'I, Barack Hussein Obama...' Betraying Oath and Country

[Warph]

"The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People, is sacredly obligatory upon all." --George Washington (1796)

In 1776, an extraordinary group of Patriots signed our Declaration of Independence, thereby affirming their unalienable right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as "endowed by our Creator," not man. A decade later, their Liberty won at great cost, our Founders enshrined that Liberty in the form of our Constitution.

As written and ratified, our Constitution stipulates in its preface that it is "ordained and established" by the people to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." To that end, it established a Republic, not a popular democracy, which is to say it affirmed the primacy of Rule of Law over the rule of men.

Accordingly, the first order of business for those elected to national office is that they be bound by oath to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution under which they were duly elected.

Since our founding, every president has taken a sacred and solemn oath, as prescribed in Article II, Section 1, which specifies: "Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: 'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.'"

Prior to delivery of his Second Inaugural Address Monday, Barack Hussein Obama was administered his oath1. by U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts. It is dedication and allegiance to that oath of office which, first and foremost, defines the presidential character of all who have taken it.

In the case of Barack Obama, every day of his administration has been defined by the abject violation of that oath.

In his inaugural remarks2., Obama bookended his agenda with Declaration- and Constitution-affirming aphorisms, in fitting tribute to our Founders. But every word between those bookends reflected a lifetime of Leftist mentoring, and was, accordingly, an affront to Liberty and Obama's oath to support and defend our Constitution.

Obama began his remarks: "Each time we gather to inaugurate a president we bear witness to the enduring strength of our Constitution. ... What makes us exceptional -- what makes us American -- is our allegiance to an idea articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'

"For history tells us that while these truths may be self-evident, they've never been self-executing; that while freedom is a gift from God, it must be secured by His people here on Earth. The Patriots of 1776 did not fight to replace the tyranny of a king with the privileges of a few or the rule of a mob. They gave to us a republic, a government of, and by, and for the people, entrusting each generation to keep safe our founding creed. And for more than two hundred years, we have."

All well and good, but then Obama devoted the body of his inaugural agenda to the evisceration of the Liberty proclaimed in our Declaration and codified in our Constitution.

It is not that Obama's overt intent was to shred our Constitution, per se. It is that he subscribes to the errant notion of a "living constitution," one that can be twisted to mean whatever he and his Leftist cadres want it to mean in order to comport with their statist agenda. In other words, he subscribes to the rule of men over Rule of Law.

In the second of his two autobiographies, "The Audacity of Hope," Obama wrote, "[The Constitution] is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world."

He repeated that assertion in the context of his address, saying, "[W]e have always understood that when times change, so must we; that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action. ... Being true to our founding documents does not require us to agree on every contour of life. It does not mean we all define liberty in exactly the same way or follow the same precise path to happiness. Progress does not compel us to settle centuries-long debates about the role of government for all time, but it does require us to act in our time."

Our Founders did not establish a Constitution in order to facilitate a "centuries-long debate about the role of government." On the contrary, our Constitution clearly enumerates the role of government, but Obama insists that he be the arbiter of that role. And, as for how we "define liberty," undoubtedly Obama also aspires to have his definition be the universal standard.

The only "debate," then, is to what extent Obama and the Left can violate Liberty and the authority of our Constitution before American Patriots rise in protest. The advent of another American Revolution to re-establish our nation's First Principles, is a perpetual check against tyranny, as discomforting as that thought might be for some.

As Thomas Jefferson noted in the year our Constitution was written, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." And on that note, make no mistake: Obama's current assault on the Second Amendment has nothing to do with "keeping children safe from harm," and everything to do with the confiscation of the type of weapons that have one primary purpose under the Second Amendment -- defending our Constitution.

Obama and his ideological Marxists have overtaken the once-noble Democratic Party, and converted it to the Socialist Democratic Party. The consequences have been devastating for those he ostensibly serves, particularly for his most loyal constituency -- black Americans, 93 percent of whom voted for Obama.

Obama's inaugural was "celebrated" on the day set aside to remember the civil rights struggle, and its primary protagonist, Martin Luther King. MLK proclaimed famously, "I have a dream that my children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." But Obama has done nothing to advance that proclamation, instead, affirming the statist status of most blacks, who, in effect, are enslaved on urban plantations.

Obama maintains this most loyal constituency by maintaining the "victim status" of black people, thus ensuring they are judged by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character -- the antithesis of MLK's dream.

Democratic Socialism, like Nationalist Socialism, is nothing more than Marxist Socialism repackaged. It seeks a centrally planned economy directed by a dominant-party state that controls economic production by way of taxation, regulation and income redistribution.

