Alexander's Column

The Imperial Executive

Barack and George III -- Separated by Centuries, Joined by Doctrine

By Mark Alexander · Jul. 5, 2012
“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.” –Declaration of Independence (1776)

This being the week designated to celebrate American Liberty, I paused to read the Declaration of Independence, as I do every anniversary of its signing. In that venerable old parchment, our Founders reduced to words the eternal source of Liberty as “endowed by our Creator,” and then outlined their grievances against an imperial executive who willfully violated that endowment “which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitled them.”

The Unanimous Declaration was, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, its principal author, “the declaratory charter of our rights, and the rights of man.”

It opens by defining those rights, framing the relationship between the Creator and His people, the people and the government, and then listing how the executive had violated their God-given rights, “all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.”

Among those “injuries and usurpations” committed by the executive, they noted:

“He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. … He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. … He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers. … He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance. … He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation.”

The comparison between the imperial powers which gave rise to the American Revolution and the imperial presidency which now threatens the Essential Liberty our Founders fought for, and generations of American Patriots have since defended, is unavoidable.

Barack Hussein Obama recently lamented, “It turns out our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes.” However, he added, “One of the things about being President is you get better as time goes on.” Indeed, he has become quite better at forging ahead with his agenda to supplant Rule of Law with rule of men, in flagrant disregard of his Oath of Office.

The evidence of Obama’s self-anointed imperial status is mounting.

He created swarms of “czars” unaccountable to Congress. He circumvented Congress by using the Environmental Protection Agency to implement his cap-and-trade scheme. He used the National Labor Relations Board to circumvent the Employee Free Choice Act. He used the Federal Communications Commission to circumvent the judiciary’s proscription on regulating the Internet. He used the Department of Education to force national education standards.

In other cases, Obama has simply ignored the law completely.

He ordered the Department of Justice to cease enforcement of the Defense of Marriage Act. He ordered the Department of Health and Human Services to force private religious institutions to fund abortions and other measures contrary to their Biblical moral code. He ordered the Department of Homeland Security’s immigration service to use “prosecutorial discretion” in order to stop the mandated deportation of illegal immigrants.

Regarding the latter, even former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales responded, “To halt through the deportation of some undocumented immigrants looks like a political calculation to win Hispanic votes, and subjects him to criticism that he is violating his oath of office by selectively failing to enforce the law.”

Post Your Opinion: Other comparisons with the Declaration's grievances?

Most recently, Obama claimed “executive privilege” to avoid further investigation into “Fast and Furious,” a scheme designed to promote the administration’s efforts to undermine “the palladium of all rights,” our Second Amendment.

Of course, Obama’s imperial ascension is fully in keeping with his narcissistic pathology, and he’s made plain that he doesn’t intend to be constrained by the law.

Soon after his election, his former Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, proclaimed that Obama would use “executive orders and directives to get the job done across a front of issues.” And Obama himself boldly decreed earlier this year, “Whenever Congress refuses to act, Joe [Biden] and I, we’re going to act. In the months to come, wherever we have an opportunity, we’re going to take steps on our own [to implement my agenda].”

In the Declaration of Independence, our Founders' long list of objections to government assault on Liberty closes by condemning the executive “for altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments” and “exciting domestic insurrections amongst us,” and notes, “A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”

Today, Obama’s pledge of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America” is brought about by attacking the free enterprise system, by altering our form of government in favor of Democratic Socialism, by pitting one group of Americans against another, and by justifying a domestic insurrection called “Occupy Wall Street.”

Post Your Opinion: What will be the consequences if Obama is reelected?

The Declaration concludes, “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

Fellow Patriots, whether by ballot or bullet box, we must pledge no less to preserve Liberty.

Pro Deo et Constitutione – Libertas aut Mors

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis

Mark Alexander
Publisher, PatriotPost.US

Appeal_patriots_day_5

View all comments

198 Comments

wjm in Colorado said:

It is almost as if the founders were providing a list of grievances againt Obamao, and not the King of England, how prophetic. The scarry thing is home many useful idiots there are that would endorse the treason now practiced blatantly by the Democrats. This is the most important election ever for the Republic, if we mean to keep it.

