Obama’s Lawlessness Continues. Executive Orders to Trample Your 2nd Amendment Rights

Even though it has been declared outmoded and too hard to understand by brilliant analysts like the Washington Post’s resident wunderkind (read “silly, puerile self-important weenie”) Ezra Klein, just for fun, it might be worth revisiting that quaint parchment written by dead white Europeans, our precious Constitution. I recognize that for most of the people in this audience, such a review is unnecessary, but keep in mind that for every one of you, there are probably at least 100 people for whom this information would not be a review, but a complete revelation. Please spread the word if you can get them to stop watching “Entertainment Tonight” and “Here Comes Honey Boo Boo.”

The Constitution provides for three branches of government; specifically, the executive, the legislative and the judicial, or as they are commonly known, the President, the Congress and the Supreme Court, and the lower federal courts. The President is the executive, as in the one who sees that the laws, which are enacted by the legislative branch, are faithfully executed. Got it? Executives execute, as in carry out, which brings us to the reason for the executive order. It is a directive to carry out policies, or as Article II, Sec. 3 of the Constitution says to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” NOT to independently make policy, or to willfully impose policies that have been rejected by Congress.

The Obama administration’s breathtaking lawlessness has been a constant source of amazement, anger, and anxiety for all freedom-loving Americans. Whether it is appointing officials using the recess appointment power when the Senate is not in recess, unilaterally granting the amnesty to young illegal aliens that Congress declined to grant, or deciding not to enforce duly-enacted laws like the Defense of Marriage Act, Barack Obama has made clear through both his actions and his words that when “we can’t wait!,” he’ll blow his nose on the Constitution and do whatever he wants.

Tomorrow, if news reports are accurate, His Majesty Barack Obama will present his “solution” to “gun violence” surrounded by kiddie human shields, including the “executive action” that had the gang over at the 24/7 televised insane asylum, MS-NBC, practically wetting their panties just thinking about it. Predictably, they pull out their race card, to suggest that those of us who correctly state that any executive orders infringing on the 2nd amendment are illegal, are showing disrespect to the One because of his race. After all, they point out, George H.W. Bush imposed restrictions on “assault weapons,” so why can’t Obama? As usual, our leftist friends are glossing over some critical details, either because they are ignorant of them, or because they are politically motivated to avoid pointing out critical differences. Pres. Bush 41 did indeed use an executive order to restrict the importation of certain guns in 1989 after a wacko killed 5 and wounded 29 others in January, 1989. Here’s the critical part. He acted pursuant to an act of Congress, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, another reactive law, admittedly, but still a legal enactment by Congress. President Bush did not attempt to ban any weapons, or restrict the size of magazines, or do any of the other lawless crap that this bunch is discussing trying to impose on us.

Even though many of the recommendations that are being bandied about would be illegal if imposed by executive fiat, there are still a number of legal actions that Barack Obama could impose by executive order that would burden our 2nd amendment rights. He could act through federal agencies to make it more difficult and more expensive to purchase a firearm and the ammunition that you need to use it. What if, for example, he directs the Environmental Protection Agency to investigate the environmental impact of the lead in bullets and requires ammo manufacturers to pay a tax for cleaning up the alleged “mess” that they cause? What if he directs the Drug Enforcement Administration to conduct more frequent examination of gun store records, making it more difficult for them to conduct business? Oh, yes, Bitter Clinger, don’t kid yourself. Barack Obama despises the Constitution in general and the 2nd Amendment in particular. He has shown that he has no compunction about acting as if he is above the law.

Will anyone have the cajones to stop him?

Liberal Death Star Confirms What I Have Said For the Last 5 Years: Obama Voters are “Low Information Voters.”

Never doubt me. Recently a friend commended me for coining the term “low-information voters” to describe those who the Obama campaign brilliantly mobilized in 2008. Remember? I have told you many times that for a large number of the clueless ignoranti who came out to support the Chicago messiah the first time, voting was a brand new experience, unless, of course, you count texting in the number of assigned to your favorite “American Idol” contestant. If you are feeling a little depressed about the re-election of the jug-eared, jackass Sham WOW (Walks on Water) affirmative-action assisted empty suit, amuse yourself by watching some of them display their brilliance here, courtesy of John Ziegler. They are glittering jewels of colossal ignorance, aren’t they?

Now they are revealing a bit of the strategy that helped them win last week, and sure enough, part of it was appealing to those same dolts. From the New York Times:

It was called “the Optimizer,” and, strategists for President Obama say it is how he beat a better-financed Republican opposition in the advertising war.

Culling never-before-used data about viewing habits, and combining it with more personal information about the voters the campaign was trying to reach and persuade than was ever before available, the system allowed Mr. Obama’s team to direct advertising with a previously unheard-of level of efficiency, strategists from both sides agree. …

Once again, listeners to the Teri O’Brien Show are ahead of the curve. As I told you during last Sunday’s show, the primary battle gave Team Obama time to work on winning the election unopposed.

