By Myles Trumbore

Today, we see a government shutdown, as I’m sure you all know. The main question I have is why? Let me go into little of my family background…

My stepfather is in the military. He was in the Navy for ten years before switching to the army. He has done at least 7 overseas tours, granted, some were to Mexico, but at least 5 have been to the Middle East. Now he is stationed in Hawaii and my mom and sisters live there. You may be thinking that they live a wonderful life, the vacation that everyone dreams about. It was, for the first like month, but school started for my sisters and it kind of dulled for them. Even though they can go to the beach every weekend depending on weather, but it’s not like it was in the first month.

Why, you may ask, am I telling you all this? Everything in Hawaii is more expensive. They need to ship things in that aren’t locally grown, and there is a lot of stuff that needs to be shipped in. So, my stepfather, who would normally get his paycheck today is now not getting anything. They will have to live on whatever they can until their next paycheck comes in two weeks.

Instead of paying him today, because we don’t have the money, were going to skip all the people who are helping to keep this country safe. Oh, but isn’t Obama going on vacation?? (didn’t he just come back from va…ca….tion…..) This is really counter productive. If we don’t have the money now, how do they think they’re going to be able to pay twice as much in two weeks? But out illustrious president can go on yet another vacation.

What we really need to do is stop spending on things we don’t need! Not stop paying the people keeping this country free.

     We are all familiar with the recent escalation of conflict with Moammar Gadhafi's oppressive regime in Libya. President Obama authorized the use of military force against Libya, and began calling in airstrikes on the Libyan coast in an operation codenamed "Odyssey Dawn." The continuing rise of conflict in Libya is looking like a 3rd War for President Obama.

     I will stay my personal opinions on the conflict itself, and whether or not I support or do not support US military involvement in Libya. For this article, I will simply discuss the constitutionality of the actions of President Obama and discuss the seperation of powers in relation to the actions commited by his administration.

     Article I, Section 8.11 of the Constitution states, regarding the powers of Congress: "to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water." Note here that Congress is specifically given the power to declare war, not the President. Article II does state that the President is to act as Commander-In-Cheif of the Armed Forces. I completely respect and acknowledge this provision. However, there is quite a difference between leading a country in a war, and being the one to declare war. President Obama may well be the commander-in-cheif, but he clearly violated Article I, Section 8.11 when he effectively declared war on a foreign nation without the consent of Congress.

     The question of whether or not I personally would approve of a war with Libya, Gadhafi and his radical followers is irrelevant. The plain truth is that, whether or not it was in the United States' best interest (at least in his mind), President Obama violated the Law of the Land when he grossly overextended Executive Power and carried out an action specifically reserved for Congress in the Constitution.

     The current federal government is so completely out of whack with the way it was intended by the great Founding Fathers, and the seperation of powers in the constitution between the 3 branches, which were originally intended to place checks and balances on each branch to prevent it from becoming tyrannical, have been largely ignored. Whether it be the President doing the job of Congress by effectively declaring war, or the Supreme Court doing the job of Congress by legislating from the bench to fit their personal agendas.

     The Executive Branch in particular goes about abusing or overextending its power through the use of Executive Orders and resolutions. One particular violator of the constitution in history that I like to use as an example is FDR, who was quite fond of Executive Orders, (executive orders are orders issued by the president delegating an immediate action be taken without the necessary consent of congress. they are also prime examples of abuse of executive power) issuing several unconstitutional orders during his tenure, including one requiring all citizens to turn in their gold to local banks, etc.

     The reason I list FDR's example is because much of his policy and practice relates to our current President, whose abuse of power could've come straight from FDR's playbook. The abuse of executive power by presidents of either party over several administrations is simply astonishing.

     The preamble of the Constitution lists several reasons for adopting it, one of them being to "...provide for the common defense." Believe me when I tell you that no one believes more strongly in the Teddy Roosevelt/Ronald Reagan foreign policy of  "speak softly, but carry a big stick." Military action can be and is necessary when diplomacy fails and radicals wish to do harm to innocents. But if we, the United States, claim to march under a Constitution from which all laws are based, we cannot enter unjustly into an armed conflict with another nation without applying the due process of law so clearly detailed in the Articles of the Constitution. The debate of the necessity of the Libya conflict will be kept for a later debate. But there is no doubt that regardless of where it is taking place, the President does NOT have the authority to declare war. That ability lies solely with Congress.

