate you.’”  Mr. Walpin said he needed some time to think about it; Eisen said he had one hour.  Eisen called him back in 45 minutes. 

Mr. Walpin knew the timing was critical.  What he had reported made the Directors of AmeriCorps very – they didn’t want a DOJ investigation of their funding of pet projects for political supporters of Democrats.  Walpin declined to resign.  He was immediately fired.  Walpin reminded the officials that Mr. Obama himself had supported legislation that made it impossible to fire an Inspector General without 30 days’ notice, and that he wasn’t resigning.  The Obama administration had to back off.  For 30 days. 

Obama knew that the so-called Stimulus Bill would provide tens or hundreds of $millions for Sacramento and New York, and that helps attract votes for him, but the violations were so serious that both cities could lose any future funding.  The answer: squash the message and kill the messenger; Walpin had to go. 

When the 30 days were up, he was fired; now he has filed a lawsuit against the government for the illegal firing.  This is what happens when a member of the ‘Obama family’ gets caught engaging in illegal activities – “Pick the Target, Freeze It, Personalize It, and Polarize It.”  Saul Alinsky shows the way for the Obama administration.  Disagreeing with Barack Obama can seriously cost you. 

Intimidation of private by promoting secret reporting on neighbors to the White House

Following the East German Stasi program of ratting out your neighbor for being insufficiently ardent about his health care plan, Mr. Obama sought to intimidate American citizens by asking people who received any email with criticisms of his plans to forward the email to a White House website.  Doing this would provide political operatives with email addresses and URL’s for those he perceives as political enemies.  This is not the only attempt on the part of Mr. Obama to create an “enemies list.” 

Intimidation by secretly tracking American citizens’ comments on the Obama presidency

In another attempt to gather dirt on people who may not support his politics, the Obama administration – without any public notice – began to collect and archive comments made by tens of millions of Americans on social networking sites like Facebook.com and Myspace.com. Mr. Obama continues to engage in the practice without notifying those who make posts on these personal websites.

By using this information, political operatives can keep tabs on who supports and who does not support this administration’s politics.  When seen as part of a larger picture, these attempts to gather the political thoughts of every American, and the illegal nationalizing of American manufacturing, banking, energy, and healthcare, it gets scary.  It’s clear that those who oppose the President can be identified and, given past performance, could be denied business banking loans, health care services and other goods and services now controlled by Mr. Obama and his operatives.  We have seen this ruthless policy already carried out with the Chrysler bondholders and dealers who supported John McCain – goods and services denied to citizens based solely on their opposition to Mr. Obama’s political policies. 

Intimidation of Tea Party citizens to deny them Constitutional rights

After trying to socialize American health care demanding that it be done in the space of two weeks, the debate heated up, and the Tea Parties began.  Mr. Obama and leading Democrat politicians attempted over and over to intimidate hundreds of thousands of Americans who were engaging in a Constitutional right.  Powerful government officials referred to these American citizens as Nazi’s, terrorists, unwashed mobs, and more, in a blatant attempt to coerce them into silence.  This single-minded policy on the part of Mr. Obama and the Democrat Party seeks to deny people the right to freely support or oppose the politics they want, and to force them into alignment with Mr. Obama’s political agenda.  We need to see this for what it is.  

Intimidation of citizens at townhall meetings

Recall these meetings held by Senators and Representatives during the summer recess.  In some cases, citizens were locked out of meetings to deny them the Constitutional right to peaceably assemble.  In other cases, supporters of the Democrat politicians were bussed in to fill the room prior to opening the room for constituents; sometimes union thugs were present to intimidate constituents, sometimes very small rooms were used in order to prevent access to Congressional representatives.  In more than one case personal ID was required to access the room to speak to an elected official. 

Intimidation of private businesses

During the health care debate, Humana – one of the largest providers of private health insurance in America – notified its members about Humana’s opposition to the President’s plan and why they opposed it. 

Immediately Mr. Obama and his operatives began threatening Humana.  If Humana doesn’t stop promoting their own views on health care, the president and Congress will strip the insurance companies of anti trust protections. 

