Mark Levin says that it is obvious after today’s hearing that if Hillary Clinton swore an oath when she testified before Congress on Benghazi in January, she may have committed perjury over lies of omission, depending on the wording of the oath.
An anonymous New York psychiatrist (Dr. X) who works for the VA has come forward to state that “things have been getting a little bit uneasy . . . for veterans.” That’s an understatement. We already know that New York State is going after veterans who have sought any kind of treatment for mental health. Dr. X reveals that, when veterans come to the VA for help, they’re often treated by ultra-liberal interns and residents who think of them as baby-killers; the VA actively seizes guns from any veterans treated for mental health issues, not matter how minor or stable the problem; veterans who refuse to give up their weapons are institutionalized; and psychiatrists get a $3,000 incentive whenever a veteran loses his guns.
Almost all VA hospitals, says Dr. X are associated with teaching hospitals or medical schools. The VA recruits residents from those doctor pools, so that the residents got experience and the VA gets low-cost doctors. Too often the result is that extremely politically liberal interns and residents end up on the front line for treating veterans – and these young people view veterans with disgust and disdain as “baby=killers.” (One suspects that these same young people give are giving baby-murderer Kermit Gosnell a pass.)
In addition to mean-spirited residents, the system’s professional psychiatrists get $3,000 bonuses if they can grab veterans’ guns. According to Dr. X, when a veteran first comes into the system, he’ll collect as much information about him (including information about gun ownership). In past years, if the veteran is basically well, just anxious or depressed, he gets treatment and some meds, and then comes back every three months for follow-up and prescription renewals.
What’s been happening recently, though, is that the VA is pushing psychiatrists to seize guns. When doctors see a patient – even one who has been totally stable for years — the doctor says “I see on this progress note that you own fire arms.” If the patient says “yes,” Dr. X is required to ask the veteran to surrender his firearms. Veterans invariably refuse. When they do, the psychiatrist then summons the VA police to the room, saying “You’re going to surrender your firearms, or we’re going to involuntarily hospitalize you.” (Read this story, which corroborates what Dr. X is saying.)
Please listen to this audio and confirm Dr. X’s hope that, in light of the outrage greeting the story of veterans who received gun confiscation letters from the VA, the time is ripe for this story to go viral – and for us to support our veterans. The current administration’s attacks on veterans are shameful and shameless. These attacks give the green light to local communities that refuse to let veterans fly American flags or to fly flags honoring other vets, and they make our legislators think that vets can be hustled off to prison for “getting out of line.” Our veterans gave to us; it’s time for us to give back to them. Contact your Congress person about this one.
On Monday, in a morning meeting at the White House, President Obama spoke with law enforcement officials from across the country on the issue of gun-related violence.
While the gathering had the look of a free form and open discussion, it was quite clear that Obama was sending a message to those in attendance: I need you to support my push for gun control reform.
Yet, in order for Congress to pass those measures, both chambers need to be convinced or swayed that doing so is the “right” thing to do. This is where law enforcement comes into play, as Obama pointed out.
There’s little doubt that because of its role law enforcement has a key voice in the debate over gun control. In short, Obama’s correct, Congress will be paying close attention to what the law enforcement community has to say on the matter.
But unfortunately for Obama, thus far, over 120 sheriffs from around the country have come out against his plan to curb gun-related violence, particularly those measures that are deemed to be unconstitutional as well as those that threaten to ban certain firearms and accessories.
- Obama Makes Appeal to Law Enforcement to Support Push for Gun Control (VIDEO) (guns.com)
- Obama turns to police chiefs for help on guns (news.yahoo.com)
- Police push for background checks on gun purchases (cnsnews.com)
- Obama, police chiefs push gun control (sfgate.com)
- Police push for background checks on gun purchases (news.yahoo.com)
Over the last few years there has been a growing concern about the President’s questionable expansion of executive powers. As a nation of laws, public officials are sworn to uphold the law . . . even laws you may not like. The way to deal with laws you do not like is to get Congress or whatever body passed it to change it. Real simple.
