The Inconvenient Oath

We know Barack Hussein Obama stumbled over the Presidential Oath on Inauguration Day last January, but who among us (other than George Soros and Rahm Emanuel) could have known the depths of his simmering contempt for the Office he swore to “faithfully execute” or the Constitution he swore to “preserve, protect and defend”?

More apparent with each passing day is that Obama spent most of his adult life resenting American prosperity at home and influence abroad, and now, the Oath be damned, is moving at warp speed to exact his revenge. He has awaited this opportunity for a very long time.

Why do Obama and his compliant comrades on Capitol Hill desire to move so fast, to pass bill upon bill before they’ve been contemplated and debated, let alone read? It is a question more people are asking. The only logical answer is that he (and they) knows the Socialist Liberals can’t possibly get away with this tyrannical agenda forever.

The trends Obama’s Mission Irresponsible are establishing, while reversible, will not be easily undone. And behind his thin veil of sincerity, he knows it.

The “Cap and Trade” Climate legislation is a massive scam based on faulty premises about so-called global warming and rooted in a massive generational wealth shift, from the productive to the “entitled”. The heavy hand this bill would impose if it became law is almost incomprehensible (except to those indoctrinated in the Obama Wealth Redistribution Society).

History might indeed prove that Obama’s only rival in the realm of wealth confiscation is the soon to be imprisoned Bernie Madoff. The Heritage Foundation’s respected Center for Data Analysis has run the numbers on Cap and “Tax”, and they are about as appealing as Madoff’s prison sentence of 150 years.

While Obama’s Teleprompter insists the bill delivers reduced dependence on foreign oil, combats the consequences of “climate change”, promotes profitable “clean energy” and creates jobs, the reality is quite the opposite.

The Cap and Trade tsunami will cripple the American economy and leave every walk of life vulnerable to passing some bogus environmental worthiness test, lest it be a target for increased taxation. The Heritage center projects unfathomable increases, including 90% spikes in residential electric bills, 74% jumps in gasoline prices and GDP reduction of around $9.6 trillion by 2035.

Obama is probably smart enough to know that government-run energy and health care programs are destined to fail, which is why he supports them. He has lusted for a lifetime for an America gripped by chaos, taken down a notch, and ridiculed by the world.

On the foreign policy front, the same twisted logic prevails. Obama stands back, tongue tied, as a dictator terrorizes the people of Iran, but then quickly and bluntly admonishes Honduras for sending its president into exile though he boldly ignored the nation’s constitution in order to extend and strengthen his power.

Obama has Secretary of State Hillary Clinton condemning the Honduran military for unseating the renegade President Mel Zelaya, yet Clinton has been all but silent on the fraudulent Iranian election and the violence that has followed in response to uprisings in the streets.

The most unsettling part of the recent developments on Capitol Hill and in far-away lands is that we can’t know for sure which scenario Obama envisions for his own future. When America has finally awakened, will he be the equivalent of arrogant dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, backed by powerful forces in the shadows and restored to his reign against the will of a population grieving the random deaths of its sons and daughters in the streets, or will Obama be a Zelaya who has no use for his own Constitution even if it thrusts the nation into political instability, pitting the military against the corridors of the political status quo?

This weekend, I would advise contemplating America’s Independence Day solemnly and celebrating it respectfully.

The Audacity of Audacity

You think Nancy Pelosi has a short memory when it comes to intelligence briefings?

Have a listen to the "Present of the United States", former community organizer and partial birth abortion antagonist Barack Hussein Obama, as he stood before the 2009 graduating class at that former bedrock institution and fading bastion of Catholic (and Judeo-Christian) principles, Notre Dame. He seems to have forgotten, or forsaken, his pro-abortion days as an Illinois State Senator.

Sunday, May 17, 2009: "Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women. ... Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words."

Honoring conscience is an admirable goal. But eight years ago, state Sen. Obama was in no mood to extend "clear ethics" to previable (premature) fetuses if doing so would pose a threat to the legality of abortion. Sound science was not on the table then. Just politics.

March 30, 2001 (speaking at the Illinois State Capitol): "There was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so I just want to suggest, not that I think it'll make too much difference with respect to how we vote, that this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place."

