Obama's Scrutiny of Gun Show Attendees

President Obama has made it quite clear that he would like to take American's guns away.  So, it was no surprise that he would use a "backdoor" means to do this.  As the Wall Street Journal is reporting, the Obama Administration is pushing the use of automobile license plate scanners in order to gather data on people attending gun shows.  While there are no known arrests that resulted from this activity, the possibility is certainly there.

The larger problem with this "program" is that it violates our Constitutional right of freedom of assembly and association.  One has to wonder where it would stop.  For example, would data be collected on people attending political campaign events or protests? This shows, once again, that the President and his people don't respect our Constitution, and why he has so often lost Supreme Court cases brought against actions he and his Administration have taken.

References:

Gun-Show Customers’ License Plates Come Under Scrutiny: Federal agents enlisted local police to scan cars’ plates at shows’ parking lots: http://www.wsj.com/articles/gun-show-customers-license-plates-come-under-scrutiny-1475451302

Annotation 12 - First Amendment:  Right of Association: http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/annotation12.html

Obama’s Abysmal Record Before the Supreme Court: http://www.cato.org/blog/obamas-abysmal-record-supreme-court

Because of Obama and Reid, We Need Two New Constitutional Amendments

If there is anything we have learned by having Barack Obama in office for the last 7-1/2 years, it is that any rogue President can sidestep the balance of power -- as now theoretically outlined in our Constitution -- through the use of executive orders and memoranda.   At the same time, Harry Reid's blocking of any legislation sent over from the House, while he was the Majority Leader, also exposes another problem.

For these reasons, I believe we need to fix these holes in the Constitution with two new amendments.

The first should clearly restrict the power of the President to legislate from his office.  Any executive orders and memoranda that modifies any past legislation should be time limited to several months and not renewable. This way, Congress can either choose to pass legislation to sustain the President's executive action or, simply, let the President's actions expire.   Additionally, prosecutorial discretion needs to stop or, at the very least, also be time limited to, say, six months, and not renewable.

Similarly, another amendment is needed to insure that legislation passed in either the Senate or the House be brought to a vote in the other congressional body within some specified time frame.  If not, that legislation would automatically be sent to the President for signature.  This would stop majority leaders like Harry Reid from sitting on legislation that he thinks may be politically embarrassing for either his party members or his President.

I believe that both the House and the Senate, now controlled by the Republicans, could act on this almost immediately after being seated in January; assuming a Republican President is elected and congress still remains under the control of Republicans.  At that time, the offenders -- Reid and Obama -- will no longer be on the scene.

References:

Definition: Prosecutorial Discretion: https://www.google.com/search?q=procecrutalbe+disgression&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#safe=off&q=prosecutorial+discretion

The Constitutional Amendment Process: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

Ben Carson's Jefferson and the Constitution Comment

During a recent interview on C-Span, Dr. Ben Carson said this: "Jefferson seemed to have very deep insight into the way that people would react and tried to craft our Constitution in a way that it would control people's natural tendencies and control the natural growth of the government.".

Almost immediately the American media jumped all over Carson, because at the time the Constitution was being drafted, Jefferson was serving in France as a U.S. minister.  The political left was even more vicious in their attacks.

But, here's the thing.  Jefferson didn't have to be in this country to have provided input into the crafting of the Constitution.  He simply corresponded with those drafting it.  For example, the Library of Congress makes this comment about a letter sent to Madison in 1787 after reading a draft of the Constitution:

"Thomas Jefferson's December 20, 1787, letter to James Madison contains objections to key parts of the new Federal Constitution. Primarily, Jefferson noted the absence of a bill of rights and the failure to provide for rotation in office or term limits, particularly for the chief executive. During the writing and ratification of the constitution, in an effort to influence the formation of the new governmental structure, Jefferson wrote many similar letters to friends and political acquaintances in America."

We know, today, that a Bill of Rights was added as the first ten amendments which defined personal freedoms and limited the scope of government. So, Jefferson's input was influential. The only mistake that Carson made was in saying Jefferson "tried to craft" which implies that he was the actual author of the Constitution.


