President Obama Violates Constitution

April 5, 2010

By David A. Black, Sr.

Although I disagree with President Obama’s policies, and his political agenda, until now, he has not violated the Constitution.  (The Stimulus and the Healthcare bills are definitely arguable) However, that has now changed.

During a scheduled recess of Congress, President Obama used the opportunity to make 15 recess appointments to administrative positions that would normally require Senate confirmation.

In a written statement, the President declared, “The United States Senate has the responsibility to approve or disapprove of my nominees. But if, in the interest of scoring political points, Republicans in the Senate refuse to exercise that responsibility, I must act in the interest of the American people and exercise my authority to fill these positions on an interim basis,”

The President is quoted by FOX News as saying, “At a time of economic emergency, two top appointees to the Department of Treasury have been held up for nearly six months,” he said. “I simply cannot allow partisan politics to stand in the way of the basic functioning of government.”

President Obama went on to note that former President George W. Bush made 15 recess appointments by this point in his presidency, then claimed that the former President was not facing the same level of obstruction.

Does the President have the authority to make “recess appointments?

In Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, of the Constitution, we find that,

“…and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for…”

Article II, Section 2, Clause 3, goes on to state,

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

So let’s take the Constitution for what it actually says for once, instead of what some want it to say for their own political purpose, or as a method of promoting their personal agenda.

According to the Constitution, as quoted, “the President shall have the Power to fill up Vacancies THAT MAY HAPPEN DURING a Recess of the Senate,”

The Founders did not intend this sentence to serve as a method for the President to get around the authority of the Senate to provide “Advice and Consent” of Presidential Appointments.

The sentence was put in place for the President to make temporary appointment to key administrative positions when they become vacant during a recess of Congress.

The vacancies filled by Obama’s ‘recess appointments’, have existed since the President took Office.  They did not happen during the “Recess of Congress”.

The fact that the President does not like “partisan politics” holding up the advancement of his agenda, or that some may be doing so to “score political points”, has no bearing on the subject.  The President needs to get over it.

The fact is, there is NO provision in the Constitution for the President to override the authority or the responsibilities of the Senate.  That would have opened the door for a dictatorship, and that was one thing the Founders were attempting to avoid.

The idea of pointing out the errors of his predecessor does not make the action legal under the Constitution.  These appointments, made by President Obama, are a direct and blatant abuse of the Power of his Office, and a willful violation of the Constitution.

Is this an impeachable offense?

According to the Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 8,

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Accordingly, the President must take the ‘Oath of Office’ to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution” to the best of his ability.  President Obama has publicly reminded the nation, on several occasions, that he taught Constitutional Law at the University level in Illinois.  Therefore, it is safe to assume that the President should be fully aware of the intent of Article II, Section 2, Clause 3.

Article II, Section 4, states,

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article VI, Clause 2, states,

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Therefore, Article II, Section 2, Clause 3, as part of the Constitution, is Federal Law. Any action that willfully and purposefully violates the Constitution, by using the provision to usurp the Authority of the Senate, is a Federal Offense.

It is time for the Government to understand that the ‘Powers of Government’ do not lie solely in the three branches of Government.  The Constitution provides for the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial branches.

However, under the ninth and tenth amendments, the Constitution also provides for the Several States and the People to be active participants in shaping our Government and legislation

Therefore, it is part of our civic responsibility to monitor the actions of the individuals elected to Office, and take action when necessary.

Amendment IX – The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X – The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It is time for the President to be introduced to the Power of the People.

The Constitution points out, in Article I, Section 1, Clause 5,

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article VI, Clause 3, states,

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;

I am sending a letter, defining the points of this article, to my Representative in the House.  I am demanding, under the Authority of the Constitution, that my Representative formally begin the process of forcing the President to rescind his “Recess Appointments”.  If the President refuses to act accordingly, I am demanding that my Representative begin the process of impeachment for the willful and deliberate usurpation of the Authority of the Senate under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States.

Please join me and do the same.

