'Yes We Scan' - pres. Obama Expands Surveillance Powers on His Way Out. (EEF).
With mere days left before President-elect Donald Trump takes the
White House, President Barack Obama’s administration just finalized
rules to make it easier for the nation’s intelligence agencies to share
unfiltered information about innocent people.
New rules
issued by the Obama administration under Executive Order 12333 will let
the NSA—which collects information under that authority with little
oversight, transparency, or concern for privacy—share the raw streams of
communications it intercepts directly with agencies including the FBI,
the DEA, and the Department of Homeland Security, according to a report today by the New York Times.
That’s a huge and troubling shift in the way those intelligence
agencies receive information collected by the NSA. Domestic agencies
like the FBI are subject to more privacy protections, including warrant
requirements.
Previously, the NSA shared data with these agencies only
after it had screened the data, filtering out unnecessary personal
information, including about innocent people whose communications were
swept up the NSA’s massive surveillance operations.
As the New York Times put it, with the new rules, the government
claims to be “reducing the risk that the N.S.A. will fail to recognize
that a piece of information would be valuable to another agency, but
increasing the risk that officials will see private information about
innocent people.”
However—and this is especially troubling—“if analysts stumble across
evidence that an American has committed any crime, they will send it to
the Justice Department,” the Times wrote.
So information that was
collected without a warrant—or indeed any involvement by a court at
all—for foreign intelligence purposes with little to no privacy
protections, can be accessed raw and unfiltered by domestic law
enforcement agencies to prosecute Americans with no involvement in
threats to national security. Read the full story here.
Israeli PM Netanyahu leading effort to thwart Hussein Obama's bid for U.N. chief. (Watimes).
Mr. Netanyahu recently is said to have gotten wind of Obama’s plans which he calls the Obama Project.
“Wasn’t eight years of having Obama in office enough?” Mr. Netanyahu is quoted in the Kuwaiti daily as telling associates. “Eight years during which he ignored Israel? And now he wants to be in a position that is liable to cause us hardships in the international arena.”
“Obama is the worst president Israel has had to deal with and the worst president for the Middle East and its allies, the moderate Arab states,” the paper quotes a Netanyahu aide.
Another source close to the Prime Minister said “his presidency was characterized by [Washington’s] moving closer to the Muslim Brotherhood, toppling the regime of Hosni Mubarak, and attempts to ally itself with political Islam.”
“Obama’s term is ending with him forging an alliance with Iran, coming to an agreement with it on its nuclear program which in the end will result in a similar scenario that took place with North Korea. Israel will not allow this to happen … It will take all of the necessary steps to prevent Iran from manufacturing a nuclear weapon either covertly or overtly.”
Obama 'Admin' to impose new gun control 'laws' next week. (Wapo).
President Obama will meet with Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch on Monday to finalize a set of executive actions on guns that he will unveil next week, according to several individuals briefed on the matter.
White House officials declined to comment on Obama’s plans beyond releasing his weekly radio address on Friday, a day earlier than usual. But according to those familiar with the proposal, who asked for anonymity because it was not yet public, the president will expand new background-check requirements for buyers who purchase weapons from high-volume gun dealers.
The president will also use his executive authority in several other areas, these individuals said, but the overall package has not yet been finalized.
In the radio address, Obama said he was moving unilaterally because Congress had failed to address the growing problem of gun violence.
'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' - 2nd Amendment
“To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.” description of House Resolution 4269.
While Americans anxiously prepared for their Christmas
festivities, anti gun proponents in Congress were hard at work drafting a
new bill. If passed H.R. 4269 would literally
redefine the Second Amendment as evidenced by the bill’s description,
which in no uncertain terms clarifies its ultimate goal:
“To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.”
The bill directly targets every semi-automatic firearm in the United States
including handguns, shotguns and rifles. It specifically mentions
certain firearms and manufacturers, including the popular
AR-15 and AK-47 rifles.
Because the law is Federal it would blanket the country with new restrictions, including making it illegal to own any magazine that exceeds a capacity of ten (10) rounds.
And here’s the kicker, even if your weapon has a legally-defined low
capacity detachable magazine but is modified with any of the following
accessories, it is considered an “assault rifle” and would be outright banned in the United States. Read the full story here at infidel bloggers. Related: It's True Obama IS The Most Anti - Second Amendment President EVAH !
For factual presentation only.
