The Tennessean makes no endorsement in presidential race

 The Tennessean today announced they were making no endorsement for president. I am pleased. I find both candidate so despicable, I will not be voting for the lesser of two evils, if I could figure out which one that might be. It looks like The Tennessean also finds them both despicable. The paper criticized Trump for his charge the election was rigged and says, "Trump's escalation of his already ugly, misogynistic, dishonest, racist, bigoted and self-aggrandizing rhetoric threatens the very ideas this country was founded upon." They go on to say, "Trump will prove to be the least worthy major political party candidate ever to have run for the highest office in the land."

Of HIllary, The Tennessean says, "Democrat Hillary Clinton has a distinguished public service record as a First Lady, U.S. Senator and U.S. Secretary of State. However, the personal email server scandal, her penchant for secrecy and her trustworthiness should give Americans pause."

The Tennessean  has almost always endorsed Democrats for president but in 2012 they endorsed Mitt Romney over Barack Obama.  This is the first time the paper has made no endorsement. The paper had several opinion pieces from staff writers and community figures making endorsements. Here are the link:

• Tennessean Opinion Editor David Plazas: The Case for Hillary Clinton
• Tennessee Sen. Mae Beavers: The Case for Donald Trump
• Tennessean Metro Columnist Frank Daniels III: The Case for Gary Johnson
• Businessman and Political Fund-raiser Bill Freeman: The Case for Hillary Clinton
• Retired Dentist Dr. Stephen Morris: The Case for Donald Trump
• Political Activist Hannah Cox: The Case for Gary Johnson

Across the country several newspapers that normally endorse Republicans made of point of making no endorsement this year.  I have heard no news of other papers that normally endorse Democrats failing to make an endorsement.

The Tennessean's non endorsement will probably not impact election results.  Davidson County will still vote for Hillary Clinton and Tennessee will still vote for Donald Trump.  Newspapers simply do not have the same political clout they had once upon a time.  For myself, I am writing in Evan McMullin. I know it is a long shot but I am not going to vote for the lesser of two evils. I have a clear conscience with my choice.

Top Stories

Marsha Blackburn's response to President Obama's "leadership" on addressing radical Islamic extremism

From Marsha Blackburn:



In the aftermath of the attacks carried out by radical Islamic extremists that killed and wounded hundreds in Paris, President Barack Obama stood before the world to issue America's response. But instead of taking a hardline stand against violent acts of terrorism, the President timidly and absurdly claimed that the upcoming summit on "climate change" would be a strong "rebuke" to international terrorists.

Then came the savage San Bernardino attack where 14 people were killed and 21 injured by two radical Islamic terrorists – and it took Barack Obama four days to respond and admit what most Americans already knew – it was a terrorist attack. The President was more interested in taking a cynically opportune shot at Americans' Second Amendment rights than he was about the evil ideology behind the attack!

Unfortunately for the American people, their fearful leader is in denial about the threat terrorism poses to our country. That's why I'm contacting you today – I need you to partner with me to wake up the White House. Will you take a moment to watch my response to President Obama's "leadership" on addressing radical Islamic extremism?
Americans want to see leadership that will communicate the message that we are going to find these terrorists, we're going to destroy them and we're going to destroy their networks. But that is not what the president has been saying. He's too focused on pushing his globalist agenda of bringing thousands of Muslim refugees to the U.S. and crippling our economy with radical environmentalist overreach.

President Barack Obama needs to be reminded that his most important duty as Commander-in-Chief is to protect and look after the best interests of the American people above all else. Will you help me make it clear to President Obama that he must prioritize our safety and prosperity by watching my response to the recent attacks and then add your name if you agree, today?

 I'm determined to continue standing up in Congress to demand accountability from leadership in Washington, DC - from Capitol Hill to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but I sure could use your support. After watch my video and add your name, can I also count on you to make a generous contribution of $25, $50, $75, $100 or even more to my 2016 campaign preparations as well?

Thank you – please respond today!
Sincerely, Marsha Blackburn
Congressman Marsha Blackburn

P.S.  Barack Obama only has one year left to improve on his abysmal record – let's urge him to begin now! Watch my response and add your name to the fight if you agree today!

Top Stories

Senator Corker: I think it's incredibly poor judgment by the administration...not to seek aggressively and explicitly an authorization for the use of military force.

Bob Corker

Senator Bob Corker who is the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, issued the following statement following President Obama’s address to the nation regarding the U.S. strategy against the terrorist organization the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (ISIS):

While much of the wording in the president’s speech was good, the substance of how we accomplish what he laid out is what matters. I believe the president is exercising poor judgment by not explicitly seeking an authorization from Congress where consensus can be reached around a substantive plan of action and support can be built for an operation that he has described will take several years.