To receive a copy of the letter I wrote to my Representative, make a request in the comments box.  I will reply to all that I can.  Thank you.


Squeaky Harry Reid is at it again!

December 9, 2009

They old adage says, “The squeaky wheel gets the grease.”

In Senator Reid’s case, more media attention, for which he has shown a willingness to do anything, including the proposal, and intentional attempt, to force-feed socialist style, nationalized health care down the throat of a free nation.

For Senator Reid, the fact that the majority of Americans want nothing to do with what he has to offer has no merit.  The only thing that matters to this self-absorbed, wanna-be dictator is that some form of “health care reform” get passed before he gets ousted from the Senate.  A legacy, if you will.

So, what is he up to this time?

Senator Reid called a press conference to announce that he has a health care bill, but cannot divulge the details until after the CBO is finished analyzing it.

“We have something good.”  Squeaky said, of the bill he is concealing from the public, and anyone who differs from his opinion.  “But, I cannot give any details at this time.”

Why does this sound oddly familiar?

It spurs memories of the times my dear, sweet mother told me, “Here you go.  Eat up, Honey.  It’s good for you.”  As she served that piece of unseasoned shoe leather, she called “liver”, and tried to convince me it was a prime cut of meat.

Compared to nationalizing our health care, and allowing some self-promoting idiot, like Squeaky Harry, the authority to make all my medical decisions, I’d rather have the “shoe leather” and pretend it’s meat.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I understand there are a lot of people that like liver, then again, not 100% of Americans are against nationalizing health care either.  But, just because some would rather have liver, instead of steak, is not my problem.

The fact here, is that Senator Reid must be taught that he is not representing the United States of Obama, and that we, the People, have an absolute right to know that he is attempting to convince us that the mud covered rocks he is serving, is actually left-over stew.

What happened to “transparency in government”?  Or, was that only while he was still relishing the short-lived popularity of his Lord and Master, Big Barry?

After all, the motivating factor is the promise he made to get a bill on the President’s desk before New Years.   Looks to me like Squeaky his vying for a position in the Obama Administration after he gets ousted from the Senate, regardless of the cost to America.


Health Care Reform – A Means to Something More Sinister

October 16, 2009

Part 3 of 3

By David A. Black, Sr.

Part of the problem with the Proposed Health Care Reform Act is that we cannot expect to hear the truth of the issues in “honest debate”.  For instance, the “Death Panel” was adamantly denied, until it was removed from the proposal.

The proposal will allegedly cover the health care of illegal immigrants.  Supporters repudiate this, claiming the language forbids coverage of illegal immigrants.

However, there is nothing in the proposal to allow verification of any recipient’s legal status.  When Conservatives offer legislation to amend the discrepancy, Liberals reject the amendments.

Liberals forget there are laws prohibiting illegal immigration; yet they are here.  Because illegal immigrants ignore our federal immigration laws, it is logical to assume they will ignore any legislated restrictions to “nationalized” health care.

In his speech to the Joint Houses of Congress, President Obama claimed to promote “choice and competition” by officially announcing a “Public Option”.

The president declared, “I have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. They provide a legitimate service, and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors.  I just want to hold them accountable.”

Ironically, that is similar to President Obama’s comments about not wanting control of General Motors, Chrysler, and companies affected by the “Financial Bail-Out”.  In the aftermath, we find that the opposite is true.  The president, and his administration, have asserted unprecedented control of “Private Industry”.  Why should we expect Health Care to be treated any differently?

The president went on to say, “… it would only be an option for those who don’t have insurance…  In fact, based on Congressional Budget Office estimates, we believe that less than 5% of Americans would sign up.”

Remember, I wrote to begin with, “we cannot expect to hear the truth”; you decide.

The president first cites to the falsely inflated number of 15% of Americans being uninsured at some point, and then exaggerates the number by doubling the time period, erringly assuming that doing so automatically doubles the number of people affected.