This is a private company, yet Mr. Obama will use the coercive power of the government to force them into compliance with his personal political agenda.  

Intimidation of democratic leaders in other countries

Manuel Zelaya, President of Honduras was elected in 2006.  Under the Honduran Constitution, anyone elected to the office of President can serve only one three-year term. 

In the course of his term Mr. Zelaya declared special trade deals with Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua; he imported doctors from these countries who immediately went into the countryside indoctrinating the peasants with communist ideas of revolution.  He defined anyone with more than a two bedroom home as rich and these “rich” people had to house the poor in their homes.  He raised the minimum wage by 60%, unemployment skyrockets, and he becomes very unpopular. 

In the last year of his presidency, Zelaya decides he wants to serve another term despite what the Constitution says and orders a referendum to be attached to the upcoming presidential primary ballots with a special place for people to vote on eliminating presidential term limits.  It is so outrageously illegal that he cannot find a printing company in Honduras to print the ballots; the entire Congress – minus 3 members – votes against this criminal move – even members of his own political party. 

Zelaya has the ballots printed by his friend Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, and are shipped to Honduras.  Mr. Zelaya orders the Chief of Staff of the Honduran military to distribute the ballots, and the Chief of Staff refuses because of the illegality of the move.  Mr. Zelaya fires the Chief of Staff; the Honduran Supreme Court orders him reinstated and the illegal ballots confiscated.  

Mr. Zelaya turns to radical supporters and street thugs ordering them to break into an Air Force base and seize the confiscated ballots. 

Honduras had finally had enough.  A thug is trying to take over their country, and must be stopped.  There is no provision for impeachment in the Honduran Constitution, but the laws apply to every citizen including the president.  Honduran law states, “The citizen who has served as head of the Executive branch shall not serve again as President or Vice President of the Republic…He who violates this disposition or proposes its reform…shall immediately be removed from office.” 

Because of the law and its violation by President Zelaya, the Supreme Court orders him arrested.  The military carried out the arrest warrant.  The office of Vice-President was vacant so the next in line to serve was the Speaker of the House who is sworn in as President; this individual – Roberto Micheletti – is a member of the same political party as Mr. Zelaya. 

Immediately Mr. Obama denounced this transition as a “military coup,” and began to punish the Honduran people for acting according to their own Constitution trying to preserve their democracy.  Up to this moment Obama insists that Honduras reinstate Zelaya who is attempting to do exactly what Hugo Chavez did in Venezuela.  The Obama administration has cut off consular visas with Honduras, as well as funding for the small country in desperate need of U.S. help.  

The Law Library of Congress was asked to investigate the legality of the Honduran actions, and produced a report for Congress in August stating,

“The Supreme Court of Honduras has constitutional and statutory authority to hear cases against the President of the Republic and many other high officers of the State, to adjudicate and enforce judgments, and to request the assistance of the public forces to enforce its rulings. The Constitution no longer authorizes impeachment, but gives Congress the power to disapprove of the conduct of the President, to conduct special investigations on issues of national interest, and to interpret the Constitution. In the case against President Zelaya, the National Congress interpreted the power to disapprove of the conduct of the President to encompass the power to remove him from office, based on the results of a special, extensive investigation.”   

Not getting the result he wanted, Democrat Senator John Kerry demands that the Law Library of Congress retract its analysis.  Can anyone pronounce the word “censorship”? On October 29, 2009, the Law Library of Congress has issued a statement saying they stand behind their report. 

Why would Mr. Obama and leading Democrat politicians insist on supporting a thuggish communist attempting to illegally take over the democratic government of Honduras; and oppose his legal ouster by our democratically elected friends in Honduras?  Perhaps Mr. Obama wants to set a precedent for his own future designs on the political structure of the U.S.  Scary. 