I agree with Senator Corker. I basically liked what President Obama had to say. I wish he would have had a little more fire in the belly.  I liked VP Biden's "Gates of Hell" speech better.  I wish Obama would have said we are at war with ISIS and those who share the philosophy of radical Islam.  I did not like that he said ISIS was neither Islamic or a state.  ISIS may be a perversion of Islam, but obviously it is Islamic. While most of the worlds 1.6 million Muslims do not advocate a violent take over of the world and killing apostates and imposing Sharia law, a significant minority do.  Saying ISIS is not Islamic is on the same par as are those who claim Islam is not even a religion.

So, while I quibble with some of Obama's delivery and wording, I don't basically disagree with what he had to say.  I just wish I could believe him.  Remember the redline?  Also, a couple days before his speech he said we had no strategy. Even if that is true, why would he say it?  That does not inspire confidence. And, he refuses to use the word "war," but at least he has overcome his reluctance to use the word "terrorism." Obama is just not a believable leader. He appears detached, weak, unreliable, and indecisive.  He is not someone you would want to follow into battle.  I don't think he can rally allies or the American people.

Will his plan work?  I don't know. What should we do. I don't know that either?  I have read a lot about the situation since the speech and have watched numerous talk shows, shows with shouting, interrupting loud mouths and shows on CSPAN with academics from think tanks, and I don't think anyone knows what we should do. Any coalition of opponents of ISIS contains elements that might be as bad as ISIS if they had the chance. Some of those who want to defeat ISIS are loyal to Iran. I wonder if there are any "good guys" in that conflict. It looks like the best bet is to support the Free Syrian Army, but they contain elements that are radical.  If they are defeated, any armament we give them would fall into the hands of ISIS or some other radical group.

I agree with those who are war weary and do not want to see large number of boots on the ground. On the other hand, I disagree with those isolationist of the left and the right who say we should withdraw and mind our own affairs.  This is our war.  ISIS has said they are at war with us.  We have been fortunate that we have not had another major terrorist attack since 9-11 but if we give the radicals Islamist a safe haven to plan and launch their next attack we may be hit even harder next time.  Also, if the radical Islamist are not defeated their movement may grow and other countries may fall victim to the same ideology, if not a group flying the ISIS flag. We cannot withdraw to fortress America. If we do go in and defeat ISIS however, then what? Are we going to hang around and nation-build for the next 20 years? And if we do not, will another conflict break out with a new radical Islamic group threatening to take over as  soon as we leave? I don't know, but I don't think anyone knows.

I do agree with those who have said we pulled out of Iraq too early and who say we should have left a much larger residual force in Iraq. I also agree with those who say we should never have invaded Iraq in the first place. Both of those things did happen however, and now we must move forward and deal with the situation at hand.  There are those who want a much larger commitment of troops now. I am not with them.  I say, let us see if this measured approach proposed by Obama works.  Maybe it will or maybe he will keep the lid on and kick the can down the road until the next President can deal with it.  Maybe, his plan will not be working and he will gradually increase advisors and trainers and intelligence officers until we are again drawn into a situation like Iraq was before we began withdrawing. I am not convinced this is the right strategy, but I don't see any alternative I like any better.

So, given the Presidents plan is the only plan on the table, does he need Congressional authority to act. Technically, probably not. I know there are some who believe the President does not have the authority to commit troops without a declaration of war. I don't think history bears that out. We fought the American Indian wars, the Barbary pirates and numerous conflicts since without a declaration of war. Since the founding of our nation we have had over 100 military conflicts and only five declarations of war. However, in many conflicts we have had Congressional authority to commit forces. As Commander in Chief, the President can commit troops without a declaration of war. The War Powers Act of 1973  requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. If that is not given, then the President has 30 days to withdraw the troops.

President Obama has said he will not request Congressional authority. He claims he already has it  based on the thirteen-year-old 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force act as authority for the military action. That act was to allow President George W. Bush to go after Al Qaeda and the Taliban who provided a safe haven for Al Qaeda. The act was written in broad language  to allow the executive branch to go after anyone associated with the 9/11 attack. That act was not only used to justify going to war in Afghanistan to topple the Taliban regime, but also to attack Al Qaeda and “associated groups” in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen.  On the basis that ISIS is group that was formerly part of Al Qaeda, the President says that gives him the authority he needs. This is ironic.  President Obama has been critical of that 2001 AUAF act and as late as last year said he wanted the act repealed.

So, while the President does not necessarily require a new congressional authority, I think he would be wise to seek it. I guess mindful of the next election, he wants to avoid putting Democrat Senators on the line. Already having to defend Obamacare, their reelection may be more difficult if they have to defend an authorization of military force in Syria.  I don't think either Republican or Democrats want to have to take a stand. Voting for or against a Presidential request for authority to commit forces could hurt the election chances of incumbent Republicans or Democrats. It could cut both ways.  However, I think it is the right thing to do. I want a debate and I want members of Congress to take a stand. There needs to be some American buy-in to this course of action and the way we show that in our Representative democracy is for the Congress to speak. Before America commits forces, Congress should vote on it.

