John R. Houk
© February 19, 2014
I have live in Oklahoma off and on since 1982. Honestly I have had tough time in calling Oklahoma home. I was born in San Diego, CA and was raised in Washington State (the more Conservative east side) and have a tough time letting go of that feeling that Washington is home. I say all that and have developed a semi-attachment to Oklahoma primarily because I married the love of my life who was born and bred in Oklahoma. So I guess today, I will call myself an Okie.
I am proud I reside in Oklahoma which is one of the first State’s to pass a voter’s initiative that would have been aimed at keeping Islam’s Sharia Law out of this State. Voters passed SQ 755 with a ¾ approval and the State Question became known as the Save our State Amendment. You would think that would be a done deal, right? The local chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-OK) filed a Federal suit and ultimately had the Save our State Amendment struck down. CAIR-OK’s win was based on SQ 755 specifying Sharia Law in an effort to keep laws of foreign origin that contradict the U.S. and Oklahoma State Constitution out of the judicial system in Oklahoma. Ultimately SQ 755 was ruled unconstitutional because the 1st Amendment forbids the government (actually specifically the Federal Congress) from making any laws affecting religion.
Even before U.S. District Court Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange ink was dry on the opinion striking down the Save our State Amendment down the Oklahoma State Congress passed its version of American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) joining many other States who found a way to keep the Anti-American Islamic Sharia Law out of the Oklahoma Courts and still protect religious freedom. An ALAC makes no mention of religious faith whatsoever yet singles out specifically that any foreign law rather of another nation or international law cannot be used as a legal precedent in an Oklahoma State Court if contradicts the U.S. Constitution or the Oklahoma State Constitution. The legislative act was passed and signed in April 2013 and became effective on November 2013.
Today I read an ACT for America Action Alert about pending legislation aimed at strengthening anti-terrorism enforcement in Oklahoma is before the State’s House of Representatives and is labeled HB 2851. The ACT email includes State House member to contact by phone or email to show your support for the Bill. According to ACT the legislation is intended to rectify the failure of the Obama Administration and the Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to label the Islamic jihad attack on American Servicemen at Ft. Hood by the Muslim and American citizen Major Nidal Hasan as work place violence rather than act of Islamic terrorism.
Here is the ACT for America Action Alert. If you live in Oklahoma I encourage you to contact the State Congressman in the email. If you are from outside of Oklahoma and maybe have had an unfavorable experience pertaining to Homegrown Islamic terrorism perhaps you could send an email to the Congressmen.
I recommend reading: Islamist-Interfaith Alliance Battles Foreign Law Bans
SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR HB2851 TO STRENGTHEN
OKLAHOMA’S ANTI-TERRORISM LAWS AND
PROVIDE FOR CIVIL LIABILITY FOR ACTS OF TERRORISM
Sent by ACT for America
Sent: 2/17/2014 8:15 AM
Representative Dan Fisher has introduced an important bill in the Oklahoma state legislature and ACT! for America is getting behind it. Further, we are asking for your help in moving it across the legislative finish line and into law.
The bill is HB 2851 – legislation that strengthens Oklahoma’s anti-terrorism laws and provides for enhanced civil liability for acts of terrorism in Oklahoma. The legislation would hold those who commit acts of terrorism in Oklahoma civilly liable for those acts, and allow the victims of that terrorism to sue for monetary damages.
The bill was inspired by the Jihadist terrorist attack that occurred in Little Rock, Arkansas on June 1st 2009 in which US Army Private Andy Long was killed outside a Recruiting Station. That incident was the subject of the movie “Losing Our Sons.” The federal government declined to call that incident an act of terrorism and failed to prosecute it as such.
This state level legislation is needed because homegrown Jihadists don’t turn to Jihad on their own. They are recruited and indoctrinated. Those who recruit and indoctrinate for Jihad need to be made civilly liable both for the benefit of survivors and so that discovery can take place to uncover Jihad networks when the federal government fails to do its job.
This same common-sense legislation has already passed into law in Arkansas and Louisiana.
We think this is an important proposal that is worthy of our support and we ask that you use your powerful voice – as an Oklahoma resident and voter – to register your support as well. This action will enhance the chance of this bill ultimately being passed into law.
We need you to contact the members of the House Judiciary Committee to let them know that you support HB 2851 and that you’d like them to do so as well, by signing on as a cosponsor and voting “yes” when it is brought before their committee:
Rep. Leslie Osborne
Rep. Aaron Stiles
Rep. Scott R. Biggs
Rep. Jon Echols
Rep. Scott Inman
Rep. Dennis Johnson
Rep. Fred Jordan
Rep. Steve Martin
Rep. Mark McBride
Rep. Charles A. McCall
Rep. Mark McCullough
Rep. Richard Morrissette
Rep. Tom Newell
Rep. Ben Sherrer
Rep. Emily Virgin
Rep. Cory T. Williams
** ACTION ITEM **
Today, please take a moment to call and e-mail the members of the Judiciary Committee and ask that they support and cosponsor HB 2851. In your own words, please respectfully relay the following:
I urge you to support and co-sponsor HB 2851, in order to strengthen Oklahoma’s anti-terrorism laws and see to it that individuals committing acts of terrorism in Oklahoma be held civilly liable for their actions.
This same legislation has already been passed into law in Arkansas and Louisiana.
This bill is of the utmost importance to me!
Thank you for your leadership on this vital matter.
(Your name and city)
Thank you, Oklahoma! Your actions are making a difference!
REMEMBER, YOUR VOICE COUNTS!
IF EACH OF US DOES JUST A LITTLE, TOGETHER WE CAN
ACCOMPLISH A LOT!
Oklahoma Voters Know the Enemy
John R. Houk
© February 19, 2014
SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR HB2851 TO STRENGTHEN OKLAHOMA’S ANTI-TERRORISM LAWS …
ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.
About ACT! for America
ACT! for America was founded by Brigitte Gabriel, a Lebanese immigrant who came to the United States after losing her country of birth to militant Muslim fundamentalists during the Lebanese Civil War.
ACT! for America is the only grassroots organization dedicated to national security and terrorism. We have over 875 chapters across the country and 279,000 members.
ACT! for America is a non-partisan, non-sectarian organization whose mission is to give Americans concerned about national security and terrorism a powerful, organized, informed and mobilized voice.
ACT! for America stands ready to take action as the only national security grassroots organization in America.
Our recent successes include:
• American Laws for American Courts (ALAC) legislation passed in Tennessee, Arizona, Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, North Carolina, South Dakota and Washington State. This legislation protects the Constitution as the highest authority in our courts against any foreign law.
• Passage of Anti-Female Genital Mutilation laws in Kansas which outlaws the Sharia practice of Female Genital Mutilation (circumcision).
• Free Speech Defense Act passed in South Dakota protecting authors and publishers from intimidation lawsuits filed in foreign countries.
• Over 875 chapters across the country and 279,000 members strong!
• See our Victory Timeline here for a list of our victories over the past few years.
The mission of ACT! for America is to build a network of chapters made up of informed citizens to speak out for public policies that protect our national security and hold elected officials accountable for those policy decisions while partnering with … READ THE REST
Intro to ‘Revolt’
Editor John R. Houk
January 20, 2014
Justin Smith writes an essay entitled “Revolt”. The premise is an understandable disgust with Barack Hussein Obama crossing the line from Presidential authority to Presidential tyrant. There is a time emerging in America in which citizens who choose to cherish the freedoms our Founding Fathers’ fought, died for and won may have to assert themselves AGAIN. As Thomas Jefferson penned in the Declaration of Independence:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. … (The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America; Congress, July 4, 1776; Charters of Freedom, Archives.gov)
Justin wrote he wrote his last paragraph with Isaiah 5: 20 and 7: 15 in mind. I believe he should have begun his essay with these two verses. So I am including them here for you to think about as you read this entire essay:
20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil;
Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness;
Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
15 Curds and honey He shall eat, that He may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. (Isaiah 5: 20; 7: 15 NKJV)
By Justin O. Smith
Sent: 1/19/2014 11:21 AM
It is not an exaggeration to name Barack Obama “a tyrant” or to state that America has entered a phase of soft tyranny under the Obama administration. Many would counter this assertion with examples of people still free to go to work, the stores, the movies and the daily routine of living, but tyranny never begins as cruel and oppressive; it starts out merely illegitimate and benign, just as so many of Obama’s executive orders and actions by Senator Harry Reid and the U.S. Senate have been in advancing the Progressive Movement’s agenda and shredding the U.S. Constitution.
Obama and the Progressive Democrats hate America. There can be no other explanation for their desire to fundamentally transform America from the greatest nation on earth, a nation that has helped to free much of the world both economically and physically, into a socialist/authoritarian shadow of its former self, impoverished, with every single aspect of life ruled by legislation from a central governing body of so-called “elites.” When Obama speaks of “economic equality”, he is actually calling for an end to individuality and individual liberty: Remember, this is the President and First Lady who have bragged about “disrespecting the American flag” and attending “numerous flag burnings” in the past.