Intimidation of Chrysler bondholders

The Obama administration was so intent on providing financial support for the United Auto Workers union that it subordinated $6.9 billion in Chrysler bonds. Under legal standards, the bondholders would be paid first in case of a bankruptcy, but Mr. Obama ignored the law.  He accused the bondholders of being “speculators” because they had loaned Chrysler almost $7 billion, and accused them of “refusing to cooperate.”  This browbeating and intimidation cost people who invested in the company through bonds almost $5 billion; the income from these bonds constituted retirement money for many of these people. 

The President forced them to accept $2 billion on the bondholders’ investment of $6.9.  Then he gave 55% of Chrysler Corporation to the UAW, and demanded that the company be brought into the Fiat Corporation, an Italian auto manufacturer.  By violating the law and not permitting a bankruptcy, Mr. Obama was able to transfer $billions from investors and bondholders to the unions. 

Intimidation and theft of Chrysler dealerships

As the deal with Fiat was put together, administration officials targeted Chrysler dealerships that were to be closed.  Although never admitted to by the administration the list of owners who were targeted to lose their dealerships were owners who had donated to the GOP, to conservative causes in general; and even included those who had previously supported John Edwards or Hillary Clinton. 

The administration made these decisions based on political affiliation, not on the dealerships that had run successful Chrysler dealerships.  This deal was absolutely corrupt, and was designed to punish those who politically do not support Mr. Obama and use their money to reward those who do. 

Intimidation of Arizona State University by threatening IRS audits

At a commencement speech at Arizona State University, Mr. Obama noted that A.S.U. had refused to give him an honorary degree because of his lack of executive experience and the debate about it during the campaign.  Mr. Obama followed this statement by saying, “I really thought this was much ado about nothing.  But I do think we all learned an important lesson.  I learned never again to pick another team over the Sun Devils in my NCAA brackets…President Crowe and the Board of Regents will soon learn all about being audited by the IRS. 

No doubt he meant this as a joke, but when you’re the president and you can make it happen, you don’t joke about it – especially when you have a reputation for taking a gun to a knife fight.  The mafia don is asking, “How are the wife and kids?”

Intimidation of the nation’s physicians

As the health care debate dragged on, Mr. Obama wanted to intimidate doctors who will bill Medicare and Medicaid for services rendered into supporting his government operated health care plans.

He made a speech in which he said the government needs to act on his plan because doctors would rather remove a child’s tonsils than treat an infection because they make more money for the surgery.

He gave another example of the importance of government taking over health care by suggesting that doctors would rather delay treatment of diabetes, because they could make more money later by amputating a patient’s foot.  Then he went on to suggest that the doctor stood to make $25,000, to $50,000 for the amputation rather than the $750 to $1,200 they are really paid.

Physicians who desire a different approach to providing health care than Mr. Obama wants can expect outrageous denunciations that they are greedy, have no interest in their patients, and are unworthy parasites who must be brought to heel by government bureaucrats.  Post partisan indeed. 

Intimidation Carrie Prejean

Along the way, Carrie Prejean won the Miss California USA pageant, and was runner-up for the Miss USA crown.

You will remember that during the final event, an ardently and publically gay pageant judge asked Miss. Prejean about gay marriage.  She said she harbored no animus toward gays, but preferred traditional marriage.  Instant outrage ensued.

She became the runner-up when most everyone thought she would win the pageant.  Immediately she became the object of opprobrium from the leftists in the country, called despicable names, and was ultimately stripped of her Miss California USA crown. 

The top political advisor to Mr. Obama, David Axelrod, said during an (tax subsidized) NPR interview that Carrie Prejean was one of 3 finalists for the Obama family dog.  The audience roared with laughter and cheers.  No one is immune to the poison and vitriol and abuse the Obama administration will heap on those they perceive as not supporting their political positions.  This is just great; Mr. Obama’s henchman beating up a Miss USA contestant.  No one is safe. 

Intimidation of white police officers

Earlier this year when Henry Louis Gates arrived home from a trip abroad, he couldn’t find his keys.  He and his escort – both black men – began trying to break through the front door of Mr. Gates’ house. 

A neighbor seeing two men attempting to break into a home called the Cambridge police.  When the officers arrived, the door was open and they thought a burglary or home invasion was in progress.