     During the recent controversy in Egypt, the Egyptian and Chinese governments have placed restrictions on citizens attempting access the internet. The Chinese government restricted the word "Egypt" from being searched on the web. In Egypt, virtually all internet access has been restricted in light of the country's tumultuos political situation, with over 88% of the country's internet "falling off" the web. Only one Egyptian internet provider, the Noor Group, still has full access to the rest of the world.

     The Obama administration has criticized this abuse of government power in Egypt and China. But a bill first proposed in June 2010 by Republican Senator Susan Collins (ME) and Independent Senator Joe Lieberman (CT) is returning this year, which would give President Obama precisely the same power that his administration has criticized the government of Egypt and China for using.

     The Lieberman-Collins Bill is officially known as the "Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act." The act would have Homeland Security make a "list of systems of assets that constitute covered critical infrastructure" that would be subject to emergency decrees made by the Executive Branch. The revised bill includes a clause stating that the legislation would not be subject to judicial review, thereby preventing the Supreme Court, or any court for that matter, from reviewing its constitutionality Those seeking exemption from the law can appeal their case to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, but her word is the last word, and no furthur action can be taken after she delivers her decision.

     Under the proposed bill, President Obama would have the power to declare a state of "cyberemergency," a term kept (quite possibly intentionally) vague, and potentially pry information from the internet that they would not be able to otherwise take without a court order.

     This bill is unquestionably unconstitutional, as is plainly seen. The stunning hypocrisy of President Obama condemning Egypt and China's use of it while bills are proposed to give him the power to do it at his behest is staggering. The clause in the bill that would give the law exemption from the power of Judicial Review, the power of the Supreme Court to declare legislative and executive acts unconstitutional, first instituted in landmark case Marbury v. Madison (1803), would essentially give the bill a total exemption from challenge, and place total authority of enforcing and exempting others from the bill to the Secretary of Homeland Security.

     The powers of the Executive Branch as defined in Article II of the Constitution, include nothing relating to the emergency shutdown of United States programs. Though the internet obviously didn't exist at the time of the ratifying of the Constitution, its clear that the power to order an emergency shutdown of the internet during what President Obama deems a "cyberemergency" is unconstitutional in every possible way. The Constitution gives clearly the powers of the Executive Branch, and if the Constitution doesn't say that the Executive can do something, it cannot. It's obvious that the Executive, as well as the Senators proposing this legislation, either haven't read Article II (which wouldn't surprise me in the least), or they are disregarding the Constitution, as so many of our legislators habitually do to fit their own interests and agendas. The Lieberman-Collins Bill may be bipartisan, but "bipartisan" doesn't at all have to translate to "constitutional." As is plainly seen, it's not even close. It's a gross overextension of the powers of the Executive Branch, and it attempts to prevent itself from ever being challenged through the unconstitutional removal of Judicial Review.

     So why do our legislators disregard the Constitution? Bipartisan or not, this bill is a huge overextension of Executive Powers. Like many other recent pieces of legislation, our founders would roll over in their graves if they could see how their founding documents are being abused. Why the hypocrisy, Mr. President? It appears that, to our government, the Consitution is slowly, bit by bit, being habitually disregarded and ignored. That disregard cannot be permitted by us, the governed. we are a Constitutional Republic. Benjamin Franklin, when asked what kind of new government had been set up under the constitution, said: "A Republic, if you can keep it." Well, I'd say Old Ben was right. And we sure won't be able to keep our Republic if we keep allowing our legislators to abuse the very founding document they swore to uphold.

 

Although many people may have problems with President Obama and his administration, last night, (1-12-11) he gave an elegant and inspiring speech at the memorial service for the victims of the shooting that occurred last Saturday. The memorial service was hosted at the University of Arizona, McKale Memorial Center. This memorial honored the victims, their families, and the brave first responders. Putting politics behind us, this was a great overall speech given by President Obama. The main point that I received from his message is that, “The forces that unite us, are greater than the forces that divide us.” Hopefully, President Obama will practice what he has advocated and the media will listen to what he has said. I would encourage everyone to keep the victims and their families in your prayers, and so will I. May God bless and comfort them all.