Senator Corker told CBS news on Thursday the President should request Congressional authority to use forces. "Triple underline -- I think it's incredibly poor judgment by the administration...not to seek aggressively and explicitly an authorization for the use of military force," in Iraq and Syria, he said. "Things are going to go wrong, let's face it. I mean, any time there's kinetic activity, problems occur. And I just think the administration would be so much wiser to get that authorization and buy-in from Congress on the front end, instead of having, over time, 535 Monday-morning quarterbacks."

I think Corker is exactly right. There is a lot of criticism now of the presidents plan. There are some who think we ought to do much more and some who think we should do nothing.  This engagement in a new war should not be up to the discretion of one man.  President Obama should ask for authority and Congress needs to debate the issue and either give the President the authority he ask for or not give him the authority and take the blame for doing nothing.

For more information and source of quotes, follow this link, and this link.
Follow this link to view Vice President Joe Biden's Gates of Hell speech.
Follow this link to view President Obama's speech to the Nation regarding ISIS.
Follow this link for more on President Obama's use of the 2001 AUAF act to justify action in Syria.

Top Stories

Benghazi coverup could lead to impeachment

The smoking gun of the withheld email concerning Benghazi talking points could be the piece of evidence that may lead to an impeachment of the president. In an article published in  American Thinker, we are reminded that this was article 1 of the Richard Nixon articles of impeachment: 

 withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States.

That is clearly what has happened with the Benghazi investigation. The emails were subpoenaed and withheld.  The Obamamedia has refused to engage in investigative journalism or even be curious and has constantly covered for the president. Scandals, abuse of executive authority, and failure to follow the law have been treated as right wing delusional conspiracy theories. As American Thinker suggest, " the competitive instincts of the journalism pack may be released, at least among some who have not completely signed on to the proposition that The First Black President must be protected at all costs." As least we can hope that there are limits to how far the President can go in abusing his authority before even the liberal press corp says that it is too much. We may have reached the tipping point. 

Top Stories

Boehner On New Obamacare Delay: ‘What the Hell Is This? A Joke?’ (VIDEO)

House speaker John Boehner (R–Ohio) ridiculed the latest Obamacare delay today, sarcastically saying that President Obama “hasn’t put enough loopholes into the law already. The administration is now resorting to an honor system to enforce it.”

Yesterday, The Washington Post reported that people would be allowed to sign up for Obamacare past the March 31 deadline, as long as they stated they had tried to sign up before.

“This is part of a long-term pattern of this administration manipulating the laws for its own convenience,” Boehner added, “and it’s not hard to understand why the American people question this administration’s commitment to the rule of law.”

I believe this is the 38th unilateral change President Obama has made to the health care law. This is contempt for the rule of law.  Obama is not acting like a president who is the leader of a democracy but like a king with absolute authority.  

Top Stories

When Presidents Upheld the Law

The Foundry, Morning Bell - Today is known as “President’s Day,” a three-day weekend retailers use to lend an air of Founding-era seriousness to their sales. But its legal name is Washington’s birthday—and how appropriate to reflect on a President who took his bearings from the Constitution while serving in office.

George Washington “understood himself to be the President of a Republic in which the people, through their elected representatives in Congress, make laws,” Heritage’s David Azerrad writes. As the chief executive, Washington recognized that his constitutional charge to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” was a duty rather than an optional responsibility to exercise at will. Laws, no matter how unpopular, had to be upheld, so long, of course, as they were constitutional.

Perhaps no law was more despised in Washington’s time than the excise tax on whiskey. It fell especially hard on farmers on the frontier of Pennsylvania, for whom whiskey was the drink of choice and grain the most lucrative crop. Washington saw the farmers’ violent resistance to the tax—the so-called Whiskey Rebellion—as a direct threat to the rule of law.

If “the laws are to be so trampled upon with impunity,” Washington noted, “nothing but anarchy and confusion is to be expected hereafter.” The President’s response was therefore swift and forceful: He personally led more than 12,000 troops to western Pennsylvania and quashed the rebellion.

What a contrast to President Barack Obama’s “I can do whatever I want” attitude toward the rule of law. In light of Washington’s constitutional leadership, Obama’s dereliction of duty when it comes to enforcing Obamacare—today’s most unpopular law and the President’s namesake—is especially clear. The President has unilaterally made changes to the law that was passed by Congress.


Other examples of the President’s selective enforcement of laws duly passed by Congress abound. Among those cited by legal experts Elizabeth Slattery and Andrew Kloster:

• Abdicating the Administration’s duty to defend and enforce federal laws.
• Gutting the work requirement from welfare reform.
• Implementing the DREAM Act granting amnesty to some illegal immigrants by executive fiat.

“We are not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help that they need,” Obama announced last month.