The 2001 speech excerpt appears in a landmark book, The Case Against Barack Obama, by David Freddoso, who wrote: "Birth has been the law's bright line, at least since Roe v. Wade. Apparently, not for Obama. He voted 'present' on this (2001) bill."

In other words, Obama was wholly unwilling to find a place in his heart or his mind for previable fetuses because they, as "persons", might throw a dagger into the heart he most cherishes, the heart of pro-abortion logic.

Part II

Obama, speaking at Notre Dame on Sunday: "Perhaps because the church folks I worked with (as a Chicago community 'organizer') were so welcoming and understanding; perhaps because they invited me to their services and sang with me from their hymnals; perhaps because I witnessed all of the good works their faith inspired them to perform, I found myself drawn -- not just to work with the church, but to be in the church. It was through this service that I was brought to Christ."

The Case Against Barack Obama, page 156: "During those days (in the 1980s) as a community organizer, Obama recognized that his work was suffering because the pastors in Chicago generally viewed him as an outsider -- as someone willing to use their congregations for his own purposes, but whose motivations remained unclear because he did not attend church himself."

And when Obama finally figured out he needed a regular church home to be a "player", he chose Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity Church of Christ, where worship shared top billing with Wright's anti-white, anti-America rants on Sundays.

Notre Dame might have lost its way. Barack Obama is still looking for his.

Let Freedom Rattle

Author and radio host Mark Levin said it best today. Some see this era as just that, a passing era of upheaval in our history. Others, like Levin and yours truly (and a growing throng of patriots), recognize we have arrived at a seminal crossroads for America. But when you try to engage an Obamatron in any serious analysis of what is happening around us, they dismiss you as angry, anti-Obama, and then they infer all of the tired “ists” — racist, sexist, elitist.

But I will not be deterred. I will sacrifice every (so-called) friendship. I will respond to every verbal taunt. I will not waver in my quest to chronicle and resist this seminal march toward Socialism, Progressive Secularism and Fascism. To wit:

1. The Wall Street Journal, 05/07: “The U.S. is spending hundreds of billions of dollars — including increased assistance to the unemployed — to prop up the economy, and wants Europe to follow suit. But most of Western Europe already has a strong, if costly, social safety net, so governments feel less pressure to spend their way out of trouble. The irony is that for years, Europe tried to rein in its own worker protections. … Now the U.S. is moving toward a more European system.”

Isn’t that mind boggling? The Europeans are more than happy marking time, waiting for a government check and their government’s instructions, while watching the world go by, even with the economy in the tank. Little wonder Obama loves speaking to his buddies in Berlin.

2. A Greek acquaintance posted a link on Facebook today heralding a profile by The Independent of a former UBS trader. It’s a tell-all, lamenting the excesses that, according to the reformed capitalist turned fiction author, derailed the U.S. economy. The author shamelessly embraces a “devil made me do it” defense for his greed-driven behavior. In other words, he’s a “victim”. Of course.

As we debated the merits of the trader’s account of his days on Wall Street, my Facebook friend finally became exasperated with me and fired back with a passage from the profile, quoting the ex-trader: “Give a small number of people the power to enrich themselves beyond everyone’s wildest dreams, a philosophical rationale to explain all the damage they’re causing, and they will not stop until they’ve run the world economy off a cliff.”

To which I, stunned by the insane logic, replied: “And what happens, do you suppose, when a devious federal government controlled by self-absorbed politicians, and led by a Socialist President disdainful of the U.S. Constitution, gives a large number of people (who do not pay taxes and rarely seek or maintain employment) the power to enrich themselves?”

3. Barack Hussein Obama did not engage in any formal observances today of the National Day of Prayer. Well, duh. Praying normally requires an acknowledgment of, you know, a God. Other than the false one in the mirror, that is. Don’t forget, BHO spoke at Georgetown University on the condition that all images and symbols of Jesus Christ were covered. When did we last have an atheist President? Even Nixon prayed.

4. I can’t think of a better outcome than the courageous Miss California, Carrie Prejean, being stripped of her “title” by the state’s pageant honchos. (This action is pending). It would free her of any formal connection to a state that has been stripped bare of American values by left wing radicals who loathe our country on every level imaginable. She is a patriot. She does not need the worthless Miss California sash. She can wrap herself in the Stars and Stripes and attract millions of new fans who strongly support her contention that marriage is a union between and man and a woman.

