Obama AGAIN Violates the Constitution

“If Congress won’t act, I will!”

And with those imperious words, last week Comrade Obama again circumvented Congress and violated the Constitution. By announcing four “recess appointments” while Congress was in proforma session–NOT in recess–Obama blatantly violated his oath of office and committed an impeachable offense.

To Obama, a hard-boiled, narcissistic Statist, the ends always justify the means, our obsolete Constitution and pesky Rule of Law be damned. The litany of Executive usurpations since he took office in 2009 is, to say the very least, breathtaking, and the relentless advancement of his “fundamental transformation of the United States of America” remains very much on course. Frankly, I shudder in anticipation of what other breaches of trust await us before Inauguration Day 2013.

When I heard about this abuse of power, and after fully reviewing the matter, I immediately telephoned Speaker Boehner’s office urging the Speaker to warn the President that he should either immediately withdraw the appointments or face impeachment. While the spokesman acknowledged the receipt of many similar calls on this matter, I sensed a decided lack of urgency on his part. Reminding him that Boehner’s oath of office to uphold the Constitution should take priority over party politics, I courteously and firmly repeated my concern and my request for action. He assured me that a written reply from Speaker Boehner would be forthcoming. At that point, I identified myself as a member of the Monroe County Republican Committee, and indicated to him that the Speaker’s reply would be shared with my fellow Committee members.

I also emailed my Democratic representative urging her to either co-sponsor or introduce Articles of Impeachment, and requested a reply as to what, if any, actions she planned to take.

Coupled with a request that my fellow committee members also register their concern with Speaker Boehner, I provided the Committee with a copy of my email communications with both Boehner Rep. Hochul.

Following these communications, I quickly submitted the following editorial to the local Democrat & Chronicle:

“In the sole interest of advancing his political fortunes, last week the President arrogantly circumvented Congress and flouted the Constitution.

To many of us, this latest example of executive usurpation lays bare a particularly troubling pattern of Presidential disdain for the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

Against the advice of his own Justice Department, the President illegally named four “recess appointments”, three to the National Labor Relations Board and one to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, this while Congress was in proforma session—an unprecedented and clearly impeachable abuse of power.

Particularly distressing too was the shameless and reckless chorus of approval for this brazen breach of trust from many of his political allies.

How many more blatant Executive violations of the Constitution and the Rule of Law will be tolerated by Congress and so cavalierly ignored by the media? For better or for worse, that’s the burning question which afflicts an increasingly irritated and distrustful electorate.

On November 6th, let’s pray fidelity to the Constitution and the Rule of Law is restored.”

While I hope my actions are productive, I am still awaiting evidence of actions taken by Boehner, my representative and my Committee colleagues. My fear is that if Congress believes no one cares or no one is watching, this insidious mischief will be ignored with impunity.

At the next GOP Committee meeting, I will enquire of the membership as to any actions taken by them. And if no action was taken, I will resign. When my own political associates become part of the problem–become witting or unwitting parties to the Constitution’s subversion–then that party can no longer avail itself of my support or service, and I will promptly register as a member of the Conservative Party.

I don’t know what else I can do. And while I am hoping for the best, recent experience has taught me to expect the worse.

“A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.” Edward R. Murrow

“An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.” James Madison, Federalist No 48.

“Those who refuse to participate in politics shall be governed by their inferiors.” PLATO

“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.” Thomas Jefferson

“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.” Deitrich Bonhoeffer

“If the respresentatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense.” Alexander Hamilton

Is “The Newt” a Chameleon?

Given the widespread angst over Newt’s apparent betrayals of conservative principles, I’ve begun the process of researching for myself Newt’s current and past policy positions and voting record.

Yes, I have lingering concerns about the consistency of his conservative record, but I also understand that being an evolving and very much engaged politician–a political practitioner who was often in the rough and tumble front lines of legislation–doesn’t always easily lend itself to achieving the appearance of absolute philosophical purity. There are times when, as a practical politician, one must bend to achieve one’s core legislative agenda. Thus the likely misleading appearance of apostasy.