Thursday, July 5, 2012 at 12:36 PM

John in Delaware replied:

Treason is an awfully harsh word don't you think? What specifically has the president done that qualifies as treason? Or the democrats in congress for that matter? Don't get me wrong; I see the appeal of throwing out words like "treason" and "socialist" and "hitler", but before I do I think about it. Do you really think (and I mean really) that the democrats are actively trying to destroy America? Come now, be honest. Do you really think that any of the representatives hate America? How does that make sense? Explain the motivation there.

Friday, July 6, 2012 at 10:39 AM

MNIce in Minnesota replied:

Communists and other brands of socialists have been trying to overthrow our free Republic for more than a century. After years of patient wearing away at our society's moral and economic foundations, they are close to success. Along the way, they have been very open about their disdain for the Christian faith, personal liberty, the free market, and the original intent of the Constitution (the Constitution was written by and for a Christian nation). Mr. Obama has been a lifelong active participant in this cabal. He has openly declared that he is an enemy of the Constitution itself, not merely someone having a different idea of what is permissible under it (not in so many words, but his statements and actions provide ample demonstrations of his opinion).

Now why would anyone hate the Constitution and all that it represents? Because it is a barrier to political ambition. The ambitious politician believes he knows better than others how to run their lives. He wishes to place his personal mark on everyone and rule over them, rather than serve as the executive of their will. This is precisely what we see with the so-called progressives. They are not content to let us decide how to live the way we wish, subject only to the necessity of respecting the rights of our neighbors to do the same. No, they must tell us what we must buy and what we cannot buy, how we may or may not use our own property, and must claim first right to the earnings of our toil, all for "the welfare of the people" of course. These people are so ambitious that they will soon claim the power to determine who lives and who dies. If that is not a betrayal of all that we consider essential to America, it is hard to imagine what might be.

If you do not believe this is possible, sir, then you are extremely naive. Do not forget that Germany and Italy had free Republican systems of government before Hitler and Mussolini were elected to high office. By making at first gradual, then ever more rapid usurpations of power, they became absolute rulers. The very same pattern is repeating itself in the United States today. Having by and large left the moral foundations that would give us a firm ground for squelching such ambition, we are as vulnerable to the demagoguery and blandishments of aspiring tyrants as anyone.

Friday, July 6, 2012 at 12:08 PM

John in Delaware replied:

Again, really? You really believe that Obama not only hates the constitution but actively wants America to fail? You believe that Obama has more in common with Hitler than with Reagan? That seems a little hyperbolic don't you think? In your honest, hand on the bible opinion, you really believe that?

Friday, July 6, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Just Saying in Idaho replied:

Yes, I do believe that. I believe that Obama has no understanding of what makes this country great, and only despises it.I believe that he is trying very hard to change this country into a socialist one to conform to his idea of fairness. And if by now you haven't gotten enough examples of the dems (not all of them, mind you, some of them are just useful idiots) hating this country then you don't want to see it. May your chains sit lightly upon you, sir.

Friday, July 6, 2012 at 2:53 PM

John in Delaware replied:

I'm going to assume you were replying to me and not the guy from Minnesota. You think that some democrats in office (the president and various reps) hate America. Really hate it. Obama worked as hard as he could to get into the oval office in order to hate on America. That's pretty rough. What percentage do you think hate America? Also, what percentage of republicans?

Friday, July 6, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Dan in People's Republic of in MD replied:

These people truly in their minds don't think they hate America, what the Founders stood for, and our Constitution but their words and actions speak volumes.

Sunday, July 8, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Old Joe in Paris, Texas replied:

Yes, I do...

Sunday, July 8, 2012 at 7:50 AM

USN in Vanderpool, Texas replied:

It is fools like you that have us where we are at , how iw your world of oz ??

Friday, July 6, 2012 at 11:34 PM

Diane in Tx replied:

You Sir asked for specific examples of treason, one would be leaking National secrets to the press. He did this to make his administration look good. If you think these secrets were leaked without his knowledge, I suppose they could've been, but I doubt it. Ask SPC Manning what he's being charged with for Wikileaks. I heard it was treason. The scope is different maybe, but the law treats it the same. I am disgusted with this administration.

