The Union Forever

The Union Forever was the battle cry that motivated the Union soldiers during the American Civil War. Through four bloody years of war, the armies of the North used it in one form or the other to motivate their soldiers.

It seems that Barack Obama and his allies, including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, seem to think that the slogan of The Union Forever is outdated. Not only would they like a new paradigm of American power but based on some of their actions, they seem to be trying to declaw the American eagle.

This dynamic duo is moving down the path of the “One-World” philosophy by negotiating treaties that will give away all of America’s technological and defense advantages.

The world is a dangerous place filled with bad actors. Any attempt to trust but not verify is almost treasonous. It is a total violation of President Ronald Reagan’s First Rule of foreign negotiations.

Secretary  Clinton is negotiating a code of conduct for outer space. It would effectively ban our capacity to destroy dangerous satellites or put interceptor missiles in space. On its face, the code, which was created by the European Union, was formulated to make near earth orbit safer, especially in terms of space debris.

However, Paula DeSutter, former Assistant Secretary of State for Verification, Compliance, and Implementation, took issue at the Marshall Institute forum with Section 4.5, which calls for “further security guarantees within the appropriate fora for the purposes of enhancing the security of outer space activities by all States and the prevention of an arms race in outer space.”

That passage, she said, is a “slippery slope” towards broader arms control in space that should be stricken from the document. “It sort of ties you to something you may or may not want to do, and probably in my view shouldn’t do,” she said.

On a second front, Obama has announced that he is going to provide the Russians with Missile Shield Systemthe technical details of the missile defense system that we’re planning to base in Eastern Europe. His hope is that by revealing theses secrets, it will lessen the Russian’ angst about the systems.

I guess he’s going under the rule of what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas. Does he really believe that Russia won’t give or even sell our secrets to Iran or North Korea?

Defense advocates are especially fearful that these negotiations could lead to a side agreement to limit the velocity of our missile interceptors or place other limits on our anti-missile capability. In the 1990s, the Clinton administration agreed to limit velocity to 3 kilometers per second.

Finally, the Obama administration would dearly love to sign on to the Law of the Sea Treaty but the Senate has indicated that it would never pass in this body at this time.

The President might try to circumvent the Senate and the steep treaty-approval process by signing executive agreements. Fortunately, future Presidents can negate them with the stroke of a pen.

He took an oath ‘to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution’ but he seems to be discarding it as he has discarded other laws of the land. I wonder if he knows what The Union Forever means to America

 

The Hypocrisy of the Left

Hypocrisy Poster

The liberal Democrats have been looking for an issue for the upcoming campaign. Their use of the manufactured contraception issue shows the hypocrisy of the left. Allowing a political activist like Sandra Fluke to testify about contraception at a hearing on religious freedom was underhanded and deceitful.

Then, when her testimony was ruled as out of order by Chairman Darrell Issa, the Democrats set up a ” show trial” attended all of their leadership. This is where she made her famous statement (Video).

This rigged photo op was in response to the very serious charge that Catholic leaders made in response to the Obama administration’s contraception mandate. At first, the administration had ordered religious institutions to offer contraception methods in the health insurance plans.

This sparked a massive blowback from the Catholic Church, led by Cardinal Timothy First AmendmentDolan of New York. The administration then revised their plan and put forward one in which the insurance companies would absorb the costs. Of course, the religious institutions saw right through this ruse and objected to this approach, knowing that the insurance carriers would just hide it in their overall plan costs.

Unbeknownst to the general public, Catholic Church advisers had met with White House staff to negotiate. Basically, they were told to shut up and get with the program. The White House seems to think that they know more about Church doctrine than the Church itself.

In an effort to get the religious liberty issue off the front page, the Democrats decided to kill two birds with one stone and introduce the issue of contraception into the area. They have substituted a women’s right to contraception, which no one was denying, with fundamental religious freedom.

They, of course, received the response that they were hoping for from Rush Limbaugh who referred to Ms. Fluke as a slut. An instant firestorm of controversy and hyperbolic indignation erupted.

Lost in the massive, manufactured controversy was the original issue of religious freedom.  The Democrats have been able to bury that amid the wreckage. Very few people questioned Ms. Fluke’s original premise that birth control costs $3,000 a year. Instead, they are ready to march over something that no one denies, a women’s right to birth control.

The Obama administration is trying hard to retain the women’s vote because they’ve lost independents and blue-collar Democrats. The paragraph below was not written by me but was a comment on a Facebook page.

Guess O has the women’s vote so long as women don’t: 1) Drive ($3.80 avg. per gallon up from $1.81); 2) Work or have husbands who work (median income down 6.7%); 3) Buy groceries (misery index up 45%) or 4) Own a house (home values down 13%).

So Bloomberg tells us O’s surefire plan to woo women is “Look ladies … free birth control pills!”

The Slippery Slope

Leon Panetta Testifying

On Wednesday, the full ramifications of the Congress’ lack of response to the Obama administrations intervention in Libya became apparent. Both Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Martin Dempsey, under questioning from Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) gave us the administration’s definition of the “legal permission” for waging war.

