Tag Archives: US Constitution

Deceiver in Chief reveals first moves

The Weekly Standard published an article yesterday revealing a promise made on Huffington Post to assure the Left he has not forgotten his plan to fundamentally change America. ~TD

illustration0001Obama to ‘Quickly’ Go for Immigration Reform and Gun Control

W.H. pledges action this month.

6:54 PM, JAN 2, 2013 • BY DANIEL HALPER

President Barack Obama will go for immigration reform and gun control this month, the White House tells the left-leaning Huffington Post. Obama’s actions will reportedly be done “quickly.”

“An Obama administration official said the president plans to push for immigration reform this January. The official, who spoke about legislative plans only on condition of anonymity, said that coming standoffs over deficit reduction are unlikely to drain momentum from other priorities. The White House plans to push forward quickly, not just on immigration reform but gun control laws as well,” reports the Huffington Post.

Read whole article at:  http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-quickly-go-immigration-reform-and-gun-control_693547.html

Only You Can Stop Him

Only you can stop him.

Are you gonna wait until he’s destroyed the whole Constitution?

Make sure you’re registered to vote.

Then vote on November 6, 2012!

H/t beloved fellow GrouchyFogie

~Eowyn

Obama Refuses to Reveal Secret Memo Authorizing Murder of US Citizen

We may differ on whether or not the recent killing of al-Aqaeda operative and U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki is a good thing or not. (See the comments on Steve’s post, “Ron Paul Says U.S. “Assassinated” US-Born al-Qaeda Terrorist“.)

But I think, whatever our stance, we will all agree that there is no legitimate reason why Obama should keep secret his memo that authorized the killing of al-Awlaki. Why? Because the memo is setting a very troubling precedent for the U.S. government to assassinate any American citizen for any reason the government deems justified.

Article 3, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution says:

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason….”     

~Eowyn

Conor Friedersdorf writes for The Atlantic, Oct. 3, 2011:

Outside the U.S. government, President Obama’s order to kill American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki without due process has proved controversial, with experts in law and war reaching different conclusions. Inside the Obama Administration, however, disagreement was apparently absent, or so say anonymous sources quoted by the Washington Post. “The Justice Department wrote a secret memorandum authorizing the lethal targeting of Anwar al-Aulaqi, the American-born radical cleric who was killed by a U.S. drone strike Friday, according to administration officials,” the newspaper reported. “The document was produced following a review of the legal issues raised by striking a U.S. citizen and involved senior lawyers from across the administration. There was no dissent about the legality of killing Aulaqi, the officials said.”

Isn’t that interesting? Months ago, the Obama Administration revealed that it would target al-Awlaki. It even managed to wriggle out of a lawsuit filed by his father to prevent the assassination. But the actual legal reasoning the Department of Justice used to authorize the strike? It’s secret. Classified. Information that the public isn’t permitted to read, mull over, or challenge.

Why? What justification can there be for President Obama and his lawyers to keep secret what they’re asserting is a matter of sound law? This isn’t a military secret. It isn’t an instance of protecting CIA field assets, or shielding a domestic vulnerability to terrorism from public view. This is an analysis of the power that the Constitution and Congress’ post September 11 authorization of military force gives the executive branch. This is a president exploiting official secrecy so that he can claim legal justification for his actions without having to expose his specific reasoning to scrutiny. As the Post put it, “The administration officials refused to disclose the exact legal analysis used to authorize targeting Aulaqi, or how they considered any Fifth Amendment right to due process.”

Obama hasn’t just set a new precedent about killing Americans without due process. He has done so in a way that deliberately shields from public view the precise nature of the important precedent he has set. It’s time for the president who promised to create “a White House that’s more transparent and accountable than anything we’ve seen before” to release the DOJ memo. As David Shipler writes, “The legal questions are far from clearcut, and the country needs to have this difficult discussion.” And then there’s the fact that “a good many Obama supporters thought that secret legal opinions by the Justice Department — rationalizing torture and domestic military arrests, for example — had gone out the door along with the Bush administration,” he adds. “But now comes a momentous change in policy with serious implications for the Constitution’s restraint on executive power, and Obama refuses to allow his lawyers’ arguments to be laid out on the table for the American public to examine.” What doesn’t he want to get out?

