Obama: One Speech Too Many

Cartoon - Tuning Out ObamaI didn’t take notes while President Obama gave his State of the Union speech. There was no need to.

There was a time when the SOTU was a just a letter sent to Congress, but in the era of radio and television, Presidents took advantage of the opportunity to be seen and heard laying out their priorities and asking Congress to fulfill them. Since then they have become little more than laundry lists and rarely memorable.

More people will watch a sporting event than tuned in to listen to Obama. In five years he has probably given more speeches than several previous Presidents combined. His first term felt like an extension of his election campaign with one speech following another and soon enough his reliance on a Tele-Prompter became a joke.

Suffice to say that Obama has given one speech too many. Or is that one hundred speeches too many?

A second term, according to the political pundits, is usually a more subdued time as a President seeks to get a few “legacy” pieces of legislation passed and, by then, most people have taken their measure of the President, either liking or disliking him. A President’s popularity or approval ratings usually decline.

Obama’s refusal and failure to work with Congress, combined with the disaster of Obamacare that was passed with only Democratic Party votes and, even then, required Chicago-style bribery and pressure, has seen not just his approval begin to slip away, but it includes the whole of Congress.

Obama’s assertion that he will use executive orders to get his way is simply an admission that he has failed to work with Congress and intends to continue as his second term shapes up to be one of increased resistance. Earlier presidents faced with a Congress whose power was held by another party used persuasion and compromise, but Obama uses neither.

In late January a Gallup poll revealed that “The enduring unpopularity of Congress appears to have seeped into the nation’s 435 congressional districts, as a record-low percentage of registered voters, 46%, now say that the U.S. representative in their own congressional district deserves re-election. Equally historic, the share of voters saying most members of Congress deserve re-election has fallen to 17%, a new nadir.”

It’s worth noting that the 17% who say most of Congress deserves re-election is well below the roughly 40% that has been around for decades and Gallup says “Typically, results like these have presaged significant turnover in Congress, as in 1994, 2006, and 2010. So Congress could be headed for a major shake-up in its membership this fall.”

There’s a history lesson in the 1994 election which occurred when Bill Clinton was President. It marked the greatest victory of the Republican Party since 1980. The GOP picked up 54 seats in the House of Representatives and 8 seats in the Senate. The issue that drove this change was Clinton’s advocacy of a change in the nation’s healthcare system. The Democrats did not learn anything from that defeat and Obama doubled-down on it.

While the media naturally focuses on the President, many Americans appear to have made a shift to Republicans because, at present, there are 30 Republican governors in America. Since Obama took office, Republicans have picked up a net nine governorships. In 24 of those States, Republicans control the legislatures. Democrats have similar power in just 12 States. So, at the State level, voters have already demonstrated their preferences.

A Wall Street Journal-NBC poll published on January 28, the day of the SOTU speech, revealed a nation “increasingly worried about (Obama’s) abilities, dissatisfied with the economy, and fearful for the country’s future.”

“Large majorities of respondents said they want the White House and lawmakers to focus on job creation and early-childhood education, and a slimmer majority favored increasing the minimum wage.” Just over half expressed an interest in “reducing income inequality.” Obama is appealing to the “low-information” voters these days, but the majority understands that only a growing economy can address the need for more jobs.

“The survey found that just over half of Americans disapprove of the President’s performance, with 43% approving, a trough that remains little changed since the early summer. Nearly six in 10 say they are uncertain, worried or pessimistic about what he will do with the remainder of his presidency. Disapproval for Congress, too, is near its all-time high.”

The midterm elections in November are likely to change Congress by adding many more Republicans in the House and enough in the Senate to give the GOP control of Congress. That will eliminate the chokehold that Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate Majority Leader, has exercised to kill more than a hundred and fifty pieces of legislation sent by the House to repair the nation’s stagnant economy. It will likely override the President’s veto power.

Obama’s SOTU will receive a cascade of political analysis, but if the polls are any indication, the public is far less interested in another Obama speech than they are in getting the kind of change the nation really needs to grow its economy and address its problems.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Senator Rubio on Obama SOTU: “Working alone”, “dictating”, “failing”, “missed opportunity”

Florida Governor Rick Scott issued the following statement on President Obama’s State of the Union address:

Governor Scott said, “President Obama has had more memorable speeches. But, in fairness, it’s hard to top ‘if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.’ Unfortunately, what we didn’t hear tonight was how he would make healthcare more affordable by undoing his failed law or how he would undo the outrageous flood insurance hikes he forced on Floridians.”

U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) issued the following statement tonight regarding President Obama’s State of the Union Address:

“Americans deserve more opportunities to achieve a better life, and that’s going to require a free enterprise economy that’s creating more middle class jobs and a government with less debt. While the President discussed some areas of common interest, the heart of his 2014 agenda is clearly more about working alone than with the American people’s representatives on the major reforms we need.

“President Obama missed an opportunity on several fronts, especially by insisting that Washington keep spending more money than it takes in, keep dictating to entrepreneurs how to run their businesses, and failing to level with the American people about how we can save our retirement programs. We need a real opportunity agenda that helps people seize the enormous potential that the coming years hold.”

In addition, Rubio commented on the following issues the President addressed tonight:

RUBIO ON INCOME MOBILITY

“Washington is too dysfunctional and poorly suited to effectively manage America’s anti-poverty programs. A better approach is to empower states to determine how to set up their own safety nets to best deal with the unique problems of each state. We should replace the earned-income tax credit with a wage enhancement that would make a job a more enticing alternative to collecting unemployment insurance. We need a better-functioning safety net that helps people get back on their feet, along with an economy that’s creating more middle class jobs and an education system that helps people attain the skills to fill those better-paying jobs.”

RUBIO ON OBAMACARE

“At no point did the President explain why American taxpayers should have to fund a bailout of health insurance companies when ObamaCare fails to sign up enough young and healthy people. The President won’t be able to ignore this problem much longer as the realities of ObamaCare’s failures put taxpayers at greater risk of bailing out health insurers. We should take this possibility completely off the table by approving legislation I’ve introduced with Congressman Tim Griffin.”

RUBIO ON FOREIGN POLICY

“President Obama claims credit for ending one war and winding down another, but the truth is that the global war against extremists will continue long past his presidency. America’s role in the world is as indispensable as it has ever been, yet President Obama glossed over the enormous challenges we face. The President failed to acknowledge the ongoing security threats we face in Afghanistan and Iraq or address bipartisan concerns about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the bellicosity of North Korea, the instability in Egypt and the ongoing tragedy in Syria. I remain concerned that his proposals could weaken our intelligence capabilities and military preparedness at a moment when we face emerging new threats around the globe.”

RUBIO ON FREE TRADE

“After five years of doing little to promote free trade, I’m glad President Obama talked about the importance of new trade agreements with Europe and Asia. Expanding free trade will open new markets to American exports, which will create thousands of new middle class jobs here at home. I am hopeful that the Administration will successfully conclude negotiations with our trade partners in Asia and Europe, and that Congress will approve these promising new trade agreements.”

RUBIO ON IMMIGRATION

“The U.S. has a broken immigration system that needs to be fixed, but it’s clear the President either fails to realize or is indifferent to the fact that his unilateral, executive power grabs and habit of ignoring parts of ObamaCare have made it harder to achieve meaningful progress on immigration. As he forges ahead with his unilateral agenda on a host of issues, he needs to recognize that a permanent solution to our immigration problems rests with Congress. The House of Representatives should be given the time and space to develop their own immigration reform proposals, and we should all recognize that incremental progress is better than nothing at all.”

