Gina Miller
Who will stop the power-mad man in the White House?
By Gina Miller
On Monday morning, my coffee was tainted, thanks to Drudge, by a story he posted in large letters at the top of his site. It was a stomach-turning, New York Times piece from Sunday that crowed about the Dear Leader Barack Obama (or whatever his name is) unilaterally deciding that he is proudly using his Executive powers to bypass Congress. Never mind that the Executive branch does not have the power to bypass Congress in matters unrelated to the limited confines of Executive authority, and even among the Executive powers, the President must have the consent of Congress in certain instances.
Of course, the Times story is not Drudge's fault; he just linked to it, but since I do not bother reading the communist Left's mouthpiece newspaper of record, I would not have otherwise seen the article. The title of the column was "Shift on Executive Powers Let Obama Bypass Rivals (Congress)." What shift, and by whom? The last I checked, the United States Constitution has not been "shifted," although it has certainly been ignored for decades, but especially by the current administration.
The Times piece opens by reporting that last fall Obama came up with a catchy slogan — "We Can't Wait" — to support his dictatorial decision (no, the Times does not put it that way) to act without congressional consent. The point was made that in the first two years of Obama's occupation of the U.S. Presidency, he had a like-minded, Democrat Congress, so he did not "need" to do too much outside of congressional authority.
Now that the 2010 elections have ushered in a Republican House, Obama has chosen to disregard congressional authority and illegally take power for himself. Obama harps on what he calls "obstructionism" by Republicans in Congress. Here is one thing that is so irksome that I cannot imagine why more people do not say it: America does not need more laws! They call congressmen "lawmakers." Stop making laws! This country is already so overregulated and over-lawed that we are to the point of a near-complete loss of freedom for the American people! We really need law-reversers, not law-makers!
And, I will say to "obstructionist" Republicans in Congress: Please obstruct more! Obstruct this communist dictator in the White House! Obstruct all his America-destroying plans! Far too many of his and his handlers' evil schemes have already been forced on this nation, and if he is not truly obstructed, he will be the one to put the final nail in the coffin of our economy, our freedoms and our Constitution!
Regardless, looking back at the NY Times piece, we see this paragraph,
"Mr. Obama has issued signing statements claiming a right to bypass a handful of constraints — rejecting as unconstitutional Congress's attempt to prevent him from having White House 'czars" on certain issues, for example. But for the most part, Mr. Obama's increased unilateralism in domestic policy has relied on a different form of executive power than the sort that had led to heated debates during his predecessor's administration: Mr. Bush's frequent assertion of a right to override statutes on matters like surveillance and torture."
There we go again with the phony "Bush engages in torture" routine — an attempt here to distract from Obama's shameful shredding of the Constitution with a "different form of executive power."
Notice the statement of Obama "rejecting as unconstitutional" Congress' rightful attempts to prevent his appointments of radical leftist "czars" who are unaccountable to Congress. Let us look to the United States Constitution in Article II, Section 2, at the relevant passage,
"He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."
So, according to the NY Times piece, Obama has "determined" that the Constitution is unconstitutional. The above passage clearly indicates that the President does not have the authority to appoint officials without the advice and consent of the Senate, unless Congress has determined to allow him to appoint certain "inferior Officers," which it did not do in the case of Obama's czars.
The Times piece noted that Obama has chosen not to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act and has also directed the Environmental Protection Agency to do an end-run around Congress by mandating a curb on "greenhouse gas" emissions. Obama has no authority to do any of these things. He has no authority to refuse to defend the laws of the United States. He has no authority to implement a "cap and trade" program when Congress has already rejected it. Obama also made recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess — something the Constitution specifically prohibits.
The Times piece continues,
"But those moves were isolated and cut against the administration's broader political messaging strategy at the time: that Mr. Obama was trying to reach across the aisle to get things done. It was only after the summer, when negotiations over a deficit reduction deal broke down and House Republicans nearly failed to raise the nation's borrowing limit, that Mr. Obama fully shifted course."