Anyone have an explanation for this 'hockey stick' spike in last few years. pic.twitter.com/22cHIra8xd
Saudi Arabia wants that the UN cancels LGBT rights.
Saudi Arabia wants the UN gay rights of the sustainable development goals pickup, reports The Independent. 'Gay rights are in conflict with Islamic law, "said the Saudi foreign minister Adel al-Jubeir.
Saudi Arabia is protesting any references to homosexuality in a sweeping new agenda for global development, saying it runs “counter to Islamic law.”
Saudi Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir told a U.N. summit of world leaders Sunday that “mentioning sex in the text, to us, means exactly male and female. Mentioning family means consisting of a married man and woman.”
He asserted his country’s right not to follow any rules that relate to any “deviations” from that belief as the world moves forward on the new development agenda.
The so-called Sustainable Development Goals include a target to ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights by 2030. Some states like Saudi Arabia and the Vatican are concerned that references to “sexual rights” include rights for gay people.
Pink News reports that overt references to LGBT equality were removed from the final agreement. Read the full article here.
A Video rebuttal to Loretta Lynch, and warning to Americans by Constitutional Lawyer KrisAnne Hall.
Yesterday, Loretta Lynch announced before the United Nations that the
Attorney General's Office, in collaboration with several US Cities will
for a global law enforcement initiative called the Strong Cities
Network. This is the implementation of UN rules and laws on US soil
bypassing Congress and circumventing the Constitution.
Well he is a cousin of the King of Jordan. As a result he's been appointed to a variety of positions. He's also a great-grandson of Caliph Hussein bin Ali, who claimed to rule all the Arabs, before he got taken down by the House of Saud.
(And if you think the Saudi gang still don't resent all Europeans over it and want revenge, you don't know the Middle East well.)
After the world body approved his nomination by applause, Prince Zeid joked: “My supportive wife told me to enjoy this moment, to soak it all up, after all, she said, you are among friends who you’ve known for a very long time. Because when you start this job, she added, you may not have them for very long.”
Jordan’s voting record on the highly divisive attempt to force U.N. states to criminalize the "defamation of religion" leaves a huge question mark about how aggressively Ambassador Zeid will defend free speech in the sphere of religion, where this right is constantly under attack at both the national and international level.
From 1999-2010, member states of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) successfully tabled resolutions on "combating defamation of religion" as part of their campaign to implement a global blasphemy ban under human rights law, in the Human Rights Council (known as the U.N. Commission on Human Rights until 2006) and the General Assembly. During both of Ambassador Zeid’s periods as Jordan’s ambassador to the U.N., Jordan voted in favor of these resolutions when they were introduced at the General Assembly. Both of the resolutions passed. The 2010 resolution commended "the recent steps taken by Member States to protect freedom of religion through the enactment or strengthening of domestic frameworks and legislation to prevent the vilification of religions and the negative stereotyping of religious groups" and urged the international community to follow suit. (Global police force!) Jordan’s voting record in the U.N. is consistent with the country’s domestic record on blasphemy. In 2006, two newspaper editors who reprinted cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad previously published by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten were sentenced to two months of imprisonment. In 2011, Jordan initiated a trial in absentia against Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard, the creator of the offending cartoon, as well as 19 Danish journalists and editors who had published the cartoon in various news outlets. In 2009, Jordanian poet Eslam Samhan was sentenced to imprisonment and a fine for blasphemy after having included Quranic verses in his poetry. It was developments such as these that the 2010 resolution on defamation of religion hailed and sought to enact at the international level, turning human rights into a weapon against religious dissent and nonconformism rather than principles protecting the freedom of conscience and pluralism.
In 2011, the United States and the OIC brokered a compromise, Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18, that aims to protect individuals, rather than religions, from religious discrimination and intolerance, and to promote "open, constructive and respectful debate."
While this uneasy truce stopped the parade of anti-defamation resolutions, it did not end efforts by OIC members to prosecute those deemed to have insulted Islam.
Only in 2013, the ministers of justice of the League of Arab States approved an extremely wide-ranging draft blasphemy law that not only aims at criminalizing allegedly blasphemous utterances (including miming!) but also envisaged extraterritorial jurisdiction, meaning that someone deemed to have blasphemed in the United States or Europe would be liable to prosecution in Arab League member states.
