President or Dictator?

I want to start this op-ed by defining four things.

1. President: noun (often initial capital letter) the highest executive officer of a modern republic, as the Chief Executive of the United States.

2. Dictator: noun a person exercising absolute power, especially a ruler who has absolute, unrestricted control in a government without hereditary succession.

3. Rule of law: noun the principle that all people and institutions are subject to and accountable to law that is fairly applied and enforced; the principle of government by law.

4. Dictatorship: noun a country, government, or the form of government in which absolute power is exercised by a dictator.

According to Wikipedia, executive privilege is the power exercised by the President of the United States or other member of the executive office to resist subpoenas or other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government to access information or personnel relating to the executive branch.

It is not in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court of the United States ruled it to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of the executive branch in its own area of constitutional activity.

"In October of 2010 President Obama told the Washington Press Corps that he was not a dictator and thus could not impose immigration reform on his own without Congress," according to Dr. Robert Owens in The History of the Future.

"In 2013 in interviews with Spanish language media he said,'I am not a king' and that he could not impose immigration reform on his own without Congress."

In all, he made this same statement on twenty-two separate occasions. But when he was unable to get Congress to allow him to do what he wanted to--in fact while Congress was in the middle of changing after a vote that gave the majority to Republicans who would most likely not take Mr. Obama's side in the matter--he did exactly what he, a professed constitutional professor, had admitted he could not do. He made law.

Making laws is not the privilege of the executive branch of the United States government. That duty is held by Congress. It is the executive branch's duty to uphold and enforce existing laws.

It may be that you are of the minority who approves of the president's executive action, giving millions of illegal aliens--people who are here not through legal means, but by breaking the laws of our nation--not only privileges normally held by legal citizens, but allowing them to claim back tax revenue to the tune of $35,000 each. Yes, that's right. Because Mr. Obama's actions allow illegal aliens to file taxes, they can--legally--claim back tax revenue, even though they did not contribute to the tax revenue that legal citizens do.

"From recess appointments while Congress is in session to refusing to enforce the laws of the land to unilaterally remaking immigration law, this President is fundamentally transforming our system of government," continues Dr. Owen.

So when Rudy Gulliani stated that President Obama did not love America, I think I have to agree with him. Not that Mr. Obama does not love HIS country. I believe he does. The problem in my mind is which America does he really love? The one in which I grew up, ruled by laws that were changed legally by Congress after the representatives brought the desires of their constituents to bear? Or the one in which presidents have the power to change laws at their whim?

I side with Trey Gowdy who rightly said that while you may like what is happening now, by ignoring the rule of law, you open up a Pandora's Box for the future in which other presidents may take things even further.

So my question is, if a president makes his own laws, what is the difference between him and a dictator?

ISIS Displays Heartwrenching Cruelty Using Mentally Disabled Children as Pawns

When ISIS burned a man alive a few days ago, I bet you thought they couldn't stoop any lower. I know I did. But they have surpassed that level by something they routinely do, every day, and they do it to their own people. The terrorist group, to which 12 other like-minded groups look up, uses children to be suicide bombers and to hide behind. But while the use of children in warfare is abhorant, the particular children these terrorists choose is beyond contempt. They use the most innocent, the least able of all, those who are mentally deficient. In fact, in one well-known case, ISIS beheaded one child for the "crime" of being born with Down's Syndrome.

It has been said that a man never stands so tall as when he stoops down to help a child. These "men" are so small they have to look up to see down. It sickens my soul

Yemen's Shiite Rebels Dissolve Parliament, Announce Takeover

Yemen's powerful Shiite rebels announced Friday that they had dissolved parliament and taken over the country, a dramatic move that finalizes their months-long power grab.the development also plunges the impoverished country deeper into turmoil and threatens to turn the crisis into full blown sectarian conflict, pitting the Iran-backed Houthi Shiites against Sunni tribesmen and secessionists in the south.

It could also play into the hands of Yemen's Al-Qaeda branch, the world's most dangerous offshoot of the terror group, and jeopardize the U.S. counterterrorism operations in the country.

--via FOX News

King of Jordan to Participate in Striking ISIS

(IraqiNews.com) Jordan confirmed on Wednesday that “The Jordanian King Abdullah II will participate personally on Thursday in conducting airstrikes against the shelters of the terrorist ISIS organization to revenge the execution of the Jordanian pilot Maath al-Kassasba by the ISIS.”

Media outlets reported the King Abdullah II as saying “The war against ISIS will not end and we will fight them in their shelters.” 

US National Security Depends On Closing Gitmo

"The President and his national security team all believe that the continued operation of the facility at Guantanamo weakens our national security by draining resources, damaging our relationships with key allies, and is used by violent extremists to incite local populations." So said Brian McKeon, a  Pentagon official responsible for advising the secretary of defense on policy and strategy, this week.

"There has never been a plan" from the White House on how to deal with the potentially dozens of detainees still incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay if the center is shut, said Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) at Thursday's hearing.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) said that President Obama needed to present Congress with a solid plan that would be sufficient to deal with potential recidivism if the detainees are released. Currently, the numbers vary from an estimated 3% to 30% of those who have returned to their terrorist activities since being released.

"In my opinion, the only thing wrong with Guantanamo Bay is there are too many empty beds there now," said Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas). "As far as I'm concerned everyone of them can rot in hell and if they can't do that then they can rot in Guantanamo Bay."

His sentiment is pretty much shared by four Republican lawmakers from the Armed Services Committee. Kelley Ayotte of New Hampshire, John McCain of Arizona, Richard Burr of North Carolina and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina have sided with a bill that would prevent the administration from closing the detention facility. The White House is angry over that.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Virginia) had an alternate idea. His suggestion was to transfer the detainees to super-maximum security prisons not operated by the military. No terrorist has ever escaped a supermax prison, and there have been 556 terrorist convictions reached in federal courts since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, but only eight trials conducted by the Guantanamo Bay military tribunals in the same time span.

My question is, how is keeping the detainees locked up less safe than allowing them to go back to their terrorist activities? Which "allies" are we offending by keeping them detained? And aren't images such as burning a man alive and beheading others not a cause for incitement by those who would be incited?

ISIS: Islamic Servants in Satan

ISIS, also known as Islamic Servants In Satan, has beheaded so many people just in 2014 that, frankly, I've lost count. (See http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISIL_beheading_incidents for more info.) So many, in fact, that they must be afraid that beheading is no longer shocking enough. So this week they resorted to setting a Jordanian pilot (1st Lt Moaz Kasasbeh) in a cage on fire. Then they videotaped it and plastered it all over social media. What kind of entities do such things? You can't call them people, because they are no longer in possession of their own souls. They're certainly not animals...animals don't normally display and crow over their heinous accomplishments (other than the occasional cat bringing her owner a dead rat). (See http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/03/isis-video-jordanian-hostage-burdning-death-muadh-al-kasabeh for more.)

Jordanian Pilot  1st Lt. Moaz Kasasbeh, burned alive

Now, Jordan has kept its word to retaliate in revenge.  http://www.ijreview.com/2015/02/245288-jordan-keeps-word-hang-jihadists-response-isis-killing-pilot/?utm_source=dailynewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=12&listID=%7BlistID%7D

What's next? Drawing and quartering? Lord forbid the world should resort to a tit for tat, one-upsmanship war of who can kill in the most horrific way!