How so?  He claimed that one in three Americans goes without coverage at some point; that is more than 30%.   Then something closer to the truth slips out when he cited the CBO saying, “…only 5% will sign up”.

Mr. President, is it 15%, 30%, or 5%?  You referred to, or quoted all three percentages in the same speech.  With all due respect Sir, annoying little facts, known as the truth, will come back to bite you when they are misrepresented.

President Obama promised the following points in his “sales pitch” for the “Public Option;

1.  No tax subsidies for the “Public Option”.

2.  No additional deficit spending.

3.  Not a dollar of the Medicare trust fund will be used to pay for the “Public Option”.

4.  Greater security for the middle-class, not higher taxes.

Ignoring the fact that President Obama contradicted every point in his speech, and assuming the president intends to abide by these four points.  Logically, to accommodate the “Public Option”, the president is proposing another Government Subsidized Entity, similar to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Who, along with GM and Chrysler, the newest GSE’s, are going bankrupt)

Think about it!  Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM, Chrysler, and the financial industry staggering under the weight of the government…These are prime examples of what to expect for our health care system under a “Public Option”.

The only way for a “Public Option” to abide by the four points in his “sales pitch”, and maintain “choice and competition”, is to mandate that the ‘Public Provider” abide by the same laws enforced on “Private Providers”.  This means, among other things, the “Public Provider” would be required to establish “security holdings”, (typically 70 – 80% of their policy values) to ensure the financial ability to cover claims.

In order to stay in existence, insurers must guarantee the principles, which are the premiums paid by the people.  To do this, insurance companies invest the premiums they collect to cover claims that may exist on their policies and for their own business returns as well, including operating costs.

This means, the government, through the “Public Provider” would necessarily purchase stocks, bonds, real estate, and commodities to amass profits. (Not a far stretch after the Auto and Financial Bail-Outs)

Politicians engaged in such activities create obvious potential dangers.  In short, your tax dollars would be risked, or “invested”, in the stock market to cover the costs of the “Public Option”.

Keep in mind, during his speech, President Obama informed us that nationalizing health care through a “Public Option” is only a part of his plan; he reminded his “Progressive Friends” that, “The ‘Public Option’ is only a means to that end – and we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goals.”

What are the “ultimate goals” of the presidents “Progressive Friends”?

Government “investing” tax dollars in “Private Industry” is a one-way ticket to corruption.  It will not be long before politicians assume massive control of the market through legislation, to “protect” the investments of the “tax payers”.

Considering the government prints money at will, this creates an environment in which private insurance companies cannot compete.  In relatively short time, financial pressures will force “Private Providers” to file for bankruptcy.

There is no better “investment” than to acquire failing competitors.  Therefore, through “free market capitalist investing, “private assets” would end up in the government’s possession.

DANGER! The president is proposing a “hostile takeover” of our nation.  He is simply using Health Care Reform as a vehicle to reach a more sinister destination.  The “Public Option” creates a potential “enemy from within”, using Capitalism, to accomplish Socialism.

Nationalized Health Care is, by its nature, another form of Socialism being introduced to a “free” society; another attempt to gain control of all major methods of production in an effort to confiscate wealth and dictate the lives of individuals through mandates and distribution of means.

Redistribution, or the practice of taking from one societal group to provide for another group, is Socialism.

The government dictating compliance by mandating involvement of private individuals in government run programs is Communism.

America was created, by design, as a Capitalist Society; a social system based on individual rights through the separation of the economy and the Government; with a limited government, relegated to the duties of protecting the rights of the People.  America is founded on the rights, of individuals, to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness.  Americans enjoy the right to possess private property, and maintain the right to individually contract to, and profit from our own labor.

The right to Life and Liberty guarantees us to freedom from oppression, freedom from burdensome government, and the right to freedom of actions in our individual Pursuit of Happiness, so long as no person or group infringes or violates the rights of another.

Previously, in “The Health Care Reform Act of 2009 – Crisis or Coercion”, I disputed the “facts” the president termed “undisputable”.