They entered the home and encountered Mr. Gates.  Not knowing who he was, they demanded ID.  He refused and told them to leave.

Thinking there may be a hostage held elsewhere in the home, the officers (one of them a black officer) asked Mr. Gates to come out on the front porch.  Mr. Gates began berating the officers accusing them of being bigots and racists, abusing their power, pushing around a black man. 

The argument continued with Mr. Gates refusing to identify himself.  The officers then took Mr. Gates out on the porch while he continued to berate the officers.  By now, they had secured the home and identified Mr. Gates, but he was arrested for disturbing the peace because of his insistent yelling at the officers calling them racists, calling Officer Crowley’s mother a :bitch,” and telling them, “You don’t know who you’re messing with.” 

Mr. Gates is a friend of Mr. Obama.  Upon hearing about the arrest and then being asked publically about it Mr. Obama said he didn’t know much about it.  “But I think it’s fair to say No. 1 any of us would be pretty angry.  Number 2, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home.”  

Apparently Mr. Obama doesn’t need to know much about a thing to have an already strong pre-formed opinion about it.  Harboring racist thoughts in his own heart, Mr. Obama’s prior assumption is that a white officer arresting a black man is prima facie evidence of racism.  This was a clumsy attempt to intimidate white police officers on the part of the president. 

Intimidation of Fox News

Mr. Obama has always had animus toward Fox News because the reporters at the company have attempted to be fair and balanced; and we know that Mr. Obama supports only unfair and out of balance news organizations that support his political positions.  Besides the news segments, Fox also has opinion shows – but so do the favored networks, like leftists Larry King on CNN, or Keith Olbermann on MSNBC.  An opinion show is designed to express opinions regarding facts, not just the facts themselves like the news segments do.  Some of the opinion show hosts on Fox are decidedly not in sync with the Obama agenda; for that reason the administration recently launched a dangerous attack against Fox news. 

Administration officials have stated that Fox News – more than twice as popular as any other two cable news organizations combined – isn’t a news station at all.  They went on to suggest that other news organizations not follow up on any Fox generated stories like people who are communists, revolutionaries or internationalists; or who support forced abortions in the U.S. or a government takeover of all our uses of energy working in the White House.

This is an open attack to force compliance with the thoughts of Mr. Obama.  No one should listen to any voice that doesn’t support him; no one should be permitted to produce information that opposes him.  Everyone who disagrees with the Dear Leader must to vilified, denounced, ridiculed, and stopped.  “Pick the Target, Freeze It, Personalize It, and Polarize It.”

Attempting to intimidate Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck

Rush Limbaugh who is a syndicated talk show host whose show would be listed on any station’s format as “entertainment,” has long been the object of scorn from the Democrat Party.  Democrat politicians are operating on the assumption that they have the right to express their opinions, but unless you agree with them, you don’t have the right to express yours. 

Lately Glenn Beck, a private individual, has become an object of Obama intimidation for outing the Obama administration’s ‘Green Jobs Czar’ Van Jones as a ‘truther.’  That is, Jones believes President George Bush conspired with Osama bin Laden to create the attacks on 9/11 resulting in the murder of 3,000 American citizens.  Beck also showed film where Jones announced that he himself was a communist.  

He didn’t apologize for the horror of permitting Van Jones to become responsible for $billions of tax dollars without realizing he was a communist.  No, Mr. Obama obviously knows Mr. Jones’ political commitments so he cried havoc and let slip the dogs of war against Mr. Beck. 

Again Mr. Obama is demonstrating that he opposes our Constitutional right of free speech and freedom of the press, and by extension, broadcast media; and makes no apology whatsoever for his intention to ignore the law. 

Intimidation of Senator John Kyl

Arizona Senator John Kyl was critical of Mr. Obama’s ‘Stimulus Plan,” so administration Cabinet Secretaries attempting to intimidate Sen. Kyl sent letters to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer.  One of them said, “If you prefer to forfeit the money we are making available to the state, as Senator Kyl suggests,” let us know. 