President Obama has, by executive order, circumvented national immigration law by ordering a halt to deportations of certain unlawful aliens, without getting the law changed. In July of 2012, President Obama changed long standing welfare policy to allow states to change mandated work requirements. Earlier he ordered the DOJ not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act. None of these orders were submitted to Congress for review, which the Government Accountability Office concluded he should have done in part. I have co-sponsored bills to reverse these unconstitutional power grabs and will continue to fight them.
The President, touted by some as knowledgeable about our Constitution, acts as if he never heard of it sometimes. Now, the President and Vice-President are talking about enacting gun bans by executive order.
“The president is going go act,” Biden is quoted as saying. “There are executive orders, executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet, but we’re compiling it all.”
For the moment put aside the fact that the Second Amendment protects the right of each person to own and posses firearms and the ammunition that goes with it. Our Supreme Court resolved that issue in Heller. Obviously neither the President nor Congress can enact laws that violate the Second Amendment, anymore than they can enact laws that violate the First Amendment or the Fifth Amendment.
Let’s focus on the supposed authority of the President to simply enact laws by the stroke of his pen. Article I Section I of the Constitution vests all legislative powers in Congress. All. None are given to the President or the Courts. All government acts need to be evaluated on whether they are consistent with our Constitution.
The executive branch has the Constitutional responsibility to execute the laws passed by Congress. It is well accepted that an executive order is not legislation nor can it be. An executive order is a directive that implements laws passed by Congress. The Constitution provides that the president “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Article II, Section 3, Clause 5. Thus, executive orders can only be used to carry out the will of Congress. If we in Congress have not established the policy or authorization by law, the President can’t do it unilaterally.
MORE . . .
- Bring.It.On. (rivrdog.typepad.com)
- Executive Order a Law to be obeyed?…..lets see how that relates to any “gun control”……Pound Sand Obama! (therightofway.net)
- Is An Executive Order a Law that Must be Obeyed? (12160.info)
- Gun Confiscation By Presidential Decree? (frontpagemag.com)
- American Firearms Owners: Your Rights Are Perpetually Protected!! (thedailysheeple.com)
- Assault on the Second Amendment (papundits.wordpress.com)
- Wyoming to Preserve the Second Amendment? (tenthamendmentcenter.com)
- Krauthammer: ‘Unconstitutional’ gun confiscation ‘would cause insurrection in the country’ [VIDEO] (dailycaller.com)
- Use of executive action to change gun laws not unprecedented – Fox News (video.foxnews.com)
By Dick Morris via The Hill | TheHill.com
Voters have figured out that President Obama has no message, no agenda and not even much of an explanation for what he has done over the past four years. His campaign is based entirely on persuading people that Mitt Romney is a uniquely bad man, entirely dedicated to the rich, ignorant of the problems of the average person. As long as he could run his negative ads, the campaign at least kept voters away from the Romney bandwagon. But once we all met Mitt Romney for three 90-minute debates, we got to know him — and to like him. He was not the monster Obama depicted, but a reasonable person for whom we could vote.
As we stripped away Obama’s yearlong campaign of vilification, all the president offered us was more servings of negative ads — ads we had already dismissed as not credible. He kept doing the same thing even as it stopped working.
The result was that the presidential race reached a tipping point. Reasonable voters saw that the voice of hope and optimism and positivism was Romney while the president was only a nitpicking, quarrelsome, negative figure. The contrast does not work in Obama’s favor.
His erosion began shortly after the conventions when Indiana (10 votes) and North Carolina (15) moved to Romney (in addition to the 179 votes that states that McCain carried cast this year).
Then, in October, Obama lost the Southern swing states of Florida (29) and Virginia (13). He also lost Colorado (10), bringing his total to 255 votes.
And now, he faces the erosion of the northern swing states: Ohio (18), New Hampshire (4) and Iowa (6). Only in the union-anchored state of Nevada (9) does Obama still cling to a lead.
In the next few days, the battle will move to Pennsylvania (20), Michigan (15), Wisconsin (10) and Minnesota (16). Ahead in Pennsylvania, tied in Michigan and Wisconsin, and slightly behind in Minnesota, these new swing states look to be the battleground.
Or will the Romney momentum grow and wash into formerly safe Democratic territory in New Jersey and Oregon?
MORE . . .
- Here Comes The Landslide (dickmorris.com)