Saturday, July 7, 2012 at 12:08 AM

John in Delaware replied:

How is this different than the actions of past presidents and administrations? Please be specific.

Saturday, July 7, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Brian in Newport News replied:

John,
His actions are not a whole lot different from previous administrations, just more of the same to a greater degree. Bush II, for example, did not do the country any real favors in his turn. His Patriot Act was a real piece of work.

But, that does not matter. You obfuscate the discussion here by pulling out the red herring.

Obama has been far more destructive of the rule of law in this country than probably any preceding president. And don't ask again for specifics... read what Mark Alexander wrote. THERE are your specifics.

Monday, July 9, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Jeanie in Olathe, Kansas replied:

Your argument is well phrased and remained calm,,, praiseworthy considering the most heated political division going on in the country in my memory and I am 60. I do not believe the Democrats want to destroy this country... intentionally. They are following BHO who does have socialist intentions for this country. BHO, however, has his own agenda and the rest of the Democrats are falling in line after the pied piper because at this point in time, he is President and plus on their own careers. BHO role models have been Marxists, socialists and he publicly announced his and Michele's hatred for this country in years before anyone took notice of what he was saying. My died-in-the-wool democratic daughter even regrets her vote for him and comments about how much control the Democrats have had and have accomplished nothing with it, Truth. Not doing anything for this country at this point in time is hurting the country, however well - intentioned they may have once been. We need to clean house and have every government office filled after the candidates meet the people's approval. It was a bad economy when BHO took over, but it is ever so much worse now since he has been in office and that is what we need to look at very closely. Thank you

Saturday, July 7, 2012 at 6:15 AM

John Bowman in CA replied:

Obama supports a foreign invasion of illegal aliens from Mexico. They call it Reconquista, retaking of the Southwest. It's official Mexican government policy.

Sunday, July 8, 2012 at 2:22 AM

Old Joe in Paris, Texas replied:

My friend, isn't it obvious that the Democrats/radical socialists want to undo the Constitution and rewrite or "reinterpret" it to change our nation into something that it was not intended to be?
I say that treason may be just the word we're looking for. Evil may just be the motive behind that behavior. If a person is a Democrat or a R.I.N.O. then of course, they may want to hedge around the word treason and go with some softer or less meaningful word. "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'IS, is' doesn't it.
Of course, I live in Texas and we're a long way from Washington DC and the North East... in many more ways that physical distance...

Sunday, July 8, 2012 at 7:45 AM

John in Delaware replied:

It is not obvious. That's the point. They all seem to like America and all seem to want the people that live there to live their lives freely and fairly. The democrats and the republicans both. Now, I didn't understand the rest of your post but "evil" is something that should be reserved for, say, the killing or assaulting of people due to their religion, skin color, gender, or sexuality. "evil" is not raising tax rates on the rich to pay for debt or privatizing school systems to be more effective.

Sunday, July 8, 2012 at 11:00 PM

John Bowman in CA replied:

Obama supports a foreign invasion of illegal aliens from Mexico. They call it Reconquista, retaking of the Southwest. It's official Mexican government policy.

Sunday, July 8, 2012 at 11:00 AM

John in Delaware replied:

You are joking. But just in case you aren't please explain how your theory makes sense.

Sunday, July 8, 2012 at 10:54 PM

litteacher in New York replied:

Obviously you have bought the concepts of the Progressive Movement; they spoon fed you and you swallowed it. It is time to see black and white and not shades of grey; what is right is right and what is wrong is sedition. Get off the liberal fence of talking points and make a judgment that is both righteous and moral. I do not counsel the use of "Hitler" as a reference as this is too easy, too trite. If it looks like a duck....

Wednesday, July 11, 2012 at 10:24 AM

marv in VA said:

The great tragedy is that so many, not realizing what they have in this land of freedom, vote party over country.

Thursday, July 5, 2012 at 12:46 PM

NoCrud in KY replied:

Good comment. Also, it can be seen as a bunch of fools voting for another fool instead of for the country.