Central planning is not about rationality and reason or knowledge and experience. It is about illegitimately exercising power over others through the deceit of moral relativism and situationalism. It is coercive and requires non-stop social engineering, while it concedes no failures and tolerates no deviation from dogma. And this is why, even in the face of the utter and miserable failure of the ACA [i.e. Obamacare], the Progressives refuse to broach any serious discussion with Republicans that considers abandoning the ACA in part or whole, although they applaud Obama’s unilateral and unConstitutional seventeen changes to the ACA.
Whenever, the issue of Executive orders is raised, the Progressives are quick to point to other presidents who signed more orders than Obama. The issue isn’t how many Executive orders he has signed; the issue is the kind of orders he has signed and their associated bureaucratic orders, rules and regulations (80,000 annually) unleashed on America.
Obama’s Executive order 13575 circumvented Congress’s rejection of the UN’s Agenda 21 and “sustainable development”, and in 2009, it placed controls on government and private lands, resources and energy; his National Defense Resources Preparedness order basically grants the president and his cabinet members absolute authority and power over all the nation’s natural resources and private materials, services and facilities; signed December 31, 2011, the National Defense Authorization Act allows the president to indefinitely detain any U.S. citizen on the mere suspicion that they might be a terrorist; and now the ACA , while not an executive order, is interfering in our individual choices and decisions to keep our own doctors and the health care plans we want and can afford.
During GM’s financial crisis and subsequent bailout, the Obama administration started its habit of targeting political enemies. Those GM dealers, who supported Obama’s election campaign, were allowed to stay in business, and those who did not support Obama were shut down.
Moreover, it is now evident that Obama has used his power through the IRS to target his political enemies, such as the Tea Party. Although he and his administration thoroughly deny this allegation, the circumstantial evidence is so heavy that any average American would already have been convicted and serving time on its weight alone.
Isn’t it surreal that the FBI ended its IRS investigation on the advice of Eric Holder’s appointee, Barbera Bosserman, who gave $6100 dollars to Obama’s campaign between 2008 and 2012? Whatever happened to independent counsels and select investigative committees?
Today, rather than target those who are most likely to commit terrorist atrocities, the islamofascists, Obama and the National Security Agency have placed the entire American population under a blanket warrant, for fear of being called “Islamophobic”. This sort of warrant was rejected by Americans, such as lawyer James Otis, in 1761, and the consequences of its implementation now are dangerous and authoritarian.
Do any of you remember Obama musing over the Chinese not having to contend with a “pesky Constitution”?
On January 14, 2014 many Americans may have finally been slapped awake by Obama’s statement, “I have a pen and a phone and I’ll act when Congress won’t”…to speak for “all the American people.” This is similar to his statement in December 2013, when he said, “If Congress refuses to act, I’ll do everything in my power to act without them.”
Our nation has been here before to a lesser degree under President Woodrow Wilson, who argued for obstructing and damaging constitutional primacy at every opportunity by corrupting the Constitution itself. He advocated for an all-powerful president, courts and judges willing to rewrite the U.S. Constitution (i.e. Chief Justice John Roberts) and controlling Congress in order to control state legislatures without limits, and in essence, expanding the federal government beyond Constitutional control: Obama has simply taken this plan to new, stunning and light speed levels of action.
During C-Span’s televised Congressional hearings in December of 2013, Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), Judiciary Committee Chairman, remarked that the president “doesn’t have a debate in the Oval Office about what he wants to do …He does what he wants to do, and then you no longer have a representative democracy.” The executive’s powers have overtaken the legislative power, and this is destructive to the center of our constitutional design.
America has a lawless administration that picks and chooses, which laws it will follow. Obama has ordered Attorney General Eric Holder not to enforce U.S. law as it applies to immigration, the 1965 Voter Act and drugs, and he has used the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulations as a weapon to destroy the coal industry.
Also in December 2013, Representative Trey Gowdy asked, “If Obama can ignore parts of Obamacare, could he ignore election laws too? If You can turn off certain categories of law, do you not also have the power to turn off all categories of law?
There is no limiting principle that Obama and the Progressives are not willing to violate, due to the fact that they are ideologically driven, and they are out of control, as they place the Progressive agenda over any sense of duty or allegiance to the people of America. Obama actually had the temerity to declare the Senate out of session, when it was simply on a break. By concentrating power within the Executive Branch, Obama has become the very danger the Constitution was designed to avoid.
After recent events, I have serious concerns over whether or not our traditional process will correct the course of our government’s trend towards authoritarian rule in time to save us. In past years, our differences were sorted out within the guidelines of the U.S. Constitution. What are we to do when one side decides to no longer be bound by the rules? The Progressives may have been born American citizens, but they are no longer American in their intentions for our nation. And, when the government, led by Obama and these Progressives, becomes lawless, it is not illegal or treason to finally take to the streets in protest/civil disobedience, at the very least, in the defense of the U.S. Constitution and America__to finally hold the criminals in the Obama administration accountable through armed revolt should it persist in its treason, since many of America’s veterans, past and present, took an oath to defend the U.S. against “enemies both foreign and domestic.”
Unlike the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, a black liberation theologist and one of Obama’s mentors, who is a millionaire several times over because of the vast opportunity America offers everyone through its exceptional nature; and, who once said, “God damn America for as long as she acts like God and she is supreme”, I say, not taking the Lord’s name in vain but as my most fervent prayer, “No, no, no__God damn Obama and the Progressive Party for as long as they act like they are God and they are supreme__God damn them for the ruin they have wrought upon Our Beloved America. Amen, amen, amen.”
By Justin O. Smith
Edited by John R. Houk
© Justin O. Smith
Mark Alexander of The Patriot Post tackles the Left Wing usage of the tool of the Homosexual Agenda used to depreciate Christianity and Biblical Morality in order to transform society into a Leftist Utopia. This is a subject that is nearly if not totally ignored by the Mainstream Media and unfortunately the leading Conservative pundits in America. Why? The ungodly union of Leftist Transformationism and the Homosexual Agenda have successfully managed the narrative that defending Biblical Morality is bigotry as well as giving Homosexual activism the aegis of the destruction of Religious Liberty.
Ducking from the Truth
The ‘Gay Agenda’ v. Liberty
By Mark Alexander
January 8, 2014
“Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” –George Washington (Farewell Address, 1796)
For five decades, a relentless and insidious campaign to undermine faith and family, the foundational tenets of our Republic, has been on the rise. With the 2008 election of Barack Hussein Obama, the most faith-intolerant regime in the history of our Republic, the growth of that campaign has become a malignant battle for the hearts and minds of American voters.
Most of the participants in this battle are unwitting pawns of the political Left, believing that they are simply supporting individual rights. In reality, they are systematically eroding the ground beneath the two most critical pillars of Liberty: faith and family. In the end, the inevitable and irrevocable terminus of these actions is tyranny.
Though social research organizations consistently find that those with gender identity issues make up less than 3% of the population, that tiny minority has become the most vociferous enemy of faith and family – and has rallied a substantial political constituency. For that reason, few social and political commentators will even venture into this arena, fearing public vilification and removal of their public platform by Leftmedia print and TV outlets under pressure from weak-kneed advertisers.
No such fear here, but as a prerequisite for this analysis, let it be stated clearly that the central government has no constitutional authority to regulate sexual activity between consenting adults. However, our Republic most assuredly has a stake in protecting religious Liberty, and marriage as defined by the Laws of Nature.
The first target of the Left and their homosexual agenda constituency is the first clause of the First Amendment to our Constitution, which states simply, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
That succinct proscription notwithstanding, Leftist judicial supremacists, who occupy what Thomas Jefferson called “the Despotic Branch,” have adulterated the plain language of that clause to greatly suppress the free exercise of Liberty across the nation. They have succeeded in large measure to supplant Rule of Law with the rule of men – the rule of egocentric executives and legislators who believe they are the font of wisdom sufficient for ruling over their subjects.
The second pillar of Liberty targeted by the Left is the family – beginning with marriage. In the words of Justice Joseph Story, “Marriage is … in its origin, a contract of natural law. … It is the parent, and not the child of society; the source of civility and a sort of seminary of the republic.”
As you recall, in 2008 candidate Obama himself feigned disdain for same-sex marriage and asserted a pretense of faith: “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian … it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix. … I am not somebody who promotes same-sex marriage.” Of course, that was just another bald-faced election-year lie. A full 12 years earlier, while running for Illinois State Senate, Obama said this: “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.”
Obama’s expressed sentiment therefore lasted only as long as the campaign. No sooner had he been elected than he began a concerted effort to undermine marriage by promoting “gay rights.” Most notably in 2010, just weeks before the “Tea Party Republicans” who had decimated the Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections took control of the House, Obama signed last-minute legislation overturning the Clinton-era policy of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” thus subjecting military ranks to overt homosexuality.
What Leftist politicos understand, but most of their constituents do not, is that the deconstruction of religious Liberty and the family, starting with the redefinition of marriage, will ultimately result in the rise of an oppressive and dictatorial successor.
Occasionally, the Left attempts to merge both its assault on religious Liberty and upon the family into one battle, endeavoring to kill two birds with one stone – the first being the “Natural Law” contract of marriage, and the second being the objection to homosexuality by every religion on the planet.