Indiana Becomes a Police State: Supreme Court Overrules 4th Amendment

Indiana state flag

A man’s castle is no longer his own.

Once upon a time, the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.

The 4th Amendment was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. In 1961, in Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the 4th Amendment applies to the states by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Alas, all that is no more.

The Supreme Court of the State of Indiana just ruled that it is unlawful for you to resist an unlawful entry into your home.

Dan Carden reports for NWI.com, “Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home,” May 13, 2011:

INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer’s entry.

“We believe … a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence,” David said. “We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.”

David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.

The court’s decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment. When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him.

Professor Ivan Bodensteiner, of Valparaiso University School of Law, said the court’s decision is consistent with the idea of preventing violence. “It’s not surprising that they would say there’s no right to beat the hell out of the officer,” Bodensteiner said. “(The court is saying) we would rather opt on the side of saying if the police act wrongfully in entering your house your remedy is under law, to bring a civil action against the officer.”

Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native, and Justice Brent Dickson, a Hobart native, dissented from the ruling, saying the court’s decision runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. “In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally – that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances,” Rucker said. “I disagree.”

Rucker and Dickson suggested if the court had limited its permission for police entry to domestic violence situations they would have supported the ruling. But Dickson said, “The wholesale abrogation of the historic right of a person to reasonably resist unlawful police entry into his dwelling is unwarranted and unnecessarily broad.”

This is the second major Indiana Supreme Court ruling this week involving police entry into a home. On Tuesday, the court said police serving a warrant may enter a home without knocking if officers decide circumstances justify it. Prior to that ruling, police serving a warrant would have to obtain a judge’s permission to enter without knocking.

For the Indiana Supreme Court’s ruling in pdf, click here.

Indiana Supreme Court Justice Steven David

Justice Steven David, who wrote the majority opinion, was a military lawyer and colonel in the US Army.

H/t beloved fellow Will.

~Eowyn

By U.S. Senate’s Definition, Obama Is Ineligible – Not a Natural Born Citizen

The facts now are clear and irrefutable:

Barack Obama is ineligible to be President of the United States of America because he is NOT a natural born citizen.

Why?

Section 1, Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution states that only a “natural born citizen” can be President.

In 2008, when the Democrats raised the question of whether GOP presidential candidate Senator John McCain was a natural born citizen, the U.S. Senate looked into the matter and decided McCain is one.

On April 30, 2008, the Senate passed a resolution — that Obama himself had signed — to that effect, “Recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen.” SR 511 states the following:

“Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;

“Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas there is no evidence of the intention of the Framers or any Congress to limit the constitutional rights of children born to Americans serving in the military nor to prevent those children from serving as their country’s President;…

Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen’ under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States.”

In other words, the U.S. Senate defines “natural born citizen” as an individual who was born:

  1. On American soil (which includes U.S. overseas military bases); and
  2. Of parents who were American citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

By that definition, Obama is not a Natural Born Citizen — even if he produces definitive documentary proof he was born in Hawaii — because his father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., was a native Kenyan and a British colonial subject who gave his Kenyan citizenship to his son. In fact, by pro-Obama FactCheck.org’s own admission, Obama was a Kenyan citizen until his Kenyan citizenship expired on August 4, 1984 after he had reached adulthood.

H/t AmericaCoast2Coast.

~Eowyn & DCG

Only 1 in 10 Americans Believe Obama Has Proven His Eligibility

The elephant in the room which will not be ignored

A new scientific poll by Wenzel Strategies finds Americans across the political spectrum increasingly dubious about Obama’s birth eligbility to be president.

Wenzel is an independent public opinion research firm based in Ohio. From March 15-17, Wenzel conducted a nationwide telephone poll using a randomly selected sample of adults. The survey included 1,095 respondents and carries a confidence interval of 95% and a margin of error of +/- 2.93 percentage points.

