Photo by Studio08Denver

Amendment XIV, Section 4: The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

People have been advising President Obama that he doesn’t have to put up with the messy business of governing, he can just raise the debt limit himself. It is right there in the Fourteenth Amendment. Let’s analyze the amendment.

• The debts incurred to fight the Civil War are valid. They were a necessary expense of preserving the union and they should be paid. It also says refers to the debt authorized by law. What is debt? Borrowing. How much can the government borrow? They can borrow any amount up to the debt limit. In all the current debate I have heard no one say that our debts are not valid. To default on the debt means that you stop paying principle and interest on the debt. It does not mean you have to pay ethanol subsidies. But the debt has to be authorized by law. Who writes the law? Congress.
• The debts incurred by anyone to rebel against the United States are void. Any Confederate bonds would be collectors items, solely for historical value, not to be redeemed for greenbacks.
• This article is under the control of Congress.

I don’t know about you but I don’t see anything there allowing President Obama to basically ignore the debt limit and go right on spending. Do you?

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.—War Powers Resolution of 1973, Section 2(c)

How many times have we heard both during the 2008 presidential campaign and since that Barack Obama was a constitutional scholar? Where did he find the time? Between being a community organizer, a Illinois state legislator, a law school professor, U.S. Senator and presidential candidate, when did he find time for his constitutional scholarship?

While you ponder that question consider this one, has he ever really read it other than from the perspective of how to go around it? Since his election he and his progressive allies have moved us toward the “world government” model. They believe the Supreme Court should consider foreign laws in making their decisions. One of his first acts as president was a world apology tour to sooth the ruffled feathers of world leaders, that a reasonable man, a partner was now in the White House. How’s that for hope and change?

Domestically, he populated his administration with an unprecedented number of czars, and union leaders, who represent a small percentage of workers, are in almost daily contact with the administration and are frequent visitors to the White House as well. Now the Nobel Peace Prize laureate has started a new war without asking for Congress’s concurrence, but that’s okay, he got the UN’s blessing and after all aren’t they the precursor to a world government?

From a humanitarian perspective Americans don’ t like to see dictators murder their citizens who protest their treatment. So whether you think clipping Khadafy’s wings is a good thing or a bad thing, we are a nation of laws, not of men. We have a process to follow and it has not been. As you can see from the War Powers Act above, which was passed as a result of President Richard Nixon’s escalation of the war in Viet Nam, there is 1) no declaration of war by Congress; 2) no specific statuary authority to attack Libya; 3) there has been no attack on the United States. Therefore, President Obama’s action in Libya is a very serious breach of the law. Unlike President Reagan’s action against Libya in 1986, which was a single attack in retaliation for Libya’s backing of an attack that killed U.S. servicemen in Berlin, there was no attack against us.

It is good policy to get UN support prior to major action so that we are not perceived as the world’s bully, but that should come after or at least in conjunction with a debate and a vote by Congress before we commit troops. We are not at the beck and call of the Arab League and the UN to do their heavy lifting and pay the bills, when no one else wants to. To pour salt into the wound, Obama jets off to Rio to be photographed doing the samba, while U.S. service men and women are in harm’s way.

So, how long is it until November 2012?

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours.  Please comment below.

The controversy surrounding the Ground Zero mosque remains at the top of the news.  The battle over who stood where on the issue is shaping up to be a key campaign issue for November.  In New York, one of the candidates, Randy Altschuler has been pounding the Democrat incumbent Tim Bishop to say where he stands.  After considerable foot dragging, Bishop finally came out as opposed to the mosque being built in the shadow of Ground Zero.  Why did it take so long?  Was he putting his finger in the air to determine which answer would score the most political points?

What about some of the other politicians?  Altschuler is strongly opposed as is indicated on the front page of his website.  Chris Cox, who is running against Altschuler and Bishop, it is not so clear.  It doesn’t appear on his website, at least not in any of the obvious places.  Newsday gives a rundown on those already in office.

• Those opposed: Peter King (R), Tim Bishop (D), Steve Isreal (D)
• It wouldn’t be fair to say the following politicians favor the project, they more judiciously say they are not opposed;
  • Kirsten Gillibrand (D), the unelected Senator appointed to fill Hillary Clinton’s seat is in a special election this fall
  • Carolyn McCarthy (D) takes no stand other than to say it is emotional.  Ms. McCarthy was propelled into office on the sympathy she garnered when tragedy struck her family at the hand of LIRR gunman Colin Ferguson. Afterwards she felt compelled to travel the country and fight for gun control, making it harder for her fellow law abiding citizens to protect their homes and families.  But when 3,000 of her neighbors are slaughtered in the name of Islam, she has no opinion about a mosque being built nearby other than to say it’s an emotional issue.
  • It has been said that the most dangerous place on earth is the ground between Chuck Schumer (D) and a television camera.  Chuck’s been in hiding on this issue, but through a spokesman he says he’s not opposed.
  • Gary Ackerman (D) is on vacation and apparently his office doesn’t know his position or how to contact him to ask.

The more interesting thing is an article in the Daily Caller that reports about moderate Muslims who are opposed to the mosque on the same grounds as most Americans.  They feel it is insensitive and inappropriate.  There may be a majority of Muslims here and around the world who are appalled by the actions of the radical extremists, but they are not very outspoken.  They were not outspoken on 9/11 nor are they very outspoken regarding the mosque.  Their voices are muted at best, when they should be screaming from the rooftops that these miscreants are hijacking their religion.  It could be for fear of reprisal from the radicals, who will kill anyone at the merest provocation.  However, if they don’t speak up, their silence will speak for them.  The radicals will become more strident and non-Muslims will take the moderate’s silence as acquiescence.  If the moderates truly believe what this article says, the mosque would not be built and healing the rift between Muslims and non-Muslims could begin in earnest. They need to be more vocal and take the lead in the War on Terrorism, to root out this evil from Islam.

I guess that getting a tingle running up his leg only lasted so long before he had to give himself another fix.  Since talking about all the successes of the current administration seemed like a hard sell, Mr. Matthews put together a hit piece on the Tea Parties and the right, or as he calls it, the “New Right.”

On his Hardball  program, Matthews “documentary” was titled “The Rise of the New Right.”  In it he tries to paint the Tea Party movement as a fringe group of racists, gun nuts, and generally a group waiting for a reason to break into violence. 

You would be hard pressed to find a more over the top cheerleader for Barack Obama than Chris Matthews.  Matthews took advantage of his position in the media to actively work to get Obama elected, and now he is crestfallen that General Electric, CBS, and Disney/ABC do not control the news like in the good old days.  He openly attacks Fox News and blames the Internet for allowing the Tea Party to do an end run around the main stream media and get their information out.  Matthews, like big government, is smarter than you.  He knows what “news” you need to hear, and will diligently work to keep what you don’t need to know from reaching your eyes and ears.

 The Tea Party that I know has some very basic principles:

1. Fiscal responsibility
2. Accountability
3. Transparency
4. Free market solutions

 Pretty radical stuff, eh?  In a Rasmussen poll taken earlier this month, 46% of voters say the Tea Party is good for America, while 31% disagree.  Matthews doesn’t tell you this and he makes sure his “documentary” doesn’t provide the information that would let you draw that conclusion.

He reports on the militia movement and specifically mentions the Hutaree militia that plotted to kill a policeman and then those who would attend his funeral.  While constantly tying the Tea Party, and the militia to the Republicans he doesn’t mention that the one person in the Hutaree militia whose political affiliation is known was a Democrat and he voted as such.  Not that there is any linkage between what party one belongs to and being a nut-case, but a fair reporter might mention that to give an honest representation of the story.

Matthews also makes several references to violence against Democrats after the health care vote.  He neglects to say that only one case of violence resulted in an arrest.  That was for an attack against Republican Eric Cantor’s office.  Any one can get a brick and write a note on it quoting one of the Founding Fathers, but until to catch who did it and find out who they really are, you don’t know if it is an extremist on the right, or a Saul Alinsky disciple on the left who wants to discredit the Tea Party people.

Matthews liberally, no pun intended, sprinkles through his story extremists on the right, going back to the 1930s, such as Father Coughlin, but nowhere does he mention extremists on the left.  There is no profile of Louis Farrakhan, Reverend Wright, the Democrats who fought against the Civil Rights Act, while a majority of Republicans supported it.  There is no mention of our government internment of thousands of American citizens of Japanese descent during World War II.

It’s getting closer to the mid-term elections and Matthews doesn’t like seeing everything he has bet his reputation on going down in flames.  So he takes out this “hail Mary” pass to try to turn the tide against the Tea Party and scare people into staying safe with the Democrats.  But this time, the main stream media is not in control.  They can’t craft the message and force feed it to the American public.  Broadcast news and many major newspapers are losing viewers and readership daily, because Toto has pulled the curtain back on the Great and Powerful Oz that was the main stream media and exposed it for what it is, a shill for the Progressive left.

I am sure you all recall the video played ad nauseum starring the Reverend Wright railing against America defending itself.  It now seems to accurately describe the results of the new hope and change administration.  After his worldwide apology tour, and banning the term “War on Terror,” replacing it with the limp “Overseas Contingency Operation,” so that, like his presidential campaign, no one would know what he actually meant or stood for, his own chickens are coming home to roost.

Actions Have Consequences

The left used to attack the Bush administration’s approach because being tough on terrorists only served to aid them in their recruiting.  Maybe so, but I am less concerned about lines of recruits in Afghanistan than crazed terrorists in New York.  Obama’s apology tour shows his weakness and as the terrorist mindset abhors weakness, it encourages attacks.  So what would you prefer, attacks on American soil, or an uptick in recruiting on the other side of the world?

War vs. Law and Order

Bush recognized the War on Terror for what it was, a direct attack on the United States and our way of life.  In a war, you go after the enemy, you don’t wait for him to come to you.  You take prisoners and hold them, until the conflict is over.  You dismantle their ability to wage war.  It is aggressive and proactive.  It is the way America has prevailed in wartime.

The Obama approach is Law an Order.  Each act is seen as separate an isolated and as a crime to be investigated and prosecuted after the fact.  First responders are more important than the first wave of Marines.  To quote today’s Wall Street Journal:

Brian Jenkins, who studies terrorism for the Rand Corporation, says there were more terror incidents (12), including thwarted plots, on U.S. soil in 2009 than in any year since 2001. The jihadists don’t seem to like Americans any better because we’re closing down Guantanamo.

But the Obama Administration is currently considering releasing prisoners held in Guantanamo to Yemen.  How long do you think it will be before they are back on the front lines trying to kill us?

Add to the mix the Obama administration’s, or should I say Eric Holder’s, decision to try the 9/11 terrorists in a civilian court.  Holder’s testimony before Congress justifying his decision was painful to watch how he had no credible justification.  Don’t forget to give  Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, his Miranda rights and get him a good lawyer. Let’s pretend his claims to be associated with al Qaeda is just tough talk and braggadocio.

The reality is that whenever America fought a war and politicians pulled punches (e.g., Viet Nam) we lost.

Things are Working Swell

Janet Napolitano, Obama’s head of Homeland Security had this to say, according to the New York Times

“The system has worked really very, very smoothly over the course of the past several days,” Janet Napolitano, the Homeland Security secretary said, in an interview on “This Week” on ABC. Robert Gibbs, the White House spokesman, used nearly the same language on “Face the Nation” on CBS, saying that “in many ways, this system has worked.”

How chilling is that?  What exactly does she mean by the system worked?  She refers to the number of organizations that were alerted after the fact.  How about notifications before the fact?  How about listening to the terrorist’s own father who reported him to the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria.  How about denying him a visa?  Or is Napolitano too busy adding funeral homes to her list of organizations to notify after the fact?

Where’s Obama?

If there’s a chance Chicago might get the Olympics, don’t worry, Obama’s on a plane to give it the old presidential push!  If there’s a Nobel Prize to pick up, Obama is your man!  If there is a terrorist attack on our country, hey, don’t bother me I’m on vacation in Hawaii.

Some pundits on the news pointed out that President Bush didn’t speak out against the shoe bomber, Richard Reid, for several days, so cut Obama some slack.  The problem is that no one doubted for a minute that Bush was engaged in the War on Terror, some even saying he was obsessed.  Well that obsession kept us safe for seven years.  In less than one year we have had Fort Hood and now this airline bombing.