References:

Carson flubs Thomas Jefferson's role in the Constitution: http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/23/politics/ben-carson-thomas-jefferson-constitution-founding-fathers/

Ben Carson Doesn't Know Who Wrote The Constitution: http://www.forwardprogressives.com/ben-carson-constitution/

Library of Congress: Thomas Jefferson: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/jefferson/jefffed.html

United States Bill of Rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

What The Political Left Doesn't Understand About Religious Freedom

Ever since Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) blew up on the national stage, people on the political left have claimed that the law discriminates against gays and lesbians.  I even heard one Democrat strategist say it would take us back decades to when interracial couples were refused service in restaurants and other businesses.  This is a complete distortion of the RFRA.

What they don't seem to understand is that RFRA is all about "participation" and not "discrimination".

In this country, when you open a business, it is unlawful and unconstitutional to discriminate against any person unless, for some reason, that person endangers that business or puts other customers or other people in jeopardy.  For example, a bartender is free to stop serving a patron if they are presumed to be getting too drunk because, in most states, the bartender is liable for a drunk driver's actions after leaving a bar.  Similarly, "No shirts...No Shoes...No Service" is allowable for health and hygienic reasons.

The federal law that bans discrimination goes all the way back to the Civil Rights Act of 1875 which
states:

"all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement; subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, and applicable alike to citizens of every race and color, regardless of any previous condition of servitude..."

As a result, no state RFRA law can override that federal law and allow discrimination. But, even so, many on the left seem to ignore the words "subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law".  And, in the case of any RFRA law, the limitation to that Civil Rights Act of 1875 is the First Amendment of the United States Constitution which insures the right to the freedom of religion. 

So, when a gay or lesbian or same-sex couple enters a place of business, they are free to buy any products or services being sold as long as the service or services being provided doesn't infringe upon the owners freedom of religion.  It is this issue of "service" that has become the sticking point.  In every case of supposed gay/lesbian discrimination, it has occurred because the owner of that business was being asked to "participate" either by proxy or directly, in a same-sex marriage.  A marriage that is against their religious beliefs.  Photographing a same-sex wedding is a form of direct "participation". Catering a wedding is another form of direct "participation".  Providing a wedding cake is a form of "participation" by proxy.

The only intent of the RFRA is to insure that the Constitutional right to religious freedom is maintained and understood so that no business or their owner or owners are punished for a refusal to participate in any activity that goes against their religion.  It doesn't mean that some plumber can refuse to snake a clogged pipe in the home of a same sex couple.  That would not stand up in court and, in fact, would be a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1875.

Lets also understand that Muslims, too, have religious objections to gays.  In 2007, Minneapolis Muslim cab drivers refused to take fares from anyone who had been drinking or presumed to have been drinking and from anyone who had a service dog or pet on the basis of their religion.  It is interesting to me that no Muslim cabby was asked if they would pick up any hand-holding or kissing same-sex couple.  Apparently, the only beef about discrimination is with Christians.  Especially, those who might be overtly Christian pizzeria owners. 

To me, this whole uproar over Indiana law is about politics and not reality.  That is why the left-wing media in this country was so quick to ask every potential Republican presidential candidate if the they agreed with the Indiana law.   In fact, the New York Daily News posted this headline: "2016 Republican candidates support controversial Indiana law that makes discrimination legal".   Thus, in the minds of every reader of the article, any Republican, who would be President, is anti-gay.  So, for the 2016 election cycle, the supposed war on women has now been extended to gays and lesbians.  Simply, the number of cases of supposed determination of same-sex weddings is few and too far between to even be an issue to warrant the magnitude of press coverage that the Indiana law has received.

References:

Christian activists: Indiana law tried to shield companies against gay marriage: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/christian-activists-indiana-law-sought-to-protect-businesses-that-oppose-gay-marriage/2015/04/03/d6826f9c-d944-11e4-ba28-f2a685dc7f89_story.html

Civil Rights Act of 1875: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Cases

2016 Republican candidates support controversial Indiana law that makes discrimination legal: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2016-gop-candidates-support-indiana-discrimination-law-article-1.2168648

Muslim Cab Drivers Refuse to Transport Alcohol, and Dogs:  http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2827800

Big Gay Hate Machine Closes Christian Pizza Parlor: http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/02/big-gay-hate-machine-closes-christian-pizza-parlor/

Steven Crowder: Gay Wedding Cakes At Muslim Bakeries?: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/04/04/steven_crowder_gay_wedding_cakes_at_muslim_bakeries.html

Why Religious Freedom Needs To Be Restored

After years of waiting, gays and lesbians have finally won the right to marry in all but 13 states.  For all those years, it was primarily religious objections that stood in the way of same-sex marriage.