Obama's closing bookend began with the assertion, "My fellow Americans, the oath I have sworn before you today, like the one recited by others who serve in this Capitol, was an oath to God and country, not party or faction. And we must faithfully execute that pledge during the duration of our service."

But Obama's allegiance is most assuredly to "party" and "faction," in part two of his quest for "fundamentally transforming the United States of America."

He ended his inaugural remarks claiming, "You and I, as citizens, have the power to set this country's course. ... With common effort and common purpose, with passion and dedication, let us answer the call of history and carry into an uncertain future that precious light of freedom."

Translation: He and his legions of socialists are intent on setting the nation's course, and they will not be deterred by the Rule of Law. These are words spoken with the arrogance of a man who believes he is worshipped by all the people, rather than one who was re-elected to office by a narrow, naive and dangerously uninformed populist majority.

In his first inaugural address to the nation in 1789, George Washington proclaimed, "The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained."

In his Farewell Address to the nation in 1796, George Washington affirmed, "The Constitution which at any time exists, 'till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People, is sacredly obligatory upon all."

But Obama believes that he dictates the "rules of order," and that the "explicit and authentic act of the whole People" was his marginal re-election, NOT the process of amendment prescribed in Article V of our Constitution.

Thus, American Patriots from all walks of life must stand ready to defend Liberty, as our Founders did, "with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence." We must, likewise, "mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor" to uphold our Constitution.

For the record, I have taken my oath to support and defend our Constitution nine times in the service of my community, my state and my country. I honor my oath every day, and stand ready with more than 60 million armed Patriots, to support and defend it! To that end, I recall the words of Thomas Paine: "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace."

Footnotes:
1. Obama again fumbled the recitation of his oath, as he did in 2009. This time he was unable to say "United States" correctly, and smirked. I mention this because there are two distinct "poker tells" that betray Obama's efforts to deceive. One is the prolific use of "uh" when he is telling a lie that is not scripted from a teleprompter. The other is when he fumbles the simplest of words, as he did once again with his oath.

2. I did not watch any of the over-the-top inaugural fanfare, including the inauguration itself. I did, however, place my flag at half-mast in mourning for our great nation on Monday. Tuesday, I retrieved the text of Obama's remarks in order to formulate this response.

....Mark Alexander, Patriot Post

[Warph]

All of Obuma's inauguration rabbis were members of the same radical leftist groups opposed to Israel and funded by head clown George Soros.  Obuma deliberately picked three extremist left-wing clergy, "Rabbi" Rick Jacobs, "Rabbi" Julie Schonfeld and "Rabbi" Sharon Brous.  THEIR GOD IS A HUNGARIAN NAZI COLLABORATOR!

"Jacobs and Brous are or were members of the J Street Rabbinic Cabinet, an Anti-Israel organization funded by George Soros.  Rick Jacobs was involved in the New Israel Fund, another extremist left-wing group which funds groups that boycott Israel.  Julie Schonfeld was also involved with the NIF and was on the advisory committee for Jewish Funds for Justice.  Rick Jacobs was on that same advisory committee.
Jewish Funds for Justice is an extreme left-wing group very closely tied to the Soros family.  Soros' son sits on the board of the merged organization of JFJ and the Progressive Jewish Alliance."


Nothing is surprising coming from closet Muslim Barack Insane-Hussein Obama II...NOTHING.  As wicked as he is, he's also very predictable.  I'd have been shocked with anything less than 3 out of 3 fake "religious leaders" to stand in and use to attack Israel and believing Jews.  There may not have been a single Bible-believing soul at that event as far as I can tell.  Not that I'm judging them all, I just hate lying phonies who stand up and act like they represent something in a lead role that they are in fact making a dedicated effort to destroy.  That, my friends, is extremely wicked.  Leftists love it.

...Warph

[Warph]

Obama: Helping Rich Only Thing That "Binds" GOP Together...


He really is the world's biggest a-hole.

Via Politico:

President Obama, speaking to a very friendly Al Sharpton as part of a round with black broadcasters Thursday, offered a harsh assessment of the GOP — arguing that their opposition to taxing the wealthy was the only thing keeping an otherwise deeply divided party from falling apart.

Speaking about the looming sequester deadline, Obama said: "My sense is that their basic view is that nothing is important enough to raise taxes on wealthy individuals or corporations, and they would rather see [billions in sequester cuts to social programs]... That's the thing that binds their party together at this point."

