Thursday, September 18, 2014

President 'Twiddling His Thumbs' or Unilaterally Making Laws

Update, - September 23rd, 2014 - More Obama lawbreaking.
"Obama hits at companies moving overseas to avoid taxes" - WaPo, By Lori Montgomery September 22, 2014
Ms. Montgomery writes,
"The Obama administration took action Monday to discourage corporations from moving their headquarters abroad to avoid U.S. taxes, announcing new rules designed to make such transactions significantly less profitable.
The rules, which take effect immediately, will not block the practice, and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew again called on Congress to enact more far-reaching reforms. But in the meantime, he said, federal officials “cannot wait to address this problem,” which threatens to rob the U.S. Treasury of tens of billions of dollars." Continue reading...

The Obama administration has changed tax law without the benefit of the US Congress, your representatives. The Washington Post reports that in an effort to stop US companies from trying to escape their tax policies, they have unilaterally changed the law to penalize companies that relocate overseas.

The President of the United States, a documented constitutional scholar, believes he has the lawful power to make law without the benefit of congressional input, claiming...
“The American people don’t want me standing around twiddling my thumbs waiting for Congress to do something,” - MSNBC
This comes after a January Cabinet meeting where he says..
"We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need. I've got a pen and I've got a phone, and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward in helping to make sure our kids are getting the best education possible, making sure that our businesses are getting the kind of support and help they need to grow and advance, to make sure that people are getting the skills that they need to get those jobs that our businesses are creating."  -

What disturbs me about it is not just that he believes he can do this.  My problem is how the US Congress, the media and some people, seem to believe it is lawful and that everyone in or out of the Obama administration would be required to follow any of his extra-constitutional executive orders."

The issue is not how many, the issue is legality.

Many Obama supporters, such as the Brookings Institute, will talk about the number of executive orders with emphasis on other presidents having issued many more than President Obama, while overlooking the legalities of any of them. is another Democratic Party support machine that routinely prints fringe statements and then grades them.  As with any good lie, there are elements of truth involved. In this one, they received a request to fact check an email from a third party.
"I am submitting the email below for analysis by your great organization."
The truth is the "email" was portions of a Western Journalism post from June 2012. Again the issue there was how many (which the author apparently overstated).  But still, the point was the number of signing statements -  oh, and Martial law rules (something all president sign) - which is an interesting but off point side note.

So are there any illegal executive orders and signing statements from President Obama?

Let's start with the Affordable Care Act.  The president has changed the law, without the benefit of a congressional vote, many times - each time the change was in response to failures of the law or complaints from affected parties, such as congressional staff employees, business owners, insurance companies and the states.  Among the 42 ObamaCare changes (as of  July 2014)  twenty-four were by "administrative action" ( iow's -EO & SS).  The US Constitution does not bestow the Executive Branch with the power to change laws that have been voted on by our representatives in congress.

Then there is the Bowe Bergdahl prisoner exchange.  The president signed an executive order authorizing trading 5 Gitmo prisoners for the deserter, Bowe Bergdahl, and then made the trade without consulting the US Congress. That was in violation of the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (Section 1035(d), which was signed into law by the president. This law requires notifications 30 days prior to releasing Gitmo prisoners.

Does anyone have to follow these illegal orders?  

Uh, no. It's illegal;.  What part of illegal needs explaining?

Neither the president nor any of his supporters can show how changing laws without passing it through the US Congress is in any way legal or binding. The president has no legal authority to issue laws that have not been passed by the US Congress. As such - in my estimation - no one and no federal agency would be required to follow or enforce such unlawful edicts.

If any federal agency attempts to enforce an unlawful order, that institution and the offending employees should be prosecuted for violating the law.


Dear Mr. President.  I agree the people do not want you standing around twiddling your thumbs, but they - we - do not want you disregarding the laws of the land either.

These laws are on the books to help protect the American people from the injustices that can occur in government: Not to help make the president's job easier.   We all realize the negotiating with congress is hard, but that is the only way to lawfully change or make laws for the federal government.  If you find that you are unable to deal with the requirements of the job, then I respectfully suggest that you find employment elsewhere and leave the job to those who would honor their oath of office.

Presidential oath of office.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."   - Library of Congress

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

Can the Leader of the Democratic party Win a War?