As for some of the more questionable positions he’s taken in the past, these items beg for an explanation. Do they really represent hidden Progressive, aka neo-Marxist, inclinations, or, more realistically, were they merely political expediencies. Here are some of those troubling positions into which we must all do some objective delving:

1. Co-sponsored the Fairness Doctrine which was mercifully vetoed by Pres. Reagan in 1987. (So far, I cannot determine if he actually voted for it.)
2. Supported the GATT Treaty thereby granting increased sovereignty to the UN. (11/94)
3. Voted for the single largest increase in federal education spending–$3.5B. (04/96) (Question: will he actually eliminate the Dept. of Education?)
4. Supported fed taxdollars for abortions. (04/95)
5. Supported Bush’s proposal for mandatory carbon caps. (02/07)
6. LIke other conservatives, said he would have reluctantly voted for the $700B TARP bailout. (09/08)
7. Lobbied for ethanol subsidies. (01/11)
8. Suggested that flex-fuel vehicles be mandated for Americans. (01/11)
9. Wrote book saying he believes in man-made climate change. (02/11)

If Newt is able to explain these positions within the context of political expediency, misrepresentation, misstatement, or momentary addlepation then his conservative credentials would appear to be intact. I emailed these concerns to Newt’s campaign and am hopeful of a timely reply. I am also exploring how best to channel these items of concern to upcoming debate moderators.

The question is were those inconsistencies and/or faux pas and/or political expediencies indicative of Newt’s foundational philosophical bearings. At this juncture and pending further research, I think not.

At this point, I’ve tentatively concluded that Newt is, in all likelihood, a bonafide conservative with clearly defined and very aggressive conservative solutions. I am especially heartened by his “21st Century Contract with America” and am especially impressed by the 9th and 10th points of that Contract which, respectively, call for effectively clipping the wings of our runaway, activist judiciary and for beginning an orderly transfer of power and responsibility back to the States. For me, these two initiatives are at the heart of any real solution which seriously aims to restore constitutional order.

So, yes, I will be sending another donation to his campaign today. But, I will also continue to research and to keep my eyes and my options wide open.

Can the Union Survive?

For me, the failure of the so-called “super committee” sharply illustrates the overwhelming and disturbing reality that this country is, indeed,
irreconcilably divided, rendering political compromise virtually impossible.

Many years in the making, this increasingly irreparable ideological divide
separates socialism and capitalism, statism and individual liberty.

And no matter how hard we try, like oil and water these competing ideologies can never, ever mix.

Deeply ideologically divided, the unsettling reality is now patently obvious: we are now and have been for some time a nation headed for political dissolution. The November 2012 elections may delay that disintegration, but only temporarily. Like our Constitution, our union too is on life support.

Gone are the simpler, more wholesome times in the past when Americans shared first principles, divided only by relatively innocuous political gamesmanship rather than fiercely opposing ideological convictions.

In the face of these severely divergent political viewpoints, sustaining an
“indivisible union” may, in the longer term, be but a pipe dream.

Just calling like I see it.

But, hey! It was a great ride while it lasted.

(“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.” George Orwell.)

SCOTUS Must be Reigned In !!!

SCOTUS Must be Reigned In !!!.

Is “The Newt” a Chameleon?

Is “The Newt” a Chameleon?.

Is “The Newt” a Chameleon?

Given the widespread angst over Newt’s apparent betrayals of conservative principles, I’ve begun the process of researching for myself Newt’s current and past policy positions and voting record.

Yes, I have lingering concerns about the consistency of his conservative record, but I also understand that being an evolving and very much engaged politician–a political practitioner who was often in the rough and tumble front lines of legislation–doesn’t always easily lend itself to achieving the appearance of absolute philosophical purity. There are times when, as a practical politician, one must bend to achieve one’s core legislative agenda. Thus the likely misleading appearance of apostasy.