If the country is put first, regardless of promises such as "hope and change," the country would be much better off.

The problem is that apparently the Founders had no thought that America would come to this. They were optimists that had just been part of a miracle, the creation of a free country in a not-so-free world. And now what have we become? A country where almost half is dependent on the other half and hate for it to change. These dolts are putting themselves before the country and the country may not last as long as the Welfare Slaves do, if this decline is permitted to continue.

Thursday, July 5, 2012 at 1:35 PM

One VA Patriot in Arlington, VA replied:

Sir, I disagree with your analysis of the problem being that our Founders did not forsee the state in which we now find ourselves. I believe they clearly saw the levels to which this once great nation has fallen, and they gave us a Constitution to withstand what is happening. The question we must be asking ourselves is if there are enough patriots willing to stand against the abandonment of our founding principles and reestablish the rule of law in this country?

Thursday, July 5, 2012 at 3:40 PM

Dan in People's Republic of in MD replied:

I never in my life thought it would come to this and I don't know that our Founders would surprised by what has become of their experiment, but they would be be apalled that we've let it happen and yes, we have no one to blame but ourselves for not minding the store. I don't wamt this to come to an armed revolution but the words "Live free or die" have as much meaning now ever.

Sunday, July 8, 2012 at 9:44 PM

Old Joe in Paris, Texas replied:

I do believe you're right on the mark sir!

Sunday, July 8, 2012 at 7:54 AM

Dan in People's Republic of in MD replied:

Joe...As I often lament to my many friends in The South (although we're technically a southern state), we'll be heading your way when it hits the fan. I know Texas is big, but I hope you have a enough room for all of us.

Sunday, July 8, 2012 at 9:52 PM

John in Delaware replied:

I would guess you've never voted anything besides republican, but I've only just met you so I can't say for sure.

Friday, July 6, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Dan in People's Republic of in MD replied:

Your comment is the crux of the problem...this isn't a football game. I always wonder if these idiots at the conventions actually have any idea what they are standing for. I've personally never voted for a Republican, or a Democrat for that matter for President. one could say I've thrown my vote away, but I walk out with my head held high. I might, however, actually vote for Romney, and not just because I want BHO out so badly, but because after much thought I believe he might actually be the right man for the job. Someone in DC needs to be an adult and as a corporate turnaround guy he's made the tough decisions.

Sunday, July 8, 2012 at 10:05 PM

John in Delaware replied:

My comment or Marv's? I just made a guess as to who Marv votes for, in an attempt to point out the hypocrisy of his post.

I admire your objective outlook regarding the candidates' qualifications; I don't think enough people have this mindset. I'm right with you in that I think most of the politicians on both sides are complete morons. I might not like Romney all that much but he was a good choice considering the field in the primary.

Sunday, July 8, 2012 at 11:06 PM

Barry Howard in Placitas, NM said:

All true about this Pretender but what about the other to branches especially Congress which has miserably failed with their duties of Checks and Balances. They should be acting right now but they just sit like bumps on a log with no actions taken.

Thursday, July 5, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Donn in FL replied:

Bumps on a log is an accurate description for current members of Congress. At the beginning of this administration, Democratic members of Congress were openly threatened that they vote the party way, or else. The "or else" implying that if anyone opposed the majority leader's (Pelosi) proposals consequences would be felt, i.e. appointments to committees would be overlooked, no bills submitted would be voted on, and even the threat of being expelled from the party was used, which in turn would mean that no monies would be available for re-election campaigns, and members would be on their own. Members of Congress were more afraid of losing their jobs then voting what would be best for the country. Our congress today is a far reach from what the Founders had envisioned. If fact, when congress was formed it was a non-paying position, and it was felt that being a member of congress was a duty....not a job. The idea was to go to congress for a term, and then return to their state and pass the torch to another. Now, there are members who have been in congress for 40 years, and they will do (or do nothing) in order to continue their reign. In my view, the way to correct this is to impose term limits for all of congress. Some states have done that, but under the current system it can be a disadvantage for those states since their members will never have the seniority to chair important committees, and therefore those states will not get the representation that it may deserve. After FDR, presidential elections where limited to 2 complete terms (12 years). I see no reason as to why the same restrictions can't apply to congress, i.e. 2 Senatorial terms and 6 Representative terms which would impose a 12 year restriction for everyone. I believe that if that were to happen, overall you would see much better management of this country.