It is inconceivable that such words would have ever come out of President Washington’s mouth. The current occupant of the White House may want to take some time today to read up on how our first and greatest President understood his role.

Top Stories

Who were the Pro-Obama protestors at the Presidents Nashville McGavock visit?

Darlene Shelton told Tennessee Watchdog that Organizing
 for Action, designed to promote  President Obama’s
agenda, is spreading throughout
Tennessee.

By Chris Butler,  Tennessee Watchdog, NASHVILLE — Eager tea party protesters went toe-to-toe in Nashville Thursday against a progressive nonprofit, Organizing for Action, devoted solely to advancing President Barack Obama’s agenda — while both groups waited for Obama’s motorcade to pass them by.

This story, however, doesn’t quite play out the way you might expect. Both groups held signs either for or against Obama, although the OFA clearly had an advantage with professionally made signs, while tea partiers’ signs were mostly homemade.

Both organizations say they are grassroots.
And while both groups are nonprofits, Time magazine recently documented that one of them has very wealthy financial backers.

Obamacare supporter Edward Adam told Tennessee
 Watchdog that Obama’s intentions are good.

And no, tea partiers are not the recipients of this largess, and the Koch brothers are not the financial backers in question.

Actually, OFA received $21 million last year from 19 wealthy businessmen and women, all of whom donated or raised amounts ranging from $100,000 to $500,000 each, Time reported. Newsweb Corp. CEO Fred Eychaner, for instance, donated $500,000.

One of the OFA protesters in Nashville, Darlene Shelton, told Tennessee Watchdog that the nonprofit has established itself at chapters all over Tennessee, including  Knoxville, Murfreesboro, Franklin and, recently, Nashville.

Tea Party members awaiting President Obama’s motorcade
 in Nashville Thursday said they were very careful about making
 sure the mainstream media didn’t portray them in an unflattering light

“We recruit people. We have phone banking. We call different people to get them involved and volunteer,” Shelton said.

“We then call representatives and try to get them to push for the issues that the president has set forth. We are the ones who voted for him.”

According to its website , OFA operates as a social welfare organization, as a 501(c)(4). The Huffington Post reports that OFA operates  Obama’s Twitter account. The organization’s Facebook page for Tennessee, which has more than 7,000 followers, seems to revolve around the personalities of Obama and his wife, Michelle, and their pet political platforms.
 
‘Well-intentioned’

Obama came to Nashville Thursday to speak at that city’s McGavock High School about jobs.

Despite sharply differing political views, the pro-Obama supporters
 and the Tea Party protestors managed to have civil discourse with
 one another. In this photo a man who identified himself only as
 “Joe Citizen” speaks to an unidentified Obama supporter

Edward Adam, a 2003 graduate of the school who didn’t say if he belonged to OFA, held up a sign promoting Obamacare and said it has improved his life — even though he later said something that seemed to call that testimony into question.

“I’m getting better from a situation where I needed health care, and I didn’t have it before, but now I can take care of my medical issues. I don’t know why anybody would want to protest it,” Adam said, when asked about the new law.


But does he have health insurance only because of Obamacare?  “Well, I already had it through my work,” Adam said.

“Obama means well. He is well-intentioned and he is only trying to help people advance beyond where we were under Bush.”

Meanwhile, on the tea party side of the road, protesters, who were greater in number, said they had to exercise due diligence and warn others not to hold inflammatory signs. To do otherwise could invite trouble from the mainstream media, they said.

Tea Party member Mel London (front) said  the only 
offensive signs he saw while awaiting President Obama’s 
motorcade were the ones being held by the people behind him.

“It’s just a matter of not having signs that are crass and tasteless,” said Ben Cunningham, president of the Nashville-based Tennessee Tax Revolt.

“If somebody puts up something that’s over the top then that will be the media’s story. The message we want to get across is our opposition to the president’s agenda.”

Another tea partier, Scott Nicoll, of Manchester, told Tennessee Watchdog he has personally witnessed national mainstream media outlets distort the nature of tea party movement protests he participated in while visiting Washington, D.C.

Darlene Shelton told Tennessee Watchdog that Organizing
for Action, designed to promote President Obama’s agenda,
is spreading throughout Tennessee.

“With every protest I’ve been to the news has been that we are violent or ignorant. They claimed that racism was prevalent,” Nicoll said. “As a matter of fact I was right next to a black man protesting with me. If we don’t show up then the media will just say that we don’t care anymore. Either way, it’s going to be negative.”

Another tea partier, Mel London, who is black, said he saw only a few hateful signs.
“You see those signs over there that say ‘Go Forward with Obama’?” he asked, while pointing. Those are the only destructive signs here that I see.”

Contact Christopher Butler at chris@tennesseewatchdog.org or follow him and submit story ideas onhis official Facebook page.

Top Stories

Anti-Obama protesters turn out to greet the president.