In “National Health Care and the Constitution”, I called the president out, defying him to present an argument, giving him or Congress the Constitutional Power or Authority to legislate “National Health Care Reform”.

Now, I am declaring the potential dangers of a sinister agenda.

I reject giving the President, or Congress, the Power to implement legislation that could, so easily, be used as a means to anything as sinister as what I have described.

The Founders intended to create a nation of “free men”, fundamentally rooted in societal and economic capitalism, to preserve the natural rights of each individual.  Any attempt to vilify capitalism, or provide support of socialism is, in a word, un-American.

I maintain, that if America allows the nationalization of our health care system, we are only a step away from saying goodbye to our Representative Republic, and hello to a Socialist State; in essence, saying goodbye to Liberty, and welcoming Tyranny.

So long as a single Patriot fights for Liberty, Freedom lives.  Never stop fighting.

Part 1 of 3:  The Health Care Reform Act of 2009 – Crisis or Coercion

Part 2 of 3:  National Health Care and the Constitution


Health Care Reform – Congressional Malpractice

August 25, 2009

I read an excellent series of articles published by M. Smith, beginning with, “Profits… What are they and what do they do? I highly recommend this article as it provoked me to think about the current “Health Care Crisis” in a very different light.

I too, at least in part, attributed too much blame for the current “Health Care Crisis” to the insurance companies.  After reading Mr. Smith’s article, I began to question, what exactly should we expect from our medical insurance.   Should the insurance companies be held responsible for our medical treatment?  Is it right and moral that insurers turn our health concerns into a commodity by which they can turn profits?  Should we limit the profits they can make?

Let’s face it, insurance providers are involved in a screwy game.  By purchasing insurance, we are literally betting against ourselves by wagering that we are going to get injured or sick.  In the process, we force the insurance company to take the opposite position, betting that we will not get injured or sick.  Anyone with just a little common sense can see who is going to lose that wager.  The question is not if I am going to need medical treatment, everyone is injured or gets sick, rather the questions are when, and how serious.

As much as President Obama and the Congressional Democrats would like to vilify the insurance companies, in an effort to promote Nationalized Health Care, the fact is, these private sector companies provide a very important service.

Paying for medical treatment can be overwhelming.  We often joke that if the trip to the hospital does not kill you, the bill will.  Therefore, we purchase insurance to hedge our losses.  Think about how self-defeating the idea of insurance is; we purchase insurance for peace of mind, and then hope we never need it.

Honestly, it reminds me of “Emergency Preparedness”.  This country spends a lot of time, energy, and money on planning and training for emergencies, all the while hoping we never need to implement these plans.  However, in the event of an emergency, think of how devastating an incident (i.e. natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, wild fires, and floods, or events of the manmade variety such as terrorism, riots, or even mass gatherings for concerts) would be without the advanced planning and training.

How much profit is acceptable?  Other than maintaining the ability to operate within the regulations foisted upon insurance companies by the Government, the answer depends entirely on whether you own any of insurance stocks.  After all, like several retailers, manufacturers, and utilities, most insurance companies are publicly traded on the stock market, and therefore have a responsibility to shareholders to remain profitable.

Oh, I know!  We do not hear those in favor of “Health Care Reform” discussing this aspect of the issue.  Those who are attempting to control your health care decisions from some smoke filled, hidden, back office of a Washingtonian basement do not mention the legislative obstacles that Congress has inflicted on the insurance companies.  Have you ever thought about the financial and legal criteria that must be met before an insurance company can sign their first client?

Other than meeting the litany of requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission, as a prerequisite for Wall Street, the legislation requires insurance companies to maintain significant financial holdings as proof of ability to pay for your coverage.  The issue becomes even more complex when licensing is taken into consideration, and licensing becomes even more convoluted as each State commissions their own sets of regulations for the insurance providers.

Ironically, on one hand, we demand the services of the insurance companies, and that they earn profits to satisfy the shareholders that provide the capital to fund the services. On the other hand, we accuse them of wrongfully profiteering from the health care needs of the people.