Senator Sessions, a careful lawyer, questioned both as to the legal basis wherein the United States would carry out military actions against a foreign power. Both, more or less, stated that they felt that ‘international permission’ was necessary before the United States would carry out any military action.

Before a stunned Senate Armed Services Committee, Sessions carefully questioned both Senator Jeff Sessionsdefense officials on the fundamental legal basis for the national defense. Both officials stated that they saw ‘international permission’ from organizations such as the United Nations, NATO or the Arab League before seeking Congressional approval.

Under the Constitution of the United States, the sole organization with the responsibility to declare war is the Congress of the United States. Article, Section 8 of the Constitution states very simply that The Congress shall have power…To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water. 

How much clearer can it be? Yet, presidents since Richard M. Nixon have felt otherwise. Using legal opinions from their Departments of Justice, every president has declared that they had the ‘executive power’ to wage war without Congressional permission.

In 1973, the Congress went so far as crafting and passing the War Powers Resolution. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

Ahmadinejad threatens israelSeveral presidents since then has either ignored this resolution or quarreled with its terms at one time or another. Saying that it was an infringement on their ‘executive power’, they commited U.S. troops to action without specific Congrerssional approval. And the Congress allowed it without significant pushback. Most recently, we have seen Obama’s use of military force in Libya without any Congressional action.

So here we are in a position where the two highest appointed defense officials now have opined that ‘international permission’ was required before any consultation with the elected representatives of the people. We have strayed so far from the Constitution that the Founding Fathers would wonder if this was the nation that they founded.

Obama assured Prime Minister Benjamin Netanayu Monday that the United States “will always have Israel’s back.”

Yet, at his Tuesday press conference, he urged the international community to allow moreObama and Netanyahu time for sanctions to work. He has repeatedly cautioned against the “loose talk of war” in Washington.

And on Wednesday, his two top defense officials qualified our support still further, by stating that ‘international permission’ was needed before American action. On Thursday, Press Secretary Jay Carney denied promising Israel top-of-the-line bunker buster bombs as part of an arrangement in which Israel agreed not to attack Iran in 2012.

So let’s pose a hypothetical case. Accept the fact that Iran has a nuclear weapon or weapons. Let’s say that they begin to use them to blackmail their neighbors like Saudi Arabia. Or even worse, they drop one on Tel Aviv. After all Ahmadinejad has promised to wipe Israel of the face of the Earth.

In that event, will we stand by waiting for ‘international permission’ from the enemies of Israel to retaliate? Or will we respond with overwhelming force.

 

 

The IRS War Against The Tea Parties Spreads

The IRS War Against The Tea Parties Spreads

Nixon and Obama, similar tacticsIn my last post, I revealed that the IRS war against the certain Tea Parties has taken the form of foot-dragging on tax-exemption applications. Both the Richmond, Virginia Tea Party and the Ohio Liberty Council have released communications from the Internal Revenue Service that include extensive questionnaires that go far beyond previous fact-finding by the service.

Officials from tea party groups in Hawaii, Texas, California and Kentucky have come forward with documents that are similar to those received by the organizations in Virginia and Ohio.

At least 80 conservative/constitutionalist groups, including 9/12 Project groups around the Obama's Greek Chorus against the Tea Partiescountry have reportedly received these letters.  The IRS letters all come from a single office of the IRS in Cincinnati, Ohio.

As the spreading IRS war spreads, so to has the publicity and the facts surrounding it. We now know that six senators sent a formal request to IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman that “requests that the commissioner investigate 501(c)(4) groups to determine whether they are engaging in substantial campaign activity, including opposition to any candidate.

Who signed this letter? Senators Charles Schumer (NY), Al Franken (MN), Mark Udall (C), Jeanne Shaheen (NH) , Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Jeff Merkley (OR) and Michael Bennet (CO). They all have one thing in common, they’re all Democrats.

The Taxman is watchingTheir goal is to use the IRS and the tax code as clubs with which the Obama administrations and the Democrats can intimidate the tea party groups and distract them during the coming election season.

It appears that the Cincinnati, Ohio office has been designated by the IRS Commissioner as the point office for these reprehensible fishing expeditions by the tax service.

They are continuing to send out letters to groups that have requested tax exempt status under section 501 (c) (4) of the federal tax code. This section grants tax-exempt status to certain groups as long as they are not primarily involved in activity that could influence an election, a determination that is up to the IRS.

It appears that the size and the scope of the information sought by the IRS is designed to stymie these groups from achieving the tax-exempt status that the are seeking. “It’s intimidation,said Tom Zawistowski, president of the Ohio Liberty Council, a coalition of tea party groups in the state. “Stop doing what you’re doing, or we’ll make your life miserable.”

The intimidation of political enemies is not new. Richard Nixon had his enemies list of political groups and individuals. Nixon’s list included well-known individuals, such as Paul Newman and Rep. John Conyers.

Bill Clinton had a list of political group that he classified as “enemies”, including such well-known groups as the National Rifle Association and the Citizens Against Government Waste.

It now appears that the Obama administration and their allies in the Congress have adopted the “Chicago Way” of political intimidation and revenge against those who they perceive are their enemies. They have settled on using the IRS and political-appointee commissioner as there primary weapons in this political war.