Correctly, the Arizona Republic newspaper said, “Let’s not mince words here.  The White House is intent on shutting Kyl up…using whatever means necessary.” 

Intimidation of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Very recently the Obama administration has tried to intimidate the Chamber of Commerce.  This is a membership group promoting the interests of businesses in the U.S.  Presumably they have insight into what is good for job creation since the member companies together employ tens of millions of Americans.  But Mr. Obama who has never hired an employee he had to pay, and has never even operated a lemonade stand knows better. 

Since the Chamber has opposed Mr. Obama’s health care plan, the president has sent Rahm Emmanuel and Valerie Jarrett out to dismantle the Chamber by cleaving off important businesses from the positions the Chamber itself has taken.  They have gone directly to IBM, Wal-Mart, Time Warner, Kodak, Amazon, Coca-Cola, and Starbucks in order to try to break the influence of the Chamber of Commerce. 

This is a process of intimidation; Jarrett said, “The question is: does the Chamber really represent the business community the way it used to?  It seems as though their members are disengaging.”  Of course any member business is free to quit the Chamber at any time.  Any process of “disengagement” was the attempt of the Obama administration in their attempt to destroy this private organization that had the nerve to disagree with Mr. Obama. 

Conclusion

We can determine what the new United States will look like by observing the policies he is pursuing.  He is seeking federal government control over: what health care services you will be permitted to have, your banking accounts and the loans you create with any bank; your credit cards, the kind of job you can have, and now how much you will be permitted to earn.  He is seeking control over what constitutes marriage, and your opinions regarding sexual morality.  He is seeking to control what you are permitted to believe about immigration, the Constitution; and what kind of company you can create.  He is seeking to control the temperature of your home, when you can run your dishwasher, and how hot you can have your water.

Considering this collection of concrete and verified instances of intimidation, and vicious cage fighting against private, individual citizens:  a beauty pageant winner, private physicians, constituents attempting to speak to their representatives, entertainers; against political speech by researchers, pro live-loving moms, ordinary supporters of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights; against military veterans who have given their all in defense of their country, government employees who are charged with insuring good accounting; against innocent investors, and business owners, and University Presidents; against white police officers in the orderly conduct of their task, leading news outlets, and Republican Senators; the conclusion is inescapable: Mr. Obama is, on the outside, a sophisticated, urbane but committed leftist intent on “transforming” the United States.  

On the inside, there is overwhelming evidence that he is a Chicago thug in the mold of previous Chicago gangsters.  He has surrounded himself with cut-throats; people who play for keeps.  He commissions them to go out to harass, intimidate, browbeat; to call names, to ruin reputations while he publically remains the professorial, reticent, sophisticate.  He publically expresses a sort of benign patience with we lesser mortals who aren’t bright enough to follow his deep reasoning, but on the inside he is an angry man who is willing to steal money dedicated to provide services for the elderly so he can give it to someone else.  If we could remove the practiced smile, we would see Mr. Obama as he is; an angry, jealous, bitter, man with his teeth barred; a man of infinite ego consumed with hubris.  We know this because of the instances I show in this post.  He feigns patient sophistication while he and his gang slit the throat of American cultural and economic history.  The blood of American tradition is squirting out in all directions.  We are dying of cultural exsanguination; and Barack Obama is the assassin.

The only question that remains is, what will you do about stopping his hostile takeover of the United States?  Are you invested so totally in Mr. Obama that you give him every benefit of the doubt?  Can you look honestly at what this man has done since becoming president?  Are you willing to admit the bullying he has done to anyone with the courage to disagree with him?  Are you willing to look squarely into the abyss that Mr. Obama is “transforming” America into?  Are you willing leave behind all that has made this country good and great: the envy of the world; the shining city on the hill for emigrants everywhere?  Consider what our election of Barack Obama will cost the world; and reconsider what politics you support.

Our freedom to start new businesses; to enjoy central heating and air conditioning; to continue to enjoy personal financial liberty, and to continued employement are in danger – all because of oppressive new government regulations.  You may be surprised to know that a molecule essential to all plant and animal life on earth is now considered by the Obama EPA as dangerous.  

