©2022 Liberty Guard, Inc. All rights reserved.
Designed and Developed by Media Bridge LLC
You do not need to retain the services of a high-priced, K-Street consultant (I understand that “high-priced” and “K-Street” are redundant terms) to decipher the tea leaves of yesterday’s mid-year election. The message for the Obama Agenda and those who advocate for it was loud and clear: “Don’t let the door hit you on the way out!”
Last night’s results were a crushing indictment of the Democratic Party’s unquestioning embrace of the incompetence and corruption that has been the proud hallmark of this President. For six long years, voters watched as Democrats abandoned reason and integrity in order to protect “their” President and his agenda at all costs; never blinking in the face of increasing evidence of mismanagement and outright criminal activity in the Executive Branch. What they got for their loyalty was not an impressive track record of legislative victories, but a string of scandals and resignations-in-disgrace; and finally, a resounding rejection by the voters.
By the time the toxicity of the once-ubiquitous “Brand Obama” was clear, even keeping its namesake on the sidelines for the midterms was not enough to uncouple the train car transporting most Democratic incumbents and challengers, and prevent it from crashing off the rails.
Despite the dismal results of the midterms for the President’s Party, however, the writing on the political wall still is not evident to everyone. Die-hard Democrat partisans still cling to the narrative that Obama remains a sort of tragic hero, who after all of the trials and tribulations under which he has suffered, possesses still the courage (and relevancy) to rally his party. “I’m not sitting here blithely telling you we are as awesome as we can be . . . ” one top White House aide told POLITICO, “but, you hit bottom, and then you have the Obama comeback story.”
What worked for Bill Clinton — the so-called “Comeback Kid” of the 1990s, a decade ago — will not work for Barack Obama. Obama is no Bill Clinton.
Whereas Clinton was a consummate and charismatic politician — one who clearly eschewed an ideological agenda in favor of actually winning political victories — Obama remains to his core an arrogant ideologue unwilling to admit mistake; much less a man willing to swallow his pride in order to salvage some success from the embers of a crushing defeat.
We therefore almost certainly will not witness a chastened but optimistic Barack Obama rise from the ashes of his second mid-term election, to work with Republicans to accomplish at least some bipartisan benefits for the American people. Far more likely will be two more years mired in the same, tired routine of deception, bullying, brinksmanship, and unilateral actions.
But where go the Republicans, now that they have captured the brass ring of Senate majority control? Will they unite and govern as Republicans? Or will they be satisfied as so often they have been in the past, to simply cast themselves as Democrat Lite?
Americans truly are hungry for real leadership — the type of leadership that was promised, but never delivered, by the Obama Administration. The sort of leadership often promised, but rarely delivered consistently, by the GOP.
Indeed, the Republican Party has a golden opportunity to write its own comeback story. However, to do so it will have to act out of character and – in the bargain – position itself to beat Hillary Clinton, the all-but-certain Democrat nominee in 2016. Clinton will continue to put as much distance between herself and Obama as humanly possible in the coming months. Republicans will have to develop an actual record of conservative accomplishments if their nominee is to beat her; simply running against Obama – which worked in this mid-term – will not cut it in 2016.
Yesterday’s election victory is but a small prize in a much larger battle for the GOP; one it can hope to win only by recognizing and rejecting the mistakes it has made in the past, when its leaders stressed re-election and raising K-Street dollars to do so, rather than standing by and for a truly conservative legislative record. The jury is still out; but what happens in the upcoming Lame Duck session of Congress, and in the first crucial months of the 114th Congress with the GOP controlling both houses, definitely will signal in which direction the jury is leaning.
Those wild and crazy bureaucrats on the banks of the East River are at it again. The United Nations – a bureaucracy so bloated and byzantine that it makes the United States Senate appear efficient by comparison – is poised to begin tossing legal monkey wrenches into international firearms transactions; and indirectly affecting firearms policies in the United States.