RUBIO ON THE MINIMUM WAGE

“Raising the minimum wage may poll well, but having a job that pays $10 an hour is not the American Dream. The way our people will achieve the American Dream is by making it easier for those who are stuck in low-paying jobs to seize opportunities to move up to better paying jobs. To do this, we must focus on policies that help our economy create those jobs and that help people overcome the obstacles between them and better paying work.”

RELATED COLUMNS:

The President Won’t Be Needing You

By the numbers: Obama’s state of the union speech, the economy and jobs

SMALL BALL: Obama downsizes ambition as agenda stalls

Obama vows to act without Congress in 2014, amid second-term woes

Allen West: His View of the State of the Union

Former Congressman Lt. Col. Allen West talks about his view of the State of the Union.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/OBjThGb5SYk[/youtube]

Allen West states in an email:

Tonight President Obama announced how he plans to solve America’s fiscal crises during the final two years of his presidency. His solutions include:

  • Fixing “income inequality” and creating opportunity, instead of policies that will enable Americans to create opportunity themselves;
  • Defining “opportunity” as a government-driven equality of outcomes;
  • Extending unemployment benefits so no one ever has to worry about finding a job again;
  • Keeping the economy stagnant and in recession; and of course,
  • Completing the radical transformation of America into a socialist nation.

Anyone with half a brain knows these “solutions” are just more of Obama’s hyper-liberal propaganda and they’ll only do more damage to the fiscal and social foundations of this country. That’s why I’m writing to you at this late hour tonight.

I’m saddened to say the biggest take away from tonight’s speech is this: the most important thing for President Obama in 2014 is the mid-term election and having a compliant House and Senate that will enable his “fundamental transformation” of America.

RELATED COLUMNS:

The President Won’t Be Needing You

By the numbers: Obama’s state of the union speech, the economy and jobs

SMALL BALL: Obama downsizes ambition as agenda stalls

Obama vows to act without Congress in 2014, amid second-term woes

TAKE ACTION: Florida House Bill Would Virtually Nullify All Federal Gun Laws

Since most of what the federal government does is well beyond the scope of its enumerated powers, it is up to the States, (those that choose to of course) to thwart these actions. Florida House Representative Dane Eagle has filed and sponsored HB 733 – The Florida Second Amendment Preservation Act.

dane eagle

Representative Dane Eagle (FL- R District 77)

“The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution expressly provides that all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states. Time and time again Florida has proven that we have the best solutions to our own issues,whether it be health care, education, or our balanced budget, which is accomplished without raising taxes. When it comes to protecting our fundamental Second Amendment rights guaranteed by the Constitution, I believe it is best left to be handled by Floridians for Floridians.” – Florida House Rep. Dane Eagle

Andrew Nappi, from the Florida Tenth Amendment Center, in an email states, “We need your support to get more HOUSE co-sponsors; and we need you to contact your State Senator as we need a senate companion bill ASAP. Tell them to sponsor a companion bill to HB 733 by Rep. Dane Eagle (FL- R District 77). Include the link to the bill which is below. Please don’t delay. Actions takes literally less than five minutes to accomplish. Thanks!”

Link to HB 733: http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=_h0733__.docx&DocumentType=Bill&BillNumber=0733&Session=2014

Step 1. Go here and put in info and it will automatically populate and send your house rep a request to support and/or co-sponsor…. Just follow the steps.

Step 2. Then go here and find your senator and ask them to Sponsor a senate companion bill to HB 733 and include the link to the bill That is below. Find your Florida Senator here.

You can support this bill by taking action right now, it takes seconds to submit your email to your elected officials: click here now

Go even further by logging your phone call to your elected officials. Input your address the appropriate elected officials phone numbers will load on the screen. Call them on the phone, be polite but firm in asking for their support and co-sponsorship of House Bill #733. You can join that campaign by clicking here also.

Nappi notes, “There is zero time to wait. We need that senate bill! This takes all of 5 minutes…we must protect the 2A!”

The Second Amendment Preservation Act declares that no agent of the state or its political subdivisions may participate with or assist federal agents in the enforcement of unconstitutional federal firearms laws, or provide material support of any kind to federal agents in the enforcement of these laws. State agents and/or contractors who knowingly participate in or provide support for the enforcement of federal firearms laws would be subject to dismissal.

“The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution expressly provides that all powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states. Time and time again Florida has proven that we have the best solutions to our own issues,whether it be healthcare, education, or our balanced budget, which is accomplishedwithout raising taxes. When it comes to protecting our fundamental Second Amendment rights guaranteed by the Constitution, I believe it is best left to be handled byFloridians for Floridians.” – Florida House Rep. Dane Eagle

The legislation would not attempt to stop federal agents from enforcing gun laws, but would pull the plug on any state cooperation. The bill rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government cannot force states to help implement or enforce and federal act or program. The anti-commandeering doctrine rests primarily on four Supreme Court cases cases dating back to 1842. Printz v. US serves as the cornerstone.

Montana sheriff Jay Printz and Arizona sheriff Richard Mack sued the federal government over provisions in the 1993 Brady Gun Bill that required chief law enforcement officers in each county to administer background checks. The Supreme Court majority held the feds could not force compliance by state officers.

“The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”

Mack has since called working at the state and local level the key to fighting tyranny.

Florida Tenth Amendment Center outreach director Francisco Rodriguez said the proposed act would make it very difficult for the federal government to enforce its gun laws.

“The federal government relies on state and local assistance for almost everything. One source I read indicated that state or local police assist in seven out of every 10 ATF raids. That’s a lot of help that will disappear in the blink of an eye,” he said. “Now imagine if 20 or 30 states followed suit. It would make it virtually impossible for the feds to violate the Second Amendment.”

Florida Tenth Amendment Center state coordinator Andrew Nappi said Rep. Eagle first became interested in this bill almost a year ago and called to discuss the model legislation.

“The timing last year just could not be worked out. But Representative Eagle said he would not forget about this bill and he didn’t. He remained true to his word, and we began working with him on this last fall,” Nappi said. “This is a substantial attempt to push back against federal actions violating the Second Amendment. Representative Eagle has not only kept his word by sponsoring the bill this year, he set an example for others who say they support the Second Amendment, but stop short of taking action.”

Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center indicate a Senate version of the bill will likely be introduced in the next week or so.

Oath Keepers: Protectors of America

Who are the Oath Keepers? They are a large group of Americans who have at one point in their career have taken an oath to protect America and our U.S. Constitution. Many are current and former military, current and former law enforcement, and current and former firefighters. These group of people have sworn to never allow our country to be taken by treasonous foreign or domestic people or governments. Read below what the folks stand for. They are the True Protectors of America

From the Oath Keepers Site:

About Oath Keepers

Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders who pledge to fulfill the oath all military and police take to “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” That oath, mandated by Article VI of the Constitution itself, is to the Constitution, not to the politicians, and Oath Keepers declare that they will not obey unconstitutional orders, such as orders to disarm the American people, to conduct warrantless searches, or to detain Americans as “enemy combatants” in violation of their ancient right to jury trial. See the Oath Keepers Declaration of Orders We Will Not Obey for details.

Oath Keepers reaches out to both current serving and veterans to remind them of their oaths, to teach them more about the Constitution they swore to defend, and to inspire them to defend it. See below for details on how we do that.
Our motto is “Not on our watch!”