The Environmental Protection Agency has now officially made an “endangerment finding” on CO2.  This permits the Obama Administration to take command and control of this molecule by means of Clean Air Act regulations.  EPH Chief Lisa Jackson says that the regulations would only apply to 10,000 facilities in the U.S. that discharge 25,000 tons of CO2 or more per year.  These are utility and refining companies along with some manufacturing facilities.  It’s important to note that the limit of 25,000 tons is completely arbitrary because the Clean Air Act regulations state that an “endangerment finding” requires regulation of any facility that discharges more than 250 tons – not the 25,000 Ms. Jackson announced.  As a result, all human activity; public and personal will come under the control of the federal government.  This is not overstatement.  Consider that energy is required for virtually all human activity: the temperature of our home and workplace, how we are permitted to get to work, where we work; whether we can own an outboard motor, ski, travel; the food in our grocery store and the clothes on our back will all come under federal scrutiny. 

How will it be implemented?

This means that many farms, hospitals, schools, hotels, churches and small businesses will be required to implement “best available control technology” to avoid federal fines.  The number of facilities covered would be over 40,000 – there are 300 today – and facilities requiring EPA construction permits would rise from 14,000 to 6.1 million; these numbers come from the EPA itself.  Further they say that this is “an unprecedented increase” and says it will create years of delay that will “impede economic growth by precluding any type of source – whether it emits GHGs [greenhouse gasses] or not – from construction or modifying for years after its business plan contemplates.” (Emphasis mine) No mention on how this would impact Mr. Obama’s plan to increase employment. 

The ostensible reason to control the emission of CO2 is to “save the earth.”  That is; the earth is warming critically because of Carbon dioxide which humanity is creating at unsustainable levels and governments of the world must immediately slow then reverse the amount of CO2 produced by humanity.  This is not only a hallucination, it is a lie.  Revelations during the past week prove the theory is a lie, and I will be posting on the subject shortly. 

I have posted before on the subject, but it is important to note that CO2 comprises just 0.04% of the atmosphere, and it is absolutely essential for photosynthesis that makes plant life possible on earth.  Most plants take one molecule of water, combine it with one molecule of Carbon dioxide with energy from sunlight, and make 6 molecules of sugar and 6 molecules of Oxygen.  The sugar is made into sugar fibers like cellulose and hemicelluloses that make up the structure of plant.  (We perceive these sugar fibers as the limbs and trunk of trees.  We grind them up and make paper out of them!)  The oxygen migrates back out of the membrane of the plant and flows into the air making animal life possible.  Thus, plants require Carbon dioxide exhaled from humans and animals to exist; and all animal life including humans require Oxygen exhaled from plants to exist.  Plants thrive on the waste of animal life; people thrive on the waste of plant life.  All life on earth requires this essential exchange.  Now the government has claimed the right to control one of the universal chemical exchanges essential to life on earth.  Just wait until the bureaucrats get their fingers on this one. 

The motives are clear

Hubris alone can explain why a government would declare a small, simple molecule essential for all plant and animal life on earth an “endangerment.”  The declaration has nothing to do with protecting the atmosphere – a molecule essential to our life cannot be considered a danger!  It’s prevalence in the atmosphere is largely unchanged throughout history and as a result, it cannot be a contributor to so-called “global warming.”  There is no correlation between the increase of carbon in the atmosphere through the use of fossil fuels and any warming of earth’s temperatures; and if fact we have been in a cooling period for the past 10 years. 

The hubris is all about a malevolent desire on the part of these elitist utopians to deprive Americans of the freedom to engage in commerce – which relies on energy production; to live private lives in our home keeping it cool and warm; to live where we want to live; to operate automobiles.  It will control where businesses are permitted to operate; the price of food produced shipped, cooled, and cooked with the use of energy.  It is the beginning of the end of private enterprise because permission to operate all aspects of business – and as a consequence, private life – will be controlled by federal bureaucrats bringing about Marx’s goal of nationalizing the means of production.