The results of the survey are reported by Bob Unruh of WorldNetDaily on March 20, 2011, “Only 9% believe Obama has documented eligibility“:

1. The vast majority of Americans are aware of the controversy of Obama’s eligibility:

2. Among those who are aware of the Obama eligibility controversy today:

  • Nearly 82% of Republicans said they are aware of the controversy.
  • 77% of Democrats said they are aware.
  • Almost 69% of Independents said they are aware of the issue.

3. More Americans doubt than believe in Obama’s eligibility to be president:

  • 41.9% say Obama should prove his birth story, including 60.9% of independents, 58.6% of Republicans and 13.2% of Democrats. Men are also somewhat more skeptical than women.
  • 7.9% say the questions are troubling.
  • 32% say the lingering questions about Obama’s eligibility have no validity.
  • Just 9% said they believe Obama has met the requirements to prove he was born in the United States and is therefore qualified to be president.

4. A majority of Americans also want Obama to release his school records (from Punahou Kindergarten, Occidental College, Columbia University, Harvard Law School), which he continues to refuse to release:

5. There is strong support for state laws that require candidates for president to prove they are constitutionally qualified to hold the office – before they will be allowed to appear on that state’s presidential ballot:

  • 65% said they support such state bills.
  • 24% said they oppose such state measures.
  • Huge majorities of both men and women agree with these state proposals, which are popular in every region of the nation.

The president of the poll firm, Wenzel, concludes:

“At a time when this country faces dramatic problems both here at home and around the world, it does harm to Obama’s credibility and undermines the confidence of the American people to have this question hanging out there. One can only imagine the storm of controversy that might ensue if we discover definitively after his presidency is over that he was not qualified to hold office. The resignation of Richard Nixon would pale by comparison in terms of undermining public confidence in government. The bottom line on these early-life records of Obama is that this issue lives on, regardless of how derisive some have been toward the so-called ‘birther’ movement. Obama supporters, particularly those in the national news media who have protected the president on this issue, have tried to ostracize those who still have doubts about Obama’s birth, but try as they might, they have done little to quell the questions in the minds of the American public. This issue is far from over.”

WND has reported that such proposals already have been made in 13 states, although several of the initiatives have been detoured by politics inside committee meeting rooms.

For past polls on Obama eligibility, read the rest of the WND article HERE.

H/t beloved fellow Tina!

~Eowyn

Never Thought I’d Agree With Chris Matthews

Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution says “The Congress,” not the President, “shall have the power to declare war.”

Yesterday, from his junket to South America, in Rio de Janeiro, Barack Barry Hussein Steven Dunham Soetoro Obama (he of the Connecticut Social Security number) ordered the U.S. military to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles at Libya.

In this video, at the 0:42 mark, MSNBC’s Chrissie “I-feel-a-thrill-up-my-leg” Matthews asks a constitutional question that noone in the media, the GOP, or Congress is asking:

With what special Constitutional authority does the President act here?

H/t ObamaReleaseYourRecords.

~Eowyn

Why Obama’s Certificate of Live Birth is a Fake

Dr. Ronald Polland is an expert on the design, implementation, and analysis of needs assessments, surveys, questionnaires, tests, focus groups, and market research. In this 2-minute video, Polland shows why Obama’s alleged Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) that FactCheck.org posted online in 2008 is a fake.

H/t ObamaReleaseYourRecords

~Eowyn

Judge Rules Obamacare Unconstitutional

“Even the smallest person can change the course of the future.” -J.R.R. Tolkien

Two days ago, Federal Judge Roger Vinson did just that when he ruled that Obamacare’s requirement that every American must purchase medical insurance violates the Constitution. Already, Judge Vinson’s ruling is having an impact as news comes today that Wisconsin’s attorney general, J. B. Van Hollen, has declared his state to be free of any obligations imposed by Obamacare.

Vinson, a lover and grower of the camellia flower, was an aviator in the U.S. Navy. Here is Judge Vinson’s legal reasoning, which is lodged firmly in the U.S. Constitution and the wisdom of the Founding Fathers. It’s well worth your read!

Read the full text of Vinson’s ruling HERE.

H/t beloved fellows Tina & May.