One problem with allowing same sex marriages is that, in the minds of some of those married or soon-to-be married, they now believe they are a protected class of individuals.  So much so, they some believe that the new-found right to marriage trumps the constitutional right of freedom of religion.  Proof of this fact comes from two well-known cases in which a baker refused, for religious reasons, to make a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding and a photographer refusing to take photos for another gay wedding; again, for religious reasons.  In both cases, the couples could have moved on to another vendor in respect and tolerance of those religious beliefs but, instead, they sought to promote boycotting those businesses and sought legal intervention.

So, this begs the question.  Why would any same-sex couple want to do business with a company that objects to their marriage for religious reasons?  Does any same-sex couple really think they are going to get the best service from someone who is being forced to serve them?  Most people would not do business with a vendor or contractor who they didn't feel completely comfortable with.  Especially, over something as important as a wedding. 

But, that's the point.  The forcing of businesses to set aside their religious beliefs is all about punishing religions for centuries of anti-gay beliefs and activism against same-sex marriage.  It is an attempt to undermine the freedom of religion as guaranteed by the Constitution.  This is why 21 states -- recognizing what is at stake here -- have enacted their own Religious Freedom Restoration Acts.  Understand that the operative word here is "Restoration".  Because, in each of these states, they can see that religious freedom is under assault and is being eroded by the political left and the supporters of widespread gay rights.  In theory, if not stopped, Churches, who are opposed to gay/lesbian relationships, may be legally forced under state-enacted anti-discrimination laws to preform same-sex marriages. 

Lastly, those opposed to Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act claim that the law will cause widespread discrimination against gays.  That is completely false.  There have been tens of thousands of same-sex marriages in those 37 states that allow it.  I am sure any of those weddings needing professional photography, wedding cakes, bands, or catering contracted those services without incident.  That's because the bottom line for 99.9999% of businesses is their bottom line.  Simply, most could not afford to put their religious beliefs above their business needs.  While there might be some issues with Indiana law in terms of scope, those will be corrected and the law will stand and gay couples will continue to be served by the vast of majority of professional wedding service companies. 

References:

37 States with Legal Gay Marriage and 13 States with Same-Sex Marriage Bans: http://gaymarriage.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004857

The New Mexico Supreme Court Applies Anti-Discrimination Law to Wedding Photographer Refusing to Photograph Same-Sex Commitment Ceremonies: https://verdict.justia.com/2013/09/04/new-mexico-supreme-court-anti-discrimination-law-to-wedding-photographer


Indiana Law: Sorting Fact From Fiction From Politics: http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2015/04/01/395613897/sorting-fact-from-fiction-from-politics-on-the-indiana-law

Do You Really Think Iran Didn't Know Of Objections To Nuke Deal Until The Cotton Letter?

OK.  Republican Tom Cotton and 46 other Republican Senators addressed an open letter to Iran advising them that -- without two-thirds Senate approval (ratification) -- any agreement or treaty between Iran and the U.S. on a nuke deal would be worthless. For that, Cotton has been vilified in the press and by Democrats for trying to undermine supposed sensitive negotiations with Iran's Ayatollah.  Some are even arguing that Cotton has committed treason under the Logan Act which bans "private" negotiations with foreign governments.  I hardly think an "open letter" to Iran is somehow private.

All this hysteria over Cotton's letter is ridiculous.  Iran probably knows everything that is being said about their nuke deal because of the Internet.  I'm quite sure that they -- like most every country -- has a cadre of tech-savvy personnel whose only duty is to scour the Internet for anything pertaining to their country and, for sure, those nuclear negotiations.  They most likely even watch Fox News all day in order to get the latest anti-Iran tidbits.  Also, may even tune into MSNBC to get some feel-good moments from the political left.

The Democrats and the Obama Administration are fools if they think that a "schooling" of our Constitution is going to sink the negotiations with Iran.  The one thing that Iran knows is that America is an open book with few secrets; especially when it comes to politics.  Just the opposite of their society where truth hardly exists.  Lying is a fact of everyday life in Iran (see reference below).