Additionally, the Electoral College has outlived the purpose that it was designed for. However, that is for another discussion.

Saturday, September 8, 2012 at 12:15 PM

J Patrick gavaghan in Raleigh, nc said:

If America has a revolution over all of these assaults on us citizens, does the US Military defend freedom of the people or President Obama?

Thursday, July 5, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Julia Berry in Dallas,TX replied:

I am reminded of the patriots joining with George Washington - they had made a life of farming, hunting, frontier living. And yet - they took up arms to defend what they knew to be right and honorable and true. With firm commitment to the same, may we so endure the battle!

Thursday, July 5, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Old Joe in Paris, Texas replied:

Yes!!!

Sunday, July 8, 2012 at 7:56 AM

Gary Smith in Kemah, Texas replied:

Just last evening I was having the same thoughts. What if we had an American spring??? What would our military do. Why do I think they would join the rank and file citizen and not support this tyrant?

Thursday, July 5, 2012 at 1:10 PM

JtC in TX replied:

"Why do I think they would join the rank and file citizen and not support this tyrant?"

We can't be any more sure of that than we can that there will actually be an election in November. The liberals have infiltrated our military at high levels of leadership (and intel) and also the rank and file in great numbers. Many are indifferent and joined the military strictly for the education/benefits NOT for pure service to country.

Our base chapel doesn't even have a cross on it and it looks more like a mosque than a Christian chapel. No one cares. When I asked why I was told the cross was "on back order" -that was 2 years ago. Members of color (and there are MANY) proudly where t shirts in support of Obama. If it comes down to it, your best bet is on faith in God, not our military.

Thursday, July 5, 2012 at 1:44 PM

JtC in TX replied:

Pardon the typos . . .

Thursday, July 5, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Dioneikes in Colorado replied:

If they are in the Military, they are violating the Hatch Act. They need to be turned in and if they get let off, then we all know what needs to happen.

Thursday, July 5, 2012 at 1:54 PM

JtC in TX replied:

Turned in to who? THEY would be more likely to turn ME in for my Christian conservative views. And for doing this . . .

Friday, July 6, 2012 at 8:22 AM

John in Delaware replied:

JtC, I don't think anyone is going to turn you in for your Christian conservative views. Also, the black people wearing Obama shirts are probably good people, despite liking Obama. You should just politely ask them to not wear political shirts while doing army related things. If they refuse, they should be thrown out of the army for and shot for treason, obviously.

But in all fairness, the brotha's are way better dancers than us. We just have to come together as a race and admit they got us there.

Friday, July 6, 2012 at 7:34 PM

Tig Dupre in Port Orchard, WA replied:

"...protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." That, to me is the single most important phrase in the entire oath I have sworn several times. Any man or woman in uniform had better review that oath before making any decisions.

Thursday, July 5, 2012 at 9:04 PM

Robert H. Davidson in Titusville, Fl. said:

And now the first SHOT must be fired!

Thursday, July 5, 2012 at 12:51 PM

John in Delaware replied:

Really? Why? You want to murder some people because why?

Now of course you're going to say you were speaking in metaphor, but even still, the image you want to conjure is that of rebels storming Washington or something.

Here's a fun exercise: what bothers you about the president?
And don't use the following words:
Socialist
Nazi
Hitler
Any Russian or Soviet terms or names
Liberal
Democrat
Conservative
Republican
God
Jesus
Founders
Constitution
Kenya
Muslim
Dictator
Fascist
"this country"
"my America"

Just in plain, non-crazy terms, state your problem. Try not to repeat what you've heard on tv or the Internet either. Just take a breath and think it through. I'm rooting for you Rob.

Friday, July 6, 2012 at 10:49 AM

MNIce in Minnesota replied:

Try filing a police report on a theft without explaining what was stolen. Your "fun exercise" is merely an adventure into absurdity.