As Obama and his Congressional Cronies continue their vilification of the insurance industry and their investors, bear in mind the role of the insurance companies, and the service they provide; simply stated, Health Insurers provide a means of managing health care expenses.

Insurance providers manage health care expenses by;

  1. Contracting coverage to groups or individuals, who pay premiums to protect against unexpected health care costs.
  2. Contracting with health care providers, and facilities, to render medical services.
  3. Estimating the annual costs of health care services to determine premiums.
  4. Ensure funds are available to pay for contracted services.

Notice, I did not include “providing treatment” in the list.  Providing medical treatment is not the responsibility of the insurance companies; but rather, providing assistance in managing the expenses of the medical treatment.

As a side note, I have not heard of an insurance company denying treatment to a patient, only denying coverage of treatment not included in the contracted services.  Although they will have to pay for it, patients can still receive the treatment not covered under the insurance contract.

America is a “Free Market, Capitalist” country, and insurance companies are earning profits while remaining within the scope of the “Laws of the Land” and the rules and regulations of their industry.

Lest we forget, when considering Government Health Care Reform, we already suffer from the effects of previous dabbling from Congress.  Remember, Congress federally mandated that no person be denied medical treatment, regardless of the person’s ability to pay.  This forces hospitals render unreimbursable services, negatively impacting the efficiency of our Health Care System and significantly driving up the cost of expenses.

America cannot afford more unconstitutional acts of irresponsibility from more “Congressional Malpractice”.  We can ill afford to destroy the benefits of the majority, who enjoy the health care they pay for, by catering to a very small minority and transforming marketable benefits into entitlements.


Cash for Clunkers – Deal? Or, No Deal?

August 9, 2009

So, here we are.  It only took the Government approximately two weeks to spend $1 billion (that is with a ‘B’, as in “Bucks”) on the “Cash for Clunkers” program.  Congress would have been happy to spend more of your hard-earned money up front, but $1 billion is all that was allocated in the bill.

Now we are looking at round two, and this time Congress is doubling the effort.  Because it worked so gol-darn well, the Government is going to authorize another $2 billion for the “Cash for Clunkers” program.  So ante up folks, Washington is feeling generous, as the 2010 campaigns will be getting under way.  They need a way to redistribute your wealth to make them look good and buy some more votes.

Let me state, for the record, I understand there are a lot of people that, due to the program, have new cars parked in their driveways that would not otherwise be there.  Also, there are that many older cars that no longer plague our roadways.  However, I must ask the question.  Have any of these people thanked you for your contribution to the betterment of their condition?

Yes, America.  You are now owed a great debt of gratitude for assisting in the purchases of all those new cars.  How many?  At $4500 each, $1 billion buys a total, of a little over 222,000 down payments on new cars.  At an average purchase price of approximately $25,000 per new car, the program should account for gross sales of just over $5.5 billion for the auto industry.

Bear in mind, the “Cash for Clunker” program allowed foreign manufacturers in on the deal as well, so Detroit and Government Motors will not glean all the profits; as a matter of fact, they held “true to form” and maintain their dismal market share.

For the moment however, let us assume all the cars purchased, with the assistance of the program, were purchased from Government Motors and Chrysler.  When you consider that most well run corporations operate at a profit of less than 10% of gross sales, and for purposes of recognizing that GM is now leaner and more efficient operating under President Obama, we will allow the full 10%; the program produces a profit of approximately $550 million.

If GM and Chrysler would have been the sole beneficiaries of the program, and all the profit went to repaying the massive bailout of the auto industry, they still owe the Taxpayers approximately 14.5 billion to the tax payers.