References:

Obama White House steps up pressure on Republicans over Iran: http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/89ae8247abe8493fae24405546e9a1aa/Article_2015-03-15-US--United%20States-Iran/id-d8f90c903e034c3c9f12264ec793f1b3

Tom Cotton's unpatriotic forefathers: Treasonous Iran letter not the first time GOP has crossed the line: http://www.salon.com/2015/03/15/tom_cottons_unpatriotic_forefathers_treasonous_iran_letter_not_the_first_time_gop_has_crossed_the_line/

Republicans Are Worried That Treasonous Tom Cotton's Letter: http://www.politicususa.com/2015/03/10/republicans-worried-treasonous-tom-cottons-iran-letter-backfiring.html

Why Tom Cotton’s Letter Did Not Violate the Logan Act: http://dailysignal.com/2015/03/12/why-tom-cottons-letter-did-not-violate-the-logan-act/

How Does the United States Ratify Treaties?: http://www.childrightscampaign.org/why-ratify/how-does-the-united-states-ratify-treaties

"To Live in Tehran You Have to Lie": Revealing Hidden Lives in Iran: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/09/140907-ramita-navai-tehran-iran-ayatollah-khomeini-booktalk/

As President, Obama Does Have The Constitutional Right To Grant Amnesty To Illegal Immigrants

Many Republicans, including Rush Limbaugh, are claiming that the President has no constitutional authority to grant amnesty to 4.5 million illegal immigrants with U.S. born children.

But, sadly, the Constitution does give him that right in Article II, Section 2 with the following words regarding presidential powers:

...shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment".

Further, as Wikipedia notes:

The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this language to include the power to grant pardons, conditional pardons, commutations of sentence, conditional commutations of sentence, remissions of fines and forfeitures, respites, and amnesties.

So, what he is basically doing is pardoning millions of immigrants of the crime against the United States for entering the country illegally. As a Constitutional law professor, Obama had to have known this all along.  Yet for nearly 6 years, he claimed he didn't have to the constitutional right to stop deportations because he didn't have the power to override immigration laws that were already on the books.  This is true, but he only said that to delay using his executive pardon power until such time as it would no longer affect his reelection, or the election/reelection of any Democratic members of Congress.  For that reason, Latinos should really be upset with the President.

Lastly.  Because the President has this right, his action will never be challenged in the courts.  As a result, the amnesty will never be reversed; even by future Republican presidents.  Pardons are forever. That, then, brings us to this question...are people who are legally free to reside here now eligible for citizenship? Personally, I just don't know.

References:

Pardon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardon#Federal_law

22 Times President Obama Said He Couldn’t Ignore or Create His Own Immigration Law: http://www.speaker.gov/general/22-times-president-obama-said-he-couldn-t-ignore-or-create-his-own-immigration-law

Video: Obama In March 2011: Can't Stop Deportations Through Executive Order: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfZ3kaKZoIw

Why Obama's Executive Orders Are Lawless

When Barack Obama took the oath of office, he agreed, before God and our country, that he would "...preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."  In doing so, he also agreed to Article Two, Clause Five of the Constitution which states that the President must "faithfully execute the laws of the land".  The word "faithfully" in that statement is clearly defined by Webster's Dictionary as "strict or thorough performance of one's duty." Faithfully does not mean that the President can arbitrarily execute the laws of the land.  Nor, does it say he can ignore those parts of the Constitution he doesn't like.

In our power-balanced system of government, only Congress has the right to create or amend laws; and, once signed into law they become the responsibility of that President and all future President's to "faithfully" execute and uphold them.  If, however, the law is somehow unconstitutional, the courts can strike it down; but, not the President. Therein lies the problem with a number of executive orders issued by Obama.  Especially those associated with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that he, himself, signed into law.  If he didn't like the mandates of the ACA, including the dates of implementation, he should have vetoed it.  That was his right under our Constitution.  But, instead, by signing it into law, he agreed to "faithfully" execute it.

Some on the left, like Juan Williams, a writer for the Hill.com and a Fox News contributor, seem to think that the issue of lawlessness is, somehow, just a numbers game; arguing that George Bush and Bill Clinton issued twice as many executive orders than has Obama.  I suppose, then, from this, we are to believe that both Clinton and Bush were twice as lawless as Obama. That argument is just a another canard; being served up for the benefit of the dumbest in our society who don't know any better.  Both Clinton and Bush were cautious to issue executive orders that could not be construed as being unconstitutional.  Clinton even waived off an opportunity to kill Bin Laden because he thought that it could be interpreted as an illegal or unconstitutional act.