Consider this: in 1812, the only time an ordinary citizen had to pay a tax to the federal government was if he purchased an alcoholic beverage or imported certain goods. Nor was he required to file a "tax return" unless he was the seller of goods subject to excise; it was the responsibility of the merchants to maintain records and remit the taxes to the Treasury. Every penny he earned was his own to disburse as he wished unless he owed a debt he had freely contracted himself. He could freely buy or sell, or arrange to hire or be hired on whatever terms were mutually acceptable. If he found himself outcast from society for whatever reason, he could simply pack up and move somewhere else, and would be accepted as an equal without questions until he proved otherwise. If he was a God-fearing man, he held himself accountable first to Almighty God, and restrained himself accordingly, and had no need of swarms of government agents to tell him whether his actions were permissible. (The unfortunate slaves being the unhappy anomaly rather than the rule.)

Now, I'm sure you will find this shocking and objectionable, and will soon spout off a series of "but what about ..." claims as to why such freedom is too crazy to be allowed. And this is precisely the point. You have lost the sense of what it is to be an American.

Friday, July 6, 2012 at 12:38 PM

John in Delaware replied:

I will point out that you could also own people back then, which was awesome for white guys like us.

And you caught me, I'm actually a socialism Muslim guy from Europe. Sniffed my anti-Americanism right out, you super sleuth you. Praise Allah.

Friday, July 6, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Just Saying in Idaho replied:

So, all those words you mentioned are crazy? That tells us all we need to know about you.
You may not be what you said, but you certainly are an useful idiot.

Friday, July 6, 2012 at 3:01 PM

John in Delaware replied:

"an useful idiot". You really tried there JS. Almost made it and choked right at the very end. It's alright, you'll get me next time.

As far as the words go, I am merely making the point that those words are used so often here that it's cheap. It requires no thought at all to jump on the Muslim socialist bandwagon. So if you want the average joe (me) to listen to what you have to say, you need to tone down the rhetoric and explain using grown-up words, you crazy Nazi you.

Friday, July 6, 2012 at 3:11 PM

Just Saying in Idaho replied:

It is funny you calling me a Nazi.You are asking us to present you the truth in a new way, I see, since you are bored with the too often used words.
If you bothered to read the article, you already know why we keep saying those words. It doesn't seem to make a dent in a dense skull such as yours. No fact will convince you, obviously, your mind is made up. I am not trying to insult you when I say you are an useful idiot, just recognizing the sad facts. As for me being a Nazi, well, if living most of my life in a socialist paradise the kind Obama wants, and being totally against the gov telling me what I can and cannot do in every aspect of my life makes me one, then yes, I agree with you. Crazy, not so much. The trouble with people like you is that you have no idea what you're talking about. Why don't you tell the rest of us what is it that you like about Obama, and why are you so sure that someone who worked so hard to get in office doesn't hate America? How would anybody go about changing/reforming/fundamentally transform this country without first getting in power? Isn't that the first step? You argument that someone who worked so hard to get to be the president cannot hate America is absurd.

Friday, July 6, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Just Saying in Idaho replied:

And another thing: I won't get you next time, I am done. It's a waste of my time to try to "get" you as you say. If you wait long enough, Obama and his merry men will, though.

Friday, July 6, 2012 at 3:42 PM

John in Delaware replied:

I know you're not a nazi JS, don't worry. I said that because calling for a reasoned discussion and then calling the person you're talking to a nazi is funny to me, due to the hypocrisy of it. You should never have to defend yourself against such obviously untrue and unjustified accusations, and anyone who engages in such hyperbolic nonsense should be ashamed.

I also don't think you're crazy or even a bad person. I think you just get excited a little too easily. Lighten up JS. As for not "getting me", that's ok too. You're probably right, Obama and his men are going to kill me in my sleep.

Friday, July 6, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Sophia in Nevada replied:

Many Blacks also owned slaves prior to the Civil War.

Sunday, July 8, 2012 at 2:58 AM

John in Delaware replied:

While I get your point (which is a fact - some blacks owned slaves), it would be tough to argue that the issue of American slavery was not a black / white issue. No blacks owned white slaves.

