Executive Power Grab Legacy With Added Bonus Of Being A Smokescreen

by

Well, it is time for yet another Executive Action Un-Constitutional Power Grab by President Barack “Seriously – I Am A Constitutional Scholar – NOT” Obama. That would be Obama’s Gun Control action he is taken to skirt the Legislative Branch of the Government, the very one that said NO to exactly what Obama intends to do today.

Specifically, this is what Obama has in mind, as The Hill reports:

[…] Obama on Tuesday will ­issue executive actions intended to curb gun violence by expanding background checks on people buying firearms online or at gun shows.

The effort, which comes a week before the president’s final State of the Union address, underlines the Democratic Party’s decision to champion an issue it believes will be a winner in November.

[…]

“In years past, Democrats have been a little shy about this issue, but I’ve noticed a fairly significant change in tone and tenor in the last couple of months,” said Jim Manley, a former adviser to Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (Nev.). “This kind of action is going to be aggressively supported by most, if not all, Democrats.”

The NRA and Republicans argue Obama is overstepping his authority with the new actions, however.

“This is a dangerous level of executive overreach, and the country will not stand for it,” Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said in a Monday statement.

GOP candidates for the White House vowed to undo Obama’s actions. […] (Click here to read the rest.)

Here’s the thing. Even if you think what Obama wants to do is the right thing in terms of gun violence, though none of these would have prevented ANY of the mass shootings we have had in this country during his tenure, he is subverting the Constitution. Moreover, he is putting the Executive Branch above the legislative Branch. They are CO-EQUAL branches of government, and the Congress has already made their decision on this. That it wasn’t what Obama and the Democrats may have wanted does not mean he gets to do an end-run around Congress. That is NOT how our system works.

Though one good bit of news is that Obama’s State of the Union Address next week is his LAST one. Thank heavens.

The end-run around Congress seems to be the legacy Obama is leaving. David Harsanyi of the Federalist has a great post on this very issue today. He makes the following point in The Federalist:

[…] Perhaps no post-World War II president (and maybe none before) has justified his executive overreach by openly contending he was working around the law-making branch of government because it has refused to do what he desired. Whether a court finds his actions constitutional or not, it’s an argument that stands, at the very least, against the spirit American governance. Today, many liberals call this “leadership.”

The most likely result of his new gun push will be that hundreds of thousands of Americans who understandably fear the mission creep of government will end up buying a whole bunch of guns (Smith & Wesson and Sturm, Ruger & Co. stocks rose against the dipping market on Monday). The flow of donations to Second Amendment advocacy groups will almost certainly rise, and gun violence — which has fallen considerably over the past 20 years of gun ownership expansion — will not be addressed.

But more consequentially — and this may be the most destructive legacy of the Obama presidency — is the mainstreaming of the idea that if Congress “fails to act” it’s okay for the president to figure out a way to make law himself. Hillary’s already applauded Obama’s actions because, as she put it, “Congress won’t act; we have to do something.” This idea is repeated perpetually by the Left, in effect arguing that we live in direct democracy run by the president (until a Republican is in office, of course). On immigration, on global warming, on Iran, on whatever crusade liberals are on, the president has a moral obligation to act if Congress doesn’t do what he wants.

Perhaps Obama’s most destructive legacy is the mainstreaming of the idea that if Congress ‘fails to act’ it’s okay for the president to make law himself.
To believe this, you’d have to accept two things: 1) That Congress has a responsibility to pass laws on the issues that the president desires or else they would be abdicating their responsibility, and 2) That Congress has not already acted. […] (Click here to read the rest.)

That is exactly what I have been saying for some time now. Obama is making it commonplace, even acceptable, certainly to Democrats, to completely subvert the will of the people through their elected Representatives. He has done this time and again, and on this issue, he is going after the Second Amendment. It is appalling that so many are okay with Obama acting outside the Constitution of the United States, yet that is where we are now.

Meanwhile, as all of this is going on and capturing the news, you may not know that Gen. David Petraeus is set to testify before the Benghazi Committee in private this week. As the campaign goes into full gear, we have this hearing, and the “13 Hours” movie coming out on January 15th, which reflect directly upon the Obama and Clinton legacies. Sharyl Attkisson has more:

[…] Not long after Petraeus butted heads with other Obama officials over Benghazi, his alleged affair with a journalist and biographer suddenly surfaced. The FBI had long been aware of the relationship and had investigated it — but set it aside — months prior. Only after the Benghazi attacks, as Petraeus’s loyalty to the administration falls into question, does the affair become revealed and everything turns sour for the spy chief and he resigns. […] (Click here to read the rest.)