Military Enlisted Oath

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

Military Officers Oath

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God

NOTE: While the enlisted oath does contain a pledge to obey the orders of the President and of commanding officers, that is still preceded by a pledge to “defend the Constitution,” and is also qualified by the requirement that such orders be “according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.” Any order, by anyone, that is not constitutional or according to regulations, is unlawful and military personnel are not obligated to follow such orders – and, in fact, are obligated to refuse.

In contrast to the enlisted oath, the oath of military officers is to the Constitution alone, without qualification. To learn more about the history of the military oath, go here.

Veterans, your Oath NEVER expires! It’s time to keep it!

Orders We Will Not Obey

“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their Houses, and Farms, are to be pillaged and destroyed, and they consigned to a State of Wretchedness from which no human efforts will probably deliver them. The fate of unborn Millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this army” – Gen. George Washington, to his troops before the battle of Long Island

Such a time is near at hand again. The fate of unborn millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this Army – and this Marine Corps, This Air Force, This Navy and the National Guard and police units of these sovereign states.
Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, peace officers, fire-fighters, and veterans who swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic … and meant it. We won’t “just follow orders.”

Below is our declaration of orders we will NOT obey because we will consider them unconstitutional (and thus unlawful) and immoral violations of the natural rights of the people. Such orders would be acts of war against the American people by their own government, and thus acts of treason. We will not make war against our own people. We will not commit treason. We will defend the Republic.

Declaration of Orders We Will NOT Obey

Recognizing that we each swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and affirming that we are guardians of the Republic, of the principles in our Declaration of Independence, and of the rights of our people, we affirm and declare the following:

1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.

The attempt to disarm the people on April 19, 1775 was the spark of open conflict in the American Revolution. That vile attempt was an act of war, and the American people fought back in justified, righteous self-defense of their natural rights. Any such order today would also be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason. We will not make war on our own people, and we will not commit treason by obeying any such treasonous order.

Nor will we assist, or support any such attempt to disarm the people by other government entities, either state or federal.
In addition, we affirm that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to preserve the military power of the people so that they will, in the last resort, have effective final recourse to arms and to the God of Hosts in the face of tyranny. Accordingly, we oppose any and all further infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. In particular we oppose a renewal of the misnamed “assault-weapons” ban or the enactment of H.R. 45 (which would register and track gun owners like convicted pedophiles).

2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects – such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.

One of the causes of the American Revolution was the use of “writs of assistance,” which were essentially warrantless searches because there was no requirement of a showing of probable cause to a judge, and the first fiery embers of American resistance were born in opposition to those infamous writs. The Founders considered all warrantless searches to be unreasonable and egregious. It was to prevent a repeat of such violations of the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects that the Fourth Amendment was written.

We expect that sweeping warrantless searches of homes and vehicles, under some pretext, will be the means used to attempt to disarm the people.

3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.

One of the causes of the American Revolution was the denial of the right to jury trial, the use of admiralty courts (military tribunals) instead, and the application of the laws of war to the colonists. After that experience, and being well aware of the infamous Star Chamber in English history, the Founders ensured that the international laws of war would apply only to foreign enemies, not to the American people. Thus, the Article III Treason Clause establishes the only constitutional form of trial for an American, not serving in the military, who is accused of making war on his own nation. Such a trial for treason must be before a civilian jury, not a tribunal.

The international laws of war do not trump our Bill of Rights. We reject as illegitimate any such claimed power, as did the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Milligan (1865). Any attempt to apply the laws of war to American civilians, under any pretext, such as against domestic “militia” groups the government brands “domestic terrorists,” is an act of war and an act of treason.

4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.

One of the causes of the American Revolution was the attempt “to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power” by disbanding the Massachusetts legislature and appointing General Gage as “military governor.” The attempt to disarm the people of Massachusetts during that martial law sparked our Revolution. Accordingly, the power to impose martial law – the absolute rule over the people by a military officer with his will alone being law – is nowhere enumerated in our Constitution.

Further, it is the militia of a state and of the several states that the Constitution contemplates being used in any context, during any emergency within a state, not the standing army.

The imposition of martial law by the national government over a state and its people, treating them as an occupied enemy nation, is an act of war. Such an attempted suspension of the Constitution and Bill of Rights voids the compact with the states and with the people.

5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.

In response to the obscene growth of federal power and to the absurdly totalitarian claimed powers of the Executive, upwards of 20 states are considering, have considered, or have passed courageous resolutions affirming states rights and sovereignty.
Those resolutions follow in the honored and revered footsteps of Jefferson and Madison in their Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, and likewise seek to enforce the Constitution by affirming the very same principles of our Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights that we Oath Keepers recognize and affirm.

Chief among those principles is that ours is a dual sovereignty system, with the people of each state retaining all powers not granted to the national government they created, and thus the people of each state reserved to themselves the right to judge when the national government they created has voided the compact between the states by asserting powers never granted.
Upon the declaration by a state that such a breach has occurred, we will not obey orders to force that state to submit to the national government.

6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

One of the causes of the American Revolution was the blockade of Boston, and the occupying of that city by the British military, under martial law. Once hostilities began, the people of Boston were tricked into turning in their arms in exchange for safe passage, but were then forbidden to leave. That confinement of the residents of an entire city was an act of war.

Such tactics were repeated by the Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto, and by the Imperial Japanese in Nanking, turning entire cities into death camps. Any such order to disarm and confine the people of an American city will be an act of war and thus an act of treason.

7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

Mass, forced internment into concentration camps was a hallmark of every fascist and communist dictatorship in the 20th Century. Such internment was unfortunately even used against American citizens of Japanese descent during World War II. Whenever a government interns its own people, it treats them like an occupied enemy population. Oppressive governments often use the internment of women and children to break the will of the men fighting for their liberty – as was done to the Boers, to the Jewish resisters in the Warsaw Ghetto, and to the Chechens, for example.

Such a vile order to forcibly intern Americans without charges or trial would be an act of war against the American people, and thus an act of treason, regardless of the pretext used. We will not commit treason, nor will we facilitate or support it.”NOT on Our Watch!”

8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.

During the American Revolution, the British government enlisted the aid of Hessian mercenaries in an attempt to subjugate the rebellious American people. Throughout history, repressive regimes have enlisted the aid of foreign troops and mercenaries who have no bonds with the people.

Accordingly, as the militia of the several states are the only military force contemplated by the Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, for domestic keeping of the peace, and as the use of even our own standing army for such purposes is without such constitutional support, the use of foreign troops and mercenaries against the people is wildly unconstitutional, egregious, and an act of war.

We will oppose such troops as enemies of the people and we will treat all who request, invite, and aid those foreign troops as the traitors they are.

9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever.

One of the causes of the American Revolution was the seizure and forfeiture of American ships, goods, and supplies, along with the seizure of American timber for the Royal Navy, all in violation of the people’s natural right to their property and to the fruits of their labor. The final spark of the Revolution was the attempt by the government to seize powder and cannon stores at Concord.

Deprivation of food has long been a weapon of war and oppression, with millions intentionally starved to death by fascist and communist governments in the 20th Century alone.
Accordingly, we will not obey or facilitate orders to confiscate food and other essential supplies from the people, and we will consider all those who issue or carry out such orders to be the enemies of the people.

10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

There would have been no American Revolution without fiery speakers and writers such as James Otis, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, and Sam Adams “setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.”

Patrick Henry: “Give me Liberty, or Give me DEATH!”

Tyrants know that the pen of a man such as Thomas Paine can cause them more damage than entire armies, and thus they always seek to suppress the natural rights of speech, association, and assembly. Without freedom of speech, the people will have no recourse but to arms. Without freedom of speech and conscience, there is no freedom.