However, those $4500.00 payouts merely provide down payments; maybe we have missed the boat on this one.  Maybe the real payback is going to come from the interest earned by the finance companies, which the Government has their meaty little hooks in as well.  After all, according to the numbers used above, the finance companies would have financed some $4.75 billion, which would produce approximately $4.5 – 5 billion of gross revenues, to the finance companies, over the next five to six years.  At 10% profit, 100% of which being paid back to the Taxpayers, that should put another $500 million back in our pockets by the end of 2015, or a little under $100 million per year.  What a deal!

All right, it is time for a reality check.  The fact is, the money supplied to fund the “Cash for Clunkers” program, was first borrowed by the Government, some of which at rates reportedly as high as 30%.  In the end, you and I get to pay the tab for all those new cars, and we never even get to see them, let alone drive them.  Then of course, there is the pesky little fact that we get to pay for them at the government deficit rate, which means each car will cost up to $100,000.00 instead of the $25000.00 purchase price.  Oh, happy day!

Think about it; the Government borrows $1 billion to loan out in $4500 increments, to people who could not otherwise afford it, to purchase approximately 222,000 automobiles, at an average cost of $25,000, and we get to pay back an amount, of up to ten times the original amount borrowed by the government, to satisfy the debt.

I thought President Obama was being hailed, by some on the left, as the smartest President we have ever had.  I might be missing something here, but I do not understand the math on this one.  Maybe the tried and true formulas of mathematics have changed since I went to school; or maybe this is what they were referring to by “New Math”.

The simple truth is, America cannot afford this, or any other give-away programs intended for the sole purpose of buying votes.  “Cash for Clunkers” is not improving the economy or consumer confidence with any sustainable influence, nor will it.  Moreover, as I pointed out, the Taxpayers are going to be saddled with the debt.

In fact, we have yet to experience the unintentional consequences of the “Cash for Clunkers” program.  The program will provide a shortage of used cars and parts, thus driving up the cost of these vehicles.  You know, used cars, the very cars bought and driven by those who cannot afford new cars, but earn too much income to qualify for government assistance, the true middle class, and the actual people who will have to pay the bill in the end.

How many jobs will be lost due to the rising cost of used cars and the lack of parts?  Used car dealers will not be able to sell as many cars, thus they will maintain fewer salespeople.  Parts will be harder to come by, and consequently more expensive, thus causing closures and layoffs at small repair shops who thrive on keeping these cars running at the lowest possible cost.  In addition, how many of the people, assisted by the program, in purchasing new cars, will default on the loans, causing yet another hit on the still shaky financial industry?

No, folks.  It seems to me that Scary Barry and his Congressional Cronies have not thought this one through.  It seems there are too many negatives for the Taxpayers in this “Cash for Clunkers” deal.

Hey!  I got an idea!  How about, we tell Barack Obama Hood and his merry men in Congress to stop looking for ways give away and spend money that we do not have, in an effort to buy our votes?  Maybe instead, they can start looking for ways to begin paying down the national debt.

Mr. President, if you really want to give us something, give us a plan to restore our national financial security.  Give us a plan to secure our borders against invasions of all types, a plan to restore our nation and our military to the “superpower” status we have rightfully earned.  Give us a plan to reduce the size of the Federal Government, a plan to restore the value of our currency returning to a free market and capitalism.


“Yes, We Can!” Is this truly the “Hope and Change” you bargained for?

June 7, 2009

I must ask all those who supported Barack Obama during his candidacy for President, and went on to vote for him, electing him into the highest position in the entire free world.  Is this really what you bought into?

It has been six months since you elected, potentially, the most dangerous President of the United States in the last sixty plus years.  Yes, I said it; potentially the most dangerous.  We have experienced four and a half months of his regime… oops, scratch that… administration, and the question looms greater and darker every day.  Does this man truly represent the changes you believe this country needs?

Leading up to the election, six months ago, the slim majority of the voters were taken in by the mantra, “Hope and Change for America!  Yes, we can!”  This was the campaign slogan, then Senator Obama preached from his traveling pulpit.

Then came the first signs of the Audacity of Hope and Change when we, as a nation started receiving daily news briefings from the Office of the President Elect.  President-Elect Obama used this platform to criticize the outgoing administration.