Sunday, July 8, 2012 at 11:10 PM

Brian in Newport News replied:

John,
What bothers me about Obama are all the things that Mark Alexander wrote about. He is viloating his oath of office to 'support and defend the constitution' and does so with apparent impunity.

Monday, July 9, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Old Joe in Paris, Texas replied:

Friends, what ever side of this conversation you're on, be careful of those who call for violence or "the first shot." This type are sometimes called "agents provocateurs" and want to get someone to do or say something stupid Be careful of those who call for violence. It is they who may be on the other side of where you are and just waiting to crush you... Just sayin...

Sunday, July 8, 2012 at 8:02 AM

John in Delaware replied:

Old Joe, you're the man. Thank you for not letting me be the only one to say this.

Sunday, July 8, 2012 at 11:11 PM

Morning Glory in willow springs, MO said:

GREAT READ! I don't think you missed any of our current pretender's "accomplishments". I cannot wait for Nov to get here. I pray that there are enough people with the common sense God gave a goose to vote this unacceptable person OUT of office. Put him in the unemployment line. It really sticks in my craw that we HAVE to pay him a life-time salary!! Shouldn't he be responsible for paying us tax payers back like the courts have mandated for Madoff?????? His is by far the greater crime.

Thursday, July 5, 2012 at 12:52 PM

John in Delaware replied:

Hahaha man I'd reply to your points directly but "sticks in my craw" is the best expression I've ever heard. I'm going to have to start using that, although in truth I have no idea what it means.

Friday, July 6, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Gwiz in Free Union, Virginia said:

Agreed however until someone defines the action required for today's patriots implied in the terms alter or abolish, we are spinning our wheels. Voting hasn't worked, standard methods of communication with our 'rulers' hasn't worked, what's left?

Thursday, July 5, 2012 at 1:07 PM

MNIce in Minnesota replied:

First try peaceably assembling to petition for the redress of grievances. The Orange Revolution in the Ukraine and the Rose Revolution in Georgia are good modern-day examples. A nation-wide blockade of federal offices should make the statists realize they have gone too far. Even if there is an incontestable Republican sweep in the election, it will be necessary to keep Mr. Obama from implementing any more illegal schemes before he leaves the White House.

It is also necessary to elect state officials who are willing to confront the Federal juggernaut. The states are still the best and most legitimate mechanism for leading stronger actions if such become necessary, the Civil War notwithstanding.

If a "color revolution" successfully stops some of the illegal actions, that will be good, but it is not enough. We have to keep up the pressure and demand a complete rollback to Constitutional law. Our primary target is the barnacle-ridden US Code and the bloated, flatulent and stinking pile of regulations attached to it. We must demand that Congress sunset the entire mess, and rewrite a new code in strict accordance with its enumerated powers, permitting to remain only what is needful for an orderly transition to Constitutionality (e.g., Social Security payments for those who would be immediately destitute without them until an alternative can be set in place). Our next target is the Sixteenth Amendment; it is inimical to liberty and has provided cover for Congressional abuses of power (Obamacare being one prominent example).

Friday, July 6, 2012 at 1:33 PM

John in Delaware replied:

My oh my MNice from MN. You are really really hoping for an excuse to get that revolution started aren't you? I'm with you bud; every night I pray for a zombie apocalypse but sadly it never comes.

Friday, July 6, 2012 at 7:52 PM

2desertrats USN (ret) in AZ said:

Isn't there ANYONE out there, other than a Conservatve who can see thru this make believe prez for what he truly is? Come on America, vote this egotistical communist nut case out of office. If we don't then "katy bar the door".

Thursday, July 5, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Kenny Kimler in Bossier City, Louisiana said:

It is hard to fathom how this self gloryfing socalist swine wormed his way into office. The black voters did not put him because 95% of them were going to vote Dem. even if Castro had been running. Young college and other white trash leftist turned the trick for this puke. Perhaps if these clowns have realized what "Hope and Change" has done to/for them and they remove their head from the dark place they have stuck it we may yet get out of the mess we are in and turn this country around.