Such was the case in May 2012, when homosexual advocates managed a successful coup d’état against one of the most faith- and family-centered organizations in the nation – the Boy Scouts of America – opening the door for homosexual members in order to open the next door for homosexual leaders.
Emboldened by that success, they began a national campaign to target Christian-owned pro-family businesses – small and large – endeavoring to break their support for marriage by way of legal injunctions against their expression of their faith. Finally, the coercive “gay lobby” campaign met its match.
A very high-profile failure was the homosexual assault on Chick-fil-A due to CEO Dan Cathy, and his very vocal Christian affirmation of faith and family. Cathy’s rejection of so-called “gay marriage” was the catalyst for an attempted national boycott against the restaurant chain, but the result was an outpouring of support for Chick-fil-A.
But homosexual advocates suffered a far more spectacular defeat just last month, as you undoubtedly heard, when the Arts and Entertainment network attempted to expel the patriarch of one of the most successful cable television programs in history, solely due to his expression of faith and support for marriage and family in a GQ magazine profile.
The details of the A&E defeat provide a useful case study in “David and Goliath” politics – grassroots activism versus huge media and political adversaries.
Phil Robertson, who heads the popular Duck Dynasty clan featured on A&E, was asked by GQ editors about sin and repentance, and he responded with a paraphrase from 1 Corinthians 6: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers – they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.” Robertson added a few comments considered crude by “cultured” leftists, but reflective of the provincial language of his Louisiana culture.
As soon as the article was published online, Robertson was attacked by the two most influential national homosexual advocacy organizations – the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation and the so-called “Human Rights” Campaign – for making “anti-gay remarks” in the GQ magazine profile. Typical of how Robertson’s remarks were framed are these pathetic pontifications from GLAAD spokesman Wilson Cruz: “Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe. Phil’s decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to re-examine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families.”
A&E, which previously asked the Robertson family to reduce its show’s references to guns and closing with prayer – requests the Robertsons refused – swiftly expelled Phil, noting, “His personal views in no way reflect those of A&E Networks, who have always been strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community.”
Within days of A&E’s decision, Sandra Cochran, CEO of Cracker Barrel, one of the largest family restaurant chains in the nation, announced with much fanfare that she was ordering merchandise connected to Phil Robertson removed from their shelves. Cochran noted, “We operate within the ideals of fairness, mutual respect and equal treatment of all people. These ideals are the core of our corporate culture.”
As I wrote Cochran, “Nothing Phil Robertson said offends your ‘corporate culture,’ unless you are offended by the foundational sacrament of marriage between man and woman as defined in the Old and New Testaments of Christian Scripture – and every other major world religion.”
The nation’s largest retailer, Walmart, wisely kept its shelves loaded with Duck Dynasty products.
The execs of A&E, Cracker Barrel and the highest profile homosexual advocacy organizations assumed the rest of the Robertson clan was more invested in their lucrative contracts with A&E than their faith, and their viewers were more invested in the asinine antics of reality shows than the substance and world view of the characters in this particular show.
Bad assumptions. Neither the Robertsons, nor their fans, duck the truth.
In less than 48 hours, Cracker Barrel issued one of the most stunning corporate apologies on record. “When we made the decision to remove and evaluate certain Duck Dynasty items, we offended many of our loyal customers. Our intent was to avoid offending, but that’s just what we’ve done. You flat out told us we were wrong. We listened. Today, we are putting all our Duck Dynasty products back in our stores, and, we apologize for offending you.”
Days later, after Phil Robertson’s family advised the network that they would not go on without their patriarch, A&E folded its hand. Apparently the network execs were more invested in their viewer share revenue than being “strong supporters and champions of the LGBT community.” As some sort of recompense for their gender-confused audience, they announced, “We will use this moment to launch a national public service campaign (PSA) promoting unity, tolerance and acceptance among all people, a message that supports our core values as a company, and the values found in Duck Dynasty.”
This week, the Robertson family announced their new endorsement line of firearms, undoubtedly a source of additional heartburn for A&E.
This resounding defeat of the homosexual lobby is a case study in how grassroots Americans can successfully confront and crush the Left elite. By extension, it is also a strong indication that Patriots across the nation are poised to deliver the same humiliating defeat to leftists in 2014 that they did in 2010.
The bottom line is that a growing number of grassroots Americans recognize that the Chick-fil-A and Duck Dynasty showdowns are not about homosexuals, chickens or ducks, but about the suppression of faith expression and the undermining of Liberty. Phil Robertson is not a bigot, but those who suppress religious Liberty in the name of “tolerance and diversity” certainly are.
Those who support the “gay agenda” certainly think they do so for the right reasons. But they’ve been lulled into thinking that this issue has no overarching implications for the Liberty of future generations. They are wrong.
Send a courteous message for those who would undermine faith and family:
o Contact A&E: email@example.com
o (Recommended Reading: Gender Identity, The Homosexual Agenda and The Christian Response)
Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors
Semper Fortis Vigilate Paratus et Fidelis
© 2014, The Patriot Post.
From the bottom of Patriot Post Email
The Patriot Post is protected speech pursuant to the “unalienable rights” of all men, and the First (and Second) Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. In God we trust. Copyright © 2014 The Patriot Post. All Rights Reserved.
John R. Houk
© January 9, 2014
In the Republican Party the GOP Elitists wield the power and the Tea Party Conservatives get out the grassroots urging voters to vote favorably for pro-Republican issues. A marvelous revelation is beginning to emerge among Conservative activists and voters active within the Republican Party. That revelation is that Republican Elitists are only on board with Conservative principles of limited government and fair taxes only when it suits the Elitists to gain political power.
Let’s be honest in the USA political power is attained by eligible voters participating in America’s constitutional process in selecting candidates for Office in the Legislative Branch and in the Executive Branch. The Executive Branch on a Federal Level pertains to the Office of President of the United States (POTUS) and on a State and Local Level for such Offices as Governor, Lieutenant Governor, perhaps a few State-level Cabinet positions, County Commissioners, Sheriffs and Mayors.
The goal of political power to achieve political ends is for a Political Party to control the Office of POTUS primarily. The political ends are attainable when a Political Party controls both Houses of Congress. AND supposedly the political power dream is for a Political Party to control POTUS, the Senate and the House. AND it is considered favorable if the Political Party controlling the Office of POTUS is able to select Judiciary Branch Judges that favor a Political Party’s political agenda especially the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).
Here is the political reality of 21st century American politics. There is a Left and Right agenda. This two-sided coin of agendas is all about how to interpret the U. S. Constitution. The 21st century American Left desires to interpret the Constitution under the reasoning of a Living Constitution.
In general a Living Constitution is interprets law on the basis of the greater good of society’s overall belief system. What is good for society uses the Constitution as a template to launch legal change to conform to society’s perceived norm.
In general the Right agenda is to interpret the U.S. Constitution under the Original Intent of America’s Founding Fathers as a foundation for law that is changed by the will of the voters rather than imposed by government to remold society’s belief system.
The Left-Right political ideals have roughly been translated in America’s development of a Two-Party political system in which neither extreme view attains absolute political power constitutionally but through the vision of the Founding Fathers’ vision of protecting American citizens from oppressive and/or corrupt government Checks and Balances were to be the hallmark of governing in the American Republic.
In the first 100 years or so of the American Republic a Left-Right political gap was nearly non-existent. The emerging political struggle in the USA seemed to center on the economic principles Big Business urbanization and the disparity with the one-time backbone of early America the economy centered upon rural industry such as family farms. People of property were the original enfranchised voters of the American Republic. The un-propertied citizens were not considered capable of participating as a political influence in government on a Local, State and especially a Federal level. The Civil War was as much about the rural political Elites of the South sensing a threat to their economic base from the Big Business urban Elites of the North. And within the North those Elites of power were centered in the North East (New York, Pennsylvania and the New England States). The backbone of the rural Southern economy was slave labor. The abolition of Slavery became the spark that ignited conflict between the agendas of Northern Elites and Southern Elites. Thank God the immorality of slavery was abolished even though the actual struggle was with Northern and Southern economics and power control. It is my opinion that President Lincoln’s obstinacy in preserving the Union of all the States in the American Republic is what led to the possibility of the USA becoming a super power today.
Thanks to a godless German Karl Marx and urbanized labor producing even Bigger Business in the Western World a new political disparity began to emerge between the working class and Industries’ Wealthy Elites. As the working class replaced the family farm as the backbone of the economy in Western Society, voting enfranchisement began to be extended to all voting age males and by early 20th century to include all voting age females. This began the change of the political dynamics in Western nations in which moral consciences began to enforce better living conditions and labor safety issues that affected the new backbone of the Western Economy. BUT still the wealthy Elites were the actual power brokers politically with votes becoming a restraint upon excesses of political Elitist agendas.