Call me “old Fashioned”, but the last time I read the Constitution, it calls for a Congress, consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate, and we have one executive elected to the office of President.  No matter how many times I look at it, the Constitution has not changed; there is no office of the President Elect.

Senator Obama became President, and one of the first things he did was to announce that he was determined in his intention of closing the prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by early next year.

This was an early indicator of short sightedness.  By announcing his intention, he placated his liberal base only to find that there was no place to put the detainees.  No other nation wants them; in some cases, this includes their native lands.  Not wanting to go back on his campaign promise to close Gitmo, the Obama Regime, I mean Administration, announced the intention to bring detainees to the United States to stand trial in a court of law.

Oops, there is a glitch in that plan.

Opponents argue that bringing the detainees here gives them access to constitutional protections.  This is an unprecedented action for the government, as extending rights to enemy combatants increases their ability to civilian defense practices and tactics, almost ensuring their release.  In case you are not familiar with military operations, the military does not specialize in collecting evidence in the middle of a war zone.

Therefore, bringing the detainees here to try them in U.S. Courts subjects them to evidentiary rules and constitutional law that would give some seedy ACLU attorney ammunition to obtain the release of the detainees.

There is also the creation of unacceptable risk to our national security, as defense tactics would be to demand information from the battlefield that could jeopardize our troops, and their tactics.  What if the one jeopardized was your son or daughter?

There is also the little issue of the Real ID Act of 2008, a law supported by then Senator Obama that bars entry into the country of any individuals involved in terrorist activities.

After his inauguration, President Obama pushed for the passage of his Stimulus Bill. He claimed that passing the bill was the only hope for our economy.

Wow!  That was a shot.  In less than one hundred days in office, he spent more than all the preceding presidents combined.

He must think you’re stupid!

When it comes to stupidity, truth is, the stimulus bill passed the House and Senate, and was signed into law, without ever being read.  I wonder if the legislators, or the President for that matter, would sign a contract without reading it.  If so, I have a limited number of ocean front condos for sale in Kansas.

Anyway, he must think your stupid.  You are supposed to believe that more excessive, wasteful spending by Congress, on short-term projects, is going to help solve the fiscal crisis facing the nation, and solve our long-term economical woes.  Let’s face it, the majority of the Stimulus Bill is Presidential and Congressional payoffs for votes, and we the taxpayers are left holding the bag.

Now, thanks to the President, General Motors (GM) has changed their name to Government Motors.  This sounds very funny until you begin to understand that government involvement as partial owner of the auto company puts them in bed with the Labor Union.

Oh, what’s that?  You had not realized the UAW is also a proud, new, partial owner of the failing GM.  That is an issue that requires further explanation, which I will attempt later.

Did I mention that President Obama is now declaring that Iran has a right to nuclear power, “so long as they can prove it is intended for peaceful purposes.”  Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe a large contingency of the insurgents in Iraq, killing our troops, originate from Iran.

Somebody pinch me.  This has got to be a bad dream.  I cannot believe the Commander in Chief is making nice with the folks that are actively trying to kill America’s finest.

I am trying hard to recall anything good that he has accomplished, but his ability to read speeches from a teleprompter do not count.  Think about it, we still have not received any details of his tax plan that was going to help middle class Americans that earn less than $250,000.00 per year.

So, for those of you that voted for Barack Obama, is this what you bargained for?  Did you really buy into the rhetoric of an individual that intends to sell our country down the river into socialism and irrelevancy?  Can you honestly agree with his apologetic speeches to the rest of the world, denouncing America’s exceptionalism?

Do you believe, as President Obama does, that the Constitution is a pesky nuisance, a compilation of negative rights?  Do you believe the Founders failed in implementing the Constitution, by not outlining the things the government should do for the people?  Or, do you hold true to the ideology, as I do, that the Constitution intentionally applies limits to the power and authority of government?

Is this truly, what you bargained for?