5. The old Ball game. The American values think tank known as American Vision is reporting that a Louisiana man was stopped by a police squad car in his hometown of Ball. He was asked to wait while the officer ran a background check. His offense? Apparently, the cop was alarmed by the “Don’t Tread On Me” bumper sticker adorning the man’s vehicle. The authorities wanted to make sure he was not one of those extremists our Department of Homeland Security has warned about.

So it has come to this. The dawning era of the DWP, Driving While Patriotic.

The famous Don’t Tread On Me flag was created in the pre-American Revolution days to draw attention to an ominous rattlesnake symbolizing vigilance in the face of potential enemies, in this case, enemies of American liberties.

A timeless sentiment. Let Freedom Rattle.

No Politicization of the Justice Department Here. Move Along Folks...

RightSideProject Founder and Senior Editor Steven L. Baerson was kind enough last month to post on the blatantly unconstitutional DC Voting Rights Act. His years of education and legal practice helped him conclude that since the Constitution explicitly limits membership in the House of Representatives to States and because the District of Columbia is, wait for it, not a State, it can't be a member of the House. Think of it like math: if 1 does not equal 2, then 2 does not equal 1. Simple.

So simple the Justice Department, per today's WaPo, agrees:

Justice Department lawyers concluded in an unpublished opinion earlier this year that the historic D.C. voting rights bill pending in Congress is unconstitutional, according to sources briefed on the issue.

Except of course, when Justice's boss, and his boss, disagree (again, per today's WaPo):

But Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who supports the measure, ordered up a second opinion from other lawyers in his department and determined that the legislation would pass muster. (emphasis mine)

Yep, the Attorney General of the United States ordered up a different legal conclusion from a more politically sympathetic shop inside Justice (Solicitor General vs. OLC), one consistent with his boss' preferences. Holder's spokesman denied there was a political element to Holder's decision, which of course means it's entirely political.

This certainly wouldn't be the Justice Department politicizing itself, would it? We all know only Republicans would ever do such a thing.

This is not an April Fool's joke.

The Hussein Hilton

Dear Sen. McCain:

I stepped into a voting booth in suburban Chicago on Nov. 4, 2008, and cast my vote for John McCain to be President of the United States. I did so proudly, as a conservative Republican, and without trepidation.

Before casting that vote, I donated thousands of dollars to your Presidential campaign. I encouraged friends and neighbors to do the same. And I distributed McCain/Palin yard signs in my community, proudly wearing a McCain cap as well.

I did this because I believed you were qualified and deserving to be President. I supported you because I embrace the powerful message of "Country First". And when you admonished audiences on the campaign trail to "stand up, stand up, stand up and fight", I stood up.

Today, you stood up once again -- at President B. Hussein Obama's ridiculous Fiscal Responsibility Summit, an event staged only days after Obama signed a Fiscally Reprehensible $787 billion spending bill. I appreciated your searing, dry humor, engaged in a hostile setting to criticize the federal government's audacity in planning to spend obscene amounts of money on a new fleet of Marine One helicopters for the White House.

(The price tag for one new chopper, $400 million, exceeds the cost of the pair of Air Force One Boeing 747s, $363 million, that went into service in 1990. And, it should be added, 28 of these $400 million mega-choppers are on order).

You stood up, Senator, but I fear you ultimately surrendered. If you truly believe in "Country First" you would not have been anywhere near the White House today. You would have remained far removed from this bogus public relations stunt, this orchestrated "Summit".

Obama is making a mockery of the White House. He uses it as a large, elegant television studio for his endless parade of announcements and task forces. You would put your country first by rejecting the dangerous spending bills and bailouts Obama is shoving down the throats of the American people.

The campaign for the Presidency is over. But the the battle to keep our union strong never ends. The war to preserve the Constitution can not afford a truce.

In another lifetime, you endured the humiliation of the Hanoi Hilton in Vietnam. Today, I urge you to stand up and fight. Reject Obama's White House. We have entered a tenuous age when 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is the address of the Barack Hussein Hilton. Enter with extreme caution.