~Eowyn 

 
 

The Constitutional Moment

U.S. Federal Judge Roger Vinson

 

Judge Vinson introduces ObamaCare to Madison and Marshall.

Wall St. Journal – Feb 1, 2011

‘If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

Federal Judge Roger Vinson opens his decision declaring ObamaCare unconstitutional with that citation from Federalist No. 51, written by James Madison in 1788. His exhaustive and erudite opinion is an important moment for American liberty, and yesterday may well stand as the moment the political branches were obliged to return to the government of limited and enumerated powers that the framers envisioned.

As Judge Vinson took pains to emphasize, the case is not really about health care at all, or the wisdom—we would argue the destructiveness—of the newest entitlement. Rather, the Florida case goes to the core of the architecture of the American system, and whether there are any remaining limits on federal control. Judge Vinson’s 78-page ruling in favor of 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business, among others, is by far the best legal vindication to date of Constitutional principles that form the outer boundaries of federal power.

At the heart of the states’ lawsuit is the individual mandate, which requires everyone to purchase health insurance or be penalized for not doing so. “Never before has Congress required that everyone buy a product from a private company (essentially for life) just for being alive and residing in the United States,” Judge Vinson writes.

Congressional Democrats and the Obama Administration justified this coercion under the Commerce Clause, so it is fitting that Judge Vinson conducts a deep investigation into its history and intent, including Madison’s notes at the Constitutional Convention and the jurisprudence of the fourth Chief Justice, John Marshall. The original purpose of the Commerce Clause was to eliminate the interstate trade barriers that prevailed under the Articles of Confederation—among the major national problems that gave rise to the Constitution.

The courts affirmed this limited and narrow understanding until the New Deal, when Congress began to regulate harum-scarum and the Supreme Court inflated the clause into a general license for anything a majority happened to favor.

In a major 1942 case, Wickard v. Filburn, the Court held that even growing wheat for personal use was an activity with a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce, thus justifying federal restrictions on the use of agricultural land meant to prop up commodity prices. It wasn’t until the William Rehnquist Court, a half-century later, that the Justices began to recover some of the original limits, notably in the Lopez (1995) and Morrison (2000) cases.

Yet even in its most elastic interpretations, the Commerce Clause applied only to “clear and inarguable activity,” Judge Vinson writes, the emphasis his. It never applied to inactivity like not buying health insurance, which has “no impact whatsoever” on interstate commerce. He argues that breaching this frontier converts the clause into a general police power of the kind that the Constitution reserves to the states. As the High Court put it in Lopez, obliterating this distinction would “create a completely centralized government.”

The Administration contends that not purchasing insurance—inactivity—is really activity, because everyone will eventually need medical care and their costs will be transferred to the insured. But Judge Vinson dissects that as a “radical departure” from the Constitution and U.S. case law. It is “not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted,” he writes. “Surely this is not what the Founding Fathers could have intended.”

He notes that no one can opt out of eating any more than they can from the medical system, so return to the Wickard example of wheat: “Congress could more directly raise too-low wheat prices merely by increasing demand through mandating that every adult purchase and consume wheat bread daily, rationalized on the grounds that because everyone must participate in the market for food, non-consumers of wheat bread adversely affect prices in the wheat market.”

Unlike Judge Henry Hudson in Virginia, who also found ObamaCare to be unconstitutional, Judge Vinson addresses the Administration’s fallback argument that the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause justifies the law even if the Commerce Clause doesn’t. He writes that this clause “is not an independent source of federal power” and “would vitiate the enumerated powers principle.” In other words, the clause can’t justify inherently unconstitutional actions.

Judge Vinson also went beyond the Virginia case in striking down the entire ObamaCare statute—paradoxically, an act of judicial modesty. Democrats intentionally left out a “severability” clause if one part of the bill was struck down, and the Administration repeatedly argued that the individual mandate was “essential” to the bill’s goals and mechanisms and compared it to “a finely crafted watch.” Judge Vinson writes that picking and choosing among thousands of sections would be “tantamount to rewriting a statute in an attempt to salvage it.”

***

We take a measure of vindication in the decision—David Rivkin and Lee Casey, the lawyers who argued the Florida case, first suggested in these pages that the individual mandate was unconstitutional. Judge Vinson’s learned opinion has put down a Constitutional argument that will reverberate all the way to the Supreme Court.

Top Democrats Consider 25th Amendment to Remove Obama

Fallen idol

Obama has now been in office for nearly 21 months.

Throughout, he repeatedly ignored the majority will of the People, but instead rammed unpopular legislation like ObamaCare down America’s throat. His handling of the BP Gulf oil disaster was tardy and ineffectual, especially when compared to the caring and impressive leadership demonstrated by Chilean President Sebastián Piñera in resolving the trapped miners’ plight. Most recently, an anonymous White House insider and investigative reporter Wayne Madsen both paint an even more disturbing portrait of a U.S. President who is in a narcissistic meltdown – smoking and drinking too much, so depressed he’s on anti-depression medication, paranoic, and in the grip of near-schizophrenic self-delusion. [See my post, "Wayne Madsen Reports Obama Depressed & Schizophrenic"]

Reacting to all this, there’s a rising chorus of voices calling for the use of Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to remove Obama from office. This is what Wikipedia says about the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

The Twenty-fifth Amendment…to the United States Constitution deals with succession to the Presidency and establishes procedures both for filling a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, as well as responding to Presidential disabilities…. Section 4 is the only part of the amendment never to have been invoked. It allows the Vice President, together with a majority of either “the principal officers of the executive departments” (i.e., the Cabinet) or of “such other body as Congress may by law provide”, to declare the President disabled by submitting a written declaration to the President pro tempore and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. As with Section 3, the Vice President would become Acting President. Section 4 is meant to be invoked if the President’s incapacitation prevents him from discharging the duties of his office and to provide a written declaration to that effect.

The voices calling for the removal of Obama via the 25th Amendment include not just fringe politicos like Lyndon LaRouche but also Kesha Rogers, a black Democrat running for the House of Representatives from Texas’ 22nd District. More interesting still is a Wayne Madsen Report (WMR) claiming that “Obama’s depression and lack of interest in his duties have senior administration officials and some Cabinet secretaries considering the invocation of Section 4 of the 25th Amendment.”

Below are the relevant excerpts from the exclusive-to-subscribers WMR of October 11-12, 2o10, Meltdown of Team Obama. White House in Crisis“:

A President in meltdown — disengaged and psychologically disturbed:

…WMR can confirm from multiple sources is a president who is suffering from Nixonian levels of paranoia, depression, and schizophrenia…. Obama’s paranoia and severe depression over his correct belief that certain interests are out to get him.

…according to the former White House staffer who is talking to Ulsterman, [Obama is] extremely lazy, only interested in watching ESPN and discussing sports, and playing golf, and doing what he is most comfortable at: campaigning. Obama clearly wants to run again for president, citing the “adoring crowds” who greet him on the political stump. Mrs. Obama has reportedly told the president that “there are no more adoring crowds.”

Last March, the annual report on the president’s health contained a reference to drinking. Obama’s doctor urged him to “Continue smoking cessation efforts, a daily exercise program, healthy diet, moderation in alcohol intake. . .” WMR has been told by informed sources that Obama’s drinking has, on occasion, been more than moderate.

Rahm Emanuel did not resign, he was fired:

Rahm Emanuel’s firing came after he and Mrs. Obama had a major argument, and the First Lady told Emanuel he had to go “for a reason.” Mrs. Obama reportedly flatly told Emanuel he was “no longer welcome at the White House.” The “Emanuel-running-for-Chicago-mayor” story was mere window dressing to cover up the meltdown in the White House leadership.

White House in complete disarray:

The top-level White House resignations, just before a critical mid-term election, are unprecedented even by Watergate standards. The October 1973 White House instability was one year before the 1974 mid-terms, an election that still saw the Republicans suffer tremendous losses in the Congress.