I attended the anti-Obama protest today across the street from McGavock High School.  I arrived at about 1PM and had to leave to get back to work about 2PM, so I did not get to stay until President Obama arrived. I don't think I missed much however. The Presidents motorcade did not go past the protesters. Protesters were required to protest on McGavovk and the President entered the school grounds from Two Rivers Parkway and was protected from seeing the protesters.

Ben Cunningham talking to the press.

The announced start of the protest was 1PM, so I doubt the crowd grew after the time I left.  There was a brief program: Pray, pledge, brief remarks by organizer Ben Cunningham, remarks by State Rep Joe Carr who is running against Senator Lamar Alexander and someone else who I do not recall. I mingled and chatted with people and enjoyed the camaraderie. There were about, maybe 150 anti-Obama protesters, and about maybe 30 generally pro-Obama demonstrators, and about 30 or so Hispanics demonstrating for amnesty and chanting, "keep families together."   Here are some pictures I took and a YouTube video I found and chopped.
For news reports on the President's visit follow these links: here, here, and here.


For news reports on the Presidents visit follow these links: here, here, and here.

Here is Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey's Facebook comment on the Presidents visit:

I would like to welcome the President to Tennessee. Tennessee balances its budget, pays its debts, cuts taxes and saves for a rainy day. President Obama vehemently opposes these concepts. I hope the President doesn't just speak when he touches down in our great state, but looks, listens and absorbs the lessons of conservative government.

Obama's liberal vision forced conservative Democrats to flee their party and join the GOP. The contrast between Tennessee's conservative success and President Obama's liberal failure could not be more striking. I appreciate this opportunity for voters to see this comparison up close and personal.

Tennessee Watchdog U.S. Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Memphis, (in the car) had an up-close

 encounter with the Tea Party in Nashville today while stalled in traffic to see President Obama.

Top Stories

That pen he bragged about doesn't seem so mighty

President Barack Obama will sign an executive order setting the minimum wage for workers under new federal contracts at $10.10 an hour, the White House said Tuesday. The president will announce the increase during his State of the Union address.

The increase from a national minimum wage of $7.25 an hour will not affect existing federal contracts, only new ones. Moreover, contract renewals will not be affected unless other terms of the agreement change.

The order would be one of the biggest examples in the State of the Union of Obama’s vow to use presidential authority to push for policies by circumventing Congress. (link)

That pen he bragged about doesn't seem so mighty if that is all he is going to do. It looks like I got all worked up over nothing. From his macho bravado about having a pen and not afraid to use it, I was expecting rule by executive fiat. I was expecting a real constitutional crisis and a need for massive resistance.  Based on the way he has already violated the constitution by not following the Affordable Care Act, by failing to not enforce immigration laws, and by making recess appointments when congress was not in recess, I expected escalated constitutional violations.  If this is his first shot at using his mighty pen, then I am pleasantly relieved. 

Top Stories

President Obama to speak at McGavock High on Thursday

The Tennessean - President Barack Obama will speak at McGavock High School when he visits Nashville on Thursday, the White House said Sunday night.

The White House didn’t provide any other details about the speech or about the president’s visit to the city, which an Obama adviser announced in an email to supporters Saturday.

McGavock, one of the largest high schools in the state, is among the Metro schools that began using the “career academies” model several years ago, grouping students by their career interests and partnering with private industry for donations of equipment, money and speakers. (link)

Top Stories

Obama is the ultimate "imperial president," willfully violating the Constitution to further his goals. It is time for resistance to this abuse.

From The Christian Science Monitor: 

President Obama’s use of executive action to get around congressional gridlock is unparalleled in modern times, some scholars say. But to liberal activists, he’s not going far enough. 

The president (or his administration) has unilaterally changed elements of the Affordable Care Act (ACA); declared an anti-gay-rights law unconstitutional; lifted the threat of deportation for an entire class of undocumented immigrants; bypassed Senate confirmation of controversial nominees; waived compliance requirements in education law; and altered the work requirements under welfare reform.

This month, the Obama administration took the highly unusual step of announcing that it will recognize gay marriages performed in Utah – even though Utah itself says it will not recognize them while the issue is pending in court.

Early in his presidency, Obama also expanded presidential warmaking powers, surveillance of the American public, and extrajudicial drone strikes on alleged terrorists outside the United States, including Americans – going beyond Mr. Bush's own global war on terror following 9/11. But more recently, he has flexed his executive muscle more on domestic policy.

.... Jonathan Turley, a constitutional scholar at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. "In my view, Obama has surpassed George W. Bush in the level of circumvention of Congress and the assertion of excessive presidential power. I don't think it's a close question."