OIC member states like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Egypt continue to aggressively enforce blasphemy and religious insult laws, often targeting members of vulnerable religious minorities or free thinkers straying from state-sanctioned orthodoxy (most of whom are Muslims).
According to the 2013 Freedom of Thought Report, different forms of "blasphemy" are still a crime in 55 countries (including several European ones, only some of which enforce them).
According to these laws, blasphemers can end up in prison in 39 of those countries; in six of them blasphemy qualifies as a capital offense. According to these laws, blasphemers can end up in prison in 39 of those countries; in six of them blasphemy qualifies as a capital offense.
Ambassador Zeid’s record on freedom of expression suggests either too great a willingness to compromise on human rights principles or a lack of civil courage, neither of which would recommend him for the job.
To dispel these fears and pre-empt any OIC attempts to reintroduce the concept of defamation (or guises thereof), Ambassador Zeid should move swiftly to declare in no uncertain terms that freedom of expression includes the right to criticize religion even when offensive to religious feelings.
That would be in line with the efforts of his predecessor, Navi Pillay, as well as the U.N.’s Human Rights Committee and the U.N. Special Rapporteurs on Freedom of Opinion and Expression and Freedom of Religion or Belief. Most importantly it would also be consistent with international human rights law. No other position should be acceptable for the U.N.’s High Commissioner for Human Rights. http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/06/26/the-scandal-of-ambassador-zeid/
Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif says the country is very concerned about the rising trend of Islamophobia in the Western world.
In a meeting with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra'ad Zeid al-Hussein on Monday, Zarif warned against what he called the “increasing growth of Islamophobia in the Western countries.”
The UN official, Prince Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein for his part, welcomed efforts that could improve the human rights situation across the world and said the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is ready to increase it dialogue and cooperation with Iran on the issue. Hmmmm.....It seems at first glance the U.N. has become the new Caliphte chair and we are globally subjected to Sharia law. Anyone doubting why Saudia Arabia is re applying for the Human rights seat?
As members of the commission called for criminalizing hate speech, they also stressed that penalizing this rhetoric should not exempt politicians.
"The law must be valid for everybody and if a politician himself does something like this and incites hatred through what he says, the law must be applied to such a person,” European Justice Commissioner Vera Jourova said, World Bulletin reported.
"I must say that we expect member states to take action when there will be appearance of such a crime," she said.
Speaking at the conference, EU Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality, Vera Jourova, said about 20% people in the EU from a religious minority have experienced discrimination or harassment on the grounds of religion or beliefs over the past year.
“This is unacceptable. I call upon EU Member States to properly apply European legislation and take action against racist and xenophobic hate speech and hate crime,” she said.
“This Colloquium is about sharing concrete experiences and ideas from across the EU, and deciding how we will move forward together." Hmmmm.....They can start by tackling Antisemitism.....or isn't that covered?
Mark Levin: ‘Completely False’ That Children Born to Illegals Have Constitutional Right to Citizenship. HT: Matzav.
Nationally syndicated radio show host Mark Levin explained on Tuesday
why children born in the United States to illegal alien parents do not
have a constitutional right to U.S. citizenship, CNS News reports.
“I had to watch on TV, while I was in California, some so-called
experts tell us–and former Bush appointees, and a former superior court
judge in New Jersey tell us–that the Constitution embraces birthright
citizenship, and there’s not a damn thing we can do about it,” said
Levin. “Well that, of course, is completely false.”
Here is a transcript of what Mark Levin had to say:
“Birthright citizenship: I have discussed this a few times in my
radio career – I think 2009. Maybe it was 2010. I think once or twice
since then. And unfortunately, I had to watch on TV, while I was in
California, some so-called experts tell us – and former Bush appointees,
and a former superior court judge in New Jersey tell us – that the
Constitution embraces birthright citizenship, and there’s not a damn
thing we can do about it. Well that, of course, is completely false.
“And I don’t know why people who call themselves Constitutionalists
swerve back and forth, lurched from the Constitution to Supreme Court
decisions, and back and forth. First, let’s figure out what the
Constitution says.
“And I see our senior legal analyst friend – and he is a friend of
mine, Napolitano – is all over the place. And he’s wrong, as are many
other so-called experts.
“I’ve actually spent my life on the Constitution. I wasn’t a superior
court judge in New Jersey. I wasn’t a professor for doughnuts and
coffee at Shmegegge University or what have you. And this is one of the
areas I have poured over, over the decades. Read the full statement here.