The following have all left the White House, some abruptly:

  • Rahm Emanuel, chief of staff. Resigned effective October 1, 2010.
  • Retired General James Jones, National Security Adviser. Resignation announced on October 8, 2010.
  • Ellen Moran, Communications Director, left in April 2009, however, the leaks indicate the Obama “Deep Throat” had more recent access to the Oval Office. Moran is now chief of Staff to Commerce Secretary Gary Locke.
  • Van Jones, special adviser for “Green Jobs.” Left in September 2009, again, too early to have been privy to later inside information.
  • Mark Lippert, deputy national security adviser. Left in October 2009 and went from reserve to active status in the US Navy. Lippert was a “pick-up basketball” partner of Obama during the campaign.
  • David Ogden, Deputy Attorney General. Resigned in February 2010.
  • Greg Craig, White House Counsel. Craig was forced to announce his resignation in November 2009. Although November 2009 was also possibly too early for Craig to be the source, he is a consummate Washington insider who may continue to be privy to information from within the Oval Office and West Wing.
  • Peter Orszag, Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Resigned in June 2010. Like Craig, a strong possibility.
  • Retired Admiral Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence. Resigned in May 2010. Would have had classified access to White House operations although he did not work in the White House.
  • Christina Romer, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers. Resigned in September 2010.
  • Larry Summers, Director of National Economic Council. Resignation not to take effect until after November 2 election.

There are also reports that White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has been told to look for another job. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has announced his decision to leave but with James Jones’s early dismissal, Gates may move up his departure from the Pentagon. David Axelrod plans to leave as early as March 2011 to work, as he has stated, on Obama’s re-election campaign from Chicago.

Unlike Watergate and the Iran-contra scandal, however, the corporate media is refusing to report on the breakdown of the Obama administration and the internecine political warfare within the Executive Office of the President.

Fighting between Obama’s domestic policy and foreign policy teams:

WMR has also learned of a schism that has opened up between Obama’s political team of Emanuel, Jarrett, David Axelrod, and White House pollsters and focus group specialists who meet at the White House every Wednesday and the national security team of National Security Adviser Jim Jones, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The national security team is convinced that the political team is only focused on the 2012 re-election campaign and not on pressing national security issues. Brawls have reportedly broken out between the two groups

Now that Jones is out, Gates is going — maybe sooner than reported — and Clinton is contemplating leaving and challenging Obama in 2012, the national security team under Biden’s close friend Donilon is now in the hands of a veteran Democratic political team. But the political team has also taken major hits, with Emanuel gone, Axelrod leaving next year, and White House General Counsel Greg Craig having left last January. New Chief of Staff Rouse is a protege of former Senator Tom Daschle and is considered close to Biden’s circle.

John O. Brennan, Obama’s deputy national security adviser for Homeland Security and Counter-terrorism, is also under pressure to resign. Brennan, after retiring as interim chief of the National Counter-terrorism Center at the CIA in 2005, became CEO of The Analysis Corporation. Brennan’s firm’s employees were among those cited in rifling through Obama’s State Department passport files in January 2008. It was never ascertained what information was gleaned from Obama’s files and possibly those of his mother, grandfather, and grandmother. However, WMR has learned that Obama’s past is curently of interest to individuals linked closely to the CIA.

Obama increasingly isolates himself:

The White House team now consists of Biden’s circle of Donilon and Rouse, the Obama circle of Michelle Obama, Jarrett, and an increasingly weakened Axelrod, and those in the middle who are not sure about the future of the administration.

Democrats in near-rebellion:

Informed sources in Washington, DC have told WMR that President Obama has been personally told by a delegation of top Democratic Party financiers that unless he radically changes his economic policies they will bolt from him for another Democratic candidate in 2012. The Democratic money moguls conveyed the warning to Obama in Martha’s Vineyard, where the president and his family are spending their vacation. There are various factions within the Democratic Party that see different scenarios to bail out what many Democrats see as an administration in deep trouble with the electorate. One would have Secretary of State Hillary Clinton move up to replace Vice President Joe Biden on the 2012 ticket with Senator John Kerry becoming Secretary of State. However, WMR has been told that Clinton personally loathes Obama and his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and may not want to be part of the 2012 president ticket playing second fiddle to Obama. WMR has also learned that Obama’s reported ‘severe narcissism’ has a number of his cabinet officials and top Democratic fundraisers perplexed. Obama’s refusal to change course because of his ego was discussed at the recent annual Bohemian Grove conclave in northern California, which brings together influential businessmen and politicians from both parties. Top U.S. business leaders openly complained about Obama’s economic policies, with some stating that Obama is, for the business community, the worst president in anyone’s lifetime. They also complained about White House gatekeepers like Emanuel and policy advisers Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod who are preventing access to the Oval Office.