This presidents refusing to enforce the laws and his policymaking by executive fiat is unprecedented.  When George W. Bush issued controversial signing statements or acted by executive order, the main stream press let us know about it and decried the abuse of power.  Now, the main stream press are cheerleaders for the President. The only time we have seen anything close to such power unilaterally exercised by a President, is in war time by Franklin D. Roosevelt. Now, the President has promised we ain't seen noting yet. This is a recent statement from the President:

.....the fact that we are not just going to be waiting for a legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help that they need. I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone -- and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward in helping to make sure our kids are getting the best education possible and making sure that our businesses are getting the kind of support and help they need to grow and advance to make sure that people are getting the skills that they need to get those jobs that our businesses are creating.(link)

The first action we may see where the President doesn't wait for legislative action uses his pen to bypass congress may be by raising the minimum wage by executive order.  Another action may be to ignore the the debt limit cap, if congress fails to raise the debt ceiling. Also more unilateral action on gay rights and immigration may be in the works.

There are three responses I think we should take in response to the Presidents current level of executive abuse and one to hold in reserve if the rule by executive fiat increases as the President implied it would:

1. Impeach the President. I know the Senate would not convict, but the House could impeach.  This would give an airing to the many abuses of power and may cause the President to curtail new abuses.
2. Elect a Republican Senate in 2014.  With the Senate in Republican hands the President would be less likely to continue his abuse of power.
3. Executive action that is suspected of exceeding constitutional authority should be challenged in Court.  Courts can be slow to act however and while waiting on a court decision Congress and the American people should not stand by and do nothing.
4. If the abuse of power continues and worsens then it is time for civil disobedience and an escalation of resistance.  I am not calling for secession or armed rebellion but massive demonstrations, strikes, occupying of federal building, disruption of the function of government, cyber activism by clogging of government websites and hacking, financial assistance to those who defy illegal executive orders and are fined or arrested, financial assistance to those arrested for civil disobedience, withholding of tax payments and other creative means to air grievances and engage in non-violent resistance. 

I am a person of moderate temperament generally but desperate times call for desperate measures. We cannot stand by and tolerate this level of executive abuse and if the anticipated increased level of executive abuse occurs, it is time for serious resistance. If allowed to stand, the next president will have precedent and may push executive abuse of power to an even higher level.

Top Stories

An Example of how President Obama violates the Constitution and Rules by Executive Fiat

Unions Get Big ObamaCare Christmas Present As Other Self-Insured Groups Get Scrooged 

by Larry Bell, Forbes, 12-22-2013 - As a presumed constitutional scholar, Barack Obama should know that while a president has authority to check the Legislative Branch by recommending legislation to be passed by Congress, or through presidential veto, he or she cannot legislate through executive fiat or pick which parts of the law to comply with or decline. Article 2, Section 3, Clause 5 of our Constitution requires that the president “…shall take care that the Laws be carefully executed.”    It doesn’t limit those laws or encapsulated provisions to the particular ones that he or she likes.

In addition to delaying and rewriting key ACA provisions and carving out a special subsidy for members of Congress, Obama’s latest constitutional violation will exempt unions from a fee the law imposes upon all large group health plans. That provision which appears in Section 1341 (b)(1)(A)  establishes a reinsurance program.... (link)

Top Stories

TNGOP Chairman Chris Devaney Releases Statement Ahead of President Obama’s Press Conference

NASHVILLE, Tenn.—As President Barack Obama prepares to take a two-week Christmas vacation, the White House today scheduled a final press availability for the President before he departs.

The President leaves Washington with a number of matters unsettled. Just yesterday, the White House announced it will circumvent its own health care law once again by granting “hardship exemptions” from ObamaCare’s individual mandate. Earlier in the week, the administration was given a 300-page set of recommendations to overhaul the NSA’s spying program, and the dodgy application of American foreign policy under Obama has lessened our credibility across the globe.

Ahead of the news conference, Tennessee Republican Party Chairman Chris Devaney commented:

With his record of failure in 2013, I understand why President Obama wants to get out of town as quickly as possible. Over five million Americans received an insurance cancellation notice for Christmas this year thanks to ObamaCare and now the President is trying to win back support by strong-arming insurance companies and circumventing the law itself. He continues to preside over a sluggish recovery and his inconsistent foreign policy stances have caused our allies to question our leadership.

Thankfully, in 2014 Americans have a chance to give President Obama the lame duck presidency he deserves by electing Republicans to the US Senate, enlarging our House majority, and electing dedicated conservative Republicans all across Tennessee who will push an agenda of economic growth and individual opportunity--in stark contrast to Obama's big government track record. 

In light of the press conference, it’s worth reviewing President Obama’s whoppers:

Revisiting Obama’s 2013 Whoppers

“President Obama Ended Up With Three Of The Most Misleading Claims Of The Year.” (Glenn Kessler, “The Biggest Pinocchios Of 2013,” The Washington Post’s The Fact Checker, 12/16/13)

Obama’s Broken “Keep Your Plan” Promise 

Obama’s Promise That Americans Could Keep Their Plan “Backfired On Him” Once “Millions Of Americans Started Receiving Cancellation Notices.” “This memorable promise by President Obama backfired on him when the Affordable Care Act went into effect and millions of Americans started receiving cancellation notices. As we explained, part of the reason for so many cancellations is because of an unusually early (March 23, 2o10) cut-off date for grandfathering plans—and also because of tight regulations written by the administration.” (Glenn Kessler, “The Biggest Pinocchios Of 2013,” The Washington Post’s The Fact Checker, 12/16/13)

See a helpful list of all the 2013 whoppers by clicking here.

