Is it time?

Washington, DC, and the nation abounds with rumors of impeachment for Obama. Everyone also knows that any impeachment bill that gets out of the House will be killed by Harry Reid in the Senate.

Or, will it? Dems, mainly those in the House and Senate imperiled at the polls by Obama’s dictatorial Executive Orders, may, in fear of their positions, agree to impeachment and the Senate trial.

Paul Ryan has declared Obama has not committed any ‘high crime’ sufficient for impeachment. He and others equate ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors‘ as it is written in the Constitution, with civil crimes, like theft, murder and extortion committed by the Hoi Polloi.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6a/Senate-Johnson-Impeachment-Trials.jpgNot so, Mr. Ryan. For impeachment, ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors‘ means whatever the Congress says it is. President Andrew Johnson was nearly impeached for firing one of his cabinet secretaries. Congress can use almost any issue to impeach a President. All they need are the votes. In Obama’s case, his failure to uphold his oath of office by failing to secure our borders, is sufficient for impeachment.

The possible charges against Obama are many. Some accuse him of failing to uphold his oath of office. Failing to secure our borders is one example. His flagrant use of Executive Orders, many designed specifically to by-pass Congressional approval, is another. His attempts to infringe upon religious freedom in violation of the 1st Amendment adds to the list of acts that could be used for impeachment.

A number of years ago, I posted some notes I’d made from Thomas Wood’s book, “33 Questions about American History You’re not Supposed to Ask.” In Wood ‘s book, one chapter was about the rise of the Imperial Presidency. The method used by presidents to create that Imperial Presidency was Executive Orders.

We can thank Teddy Roosevelt for the proliferation of Executive Orders.

What is an Execute Order? An Executive Order is a directive to those departments of the Executive branch of government. Initially, it was the act of implementing legislation passed by Congress. However, in some cases, Orders were written that were not supported by preceding acts of Congress. During the early years of our republic, those orders were submitted to Congress requesting concurrence, i.e., ex post facto Congressional approval of the Executive Order. Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, Presidents were extremely reluctant to issue an Executive Order being cognizant that Congress could subsequently reverse and not approve the order. This trend continued through the Civil War until the presidency of Teddy Roosevelt.

It was TR who pioneered rule by executive order as a governing style among American chief executives. Many Americans rightly howled during the 1990s when Clinton aid Paul Begala famously said of executive orders, “Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool.” But Clinton, who once called Theodore Roosevelt his favorite Republican president, was only exercising a power that TR had made a major feature of the presidential office early in the century.

To appreciate the transformation that occurred in American government under TR, consider the number of executive orders issued by the presidents of the late 19th century. Presidents Hayes and Garfield issued none. Arthur issued 3, Grover Cleveland (first term) 6, Benjamin Harrison 4, Cleveland (second term) 71, McKinley 51. TR issued 1,006.Crucis’ Court, July 21, 2009.

The current push for impeachment is Obama’s excesses in issuing Executive Orders that violate the Constitution by by-passing Congress. The use of Executive Orders by Obama, or EOs as some call them, is the usurpation of power granted solely to Congress, not the Executive branch of our government.

Ted Cruz, according to a Washington Post article, says the illegal use of EOs to give amnesty to millions of illegal aliens is sufficient to impeach Obama.

Cruz: It’s about executive power – WaPo: “The fate of a Republican proposal to address a brewing immigration crisis along the U.S.-Mexico border was cast into doubt Wednesday after a tea party senator lobbied against it to House members. The effort by Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.), who made his pitch to a group of House Republicans in a closed-door evening meeting, marked another direct shot at attempts by Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) to deal with the influx of illegal immigrants arriving from Central America…’The only way to stop the border crisis is to stop Obama’s amnesty,’ Cruz said in a statement. ‘It is disappointing the border security legislation unveiled today does not include language to end Obama’s amnesty. Congress cannot hope to solve this problem without addressing the fundamental cause of it.’” — FOXNewsletter, July 31, 2014.

But just who is it that is talking the most about impeachment? It is the democrats. They are using impeachment as a fundraising tool.

THE PARTY OF IMPEACHMENT
“You bet we’re going to run on a Congress that is just obsessed with lawsuits, suing the President, talking about impeaching him, instead of solutions for the middle class, talking about jobs and infrastructure. You bet that we’re going to ask people to support us based on that contrast.” – DCCC Chairman Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y. told CNN Wednesday To wit – Washington Examiner: “Just as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., stepped onto the House floor to blast the lawsuit as ‘another Republican effort to pander to the most radical right-wing voters at taxpayer expense,’ the House fundraising arm sent out an email from Pelosi asking for donations ranging from $5 to $250 or more, to ‘support the president.’” Ummmm… – Daily Caller: “In a speech on the floor of the House Wednesday, Texas U.S. Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee claimed that Democrats never sought to impeach President George W. Bush. Not only is that claim false, but Jackson-Lee actually co-sponsored a 2008 bill to do just that and spoke in at least one House committee hearing in support of the effort.” — FOXNewsletter, July 31, 2014.

The most telling quote came from Judge Andrew Napolitano. “The choice is between two more years of government by decree or two years of prosecution. It is a choice the president has imposed upon us all.” It is time to end government by decree. Taking back the entire Congress in 2014 if the first step.

Friday Follies for August 30, 2013

Labor Day creeped up on me this year. I’d completely forgotten about it until earlier this week. When I was growing up in the Illinois coal country, Labor Day was as big a yearly event as was Independence Day. It was a day of parades, Flags and picnics.

Most of the families in my southern Illinois county had union ties. In fact, thinking back, I don’t remember anyone who didn’t have some kind of union connection.

No more…and, I believe, that’s a good thing. Industry has evolved since the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Industry depended on muscle power, as a source of power in the mines, or directing machinery as mechanization grew. Health, wages and working conditions were the motivations for unions during the early industrial age. The unions won.

But that changed. As early as WW1 and the coming decades, unions were infiltrated by socialists operatives whose goals were not the benefit of the union membership, but a goal of politics. In many cases those union leaders were directed by foreign governments, which socialists admit.

Once again, we will celebrate Labor Day this coming weekend. There will be fewer parades and flag-waving. Families will still have picnics and that last fling at the lake. Union involvement, like the numbers of union membership, is declining, and that, too, is a good thing.

The country has evolved. We no longer need an archaic hold-over of 19th century economic and political thought. Communism and socialism has been proven false. It’s time to move on.

***

Followup on yesterday’s post.

Obama’s new executive order will kill the 110-year-old Civilian Marksmanship Program

4:12 PM 08/29/2013

The White House announced on Thursday that it intends to “ban almost all re-imports of military surplus firearms to private entities” through executive order, which would effectively shut down the 110-year-old Civilian Marksmanship Program.

In a Fact Sheet published on Whitehouse.gov today referencing the upcoming executive order the ban on importing military weapons is designed to “keep military-grade firearms off our streets.” Exceptions for import may be allowed for museums.

The CMP tightly controls the distribution of obsolete military weapons. The program was created by the U.S. Congress as part of the 1903 War Department Appropriations Act with the purpose of allowing civilians to hone their marksmanship skills, should they later be called into military service.

Participants receiving firearms through the CMP must comply with all state and federal firearm laws and undergo a background check conducted by a dealer holding a Federal Firearms License in order to receive the gun.

Additionally, they must also be a member of a CMP affiliated shooting club, making participating in the program more difficult than anyone trying to purchase a firearm through usual retail channels.

The Civilian Marksmanship Program was administered by the United States Army from 1916 through 1996 when it was changed to the Corporation for the Promotion of Rifle Practice & Firearms Safety, a 501(c) (3) organization federally chartered by the U.S. Congress.

There are no data indicating any of the weapons involved in homicide were imported surplus military rifles. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s homicide crime statistics, rifles accounted for only 323 deaths out of 12,664 homicides in 2011, the most recent data set provided by the FBI.

“Apart from a donation of surplus .22 and .30 caliber rifles in the Army’s inventory to the CMP, the CMP receives no federal funding,” the CMP website states, adding that they have been overwhelmed by requests and orders are taking 30-60 days to ship product.

The rifles that the Executive Order would affect are typically from U.S. allies and are pre-Vietnam era. Without the importation of these rifles, the CMP is likely to become defunct and thus destroying a 110 year tradition of saving military arms and their civilian ownership.

***

Quote of the day. A bit tongue-in-cheek.

Obama talks tough, carries matchstick

AUGUST 30, 2013 AT 6:25 AM

President Obama is serious this time. No, really. Critics of the president’s approach to the Syrian crisis don’t understand the many nuances undergirding the president’s philosophy of using “smart power” to lead from behind. Forget all those previous signals of how serious he is about taking decisive action to stop the killing. He means it. This time. No, really, he does.

Obama’s history of dithering captures the most basic problem confronting the chief executive on Syria: He’s promised action over and over again, but in the end has actually offered little more than words. That is why nobody should be surprised that Americans, as well as leaders in Moscow, Beijing, London, Paris, Tehran and Damascus, find it difficult to put much stock in what Obama says now about the Syrian crisis and what he might do in response to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad’s blatant use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people.

You can read the rest of the column here.

***

Several times a year I have a conference with the folks who manage my 401K. I had one such conference this week. The meeting held to its usual agenda, their outlook for the economy, the steps they are taking to reduce the impacts of any unexpected events and the distribution of funds across stocks, bonds, commodities and cash—much of the funds going into the latter category this year.

The 401K manager asked a new question this time. “How is your local economy?” The topic quickly changed to one of the conversion of full time jobs to part-time jobs, the loss of healthcare and other benefits to spouses and family, in general, the impact of the coming Obamacare fiasco throughout the nation.

The MSM has alluded to some of these impacts. FOX has had a few stories, but few people in the media seem to care about the revolutionary changes coming to the workplace. I contributed a story of local warehousemen losing their full-time jobs and benefits and being replaced by part-time employees…employees who won’t have benefits.

My story wasn’t the only one. The open letter below posted via Freedom Works is such an example of our changing economy.

An Open Letter on Obamacare

By Jon Gabriel on August 29, 2013

Craig Daliessio isn’t by nature an angry man. But recent events have brought him to the end of his rope.

“The past five years have just worn me down,” he told me over the phone. He couldn’t help but write about his experience.

After years of economic struggle, the loss of his home, and failure to find steady employment, Daliessio shared “An Open Letter to Barack Obama,” which is spreading quickly on blogs and social media.

Mr. President, three days ago I was informed that a job I had been offered only a week before, has been withdrawn. The company decided to freeze hiring for the foreseeable future. Part of their reasoning was the rising cost of healthcare, making it unaffordable for them to provide. This unaffordable-ness came as a result of your “Affordable Care Act.”

Five years ago I might have smiled at the irony of those words. But I’m not smiling.

In the letter, Daliessio describes his life since December 2008 when he lost his career as a mortgage broker. The real estate collapse hit the industry hard. Workers without political connections bore most of the pain.

Soon he lost his Nashville-area dream house, but as a single dad he wanted to stay close to his daughter. Instead of fleeing to Texas, North Dakota or another conservative holdout where jobs were slightly more plentiful, he stayed in Tennessee.

Without a home, he lived in his car.

Sleeping in your car is actually against the law. It’s vagrancy and so it required me to hide my car in some tall brush behind a church in Nashville. I took showers at the County Rec Center. I ate every other day sometimes. I worked every odd job I could find and put out hundreds of resumes. To date I have put out almost 250 resumes to no avail… I kept on trying. I kept on being my daughter’s dad. I refused to let her see me broken so I hid my tears.

Instead of limiting himself to a career in his profession, Daliessio worked odd jobs and even resumed his college education through an online program. A year ago he graduated from Liberty University. He still didn’t have a home, but now he had an education. And hope.

“But no doors opened,” he said. He continued with the odd jobs, sending resumes, and sleeping in his car or a friend’s couch or a borrowed office space. “Writing became a haven,” he told me. Over the past five years, he has written and self-published four books, the most recent titled Remembering America.

Earlier this month, it appeared as if the long job search was about to bear fruit. A job offer was extended. But last week the company withdrew their offer to Daliessio due in part to Obamacare. That law requires him to sign up for a health insurance exchange, but he finally decided that enough is enough.

I will NOT be registering for that exchange. I am a man. I am a dad. I am an American. I want to pay my own way. I refuse to let others pay for something I would gladly pay for myself…

I want a job. I want to work, and pay my own way. Your job is to create an environment whereby employers can hire men and women like me. Then we can take responsibility for ourselves, and pay our own way.

I respectfully refuse your handout, sir.

Though politically conservative, Daliessio has never been a bomb-thrower. “I don’t wish [Obama] ill, but I wish people would wake up,” he told me. “The country is stuck in neutral. My letter came from a place of frustration and brokenness.”

Words for us all.

Obama blocks CMP—more Gun Control

By executive fiat, Obama issued two “gun control” orders today “because Congress wouldn’t.” One edict directly affects the Civilian Marksmanship Program, the CMP, who has been the agent distributing former US military rifles to veterans and qualified citizens. I bought my M1 over a decade ago through the CMP.

The source of those rifles in the last few years, has been the return of M1 Garands and M1 Carbines supplied to foreign governments during WW2 and the Korean War. Korea and Denmark have been some of the foreign sources of returning American-made military rifles. Those and other sources now, by Obama’s edict, are blocked.

The other provision closes “loopholes” where some felons could conceivably circumvent their prohibition of purchasing weapons by using a corporation or trust. My non-judical mind wonders if this edict could also spell trouble for licensed firearm dealers, distributors, importers and manufacturers as well.

Here is this morning’s headline by the leftist Associated Press, an organization who has yet to cover a gun control issue it didn’t like.

Obama offers new gun control steps

By JOSH LEDERMAN — Aug. 29 9:53 AM EDT

WASHINGTON (AP) — Striving to take action where Congress would not, the Obama administration announced new steps Thursday on gun control, curbing the import of military surplus weapons and proposing to close a little-known loophole that lets felons and others circumvent background checks by registering guns to corporations.

Four months after a gun control drive collapsed spectacularly in the Senate, President Barack Obama added two more executive actions to a list of 23 steps the White House determined Obama could take on his own to reduce gun violence. With the political world focused on Mideast tensions and looming fiscal battles, the move signaled Obama’s intent to show he hasn’t lost sight of the cause he took up after 20 first graders and six adults were gunned down last year in an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.

One new policy will end a government practice that lets military weapons, sold or donated by the U.S. to allies, be reimported into the U.S. by private entities, where some may end up on the streets. The White House said the U.S. has approved 250,000 of those guns to be reimported since 2005; under the new policy, only museums and a few other entities like the government will be eligible to reimport military-grade firearms.

The Obama administration is also proposing a federal rule to stop those who would be ineligible to pass a background check from skirting the law by registering a gun to a corporation or trust. The new rule would require people associated with those entities, like beneficiaries and trustees, to undergo the same type of fingerprint-based background checks as individuals if they want to register guns.

The Obama administration is also proposing a federal rule to stop those who would be ineligible to pass a background check from skirting the law by registering a gun to a corporation or trust. The new rule would require people associated with those entities, like beneficiaries and trustees, to undergo the same type of fingerprint-based background checks as individuals if they want to register guns.

These days, Obama mentions gun control with far less regularity than when it appeared the Senate was poised to take action, although Obama did meet Tuesday with 18 city mayors to discuss ways to contain youth violence. And with immigration and pressing fiscal issues dominating Congress’ agenda, the prospects for reviving gun legislation appear negligible.

With Jones’ confirmation at ATF, the White House has completed or made significant progress on all but one of the 23 executive actions Obama had previously ordered in January, the White House said. Still lingering is an effort to finalize regulations to require insurers to cover mental health at parity with medical benefits, although the White House said that it is committed to making that happen by the end of 2013.

The new rules for guns registered to corporations will follow the traditional regulatory process, with a 90-day comment period before ATF reviews suggestions and finalizes the rule. Last year, ATF received 39,000 requests to register guns to corporations and trusts.

I’ve trimmed the AP story to remove the adulation of Obama and Biden. I suggest you follow the link and read the entire article. The battle between us and liberal tyrants has not and will not cease.

“Eternal vigilence is the price of liberty.”
–Wendell Phillips

but not through Observations…

That is a phrase I heard during last Sunday’s sermon. The essence of the phrase, Luke 17:20, is that God is not accessible through “Observations.” In other words, not through personal acts and ceremonies. In another context, viewing the events as we pass through them, the “observations” of those events and what they may foretell, the phrase acquires a completely different interpretation.

Case in point. Liberals and their democrat sycophants, tell us they revere the Constitution, that they only want to uphold its provisions. However, as we observe them, their acts betray their words.

They claim to support the 1st Amendment, but their actions indicate they only revere that part that protects their, not our, free speech. The other portions of the 1st Amendment is ignored. They ignore the religion component of the 1st Amendment by forcing religious organizations to violate their Church doctrine—specifically, forcing the Catholic Church to provide condoms and birth-control drugs either directly or though health insurance programs.

Not only does this violate the actual text of the 1st Amendment, the “prohibiting the free exercise [of religion] thereof,” it also violates that “separation” of church and state that isn’t in the Constitution but is contained in the Federalist Papers. In the first instance, Obama, in the guise of the chief executive, wants to force the Church to violate church principals. The governmental order restricts the  Church—constrains its ability to freely exercise the principals created through centuries of Church doctrine and canon law. In the second instance, Obama’s acts violate the non-constitutional separation of church and states by imposing political conditions upon the way the church conducts its internal affairs.

From another perspective, Liberals and democrats tell us they have no intention of violating the 2nd Amendment. All the months leading up to the election last November, it was a constant mantra from the left.

The courts, over the last few years, have been reinforcing the common viewpoint of the 2nd Amendment in that it was an individual right and the government could not suppress the individual right to own personal weapons. In another case, the Supreme Court said the 2nd Amendment also applied to the states. Other court cases on whether individuals have the right to self-defense and to bear arms beyond the threshold of their residence are winding their way, slowly, through the courts.

These court actions caused the libs and dems to be quiet on the 2nd Amendment until after the November election. Once they passed that hurdle, they renewed their attempts to suppress our 2nd Amendment rights—see recent actions in New York, Colorado and Connecticut.

What is yet to be known is whether the acts by these states violate the terms of the SCOTUS decision that the U.S. 2nd Amendment also applies to the states. I expect lawsuits to be appearing in all three states that these news laws violate the 2nd Amendment.

The point to all this is that liberals lie. They espouse how they revere the Constitution all the while planning to violate it at the first opportunity when they think they have a measure of short-term advantage. For them, it is not an issue of whether their acts are allowed by the Constitution, it is whether they can gain some advantage through politics or through the apathy of their opponents. Once an act is allowed to stand, it will be extremely difficult to remove it. Perhaps only through blood—the reason why the 2nd Amendment exists.

We maintain our personal freedom through Observances. Observances that are contained within the Constitution and by observing—and reporting, the acts of those who desire to oppress us. Constant vigilance is Observance.

The Worm has Turned

This quote is said to have been created by Shakespeare in in Henry VI, Part 3, where Lord Clifford urges the king against ‘lenity and harmful pity, saying:

To whom do lions cast their gentle looks?
Not to the beast that would usurp their den.
The smallest worm will turn being trodden on,
And doves will peck in safeguard of their brood.

Another, more current reference is this one from Funtrivia that explains the phrase in this manner.

“Worm” is a common term for ‘dragon.’ In fairy tale terms, the flying dragon spewing fire would ravage fields and villages. To be in the dragon’s path resulted in inescapable destruction. What a relief if it changed directions.

Some political worms have turned recently against Obama. The first was the reversal of an ACLU suit in Massachusetts.

In this instance, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) received federal funds to provide services to trafficking victims under the auspices of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. The contract between the USCCB and HHS contained provisions that the USCCB would not provide contraception nor abortion services The ACLU sued the Council of Bishops citing a conflict of the “Establishment” clause—the absence of contraception and abortion services in the contract between USCCB and HHS supported the anti-contraception and anti-abortion doctrine of the Catholic Church thus violating the Establishment Clause.

They lost.

A federal district court had sided with the ACLU. The USCCB appealed. The First Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the case and decided for the USCCB stating there was no violation of the Establishment Clause.

The ruling effectively negates forcing religious organizations with doctrine against contraception and abortion from being forced into providing those services not specifically required by contract. The ACLU argued the terms of any such contract between federal agencies and religious organizations could not exempt those services. This ruling may have significant affect to provisions of Obamacare.

