IF Obama Had Been President In…

April, 1789: At the urging of some loyal followers, newly sworn-in President Obama accepts the title of King Barack I, thus prefiguring the actions of the occupant of the White House beginning in 2009. He reverts back to being the President after what happened to King Louis XVI on January 21, 1793.1

August, 1814: While the British stormed Washington D.C., the President and his family were vacationing in the Northwest Territory as he was attending party fund-raisers. In the place of Gilbert Stuart’s portrait of George Washington in the White House, we would marvel at one of King George III today.

November, 1863: There would not have been a Gettysburg Address. No teleprompters yet.

November, 1904: He wins re-election on an anti-violence campaign with the slogan, “Speak softly and ban all sticks.”

May, 1933: The President signs into law the TVA (Texas Voting Act). This law allows any person who is at least 12-years old and immigrating from Mexico and Central America to vote without any identification so as not to expose his undocumented status. By the November 1936 election, the number of votes in a U.S. general election exceeds the official population for the first time. What a turnout!

December, 1941: After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, he would have imposed sanctions on all avocadoes and oranges imported from Japan. Today, California’s state debt would be ¥78.6 trillion.3

February, 1951: The President would have issued an executive order negating the recently ratified 22nd Amendment limiting a president to two terms.4 He fondly recalled this action when leaving the White House in January, 2001 after serving thirteen terms.

January, 1961: In his famous inaugural address, the President would have said, “Ask not what you can do for your country, but ask what I, your savior, can do for you – and I’ll borrow from China if I have to.”

October, 1962: Upon learning that the Soviets were sending offensive weapons to Cuba, the President would have drawn a line in the sand of Miami’s beaches. Today, our country’s primary languages become Russian and Japanese. The practice of English would be restricted to church buildings.

June, 1972: After discovery of the break-in at the Watergate complex, the President would have claimed that it was motivated by the March 1, 1972 episode of the television series Mannix, entitled “Scapegoat.”5 James McCord would have been put in charge of the investigation. The net result would have been the resignation of the manager of operations at the Watergate complex later that year and conveniently just before the 1972 presidential election.

September, 1983: After the downing of Korean Air Lines Flight 007, the President asks for forgiveness for whatever the U.S. has done to upset our enemies. He announces an acceleration of his unilateral SDI (Sorrowful Disarmament Implementation) where he planned to reduce the U.S.’s weapons to below World War II levels. (Emboldened by this, Soviet leader Gorbachev challenges the U.S. to “tear down this country” and the voters comply with their election decisions in 2008 and 2012.)

September, 2001: Once the world learned of the tragic events of that September 11, the President immediately goes on a vacation with his family to the Northwest Territory which included attending fund-raisers, proving once again that history repeats itself, if the citizens allow it.

1 – Wikipedia, history of King Louis XVI of France
2 – Wikipedia, history of the Tennessee Valley Authority
3 – or $778 billion, from http://www.statebudgetsolutions.org
4 – http://www.consitutioncenter.org
5 – http://www.thrillingdetective.com/mannix


Senate Bill 1696’s Official Name Copies Early 1930s German Law’s Euphemistic Deception

“S.1696, The Women’s Health Protection Act: Removing Barriers to Constitutionally Protected Reproductive Rights.” Sounds like a wonderful piece of legislation, doesn’t it?

How about this one: “Law for Removing the Distress of the People and the Reich.” This law appeared to be so charitable!

Also referred to as the Enabling Act, this 1933 disaster allowed its leader to enact laws without the participation or approval of the legislature. It “effectively mean(t) the end of democracy in Germany and establish(ed) the legal dictatorship of Adolf Hitler.”1 How euphemisms can deceive!

Now, of course, the U.S. Senate Bill 1696 would not grant President Obama the same kind of all-encompassing powers granted to the murderous German chancellor. It doesn’t even address the executive branch directly. While it doesn’t pertain to our President’s unconstitutionally expanding powers, this law does give a steroid shot in the arm to the federal government. The overreaching of its authority, under a carefully crafted misnomer, is still cause for serious concern.


S. 1696 is designed to elevate the authority of the federal government as supreme over the states with regard to the states’ right to moderate the killing of babies. It wants to override “heartbeat laws,” those laws which respect the pain and suffering of the unborn being destroyed and laws which require information be given to the pregnant woman prior to her final decision.


This law is not really about “women’s health protection.” Its aim is to permit abortion under any and all circumstances. The truth is, abortion is “a social decision, a decision made by women to deal with situations in their life that almost never have anything to do with their life or their health.”2


The proposed law claims that “… there has been a dramatic increase in the passage of laws that blatantly violate the constitutional protections afforded women, such as bans on abortions prior to viability.”3

What constitutional protections for abortion? The majority decision for Roe v. Wade was authored by Justice Harry Blackmun who wrote that the Court’s decision was with regard to privacy and that “it is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”2

The issue was privacy. Justice Blackmun even stressed the limitations to be placed on abortions and its inherent dependency on medical consultation when he wrote: “For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman’s attending physician.”2 With S.1696’s abortion on demand, a doctor’s opinion is rendered unimportant.