Top Stories

"If you like your plan, you can keep it," compilation

There’s just one thing missing at the end: Joe Wilson’s clip, yelling, “You LIE!”

Top Stories

Barack Obama on voting against increasing the debt limit

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about America's debt problem.

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies.

Over the past 5 years, our federal debt has increased by $3.5 trillion to $8.6 trillion. That is "trillion" with a "T." That is money that we have borrowed from the Social Security trust fund, borrowed from China and Japan, borrowed from American taxpayers. And over the next 5 years, between now and 2011, the President's budget will increase the debt by almost another $3.5 trillion.

Numbers that large are sometimes hard to understand. Some people may wonder why they matter. Here is why: This year, the Federal Government will spend $220 billion on interest. That is more money to pay interest on our national debt than we'll spend on Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. That is more money to pay interest on our debt this year than we will spend on education, homeland security, transportation, and veterans benefits combined. It is more money in one year than we are likely to spend to rebuild the devastated gulf coast in a way that honors the best of America.

And the cost of our debt is one of the fastest growing expenses in the Federal budget. This rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy, robbing our cities and States of critical investments in infrastructure like bridges, ports, and levees; robbing our families and our children of critical investments in education and health care reform; robbing our seniors of the retirement and health security they have counted on. Every dollar we pay in interest is a dollar that is not going to investment in America's priorities. Instead, interest payments are a significant tax on all Americans — a debt tax that Washington doesn't want to talk about. If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we would see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies.

But we are not doing that. Despite repeated efforts by Senators Conrad and Feingold, the Senate continues to reject a return to the commonsense Pay-go rules that used to apply. Previously, Pay-go rules applied both to increases in mandatory spending and to tax cuts. The Senate had to abide by the commonsense budgeting principle of balancing expenses and revenues. Unfortunately, the principle was abandoned, and now the demands of budget discipline apply only to spending. As a result, tax breaks have not been paid for by reductions in Federal spending, and thus the only way to pay for them has been to increase our deficit to historically high levels and borrow more and more money. Now we have to pay for those tax breaks plus the cost of borrowing for them. Instead of reducing the deficit, as some people claimed, the fiscal policies of this administration and its allies in Congress will add more than $600 million in debt for each of the next 5 years. That is why I will once again cosponsor the Pay-go amendment and continue to hope that my colleagues will return to a smart rule that has worked in the past and can work again.

Our debt also matters internationally. My friend, the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, likes to remind us that it took 42 Presidents 224 years to run up only $1 trillion of foreign-held debt. This administration did more than that in just 5 years. Now, there is nothing wrong with borrowing from foreign countries. But we must remember that the more we depend on foreign nations to lend us money, the more our economic security is tied to the whims of foreign leaders whose interests might not be aligned with ours.

Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here.'' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit. 

 - Senator Barack Obama, March 16, 2006

Top Stories

Chattanooga Free Press: Take your jobs plan and shove it, Mr. President

In case you missed it, here is the Chattanooga Free Press editorial welcoming President Obama:

 Take your jobs plan and shove it, Mr. President

 President Obama,

Welcome to Chattanooga, one of hundreds of cities throughout this great nation struggling to succeed in spite of your foolish policies that limit job creation, stifle economic growth and suffocate the entrepreneurial spirit.

Forgive us if you are not greeted with the same level of Southern hospitality that our area usually bestows on its distinguished guests. You see, we understand you are in town to share your umpteenth different job creation plan during your time in office. If it works as well as your other job creation programs, then thanks, but no thanks. We’d prefer you keep it to yourself. (continue reading)

Good editorial! I agree. I am pleased that no Republicans dignitaries were on hand to greet the President. Congressman Jim Cooper and Nashville's mayoral candidate Councilman Megan Barry were there to welcome him.

Top Stories

Tennessee Welcomes Obama With Hundreds of Protesters

From The Liberty Paper .com:

 Tennessee Welcomes Obama With Hundreds of Protesters 

July 30, 2013

President Obama visited Chattanooga, TN today where he visited an Amazon distribution center to announce his new jobs plan. If Obama was expecting an army of supporters- he was surely disappointed. Organizers for the protest originally intended to hold the rally in the parking lot of the distribution center. However, after plans for the protest made headlines the area was closed to the public. Only Obama supporters were allowed in. Not only did citizens act by taking to the streets, but the entire state took action.
Chattanooga Times Free Press, a local news paper, ran a story welcoming Obama to the state. It reads:

 ”President Obama,

Protesters Line Lee Hwy in Chattanooga, Tennessee as Obama Drives by

Welcome to Chattanooga, one of hundreds of cities throughout this great nation struggling to succeed in spite of your foolish policies that limit job creation, stifle economic growth and suffocate the entrepreneurial spirit.
Forgive us if you are not greeted with the same level of Southern hospitality that our area usually bestows on its distinguished guests.”