The administration's "broader political messaging strategy"? Obama has no desire to "reach across" any aisle. He has no desire to work with his opponents; he only wants to defeat them. It remains a true shame that House Republicans did not "fail" to raise the nation's debt ceiling. They caved to Washington pressure and raised it, against the strong demands of the American people not to do so.
In a sane world, this strategy by the Obama administration to portray Congressional Republicans as obstructionist would backfire. The fact is that if the American people fully understood the diabolical nature of the actions of this administration and the former Democrat-controlled Congress, they would be demanding that Obama be obstructed to the point of impeachment.
We do not need Congress to make thousands of new laws each session! We need them to abolish thousands of laws and regulations! We are letting our government, law by law, regulation by regulation, enslave us under tyranny while the media and the Democrats and even RINO Republicans cry, "We need to get more things done in Washington!" No. We. Don't. We need to get many, many things un-done in Washington!
I also wish our side would dispense with calling Obama's a "failed presidency." He has not failed, but succeeded, in more America-killing, communist dictates than any previous president, and if he is reinstalled for a second term, his "success" will be dreadful for our country.
The New York Times piece makes sure to point out that Republicans should not criticize Obama's insane power grabs, because Republican presidents have done it, too. Yes, the 20th century saw a staggering increase in both Republican and Democrat presidents stepping out of constitutional bounds, but no Republican or Democrat in American history has done the unconstitutional damage to this Republic and violated so many laws and limits on his power as Obama has. None.
Who will stop this power-mad man in the White House? Who in authority is unafraid to hold him accountable for his lawless actions? Since I fear the fix is in on our national elections — through foot soldier Democrat vote fraudsters, remote voting machine hacks to undetectably change the results, and this new, international election results reporting firm, which removes local double-checks on vote totals — then it will literally take mercy and a miracle from the Lord to keep Obama from "winning" reelection, regardless of how disliked he is. He could not win in an honest election. I believe only God can stop Obama from getting a second term.
I'm praying for a miracle.
© Gina Miller
April 26, 2012
On Monday morning, my coffee was tainted, thanks to Drudge, by a story he posted in large letters at the top of his site. It was a stomach-turning, New York Times piece from Sunday that crowed about the Dear Leader Barack Obama (or whatever his name is) unilaterally deciding that he is proudly using his Executive powers to bypass Congress. Never mind that the Executive branch does not have the power to bypass Congress in matters unrelated to the limited confines of Executive authority, and even among the Executive powers, the President must have the consent of Congress in certain instances.
Of course, the Times story is not Drudge's fault; he just linked to it, but since I do not bother reading the communist Left's mouthpiece newspaper of record, I would not have otherwise seen the article. The title of the column was "Shift on Executive Powers Let Obama Bypass Rivals (Congress)." What shift, and by whom? The last I checked, the United States Constitution has not been "shifted," although it has certainly been ignored for decades, but especially by the current administration.
The Times piece opens by reporting that last fall Obama came up with a catchy slogan — "We Can't Wait" — to support his dictatorial decision (no, the Times does not put it that way) to act without congressional consent. The point was made that in the first two years of Obama's occupation of the U.S. Presidency, he had a like-minded, Democrat Congress, so he did not "need" to do too much outside of congressional authority.
Now that the 2010 elections have ushered in a Republican House, Obama has chosen to disregard congressional authority and illegally take power for himself. Obama harps on what he calls "obstructionism" by Republicans in Congress. Here is one thing that is so irksome that I cannot imagine why more people do not say it: America does not need more laws! They call congressmen "lawmakers." Stop making laws! This country is already so overregulated and over-lawed that we are to the point of a near-complete loss of freedom for the American people! We really need law-reversers, not law-makers!
And, I will say to "obstructionist" Republicans in Congress: Please obstruct more! Obstruct this communist dictator in the White House! Obstruct all his America-destroying plans! Far too many of his and his handlers' evil schemes have already been forced on this nation, and if he is not truly obstructed, he will be the one to put the final nail in the coffin of our economy, our freedoms and our Constitution!
Regardless, looking back at the NY Times piece, we see this paragraph,
"Mr. Obama has issued signing statements claiming a right to bypass a handful of constraints — rejecting as unconstitutional Congress's attempt to prevent him from having White House 'czars" on certain issues, for example. But for the most part, Mr. Obama's increased unilateralism in domestic policy has relied on a different form of executive power than the sort that had led to heated debates during his predecessor's administration: Mr. Bush's frequent assertion of a right to override statutes on matters like surveillance and torture."
There we go again with the phony "Bush engages in torture" routine — an attempt here to distract from Obama's shameful shredding of the Constitution with a "different form of executive power."
Notice the statement of Obama "rejecting as unconstitutional" Congress' rightful attempts to prevent his appointments of radical leftist "czars" who are unaccountable to Congress. Let us look to the United States Constitution in Article II, Section 2, at the relevant passage,
"He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."
So, according to the NY Times piece, Obama has "determined" that the Constitution is unconstitutional. The above passage clearly indicates that the President does not have the authority to appoint officials without the advice and consent of the Senate, unless Congress has determined to allow him to appoint certain "inferior Officers," which it did not do in the case of Obama's czars.
The Times piece noted that Obama has chosen not to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act and has also directed the Environmental Protection Agency to do an end-run around Congress by mandating a curb on "greenhouse gas" emissions. Obama has no authority to do any of these things. He has no authority to refuse to defend the laws of the United States. He has no authority to implement a "cap and trade" program when Congress has already rejected it. Obama also made recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess — something the Constitution specifically prohibits.
The Times piece continues,
"But those moves were isolated and cut against the administration's broader political messaging strategy at the time: that Mr. Obama was trying to reach across the aisle to get things done. It was only after the summer, when negotiations over a deficit reduction deal broke down and House Republicans nearly failed to raise the nation's borrowing limit, that Mr. Obama fully shifted course."
The administration's "broader political messaging strategy"? Obama has no desire to "reach across" any aisle. He has no desire to work with his opponents; he only wants to defeat them. It remains a true shame that House Republicans did not "fail" to raise the nation's debt ceiling. They caved to Washington pressure and raised it, against the strong demands of the American people not to do so.
In a sane world, this strategy by the Obama administration to portray Congressional Republicans as obstructionist would backfire. The fact is that if the American people fully understood the diabolical nature of the actions of this administration and the former Democrat-controlled Congress, they would be demanding that Obama be obstructed to the point of impeachment.
We do not need Congress to make thousands of new laws each session! We need them to abolish thousands of laws and regulations! We are letting our government, law by law, regulation by regulation, enslave us under tyranny while the media and the Democrats and even RINO Republicans cry, "We need to get more things done in Washington!" No. We. Don't. We need to get many, many things un-done in Washington!
I also wish our side would dispense with calling Obama's a "failed presidency." He has not failed, but succeeded, in more America-killing, communist dictates than any previous president, and if he is reinstalled for a second term, his "success" will be dreadful for our country.
The New York Times piece makes sure to point out that Republicans should not criticize Obama's insane power grabs, because Republican presidents have done it, too. Yes, the 20th century saw a staggering increase in both Republican and Democrat presidents stepping out of constitutional bounds, but no Republican or Democrat in American history has done the unconstitutional damage to this Republic and violated so many laws and limits on his power as Obama has. None.
Who will stop this power-mad man in the White House? Who in authority is unafraid to hold him accountable for his lawless actions? Since I fear the fix is in on our national elections — through foot soldier Democrat vote fraudsters, remote voting machine hacks to undetectably change the results, and this new, international election results reporting firm, which removes local double-checks on vote totals — then it will literally take mercy and a miracle from the Lord to keep Obama from "winning" reelection, regardless of how disliked he is. He could not win in an honest election. I believe only God can stop Obama from getting a second term.
I'm praying for a miracle.
© Gina Miller
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