This new phase in international gun control began September 25th when the 50th country ratified the infamous Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) that was adopted formally by the United Nations a year and a half ago (and signed by our own Secretary of State Kerry in September 2013). The process itself began more than a decade ago – in the summer of 2001 – when the UN began formally debating a “Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects.”
Since the UN officially launched that piously-named, multi-year and costly “programme” shortly before the world was turned upside on September 11, 2001, the international anti-gun cartel led by the United Kingdom, Japan, Mexico and other “allies” of the United States, have waited patiently for this day. With the ratification by the governments of at least 50 supporting nations, the deeply anti-Second Amendment ATT now will be subject to implementing conferences and actions with very real consequences.
Those of us in this country who understand and support the concept of “the right to keep and bear arms,” might defer any concern because the Senate has not and likely will not “advise and consent” to the ratification of this thoroughly rotten document. Problem is, the mere fact that John Kerry lent his John Hancock to the ATT makes the United States a “signatory” to it, and is cause for real concern.
The problem is two-fold.
First, virtually all of the ATT-ratifying countries (a number that already has grown to 53, and which will continue to increase as more countries succumb to the siren song of “security through gun control”) engage in trade with the United States; many receive military assistance from us and purchase armaments. Others are countries in which American hunters travel for their sport. Still, other countries in this group might at some point serve as a base in which individuals or groups hostile to the United States hide, and against which we might legitimately seek to take action. Our options in all these circumstances might be severely limited if the ratifying countries comply fully with the myriad terms of the ATT.
American firearms and ammunition manufacturers could in many instances be barred from exporting to, or importing from such countries. American hunters might no longer be able to bring firearms into those countries. And, future administrations might find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to provide defensive armaments to freedom fighters with such countries.
Secondly, because John Kerry signed the treaty on behalf of the United States, according to its terms we are obligated not to “act contrary to” its terms and its referenced and underlying documents. These foundational materials include some of the most blatantly anti-Second Amendment screeds available. Those provisions include numerous detailed gun control measures, including a mandate that all civilian-owned firearms be registered with the national government, severe restrictions on who could possess firearms and what types, and many other deeply anti-freedom restrictions.
The danger is obvious. An anti-Second Amendment administration, such as the current one led by President Barack Obama, could cite such interpretation of the ATT as a pretext for quietly ordering various gun control measures to be undertaken by agencies under its control (such as the State Department and ATF). We all are painfully familiar with the Obama Administration’s penchant for taking substantive actions without benefit of, or in actual contravention to, lawful authority. In its tortured view of executive power, citing an international treaty such as the Arms trade Treaty as justification for limiting Second Amendment rights would be easy.
Notwithstanding the fact that a majority of Senators already are on record committing that they would never vote to ratify the ATT, they and their colleagues in the House of Representatives must take proactive steps to ensure that this Administration – and any future administration – be stopped from implementing any provisions of or supported by the ATT. Our congressional committees must be far more vigilant than they have in the past to monitor ATF, the State Department, and all other federal agencies to ensure they do not take any steps through regulations or other means to implement or enforce any provisions lurking in the ATT. Failure to do so runs the very real risk of surrendering many aspects of our precious Second Amendment-guaranteed rights to a cadre of faceless bureaucrats at the United Nations and in far-flung capital cities around the globe.
Mark Twain once quipped, “If you don’t like the weather in New England, just wait a few minutes.” In Washington, D.C., the same thing can be said for the truth; in a flash, it will change — usually with a forecast of sanctimonious apologies.
The latest example of this phenomenon occurred just last week, when the Central Intelligence Agency’s inspector general revealed that the agency had in fact illegally hacked into computers used by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI); the body designed – ironically — to provide oversight of America’s intelligence agencies. True to Twain’s wry observation, it was only a few months back that such a claim was deemed “beyond the scope of reason” by none other than the CIA Director himself. John Brennan had huffed back then that, “Nothing [like that] could be further from the truth.”