Therefore, we will not obey or support any orders to suppress or violate the right of the people to speak, associate, worship, assemble, communicate, or petition government for the redress of grievances.

– And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually affirm our oath and pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor. Oath Keepers

NOTE: * First responders includes firefighters, search and rescue, EMTs, disaster relief, and similar emergency personnel. While not all such personnel take an oath to the Constitution, many do, and all are a critical audience for our mission. Current Serving and Veterans, you swore an Oath…

The Obama Doctrine: Force and Coercion by Pen and Phone

The great thing about being a dictator is you aren’t required to have leadership ability. You don’t even need to be competent, just manipulative, deceptive, power hungry and vicious.

When you’re a dictator you don’t have to articulate your vision and you don’t have to work with anyone. All you have to do is demagogue while delivering empty rhetorical diatribe and behind the scenes intimidate and crush those who stand in your absolutism.

Being dictator means you can use force and coercion as the means to your end – which can be accomplished with just your pen and phone.

And so here we are in America today, the day before President Obama’s State of the Union address and the theme will likely be “executive action” rather than good governance.

According to The Hill,

President Obama has dubbed 2014 a “year of action,” vowing to rely heavily on executive authority to accomplish ambitious– but yet unspecified – policy goals. Top administration officials, perhaps not wanting to get ahead of Tuesday’s State of the Union address, have been vague about what that might entail, even while insisting Obama means to use his “pen and phone” to get things done.

Instead of finding policy means to work with Congress, President Obama will utilize a range of powers to impose his progressive socialist agenda, including presidential directives, formal executive orders, and rulemaking authority at agencies throughout his administration.

If you watched Obama White House Senior Advisor Dan Pfeiffer on yesterday’s Sunday morning news programs, you got exactly that sense. The Hill report provides an insight into the leftist perspective,

Public interest groups have been frustrated with what they view as slow progress during the Obama administration on a host of environmental, public health and safety protections. They argue the constraints at the end of Obama’s first term should be lifted now that the president doesn’t have to worry about re-election.

In addition, upward mobility and economic fairness, aka “income inequality” are expected to be major themes of Obama’s speech — never mind that per our Constitution, fiscal policy initiatives require congressional action.

But Obama could enact an executive order requiring federal agencies to give preference to contractors that paid their employees over $10.10 an hour, according to proponents both within and outside Congress.

Just for fun, compare Obama’s economic ineptness and failures to the competence and success of Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. You know, that fella the Left hoped to destroy by deploying hundreds of thousands of protesters to the State Capitol in Madison? The state where Democrat State Senators abandoned their duties and fled across the state border and hid in Illinois? And don’t forget that recall election where he won by a greater margin than the original election, and boy did the left bus in voters from next door in Illinois.

Well, Governor Walker now has a $1 billion dollar surplus which he will use to provide more tax relief to Wisconsans, not more government spending. Wages are increasing and economic opportunity is growing. That is governing. That is leading.

Obama? Well, how much more debt have we amassed? What happened to cutting the deficit in half — the inherited Bush final year deficit was $468 billion, and Obama agreed with the bailouts. So as we pointed out last week in our State of the Union preview, we won’t hear about policies, just more politics. The economy is not improving. And President Obama doesn’t need to tell us about “ladders of opportunity.”

Every child born in America, every person coming here legally receives the ladder of equal opportunity. We don’t need Barack Hussein Obama to deceive us into believing he is the giver of opportunity by executive action or order – with pen and phone, he will be the taker.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on AllenBWest.com. The following is a humorous look at President Obama’s 2014 STOU speech:

[youtube]http://youtu.be/Y7hyUucbmj4[/youtube]

The D’Souza Arrest: Obama Adopts the Stalinist Style

He isn’t killing his political opponents, but he is using state power to hound them. My latest in FrontPage:

I’m no fan of Dinesh D’Souza, but this is ridiculous.

Dinesh and I locked horns a few years back when he attacked me in his book The Enemy At Home, saying that books like mine should not be written. His line was that Islam was a religion of peace, that pious, morally upright Muslims had been driven to lash out against the U.S. because of the immorality of our pop culture, and that American conservatives should ally with what he termed “conservative Muslims” against their common, amoral Leftist foe.

He and I debated this at CPAC in 2007 and on several radio shows, which grew increasingly heated as he charged me with “Islamophobia” (a term used by Muslim Brotherhood entities to stigmatize opposition to jihad terror) and invoked Saudi-funded Islamic apologist John Esposito as an authority.

The ensuing years have only shown more vividly what nonsense Dinesh’s position was, as “conservative Muslims” the world over wage jihad against America, and non-Muslims everywhere, more furiously than ever.

I rehash all this to show the falsehood of the line that has been circulating around in the Leftist media ever since Dinesh D’Souza was indicted: that only people who share D’Souza’s views are concerned about his indictment. As Tal Kopan put it in Politico, “In the wake of the indictment of conservative author and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza for alleged fraud, conservatives are crying foul that it is evidence of the Obama administration punishing its critics.”

Liberals should be as concerned about this as conservatives. Foes of jihad should be just as concerned about it as those who share D’Souza’s worries about “Islamophobia.” For the evidence is mounting that D’Souza has indeed been targeted for being a public and high-profile foe of Barack Obama – a development that should disquiet anyone who believes in the value of a stable, functioning republic with a loyal opposition. Pamela Geller notes here that D’Souza is not remotely the only conservative or Obama critic who has been targeted for prosecution, while Obama’s Justice Department has turned a blind eye to illegal campaign contributions from Gaza during Obama’s 2008 campaign. And then there was the Obama Justice Department’s dismissal of the New Black Panthers voter intimidation case.

What’s more, bail for D’Souza was set higher than that given to several people accused of attempted murder, rape, assault, and the like. To whom is Dinesh D’Souza more dangerous than a man who sexually assaulted a teenager, or a man who kept old men captive in a filthy “dungeon”?

This is something new in American politics. When I was six years old, I took notice of the presidential campaign, and asked my father who was the “good guy”: Richard Nixon or Hubert Humphrey. My father answered, “They’re both good men. They both want to do what is right for the country. They just disagree on what some of the right things to do may be.”

That kind of respect for the opposition was commonplace in America back in 1968, but it has all but vanished now. I remember being taken aback in college by the obscene, relentless, vicious hatred that the Left directed toward Ronald Reagan – I was at that time entirely sympathetic with their disdain for him, but the frenzy with which they expressed it, their wild furious contempt, shocked me. And that was nothing compared to what they had in store for George W. Bush. The Democratic Party as a whole, along with the entire Leftist establishment, adopted the Alinskyite tactic of ridiculing, mocking and smearing their foes instead of engaging them on the level of ideas. Leftists now routinely portray their opponents as simultaneously stupid and evil, idiotic but crafty; it’s practically a reflex.

Will Obama’s Fiddling Cause the Middle East to Burn?

The United States has had no coherent policy during Obama’s presidency, and the Mideast has become more dangerous as a result.

The United Nations recently announced the results of an investigation regarding the use of chemical weapons in Syria.  Though no one disputes that Bashar al-Assad used poison gas against rebel forces, the U.N. also found that poison gas was used against government soldiers two times and against civilians and troops on another occasion.

Barack Obama’s international credibility – already tenuous – was tarnished further when he ignored his own redline and refused to act after the use of chemical weapons was first reported, although he did authorize the CIA last April to arm rebels before deferring to Russia’s plan for resolving the weapons impasse.