Marx’s bitter vision of the less wealthy working class rising up to forcefully appropriate industrial control the utopian dream of spreading the wealth caught emotions of the Western World’s better educated people which ironically ultimately influenced a significant people from the wealthy class to begin spreading the power in better equity among voting citizens. And those that became dedicated to the Marxist vision adopted an activism to change society by force. Hence the success of Vladimir Lenin and his cadre of followers that infected Russia’s poorest of the poor in the still existing Russian Serfs of the early 20th century. The successes of Lenin to instill a new power Elite in Russia replacing the Boyer (Nobles) led Monarchist Elites would soon lead to Russian disillusionment. The Serfs that indeed experienced a better living circumstance had to yield to the all-pervasive power structure of the top-down Soviet-Communist State. Eventually the Soviet vision of Communism was adopted by China’s Mao Zedong who adopted Leninist-Marxism to conform to Chinese culture but still making utopian promises to China’s extreme have-nots.
Before the 21st century came to be it became clear that Soviet Communism was just another form of absolute power corrupting absolutely. The USSR incentiveless economy could not bring the kind of economic liberation that the more Capitalistic Economies of the Western World brought to an entrenched Middle Class that had a better life than Marx’s so-called oppressed working class would be doomed to experience. Thanks to a Reagan-led revolution of an emphasis of a Market Economy and the incentives that prospered American ingenuity, the USA was able to outspend the Soviet economy. In the 1960s Khrushchev threatened to bury America. In reality Reagan’s America buried the Soviet Union forcing its collapse without a single actual military confrontation.
But the call of Communist utopianism and the elusive promise of an egalitarian society in which people attain a humanistic equality absent the restraining instruments of religious (in my case Biblical) morality has reared its head in stealth. Since forced Marxist-Communism has been demonstrated to be a failure with the demise of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), how can these lovers of a Communist society transform the world?
The stealth paradigm for the new Communist agenda to transform the world moves away from Leninist-Trotskyist-Stalinist principle of armed revolution. The new Communism is societal infiltration on a cultural level. The prime mover of this new Communism (maybe neo-Communism) was an Italian who died just before the beginning of WWII. At one time this Italian was considered the father of Eurocommunism. In the 1970s and 80s Eurocommunism was making serious inroads politically in Western Europe. The various national Communist Parties of Western Europe were actually gaining electoral support on a national basis in European nations. The greatest inroads accomplished by Eurocommunism were primarily in Italy and France. Eurocommunism has since receded as a political force in Western Europe. Without further study my guess for the lack of electoral interest in Eurocommunism is largely due to Western Europe adopting a Socialist political paradigm separate from Marxist-Leninist revolution.
Even so the Western European Socialist paradigm is part and parcel of the Italian person considered the father of Eurocommunism – Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci died in 1937 after years of incarceration for his Marxist political beliefs. Gramsci’s Marxist theories essentially postulated that Communism triumphs over a Capitalist society more by slow a transformation than an instant armed revolution. It is good speculation that Gramsci’s slow transformation paradigm was influential on Obama-Hillary hero Saul Alinsky. Here is an excerpt from DTN that gives a snapshot of the Alinsky methodology:
After completing his graduate work in criminology, Alinsky went on to develop what are known today as the Alinsky concepts of mass organization for power. In the late 1930s he earned a reputation as a master organizer of the poor when he organized the “Back of the Yards” area in Chicago, an industrial and residential ethnic neighborhood on the Southwest Side of the city, so named because it is near the site of the former Union Stockyards; this area had been made famous in Upton Sinclair’s 1906 novel The Jungle. In 1940 Alinsky established the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), through which he and his staff helped “organize” communities not only in Chicago but throughout the United States. IAF remains an active entity to this day. Its national headquarters are located in Chicago, and it has affiliates in the District of Columbia, twenty-one separate states, and three foreign countries (Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom).
By the late 1960s, the Black Power movement would drive Alinsky and his organizing crusades out of the projects in African-American neighborhoods, leaving him no choice but to shift his focus to white communities. For this purpose, he established the Citizens Action Program (CAP), in 1970. As Stanley Kurtz writes in his 2010 book Radical in Chief: “Alinsky was … convinced that large-scale socialist transformation would require an alliance between the struggling middle class and the poor. The key to radical social change, Alinsky thought, was to turn the wrath of America’s middle class against large corporations.”
In the Alinsky model, “organizing” is a euphemism for “revolution” — a wholesale revolution whose ultimate objective is the systematic acquisition of power by a purportedly oppressed segment of the population, and the radical transformation of America’s social and economic structure. The goal is to foment enough public discontent, moral confusion, and outright chaos to spark the social upheaval that Marx, Engels, and Lenin predicted — a revolution whose foot soldiers view the status quo as fatally flawed and wholly unworthy of salvation. Thus, the theory goes, the people will settle for nothing less than that status quo’s complete collapse — to be followed by the erection of an entirely new system upon its ruins. Toward that end, they will be apt to follow the lead of charismatic radical organizers who project an aura of confidence and vision, and who profess to clearly understand what types of societal “changes” are needed. (Saul Alinsky; By John Perazzo; Determine The Networks; April 2008)
Hillary Clinton’s 1969 College Essay on Saul Alinsky shows his influence on her. Alinsky’s influence on Obama was a bit more indirect than Hillary’s but perhaps also a bit more hands on in applying the Alinsky Method. Check this out from David Horowitz:
Unlike Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama never personally met Saul Alinsky. But as a young man, he became an adept practitioner of Alinsky’s methods. In 1986, at the age of 23 and only three years out of Columbia University, Obama was hired by the Alinsky team to organize residents on the South Side [of Chicago] “while learning and applying Alinsky’s philosophy of street-level democracy.”10 The group that Obama joined was part of a network that included the Gamaliel Foundation, a religious group that operated on Alinsky principles. Obama became director of the Developing Communities Project, an afﬁliate of the Gamaliel Foundation, where he worked for the next three years on initiatives that ranged from job training to school reform to hazardous waste cleanup.
Three of Obama’s mentors in Chicago were trained at the Alinsky Industrial Areas Foundation,12 and for several years Obama himself taught workshops on the Alinsky method.13 One of the three, Gregory Galluzo, shared with Ryan Lizza the actual manual for training new organizers, which he said was little different from the version he used to train Obama in the 1980s. According to Lizza, “It is ﬁlled with workshops and chapter headings on understanding power: ‘power analysis,’ ‘elements of a power organization,’ ‘the path to power.’ … The Alinsky manual instructs them to get over these hang-ups. ‘We are not virtuous by not wanting power,’ it says. ‘We are really cowards for not wanting power,’ because ‘power is good’ and ‘powerlessness is evil.’”14
According to Lizza, who interviewed both Galluzo and Obama, “the other fundamental lesson Obama was taught was Alinsky’s maxim that self- interest is the only principle around which to organize people. (Galluzzo’s manual goes so far as to advise trainees in block letters: ‘Get rid of do-gooders in your church and your organization.’) Obama was a fan of Alinsky’s realistic streak. ‘The key to creating successful organizations was making sure people’s self-interest was met,’ he told me, ‘and not just basing it on pie-in-the-sky idealism. So there were some basic principles that remained powerful then, and in fact I still believe in.’” On Barack Obama’s presidential campaign website, one could see a photo of Obama in a classroom “teaching students Alinskyan methods. He stands in front of a blackboard on which he has written, ‘Power Analysis’ and ‘Relationships Built on Self Interest,…’”15 (Barack Obama’s Rules for Revolution: The Alinsky Model; By David Horowitz; Discover The Networks; © 2009 – PDF Document)
Both Hillary and Obama had a Middle Class upbringing with Left oriented families. There is no surprise that Hillary and Obama radicalized toward the Left both being attracted to activism pointed toward the underprivileged. In the 1950s and 60s such activism typically led to an attraction to Marxist principles to transform America to an egalitarian utopia.
We Conservatives like to call Republicans with a diluted to nonexistent Conservatives as Republicans in Name Only (RINO). How much diluted Conservatism do we accept as Conservative before we bend our ears back and shout RINO? Let’s take Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and former GOP Vice Presidential Nominee in 2012. After perusing OnTheIssues.org Ryan definitely has a Conservative pedigree. And yet Tea Party Conservative express vitriol towards Ryan for coming up with a give-n-take Budget that obviously only places a dent in the Budget instead of putting a Budget together that exudes Less Government, Less Government Spending and better taxes. Frankly it will be impossible to pass a Budget that will make Conservatives happy with a Socialist minded President and a Dem Party Senate dominated by the principles of Marxist-Socialism. Regardless of the criticism some movement is better than zero. My concern about Paul Ryan rather than defending his Conservative pedigree he may be joining the Republican Establishment to vacate Tea Party Conservatives from the GOP.
Tea Party Conservatives believe the GOP Establishment should excised from the Republican. Obama’s Left Wing fringe is praying (to whoever the ungodly pray to) the Republican Establishment ejects Tea Party Conservatives, Social Conservatives and those known as the Religious Right. I found a guy that is a homosexual Leftist that actually the Conservative Wing of the GOP as the Fringe Right. The reality this ungodly dude exemplifies the Fringe Left dominating the Democratic Party. Check out this support for the Republican Establishment:
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) finally told Tea Party extremists to jump in a lake. He was incensed by reflexive criticism from outside pressure groups that bitterly opposed a new budget deal negotiated by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc) and Sen. Patty Murray, (D-Wash). The Ohio Republican realized that these implacable “conservatives” had their own agenda that did not include what was best for the American people. So radical was their position, that they would risk another government shutdown, which would be a calamity for the Republican Party.