-Matt

President Obama in many of his speeches often says some rather peculiar statements. So now, the Congressional Prayer Caucus have written a letter to President Obama asking him to recant his previous statements. Take a look at the letter below that this Caucus wrote: 

 -Matt

This just in from the Associated Press:

A federal judge in Virginia has declared the Obama administration's health care reform law unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson is the first judge to rule against the law, which has been upheld by two others in Virginia and Michigan.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli filed the lawsuit challenging the law's requirement that citizens buy health insurance or pay a penalty starting in 2014.

He argues the federal government doesn't have the constitutional authority to impose the requirement.

Other lawsuits are pending, including one filed by 20 states in a Florida court. Virginia is not part of that lawsuit.

The U.S. Justice Department and opponents of the health care law agree that the U.S. Supreme Court will have the final word.

I pray that other federal judges will join this Virginia judge!

~Karen

From the Daily Caller:

And you thought it was strange to hear that Barack Obama was related to Dick Cheney. Well, betcha can’t guess who he’s related to now!

Yup — the president has family ties to none other than Sarah Palin, according to the genealogists at Ancestry.com, a discovery the family history site made when looking for connections between political foes.

And that’s not all — Obama also is apparently related to radio host and relentless critic Rush Limbaugh. Might you want to reconsider some of your recent comments, Mr. Limbaugh, now that you’re apparently family?

A genealogist at the Utah-based Ancestry.com, Anastasia Tyler, said Obama and Palin are 10th cousins through a common ancestor named John Smith, a pastor and early settler in 17th-century Massachusetts. Obama is related to Smith through his mother, as is Palin, Tyler said.

“Smith was against the persecution of the Quakers,” Tyler said in an interview. “He was a very socially conscious man.”

As for Limbaugh, he’s also a 10th cousin of the president — one time removed — through a common ancestor named Richmond Terrell, who Tyler said was a large landowner in Virginia, also in the 17th century. “His history is a little more nebulous,” Tyler said.

How do the genealogists come up with this stuff? Tyler said they start by picking the people they’re interested in, then examine their family trees, going back further and further into history, looking for common surnames and locations.

In the recent project, genealogists looked at the trees of Obama, Palin, and Limbaugh but also a few others, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Fox pundits Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity. They didn’t find anything much with the latter three.

But former President George W. Bush? He’s related to BOTH Obama and Palin, the site found. Obama and Bush are 11th cousins through common ancestor Samuel Hinckley, and Bush and Palin are 10th cousins one time removed, also through Hinckley — who, and stay with us now, was John Smith’s father-in-law.

Ancestry.com has revealed in the past that Obama is related to investor Warren Buffett and actor Brad Pitt. It has also found that Palin, the former Alaska governor and GOP vice presidential candidate, is a distant cousin of both Franklin D. Roosevelt and Princess Diana.

The site isn’t the only source of this sort of celebrity genealogy information — in 2007, Cheney’s wife, Lynne, discovered ancestral ties between the Republican vice president and Obama while researching her book. She said the relationship was eighth cousin, though the Chicago Sun-Times traced it as ninth cousins once removed.

And one other thing from Ancestry.com: It also found that Palin is distant cousins with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and conservative author and pundit Ann Coulter, through John Lathrop, who was exiled to the United States from England for being a pastor of an illegal independent church.

Happily for both Obama and Coulter, no doubt, they do not seem to be related.

 Well aren't we all one big happy family!

~Karen

From The Miami Herald:

  "Every night before she falls asleep, Marlene de León worries whether she'll be jarred awake the next morning by immigration agents banging on the door to deport her mother who for years has lived in Miami without papers.

The fear inspired the talented 13-year-old middle school student to write a song about deportation that has become the anthem of a contingent of U.S.-born children who will travel to Washington, D.C., this week with their undocumented parents to march in front of the White House and demand an end to deportations.

Marlene and her mother Lily de León, 48, are among dozens of families planning to board buses in Miami Tuesday for the overnight trip to Washington to take part in the 2 p.m. event Wednesday.

Nora Sándigo, executive director of Miami-based American Fraternity, is the South Florida organizer for the Washington march, which is expected to draw dozens or hundreds of other children and parents from across the country.

The majority of participants will be like Marlene and her mother -- U.S.-born children accompanied by undocumented foreign parents.

``The idea is to show President Obama that deportations of undocumented people are having a severe impact on their U.S.-born children,'' Sándigo said. ``Children whose parents have no immigration documents lose sleep, are chronically stressed and depressed.''

Activists who oppose immigration reform say the parents' decision to remain illegally in the U.S. should not be rewarded by any suspension of deportations because they broke the immigration laws."

  At least the last paragraph had some good things in it! Normally, when you are afraid something is going to happen to you because of something you did, that something you did was most likely not right!

  What Marlene's mother did was wrong on so many accounts and she should be punished for it. I'm not saying that you separate a mother and daughter, but what I am saying is that she needs to get in line to get her citizenship, and be fined because she has been here so long without it.

  But what causes these "anchor baby" problems? Do to the 14th Amendment, people who are born in the US are considered US citizens. However, when this amendment was created, it was meant for all those slaves who were being set free at that time. It was never intended for people to run across the border, have a baby and go, "Oh, I have a child and it's a US citizen so you can't deport me!"

  The best solution to this would be to change the wording in the 14th Amendment to where it clearly prohibits the concept of "anchor babies". Coming over here illegally is ILLEGAL...and when you break the law you have to suffer the consequences sometimes. Why not just come over here legally the first time?

~Karen

  The I.P.S. (Institute for Policy Studies) is--as described by Key Wiki-- " the largest and most influential of the far left think tanks in Washington. Since its founding in 1964 it has steadily followed a pro-Marxist line on foreign policy, defense and the economy and has spawned a large number of spin-offs, other think tanks and public affairs organizations following the same radical agenda.

To put its policy recommendations into action, IPS built networks of contacts among Congressional legislators and their staffs, academics, government officials, and the national media.

In 1978, in an article in National Review, Brian Crozier, director of the London-based Institute for the Study of Conflict, described IPS as the "perfect intellectual front for Soviet activities which would be resisted if they were to originate openly from the KGB.""

  This is an organization that is basically the tea party of the left...FAR left! Except, they have an open door into White House decision making! Just take a look at this new video released by the IPS.

  Another interesting fact about this organization is...guess who helped found and served as a trustee of an I.P.S. partner organization in a New York based "progressive think tank" in the early 1990s? Say it with me....Barack Obama. Well, isn't that interesting!

  But wait..there's more! Remember that guy..Van Jones?  Yeah him!

Last year he was the president's Green Jobs czar, however after Glenn Beck came out with Jones' Communist ties, Jones was fired from his job. How on earth did a communist get a czar job in the White House? Well, the I.P.S. promoted Van Jones for the White House position! Wow, what a big happy family wouldn't you say?

  So, why am I going into all this? The Obama administration has stated over and over again that they don't fall to the pressure of the demands of these socialist, communist, special interest groups. However, the more bills that are past and the more executive orders that are signed, the more we see that this administration could care less about what the American people want and what the founders wanted. They would rather follow the desires of special interest groups!

  As my new friend Trevor Loudon stated about the I.P.S. " If you want to know what the Obama Administration will do tomorrow, look at what I.P.S. is saying today." I would sadly have to agree. This administration has and will (for now) ignored the pleas of the American people, the best way to know what is coming next is to watch what the special interest groups want today.

  Often in teen life, we have a battle going on inside of us. Do we do what is right and what God says is right? Or, do we fall to the demands of the world and what they this is right. Like our founders knew, if they followed what God said, they had victory. When they ignored God, there was failure and dis-unity. If we are wise as teens, we will do the same, and if this administration is wise they will follow what our founders put in place. 

  Special thanks to Trevor Loudon for giving me the I.P.S. information.

~Karen 

  For the first time in history, U.S. government debt -- now $13 trillion -- will surpass GDP in 2012, based on forecasts by the IMF. The Debt is something -- and really the one thing -- that can get other young people thinking, and thinking really hard about if the debt is necessary. This can open up to tons of political doors.

  The key problem with such a huge debt is that investors will demand a higher return, which translates into higher interest rates. The interest cost alone on $13 trillion will put an added burden on the government and the people.

  Right now, however, the U.S. Treasury market is in a sweet spot. The panic and crisis in Europe is driving investors into U.S. Treasuries, boosting the price and keeping interest rates low. Friday, for example, the June futures on the 30-year bond traded at 124-12, up a whopping 2-17 ticks. Each tick equals $31.25.

  As long as the debt crisis in Europe continues and investors flock to U.S. Treasuries, the situation remains on hold. As soon as Europe stabilizes, investors will recognize how dangerous the U.S. Treasury market really is. With such a huge debt, anything could happen.

  Always remember that it is a country's bond market that determines its stability. Europe is staring us in the face with what can happen when a country's bond market goes haywire. 

Victor