Showing posts with label Obama doctrine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama doctrine. Show all posts

Friday, April 6, 2012

President Obama: Rise of the Petty Dictator (Infowars)

Patrick Henningsen
Infowars.com
April 3, 2012

Many a constitutional scholar were left with their jaws hanging near their ankles following Obama’s press conference on the White House lawn yesterday, where he railed against Supreme Court, describing their potential to overturn his Obamacare as that of an “Unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constitutional and passed law.”

According to the President, it would be “unprecedented” for the Supreme Court to overturn his health care law. His preemptive strike against the Supreme Court should worry more people than opponents of Obamacare.

What is most amazing is that this statement comes from someone who purports to have taught Constitutional Law at University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. One might come to conclusion that Obama had someone else take his law exams, not least because the Supreme Court’s ability to overturn such legislation hasn’t been “unprecedented” since Marbury v. Madison in 1803.

Even more disturbing than his individual display of legislative incompetency, or the chief executive’s own summary ignorance of history, is an inability to grasp the over arching concept of separation of powers, also known as “checks and balances”, which is the keystone of an American constitutional republic. The Constitution does not explicitly say whether any branch of government should rule over another, but James Madison, in the Federalist Papers, did hint that “it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.”

This would probably be a good opportunity to remind the 44th President and his White House cadre that a separation of powers exists and is outlined in the United States Constitution which describes the relationship between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government.

Simply put, these three branches of government are kept distinct from one another to prevent an abuse of power by either branch. To counter-balance this danger, federal legislative courts were founded and designed to adjudicate on questions of the public’s rights as determined by the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

In short, the Constitutional provisions are there so that citizens may determine their own destiny – as opposed to a destiny dictated by a despot in the White House, or a corrupted Congress and Senate.

Why a petty dictator? If the President were a proper dictator he would simply begin his purge and declare himslef ‘President for Life’. But this power-grab is more subtle. This President is using dizzying legalese and covert manipulation in order to further weaken the fundamental law of the land – our Constitution, a document which is God given and ultimately serves to protect citizens’ indivual rights.

Obama’s harrowing comment yesterday allude to just that – what critics of Obamacare cite as a federalized power-grab, whereby Washington would dictate to each American citizen what- and which type of healthcare insurance policy he or she must purchase annually according to a federal mandate.

In the President’s case, his own record of executive abuse of power has come in the form of his endless signing statements and non-democratic executive orders...

(click here to read the full article)

Thursday, January 5, 2012

We can`t afford to wage two wars simultaneously, welcome to reality and the new Obama doctrine

President Obama speaks during a news briefing Thursday.
image: ny daily news/PABLO MARTINEZ MONSIVAIS/AP
President Obama speaks during a news briefing Thursday.


Declaring that "the tide of war is receding," President Obama Thursday ordered a shift from the nation's longstanding capability to fight two major conflicts at once.
President plans to cut half a million troops and says US can't afford to wage two wars at once
RUPERT CORNWELL
FRIDAY 06 JANUARY 2012
The Independent

The mighty American military machine that has for so long secured the country's status as the world's only superpower will have to be drastically reduced, Barack Obama warned yesterday as he set out a radical but more modest new set of priorities for the Pentagon over the next decade.


After the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that defined the first decade of the 21st century, Mr Obama's blueprint for the military's future acknowledged that America will no longer have the resources to conduct two such major operations simultaneously.


Instead, the US military will lose up to half a million troops and will focus on countering terrorism and meeting the new challenges of an emergent Asia dominated by China. America, the President said, was "turning the page on a decade of war" and now faced "a moment of transition". The country's armed forces would in future be leaner but, Mr Obama pointedly warned both friends and foes, sufficient to preserve US military superiority over any rival – "agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies and threats".

...The "Obama Doctrine" reflects three basic realities. First, the long post-9/11 wars are finally drawing to a close. The last US troops have already left Iraq, while American combat forces are due to be out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014 (though a limited number may stay on as trainers and advisers).


Second, and as the President stressed in a major speech during his recent visit to Australia, America's national interest is increasingly bound up with Asia, the world's economic powerhouse, and where many countries are keen for a greater US commitment as a counterweight to China.


Third, and most important, are the domestic financial facts of life, at a moment when government spending on every front is under pressure. For years the Pentagon has been exempt - but no longer, as efforts multiply to rein in soaring federal budget deficits.


At $662bn, Pentagon spending for fiscal 2013 will exceed the next 10 largest national defence budgets on the planet combined. Even so, that sum is $27bn less than what President Obama wanted, and $43bn less than the 2012 budget.
(click here to read the full article)



image source: the independent