In my view, the Republican brain trust should abandon its reliance on social conservatives and Tea Party activists. They haven’t already done so out of fear that it would be political suicide that would cost them their base. However, by dumping these extremists, the GOP would almost immediately gain new credibility with Independent voters. They would also put conservative Democrats into play who lean right, but won’t vote for GOP candidates because of their retrograde views on social issues.
Dumping the Tea, as well as the Religious Right, would also increase the Republican odds of winning the presidency. In the last couple of election cycles, the GOP primaries attracted two types of presidential candidates: Those who are crazy (Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann) and those who abandoned their principles and pretended to be insane in order to win (John McCain and “severe conservative” Mitt Romney). The influence of radical elements in the primaries produced flawed candidates who appeared plastic and insincere. A worst-case scenario was the drafting of the unqualified Sarah Palin for Vice President, which badly damaged McCain’s credibility.
… (John Boehner Should Stop Fishing In the Tea Party Piranha Stream; By Wayne Besen [Leader of group Truth Wins Out]; Falls Church News Press; 12/17/13 4:16 PM)
So if the Fringe Left views the Republican Establishment as an ally in the sense of the enemy of my enemy is my friend, why indeed should Tea Party Conservatives remain a part of a Political Party in which the power structure does not desire Conservative Principles or Conservative Values? My God my fellow Americans! The Republican Establishment is calling the Conservative base that retook the House in 2012 is being vilified as fringe outside groups and basically must discover their pecking order within the GOP.
Former president Asif Ali Zardari and PPP patron-in-chief Bilawal Bhutto Zardari offer Fateha during public gathering in Garhi Khuda Bakhsh on Friday, December 27, 2013. – PPI Photo
The Pakistan Peoples Party Chairman Bilal Bhutto Zardari (son of Benazir Bhutto and Asif Ali Zardari) delivered a speech that Pakistani-Christian journalist Shamim Masih believes the Zardari remarks pertaining to minorities – especially Christians – was a mere political ploy. I am unsure to which speech or written text Shamim is referring to. Bilal (or Bilwal) Bhutto Zardari gave what was considered a pivotal speech at Garhi Khuda Bux pertaining to the current political party in government and that the Pakistan government should not tolerate the terrorism of the Taliban. The reason for the speech was in honor of his assassinated mother Benazir Bhutto. In the few English language stories I read about this speech I did not detect any indications of intentions toward Pakistani minorities. However I did discover a small blurb about how Bilwal’s Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) has come up with the funding to restore the All Saints Church in Peshawar which was victimized recently by two Taliban homicidal suicide bombers. My guess is this is the possible event causing mistrust by Shamim Masih.
UPDATE – 1/1/14
Shamim updated his post by sending a tweet image capture pertaining to the reason why he mistrusts a statement of Bilwal Bhutto Zardari.
By Shamim Masih
Sent: 12/31/2013 2:42 AM
ISLAMABAD: Throughout the Christmas celebration, 2013 Pakistan Peoples Party chairman Bilwal Bhutto Zardari [Zardari bio] claimed that [he] wanted to see some sort of Christian Prime Minister in Pakistan within my lifetime. He greeted ‘Merry Christmas’ to every Christian worldwide and particularly to Pakistani Christian believers. With his statement, the roars connected with Pakistani non-secular politicians raise at the same time the other people. Although I realize it’s mentioned inside the constitution in the country that a non-Muslim cannot be the president or Prime Minister in Pakistan. But there are some certain facts I am providing how [the] section of the constitution [came to be] that the President and the Prime Minister in Pakistan need to be a Muslim.
Pakistan came into being in 1947 under section 8 in the Indian Independence Act, 1947, the Govt. India act, 1935. And after nine years the initial document had been served as Constitution 1956. For once, the composition of Pakistan provided definition of a Muslim which often states; Muslim means someone who believes inside unity and also oneness of Allah, inside absolute and also unqualified finality in the prophet cover of Islamic prophet, Muhammad, and won’t believe within, or recognize being a prophet or maybe religious reformer, any person who claimed or maybe claims as a prophet, in a sense in the word or maybe of just about any description whatsoever, after Muhammad.
It had been mentioned for once that simply a Muslim may very well be qualified pertaining to election as President (male or maybe female). There was no reduction of religion for the person holding any office of the speaker in the National Assembly. Secondly, should the president resign his [Office] or a vote of no-confidence goes against him or her, then in line with the constitution the actual speaker would become the actual President in the State until the election in a new president. Under the actual special circumstances, a non-Muslim could easily get the opportunity to [ascend] to president of Pakistan. [There are] no restrictions about religion or maybe gender on any post, up to provincial governor and also chief minister. The quality presented through first Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan [Blog Editor: Biography] and the resolution had been debated pertaining to five days. The leading members in the government and quite a few non-Muslim associates, especially from East Bengal [Blog Editor: East Bengal became East Pakistan of the Republic of Pakistan with the Capital City located in West Pakistan. Between West and East Pakistan lay the large expanse of newly Independent India. East Pakistan became the independent Bangladesh in 1971.], got a prominent part. Non-Muslim associates expressed grave apprehensions regarding their situation and the role inside new coverage. Hindu members in the constitutional set-up argued that the objective quality differed having Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s view in all of the fundamental points. Sris Chandra Chattopadhyaya claimed, what we hear in this particular (Objectives) Resolution seriously isn’t the voice in the great originator of Pakistan: the Quaid-i-Azam [Blog Editor: an honorific of Mohammed Ali Jinnah], nor actually that in the Prime Minister connected with Pakistan the actual Honorable Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan, but in the Ulema in the land.
Birat Chandra Mandal expressed that Jinnah had “unequivocally claimed that Pakistan would have been a secular condition.” Bhupendra Kumar Datta proceeded to go a stage further: “inch… was that resolution into the future before that house from the life-time in the Great Founder of Pakistan, the actual Quaid-i-Azam, it would not attend in the present shape….” Even so, Muslim scholars along with a large portion of the folks of Pakistan were in the view that was just what exactly the Quaid-a-Azam wanted [i.e. a secular Pakistan] and that it was an excellent a step forward inside constitutional heritage of Pakistan. They in addition argued that [a secular Pakistan] objective quality [would have] provided the actual minorities to have equal rights and that they [would have] simply no compulsion, whatsoever, in taking on or transforming into Islam.
In October 1958, President Iskander Mirza abrogated the actual constitution. Soon afterwards Ayub Khan deposed Iskandar and also declared himself President.
Then the constitution drafted with the government connected with Z A. Bhutto, with the additional assistance of the country’s competing parties, it turned out to be approved with the legislative set-up on April 10 and also ratified on 14 August 1973. Unlike the prior legal papers of 1956 and also 1962, the 1973 constitution cannot be changed. Alternatively, constitutional efficiencies are added to it, altering its impact. He [i.e. Bhutto (?)] added that a Muslim could simply end up being the President or maybe the Prime Minister in Pakistan. No legislation repugnant to Islam should be enacted and the present legislation shall in addition be Islamized. No restriction about religion or maybe gender on any post, up to provincial governor and also Chief Minister.
The Amendment (w.e.f. 1974) in the 1973 Composition declared for once the Ahmadiyya Community or the actual Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement to the Propagation connected with Islam (Lahoris) as non-Muslims, and also their leader, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, who claimed to become a prophet connected with God, to which often mainstream Muslims tend not to agree having.
This had been Mr. Z A. Bhutto himself who placed inside the constitution that [both the] president [and] Prime Minister [can only] be a Muslim. [There were] no restrictions about religion or maybe gender on any post, up to provincial governor and also chief minister. In this Islamic atmosphere neither Christian nor any minority member can be able to become the provincial governor or maybe chief minister.
Internationally everyone is turning to interfaith dialogue and agreeing to other faiths but [the government] should not impose this rigid Islamic Jihadist [ideology on non-Muslim Pakistani minorities in political representation]. This is simply not constitution connected [originally by the Founders] with Pakistan, but [it is the] constitution connected with Mullahs. Precisely how [does the] young Bilawal Bhutto Zardari think [the Islamic centered constitution could include the possibility of non-Muslims to attain the high Office of President or Prime Minister]? This is merely a way to [gain the] sympathies of Christians [politically and this is] just [the only reason for such public remarks].
Edited by John R. Houk
All brackets and links are from the Editor with the hope greater clarity exists for American readers.
© Shamim Masih
Human Rights Activist
Snapshot of Human Rights Activism from 2011
Christian Rights Activist
Shamim Masih’s Donate/Support info:
Editor: For Americans especially, I have discovered the best way to donate to Shamim Masih is via Western Union sending to a Western Union agent in Islamabad.
FOR USD TRANSFER.