'We need Civilian Security Force' - John Brennan's reforms would turn the CIA into a paramilitary organization. (TheWeek).
While "cyber" and "innovation" are certainly newsier buzzwords than "restructuring," Brennan's planned changes to the CIA's internal architecture are generating controversy and conversation, and rightly so.
Brennan's reform would extend the model of the Counterterrorism Center (CTC), a division already inside the CIA to the entire agency. This means analysts and operations officers will no longer work separately, but side by side in regional and thematic units. This is a major shift which overcomes a decades-old division of labor.
The CTC model is not without its advantages. Analysts with deep knowledge of their enemies would be able to target operations more efficiently, and they could more easily assess the reliability of incoming information. Intelligence would circulate more freely among those working on the same topic and officers would be able to apply their talents and expertise to a wider range of tasks.
If Brennan's suggested reform comes to pass, any pretense of disinterested objectivity in the CIA would disappear.The CIA would become a largely paramilitary agency with no separation between analysts and operators, the opposite of what Kent had envisioned.
The likely consequence would be a multiplication of the biased assessments like the ones on the drone and interrogation programs. In the long run, the CIA would lose its reputation for objectivity, its ready access to senior policy-makers and its centrality in the policy process. Read the full story here.
17 States Take Obama to Court: You Are Trampling the Constitution. (CNS).
A coalition of seventeen states joined together today to file suit against the Obama administration, arguing that President Obama swept aside the constitutional limits on his power and violated his constitutional obligation to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” when he moved to unilateral dismiss enforcement of the immigration laws against 4 million illegal aliens. “This lawsuit is not about immigration,” said the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. “It is about the rule of law, presidential power, and the structural limits of the U.S. Constitution.”
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who is the governor-elect of Texas, explained the states’ argument.
“The President’s unilateral executive action tramples the U.S. Constitution’s Take Care Clause and federal law,” Abbott said in a statement.
“The Constitution’s Take Care Clause limits the President’s power and ensures that he will faithfully execute Congress’s laws - not rewrite them under the guise of ‘prosecutorial discretion.’”
In the complaint itself, the states pointed out that Obama had admitted, in a speech in Chicago, that he had in fact changed the law.
“On November 20, 2014, the President of the United States announced that he would unilaterally suspend the immigration laws as applied to 4 million of the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States,” says the complaint. The President candidly admitted that, in so doing, he unilaterally rewrote the law: ‘What you’re not paying attention to is, I just took an action to change the law.’”
The seventeen states joining in the suit are: Texas, Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, North Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Mississippi and Maine. Read more at CNS NEWS.
.@SpeakerBoehner says House will act today on bill to block Pres Obama's executive actions to delay deportation of many illegal immigrants.
IMF Head Would Resort to Belly Dancing to Get Banking Reforms. (RN).
The International Monetary Fund’s Managing Director Christine Lagarde joked before reporters Thursday that she would belly dance in front of the US Congress if it resulted in the banking reforms the institution is looking for, the Washington political insider’s newspaper The Hill reported.
“I have threatened even doing belly dancing. If that’s what it takes, then I will deliver it. But I hope it doesn’t,” the 58-year-old former French Finance Minister said in jest before the news conference, the source said.
Lagarde, who is participating in this week’s IMF and G20 fall sessions in Washington DC, pleaded with the US Congress, which she claimed was stalling the quota and governance reforms that had been proposed by the institution.
The proposals include doubling the requirements of members’ financial contributions to the bank’s general loan fund to a total of $755 billion. They also propose increasing the vote share of emerging economies such as China, Russia and India. This is something US Senate Republicans are reluctant to accept; as a result, the proposal has been blocked for nearly four years, despite support from President Barack Obama and most of the Senate Democrats.
The United States presently has a 16.73 percent vote share in the organization, giving it an effective veto power on amendments to the institution, which require an 85 percent supermajority in order to pass.
“Everybody knows that it is currently stuck before the U.S. Congress,” Lagarde said, cited by Reuters.
“We very much hope that the different branches of the U.S. authorities ... will understand the relevance of having an IMF that is representative of the global economy and includes the people that should sit at the table," she added.