The second instance of reversal to Obama’s extra-legal acts concerns his recess appointments to several federal agencies. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said that Obama did not have the power to make three recess appointments last year to the National Labor Relations Board.

Court: Obama appointments are unconstitutional

By SAM HANANEL,  Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama violated the Constitution when he bypassed the Senate to fill vacancies on a labor relations panel, a federal appeals court panel ruled Friday.

The unanimous decision is an embarrassing setback for the president, who made the appointments after Senate Republicans spent months blocking his choices for an agency they contended was biased in favor of unions.

The ruling also throws into question Obama’s recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Cordray’s appointment, also made under the recess circumstance, has been challenged in a separate case.

Obama claims he acted properly in the case of the NLRB appointments because the Senate was away for the holidays on a 20-day recess. But the three-judge panel ruled that the Senate technically stayed in session when it was gaveled in and out every few days for so-called “pro forma” sessions.

GOP lawmakers used the tactic – as Democrats have in the past as well – to specifically to prevent the president from using his recess power. GOP lawmakers contend the labor board has been too pro-union in its decisions. They had also vigorously opposed the nomination of Cordray.

It’s gratifying that not every judge is a liberal rubber-stamp. We need, from time to time, the assurance that in some areas the Rule of Law still exists and is honored in the courts.

Another step closer

250px-Gadsden_flag.svgThe big news today is Obama’s threat to use Executive Orders to create more gun [control] regulations.

The executive actions could include giving the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention authority to conduct national research on guns, more aggressive enforcement of existing gun laws and pushing for wider sharing of existing gun databases among federal and state agencies, members of Congress in the meeting said. — The Politico

It’s alarming that one of the changes is to merge state and federal databases (like NICS?) into a consolidated one (registry) of firearms and owners. Exactly the type of registration that the NICS database is forbidden to do by law. At one time, Missouri Sheriff’s had source documents, the old Pistol Purchase Permits. Those documents could, at that time, be used to create such a database of pistol owners. Those pistol permits were abolished when CCW was passed a number of years ago and no longer exists.

What such an Executive Order would do is to attempt to ignore existing federal law and create a national firearms registry through the back door. NICS is “supposed” to purge their data of who is buying a firearm. As I understand it, the call to NICS is just to determine if the buyer—not what he/she is buying, has a criminal record and therefore not allowed by law to buy a firearm.

There has been instances where information has been leaked that the FBI failed to follow the law and purge that buyers list from the database.

The FBI’s NICS E-Check system is capable of accurately tracking and reporting on usage as each case is assigned a unique control number and is associated with a specific user identification number.45 In a conference call between the OIG Inspection Team, NLC staff, and the FBI’s NICS Section, a manager at the NICS Section told the OIG that the NICS data are complete and accurate because, “It’s the system that did the checks and nothing has been purged.” — OIG Report on BATFE use of NICS.

There was a suit that extended the retention of buyer data to six months contrary to the intent and actual language of the law. The court decision was not based on law nor precedent but on an administrative need by the government.

The question then evolves to this. Can Obama force the creation of a national database of gunowners and weapons without violating existing federal law? The government may, in its bowels, have information on weapons from manufacturers, distributors and FFLs. But, without access to individual 4473 forms, NICS is the only existing federal database that has any buyer data. If the BATFE attempts to seize 4473 records from FFL, that is also illegal and we would soon learn of any such attempt.

So what is this announcement of 19 new Executive Orders to “tighten” gun control all about? A real attempt to violate federal law, to infringe on the Constitution right to own and bear arms in violation of the 2nd Amendment? Or, is it just another push, another nudge limiting our basic liberties, hoping the ‘Pubs won’t push back. A plan of incremental tyranny?

Someone asked me last Thanksgiving where our country stood at this time. My response, “The same as the nation was in January, 1860.” My estimate of the date way have been premature. Lincoln was elected in November, 1860. His announcement of sweeping reforms that affected the South pushed South Carolina into secession in December 1860.

Obama was re-elected in November 2012. He has now announced sweeping “reforms” affecting our liberty, economic stability, infringing on our 2nd Amendment rights, and failing to support and defend the Constitution. Examining the parallels between then and now, is our nation at the December, 1860 threshold? Sean Hannity thinks we may.