Gee, shocking. Not. What Attkisson highlighted in her book, Stonewalled, was the disagreement between Gen. Petraeus and the BS excuses about Benghazi (that was me paraphrasing Attkisson). You can read the pertinent part HERE.

Petraeus is not the only one appearing before the Committee this week. Charlene Lamb, the one who debunked the Democrats’ claim Benghazi was all the result of Republican budget cuts, will also be testifying.

Should be interesting to see what comes out from these hearings. Obama’s putting himself all over the news with his (illegal) Executive Action is no doubt timely, not just for his SOTU Address, but for what the Committee will learn about Benghazi.

Never mind what is going on between our ally, Saudi Arabia, and Obama’s latest foreign policy fiasco, Iran. Some legacy Obama is leaving, huh?

This is an Open Thread.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

39 Responses to “Executive Power Grab Legacy With Added Bonus Of Being A Smokescreen”

  1. kenoshamarge Says:

    From what I’ve been reading, mostly from Katie Pavlich, Obama’s big “gun control” nonsense is mostly a rehash of what is already law. In other words a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. But as always the conservatives take the bait and the print and airwaves with be filled with outrage. And the real outrage, that the ME grows more unstable by the hour goes underreported.

    • Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

      I do like that Katie Pavlitch so much. I especially appreciate her ability to hold her tongue when she is having to debate that Mary Ann woman.

      Interesting take by her on the “gun control” thing. From what I had heard, what Obama wants to do are things that the Congress had already voted down. But I could be wrong, for sure.

      And yes – you are so right abt the Middle East. The White House is equivocating between our ally – for better or worse – Saudi Arabia, and the terrorist-sponsoring Iran, who threw a big ol’ missile near one of our aircraft carriers. And us? Crickets. We don’t want to get involved and upset our new buddy, Iran, the country that has killed so many Americans. It is just astonishing.

    • Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

      Here is Pavlitch’s article from Townhall that highlights what Obama will be doing this morning: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/01/04/barack-obama-previews-his-gun-control-plans-n2099836

    • foxyladi14 Says:

      He just loves that camera! ;lol:

      • Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

        Ain’t that the truth, Foxy?? Ugh.

      • Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

        Oh my WORD – is he EVER going to shut up already??? As it is, he is getting CNN to put him on Thurs. night to talk abt guns, and he has the SOTU next Tues. How egotistical can one person be?!

        • piper Says:

          Now Amy – he needs the attention and adulation after spending the last 2 weeks with family who know all of his warts and didn’t sing his praises during the vacation.

          • Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

            LOL – I swear, piper, that would not surprise me ONE bit. I saw the camera footage of them returning and walking across the lawn from the helicopter. Obama had his arm around one of his daughters who didn’t look at him the whole time (if I recall correctly), and NO ONE was smiling but Obama when the cameras were turned on him.

            I mean, REALLY – the attitudes speak volumes.

            So yeah – I think you are right!

  2. piper Says:

    Bringing this up again as I want to share the idiocy of the feminists who need something to complain about so they can stay relevant.

    Oy vey – now feminists want to ban the word ‘foreign’

    “The “On the Record” host blasted the Women’s Media Center over a tweet calling for the word “foreign” to be banned in 2016.

    “That is about as nutty as it gets,” Van Susteren said. “Besides being just about the worst example of political correctness, it is incredibly dumb.”

    “It makes women look like a bunch of knuckleheads, focusing on irrelevant, the goofy and not the real issues,” she continued. “Like how women are treated under Sharia Law, by ISIS, or by human traffickers. Even issues like how to hold jobs, get child care, put food on the table for their kids. Those are real women’s issues.”

    Van Susteren asked how the group was even able to come up with such a proposal.

    “They should be ashamed for being so foolish. And frankly, I wish we could ban them for being stupid,” she concluded.”

    http://www.weaselzippers.us/249018-greta-rips-womens-group-who-wants-to-ban-use-of-word-foreign-because-of-usthem-implication/

    • Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

      Thank you so much for bringing this forward, Piper. It is just ASTONISHING the idiocy of these women. WOW. What in the WORLD is going on with the liberal women in this country?!?!