Although such complaints could be expected from Republican businessmen, we have learned that top Democratic businessmen at the Bohemian Grove have told Jarrett, Obama’s chief liaison to them, that all she does is  shake them down” for campaign contributions and that the uncertainty on the costs for Obama programs on health care and taxes has prevented the hiring of workers.

WMR has also learned that rather than change course, the White House staff, who are keenly reading anything that is critical of the president, are more interested in exacting revenge for criticism than in changing course. ‘The White House staff are voracious readers who are obsessed with favorable coverage,’ one source said.

The Obama administration’s interest in a favorable public image over all other interests has a number of Democrats running for re-election privately miffed. One change many Democratic politicians and fundraisers would like to see is the replacement of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner with someone with more gravitas and a better handle on fixes for the plummeting economy.”

The first invocation of the Section 4 of the 25th Amendment “is on the table”:

[Obama's condition] has some top-level administration officials considering the first-ever invocation of Section 4 of the 25th Amendment — the involuntary removal of the president from office. The White House meltdown has the Washington political circuit buzzing under the surface.

Section 4 has never been invoked…. The present talk about invoking Section 4 has made Obama even more paranoid about his enemies, who he feels range from Biden and the Clintons to the banks and Wall Street.

Section 4 would allow Vice President Biden, along with a majority of either ‘the principal officers of the executive departments,” the Cabinet or “such other body as Congress may by law provide,” to declare the President disabled by submitting a written declaration to the president of the Senate pro tem Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI), and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). Under Section 3 of the 25th Amendment, Vice President Biden would become Acting President.

Section 4 is designed to be invoked if the president’s incapacitation prevents him from discharging the duties of his office. A written declaration to that effect must be presented to Congress. The president may resume exercising the Presidential duties by sending a written declaration to the president of the Senate pro tem and the speaker of the House.

However, should the Vice president and Cabinet remain unsatisfied with the president’s condition, within four days of the president’s declaration that he is fit, may submit another declaration that the president is incapacitated. The Congress must then assemble within 48 hours, if not already in session. Within 21 days of assembling or of receiving the second declaration by the Vice President and the Cabinet, a two-thirds vote of each house of Congress is required to affirm the President as unfit. Upon this finding by the Congress, Section 4 states that the vice president would continue to function as the “Acting President.” If the Republicans win one or both houses of Congress on November 2, a lame duck Democratic-led Senate and House might have to deal with the invocation of Section 3, something that could plunge the country into a constitutional crisis.

If Biden were to become president, he would have to nominate a vice president subject to a majority approval of the Senate and House of Representatives. Again, a lame duck Congress may find itself thrust into approving a vice presidential successor and Biden would likely want such a decision to fall to Democratic-led chambers rather than one or both being controlled by the Republicans. In such an event, Secretary of State Clinton, the senior Cabinet member, may find herself as the favorite. Current talk in the corporate media about Clinton being offered the vice presidential slot by Obama in 2012, and her rejection of such a scenario, may be part of a campaign to prepare the American people for a vice presidency, not under Obama, but under Biden.

The scenario of invoking Section 4 of the 25th Amendment is a worst-case scenario but the mere fact that it is “on the table” provides an indication of the current dysfunctional situation in the White House. Democratic Party leaders are scrambling in anticipation of major losses on Nov. 2 in the Congress and state houses. President Obama may soon find himself at the receiving end of senior Democratic Party elders who will bear a “shock therapy” message: “shape up or ship out.”

Let’s provide this criminal cabal in the White House with one final push over the cliff: VOTE OUT ALL DEMORATS AND RINOs ON NOVEMBER 2!!!

~Eowyn