Hammer's Link
Holy sh#$ this is bad news!
"On July 31, the National Defense Panel released its long-awaited report on the effects of the QDR and delivered its findings to Congress. The panel pulled no punches — its findings were a scathing indictment of Obama’s foreign policy, national security policy, and defense policy. The panel found that president Barack Obama’s QDR, military force reductions, and trillion-dollar defense budget cuts are dangerous — and will leave the country in a position where it is unable to respond to threats to our nation’s security. This, the panel concluded, must be reversed as soon as possible."
If the administration does not reverse course on its defense strategy and ask congressional Democrats to reverse defense spending cuts, then our nation will find itself in a position where it is unable to defend itself and could become the victim of terrorism on U.S. soil once again.
Regardless of who is in the white house, we can't let them use "terrorism" to take any of our liberty and erode anymore of the constitution.
You are still far more likely to be killed by a cop then a terrorist.
Having said that, yea Obama sucks as was expected.
That statement is incorrect. He is leading our destruction with insight and purpose. He is doing a masterful job of it as well. I wouldn't have thought it possible 25 years ago but here we are.
He has led his minions perfectly and is accomplishing what they set out to do. What is it you say.... The "fundamental transformation of America."
He has lead unlike any other in that area and succeeded unlike any other. He is a stupendous leader when you look at it from that perspective.
Just saying!
As Rush foresaw, America needed obama to fail, but so far he is exceeding beyond his wildest dreams or our worst fears.
1. Incompetent political hacks.
2. Dedicated leftists.
He leaves both of them to their own devices which leaves him blameless when things go wrong.
Is Barack Obama Plotting a Coup?
That seems like an awfully strong word, but it is the term that distinguished law professor Glenn Reynolds, no hysteric, uses to describe the Obama administration’s oft-reported plan to issue executive amnesty to five or six million illegal immigrants in violation of federal law. Glenn’s characterization is a fair one. When a tyrant asserts the right to rule by decree in a state that has formerly been subject to the rule of law, he is commonly described as carrying out a coup d’etat.
That is just what the Obama administration has done, and reportedly will continue to do. When Obama changed the Affordable Care Act by decree–to name just one example, substituting “2014? for “2013? in a critical provision of the statute–he acted as a tyrant. In his refusal to enforce the immigration laws, contrary to the Constitution which requires him to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” he has acted like a tinpot dictator, asserting the right to change or ignore the law by fiat. If he now directly nullifies Section 274(a) of the Immigration and Nationalities Act by legalizing, and issuing work permits to, five or six million illegal immigrants, thereby repealing federal law by decree, how else can we describe his action but as a coup? The Obama administration openly takes the position that the rule of law no longer applies.
Can you imagine the furor that would have resulted if President Nixon, in the midst of the Watergate crisis, had asserted the right to repeal or amend federal statutes by decree? No, actually, you can’t. Forget impeachment; he would have been escorted out of the Oval Office by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. What, then, makes Barack Obama special? How can he claim the right to rule by decree without suffering the same condemnation? Well, the answer is obvious: he is a Democrat. But is that really enough? No president, Democrat or Republican, has ever dreamed of asserting such unconstitutional authority.
I am one of many who have ridiculed the Democrats’ seemingly weird obsession with impeachment. But perhaps there is method to the Democrats’ apparent madness. If they know that President Obama is about to do something that obviously warrants impeachment–asserting the right to rule by executive decree, and repealing the nation’s immigration laws by fiat–perhaps it is shrewd on their part to preemptively attack the idea of impeachment and commit Republicans to the fact that they have no thought of any such thing. Then, when Obama makes his move, it will be harder for Republicans to switch gears and start talking about removing him from office. That strikes me as the most logical explanation for the Democrats’ well-coordinated, but seemingly pointless, anti-impeachment campaign.
No overwhelming public outcry. During Watergate, citizens were almost ready to march on Washington if Nixon wasn't ousted.
Now? Pfffft.
The difference? Several.
1. The press pounded Nixon day and night. 2. More people remembered how the government should work. 3. Republicans realized that Nixon had broken the law and should go.
1. Never happen with obama, no matter what he does. 2. Now too many see the government as their gravy train. 3. When did you ever see democrats do anything but reelect or promote one of their crooks.
God help us.
Great post Henry. So so true
That's why they have no credibility.