Intermediary Bank: MASHREQ BANK, NEW YORK
Intermediary Bank SWIFT BIC: MSHQUS33
Beneficiary Bank: JS BANK LIMITED
Beneficiary Bank SWIFT BIC: JSBLPKKA
Bank A/c # at Intermediary bank: 70008227
Title Of a/c Shamim Masih
Beneficiary Account Number: 405527
IBAN # pk80jsbl9530000000405227
FOR GBP TRANSFER.
Intermediary Bank: MASHREQ BANK, LONDON
Intermediary Bank SWIFT BIC: MSHQGB2L
Beneficiary Bank: JS BANK LIMITED
Beneficiary Bank SWIFT BIC: JSBLPKKA
Bank A/c # at Intermediary bank: 00010855
Title Of a/c Shamim Masih
Beneficiary Account Number: 405527
IBAN # pk80jsbl9530000000405227
FOR EURO TRANSFER.
Intermediary Bank: MASHREQ BANK, LONDON
Intermediary Bank SWIFT BIC: MSHQGB2L
Beneficiary Bank: JS BANK LIMITED
Beneficiary Bank SWIFT BIC: JSBLPKKA
Bank A/c # at Intermediary bank: 10847
Title Of a/c Shamim Masih
Beneficiary Account Number: 405527
IBAN # pk80jsbl9530000000405227
Ilya Shapiro has put together an article looking at ten violations of the U.S. Constitution committed by President Barack Hussein Obama.
JRH 12/30/13 (Hat Tip: CATO at Liberty)
President Obama’s Top 10 Constitutional Violations Of 2013
By Ilya Shapiro
12/23/2013 @ 3:38PM
One of Barack Obama’s chief accomplishments has been to return the Constitution to a central place in our public discourse.
Unfortunately, the president fomented this upswing in civic interest not by talking up the constitutional aspects of his policy agenda, but by blatantly violating the strictures of our founding document. And he’s been most frustrated with the separation of powers, which doesn’t allow him to “fundamentally transform” the country without congressional acquiescence.
But that hasn’t stopped him. In its first term, the Administration launched a “We Can’t Wait” initiative, with senior aide Dan Pfeiffer explaining that “when Congress won’t act, this president will.” And earlier this year, President Obama said in announcing his new economic plans that “I will not allow gridlock, or inaction, or willful indifference to get in our way.”
And so, as we reach the end of another year of political strife that’s fundamentally based on clashing views on the role of government in society, I thought I’d update a list I made two years ago and hereby present President Obama’s top 10 constitutional violations of 2013.
1. Delay of Obamacare’s out-of-pocket caps. The Labor Department announced in February that it was delaying for a year the part of the healthcare law that limits how much people have to spend on their own insurance. This may have been sensible—insurers and employers need time to comply with rapidly changing regulations—but changing the law requires actual legislation.
2. Delay of Obamacare’s employer mandate. The administration announced via blogpost on the eve of the July 4 holiday that it was delaying the requirement that employers of at least 50 people provide complying insurance or pay a fine. This time it did cite statutory authority, but the cited provisions allow the delay of certain reporting requirements, not of the mandate itself.
3. Delay of Obamacare’s insurance requirements. The famous pledge that “if you like your plan, you can keep it” backfired when insurance companies started cancelling millions of plans that didn’t comply with Obamacare’s requirements. President Obama called a press conference last month to proclaim that people could continue buying non-complying plans in 2014—despite Obamacare’s explicit language to the contrary. He then refused to consider a House-passed bill that would’ve made this action legal.
4. Exemption of Congress from Obamacare. A little-known part of Obamacare requires Congressmen and their staff to get insurance through the new healthcare exchanges, rather than a taxpayer-funded program. In the quiet of August, President Obama directed the Office of Personnel Management to interpret the law to maintain the generous congressional benefits.
5. Expansion of the employer mandate penalty through IRS regulation. Obamacare grants tax credits to people whose employers don’t provide coverage if they buy a plan “through an Exchange established by the State”—and then fines employers for each employee receiving such a subsidy. No tax credits are authorized for residents of states where the exchanges are established by the federal government, as an incentive for states to create exchanges themselves. Because so few (16) states did, however, the IRS issued a rule ignoring that plain text and allowed subsidies (and commensurate fines) for plans coming from “a State Exchange, regional Exchange, subsidiary Exchange, and federally-facilitated Exchange.”
6. Political profiling by the IRS. After seeing a rise in the number of applications for tax-exempt status, the IRS in 2010 compiled a “be on the lookout” (“BOLO”) list to identify organizations engaged in political activities. The list included words such as “Tea Party,” “Patriots,” and “Israel”; subjects such as government spending, debt, or taxes; and activities such as criticizing the government, educating about the Constitution, or challenging Obamacare. The targeting continued through May of this year.
7. Outlandish Supreme Court arguments. Between January 2012 and June 2013, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Justice Department’s extreme positions 9 times. The cases ranged from criminal procedure to property rights, religious liberty to immigration, securities regulation to tax law. They had nothing in common other than the government’s view that federal power is virtually unlimited. As a comparison, in the entire Bush and Clinton presidencies, the government suffered 15 and 23 unanimous rulings, respectively.
8. Recess appointments. Last year, President Obama appointed three members of the National Labor Relations Board, as well as the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, during what he considered to be a Senate recess. But the Senate was still holding “pro forma” sessions every three days—a technique developed by Sen. Harry Reid to thwart Bush recess appointments. (Meanwhile, the Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB, provides that authority remains with the Treasury Secretary until a director is “confirmed by the Senate.”) In January, the D.C. Circuit held the NLRB appointments to be unconstitutional, which ruling White House spokesman Jay Carney said only applied to “one court, one case, one company.”
9. Assault on free speech and due process on college campuses. Responding to complaints about the University of Montana’s handling of sexual assault claims, the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, in conjunction with the Justice Department, sent the university a letter intended as a national “blueprint” for tackling sexual harassment. The letter urges a crackdown on “unwelcome” speech and requires complaints to be heard in quasi-judicial procedures that deny legal representation, encourage punishment before trial, and convict based on a mere “more likely than not” standard.
10. Mini-DREAM Act. Congress has shamelessly failed to pass any sort of immigration reform, including for the most sympathetic victims of the current non-system, young people who were brought into the country illegally as children. Nonetheless, President Obama, contradicting his own previous statements claiming to lack authority, directed the Department of Homeland Security to issue work and residence permits to the so-called Dreamers. The executive branch undoubtedly has discretion regarding enforcement priorities, but granting de facto green cards goes beyond a decision to defer deportation in certain cases.
It was hard to limit myself to 10 items, of course—Obamacare alone could’ve filled many such lists—but these, in my judgment, represent the chief executive’s biggest dereliction this year of his duty to “preserve, protect, and defend” the Constitution, and to “take care that the law be faithfully executed.”
Alas, things may get worse before they get better. New presidential “counselor” John Podesta’s belief in governance by fiat is no secret; in a 2010 report, he wrote that focusing on executive power “presents a real opportunity for the Obama administration to turn its focus away from a divided Congress and the unappetizing process of making legislative sausage.”
Happy New Year!
Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review.
2013 Forbes.com LLC™ All Rights Reserved
John R. Houk
© December 11, 2013
Rick Joyner is a Minister of the Gospel who leans toward the Charismatic and Prophetic strains of Protestant Christianity. Joyner is either heralded for his insights or disdained as a heretic for his point of the Holy Bible. Here is a simple biography from the website that is part of MorningStar Ministries:
Rick Joyner is Founder and Executive Director of MorningStar Ministries and Heritage International Ministries and is the Senior Pastor at MorningStar Fellowship Church. Rick is President of The Oak Initiative, an interdenominational movement that mobilizes Christians to engage in the great issues of our time. He has authored more than forty books, including The Final Quest Trilogy, There Were Two Trees in the Garden, and A New America. Rick and his wife, Julie, have five children: Anna Jane, Aaryn, Amber, Ben, and Sam. ([Top of] Rick Joyner [Archive Page]; MorningStar)
Joseph R. Chambers is a Christian detractor of Rick Jordan’s prophetic (often in the sense of metaphorical insight) teachings. He calls those teachings “False Teachings”. Chambers is a Doctor of Divinity meaning he has credentials as an academic theologian. Credentials are a big thing for Mainstream Protestants and Catholics. Just for clarity I am not criticizing Mainstream academic theology in absolute terms. Rather I believe academic theologians place more stock in the aggregated opinions of past theologians of which even today’s theologians may concur or not concur in part or in toto. Here is an excerpt from a Chambers essay criticizing Joyner:
The first time I picked up material written by Rick Joyner I immediately sensed the spirit of darkness and deception. Reading his material is similar to reading New Age materials. His approach is to take anything in Scripture and make it mean anything that suits his theological aims. There is no faithfulness to established facts of interpretation. It’s a smorgasbord of ideas loosely connected with the generous use of out-of-text Scripture to prove his point. Look at his basic premise for the book, There Were Two Trees In The Garden. His identification of the forbidden tree lays a false foundation for the entire book.
