Chief Justice Obama?

President Obama is a Harvard Law graduate with emphasis in Constitutional law.  He is a shrewd enough politician to get himself elected President.  He surrounds himself with advisers who, on paper at least, should be capable of simple tasks.  Apparently, at least one simple task is just too complex for President Obama's legal team:  understanding the difference between the executive and judicial branches of our Federal government.  If you retained attorneys who consistently advised you that you could do things that are unconstitutional, how long would you continue to pay for their services? Of course, if they advised you that you could ignore the Constitution and declare yourself the Commander-in-Chief, the chief executive of the Government, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court all rolled into one omnipotent juggernaut of personality, you might like what you are hearing from those attorneys. 

First the White House Counsel advised the President that a Democrat House and Senate, upon his signature, could enact a law compelling citizens to purchase health insurance.  Thankfully, federal judges are voiding that law as unconstitutional, most recently in Florida, and states are moving to halt implementation of government-mandated health care.  Ultimately "Obamacare" as many call it, will be adjudicated by the Supreme Court.  As it should be under our separation of powers.  The judicial system determines constitutionality of laws.  This power is, in no way, given under the Constitution to the executive branch, which is empowered only to nominate individuals to serve as judges.  Court decisions are steadily demonstrating that the President's legal advisers missed the mark.

President Obama's advisers, however, have convinced the President to take an unprecedented unconstitutional action that is even more alarming:  unilaterally declaring a law unconstitutional and intentionally refusing to perform his duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.  It would behoove President Obama and his advisers to review carefully the oath of office he swore to in January 2009 in light of his utter abandonment of a law:  The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).  Currently this law is in effect, signed into law by President Clinton.  It is the law of the land until the judicial system, rising to the Supreme Court, declares definitively whether it is Constitutional or not.  Instead, the President's advisers, driven by the smallest percentage of his constituents numerically but loudest vocally -gay rights activists- convinced the President to announce that his Administration considers the DOMA unconstitutional and has directed the Justice Department to cease enforcing the law by declining to defend it in legal actions brought against it by plaintiffs seeking for Federal recognition of same-sex marriage.  Naturally, this refusal to defend the law was not accompanied by a citation of constitutional authority permitting such action, nor could it have been, since the power to declare laws unconstitutional belongs to the Judicial and not the Executive branch.

The political left and willing accomplices in the media are currently attacking former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich for pointing out the "Constitutional crisis" the President's action has created.  They have focused on one word Newt mentioned in an interview, "impeachment", and are portraying Newt, the impeacher of President Clinton, as simply being up to his old tricks, now calling for President Obama's impeachment.  However, as is usually the case in media coverage, the truth of what Newt actually said is being intentionally obscured.  Newt did not say that President Obama SHOULD be impeached at this time for his action.  What he DID say was that if a Republican president declared a law unconstitutional and directed the Justice Department to stop enforcing it, political liberals and the media would come unglued and certainly call for that president's impeachment.  Newt used an effective analogy in his NewsMax interview:

Imagine that Governor Palin had become president. Imagine that she had announced that Roe versus Wade in her view was unconstitutional and therefore the United States government would no longer protect anyone’s right to have an abortion because she personally had decided it should be changed. The news media would have gone crazy. The New York Times would have demanded her impeachment.

First of all, he campaigned in favor of [the law]. He is breaking his word to the American people. Second, he swore an oath on the Bible to become president that he would uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws of the United States. He is not a one-person Supreme Court. The idea that we now have the rule of Obama instead of the rule of law should frighten everybody. The fact that the left likes the policy is allowing them to ignore the fact that this is a very unconstitutional act.

The precedent that would be established by allowing a president to suspend a law, any law, that was passed by Congress and signed by a previous president, is indeed dangerous.  Capital Cloak believes that President Obama, in his heart, agrees with the DOMA, as he has spoken in favor of traditional marriage consistently until this sudden lurch off the Constitutional path.  The fact that he has agreed to this course of abandoning enforcement of law is a sign that in his Administration, the tail really does wag the dog.  A few loud voices representing gay advocacy groups appear to be convincing President Obama that their volume is indicative of how the entire nation feels about traditional marriage.  It is not, and if the President continues in this extra-legal action, he could find himself a one term President. 