The system was meant to combat the far more sophisticated version that Mr. Obama’s team had built over years. But Mr. Romney was distracted and financially depleted by his long primary season, and even with perfect execution, both sides agree, he never would have had the time or finances to catch up.

With so much more time to prepare, Mr. Obama’s polling and “analytics” department collected so much information about the electorate that it knew far more about which sorts of voters were going to turn out — and where — than the Romney campaign and most public pollsters.

But in between identifying likely supporters and successfully delivering them to the polls there was an intensive effort to send them a constant stream of messages devised to keep wavering 2008 Obama supporters from succumbing to Mr. Romney’s effort to win them over, and to get unwavering supporters excited about voting.

That was where “the Optimizer” came in.

And what did the Optimizer tell Team Obama to do?

Through its vast array of information collected via its e-mail list, Facebook and millions of door-to-door discussions conducted by volunteers in swing states — and fed into the campaign database — the campaign devised a ranking scale for voters ranging from likeliest to support Mr. Obama to least likely.

Then the advertising team worked backward to figure out what sorts of programs likely and undecided voters were liable to watch, and when. It did so using not only traditional Nielsen Media Research data but also newly available information from set-top cable boxes that gave a far more detailed sense of how the groups watched television, and, more important, commercials.

The answers led to advertising purchases that the campaign might not have made, especially as it pursued undecided voters who did not regularly go to traditional sources for news.

So it was, said Jim Margolis, a senior advertising strategist, that the campaign bought more late-night advertising time than it otherwise would have on “Late Night With Jimmy Fallon,” “Jimmy Kimmel Live,” ESPN and, most surprisingly, TV Land, the basic cable network devoted to reruns of old programs.

In the case of TV Land, Mr. Margolis said, the campaign was seeking to reach “folks who may not be as political, may not be deciding until later.”

“A lot of these people are lower-information voters,”(emphasis mine) he said, “not necessarily tuned to politics and watching a little more programming that is out of the main lane of what most of us think of.”

I’ll say it again. Team Obama ran a brilliant campaign. They got the opponent they wanted. They used a relentless campaign of character assassination to disqualify him and cause the afore-mentioend low-information cohort to either stay home, or give the One another chance. They wanted a low turnout election. Having suppressed the total vote, they made sure to get just enough of their voters out to win in their “firewall” states.

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in (relatively) large numbers.

Only 9 Hours Until Barack’s Boffo Comeback!

Be ready. Regardless of how poorly Barack Obama does in tonight’s debate, his mouthpieces in the Lame Stream Media will portray his performance as a magnificent “comeback.” There’s no doubt that he will do better than he did last time. Short of appearing on stage in a bra and panties and punching Candy Crowley in the face, he couldn’t do any worse.

As I told you on last Sunday’s show, “Obama in His Socialist Box,” if our Dear Reader falls flat on his face again tonight, so much so that even the Jurassic media can’t rescue him, it could well be lights out for his campaign. I don’t think that will happen. The silver lining for the Obama campaign from the first debate is that it may have lowered expectations for tonight. More important, remember that, just like last time, it’s not Mitt Romney v. Barack Obama. It’s Mitt v. Barry and the moderator. Ms. Candy Crowley will be one deciding the questions, and it will come as no surprise, that members of the LSM tend to prefer liberal questions. From Newsbusters:

Reviewing the five previous town hall debates, the journalist-moderators have tended to skew the agenda of these so-called citizen forums to the liberal side of the spectrum, but not always. Overall, questions have been twice as likely to favor liberal causes versus conservative ones.

In 2004, ABC’s Charles Gibson selected a balanced menu of questions, with questions from the left matching those from the right.

But Gibson is the lone exception. The other journalists who have moderated these forums — ABC’s Carole Simpson in 1992, PBS’s Jim Lehrer in 1996 and 2000, and NBC’s Tom Brokaw in 2008 — all favored liberal agenda questions as they chose which of the undecided voters would actually participate in the debate.

The bottom line: if history is a reliable guide, Mitt Romney has twice the chance of facing a hostile liberal question Tuesday night as Barack Obama has of facing a question based on a conservative agenda, as the record shows a 2-to-1 tilt to the left in past town hall debates. (emphasis in original)

So Ms. Crowley will be able to give her guy a badly needed shot in the arm in the selection of questions and questioners. No doubt she would prefer questions that skew to the Left. Even is she is objective, consider the fact that the audience will consist of “undecided” voters. Seriously? At this point, anyone undecided cannot have been paying attention. With rare exceptions, they must be clueless, disconnected, low-information dolts, or, in other words, natural liberals.