This morning, 08/30/2014, I woke up to a 1994 episode of Law and Order titled White Rabbit on the TV.  The plot involved prosecuting a former Vietnam War protester/killer. It got me to thinking about that war and those that followed.  It occurred to me that no Democratic Party President has won a war since WWII when FDR's government defeated the Germans and the Japanese at the same time.  Here is a quick list of Democratic Party Presidents and their foreign policy/war fighting records.

- The next war was in Korea (1950-1953).  This undeclared war was led by President Truman (D) and it still has not ended. We lost 30,000 troops, Truman fired his General (MacArthur) who was executing the war for him, and we never won the war. An armistice was agreed to and it has been in ceasefire status since 1953.

- Vietnam (1955-1975) - President Johnson (D) escalated the fighting in Vietnam throughout his time as president and is responsible for losing over 50,000 US lives.  It  seemed to me at the time that he didn't want to win it.  He just wanted to keep it going and only he knows why.  We left Vietnam as the losers with Nixon in inheriting a lost war and trying to get us out of there.

- Iran (1979- ongoing) - President Carter (D) fails to respond to Iran's declaration of war on the western world. On November 4th, 1979. in a direct assault against Americans, the US Embassy in Tehran was invaded and the Americans were taken hostage. President Carter responded to this act of war by doing nothing.  He did personally direct a rescue effort, but failed at that as well. The US Embassy personnel were released on the day that President Ronald Reagan was sworn in, 444 days later.  The thing that is hard to believe about this one is that no president's administration, Democrats or Republicans, have taken Iran's declaration of war seriously - treating it as an issue that may need to be managed, but not taken seriously.  Now Iran is developing nuclear weapons, supports terror networks around the world (including the new terrorist group, ISIS), and they are still calling for the death of the "Great Satan" (the USA for those who have not been paying attention).

- Somalia (1992) -President Clinton (D) takes office in January 1992 and decides to change the mission of our peace keepers, who were providing humanitarian aid in Somalia, to capture Somalian warlords.  The military requested more equipment and soldiers to accomplish the new mission, but the President refused.  Our brave men and women attempted the new mission anyway and now we have a movie named "Blackhawk Down", where we unnecessarily lost the lives of 18 soldiers and left Somalia with tails tucked in.

- Haiti (1995) - Next, To prove he is some kind of national defense hawk, President Clinton defends against the military juggernaut and looming threat to US security by declaring war on the country of Haiti.  Haiti.  That's right.  He sent in the 82nd Airborne but the operation was cut short by a last minute peace agreement with Haiti negotiated by former president Carter.

Throughout President Clinton's two terms, he was challenged by radical Islam with multiple attacks on the US military by terrorists (Al Qaeda) and heads of state (Saddam Hussein).  Instead of finding out where these terrorists were based and then wiping them out, he treated the whole thing as a law enforcement matter and even took a pass on killing Osama Bin Laden.

- Iraq and Afghanistan - Now we have President Obama (D) who was handed two victories from Bush and immediately started moving them into the lost column. Channeling Truman, he also fires his General (McChrystal)Deciding that he doesn't care for completing the mission in Iraq and in Afghanistan, he makes a huge tactical and operational security blunder by announcing not only that US Forces will be pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan and then reveals tentative dates for this to happen.  President Obama's decision has nothing to do with winning or leaving the battlefield with a credible defense capability in those countries.  He just wanted out.

President Obama's naivete in this area is astounding to me.  He shows no concern for the lives of his troops or anyone else that represents this country overseas.  Just look at a few of his tactical blunders.

- Seal Team 6 successfully kills Osama Bin Laden and recovers a "treasure trove" of information about Al Qaeda. Information that could be used to locate and neutralize Al Qaeda all over the world. But what does he do?  He immediately announces to the world that he has a "treasure trove" of information concerning Al Qaeda operations and makes it practically useless in less than 24 hours. Not only that, It cannot be shown, or hasn't so far, that he has acted on any of the information gathered.  So, Dear Mr. President, even the lowest Private in the US Army knows that one does not tell the enemy that he has information about their operations.  And do you know why, Mr. resident? Because if you tell them you know what they are doing they will stop doing that and do something else, making all of your treasure into plug nickles.

Now we are reaping the results of President Obama's political decisions concerning Iraq. A new group of terrorists has grown from the vacuum President Obama created. The president drew a "red line" in Syria and when it was crossed - he did nothing.  Syrian insurgents, calling themselves ISIS, have moved in Syria, fighting that regime and have spread into Iraq, where the met with almost no resistance.  They have taken over large tracts of land, cities, banks and military equipment left in Iraq by US forces.  Did president Obama improve conditions in these countries?  The answer is 'no, he did not'.

In contrast to the Democrats' records, GOP presidents have had striking successes in leading us in times of national security.

- Abe Lincoln (R) was victorious over the Confederacy.
- President Reagan (R) won in Grenada in less than 2 weeks.
- President George HW Bush (R-41) defeated Iraq's military in a matter of weeks.  Operation Desert Storm took about five weeks to defeat Iraq's Republican guard.
- In Afghanistan, President George W. Bush (R-43) forced the Taliban to flee the country in a mere 7 weeks.  "43" followed this by unseating Saddam Hussein in 21 days. Both were clear victories.

So the question is, do we trust US Presidents who are members of the Democratic Party to conduct foreign policy and direct the US military in combat operations?  I answer is "I don't think so Tim".

They have proven their inability to lead and to be effective commanders in chiefs.

Friday, September 5, 2014

War with ISIS?

I think there is a disconnect between how progressives and conservatives view war.  Progressives seem to believe that a war means the end of the world, that they would have to spend other people's money on soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and the military industrial complex - money that could be better spend buying votes and funding abortions, not to mention paying off their own wealthy supporters. To them, war means a breakdown in civil discourse and diplomacy - and diplomacy is the high calling that takes precedence over any other considerations.  Just ask the president.

To me, a conservative, war is the last thing you want.  The reason is that war always causes destruction and death - including the death of civilians and non-combatants.  The military is enlisted to break things and kill people.  War has only two outcomes - either you win or you lose - there is nothing in between that matters. If you do want to avoid killing innocent civilians, and that is more important than winning the war or saving the lives of your own military - then do not go to war. 

The military is not enlisted to win hearts and minds of the enemy or civilians in the battle zone. That kind of thinking is some new age mushbrained thinking that cannot be based in reality.  Just consider a foreign army invading your neighborhood - killing your neighbors, women and children - and destroying your property.  How can they become your friend after that?

Now, if some other party declares war on you and are actively killing your people, you no longer have a choice.  You must go to war and destroy the enemy.  In the case of ISIS, they are using US military equipment, along with others they have captured, to kill their perceived enemies and US civilians - all the while declaring war on the USA. How do we avoid war with them at this point?

President Obama has responded by public stating that he will not "put boots on the ground" (even though he already has).  Rather, he wants to "manage" the problem.  The president, to his credit, has authorized air support to slow ISIS down.  But slowing them down is not an option.  Why? - ISIS has stated their goal - a world wide caliphate slaving under Sharia law with them in charge, and including the destruction of the United States of America.

Just because President Obama does not want to go to war, doesn't mean he can avoid it.  This enemy will not allow that.  They are in it for the long haul - they have been dreaming of a world wide caliphate since the 6th century - and they almost did it, expanding through Europe and Asia until the crusades pushed back.  They seriously need pushing back again.

Should the USA be involved in a war with ISIS? Continue the War on Terror?  Of Course we should and we need to take the lead on this.  We do not need to put many "boots on the ground" for this, and I would not recommend it.  We should supply close air support, weapons, intel, and supplies to support indigenous fighters, such as the Kurds.

President Obama said ISIS is a cancer that is metastasizing and must be destroyed.  Well Mr. President, the longer you wait to get serious the harder it will be to destroy them and longer means a much higher body counts will result.

I heard a gentleman on the radio this morning said returning troops gave some real inside into the situation in Iraq.
In Iraq, the people wanted to US to defeat their enemies and then get out so they can impose their beliefs on the everyone there.  
That is precisely what Prime Minister Maliki did when we booted Saddam Hussein and handed the country over to him.  How'd that work for us?

Since we cannot win hearts and minds by killing the people, and we are only throwing away our blood and treasure when we destroy the bad guys for them, we should let them fight it out and help the ones that appear more USA friendly.