One can reasonably assume Brennan had knowledge of his Agency’s cybercrime before piously denying any wrongdoing; after all, he is the director of the nation’s preeminent spy organization. In fact, this episode fits a well-established pattern by Intelligence Community officials of intentionally deceiving members of Congress, especially those tasked with overseeing their activities. Almost a year to the day earlier than Brennan’s denial, Director of National Intelligence James Clapperperjured himself in front of the House Judiciary Committee regarding illegal snooping by the National Security Agency; a “truth” for which he, too, later was forced to apologize.
For long-time watchdogs of the Intelligence Community, today’s culture of insulated arrogance and disdain for authority is disturbingly familiar. In the late 1970s, I served as Assistant Legislative Counsel at the CIA, and was involved in drafting legislation to provide oversight of our country’s Intelligence Community in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal. Until that time, there was no real oversight of these agencies; a situation that fostered a mentality similar to that found in closed societies in which intelligence agencies operate with impunity.This sea-change resulted in a difficult period of adjustment, but things eventually settled down into a workable, if not completely comfortable relationship. Unfortunately, that system has over the years become largely unproductive.
It now has been more than a generation since America has engaged in a real conversation about the oversight of our intelligence agencies. Clearly, whatever safeguards the SSCI and its House counterpart — the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) – provided, are not working; at least not as intended.
Such is perhaps the inevitable evolution of the uncomfortable but essential need — even in a constitutionally-based free society – for the government to maintain a strong foreign intelligence capability. Maintaining that delicate balance between gathering and utilizing foreign intelligence with the secrecy such operations require, while ensuring accountability and adherence to our constitutionally-guaranteed rights, has never been easy. And the need to regularly and openly reevaluate and reform those agencies, those powers, and those individuals, has never been greater.
Since 9/11, America’s intelligence agencies have become even more powerful and insulated; with secret budgets far in excess of those in place just a few years prior. Advancements in digital technology have made them frighteningly potent — and creative — in how they gather and use the unimaginably massive amounts of information now accessible by them.
Information made public last year by Edward Snowden revealed the National Security Agency already possesses the ability to capture every single phone call made in an entire country. The addition of a $2.0 billion-plus NSA data center in Utah, now in the final stages of construction, ensures all of this data can be collected, data-based, stored in perpetuity, and analyzed as desired.
In spite of indisputable evidence that reform is overdue, Congress and the President continue to dawdle; permitting the agencies to continue to engage in ill-defined and at times illegal projects – masked by a virtually impenetrable veil of secrecy that even some members of congressional intelligence committees are blocked from piercing. Every recent attempt to enact meaningful reform is eithersabotaged from within, or rejected outright.
Having a strong and effective foreign intelligence capability is essential to America’s national security. However, by neglecting its morally- and constitutionally-obligated responsibility for setting clear boundaries for how these agencies operate, contemporary congresses have served as enablers for the type of behavior that culminated in this most recent, direct attack on Congress itself. Aside from some appropriate criticism of Brennan and his agency by at least some members of Congress, recent history affords us little cause for optimism that meaningful reform will result.
In much the same way as former President Bush awarded former CIA Director George Tenet the Medal of Freedom rather than firing him for failing to defend against the 9/11 attacks, Barack Obama effusively praised Brennan after it was revealed the agency he heads spied on the Senate and he then lied about it.
Removing Brennan from office should be but the first in a series of steps by the President and the Congress to conduct a thorough house-cleaning of this important arm of our government. Accountability – which our government rightly demands for Snowden – is and must be made to be a two-way street. A special prosecutor from outside the government should be appointed to oversee a criminal investigation of this latest and serious cyber-attack on the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches of our government. And, until true oversight reform is implemented, Congress should use the power of the purse to cut off funding for programs and offices engaged in illegal and unconstitutional activities.