Prop 8 vote breakdown in CA 2008

President Obama must keep in mind that 70% of African-American voters in ultra-liberal California supported Proposition 8Obama's advisers are already gambling that he can win reelection in 2012 with or without the support of traditional marriage advocates by steering him to suspend the DOMA despite having no Constitutional power to do so.

Drug Cartels Chuckle at Our Muppet-in-Chief's Priorities

There will be a lot more drugs for sale at the corner of Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood and Sesame Street thanks to questionable budgetary priorities in the Obama Administration.  Of the few and clearly defined enumerated powers of the Federal government, noticeably absent from the list is funding television and radio stations.  Noticeably present in that list is protecting the United States from all enemies and maintaining public safety so citizens may pursue their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Grateful to the Obama Administration for the $451 million vote of confidence!

Yet, when faced with a budget priority decision between funding efforts to protect the United States from its "greatest organized crime threat" and funding NPR and PBS, the Obama Administration chose the priority with the greater potential political profit:  keeping Muppets on the air.  Capital Cloak has nothing against Muppets, mind you. Likewise Capital Cloak has nothing against cartoon character Arthur, except when he shows up at the Capitol building along with Bert and Ernie to pull on the heart strings of Members of Congress before they vote on "GOPink slips" for the beloved animated friends. However, Capital Cloak DOES have something against increasing funding for NPR and PBS to extraordinary levels - $451 million for the coming fiscal year- at the expense of cutting $38 million from an agency fighting what the Administration's own Homeland Security Secretary declared as our greatest crime threat in America today. 


It would seem a no-brainer for a Commander in Chief to try and secure his nation's borders and dedicate sufficient resources to fight international criminals bent on enslaving his countrymen.  Not so, with our current Muppet-in-Chief.  In the same budget which gives such a windfall to NPR and PBS, the Department of Justice agency tasked with combating organized drug cartels on American Soil, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), received a reduced budget - $38 million in cuts - from the previous fiscal year.  The Administration likes to chide Americans that everyone needs to tighten their fiscal belts and sacrifice, but apparently that sense of sacrificial duty only applies to agencies that actually safeguard Americans from crime and work to stem the tide of drugs pouring across our borders daily.  If you host news shows on PBS and speak glowingly of the Administration, or if you provide children's programming that could easily be provided, and is provided, in the private sector by companies such as Disney and Nickelodeon, you not only are not expected to sacrifice, you are handed $6 million more than last year, bringing your total to a staggering $451 million budget.  That is a belt-tightening that will only encourage further wallowing in the government trough.

Lest anyone think that NPR and PBS employees can maintain any degree of impartiality in their news coverage of current events involving President Obama, representatives of both entities expressed that they were "grateful to the Obama Administration" for the "vote of confidence".  How does one repay a debt of gratitude totaling $451 million?  With truthful but sometimes unflattering news stories and documentaries about the Administration?  Not likely. Where is intrepid Sesame Street Muppet Newsflash reporter Kermit the Frog to get to the truth of biased NPR and PBS news coverage of Democratic administrations? Somehow this video seemed all too applicable to any assurances we may hear from NPR or PBS officials about their political impartiality after being "rescued" budget after budget by Democratic administrations:

An Administration's priorities are best observed in what it desires to spend money to accomplish and what it is willing to cut from its budget.  Despite tough talk about drug cartels by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano in 2009, the Administration's latest budget proposal to cut DEA funding by $38 million while throwing money at PBS and NPR clearly demonstrates that controlling the messages broadcast over public television and radio is of far greater importance than controlling drug-related crime and the alarming spread of drug cartels in nearly every American city.  This is what Secretary Napolitano warned in 2009:

Mexican drug cartels maintain drug-distribution networks, or supply drugs to distributors, in at least 230 American cities, leading the Justice Department to call Mexican drug cartels the ‘greatest organized crime threat to the United States

 Americans of all political stripes and economic classes are being murdered by cartels and gangs over drugs.  Americans of all ideologies and incomes are becoming addicted to drugs supplied by cartels.  Families are literally being ripped apart by the ravages of illicit drug activity in homes and schools.  These cartels are operating brazenly in our streets, knowing that our government lacks the spine to commit adequate resources to the task of fighting them with any semblance of efficacy.  They operate in real cities, on real streets.  Except, of course, on Sesame Street, where everything is "A-okay" as long as the taxpayer spigot never slows by even one drop.  If funding public broadcasting is a high priority for the Obama Administration, then let it find those funds at the expense of agencies with no explicit duties to protect our national security and keep us safe to continue in our pursuit of happiness.  Keeping the men in the picture above off our streets is more important to most Americans than keeping Arthur in our living rooms.

Libyan Muslim Declaration a Model for Islamic Nations

As reported by Reuters today, a coalition of Libyan Muslim leaders has issued a declaration that it is the duty of all Libyan Muslims to rebel against Libyan Government leaders because of their "bloody crimes against humanity."  The language of the declaration is noteworthy because of its potential ideological applicability to citizens of all Islamist governments that foment violence or support radical Islamist groups, such as al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and others.

Here is the statement against the Libyan government:

They have demonstrated total arrogant impunity and continued, and even intensified, their bloody crimes against humanity. They have thereby demonstrated total infidelity to the guidance of God and His beloved Prophet (peace be upon him).  This renders them undeserving of any obedience or support, and makes rebelling against them by all means possible a divinely ordained duty.

This statement is equal parts powerful and muddled.  When applied by Libyan Muslims to violent elements within their own government, it is a call to revolution, directly stating that because the government uses violence ("bloody crimes against humanity"), the government is unfaithful to the teachings of Islam and is thus unworthy of allegiance or obedience from its people.  However, when applied to eliminating radical Islamist terrorists from Muslim nations, bold statements such as this one are few and far between.

When taken at face value, the statement from the Network of Free Ulema of Libya could be applied to al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and hundreds of other terrorist organizations worldwide.  They commit "bloody crimes against humanity", such as bombing hotels, pizza parlors, World Trade Center towers, and lines of civilians waiting to vote in democratic elections.  Does this not demonstrate"total infidelity to the guidance of God" as the Libyan Muslim leaders imply?  Or is it only infidelity to Muslim principles when violence is used on other Muslims?  Are non-Muslim peoples part of "humanity", thus violence against them makes the group who brought the violence undeserving of obedience or support from other Muslims?


The Libyan Muslim leaders made a bold and laudable declaration, removing any sense of guilt Libyans might have about protesting and physically rebelling against their government.  The logic of the statement is reflective of the language set forth in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, which presented a list of grievous acts committed by King George that rendered the Crown undeserving of any further allegiance from the Colonials.  In any revolutionary movement, it is critical to keep the government's sins in the forefront of popular memory.  By removing any religious hesitations Libyans may have because of their Islamic beliefs in obedience to government, the Network of Free Ulema of Libya makes the revolution's success more likely.  For those Muslims who adhere to this declaration, it has become religious duty to rebel in every way possible.  Gaddafi's guns, tanks, helicopters, and brutality will be no match for a united people who view it as their divinely ordained duty to rebel against him and remove the current government from power.


Capital Cloak applauds the statement from this coalition of Libyan Muslim leaders.  Now, if only more Muslim leaders worldwide would be similarly outspoken about the infidelity to God and his Prophet displayed by Islamic terrorist groups who have been killing through "bloody crimes against humanity" for decades.  If such statements are not issued, the non-Muslim peoples of the world are left with little doubt that they are not considered part of "humanity" by their Muslim friends and neighbors.