The recent revelations concerning the apparent use of gas by Syrian rebels, however, raises questions regarding the broader implications of the administration’s muddle in Syria, and whether its repeated missteps reflect a lack of coherent strategic vision, misguided policy values or something more fundamentally disturbing.

The Obama administration’s policy on Syria has been confused from the start, having been formulated by politicians – including John Kerry, Joe Biden, Chuck Hagel, and Mr. Obama himself – who opposed President George W. Bush’s call for action against Bashar al-Assad when they were Senators serving on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.  They ignored Assad’s bad acts at the time because they opposed President Bush.

After Mr. Obama became president, Kerry visited Damascus several times and spoke of Assad’s supposed moderation.  Hillary Clinton suggested publicly thereafter that there was no need for American intervention because the Syrian dictator was considered a reformer by Kerry and other Congressmen who had accompanied him on his junkets.

Since that time, Mr. Obama’s positions have flip-flopped; particularly after reports regarding poison gas first surfaced.  It seems puzzling, though, that it took chemical weapons to draw his administration’s attention to the humanitarian crisis when it did not express the same level of concern as more than 100,000 Syrians were being killed by more conventional means.  The administration became indignant only after 1,400 civilians were killed with gas, and thereafter seemed to regard the rebels favorably – even though many were Islamists with links to al-Qaeda.

The President and his advisers never seemed clear about which faction represented what ideology.  Nevertheless, the rebels were touted as possible beacons of democracy compared to Assad.  Their democratic potential, however, was a strategic fiction echoed by a mainstream media that failed to grasp the complexities of the conflict, particularly when they reflected poorly on the administration.

President Obama’s fumbling in Syria is part of a larger, more systemic failure to understand Mideast history and politics, and of his administration’s record of enabling Islamists, appeasing mullahs, and sacrificing the strategic interests of American allies in the region.

The administration’s skewed vision permeates its efforts to force Israel into a two-state solution along the lines of the Saudi initiative – a plan that was never intended to promote genuine peace with a Jewish State, but rather to weaken that state and hasten its demise.

The White House’s folly reflects a progressive worldview that has little basis in reality, and which refuses to acknowledge the inflexible doctrine that dictates Muslim relations with the non-Muslim world.  Moreover, it is enabled by a complicit media that fails time and again to challenge Mr. Obama’s core assumptions.

Since the so-called Arab Spring, media coverage has ignored clear signs of Islamist influence when treating rebels and protestors as champions of democracy.  This trend has been consistent since 2008, when Mr. Obama set out to transform the image of the Muslim Brotherhood into that of a moderate political organization.

The subsequent overthrow of Mohamed Morsi in Egypt was condemned by the progressive media as anti-democratic, as reflected in a headline in The Guardian last summer proclaiming that: “[t]he military has not just ousted Morsi. It has ousted democracy.”  Such hyperbole may be consistent with support for a president whose policies facilitated the Brotherhood’s rise to power, but it ignores the organization’s suppression of dissent, repudiation of western values, and unwavering belief in jihad.

The false narrative of the “Arab Spring” as a liberal democratic revolution persists more than two years after Tahrir Square, despite the undeniable Islamist influence at its center.

Though public attention has since been diverted by events in Syria and Iran, and by Obama’s and Kerry’s obsession with Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, the Egyptian revolution stands out as the precursor of all subsequent regional policy failures.  The meltdown in Cairo a year after Morsi’s election hinted at the inadequacy of the administration’s policies and its inability to learn from its mistakes.

In light of the Egyptian crisis (which continues to flare up today), no one should have been surprised by the President’s subsequent blunders in Syria, his appeasement of Iran, or his efforts to force Israel back to 1949 armistice lines known as the “Auschwitz Borders.”

The administration’s regional strategies are counterintuitive and reflect the President’s belief in several fundamental foreign policy myths.

First, he embraces the discredited theory of “linkage,” a sacred cow of the anti-Israel left that relates the Arab-Israeli conflict to all other strife in the region.  This was apparent in his State Department speech of May 2011.

Second, he assumes that Islamism can be controlled despite its commitment to jihad and its doctrinal opposition to genuine peace with subjugated peoples – particularly the Jews.  This is reflected by his efforts to portray Islamists as moderates.

Third, he regards the Palestinians as an aboriginal people whose land was appropriated by the creation of Israel, which he ascribes to European guilt over the Holocaust.  In contrast, he assiduously avoids legitimizing historical Jewish claims, though they predate Palestinian claims by thousands of years and are objectively verifiable.

Consistent with these premises, Mr. Obama seems to believe that Israel is expendable, that Islamists hold the key to regional peace and stability, and that the United States should reprioritize its allegiances accordingly.  These policy assumptions, however, are factually flawed and easily deconstructed.

First and foremost, the Arab-Israeli conflict is unrelated to any other conflicts plaguing the region; and it persists solely because of the refusal to recognize Jewish national integrity.  Arab-Muslim rejectionism predated the creation of Palestinian national identity in the 1960s, and in fact existed long before Israeli independence in 1948.

The denial of Israel’s right to exist stems from a religiously-mandated rejection of the Jews’ right to self-determination.  As subjugated people whose land was usurped through jihad, Jews under Islam lost their right to national sovereignty and were relegated to the role of a dispossessed minority subject to persecution, repression and pogrom.

Organized violence against Jews living under the British Mandate began in 1920 with attacks on Jewish towns in the north, and continued into 1921 with riots in Yafo, Petah Tikva and elsewhere.  Spurred on by the jihadist aims of Haj Amin al-Husseini and facilitated by British collusion, Arabs rioted in 1929, massacring many Jews and expelling the survivors in Tzfat and Hevron – historically Jewish cities that were disingenuously labeled Arab thereafter.

Attacks and riots continued throughout the 1930s, culminating in the issuance of the White Paper in 1939, which restricted Jewish immigration and, accordingly, assured the deaths of millions during the Holocaust.  No similar curbs were placed on Arab immigration.

Anti-Jewish agitation in Mandatory Palestine was not caused by boundary disputes or arguments over territory per se.  Rather, it was motivated by cultural enmity and the sectarian refusal to acknowledge the Jews’ ancestral rights in a homeland that was historically theirs, but which had been coopted through jihad and recharacterized through taqiyya.

This rejectionism dictated the treatment of Jews long before the rebirth of Israel and was unrelated to the purported rights of Palestinians, who had no political existence before the creation of a faux national identity years after Israeli independence.  As acknowledged by many Palestinian leaders and intellectuals over the years, including Yasser Arafat and Zahir Muhsein, “[t]he ‘Palestinian People’ does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the State of Israel.”

The attempt to link Israel to other regional conflicts is offensive and betrays an ignorance of Jewish, Arab and Mideast history and politics.  The region is home to a diverse array of peoples and cultures, including Arabs, Kurds, Berbers, Turks, Copts, Persians, Maronites, Armenians, Circassians and Jews.  It is also home to different religious traditions, including the Sunni, Shiite and Alawite branches of Islam, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, and the monotheistic Bahá’í, Yazid, Mandaen and Druze faiths.  Despite generations of conflict, many of these groups were arbitrarily forced together into modern states by the European mandatory powers after the First World War.

The borders of Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon were drawn to include traditional enemies who nevertheless continued to clash after becoming Jordanians, Syrians, Iraqis and Lebanese.  The British and French never understood the divisions within Mideast society as they forced incompatible groups together in newly created nations.  In pressuring Israel to accept a peace plan that would undercut her long-term viability, the Obama administration displays the same lack of understanding, as well as a refusal to acknowledge ancestral Jewish claims.  Even if a resolution could be achieved, it would have no bearing on clashes pitting Arabs against Kurds, Sunnis against Shiites, or Muslims against Christians.