The Court’s unconstitutional attempt to legislate in this case is further repudiated by Justice Antonin Scalia’s reference to Roe v. Wade in his dissent from the majority opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. He wrote:

“The issue is whether it [abortion] is a liberty interest protected by the Constitution of the United States. I am sure it is not. I reach that conclusion, not because of anything so exalted as my views concerning the ‘concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.’ [Quoting the rhetoric in the majority opinion]”

“Rather, I reach it for the same reason I reach the conclusion that bigamy is not constitutionally protected—because of two simple facts: 1) the Constitution says absolutely nothing about it, and 2) the longstanding traditions of American society have permitted it to be legally proscribed.”4


Section I of the 14th Amendment states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.5

OK, so the supporters of S.1696 believe that they are permitted to abolish all existing state laws prohibiting any aspect of abortion because these laws deprive women of an essential “right.” Unfortunately, they are mistaken. In writing part of the dissent to Roe v. Wade, Justice William Rehnquist stated:

“To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today.”6

He concluded that, “There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted.” Therefore, in his view, “the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter.”6


“These restrictions harm women’s health by reducing access not only to abortion services but also to the other essential health care services offered by the providers targeted by the restrictions, including contraceptive services…”7

To begin, human pregnancy is not a disease. Worse yet, contraceptives are not medicines for this non-disease. The evidence is obvious. Or as Katie Short put it: “It stands to reason that drugs specifically designed to disrupt the normal functioning of healthy women’s bodies would not be good for them. And indeed, among other problems, hormonal contraceptives increase the risk of various cancers, tumors, heart disease and strokes.”2


This proposed law uses a precedent which “was litigated with one half-truth and lie upon another.”4 It treats a disease which isn’t a disease either with a method which either kills one of the two humans involved or endangers the health of the woman. And, it acts as if a certain constitutional amendment supports its sweeping action when it doesn’t.

How did this bill manage to get out of committee?

1 – from http://www.historyplace.com
2 – from “Will Roe Survive Us? By Katie Short, summer 2013 edition of Lifeline.
3 – from the text of S.1696 under “Sec.2.Finding and purpose,” paragraph 4
4 – quote from Michael Acquilano’s talk as presented in “Educating Students and Equipping Pro-Life Leaders,” by Dana Cody, summer 2013 edition of Lifeline.
5 – http://www.law.cornell.edu
6 – from Wikipedia
7 — from the text of S.1696 under “Sec.2.Finding and purpose,” paragraph 7

White House Press Secretary’s Ironic Use of “Vital”

Yesterday, the Supreme Court handed down a 5-4 decision in favor of Hobby Lobby and other closely-held for profit corporations1 who challenged the mandatory contraceptive provision of the Affordable Health Care Act because several of these chemicals are also abortifacients. Owners of these businesses will not have to forfeit the practice of their faiths simply because they started a company. It is a welcomed return of part of the inalienable right of religious freedom mentioned in our Constitution, but under attack by a non-believing Democratic agenda.

Of course, for every winning side, there’s a losing side. White House press secretary spoke on aspects of the Court’s decision, including this:

“As millions of women know firsthand, contraception is often vital to their health and well-being. That’s why the Affordable Care Act ensures that women have coverage for contraceptive care along with other preventative care like vaccines and cancer screenings.”2

The Washington Examiner article has already addressed the absurdity of comparing pregnancy to polio and measles as a disease to be prevented. But this is a good time to assert that the use of “vital” is way off base, too.

Yes, it is true that some women take contraceptives for unrelated medical conditions. However, pro-life women will also tell you that there are usually alternatives that not only respect life, but are also safer for the women who take them.

Back to the use of the word “vital.” It is an adjective with several segments to its meaning including: “concerned with or necessary to the maintenance of life” and “characteristic of life or living beings.”3

So, something which prevents a life from its natural beginning or ends a life by blocking implantation, i.e. early stage abortion, is described as needed by your body in order to keep living? Sounds more like a Newspeak press conference.4

1 – “A closely held corporation is a corporation in which more than half of the shares are held by fewer than 5 individuals. Closely held corporations are private companies, and are not publicly held. In a closely held corporation, if one of the shareholders wants to sell some or all of his/her shares, the sale must take place with one of the other existing shareholders, since no sale of shares can take place.” By Jean Murray, http://www.biztaxlaw.about.com

2 – “Deconstructing the White House’s childish response to the Hobby Lobby decision,” by Ashe Schow, http://www.washingtonexaminer.com, 6/30/2014

3 – http://www.merriam-webster.com

4 — from the book “Nineteen Eighty-Four” … probably already banned by Common Core