The President’s Embarrassment

When Secretary of State John Kerry, apparently irritated by a lack of sleep, gave a snippy and what he thought was an unrealistic reply to a reporter’s question at a London press conference last weekend, he hardly could have imagined the world’s response. Asked whether there is anything Syrian President Bashar al-Assad could do at this relatively late hour to avoid an American invasion, Kerry told an international audience that if Assad gave up whatever chemical weapons his government possesses, the U.S. would forgo an invasion.

But not to worry, Kerry added. Assad is not going to do that, and we will end up invading Syria in order to vindicate President Obama’s threat to do so. For two days, Obama remained silent on this as his arch-nemesis, Russian President Vladimir Putin, grabbed the spotlight and the high moral ground.

Putin, sounding more like a Nobel Peace laureate than the killer he is known to be, offered to broker a deal whereby the Syrian chemical stockpile would be surrendered to the United Nations, the Syrian government could go about defending itself from the al-Qaida-driven effort to take it over, and the U.S. would leave Syria alone.

Obama is generally firm in his belief that he needs to vindicate the threat he made last summer when he was trying to outdo Mitt Romney on sounding tough. It was then that Obama threatened to intervene in the Syrian civil war if chemical weapons were used by the government. Nevertheless, hating the international embarrassment visited upon him when suddenly Putin seems more reasonable than he does, Obama conceded to my Fox News colleague Chris Wallace that the Kerry-inspired and Putin-pushed idea seemed worth considering. And then the Syrian government agreed.

Details

Obama Administration Removes Ban on Warrantless Surveillance of Americans

President Obama sought and obtained permission from a secret surveillance court to disregard previously enacted restrictions on the domestic, warrantless spying programs of the National Security Agency (NSA), the Washington Post reports.

According to sources cited in the story, in 2011, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates, former chief judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, issued an order “permitting the agency [NSA] to search deliberately for Americans’ communications in its massive databases.”

Also included in the order was an extension of the amount of time the NSA can store the electronic communication data it collects in the United States. Prior to the judge’s decision, such files could be retained for only five years; the limit was pushed back to six years by the terms of the ruling.

The order, the story claims, reversed an “explicit ban” on such unconstitutional searches imposed by the same court in 2008. These restrictions reportedly were “not previously acknowledged.”

A decision of this type would cause immediate and irreparable harm to the Constitution and the right of Americans — and all free people — to be free from unwarranted surveillance by agents of their own government.

What’s more troubling and tyrannical is the fact that none of these changes to exceptions to the Fourth Amendment was ever debated or passed by the people’s elected representatives in Congress. Rather, this fundamental civil liberty was repealed by a judicial appointee at the behest of the very department who sought the expanded authority.

Details

Chris Christie the Federal Puppet?

Chris Christie hides behind a political party principled in limited government, but always ends up showing his true statist colors.

In a recent press conference, Christie says doesn’t agree with states legalizing marijuana for recreational use. Nor does he believe that marijuana exists for medicinal purposes.

The Founders defined what form of government the United States were to become. In Federalist 39, Madison states,

A republican form of government is one of, “which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic.”

Governor Christie hails from the favored class, the political elite, and has hijacked the term “republican.” Statists like Christie wallow in the despair when nullification chips away at this vision of consolidated states.

Details

Criminals Break the Law…So Let’s Pass More Laws?

Those of us who understand and value our unalienable, constitutionally-protected right to keep and bear arms often use this argument regarding gun control:

Gun “laws” don’t work because criminals don’t obey the law!

This seems like a logical argument since criminals, by the very definition of the word, ignore and break the law. Synonyms for criminal include lawbreaker, crook, offender and wrongdoer among others.

Of course we’re not saying that we don’t need laws, we’re just saying that additional laws won’t stop criminals – who by definition are already breaking the law – from breaking the law.

Many people agree with this line of thinking, but apparently only when it comes to gun control.

Example: Several members of the Ohio General Assembly – including some of the more liberty-minded members – support calling for an Article V convention for the purpose of passing an amendment to the Constitution. Ohio HJR 3 calls for an amendment which “shall provide that an increase in the federal debt requires approval from a majority of the legislatures of the separate states”.

Details