Furthermore, why is Eric Holder making such a monumental decision regarding trying the 9/11 terrorists in New York?  Why isn’t this Obama’s decision?  Just like so much in this administration, Obama campaigns and gives speeches, and Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Eric Holder make policy decisions on their own.

Here’s to the Heroes

The heroes in this case were a Dutch citizen and the flight attendants, who subdued the terrorist and extinguished the fire.  To quote again from the Wall Street Journal:

The lesson here is the same as Flight 93 on 9/11 and shoe-bomber Richard Reid, which is that civilians willing to act in their own self-defense are a crucial part of “homeland security.”

May I suggest that the statists drop their efforts to weaken the 2ndAmendment?  As part of  “homeland security” we may need to bear arms like at no time since the Civil War.

President Obama is in Japan today and plans to issue a joint statement on nuclear disarmament.  It’s not yet clear how far he will go towards apologizing for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but one can never tell with his worldwide apology tour.

Let’s Ban All Nuclear Weapons

With the same idiocy that is used in gun control here in America where criminals with illegal guns are given a government issued guarantee that their prey will be defenseless, the Obama Administration wants to extend this to the world of nuclear weapons.

Can’t you just see the grinning Ahmadinejad, with a secret stash of nuclear weapons, as President Obama ceremoniously destroys our last nuclear weapon?  Or how about Kim Jung Il?  Do you think he will feel a little taller that day?  Can’t Obama just do something innocuous like Gerry Ford and hand out WIN buttons?  Does each of his programs have to do damage to our country on such a massive scale?

When democracies having nuclear weapons are demonized, only demons will have nuclear weapons.  God help us all.

Douglas “Wrong Way” Corrigan was an aviator in the 1930s.  In 1938 he mistakenly flew from New York to Ireland when he was supposed to fly from New York to California, because he claims he misread his compass.  It later turned out that he really intended to fly to Ireland but couldn’t get permission.

What’s Hillary’s excuse?  As the Obama Administration has called the removal of Honduran President Manuel Zalaya a coup d’etat, more attention is being focused on what the law in Honduras really says.  The Congressional Research Service looked into it and had this to say:

“The Supreme Court of Honduras has constitutional and statutory authority to hear cases against the President of the Republic and many other high officers of the State, to adjudicate and enforce judgments, and to request the assistance of the public forces to enforce its rulings.”

—Congressional Research Service, August 2009

So why is Hillary Clinton now attacking the Honduran Supreme Court by pulling the visas of all fifteen members of the court?  The U.S. sided with Hugo Chavez and Costa Rica to reach a “negotiated” settlement that would put Zalaya back in the presidency.  Honduras said, sorry, that would violate our constitution.  He broke the law, we dealt with it according to our constitution, and that’s that.

Mary Anastasia O’Grady writes in the Wall Street Journal:

The upshot is that the U.S. is trying to force Honduras to violate its own constitution and is also using its international political heft to try to interfere with the country’s independent judiciary.

Hondurans are worried about what this pressure is doing to their country. Mr. Zelaya’s violent supporters are emboldened by the U.S. position. They deface some homes and shops with graffiti and throw stones and home-made bombs into others, and whenever the police try to stop them, they howl about their “human rights.”

When will the apology tour end and we start standing up for liberty and democracy?  Is it more important that Hillary have an accomplishment she can brag about than following  the rule of law?  This administration has so much, so backwards it is hard to keep track of it.  They focus all their time and energy doing things they are not constitutionally authorized to do (health care, taking over car companies and banks, funding ACORN), and ignoring their fundamental constitutional duties of foreign policy and national defense.  Let’s hope some pressure can be brought to bear on the Obama Administration to back off before Chavez puts a puppet in place.

With the closing of Guantanamo and the need to restore America’s image in the world, President Obama has condemned the use of torture in the war on terror.  This has brought about a collective sigh of relief from our troops who feel they will now be treated more humanely if they are captured now that the enemy knows we have abolished, after three uses,   waterboarding to interrogate prisoners.  Osama bin Laden has released a directive to his followers that in a show of good faith that all swords used for the purpose of beheading infidels shall from this day forward be clean and sharp.

The new interrogation methods are introduced here. You Tube — Interrogation Methods Demonstrated

We can all sleep more soundly tonight