Muslims have waged war against “infidels” for nearly 1,400 years, and friction among the various religious and ethnic groups in the region arose long before the establishment of the modern Jewish State.  These struggles are unaffected by Arab-Israeli discord and will not be resolved by the creation of a state of Palestine.  The theory linking Israel to unrelated conflicts and events is similar to those classical anti-Semitic canards that accused Jews of affecting world events through pervasive influence, power and wealth beyond their numbers.

It is a subtle way of blaming Jews for causing or exacerbating conflicts to which they are strangers, and it comes from the same dark impulse that in the past compelled anti-Semites to accuse them of consuming Gentile blood, poisoning wells and causing the Black Death.

Just as unfounded as the theory of linkage is the notion that Islamism can be controlled; and yet the White House seems bent on redefining Islamist groups, especially the Muslim Brotherhood, as moderate forces for democratic change.  This premise, however, is patently absurd.

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna on the principle that the Quran and Sunnah constitute the “sole reference point for … ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community …  and state.”  Its goals include reinstituting the Caliphate and spreading Islam through jihad, and its targets for hatred include Jews, Christians and liberal western society.

It supported Nazism during the Second World War, and sponsors terrorism while calling for Israel’s destruction today.  Moreover, its violent campaign against the Coptic community following Morsi’s election underscored the continuity of its supremacist philosophy.  The Brotherhood is neither moderate nor secular – regardless of the administration’s attempts to sanitize its image.

The only point regarding the Brotherhood about which President Obama is correct is that its election in Egypt was democratic; that is, Morsi was elected by a majority of voters (as was Hamas in Gaza).  Without western-style constitutions to safeguard individual rights and liberties, however, these elections were merely exercises in “pure democracy,” a form of government in which personal and minority rights are not respected or guaranteed.

Individual rights in pure democracy are subservient to the will of a dictatorial majority that often succumbs to mob rule.  For this reason, it was considered by Plato and Aristotle to be the least desirable form of government.

America’s founding fathers also frowned on pure democracy, as James Madison articulated when he wrote:

[I]t may be concluded that a pure democracy … can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

(“The Federalist No. 10: The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard against Domestic Faction and Insurrection (continued),” (November 22, 1787)).  The founders instead envisioned a republic in which individual rights and liberties would predominate.

The framework for American government is prescribed in Article 4, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which states: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government.”  The framers contemplated a republic based on constitutional principles and a free, fair and open electoral system.  In contrast, Morsi’s election represented the kind of pure democracy that was reviled by the framers; and it produced a repressive government that was antithetical to the open societies found in countries like the United States, Canada and Israel.  Any similarity to the American system implied by the administration’s praise for the democratic nature of Morsi’s election was false and misleading.

The President likewise misrepresents the authenticity of Palestinian claims, which unlike the Jews’ birthright, are not supported by history, archeology or cultural imprint.  In speeches and policy statements over the last five years, Mr. Obama has carefully avoided validating Jewish historical claims, instead describing the establishment of modern Israel as a response to the Holocaust.

He thus lends credence to a Palestinian narrative that denies Jewish history and portrays Israel as a colonial aberration populated by foreigners with no ancestral connection to the land.  He also feeds into propaganda that characterizes the mere existence of Israel as occupation, denigrates Jewish nationhood, and denies that the Temple ever stood in Jerusalem.

In endorsing Palestinian claims while failing to acknowledge the Jews’ ancient connection to their homeland, Mr. Obama empowers those who delegitimize Israel.  The President uses the term “occupation” to describe Israeli towns in Judea and Samaria, employing the same propaganda-laden term used in Arab-Muslim circles to describe the entire State of Israel.

He refers to Israeli settlements as “illegitimate,” though they violate neither traditional international law nor the Fourth Geneva Convention, and uses the term “settlements” to describe Jerusalem neighborhoods that have always been Jewish.  Furthermore, he refrains from using any language that evokes Jewish ancestral rights, thereby stifling dialogue concerning the historical justification for the Jewish State.

Whether mucking around in Syria, misreading the tea leaves in Egypt, appeasing Islamists or promoting a vision of Arab-Israeli peace that elevates historical fiction over authentic Jewish rights, the Obama administration has displayed equal parts hubris and incompetence.

The President seems to believe that force of personality and partisan values are more important than ability and strategic vision in directing foreign policy.  Consequently, , the United States has had no coherent policy during his presidency, and the Mideast has become more dangerous as a result.

In addition to exacerbating problems with Syria, Iran and Israel, Mr. Obama’s policies have alienated the Saudis, facilitated an Islamist takeover in Libya and resurgence in Iraq, emboldened the Taliban in Afghanistan, and enabled a renewal of foreign expansionism in Lebanon.  His policy of “leading from behind” appears to encompass the appeasement of enemies and abandonment of friends.  As a consequence, the United States is not trusted by its allies or feared by its enemies, and its international credibility is in tatters.

Foreign policy is not a game for ideologues or amateurs, particularly in areas fraught with explosive cultural, religious and internecine tensions.  The Mideast is unquestionably tenser and less stable than it was five years ago.  The question now is whether it can find some level of stasis and wait out the last years of the Obama presidency without further damage.

AIPAC Flip-Flops, Covers Wasserman Schultz After She Refuses To Give Straight Answer On Sanctions

Posted by: Kristin Tate on The Shark Tank.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) has angered many Florida Jewish community leaders by flip-flopping on her support for sanctions.

The Free Beacon reported, “Following a Washington Free Beacon report detailing her efforts to block a House resolution backing new sanctions on Iran, Wasserman Schultz has told her hometown press that she is open to new sanctions, while telling D.C. reporters that she opposes them.

“The conflicting statements are a sign that Wasserman Schultz is torn between her support for the White House, which opposes the sanctions, and her constituents, who are less convinced of Iran’s good intentions and more supportive of tough congressional action.”

Now, Democratic Party donors from Florida with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) have come to Wasserman Schultz’s aid.

AIPAC previously sent Wasserman Schultz a letter asking her to clarify her position on the issue. But subsequently, AIPAC’s Southern director Mark Kleinman wrote a second letter. This one, penned on January 24, defended Wasserman Schultz.

Kleinman wrote, “Friends, I wanted to forward a statement issued by AIPAC national board member Ike Fisher after the Huffington Post released an inaccurate article regarding AIPAC and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz.”

He then attached a statement from board member Fischer that said, “Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz has a strong record of support for the U.S.-Israel relationship. She is a good friend of Israel and a close friend of AIPAC, and we look forward to our continued work together for many years to come.”

Fischer donated at least $3,000 to Wasserman Schultz in the 2010 election cycle.

One Florida source, who has been involved in the pro-Israel movement, told the Free Beacon, “I found [the letter] shameful on several levels. First, AIPAC reversed course with respect to Wasserman Schultz using an unsubstantiated allegation that the Huffington Post story was inaccurate, after having called for its members to ask the congresswoman about her lobbying of Democrat colleagues against Iran sanctions.”

The source continued, “Why? Was AIPAC pressured by Wasserman Schultz or other high-level Democrats? Furthermore, I find it outrageous for Fisher to use his position as an AIPAC national board member to provide cover for Wasserman Schultz and in effect the Democratic Party without any disclosure of his clear partisanship and support for Obama.”

Another pro-Israel source said AIPAC’s flip-flop is “clearly a problem for them. One of these letters shows their incompetence; we’re just not sure which one it is.”