The time truly has come to end the too-cozy relationship between the watchers and the watched; it is time for oversight of the oversight.
U.S. Generals Douglas MacArthur and George Patton were two of the most brilliant military minds in the history of modern warfare. Under their commands, American forces in Europe and the Far East decimated hundreds of thousands of enemy soldiers, making way for freedom in countries previously ruled by evil tyrants, and preserving our way of life at the same time. An essential element of their strategic approach to warfare was the knowledge that when an enemy is attacking on more than one front, you cannot rely on a single weapon or plan of attack; you must fight with as many options as possible, on as many fronts as you can.
Today, Republicans in Congress could use some of that strategic wisdom in battling a President who is attacking the very foundation of liberty in America from all directions.
There is little question that President Obama is waging total war against the rule of law in America. He uses “Executive Authority” to bypass Congress in making unilateral decisions by decree. He colludes with Democrats in the Senate to create gridlock, providing him more opportunity to justify his unilateral actions. He makes [now illegal] “recess appointments” to stack key government agencies with high-level bureaucrats to institutionalize his Big Government agenda. He tampers with congressional investigations into the gross misconduct of his federal employees through political pressure and manipulation. Those under him destroy evidence. And, to ensure immunity from legal consequences for his unconstitutional activities, he has compromised the Department of Justice — turning Attorney General Eric Holder into his Enabler-in-Chief.
Republicans, long somnambulant in holding Obama accountable for shredding the Constitution, appear finally to be mustering the courage to fight back; evidenced by Speaker John Boehner’s announcement of a forthcoming lawsuit against Obama’s illegal Executive Actions. “For years Americans have watched with concern as President Barack Obama has declined to faithfully execute the laws of our country,” Boehner wrote in a memo to Congressional Republicans last week, “ignoring some statutes completely, selectively enforcing others, and at times, creating laws of his own.”
According to reports, Boehner will call for a vote in the House in the next few weeks to authorize its general counsel to file suit against Obama covering a number of his executive actions. The lawsuit then will wend its way through the federal court system in the District of Columbia; hopefully to land eventually in the laps of the Supreme Court justices, where an important precedent will be set – one way or the other.
The lawsuit is just one of four crucial “fronts” – including legislation, appropriation riders, lawsuits, and ultimately impeachment — for Congress to use in stopping a president or an Administration operating outside the law and the Constitution.
As I noted here last week, the House could begin sending to the Senate a number of bills narrowly tailored to specifically target, and reverse, onerous executive actions taken by the President. Not only would Obama then be forced to follow the law rather than making up excuses for acting on his own, it would at least force Harry Reid and Democrats in the Senate to explain why they have failed to allow any meaningful and realistic legislation from the House to reach the floor of the Senate. Appropriation riders would help cut funding for Obama’s fiat-created federal programs, as the House has the constitutional power to do so. Lastly, the House could begin an official “inquiry” into whether the President may have committed impeachable offenses, as a preliminary step in collecting and organizing evidence for possible impeachment.
As Patton and MacArthur demonstrated on the battlefield, Boehner and the majority Republicans in the House should utilize all four “fronts” in the coming months to go on the offensive against Obama’s lawlessness. There is no better time than now to act, while Democrats still refuse to accept the reality they helped Obama create, in spite of defeats in the Supreme Court.
Fortunately, voters increasingly are coming to recognize the danger of having a President allowed to exercise unfettered power. The scandals at the IRS and the Veterans Administration, the massive spying programs targeting law-abiding citizens, inept foreign policies in the Middle East, a border with Mexico being overrun with illegals – have combined to open Americas’ eyes wide to the dangers posed by this President and this Administration.
Were Douglas MacArthur or George Patton in the Congress today; they would be attacking relentlessly, repeatedly, and vigorously. Because that is how you defeat a stubborn enemy.
©2022 Liberty Guard, Inc. All rights reserved.
Designed and Developed by Media Bridge LLC