Obama boasted that "75 percent" of the country backed his mix of tax hikes and spending reductions — rejecting Republicans' argument that he needs to pony up more budget and entitlement cuts.

[Warph]

Obuma:Derelict in His Duty As Commander in Chief

Hard-hitting op-ed article about Obama's dereliction of duty, written by William Kristol and Peter Wehner. Kristol is the editor of The Weekly Standard and served in the George H.W. Bush White House. Mr. Wehner is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and served in the George W. Bush White House. Posted at The Wall Street Journal, The Absentee Commander in Chief:

The Defense secretary told the president that Americans in Benghazi were under attack. Then: nothing.

We've both had the honor to work in the White House. We've seen presidents, vice presidents, chiefs of staff and national security advisers during moments of international crisis. We know that in these moments human beings make mistakes. There are failures of communication and errors of judgment. Perfection certainly isn't the standard to which policy makers should be held.

But there are standards. If Americans are under attack, presidential attention must be paid. Due diligence must be demonstrated. A president must take care that his administration does everything it can do. On Sept. 11, 2012, as Americans were under attack in Benghazi, Libya, President Obama failed in his basic responsibility as president and commander in chief. In a crisis, the president went AWOL.

Thanks to the congressional testimony of outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey late last week, we know they met with President Obama on Sept. 11 at 5 p.m. in a pre-scheduled meeting, when they informed the president about the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. The meeting lasted about a half-hour. Mr. Panetta said they spent roughly 20 minutes of the session briefing the president on the chaos at the American Embassy in Cairo and the attack in Benghazi, which eventually cost the lives of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, security personnel Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, and information officer Sean Smith.

Secretary Panetta said the president left operational details, including determination of what resources were available to help the Americans under siege, "up to us." We also learned that President Obama did not communicate in any way with Mr. Panetta or Gen. Dempsey the rest of that evening or that night. Indeed, Mr. Panetta and Gen. Dempsey testified they had no further contact at all with anyone in the White House that evening—or, for that matter, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

That's not all we discovered. We now know that despite Gen. Dempsey having been informed of Ambassador Stevens's repeated warnings about the rise of terrorist elements in Benghazi, no forces were put in place or made ready nearby to respond to possible trouble. It also seems that during the actual attacks in Benghazi, which the administration followed in real time and which lasted for some eight hours, not a single major military asset was deployed to help rescue Americans under assault.

And we learned one other thing: Messrs. Panetta and Dempsey both knew on the night of the assault that it was a terrorist attack. This didn't prevent President Obama, Secretary Clinton and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice from peddling a false version of events in the days and even weeks that followed, as the administration called the incident spontaneous, said there was no evidence of a coordinated terrorist attack and blamed the violence on an anti-Muslim video. So the White House, having failed to ensure that anything was done during the attack, went on to mislead the nation afterward.

Why the deception? Presumably for two reasons. The first is that the true account of events undercut the president's claim during the campaign that al Qaeda was severely weakened in the aftermath of the killing of Osama bin Laden. The second is that a true account of what happened in Benghazi that night would have revealed that the president and his top national-security advisers did not treat a lethal attack by Islamic terrorists on Americans as a crisis. The commander in chief not only didn't convene a meeting in the Situation Room; he didn't even bother to call his Defense secretary or the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Not a single presidential finger was lifted to help Americans under attack.

[Warph]

FORWARD TO DEFEAT



During the Bush administration there were only two American commanders of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. Under Obama there have so far been five. There has been a new ISAF commander nearly every single year that Obama has been in office. The only exception is 2012 when Obama was too busy trying to win an election to bother further sabotaging a losing war.

General McKiernan's firing was put down to the need for fresh ideas. McKiernan was deemed too "old school" because he wanted to fight an old-fashioned war against the Taliban while Obama Inc. believed that the war couldn't be won by beating the Taliban, but by winning the hearts and minds of Afghans. It was a fashionable and doomed strategy that required sacrificing the lives and limbs of thousands of American soldiers to political correctness.

The old-school general who had once said, "I don't understand ever putting your men and women in harm's way, without their having the full ability to protect themselves. That also means operating on actionable intelligence to defeat insurgents, and protect your forces. That's how you keep your soldiers alive," was clearly not the man for that job.

Obama's War on American Generals

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obamas-war-on-american-generals/

[Warph]

It's Saturday and time for a little humor. 
And a screaming goat.  The OTHER one!

Screaming Goat" Version Of Obama's Dire Sequester Warning

And before you knew it, the word got around, the other guys heard
Obuma's speech and... and... well, check it out: