Violate Or Be Violated

Posted in Politics on February 26th, 2015

Obama - Mexican FlagObama’s response Judge Andrew S. Hanen, of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Texas, ruling in favor of Texas and the 25 other states that had the temerity to challenge Obama’s unilateral immigration “reform” actions is classic Obama attitude – petulant and arrogant.

Despite the federal court’s injunction against carrying out Obama’s unilateral immigration policy changes, Obama has made it clear to all ICE and Border Patrol employees that they must carryout his wishes or face “consequences.”

Until we pass a law through Congress, the executive actions we’ve taken are not going to be permanent; they are temporary. There are going to be some jurisdictions and there may be individual ICE official or Border Control agent not paying attention to our new directives. But they’re going to be answerable to the head of Homeland Security because he’s been very clear about what our priorities will be.

– Barack Obama

It’s part of the law of Obama’s jungle – violate or be violated.

That’s the way it seems to be within the Obama Regime. You do what Obama demands, even if it’s in violation of court order, or you will be violated yourself.

And, of course, America’s domestic enemies are all for this sort of thing.

Related Reading:

The Federal Courts and the Federal System, 6th Edition (English and English Edition)
Illegal Aliens
Doctor Who: Illegal Alien: The Monster Collection Edition
The Politics Book (Big Ideas Simply Explained)
Amnesty

Obama Vetoed Keystone XL

Posted in Politics on February 26th, 2015

obama-veto-timeYep! Obama vetoed a bill that approved the Keystone XL pipeline which would connect tar sands crude oil in Alberta, Canada with an existing pipeline, allowing 830,000 barrels/day to be pumped to US refineriest.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the president vetoed the bill almost as soon as it arrived at the White House.

In a message to the Senate, Obama proclaimed:

The presidential power to veto legislation is one I take seriously. But I also take seriously my responsibility to the American people. And because this act of Congress conflicts with established executive branch procedures and cuts short thorough consideration of issues that could bear on our national interest — including our security, safety, and environment — it has earned my veto.

– Barack Hussein Obama

Truly, the only reason this is newsworthy or noteworthy is that Obama actually lived up to his promise – threat really – this time. He’s promised to veto anything that the Republican-led Congress puts on his desk thirteen separate times and this was the first bill in question.

Nor is the stated reason for Obama’s veto shocking for any reason other than its rare honestly. The boy’s stated reason wasn’t even the environment or Global Warming; it was that he demands the approval process solely the jurisdiction of the Executive branch, i.e., him and his people, specifically his State Department.

Of course, Obama is well and truly within his rights as POTUS to veto any and all bills that reach his desk and to do so for any reason or no reason at all. It’s just sad that America is stuck with a POTUS who chooses to excessive those rights out of narcissism, petulance, and childishness.

Related Reading:

Republican Party Animal: The "Bad Boy of Holocaust History" Blows the Lid Off Hollywood's Secret Right-Wing Underground
Unprecedented: Can Civilization Survive the CO2 Crisis?
The Republicans: A History of the Grand Old Party
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart Presents America (The Book) Teacher's Edition: A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction
The Republican War on Science

Unlawful Combatants

Posted in Politics on February 24th, 2015

Judge's Gavel on American FlagOn Monday, February 16, 2015, a mere one day before Obama’s sweeping executive actions on immigration would have allowed illegal immigrants to begin applying for work permits and legal protection, Judge Andrew S. Hanen, of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Texas, ruled in favor of Texas and 25 other states that had challenged Obama’s unilateral immigration actions and issued an injunction against carrying out these changes to the law.

Obama’s White House will, of course, challenge this ruling and battle it in the federal court system, possibly with it ending up in from of the SCOTUS in the relatively near future. That challenge is to be expected and is largely immaterial in the larger, deeper scope of America’s tribulations. There are bigger issues.

The bigger, deeper, and more fundamentally dangerous issue that this relates to is that almost half of the Democrats don’t believe that Obama should listen to- or abide by federal court rulings.

Should the president have the right to ignore federal court rulings if they are standing in the way of actions he feels are important for the country?

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 26% of Likely U.S. Voters think the president should have the right to ignore federal court rulings if they are standing in the way of actions he feels are important for the country. Sixty percent (60%) disagree and say the president should not have the right to ignore the courts. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided.

But perhaps more unsettling to supporters of constitutional checks and balances is the finding that 43% of Democrats believe the president should have the right to ignore the courts. Only 35% of voters in President Obama’s party disagree, compared to 81% of Republicans and 67% of voters not affiliated with either major party.

Yes, you read that right. 43% of Democrats believe that Obama shouldn’t be bound or constrained by the federal courts, 22% aren’t sure, and only 35% Democrats think he should be bound by the federal courts’ decisions.

Obama Worship
All Hail Barack Obama

So one of the most horrific and potentially destructive problems facing America and Americans is that almost half of the Democrats are not just Statists, not just Anti-Federalist, but in favor of a tyrannical, autocratic presidency which unbound by- and unbeholden to the laws of the land set forth in the check and balances demanded by the Constitution.

If war is politics by other means than politics is just war by other means. These beings within the borders of our nation are not our opponents, they’re our enemies. An the very lawless, tyrannical nature of rule they desire makes them unlawful combatants. We, the People should treat them and such with no restraint and extreme prejudice.

Related Reading:

Our Constitution Rocks
Immigration Law (Quick Study: Law)
The Common Law
Separation: Murder Mystery Romance (Power Play Trilogy Book 1)
Separation of Powers in Practice