In Obama's case, he revels in blatant, in-your-face violations of the Constitution.  Neither Clinton nor Bush would have issued an executive order forcing "all" religious organizations to  provide free contraception methods and abortive drugs to their employees; thus, violating the protection of religious rights and freedoms. Yet, in the case of President Obama, he is taking this lawlessness all the way to the Supreme Court, with many experts believing that the "contraception" order will be found unconstitutional.

We should have known from his earliest days in office that Obama would use his "pen" to violate the laws of the land for purely political reasons.  In February of 2009, just days before he signed his $787 billion stimulus package into law, he issued an executive order entitled: "USE OF PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTS FOR FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS".  In effect, this was payback to the unions for their help in his election.  Under that executive order, union work rules and union pay scales were mandated for all Federal construction projects; especially all those projects that were being outlined in the Stimulus Package.  So, when it was eventually signed into law,  the vast majority of all of those so-called shovel-ready jobs were invalidated by the President's previous executive order on union work rules and pay.  Then, all those projects had to be rebid at higher costs with either union or union-like labor.  That's the primary reason that the $787 billion Stimulus Package wound up costing the taxpayer $831 billion and why so many shovel-ready projects were cancelled or delayed. Then, in 2011, Obama looked back and quipped that "Shovel-ready was not as shovel-ready as we expected!" as if he had nothing to do with it.

In my opinion, Obama's continued use of executive orders just proves his ineptness in the "horse trading" skills that we have seen, and have come to expect, from our past presidents.  This president simply cannot negotiate or compromise.  There are no carrots in his quiver; only sticks.

References:

Executive Order: Use of Project Labor Agreements (PLA): http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/ExecutiveOrderUseofProjectLaborAgreementsforFederalConstructionProjects

Obama Jokes About Shovel-ready Jobs: http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2011/06/13/obama-jokes-jobs-council-shovel-ready-was-not-shovel-ready-we-expected

Hank Crumpton, Former CIA Officer: Clinton Wouldn't Authorize Osama Bin Laden Kill In 1999: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/14/hank-crumpton-cia-clinton-bin-laden_n_1514895.html

February 14th, Juan Williams to Martha MacCallum on Fox: "I can't even understand why Mr. Limbaugh's so upset, because when I look at the actual numbers, you see that President Obama has used an executive order to go around the Congress, I think it's less than half of the time of Bill Clinton, and just over half of the time of President George W. Bush. So it just doesn't make sense to me, I mean, unless you're trying to demonize President Obama and say he's lawless and he's a bad guy": http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/02/14/it_s_obama_s_lawlessness_that_matters_not_his_motivation

Are Supreme Court Justices Jurists Or Politicians?

For more than two weeks, Supreme Court watchers have tried to dazzle us with their divination skills in an attempt to predict how the high court will rule on ObamaCare (The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act). Almost every opinion by these prognosticators falls into one of two categories. First, most are of the opinion that the law will be upheld because one or more of the conservative justices will side with the 4 liberal judges. The remaining camp, seems to feel that the law will be narrowly struck down because the 5 conservatives will find it unconstitutional. Hardly ever do you see an opinion where it is believed that one or more of the liberal judges will side with the conservatives in striking down the The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

The fact that most everyone seems to think that not a single liberal justice would find ObamaCare unconstitutional is a sad commentary about those leftist jurists. It basically says that liberal justices will always put politics above the Constitution. At least some opinions imply that the conservatives of the court are flexible enough to side with the liberals in upholding the law. However, those that feel that it will be struck down on a narrow, party-line basis are also making a statement that politics will solely be involved in the final decision. With all these political-oriented predictions about the high court, can anyone believe that the legal system of this country is always fair and impartial and, yes, constitutional?

Render Unto Caesar The Things That Are Caesar's

As expected, Obama's Federal Justice Department filed suit against Arizona for trying to aid in the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws through its own, recently-passed, but not yet implemented, legislation. In doing so, the Feds are basically telling Arizona, or any other state for that matter, that they are not responsible for enforcing a law that is "the" sole responsibility of the Federal government.

Well, if the states aren't responsible for assisting the Feds in the pursuit of any Federal violators -- such as illegal immigrants -- then, it is only logical, that the states completely ignore any outstanding Federal warrants or violators of any and all Federal laws. The Federal government cannot just pick and choose which laws they expect the states to assist them with and which ones they don't. In my opinion, to ignore some Federal violators while assisting in the prosecution of others is to ignore the "equal protection" clause of the United States Constitution.

