17 thoughts on “Obama’s Unconstitutional Actions”

  1. I most heartily DISAGREE with Mr. Sensing’s view of the situation. Mostly because I ass-u-me that he means Mr. Obama / Democrats can’t be stopped by the our typical, legal, ballot box, impeachment, SCOTUS giving him a wedgie, to stop him means. But there is [unfortunately] another way.
    .
    .
    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
    .
    .
    There was a time, 6 to 10 years ago, when people quite literally dropped me as a friend, because I was concerned that we were headed to where we are NOW, and I had the bad manners to say so. I was being too ‘radical’. I was just ‘looking for trouble’. And the hardest one to grasp, “…people just don’t NEED to solve political problems with guns or by fighting anymore…”.

    The last was quite shocking to me, because I heard it the first time less than a year after 9/11.

    But I digress, somewhat. I took an oath when I joined the Navy in 1977. I took that oath and I believe in it to this day. Many, many, many of us still believe in our oaths. And part of that oath says I [in point of fact WE] 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;

    I am not a formally educated man. For the most part I am self-taught. I’m a sponge for knowledge. But I CAN read quite well and I certainly DO understand words and the meanings of words. The words that Mr. Obama uses, the terms he throws around and his actions show him to be at odds with the Constitution and at odds with the powers he ACTUALLY has under the Constitution.

    The fact that the MSM, (D)’s, anti-capitalists, college professors, or anyone else follows him, dotes on him, PRAYS to him, LOVES him does not change the Constitution or his Presidential Powers. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Idi Amin, Khamenei, even the Devil himself had or have followers, doters, sycophants, minions and those who see them as Saviors. But it doesn’t mean they ARE good or powerful leaders.

    It may take enough people seeing Mr. Obama and his ilk AS actual Domestic Enemies of the Constitution. And IF Congress cannot bring themselves to fix the problem, ballots become m,ore worthless and Mr. Obama doesn’t go quietly in 2017, perhaps the people can and will ‘force’ the change.

    1. I took the same oath for the first time in 1975. The problem is that if we take any action that offends the powers that be, such as registering Republican, we become in their eyes one of the domestic enemies mentioned in the oath. To their mind, that justifies them turning the full power of the federal government to include the bureaucracies, the intelligence community, law enforcement and even the military against us. We used to rest assured that the military would never turn against the public but given how politically correct the senior leadership has become, I no longer have such confidence.

      My wife lived in the Philippines under the Marcos dictatorship and has described how life was then. We’re getting there with astonishing speed.

  3. “When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” Benjamin Franklin

    The people have discovered this, in spades. The Democrat Party is the primary vehicle through which this “vote themselves money” works. Google “Jason Greenslate” or watch the Fox expose on Food Stamps for more evidence. Look at the growing US Welfare state that is on a path to taking over the entire federal budget within 20 years for more evidence.

    Now re-read Mr Sensing: “The goal of the entire Democrat party is to be the permanent, sole political authority in the country. – No one, and I mean absolutely no one, in the Democrat party is in the slightest interested in reining in Obama’s expansion of executive diktat because they know what few of the rest of us are awakening to: the Democrats are never going to lose that executive authority again. Let me be clear, with a promise to elucidate another day: there is never going to be another Republican president. Ever.”

    It’s hard to argue, convincingly, that he is wrong.

    1. He is wrong, at the very least, in his belief that there is such a thing as the “Democrat party”.

      there is never going to be another Republican president. Ever.

      Ever is a long time. The Democrats haven’t won three presidential elections in a row since Truman. Demographics are tilting against the GOP, but all it takes is an economic downturn, an ill-considered war, a major 3rd party run, and/or a major scandal, and they’ll get 270 electoral votes again. In the early 90s it looked like the Democrats were down for the count, and they bounced back. The GOP will come back too.

      1. Since I get to do it write it so rarely, I agree with you, Jim. The GOP isn’t organizing itself well at the moment, but when W came into office; people thought the Democratic Party was a thing of the past. Comparably, in the summer of 2005, who would have credibly predicted Obama as President in 2009? The Democratic Party was in a bit disarray at that time as well.

        I’m not saying it will be easy for the GOP, and I’m sure they’ll screw it up. But I’m not ready to think “never”.

    2. Look at the growing US Welfare state that is on a path to taking over the entire federal budget within 20 years for more evidence.

      Or look at the welfare states of other developed countries, which are much older and more generous. And yet welfare spending hasn’t taken over those countries’ entire budgets, and it hasn’t resulted in one party dominating those countries’ politics. The evidence is that Ben Franklin was wrong.

      1. Or look at the welfare states of other developed countries, which are much older and more generous.

        They weren’t more generous way back when. For example, the health care apparatus of the developed world is a post-Second World War phenomena. And public pensions have become far more generous than they used to be.

        1. That’s true. But all the same, those countries have been “voting themselves money” for over a century, and have had welfare systems more generous that the US currently has for most of a century, without suffering the consequences that Ctrot predicts will strike the US in the next 20 years.

          1. I suppose we are all thinking of Europe here. I wonder if those countries were able to put more spending into social services instead of their own national defense?

          2. I believe that they are suffering these consequences as we speak. For example, the PIGS of the EU aren’t doing well. I see those countries as canaries in that particular coal mine.

      2. “welfare spending hasn’t taken over those countries’ entire budgets, and it hasn’t resulted in one party dominating those countries’ politics. ”

        Maybe not a party by name, but a general ideology of the left is predominant. And in those countries you generally pay over 50% of your earned money to the government for politicians to decide instead of you how that money is spent.

        And yes, it has taken over those countries’ budgets, just like Detroit and just like Greece. People demanding their government check, taken at gunpoint from those who work in the private sector. At that point there is no incentive to work because the unemployable welfare mom on drugs with her feral children gets to have the same lifestyle as the middle class person working 40+ hours per week.

        Where is the room for the person to keep his own earnings? Spare me the “civilization is expensive” line. “Civilization” is not expensive. What is expensive is buying everyone’s daily commodities with no end on sight.

        “The evidence is that Ben Franklin was wrong.”

        I think that says everything we need to know about Jim’s philosophy.

        1. Maybe not a party by name, but a general ideology of the left is predominant.

          I saw a comment the other day–it may have been here–which said, “The ‘left’ parties in Europe think the government should control 98% of the economy, while the ‘right’ parties think it should only control 92%.”

          All of the major parties in Europe are thoroughly statist, and anybody who advocates free markets and limited government is relegated to the kook fringe. The ‘right’ parties accept the status quo, and never argue for the privatization of health care or the liberalization of gun laws, for example.

          I believe that is exactly where the Republican Party in America is headed. All they want is a seat at the table of power, and the ability to dispense spoils to their own cronies, as the Democrats do.

          ***

          Jiminator: The U.S. basically subsidized the European welfare states in the post WWII era with its defense umbrella. Without it, the Euros would have had to face the Soviets on their own, which would have required them to spend their money building much stronger militaries.

          To be fair, though, since the Europeans had started two world wars in less than half a century, nobody really wanted them to rearm.

  5. …..To be fair, though, since the Europeans had started two world wars in less than half a century, nobody really wanted them to rearm…..

    Exactly. I have always suspected that there was a tacit agreement between the US and USSR, that between us we would stop the children of Europe from their squabbles. Someone had to play grownup, and clearly they were not up to the task themselves.

Comments are closed.