The Tennessee Republican Party ran television ads in the Chattanooga market  to welcome Obama. One commercial states:

“We’re succeeding in Tennessee. Not because of your liberal policies, but in spite of them.”

Tennessee’s most prominent GOP politicians were sure to stay away from Obama during his visit to the state in an attempt to distance themselves from the President. US senators Bob Corker (R) and Lamar Alexander (R- up for reelection), have been under the gun for voting in favor of the Obama’s policies more than 60% of the time and being named the most liberal GOP senators in the South. Governor Bill Haslam (R) has also been under extreme scrutiny from his constituents for not blocking all aspects of Obamacare in the state when state senators and representatives attempted to nullify it.  

Obama also spoke in favor of the Marketplace Fairness Act, which would tax sales on the internet. This is why President Obama chose to speak at the Amazon warehouse. Senator Alexander, Senator Corker and Governor Haslam are supporting the President’s push to increase taxes on the American people. In fact, Alexander co-wrote the legislation.

The event was coordinated by Matt Collins with Tennessee Campaign for Liberty. Collins says, “Working families just can’t afford another new tax. It’s sad to see Governor Haslam and Senator Alexander pushing President Obama’s agenda by supporting the Internet sales tax.”

The above is reposted from Thelibertypaper.org, in full, unaltered, with an assumption that the editors will not object. Rod

Top Stories

Obama protest in Chattanooga on Tuesday July 30th

President Obama Plans to Visit Amazon Facility in Chattanooga Tuesday, July 30.
Chattanooga Tea Party will hold a Rally to Protest the Disastrous Policies of Barack Obama.

When: Tuesday, July 30, Noon - 2:00PM
Where: Amazon Fulfillment Center
What: Bring family friendly signs, flags, water...
Who: We will have several guest speakers
WHY: "...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Stay tuned for additional updates as situation is fluid. For more information follow this link. 

Top Stories

Barack Obama: "If I had a ...........

"If I had a city, it would look like Detroit." -B.H. Obama

Top Stories

Corker: Further Reduction Of U.S. Nuclear Arsenal Without Modernization First Could Amount To “Unilateral Disarmament”

The Chattanoogan, June 19, 2013 - Responding to President Barack Obama's speech in Berlin signaling further reduction of U.S. nuclear forces, Senator Bob Corker, R-Tn., the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, on Wednesday said any additional limitations of the U.S. nuclear arsenal without first fulfilling commitments to modernization of existing forces could amount to “unilateral disarmament.”  ...(link)


Remarks by President Obama at the Brandenburg Gate: I've determined we can cut 1/3 of nukes.

Excerpts from White House press release- Peace with justice means pursuing the security of a world without nuclear weapons -- no matter how distant that dream may be.  And so, as President, I've strengthened our efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and reduced the number and role of America’s nuclear weapons.  Because of the New START Treaty, we’re on track to cut American and Russian deployed nuclear warheads to their lowest levels since the 1950s.  (Applause.)

But we have more work to do.  So today, I’m announcing additional steps forward.  After a comprehensive review, I’ve determined that we can ensure the security of America and our allies, and maintain a strong and credible strategic deterrent, while reducing our deployed strategic nuclear weapons by up to one-third.  And I intend to seek negotiated cuts with Russia to move beyond Cold War nuclear postures.  (Applause.)

At the same time, we’ll work with our NATO allies to seek bold reductions in U.S. and Russian tactical weapons in Europe.  And we can forge a new international framework for peaceful nuclear power, and reject the nuclear weaponization that North Korea and Iran may be seeking. (link)

My Comment: I supported the last New Start treaty primarily because it was supported by the last six Republican Secretaries of State. I trust them, more than I trust the critics of Start. I also think the World would be a safer place with fewer nuclear weapons. However, along with approval of the last Start treaty, we were supposed to spend up to $85 billion dollars to test and modernize our nuclear arsenal.  Unless that has been done, we should not begin negotiations on further reductions. I'm glad we have Bob Corker as ranking Republican member of the Foreign Relations Committee.

One thing that continues to gall me about President Obama is his arrogance. Instead of saying, "I've determined...," why not say, "We have determined that a reduction of one-third of the ....," or why not say, "The State Department has concluded.." or "in the opinion of our arms control experts..."

There is a difference between self confidence and arrogance.  Obama is arrogant. "I've determined" sounds like the statement of an emperor.

Top Stories