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Shark Tank. The below video is being aired in SE Florida. It is titled “Sanction”:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoOpDukqlVM[/youtube]

Gun Control for Dummies – It’s Common Sense

This video gives a further explanation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution in the context of why the Bill of Rights was included along with the establishment of the Federal Government. Please share this with your friends so that they can help educate America.

The Third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

[youtube]http://youtu.be/F584p5kJL-U[/youtube]

Ratified in 1791, the Third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution sets forth two basic requirements. During times of peace, the military may not house its troops in private residences without the consent of the owners. During times of war, the military may not house its troops in private residences except in accordance with established legal procedure. By placing these limitations on the private quartering of combatants, the Third Amendment subordinates military authority to civilian control and safeguards against abuses that can be perpetrated by standing armies and professional soldiers.

The Third Amendment traces its roots to English Law. In 1689, the English Bill of Rights prohibited the maintenance of a standing army in time of peace without the consent of Parliament. Less than a century later Parliament passed the Quartering Acts of 1765 and 1774, which authorized British troops to take shelter in colonial homes by military fiat (order). During the American Revolution, British Red Coats frequently relied on this authorization, making themselves unwelcome guests at private residences throughout the colonies. By 1776 the Declaration of Independence was assailing the king of England for quartering “large bodies of troops among us” and keeping “standing armies without the consent of our legislature.”

Against this backdrop, a number of colonies enacted laws prohibiting the nonconsensual quartering of soldiers. The Delaware Declaration of Rights of 1776, for example, provided that “no soldier ought to be quartered in any house in time of peace without the consent of the owner, and in time of war in such a manner only as the legislature shall direct.” Similar expressions also appeared in the Maryland Declaration of Rights of 1776, the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights of 1780, and the New Hampshire Bill of Rights of 1784. Originally drafted by James Madison in 1789, the Third Amendment embodies the spirit and intent of its colonial antecedents.

Primarily because the United States has not been regularly confronted by standing armies during its history, the Third Amendment has produced little litigation. The Supreme Court has never had occasion to decide a case based solely on the Third Amendment, though the Court has cited its protections against the quartering of soldiers as a basis for the constitutional right to privacy (griswold v. connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S. Ct. 1678, 14 L. Ed. 2d 510 [1965]). In lower federal courts, Third Amendment claims typically have been rejected without much discussion.

However, in 1982, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued the seminal interpretation of the Third Amendment in Engblom v. Carey, 677 F.2d 957 (1982). Engblom raised the issue of whether the state of New York had violated the Third Amendment by housing members of the National Guard at the residences of two correctional officers who were living in a dormitory on the grounds of a state penitentiary. The governor had activated the guard to quell disorder at the penitentiary during a protracted labor strike.

Although the Second Circuit Court did not decide whether the Third Amendment had been violated, it made three other important rulings. First, the court ruled that under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Third Amendment applies to action taken by the state governments no less than it applies to actions by the federal government. Second, the court ruled that the two correctional officers were “owners” of their residences for the purposes of the Third Amendment, even though they were renting their dormitory room from the state of New York. Any person who lawfully possesses or controls a particular dwelling, the court said, enjoys a reasonable expectation of privacy in that dwelling that precludes the nonconsensual quartering of soldiers. Third, the court ruled that members of the National Guard are “soldiers” governed by the strictures of the Third Amendment.

No federal court has had the opportunity to reexamine these Third Amendment issues since Engblom.

Further readings

Fields, William S. 1989. “The Third Amendment: Constitutional Protection from the Involuntary Quartering of Soldiers.” Military Law Review 124.

Levy, Leonard Williams. 1999. Origins of the Bill of Rights. New Haven, Conn.: Yale Univ. Press.

City of Port St. Lucie, FL withdraws from Seven50 Regional Plan

A growing movement consisting of Florida citizens is pushing back against any effort to regionalize Florida under the banner American Coalition 4 Property Rights (AC4PC). This is part of new urbanism promoted across Florida as the Seven50 Plan. The Florida Seven50 Plan includes the counties of Indian River, St. Lucie, Martin, Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade and Monroe. Indian River, Martin and St. Lucie Counties have since dropped out of the Seven50 Plan. Florida Seven50 is one of eleven plans to create “mega regions” in America.

The intent is to blur city and county boundaries and place control for land use and zoning decisions into the hands of unelected regional committees and their staffs.

The Port St. Lucie City Council voted a unanimous approval on January 27th to withdraw from the Seven50 Regional Plan. Item 11(i) on the meeting agenda read:

RESOLUTION 14-R20, PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF THE CITY OF PORT ST. LUCIE RESOLUTION 10-R41; PERTAINING TO THE FEDERAL SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES INITIATIVE; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

The actual approved resolution is at this link: http://psl.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=769&meta_id=96769

Leigh Lamson in an email states, “Special thanks goes out to Bert Shadowen, Emil Viola and the AC4PR. Sorry if I left out any others.”

According to Leigh Lamson, “The Florida Seven50 plan is supported by Michael Busha and his wife who live in Stuart, FL. Stuart is the home of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC), one of the 2 sponsors of the Seven50 Regional Plan. Michael is the Executive Director of the TCRPC. Both are strong proponents of sustainable development, and one of them is even on the Martin County School Board. Seven50 is ALL based on the false science of global warming and rising sea levels. Their livelihood is based on advancing all of it. But guess what, the Busha’s live out on Sewell’s Point in a million dollar home on the water and drive expensive SUVs.”

Video below is of Andres Duany speaking to Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council meeting on May 17, 2013  about the “mega regions”:

On June 16th, 2009 the US Departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Transportation (DOT) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a new partnership to “coordinate federal housing, environmental protection and transportation planning and investment.”  The goal to “better align their national funding programs and to promote the creation of comprehensive investment plans to strengthen the economy and promote the environment of the Nations regions.”Funding was authorized by Congress in 2009 and was provided to the HUD Sustainable Communities Office. According to HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan and the HUD website:

The mission of the Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities is to create strong, sustainable communities by connecting housing to jobs, fostering local innovation, and helping to build a clean energy economy.

In order to better connect housing to jobs, the office will work to coordinate federal housing and transportation investments with local land use decisions in order to reduce transportation costs for families, improve housing affordability, save energy, and increase access to housing and employment opportunities. By ensuring that housing is located near job centers and affordable, accessible transportation, we will nurture healthier, more inclusive communities which provide opportunities for people of all ages, incomes, races, and ethnicities to live, work, and learn together.

 

Florida AG Pam Bondi Says “No” To Marijuana Measure

Florida’s Attorney General, Pam Bondi, continues to say no to pot, as she continues to press the left-leaning Florida Supreme court to scrap the legalization of medical marijuana measure that will be on the November ballot.

The initiative would allow marijuana to be used in several specified conditions. But it also includes a part that says it could be used for “any other conditions for which a physician believes that the medical use of marijuana would likely outweigh the potential health risks for a patient.”

Bondi, a Republican elected in 2010, said that language is too broad and will allow greater use of marijuana than the public has been told by supporters. She cited a scenario of a 15-year-old boy being able to get a marijuana prescription for a minor pain through a chiropractor as a possibility. She said voters are not getting a clear explanation of what they are being asked to approve.

“They need to know what they are voting for,” Bondi said during a joint meeting with the Sarasota Chamber of Commerce and the League of Women Voters of Sarasota.

The Republican-led Florida legislature is open to the idea of legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes, and are trying to find a balance with the controversial issue.

Word to the legalizing marijuana lobby, quit smoking your own issue, and work with the legislature to find a solution that will benefit everyone.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Shark Tank.