Thursday, July 5, 2012 at 1:09 PM

William F. Brna in Monongahela, PA said:

Why isn't he being impeached?

Thursday, July 5, 2012 at 1:13 PM

NoCrud in KY replied:

Even with a Republican-led Congress, there would be more vacuous Democrats like Waters who would talk the impeachment process to death.

Much better is to make Natural Born Citizen the issue. This is defined as that BOTH parents must be American citizens at the person's birth and this means that The Obamaroid is NOT a Natural Born Citizen and ineligible to be president. This is why he fights his place of birth so hard, it is a distraction from the greater and more-provable issue.

However, neither are Mitt Romney (his father was born in Mexico as listed on Mitt's birth certificate) or Marco Rubio or Bobby Jindal or Nikki Haley. The reason the Media want so much for another Pres or VP who is not a Natural Born Citizen is because the Media is complicit in the effort to undo and make inconsequential our great Constitution.

The Natural Born Citizen issue is the one greatest issue that has been and is being ignored. This alone disqualifies The Obamaroid. Fears of riots and confusion from the Left and minorities are more important than the Constitution? Those who think so need to have their patriotism evaluated.

Thursday, July 5, 2012 at 1:51 PM

71 911E in Ft. Worth, TX replied:

No crud, take off your tin foil hat. While I belive there is action to be taken in Obummer's case, just because Romney's or Rubio's parents were born in other countries,doesn't mean they couldn't become naturalized citizens.

You need to understand the 14th better, although the anchor baby thing is a gross misinterpretation by the SCOTUS.

Thursday, July 5, 2012 at 4:40 PM

ellen in columbus, oh replied:

The meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth, not to the parents of a US-born child (except for the children of foreign diplomats).

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005) [Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

Friday, July 6, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Rob in Peoria said:

EVERYONE--- Let's inundate Congress by sending this issue of the Patriot Post to all members. Maybe, (do not hold your breath) a few will realize the WE, THE PEOPLE, will no longer tolerate a disregard of their oaths to support and defend the Constitution.
Obama must be defeated in Nov 2012

Thursday, July 5, 2012 at 1:17 PM

CB Jackson in Lexington, KY said:

A soft dictator. Looks like he's abiding by the law but does what he wants and acts as if he's the smartest man in the country.

Thursday, July 5, 2012 at 1:17 PM

James A. Bateman in Tool, Texas said:

It is a certainty, unrecognized by too many Americans, that our Liberty and Freedom must be jealously guarded in every age. That today we face perils not unknown to our Founders must be in the forefront of all our actions to preserve and protect that which we have been given as granted by our Creator. Americans face a daunting foe who must be defeated one way or the order so that true justice to our founding principles may be re-established. Great thanks must go to The Patriot Post for being such a clear and ringing example of keeping all patriots informed as to our unfortunate but necessary task ahead.

Thursday, July 5, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Susan Atwell in Grand Island NE said:

Mr. Alexander, I don't speak Latin.... I've always wanted to know what it is you are writing in your salutation.
I always enjoy your articles.

Thursday, July 5, 2012 at 1:19 PM

James A. Bateman in Tool, Texas replied:

Pro Deo et Constitutione -- Libertas aut Mors

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis

If I may: A translation of the above can be: "For God and the Constitution --Liberty or Death." And "Always vigilant, strong, prepared and faithful."

Thursday, July 5, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Michael Wetzel in Aiken, SC replied:

Ms. Atwell,

Try this site for Latin to English translations:

http://archives.nd.edu/words.html

Friday, July 6, 2012 at 12:02 AM

James A. Bateman in Tool, Texas said:

(corrected editorially and reposted ... jab)
It is a certainty, unrecognized by too many Americans, that our Liberty and Freedom must be jealously guarded in every age. That today we face perils not unknown to our Founders must be in the forefront of all our actions to preserve and protect that which we have been given as granted by our Creator. Americans face a daunting foe who must be defeated one way or the other so that true justice to our founding principles may be re-established. Great thanks must go to The Patriot Post for being such a clear and ringing example of keeping all patriots informed as to our unfortunate but necessary task ahead

Thursday, July 5, 2012 at 1:20 PM