      Thank heavens Greta put them in their place. She is SPOT on.

  3. piper Says:

    My new name should be thief as I travel between web sites and steal images posted by the ‘folks’ This one is from Dave at NQ

    • Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

      LOL – what a thief!

      I heard someone on the news the other day say that there IS no loophole with gun shows, that it is a strawman argument. So, yes, absolutely that would go along with what Marge was saying above.

      • kenoshamarge Says:

        He may be trying to “tweak” the laws here and there, which he has no right to do, but it’s most farce and fury. Which is what Obama is all about.

        What really outrages me is that Obama tosses out a ball and the whole damn Republican Party scurries to chase it.

        If they want to “chase” someone, chase Hillary. Obama is still trying to make himself relevant, he isn’t and to find some kind of “legacy’ other than the sheer unremitting incompetence that everyone except an Obot or the Left Stream Media can see.

        • Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

          The big problem, though, is the “tweaking” precisely because it is outside his purview. This is the same thing he has done with Obamacare, making changes to the law when it suits him. That is the purview solely of the Legislative Branch, not the Executive Branch. And as long as Obama continues unabated, which he in essence is until these things are brought to the judicial branch, it is an affront to the Constitution and our rule of law.

          So I think the Reps SHOULD be focusing on this, as well as focusing on Hillary. They really should be able to do both at least, especially with her attacks on the Benghazi families currently. That I find to be abhorrent.

          • kenoshamarge Says:

            They should be able to focus on both, but chances are the candidates will be too busy attacking each other. Some days I just want to crawl back in bed, pull the covers over my head and stay there til the country finds its sanity. Which means I would be in for a long, long wait.

  4. kenoshamarge Says:

    Trump’s Nomination Would Represent a Paradigm Shift

    By Andrew Klavan

    Some of you may have heard that 2016 is an election year. An election — to paraphrase George Washington — is when the power on loan to officials is returned to the people. This is where we all fight it out to decide what kind of country we’re going to have. A thousand things may happen yet, but the most likely scenario at this moment seems to me to be this: Hillary Clinton runs against one of three Republicans — Rubio, Cruz or Trump.

    https://pjmedia.com/andrewklavan/2016/1/4/the-privilege-of-battle/?singlepage=true

    I “like” Andrew Klavan. I even agree with him most of the time. This is one of those times. And his opinion of Donald Trump is absolutely the same one I would write if I could write better. I tend to sputter into incoherence in my outrage that anyone would even consider putting this revolting man into the White House after 8 years of another thin-skinned liar.

    Klavan’s Opinion of Trump says what I want to say but am simply not articulate enough to say in this way:

    Trump is a lifelong left-wing friend-of-Democrats campaigning as a Republican for his own reasons. He’s a demagogue, and he’s good at it. Sometimes he speaks truth and often he spouts trash, but what’s the difference? He doesn’t believe any of it anyway. He’s simply saying whatever words he feels will tap into legitimate right-wing anger and working-class angst.

    • Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

      He is absolutely right. It astonishes me that anyone would support this man who has for so long supported Democrats AND who spouts left-wing positions but which those Reps who support him lap up. I just do not get it. It defies any semblance of logic, IMO.

      Thanks for this, Marge – it is spot on. And I might add, “incoherent” is NOT a word I would ever use to describe you!!

      • kenoshamarge Says:

        You should have heard me, well read me, after a Trumpkin over at NQ told me that Trump has held the same beliefs since 1980 and the she calls Ted Cruz “Me Too Cruz” since all he does is echo Trump. Actually for few moments I was too astounded by the mind-numbing stupidity to write a word.

        What’s that old saw, “you are entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts.” IMO Trumpkins and Obots are two sides of the same coin.

    • piper Says:

      Sadly on another one of my fav. blogs, they’re rejecting any bad news or articles about Trump with any one of the following responses: look at all the people at his rallies, people can change like we did moving from being a democrat to an independent voter, and the biggie – these authors don’t like him and are digging up dirt to discredit him. My fear is that people who are tired of obama (me too) and his actions, are willing to follow cultishly another narcissist who obviously knows what issues people are concerned about but has minimal governance ability besides ‘you’re fired.’
      I’d keep hiding another the bed but the dust bunnies took a vote and reject my asylum petition.

      • Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

        This is how it began with Obama, too. The same people who attacked Bush RELENTLESSLY for having no experience, a Governor of Texas, an owner of an MLB team, a fighter jet pilot, etc., gladly, wholeheartedly, embraced a man for whom NO RECORDS, not even a DATE book, from his time as an IL Senator, existed. A man who got people thrown off ballots to run unopposed, and who had sealed divorce records for not just his Rep. opponent, but DEM. opponent, leaked to get the US Senate job. It is just astonishing.

        And not for nothing, but OTHER candidates are getting crowds, too – they just don’t get the relentless air time Trump does.

        Mainly, though, it just astonishes me to see the unwillingness to consider ANYTHING Trump has said in the past, even the not-too-distant past, and the faith people put in him now to do what he says he will do with NO way to back it up whatsoever. What the hell is WRONG with people in this country??

        ROTFLMAO abt the asylum petition…

      • piper Says:

        should read ‘rejected’ not reject but either works.

      • lyn Says:

        The Klown scolded NOLA about that, piper. I’m on the fence about this election, and my track record for picking presidents is horrible. Uncle Bill was the only one.

        • Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

          I haven’t had a good track record since then either, lyn. I continue to underestimate the ignorance, and apathy, of Americans. Never mind the influence of the MSM to annihilate whoever is running against the Dem. candidate…

  5. kenoshamarge Says:

  6. kenoshamarge Says:

    Hillary Clinton: We May Have Been Visited by Aliens

    http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/01/hillary-clinton-we-may-have-been-visited-by-aliens/

  7. Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

    Here is more on Obama’s EA from a few minutes ago: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/264776-obama-issues-executive-actions-on-gun-control

    • Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

      Judge Napolitano is explaining how Obama’s EA is a violation of the Constitution. In essence, he said that Obama is re-writing the law AND requiring stricter punishments under his re-write. That is the big problem.

      • kenoshamarge Says:

        Not the first time and I suspect it won’t be the last until the scum leaves the White House. And what will the GOP stalwarts do other than whine about it?

        • Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

          From what the Judge said, and I have heard this from Congress members, challenges can only come from those who have been targeted specifically by the new EA.

          See, that is what I do NOT understand. If it is un-Constitutional for the President to do this, how in the hell does it become part of the law in the FIRST place?? That makes no sense to me! Why are people not allowed to just disregard it, like, “hey, nice you feel that way, but you don’t make the laws. See ya!”

          But that isn’t how it works, which I just do not understand.

  8. piper Says:

    Interesting tweet

    Some Think Obama Just Flipped Everyone Off https://t.co/wGnXV13hL2 via @WeaselZippers— Piper (@MerlinBichon) January 5, 2016

    //platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

    • Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

      Sorry for the delay in this showing up, piper. I don’t know why WordPress doesn’t like Tweets, but it really doesn’t. Thanks for this!

  9. Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

    And more of the EA smokescreen – releasing a bunch of “bad guys” from Gitmo. That is just freakin’ AWESOME.

  10. Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

    Seems many are not being fooled by Obama’s pronouncement yesterday: http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/01/obamas-gun-control-executive-order-is-political-theater-of-the-absurd/

    And then there is this by-product Obama may not have seen, but it is one industry he is actually helping: http://legalinsurrection.com/2016/01/obamas-great-for-the-economy-of-gun-makers/

  11. Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

    Now, I am not one to make fun of someone for getting emotional over a serious issue, like the loss of young lives. But unlike Boehner, who could cry at the drop of a hat, Obama has been far less emotional on that level. So his tears at yesterday’s event have been receiving a lot of attention.

    This Federalist article highlights the many times Obama did not shed tears over the loss of lives, both young and old: http://thefederalist.com/2016/01/06/12-things-obama-never-cried-about/

  12. Rabble Rouser Reverend Amy Says:

    And for all the Cruz fans among us, this is good news: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/07/us/politics/increasingly-iowans-say-their-caucuses-are-ted-cruzs-to-lose.html?_r=0

    • lyn Says:

      Although Trump says he’s in it to win, sometimes I think he’s beating up the GOPe and paving the way for Cruz.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: