Mark Levin Tears Into Obama’s ‘Imperial’ Presidency and His Use of Executive Orders:

The Blaze
Jan. 14, 2013
Jason Howerton

Mark Levin Tears Into Obama’s ‘Imperial’ Presidency and His Use of Executive Orders: ‘What the Hell Is This?’

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf-MjJWdvUg

Appearing on Fox News’ “America Live” on Monday, conservative radio host Mark Levin blasted President Barack Obama’s use of executive orders to further his agenda, saying the president believes he is no longer bound by the Constitution because he won reelection.

“He keeps telling us he won reelection, congratulations,” Levin said. “But guess what? The Constitution wasn’t up for election…he has to comply with it too.”

Levin went on to say that Obama has been “pushing the edge of the envelope” as far as his executive powers are concerned. He lamented his “unilateral action” on immigration, violation of the appointment clause, “trashing the commerce clause” under Obamacare and now he is threatening executive action over the Second Amendment.

“What the hell is this? He was elected president, congratulations,” Levin added. “This guy makes Richard Nixon look like a man who followed the law all the time. I think we have an imperial president…he’s arrogant as hell and so I’m furious about this.”

The Constitution, Levin explained, was not and is still not “up for grabs.” He also said President George W. Bush doesn’t compare to Obama when talking about expanding the powers of the executive branch.

“You would think that the Constitution is just another statute for these guys to play with,” he added. “This is why I’m furious. Because once we lose the Constitution, and we’re losing it big, what’s left? How do we keep these people in check?”

If Obama really does attempt to take executive action to enact gun control, it will “not be very pretty,” he concluded.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...-hell-is-this/

The Blaze
Jan. 17, 2014 7:49am Fred Lucas


Obama’s ‘Tyranny’ Is ‘Unbelievable and Scary’: Who Said It?


http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/u...ay-Tyranny.png
Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay believes President Barack Obama use of executive power has gone beyond what should ever be constitutionally acceptable. Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay talks to reporters as he leaves a lunch meeting on Capitol Hill, Thursday, Sept. 19, 2013 in Washington. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

“If it’s not tyranny, I don’t know what it is,” DeLay told TheBlaze. “But this president is violating his oath of office. He’s abusing his power. The president of the United States, I don’t know where he gets the notion that he can legislate, change legislation, decide what law he’ll enforce and not enforce, this is all violating the Constitution of the United States and probably many statutes.”

Obama has used executive action to change the Obamacare law that was enacted with his support, to impose gun restrictions, to impose carbon emission rules that failed to pass Congress, to change immigration rules after Congress rejected a similar proposal, and a unilateral decision by the Justice Department on drug laws.

DeLay also said that the Obama administration has misused the government, citing the Internal Revenue Service targeting of conservative groups and the treatment of State Department employees who were prevented from talking to Congress about the terrorist attack in Benghazi.

DeLay refrained from calling for specific action against the president, but said the standards would be different if it was a Republican president.
“The use of government to oppress his enemies – the IRS scandal, Benghazi, they’re abusing the employees of the federal government that were there in Benghazi as we speak—if a Republican had done this, the national media would be calling for impeachment and drive him out of office,” DeLay said. “It’s just unbelievable and scary who this president thinks he is and the tyranny that he is beginning to inflict on the American people.”
One way to restore the balance of powers, DeLay said, is for the House of Representatives to reassert itself on the powers of taxing and spending. His forthcoming book, “Shut’er Down” that’s due out this summer, calls for a “constitutional revival.”

“The House of Representatives was given the majority back after the election of 2010,” DeLay said. “From the moment that new Congress was sworn in, I would have done exactly what we did in 1995 and that is send a message to the president of the United States that there is a new majority in town that, by the Constitution, has the power of the purse and we’re going to exercise that power.”

The example he gave for winning was the 1995 government shutdown, widely seen as a <acronym title="Google Page Ranking"><acronym title="Google Page Ranking">PR</acronym></acronym> problem for Republicans but a policy win.

“The result of that shutdown in 1995 was that we won,” DeLay continued. “We sent a very real message to Bill Clinton, we’ll take you over the edge. The signal and the understanding that Clinton finally got was that we were serious about who we were in the new majority and from that day forward, the rest of the Clinton administration, he never got to sign one major bill that he initiated, because everything started in the House of Representatives, we did the welfare reform, we balanced the budget, we held the line on spending, we cut taxes, on and on and on and on, deregulation.”

Recent years were tough for DeLay, who has faced criticism along with the then-Republican majority Congress for boosting spending and the size of government during the administration of President George W. Bush. DeLay also had a near decade-long legal fight with Texas state prosecutors over an alleged campaign finance violation. Last September, an appeals court overturned his conviction by a lower court of the charges.
Asked about the current House Republican leadership, which conservatives have criticized, DeLay said, “I don’t go there. People have to make their own decision there.”

But he added that simply because the Democrats hold the Senate majority doesn’t mean the House can’t control the agenda. That’s because all taxing and appropriations bills must originate in the House under the Constitution.

“People think I’m crazy, but I don’t care who is president,” DeLay said. “What I care about is who’s in the majority of the House of Representatives because they have the power of the purse and therefore they have the power over everything if they would just exercise it, they would end up ultimately winning.”

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014...ble-and-scary/

Obama's NSA Proposals Fall Far Short of Real Change

The White House's tepid plan aims to calm the public, not curtail the government's surveillance programs.


http://cdn-media.nationaljournal.com...013_10_columns
President Barack Obama speaks about the National Security Agency and intelligence agencies surveillance techniques at the Department of Justice in Washington, DC, January 17, 2014.(SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images)

The White House promised Friday that it was ending the NSA's most controversial surveillance program "as it currently exists." But make no mistake, it's still going to exist.
Related Stories

Obama: NSA Reforms Should Give Americans 'Greater Confidence'
Full Text of Obama's Speech on NSA Surveillance

In fact, what President Obama has announced will have little operational effect on the National Security Agency's collection of Americans' data. And, significantly, the administration has attempted to dodge some of the biggest decisions, passing the ball to Congress, which will likely do nothing if recent trends hold.

Much of the attention in the run-up to the speech involved the NSA's retention and search of so-called metadata—calling records, including calls made by U.S. citizens, that help the government identify potential terrorist relationships. And the president didn't come close to what privacy advocates have wanted—a sharp culling of the program or its outright termination.

Instead, the goal of Friday's announcement —as it has always been—was to reassure a skittish public both here and abroad that the program is being used responsibly. "This is a capability that needs to be preserved," a senior administration official said.


After Friday, keep in mind how the status quo has, or has not, been altered:

1) The phone metadata still exists.

2) It will be kept, at least in the short-term, by the government until Congress figures out what to do with it. (And don't think the telecom lobby won't play a role in that.)

3) It will be searched.

4) Searches will be approved by a court with a record of being friendly to the government, one without a new privacy advocate.

5) National security letters can still be issued by the FBI without a court order.

6) Much of this activity will remain secret.

The president made two major policy prescriptions. First, he called for the data to be housed somewhere other than within the government. Second, he said before the NSA can search the calling-record database, it should obtain judicial approval.

To the first, the president would not specify where the data will be ultimately stored. He wants the Justice Department and the intelligence community to come up with a proposal within 60 days. The administration is reluctant to force telecom providers to house the data, both because of logistical problems and because the industry wants nothing to do with it. Some have suggested creating a private consortium, but that will take time. And if it proves that there is no better place to keep the data, it well could remain with the U.S. government. (Sounds a little like GITMO.)

To the second of Obama's measures, judicial oversight will come in the form of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which critics say acts as a rubber stamp for government surveillance requests, rather than by more independent-minded federal judges on other courts. The Wall Street Journal last year estimated the Court rejects less than 1 percent of all requests; the chief judge has maintained that it sends back up to 25 percent. Either way, the overwhelming majority of requests are granted unimpeded, particularly when the requests are time-sensitive.

Tellingly, the president rejected a recommendation from an outside panel to establish a "public advocate" inside the Court to represent privacy interests. Instead, he wants an outside group of experts to consult on cutting-edge legal matters, not on day-to-day surveillance requests.

Yes, the FISA review adds an extra step to the process (one that may frustrate counterterror hawks), but it likely will do little to restrain the NSA. (The president is taking one concrete step, limiting searches to two "hops" away from a subject's phone number, not three.)

The president also rejected a recommendation that the so-called national security letters used by the FBI to obtain business records from investigation targets be subject to judicial approval, after the bureau objected to the idea.

Most important, many of the recommendations the president made Friday are perishable. Ultimately Congress will have to determine the data-collection and storage issues and other major elements of the program, including the procedures of the FISA court, when it reauthorizes the NSA program this spring at the end of the 60-day window outlined by the president.

And it's possible Congress could choose to keep it in its current form, officials concede.

Senior administration officials maintain that none of these surveillance programs have been abused—and that they remain a valuable tool in combating national security threats (despite little evidence the metadata program has played a direct role in foiling an attack). It's why President Obama was quick to mention the 9/11 attacks in his remarks Friday. And it's why, in his mind, reform could really only go so far.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/white...hange-20140117

http://cdn-media.nationaljournal.com...013_10_columns

http://cdn-media.nationaljournal.com...013_10_columns

LIBERAL ICON URGES OBAMA IMPEACHMENT 'The most destructive, dangerous president we've ever had ..