RELATED COLUMNS:
Alaska primed to become third state to legalize retail marijuana

Study: Fatal Car Crashes Involving Marijuana Have Tripled – Now 1-in-9

Cruz: Obama Should Apologize to Nation in State of the Union

By Andrew Johnson.

With the bungled launch of HealthCare.gov and the Affordable Care Act causing millions to lose their health-care coverage, Ted Cruz urged the president to use Tuesday’s State of the Union address to apologize to the American people.

“For the State of the Union, one of the things President Obama really ought to do is look in the TV camera and say to the over 5 million Americans all across this country who’ve had their health insurance canceled because of Obamacare, to look in the camera and say, ‘I’m sorry — I told you if you like your health-insurance plan, you can keep it…’”

[youtube]http://youtu.be/oD7oDpFh5WY[/youtube]

 

A Very Cold Reality

It’s not as if those in the Northeast have not experienced bone-chilling cold or that it is predicted to extend from the Midwest down into our southern States. There may possibly be a snow storm that will require the National Football League to reschedule the Sunday, February 2nd Superbowl at the MetLife stadium in East Rutherford, N.J. Crews spent 18 hours working to remove the snow from last week’s storm.

A visit to IceAgeNow.info yielded headlines of news stories last week that included “Record Cold—Millions of Americans hit by Propane Shortage”, “Ice and Snow Closed Texas highways This Morning”, “Ice-cover Shuts Down Work on New Hudson River Bridge”, and so you understand this is a global phenomenon, “Kashmir—Heaviest January Snowfall in a Decade”, “Heavy Snowfall Sweeps Eastern Turkey”, “Romania—Heavy Snowfall and Blizzard”. And “Bangkok Suffers Coldest Night in Three Decades—Death Roll Mounts.”

Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo of WeatherBell Analytics and editor of IceCap.us says that, as the President addresses the nation on Tuesday, every State will have freezing temperatures and parts or all of 27 States will be below zero.

All this is occurring as President Barack Obama is anticipated to talk about “climate change”, a warming Earth, during his Tuesday State of the Union speech. He will be speaking to the idiots who still think the Earth is warming because they are too stupid or lazy to ask why it is so cold.

Michael Bastasch, writing for The Daily Caller on Saturday, confirmed D’Aleo’s and other meteorologist’s forecasts. “The bitter cold that has hit the U.S. East Coast is expected throughout February, and on Jan 28—the day of the address—the Mid-Atlantic region is expected to be hit with freezing cold air that could drive temperatures below zero in big cities among the I-95 corridor.”

Washington, D.C. will be one of those cities, but as Bastasch reported, “Environmentalists and liberal groups are urging Obama to use the speech to reaffirm his commitment to fighting global warming. ‘President Obama should rank the battle against climate change as one of his top priorities in his State of the Union speech next week’, said Center for Clean Air Policy president Ned Heime.”

For environmentalists, it does not matter if the real climate is a deep cold. They committed to the lies about global warming in the late 1980s and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel and Climate Change (IPCC) has maintained the hoax ever since. Along the way we learned that the computer models on which it based its assertions and predictions were rigged and bogus, but that has not deterred the IPCC which is now referring to a “pause” in global warming. This is lying on a global scale.

It was the environmental group Greenpeace that put out a television advertisement featuring a Santa Claus telling children that he might have to call off Christmas because the North Pole was melting. How malicious can they get? When a group of global warming scientists and tourists took a ship to the Antarctic to measure the “melting” ice down there, the ship got caught in the ice which also resisted the efforts of two icebreaker ships to rescue them.

We are dealing with environmental groups, the IPCC and government leaders like Obama for whom the telling of huge and blatantly obvious lies about global warming is nothing compared to the billions generated by the hoax for the universities and scientists that line their pockets supporting it and industries that benefit by offering ways to capture carbon dioxide or conserve energy by first banning incandescent light bulbs.

The “pause” has lasted now for seventeen years and, as is the case with all climate on the Earth, the reason is the Sun.

A report published by CBN News noted that “The last time the sun was this quiet, North America and Europe suffered through a weather event from the 1600s to the 1800s known as ‘Little Ice Age’ when the Thames River in London regularly froze solid, and North America saw terrible winters. Crops failed and people starved.”

Jens Pedersen, a senior scientist at Denmark’s Technical University, said that climate scientists know the Earth stopped warming 15 years ago. But the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, of which Pedersen is an expert reviewer, suppressed a recent report from its own scientists that the U.N.’s climate model has been proven wrong.

“Global warming is nowhere to be found,” said David Deming, a geophysicist at the University of Colorado, in a January 16 commentary in The Washington Times. “As frigid conditions settled over the nation, global-warming alarmists went into full denial mode”, adding that “weather extremes also seem to bring out the lunatic fringe” and that is why the public is being told that cold weather has been caused by global warming!

Whatever the President has to say about “climate change” should be taken as just one more example of five years of lies to advance policies that have nothing to do with the welfare of Americans needing jobs or the execrable Obamacare attack on the U.S. healthcare system.

The cold reality may well be a Superbowl played on another day and a President for whom the truth is incidental to his shredding of the U.S. Constitution, the increase in the nation’s ever-growing debt, a lagging economy, and his intention to by-pass Congress rather than working with it.

That kind of thing will put a chill up any American’s spine if you think about it.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

RELATED COLUMNS:

New Polar Plunge Could Be Winter’s Coldest…
New study suggests global warming decreases storm activity and extreme weather | Watts Up With That?
Energy emergency…
CHICAGO CHILL -45°…
LIVE MAP…

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) calls Nancy Pelosi “Mind-Numbingly Stupid”

The 2012 video interview on Fox News Greta Van Susteren with Rep. Trey Gowdy is re-circulating on the internet. In the interview Rep. Gowdy questions former Speaker Pelosi’s comments accusing Republicans of using Congressional investigations to suppress the vote. As 2014 is an election year and ongoing Congressional investigations into activities of the IRS, NSA, DOJ, EPA, Benghazi and others, it is expected that Democrats, like Pelosi, may play the 2 of Clubs again? Or the race card?

The Blaze reported in 2012, “Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) responded to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s claims that Republicans were only going after Attorney General Eric Holder in the ‘Fast and Furious’ investigation in order to further an imaginary GOP agenda of voter suppression, calling the assertion ‘mind-numbingly stupid.’”

[youtube]http://youtu.be/S9CiTTVLh3g[/youtube]

The Blaze states:

“You know my friend Allen West said the race card was the last card in the deck. I think former Speaker Pelosi has opened up a new deck and has found the 2 of clubs. I could not believe it when I heard her saying that. Is that all you have to come back with?” Gowdy told Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren Thursday night.

“Is that the best you can come up with, is that we got together in this grand scheme to suppress votes and I’m sure she didn’t say southern states but that’s what she meant,” he added.

At this point, Gowdy was letting it fly and saying exactly what he, and likely many others, think about Pelosi’s bizarre claim.

He went on: “It’s really beneath the office of a member of Congress to say something that outrageous and the fact that she was once the Speaker is mind numbing. I honestly, and I have heard a lot in my 16 years as a prosecutor, I couldn’t believe the words coming out of her mouth. But keep in mind, Greta, this is the same woman who said she could have arrested Karl Rove any day she wanted. So I don’t know what was wrong with her yesterday or today or whenever she said that, but I would schedule an appointment with my doctor if she thinks that we are doing this to suppress votes this fall. That is mind-numbingly stupid.”

RELATED COLUMN: Obama’s Race-Baiting Harms Black Youths