As for some of the more questionable positions he’s taken in the past, these items beg for an explanation. Do they really represent hidden Progressive, aka neo-Marxist, inclinations, or, more realistically, were they merely political expediencies. Here are some of those troubling positions into which we must all do some objective delving:

1. Co-sponsored the Fairness Doctrine which was mercifully vetoed by Pres. Reagan in 1987. (So far, I cannot determine if he actually voted for it.)
2. Supported the GATT Treaty thereby granting increased sovereignty to the UN. (11/94)
3. Voted for the single largest increase in federal education spending–$3.5B. (04/96) (Question: will he actually eliminate the Dept. of Education?)
4. Supported fed taxdollars for abortions. (04/95)
5. Supported Bush’s proposal for mandatory carbon caps. (02/07)
6. LIke other conservatives, said he would have reluctantly voted for the $700B TARP bailout. (09/08)
7. Lobbied for ethanol subsidies. (01/11)
8. Suggested that flex-fuel vehicles be mandated for Americans. (01/11)
9. Wrote book saying he believes in man-made climate change. (02/11)

If Newt is able to explain these positions within the context of political expediency, misrepresentation, misstatement, or momentary addlepation then his conservative credentials would appear to be intact. I emailed these concerns to Newt’s campaign and am hopeful of a timely reply. I am also exploring how best to channel these items of concern to upcoming debate moderators Donald Trump and FOX News as well.

The question is were those inconsistencies and/or faux pas and/or political expediencies indicative of Newt’s foundational philosophical bearings. At this juncture and pending further research, I think not.

At this point, I’ve tentatively concluded that Newt is, in all likelihood, a bonafide conservative with clearly defined and vigorous conservative solutions. I am especially heartened by his “21st Century Contract with America” and am especially impressed by the 9th and 10th points of that Contract which, respectively, call for effectively clipping the wings of our runaway, activist judiciary and for beginning an orderly transfer of power and responsibility back to the States. For me, these two initiatives are at the heart of any real solution which seriously aims to restore constitutional order.

So, yes, I will be sending another donation to his campaign today. But, I will also continue to research and to keep my eyes and my options wide open.

SCOTUS Must be Reigned In !!!

I tremble with fear every time a serious constitutional question is put to the “Supreme Court”.

Obvious to all but the willfully ignorant or ideologically blind, over the years SCOTUS has evolved into an essentially unbridled power unto itself. Guided by the principle of “judicial supremacy” vs “constitutional supremacy”, and tainted by politics, ideology and a sinister proclivity for social engieneering, it has morphed into an unelected, unaccountable, black-robed judicial “Oligarchy of Nine”, America’s Privy Council, whose constitutional moorings have long ago been abandoned.

I can still recall the devastating words of Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes in the 30′s when he dropped all pretense of judicial faithfulness to the Constitution by haughtily proclaiming that “We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.” Whoa, baby! Just let those insidious words sink in for a moment. Rather imperious, wouldn’t you say? Just who made these mere mortals Gods? Most certainly NOT the founders and most certainly NOT We the People. But thanks to an overreaching Marbury v Madison (1803) ruling which vested exclusive authority in the Supreme Court for divining what is and what is not constitutional, the judicial tyranny has continued unabated ever since.

Clearly, we are seriously in need of a constitutional amendment to reign in our runaway courts, most particularly the Supreme Court. No less than Thomas Jefferson warned us against the encroaching, indeed despotic, power of the Supreme Court. Tragically, his warnings have been ignored, and we are now paying the awful price for having failed to properly and effectively challenge the sacrosanctity of Marbury v Madison and the boundless “Supreme Court” it–andoiur own neglect–has imposed on the Republic.

That said, if SCOTUS “rules” in favor of Obamacare’s individual mandate, should We the People yet again obediently and robotically yield because the Oligarchy of Nine ruled that we must? NOT ON YOUR LIFE–NOR MINE!!!!

Per the 9th and 10th Amendments, We the People and our immediate fiduciary agents, the States, must be fully prepared to summarily nullify such a ruling. And that remedial action should only be the first step in a determined grassroots effort to reign in the runaway courts and the mortal jurists who populate them. Our founders and our progeny would expect nothing less of us.

As originally intended, We the People, the final arbiters, the “highest tribunal”, are duty-bound to assert our constitutional authority when the “supreme court”–or any branch of the federal government–oversteps its original constitutional authority, failing which we deserve the cesspool of statism and tyranny which will surely ensue.