The President, a trained Constitutional lawyer, should understand this. But, as usual Obama says screw the Constitution when any political gains are achievable!

Why McChrystal Had To Go

From our country's earliest beginnings, the founding fathers knew the potential hazard of this or any country being taken over by a stratocracy -- a military dictatorship. To minimize that potential, they drafted, as part of our Constitution (Article 1 section 8), a specific structure that clearly positions the military under the direction of the Executive Branch of the Government and with their funding being controlled by Congress. Thus, their power is balanced between the two most prominent civilian legislative branches of government.

While it is important that we don't have a lap-dog military that can't express any concerns over the commands that they may receive from the Executive Branch, it is also important that they maintain a certain level of respect for the civilian leadership that they report to. That's because any erosion of that respect might actually create a situation whereby the military becomes autonomous to some degree; with the worst case resulting in some kind of coup.

The McChrystal situation presented a real conundrum because he is the primary architect of the military plan that is only half-way implemented in Afghanistan and prior to the draw down of troops starting next year. To lose him over his disrespectful comments may actually jeopardize the results of the war.

One option that was available to Obama was to elicit a public apology from McChrystal (assuming he's sorry). Then, bust him down by one or two stars from his four-star status and allow him to continue in his role as the Afghanistan commander. However, this ignores the fact that there might be a serious dissenting attitude in his command and below towards our civilian government.

I think the only real option for Obama was to have accepted McChrystal's resignation. He probably should have been stripped of some of his rank to show how serious an offense he had committed. For the protection of the precepts of our Constitution with regard to the military, Obama absolutely had no other option.

Our country has, probably, the best military in the world. No one man is irreplaceable. There are a lot of people in the ranks who could replace McChrystal and continue the plan in Afghanistan. Certainly, the replacement of McChrystal with Petraeus was a good choice but it might have just left Iraq exposed. In addition, Obama needs to strengthen his leadership skills so that this kind of disrespect doesn't fester once again. And, too, if we continue to see unrest in the military over the Administration's leadership, it is the people of this country who will need to reprimand Obama for his actions.

Obama's Bret Baier Interview Revealed A Lot About Obama And ObamaCare

Bret Baier, of Fox News' Special Report, is getting a heavy dose of hate mail. Most of it is from the far political left of this country. And, that should be expected. He made Obama look bad -- really bad -- in his exclusive interview on Wednesday. Baier made this President look more like a man who was being interrogated for committing a crime; not a man who was the President of the most powerful country in the world and who should be in complete command. He completely dodged some questions. He gave all too many intentionally confusing and evasive answers. For Obama, it was a full hour's worth of "Amateur Hour"; even though it only lasted fifteen minutes.

It was obvious that the President doesn't really know what is in the health care legislation when he made this statement: "By the time the vote has taken place, not only will I know what's in it, you'll know what's in it..." It is also apparent, from that comment, that he doesn't care what's in the bill. He doesn't care if it is bad or good for the country. All he wants is reform; any reform; and, reform that will put the first, big finger of this government's heavy hand on the health care system of the nation. Any reform that is a baby step towards its complete takeover. That was very obvious; even though the always-loving-Obama media probably didn't hear that in his answers, it was there if you listened. It was there when this supposedly trained Constitutional lawyer said that "we shouldn't worry about the process" in an answer as to whether or not he backed the "Slaughter - deemed to pass -- Rule"; a rule that many believe is an unconstitutional procedure for the passage of this law or anything except for the minor budgetary changes that it had been traditionally used for in the past. This is a man who vowed to protect and defend the Constitution but, in his comments to Bret Baier, is now completely willing to violate that oath in order to get his health care takeover enacted. In my opinion, if this man signs something into law that was unconstitutionally passed through Congress (a violation of Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution ), he is guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors" and should be impeached and dishonorably removed from Office. Those, too, who passed the legislation, should also be punished. Hopefully, the next non-Democratic Congress will be able to prosecute this President and those of Congress that passed this into law.

Bret Baier's interview exposed Obama for what he really is. It also exposed his true intentions on health care, and, it clearly proved that he is a man who could care less about our Constitution. Who better to abuse it than a man like Obama -- a Constitutional lawyer.