The IMF chief’s comments were echoed in the Communique of representatives from the Group of 24 developing nations, which also met in Washington Thursday. The communique stated that the organization remains “deeply disappointed that the IMF quota and governance reforms agreed to in 2010 have not yet come into effect,” and urges “the U.S. to complete ratification.” The communique adds that “this remains a significant impediment to the credibility and effectiveness of the IMF and unjustifiably delays forward-looking commitments." Hmmm......Anyone else feels another 'executive order' coming?
US Supreme Court to Rule if Threats on Facebook Are Free Speech.(NDtv).
The US Supreme Court said on Monday it would rule on whether violent threats posted on social media could merit criminal charges, or whether they are protected as free speech.
The nine justices of the nation's top court said they would take on the case of Anthony Elonis, a Pennsylvania resident sentenced to four years in jail and three years supervised release over threatening messages he posted on Facebook.
The messages, including death threats against his ex-wife, were written in the style of rap lyrics.
In the appeal, which will be taken up in the fall, the court said it will consider whether "conviction of threatening another person ... requires proof of the defendant's subjective intent to threaten."
Elonis has said he never seriously intended to make an attempt on his ex-wife's life or carry out any of the other threats, without proof of such an intent, criminalising his Facebook posts violates his First Amendment right to free speech.
In the appeal to the Supreme Court, his lawyers explain that, after his wife suddenly left with their two children, Elonis, then 27, fell into a depression and was fired from the amusement park where he worked.
On December 8, 2010, he was charged with threatening clients and employees of the park, threats against his ex-wife, against police officers and an FBI agent, as well as threats involving a preschool class.
In the appeal, the defendant asked the top court to clarify the law in question. He argues courts are "divided over whether the First Amendment's 'true threat' exception requires proof that a defendant prosecuted for making a threatening statement subjectively intended to threaten another person."
AG Holder Announces Task Force on ‘Homegrown’ Terrorists. Los Angeles Times
The task force will chiefly comprise leaders from the FBI, the Justice Department’s National Security Division and U.S. Attorneys. Called the Domestic Terrorism Executive Committee, it is a recreation of a task force formed by former Atty. Gen. Janet Reno after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. The task force fell into disuse after 9/11. Though the original task force, which was little known, focused mainly on right-wing zealots, Holder’s version is aimed at U.S. citizens or visitors radicalized via the Internet. Holder said the government will continue to fight terrorists abroad.
“But we also must concern ourselves with a different type of threat. We face an escalating danger from self-radicalized individuals within our own borders,” he said.
Ari Fleischer: Obama’s Pen Can’t ‘Doodle on Our Constitution’ HT: Newsmax.
Attorney General Eric Holder’s message to state attorneys general that they aren’t always obligated to defend laws banning same-gender marriage is a dangerous “overreach” that chips away at “one of the hallmarks of America,” Ari Fleischer warned Tuesday. In an exclusive interview with “The Steve Malzberg Show” on Newsmax TV, Fleischer, a former White House spokesman for President George W. Bush, charged that the Obama administration is flouting the Constitution with such selective enforcement.
“Just because the president has the pen, it doesn’t give him the right to doodle on our Constitution,” Fleisher said.
Holder on Tuesday cited his own experience in refusing to defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act, as well as similar stances taken more recently by state attorneys general, in saying laws raising questions of equal protection deserve a higher level of scrutiny, The Associated Press reported.
Fleischer said Holder is climbing a slippery slope with that logic.
“If this attorney general, because he feels so passionately, strongly, about an issue, can decide he will not enforce the existing laws of the land, what stops the next attorney general from coming along and saying, ‘Well, I won’t enforce these other rules of the land?’” Fleischer asked.
“One of the hallmarks of America that makes us a beacon of liberty and freedom and strength is that we’re a nation of laws, not men,” he added.
“When the laws are written, regardless of whether you liked them or didn’t like them . . . we have an obligation no matter what our party is to accept them and enforce them . . . There’s a way to undo laws if you don’t like them, and it’s called change the law.”
Fleischer said Obama is trying to “undo everything that was done before.”Read more at NEWSMAX.
Record U.S. Gun Production as Obama ‘Demonized’ on Issue.(Bloomberg).
U.S. gun makers led by Sturm Ruger & Co. and Smith & Wesson Holding Corp. (SWHC) churned out a record number of firearms in 2012, government data show, continuing a trend of robust production during Democratic presidencies.
More than 8.57 million guns were produced in 2012, up 31 percent from 6.54 million in 2011, according to data released this week by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, which has been tracking the statistics since 1986.