“The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil is a powerful Biblical model of the Law. As the Apostle Paul declared “The power of sin is the law” (I Corinthians 15:56). This is because it is through the Law that we must derive our knowledge of good and evil. We may wonder how this knowledge brings death until we see the fruit. The knowledge of good and evil kills us by distracting us from the One who is the source of life; the Tree of Life – Jesus. The Tree of Knowledge causes us to focus our attention upon ourselves. Sin is empowered by the law; not just because the evil is revealed but the good as well. It drives us either to corruption or self-righteousness, both of which lead to death.” (There Were Two Trees In The Garden, Rick Joyner, pp. 9-10.)
To suggest that this forbidden tree was the Laws of God as given to Moses or any other Bible writer is blasphemous. The “Ten Commandments” are the foundational truths and principles of all of God’s revelation. This attack on “God’s Laws” shows the direction of major deception in religious circles. Satan cannot present himself as God or present his Antichrist as the “Christ” without first separating Divine revelation or the Holy Truth from experiences in the religious realm. (The False Teachings of Rick Joyner; By Joseph R. Chambers; Apologetics Coordination Team; 1999)
Chambers seems that a paragraph from Joyner’s book validates the assumption that Joyner takes Scripture and twists it to anything chosen to mean for the moment. Then indicates (as is typical of academics) claims that Joyner takes Scripture out of context when in reality Joyner is simply using a metaphorical parallel of what would be occurring when Moses received the Law from God Almighty. Chambers suggests that Joyner is saying specifically that the Tree of knowledge of good and evil is equivalent of the Law and that the Tree of Life is Jesus. If you read the paragraph used to vilify Joyner, Joyner says no such thing. Rather Joyner uses metaphorical symbolism to indicate that the Tree of knowledge of good and Evil as well as the Tree of Life were models of future Biblical realities that would embodied in Moses and later through the human birth of the Savior and Deliverer Jesus Christ the Son of God.
Ok, you got me. I am a proponent of Rick Joyner. I do not necessarily side with Joyner hook, line and sinker. I believe every Believer must read and meditate on the Bible to understand what the Holy Spirit has for your journey and that people like Joyner and/or even Mainstream theologians should be used as a framework rather than an absolute acquiescence to their interpretations of Scripture. If you miss the understanding of the Holy Spirit be humble enough to be corrected but not sheepish enough to fail to verify the validity of someone else’s correction.
Christianbook.com provides a profile of Rick Joyner that is more even handed than Joseph R. Chambers. The profile lays out how Joyner has helped many and lays out the reasons why he has critics leaving it up to the reader to decide for their self if Joyner is a false teach, a prophet or a person that is sometimes correct and sometimes incorrect. The profile is entitled as Meet Rick Joyner and can be read HERE.
Now I had to go over these thoughts on Rick Joyner because I am going to cross post his Word for the Week which brought to us as The Great Commission, Part 50: Time to Rebuild Firewalls. I received the email notification on December 10, 2013 at 11:11 AM. I mention the date because the spiritual essay when you click ‘Read More’ does not seem to have a date on it. I am kind of peculiar about that sort of thing. Indeed the title is a bit different when you follow the link.
My attention was lifted to the essay it because it tackles an issue more in Christian leadership would tackle but fail to because of a misunderstanding of the Establish Clause in the First Amendment. Too often Christian leaders and Ministries limit themselves pertaining to politics because they have been brainwashed that somewhere in the First Amendment it says that Government and the Church must be absolutely separated from each other not having an influence. The reality is there is no wording whatsoever anywhere in the U.S. Constitution where it is stipulated there is a Separation of Church and State. What the First Amendment does say pertaining to religion is this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; … (First Amendment; U.S. Constitution; Legal Information Institute, Cornell University)
The clause simply states that Congress cannot establish a State Religion (meaning Church in those days) and that Congress prohibit the free exercise of religion. The Founding Fathers intended for Christianity to be an influence on the rule of law and culture, BUT that Congress cannot make any Christian Denomination a tax supported instrument of the U.S. Government. But I guess that is another post.
Joyner tackles an interesting interpretation on Marxism, Capitalism, the Founding Fathers’ original intent for Constitutional Government and how that original intent has been whittled away and unless reversed will lead to the demise of the United States as we know it.
Interesting alternative reading:
Time to Rebuild Firewalls, The Great Commission, Week 50
By Rick Joyner
December 10, 2013
The American Founding Fathers believed that tyranny could come from either the government or from the people. Because of this, they built a brilliant system of government that had firewalls to protect against the tyranny from either direction. They warned that if these firewalls were torn down, the Republic could not last. In the last century, we tore both firewalls down, and the system has been crumbling since. The American Republic will not last much longer if we do not implement some very radical action to turn from the direction in which we’re headed and rebuild the firewalls.
In some basic ways both Russia and China now have more liberty than we have in America. They are trending toward more individual liberty, even if they are hitting bumps on the road to this and occasionally may even run into a ditch. Even so, they get going again and are trending in the direction toward personal liberty. As impatient as many have been with their slowness in this, we should remember how long we struggled. Even after nearly a century of American democracy, we still had slavery, and America invented the concentration camps that we used for displacing and even killing Native Americans. The march of civilization has not been smooth or consistent anywhere or with anyone. So let us too give grace to those who are struggling.
However, after accomplishing so much, Western nations are now trending toward tyranny and the loss of individual freedom. There have been occasional slowdowns in this march to bondage, but then the pace gets even faster. The East and West are going in opposite directions again.
Thankfully, there is a third column. It is the kingdom of God. Every good gift that has come down to man, including better governments, has come from above. Even so, no government on earth is the kingdom of God even if they have some of the elements of the kingdom. The kingdom is yet to come to the earth, but it surely will. Many governments on the earth that have been built on at least some kingdom principles will “become the kingdom of our Lord.”
One of the things the Lord said that He would do after His return is to separate the nations as “sheep” or “goats.” He explained the qualifications for being a sheep or goat nation. For those who are here to help prepare the way for the Lord, one way that we do this is by helping our nation become a sheep nation. One of the ways that we are called to help prepare the way for the Lord is to help our nations adopt kingdom principles that would help them become “sheep” nations rather than “goat” nations. To help a nation get to where it is supposed to go, we must first know where it is.
There are other major forces in the world than Marxism and capitalism, but these have been the two most powerful counterweights in recent times. Under each of these there are nuances. For example, free enterprise is different than capitalism, but can only exist under capitalism. With pure capitalism you must have capital to have opportunity, but with free enterprise you only need initiative to have opportunity. However, if you have free enterprise and you become successful, you will have capital that you will want to invest, so you become a capitalist. The more capitalists and the more capital there is to invest, the more people have been successful in the system.
You must have capitalism to have free enterprise. But if capitalism grows unchecked, it can choke out free enterprise and destroy itself by cutting itself off from its lifeblood. Left to itself without any steering and the needed corrections from government, greed can take over capitalism in such a way that it starts to abuse and hurt people. This leads to revolution and is not in anyone’s interest to allow this to happen—except the Marxists. The lifeblood of Marxism is promoting the envy of the successful, which they call “social justice.”
Not all who call for social justice are Marxists, and there is a devotion to social justice that we must have to remain a Republic. Even so, Marx, and subsequent Marxists, have been brilliant in the way they have seized popular and even noble terms to mobilize and exploit those whom Marx called the “useful idiots.” The “useful idiots” were the idealists that Marx saw as being so easily manipulated, but which he also despised. They were always the first to feel the wrath when Marxists gained control.
That being said, The Bible is still the biggest proponent of true social justice, and requires justice for all with a special devotion to providing justice for those who are weak. It requires freedom for the oppressed, and then it requires generosity from the prosperous to the poor. However, the key distinction between Christianity and the Marxist social justice, or the liberal social justice promoted by many today, is that nowhere does The Bible demand charity from the government, but from individuals.
When charity becomes institutional it loses its basic power to uplift. It becomes demeaning, dehumanizing, and always leads to bondage. We will develop this further next week.
Rick Joyner and the Republic of the United States of America
John R. Houk
© December 11, 2013
Time to Rebuild Firewalls, The Great Commission, Week 50
© 2011 MorningStar Ministries
Justin Smith agrees with his fellow Tennessee resident Pete Doughtie that foreign Muslims residing in the USA should be deported back to their Sharia loving Muslim nations of origin. Now I realize this rubs in the face of the usual American tolerance of foreigners and people of diverse religious beliefs, BUT Islam is different. The doctrine and theology of Islam calls for its adherents to spread Islam by peace and failing that, then by force. If any Muslim tells you differently they are either lying or are ignorant of the totality of their writings considered holy.
I concur with Justin Smith.
This brings up a problem that Justin doesn’t really address in this essay. Foreign born Muslims have lived long enough in the USA to have produced progeny born on American soil. You cannot deport a home-born citizen of the USA to the nation of their parents. I personally do not how to deal with the home-born Muslims that espouse their parents’ radical views of Islam to the detriment of American Constitutional Government. I’ll leave for another time. Perhaps even Justin will deal with a Just solution pertaining to home-born Islam that teaches a superiority complex over everything non-Islamic.
Doughtie Declares “Deport”
By Justin O. Smith
Sent: 12/8/2013 4:13 PM
America has often and fruitlessly held forth the hand of friendship and equal freedom to Muslims abroad and here in the United States, but the greatest majority of Muslims (70%) reject equal liberty, equal justice and equal rights in favor of Islamic “fiqh” or Sharia law, and since before 1993 and the first attack on the World Trade Center, Muslims have significantly increased their Islam-inspired terror plots and attacks on U.S. soil. First and second generation U.S. Muslims have turned against our nation, a fact many of us have known for years but one that the ‘Tennessean‘ and the ‘New York Times‘ seemingly just discovered last week. And, the Muslim Brothers continue to infiltrate the upper echelons of the U.S. government, while only a handful of our state and local leaders, Congressmen and Senators seem to have any real concern over the emerging islamoNazi threat to the United States.
Last week, Mr. Pete Doughtie, editor of ‘The Rutherford Reader’, called for Muslims to be deported from the U.S., especially members of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). Mr. Doughtie fully understands the subversive tactics used by CAIR and the MB; his solution is both necessary and supported by the facts.
CAIR has a long history of associating with felons in terrorism probes, suspected terrorists and convicted terrorists. The list is long and includes Nihad Awad, CAIR’s director; Ghassan Eli, who was convicted in April of 2005 on charges of conspiracy to deal in the property of a specially designated terrorist; and Randall “Ismail” Royer of Virginia Jihad infamy, who was convicted of conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States and weapons violations.
Closer scrutiny of a few Muslim Brotherhood members, who follow the credo “Jihad is our way and death in the cause of Allah is our dream”, reveals a picture indicative of thousands of others operating within all levels of the U.S. government throughout America. Their views on Sharia Law and terrorism should have precluded any entry level position in the U.S. government.
Azizah al-Hibri was appointed by Obama to the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom. She has stated that Islamic law, the harshest on earth, is more moral than the U.S. code of law, because it accepts “blood money” from murderers. She has also made appearances with a top Al Qaeda fundraiser, Abdurhaman Alamoudi, now serving 23 years in prison.
Rashad Hussain is the Special Envoy to the Organization for Islamic Cooperation (OIC). He is held in high esteem by Sharia Law advocates, because he has memorized the Koran. And bear in mind, the OIC, headquartered in Jeddah-Saudi Arabia, is dedicated to spreading Sharia Law globally.
Obama’s “Sharia Czar” is Imam Mohammed Magid, and he is also the president of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), a Muslim Brotherhood front organization. His father, Al-Haj Majd Haj Mosa, is a Cairo-trained MB scholar, and he was once the top cleric in the Republic of Sudan, one of the most Sharia compliant nations in the world.
After a wide-sweeping terror finance investigation in March 2002, Customs Agent David Kane testified that the All Dulles Muslim Society Center (ADAMS), led by Mohammed Magid, was being used to launder hundreds of thousands of dollars for the targeted finance network that shared offices with the ADAMS Center. Eleven ADAMS Center officials were also targets of this investigation.
Former Islamic Center of Murfreesboro (ICM) board member, Mossad Rawash, was a staunch supporter of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), much like Sami al-Arian. Arian was a tenured professor at the University of South Florida, until he was indicted on terror support charges after 9-11-01 and his leadership role in the PIJ was discovered. On November 3, 2013, the ICM featured a roving board member of the ISNA, Jamal Badawi, who is also a terrorist supporter and an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Conspiracy. Saleh Sbenaty, MTSU professor and ICM spokesperson, is a member of the MB. So…Yes! … The Federal Bureau of Investigation should be looking deep into the finances of the ICM.
On December 1, the ‘Tennessean‘ put forth a ridiculously low figure of “20 American citizens”, who have joined Islamic terrorist organizations in order to participate in the numerous wars across the Middle East and North Africa, which would only account for the young Somali-American men who went to Somalia last year to join al-Shabaab. There are hundreds of well documented cases of American and European Muslims joining jihadist causes and “holy wars”, from the 1980s and Afghanistan up to this year in Mali. And just as battle-hardened jihadists returned from their “holy war” against the Soviets to fight in Serbia for a separate Islamic state, America can one day expect American Muslims returning from service in Al Qaeda, al-Shabaab, Islamic Jihad, the Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria to foment rebellion, increase their practice of terrorism on U.S. soil and attempt to establish a separate Islamic state within the United States.
And let us not forget the ordinary Muslims living in America, like Basit Sheikh, a legal resident of North Carolina, who was arrested last month by the FBI, as he attempted to leave for Lebanon in order to join Jabhat al-Nusrah, a terrorist organization. Do not forget the two Iraqi men living in public housing in Bowling Green, KY since 2009, who were discovered to be Iraqi Al Qaeda terrorists with the blood of U.S. soldiers on their hands.
Pete Doughtie is in good company, since journalist Andy McCarthy and Frank Gaffney, ex-deputy assistant Defense Secretary, have both called for precluding Muslims from Muslim majority nations and “sharia-adherent Muslims” from the U.S., just as we banned advocates for communism after WWII. After the Boston Marathon Bombing, Laura Ingraham, Fox News contributor, called for a ban on Muslim immigration, and several U.S. Senators, such as Rand Paul, suggested much the same.
“Who will stand up”, asked Mr. Doughtie.
We all should be standing shoulder to shoulder in a movement to deport all Muslims not holding U.S. citizenship, much as I have advocated since 1993. Some of us should even be considering running for local, state and federal offices, in order to enforce Article I – Section 8 power “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”, in agreement with past Supreme Court affirmations that Congress and the American people have the “power to make rules for the admission of aliens and to exclude those who possess those characteristics which Congress has forbidden”. Moreover, Muslims can be stripped of their U.S. citizenship and deported, if they have actively fought and taken up arms against the U.S., according to many legal/Constitution experts: All those now standing and advocating for the deportation of Muslims, especially CAIR and MB members, understand that protecting U.S. interests and American citizens and maintaining American sovereignty, independence and freedom of action must be the primary, overriding concern of our nation and its leaders.
By Justin O. Smith
Edited by John R. Houk
© Justin O. Smith
Vice President Joe Biden brags about how President Barack Hussein Obama by-passed Congress with Executive Orders to implement the Leftist perception of limiting violence by controlling the use of guns by Americans contrary to the Second Amendment. Check it out.
JRH 12/4/13 (Hat Tip: MinutemenNews.com)
Biden Hails the 23 Gun Control Steps Obama Took on His Own
By Susan Jones
December 3, 2013 – 10:33 AM
(CNSNews.com) – On Monday, invoking the Dec. 14 “tragedy in Newtown,” Vice President Joe Biden told Americans, “You have my word that the President and I are doing everything we can to make sure no parent loses their child to gun violence.”
And he admitted that they’re doing it “on our own,” without Congress.
“And so even after a minority of senators blocked commonsense legislation to reduce gun violence this spring, we’re pushing forward,” he said.
“Now, it’s not enough to take these steps on our own — we still need Congress to pass comprehensive legislation to reduce gun violence. We need expanded background checks, and we need to create serious penalties for gun trafficking. There is no question that these kinds of measures would protect our kids and keep our communities safer.”
Biden hailed the 23 “executive actions” President Obama laid out in January to reduce “gun violence.” Biden said the administration has either completed or made significant progress on all of them.
“No parent should ever face the horror of the scene at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Or a movie theater in Aurora. Or a temple in Oak Creek. Or the campus at Virginia Tech. We’ve seen too much gun violence as a country. And if there’s even one thing we can do to save a life, it is our most sacred duty to try. That’s where I stand,” said Biden, who may be contemplating a run for president in 2016.
The anniversary of the Sandy Hook shooting is a week from Saturday, and Connecticut officials are expected to release recordings of the 911 calls on Wednesday.
Biden was in Asia when the White House released his tough-on-guns message, which was signed “Joe.”
The message links to a list of the “progress we’ve made” on the 23 executive actions. Here are a few of them:
– “Begun to address unnecessary legal barriers that prevent states from reporting information about those prohibited from having guns.”
– “Issued a presidential memorandum requiring federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.”
– “Took steps to maximize enforcement efforts.”
– “Helped law enforcement avoid returning guns to the wrong hands.”
– “Published data on lost and stolen guns.”
– “Reviewed categories of dangerous people prohibited from having guns.”
You can see the full list of executive actions here.
On Tuesday, coincidentally, the House Judiciary Committee was holding a hearing on the president’s “constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws.”
Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) told Fox News on Tuesday that she and other members of Congress are “appalled at the president’s actions — they are clearly unconstitutional.” Bachmann said the Constitution limits the president’s power — “even though the president doesn’t act that way.”
Bachmann said Obama can’t “unilaterally make these decisions, Congress is a part of the government as well, you’re not a king, you’re not a dictator” — even though he sometimes acts that way.
The list of Republican complaints includes Obama’s unilateral changes to the Affordable Care Act, which Bachmann called “political management”; and his use of “prosecutorial discretion” in determining which illegal aliens to deport.
All original CNSNews.com material, copyright 1998-2013. Cybercast News Service.