Video - Andrew Klavan: 'The Debate is Over'

In which our host, Andrew Klavan, explains why conservative opinion is so unwelcome in Washington DC, Hollywood and the mainstream media: Because the debate is over, the science is settled, and the time for talking is past.

Ted Cruz Releases Definitive List of 76 ‘Lawless’ Obama Actions

Ted Cruz: Legal Limit Report 4

Ron Paul outraged: "Will No One Challenge Obama’s Executive Orders?"

Ron Paul outraged: "Will No One Challenge Obama’s Executive Orders?" HT: Ron Paul Institute,

President Obama’s state of the union pledge to “act with or without Congress” marks a milestone in presidential usurpation of Congressional authority.  

Most modern presidents have used executive orders to change and even create laws without Congressional approval. However President Obama is unusually brazen, in that most Presidents do not brag about their plans to rule by executive order in state of the union speeches.

Sadly, his pledge to use his pen to implement laws and polices without the consent of Congress not only received thunderous applause from representatives of the president’s party, some representatives have even pledged to help Obama get around Congress by providing him with ideas for executive orders. The Constitution’s authors would be horrified to see legislators actively aiding and abetting a president taking power away from the legislature.

Executive orders are perfectly legitimate and even necessary if, in the words of leading Constitutional Scholar Judge Andrew Napolitano, they “….  guide the executive branch on how to enforce a law or…complement and supplement what Congress has already done.” The problem is that most modern presidents have abused this power to issue orders that, as Judge Napolitano puts it, “restates federal law, or contradicts federal law, or does the opposite of what the federal law is supposed to do.”

Political opponents of the president rightly condemned Obama for disregarding the Constitution. However, it was not that long ago that many of the same politicians were labeling as “unpatriotic” or worse anyone who dared question President Bush’s assertions the he had the “inherent” authority to launch wars, spy on Americans, and even indefinitely detain American citizens.

Partisan considerations also make some members of the opposition party hesitate to reign in the president. These members are reluctant to set a precedent of “tying the president’s hands” that could be used against a future president of their own party.

The concentration of power in the office of the president is yet one more negative consequence of our interventionist foreign policy. A foreign policy based on interventionism requires a strong and energetic executive, unfettered by Constitutional niceties such as waiting for Congress to pass laws or declare war.  So it simply was natural, as America abandoned the traditional foreign policy of non-interventionism, for presidents to act “without waiting for Congress.” After all, the president is “commander-in-chief” and he needs to protect “national security,” they argued. Once it became accepted practice for the president to disregard Congress in foreign affairs, it was only a matter of time before presidents would begin usurping Congressional authority in domestic matters.

It should not be surprising that some of the biggest promoters of an “energetic” executive are the neoconservatives. They are also enthusiastic promoters of the warfare state. Sadly, they have misled many constitutionalists into believing that one can consistently support unchecked presidential authority in foreign policy, but limit presidential authority in domestic matters. Until it is fully understood that virtually limitless presidential authority in foreign affairs cannot coexist with strict limits on Presidential authority in domestic matters, we will never limit the power of the Presidency.

The people must also insist that politicians stop viewing issues concerning the separation of powers through a partisan lens and instead be willing to act against any president who exceeds his constitutional limitations. Thankfully we have scholars such as Louis Fisher, who has just published an important new book on presidential power, to help us better understand the Founders’ intent with regard to separation of powers. The key to achieving this goal is to make sure the people understand that any president of any party who would exceed constitutional limitations is a threat to liberty, and any member of Congress who ignores or facilitates presidential usurpation is being derelict in his Constitutional duty.

Video - Rep Congresman: "You're not a dictator. You're not an emperor. We negotiate everything in Washington, D.C."

“You hate to diminish the office of president of the United States by calling him silly, but that’s just silly. We negotiate everything on this. You don’t get to impose your will. You’re not a dictator. You’re not an emperor. We negotiate everything in Washington, D.C., and for him to say he’s not going to negotiate this is one of the more absurd things I’ve heard him say out of a lot of absurd things I’ve heard him say,” Mulvaney said. Read the full story here.

Video - Now the Obama 'Admin' is facing 'one party with one ideological agenda'.

Video - Now the Obama 'Admin' is facing 'one party with one ideological agenda'.HT: WhiteHouseDossier.

Bolivia to sue Obama for ‘crimes against humanity.”

Bolivia to sue Obama for ‘crimes against humanity.'(RT).

Bolivian President Evo Morales will file a lawsuit against the US government for crimes against humanity. He has decried the US for its intimidation tactics and fear-mongering after the Venezuelan presidential jet was blocked from entering US airspace.

“I would like to announce that we are preparing a lawsuit against Barack Obama to condemn him for crimes against humanity,” said President Morales at a press conference in the Bolivian city of Santa Cruz. He branded the US president as a “criminal” who violates international law.

In solidarity with Venezuela, Bolivia will begin preparing a lawsuit against the US head of state to be taken to the international court. Furthermore, Morales has called an emergency meeting of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) to discuss what has been condemned by Venezuela as “an act of intimidation by North American imperialism.” 

The Bolivian president has suggested that the members of CELAC withdraw their ambassadors from the US to send a message to the Obama Administration. As an additional measure he will call on the member nations of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas to boycott the next meeting of the UN. Members of the Alliance include Antigua and Barbuda, Cuba, Dominica, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Saint Lucia.

“The US cannot be allowed to continue with its policy of intimidation and blockading presidential flights,” stressed Morales.

The Venezuelan government announced on Thursday that President Nicolas Maduro’s plane had been denied entry into Puerto Rican (US) airspace.

“We have received the information from American officials that we have been denied travel over its airspace,” Venezuelan Foreign Minister Elias Jaua said, speaking to reporters during an official meeting with his South African counterpart. Jaua decried the move “as yet another act of aggression on the part of North American imperialism against the government of the Bolivarian Republic.”

President Maduro was due to arrive in Beijing this weekend for bilateral talks with the Chinese government. Jaua was adamant that the Venezuelan leader would reach his destination, regardless of any perceived interference.

The US government has not yet made any statement regarding the closing of its airspace to the Venezuelan presidential plane. Puerto Rico is an unincorporated territory of the US.  

Obama compares impending Syria strike to 'helping the British during the German Blitz'.

Obama compares impending Syria strike to 'helping the British during the German Blitz'. HT: WhiteHouseDossier.By KeithKoffler.

President Obama today refused to rule out attacking Syria anyway even if Congress fails to support him, though he will address the nation Tuesday from the White House to try to build support for his decision and put pressure on Congress to approve it.

Obama, who spoke during a press conference at the conclusion of the G-20 Summit in St. Petersburg, Russia, hinted at a possible justification for acting unilaterally by noting that his decision to put the matter before Congress was not just motivated by a desire for Congressional approval, but to prompt debate about the issue and make sure the American people fully understand why he wants to bomb Syria.
Asserting the critical need to uphold the principle of preventing the use of chemical weapons in the world, Obama said he wanted to make “sure that the American people understand it is important before I take action.”
Obama said Americans need to hash this out because the threat posed by chemical weapons is the type America will be facing in coming years. “I think it’s the right thing to do,” Obama said of the decision to prompt a debate in Congress. “I think it’s good for our democracy.”
But the president also suggested he might be constrained from acting without Congress, noting that part of the reason he sought a vote was that he “could not honestly claim” the situation “was a direct or imminent threat to the United States” that would force him to move quickly without Congress. And in contrast to Libya, where Muammar Qaddafi was about to crush his opposition, the U.S. response to the Syrian chemical weapons attacks could wait a bit.
Obama repeatedly suggested that with polls showing a strike against Syria unpopular, lawmakers might want to consider acting against the will of their constituents. He argued that action to prevent the genocide in Rwanda – the lack of which is widely lamented – would “probably wouldn’t poll very well” if it were at issue today. He even noted that helping the British during the German Blitz was not popular either with the public or Congress.

The president, who has frequently referred to the need for international approval before moving militarily, sought to justify his decision to ignore the United Nations this time by charging that the UN was failing to abide by its own rules by not seeking to enforce the international ban on chemical weapons.

Imperial President Obama "I'm not required to submit proposals for military action to Congress."

Imperial President Obama "I'm not required to submit proposals for military action to Congress."HT: RussiaToday.

Wednesday, September 4. Live updates.

13:40 GMT: President Barack Obama said the credibility of the US Congress was on the line regarding the need to uphold a ban on chemical weapons in Syria.
"My credibility is not on the line. The international community's credibility is on the line," he told a news conference in Sweden. "America and Congress's credibility is on the line, because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important," Obama added.


13:16 GMT: US President Barack Obama urged the international community to respond effectively to chemical weapons’ use in Syria during his statement at a press conference in Sweden.

A "real strong message” to Assad must be sent to ‘degrade’ his ability to use chemical weapons again, the President added.

Obama stated that he was not required to submit proposals for military action to Congress for approval, but also said that not doing so was no empty exercise

Here’s What Candidate Obama Said About Military Intervention In 2007.

Here’s What Candidate Obama Said About Military Intervention In 2007.HT: Liberty Blitzkrieg

Q. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

Obama: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

- Interview with Charlie Savage, December 20, 2007 (full text here)
Ok, so Obama lied again…what’s new. Well what’s new is that launching missiles into Syria right now could lead to a much wider global conflagration, i.e. World War III. I don’t think anybody wants that. Or do they? It actually seems as if the sociopaths in charge of these United States DO want this, and therefore we must do everything we can to prevent it from happening.
Not only is it key to inform people how ridiculous it is to say a chemical weapons attack is a reason for war when the U.S. government itself aided Saddam Hussein in chemical warfare in the 1980′s, but we must also explain to people that use of force in Syria is entirely unconstitutional.

New poll: Syria intervention even less popular than Congress.

New poll: Syria intervention even less popular than Congress.HT: washingtonpost.com

A new Reuters/Ipsos poll has finally found something that Americans like even less than Congress: the possibility of U.S. military intervention in Syria. Only 9 percent of respondents said that the Obama administration should intervene militarily in Syria; a RealClearPolitics poll average finds Congress has a 15 percent approval rating, making the country’s most hated political body almost twice as popular.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll was taken Aug.19-23, the very same week that horrific reports emerged strongly suggesting that Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad has used chemical weapons against his own people, potentially killing hundreds or even thousands of civilians. If there were ever a time that Americans would support some sort of action, you’d think this would be it. But this is the lowest support for intervention since the poll began tracking opinion on the issue. The survey also found that 60 percent oppose intervention outright, with the rest, perhaps sagely, saying that they don’t know.
Strangely, 25 percent said that they support intervention if Assad uses chemical weapons. I say strangely because the United States announced way back in June that it believed Assad had done exactly this. A large share of people who answered that the United States should intervene if Assad uses chemical weapons are apparently unaware that this line has already been crossed. Presumably, some number of these people would drop their support if they realized the question was no longer hypothetical.Read the full story here.

Related: Anti-war Democrats’ lack of unity gives Obama cover on Syria policy

"L'Etat C'est Moi" - Obama Hasn’t Called Boehner on Syria — Yet (Updated).

"L'Etat C'est Moi" - Obama Hasn’t Called Boehner on Syria — Yet (Updated).HGOPT: LittleBytesNews.

Updated 1:25 p.m. | President Barack Obama called multiple foreign leaders over the weekend to discuss a response to the alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria, but he hasn’t yet called Speaker John A. Boehner, R-Ohio.

“The president is the commander-in-chief, but the first step is for him and his team to consult with Congress on what he considers viable options. That has not yet taken place,” said Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck, who declined to speculate on whether Congress could be called back for a vote authorizing military action.

A White House aide on Saturday said Congress would be consulted on Syria.

Boehner has repeatedly called for the president to engage in a “robust” consultation with Congress before taking any military action in Syria, although he backed the president’s decision to provide military aid to the rebels.

Buck this afternoon wrote a longer statement titled, “Will Americans Hear from Their Commander-In-Chief?”:

The eyes of the world are on the United States this week. The Syrian regime has blatantly crossed President Obama’s red line, the White House has acknowledged, by using chemical weapons on its people. The president’s response stands to have significant impact on the outcome of the lengthy Syrian civil war. The options facing the president are complicated, have far-reaching ramifications, and may require significant resources.

That’s why, if he chooses to act, the president must explain his decision publicly, clearly, and resolutely.

The president is commander-in-chief. With that power comes obligations. One, of course, is to consult with Congress on the options he sees as a viable response. This consultation has not yet taken place, but it is an essential part of the process. And meaningful consultation should happen before any military action is taken.

More than just to Congress, the president has an obligation to the American people to explain the rationale for the course of action he chooses; why it’s critical to our national security; and what the broader strategy is to achieve stability.

Surveys have shown that the American public is hesitant to intervene in Syria. This is understandable, and it underscores the need for the president to fully explain what is at stake and outline why he believes action is necessary.

If U.S. action is imminent, it is our hope that the president doesn’t forget his obligations – to Congress, but, also, to speak directly to the American people.

Opinions within Congress are varied, with bipartisan support and opposition for intervention. Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., has said repeatedly Obama does not have the authority to launch a strike on another nation like Syria without Congress — as he did in Libya.

Meanwhile, there has been a continued push by hawks such as Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., for significant military action.

Video - Colorado to All Ban Shotguns. Existing guns will be ILLEGAL to Sell, Transfer, or Lend.