Almost as many guns -- 26.1 million -- were produced during Democrat Barack Obama’s first term as president as during the entire eight-year presidency of his Republican predecessor,George W. Bush, the ATF data show. Read the full story here.
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.
"Imperial President" Obama: ‘I Can Do Whatever I Want’.HT: WeeklyStandard.
President Obama “quipped” today during a visit to Monticello with the French president, “That’s the good thing about being president, I can do whatever I want.”
Via the pool report:
At 4:45 POTUS and president Hollande walked out from a portico and strolled in Front of your pool with Leslie Bowman, president of the Monticello Foundation. Looking at a terrace she said that Jefferson loved to admire the landscape from there. POTUS said that he’d like to take a look and seemed delighted to “break the protocol”. “That’s the good thing as a President, I can do whatever I want” he quipped, walking to the terrace with his guest and Ms. Bowman. Pool now in the mansion as the leaders will come and visit Jefferson’s study.
The comment came around the time the White House announced it would be delaying the Obamacare mandate for some businesses unilaterally.
The French president is here in the U.S. on a state visit.
More notes from the pool:
POTUS and pres Hollande paid a short visit to the study as your pool was looking through an alcove over president Jefferson’s bed. They admired contraptions invented by Jefferson to read and write more efficiently such as a lectern and a “polygraph”. Hollande noticed that one of the books was written in French.
Center for Immigration Studies challenges legality of Obama Administration’s relaxation of security screening for refugees.HT: Refugeeresettlementwatch.
Another case where Obama used his pen? (or his minions
did!)
We told you yesterday that Obama, bowing to international pressure and
lobbying from refugee resettlement contractors anxious to bring in thousands of
Syrians this year, has relaxed a security screening law put in place after 9/11,
here.
Former State Department official and
current director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies
Jessica Vaughan questioned the administration’s right to unilaterally change the
law.
“[T]here is a very legitimate question as to
whether the administration actually has the authority to change the law in this
way,” Vaughan wrote in an email. “It seems to me that they are
announcing that they will be disregarding yet another law written by Congress
that they don’t like and are replacing it with their own
guidelines, which in this case appear to be extremely broad and
vague, and which are sure to be exploited by those seeking to game our generous
refugee admissions program.”
While Vaughan admitted that there are a number of
immigrants seeking protection who have been denied due to unintentional contact
with terrorists, she sees the exemptions as likely another opportunity for
people to bypass the system.
“If the recent past is any guide, those evaluating
these cases will be ordered to ignore red flags in the applications, especially
if the applicant is supported by one of the many advocacy groups that have the
ear of senior DHS staff,” she explained.
“The administration already approves
of the admission of gang members as asylees and criminals in the DACA program
and grants of prosecutorial discretion, so I don’t expect them to be troubled by
the admission of terrorists and garden variety fraudsters in our refugee
program.
This is how we end up with families like the Tsarnaev brothers [the Boston
marathon bombers], who were originally admitted for political
asylum.”
Just a reminder it was the
federal refugee contractors complaining to a Senate hearing in
January, here,
that refugees were being held up for admission because they gave a “sandwich to
a terrorist” (one of the US’s favored terrorists in Syria), that got this
done! One group testifying was the US Conference of Catholic
Bishops which said that it wants 15,000 Syrians admitted ASAP!
Read the Memo Explaining Why the U.S. Can Totally Kill Its Own Citizens Without Trial.HT: Slate.
Obtained by NBC News. As Glenn Greenwald explains, "This is not the primary OLC memo justifying Obama's kill list -- that is still concealed -- but it appears to track the reasoning of that memo as anonymously described to the New York Times in October 2011."
I don't quite want to throw up my hands and just say "read Greenwald," but the man slings words by the barrel and he explains most of the moral queasiness-inducers in the memo. The political context to view this in is that a growing (but small) number of liberals and libertarians, led today by Jeff Merkley and Rand Paul, want to pass resolutions that restore the power to declare war to Congress. Ending the authorization of military force (or, as Paul and Merkley want, requiring a new authorization from Congress for further action in Afghanistan) would complicate the legal kludging in this memo.Read the full story here.
David Weigel is a Slatepolitical reporter. You can reach him at daveweigel@gmail.com, or tweet at him @daveweigel.
.jpg)
+-+Copy.jpg)
