I sometimes wonder where President Obama is on this whole national security thing. I mean, the oath he took on January 20th of this year states:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
I would think Obama can't very well defend the Constitution of the United States if there is no United States. Kind of logical, don't you think?
Others have pointed out many of what look like national security fiascos that the administration has saddled the country with recently, and even through his nine-month term in office, so I won't reiterate them here.
Drew M. at AoSHQ and Dafydd ab Hugh each list out further items that look like a return to the bad old national insecurity days of the Clinton administration. Even worse, the Democratic Congressional leadership seemingly wants to help the administration out.
Drew links to a story in the New York Post that discusses what the administration plans to do with some of the poor unfortunates...I'm sorry, that's something leftist faux "civil libertarians" would call them...the monstrous, scum-of-the-earth, terrorist vermin infesting Gitmo:
Handing President Barack Obama a partial victory in his effort to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, House Democrats on Thursday repelled a Republican effort to block transfer of any of the detainees to the U.S.
Instead, by a 224-193 vote, the House stood by a Democratic plan to allow suspected enemy combatants held at the controversial Guantanamo facility to be shipped to U.S. soil — but only to be prosecuted for their suspected crimes.
Isn't that great? Yeah, they slipped it into a conference report (Sec. 552, on page 37) for the Homeland Security appropriations bill. Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY) tried calling for a motion to recommit the report to the conference committee (near the bottom of the link), I'm assuming to have the section removed or modified, but it failed by the margin identified in the Post article. If you'll note, only one Republican voted with the 223 Democrats that voted against the motion, Ron Paul.
This will make the leftist faux "civil libertarians" ecstatic because it completely undermines any attempts to prosecute the terrorists through the military tribunals set up by Congress in the 2006 MCA, and allows the terrorists to be tried like common criminals instead of as war criminals.
The Post article mentions that Democrats believe this was a pretty safe vote considering the electorate is too worried about the economy to care about the disposition of the Gitmo terrorists. Drew highlights the potential of this Democrat fallacy:
"Democrats Bring Terrorists To The United States" is one of those easy to understand things that people hear and think, "you know, that's not a good idea". It will be something that can be hung around the necks of Democrats across the country (NYC, SF, et al excepted) and help make people feel uncomfortable about the party in general.
The other reason you know it's a bad issue for Democrats, they are already talking it down. Nothing to see here, move along. The stenographers in the MSM will help as they always do but you can bet Republicans are already writing the commercials for next year.
Dafydd ab Hugh links to another story with huge national security implications, this time from Bill Gertz at the Washington Times:
President Obama recently shifted authority for approving sales to China of missile and space technology from the White House to the Commerce Department -- a move critics say will loosen export controls and potentially benefit Chinese missile development.
The shift happened on September 29th. Gertz points out that in the wake of a major scandal involving the sharing of missile technology with the Chinese Communists by the Space Systems/Loral company and Hughes Electronics Corp., Congress passed the 1999 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA); Sec. 1512 (on page 256 of the PDF file):
The President shall certify to the Congress at least 15 days in advance of any export to the People’s Republic of China of missile equipment or technology (as defined in section 74 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2797c)) that—
(1) such export is not detrimental to the United States space launch industry; and
(2) the missile equipment or technology, including any indirect technical benefit that could be derived from such export, will not measurably improve the missile or space launch capabilities of the People’s Republic of China.
Dafydd goes into a bit more detail of why this was passed [emphasis from original]:
Bill Clinton famously accepted $3 million in campaign cash that came (through an easily exposed cut-out) from the People's Liberation Army of the People's Republic of China. And that was just a drop in the bucket of millions of campaign dollars from suspicious sources related to China and Indonesia.
Shortly thereafter, Clinton made several policy changes that China had been demanding for decades. Besides relaxing the rules on technology-sharing, allowing Loral and Hughes to sell extremely sensitive hardware and software to Red China -- for example, allowing them to better simulate nuclear test blasts via software -- Clinton also made clear we would not intervene if China attacked Taiwan and several other concessions.
To make a long story short, Clinton, after receiving
bribes very questionable campaign contributions, allowed the Commerce Department to let the sale go through.
Gertz notes that what Obama did was "alter a key provision" of the act. But in fact, Obama's memo that I linked to earlier specifies that 3 U.S.C. § 301 allows the President to pass on his functions to Department heads, which is exactly what Obama did in this case as it relates to Sec. 1512 of the 1999 NDAA. So if it's an alteration, it's a perfectly legal one as far as I can tell.
But what Obama has done, in effect, is restored to the Commerce Department its ability to do what it allowed during the Clinton years, enhance Communist China's expanding missile capabilities in the name of commerce, national security be damned. Even though the Secretary of Commerce is still supposed to adhere to Sec. 1512 of the 1999 NDAA, I have faith in the Obama administration that it will fudge the certifications as it relates to U.S. national security interests, since this administration spends a great deal of time fudging everything it does. It also passes the buck on to someone other than The One in the event another scandal similar to the one during the Clinton years happens to come up (but have no fear; I doubt neither Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) or Speaker Pelosi would call for hearings if a scandal does crop up while they are still in their current positions).
So the big question is, why? Dafydd has doubts that Obama would accept
bribes campaign contributions, at least without those contributions being heavily laundered, from the Communist Chinese army. But Dafydd does hit it on the head; the U.S. is way too heavily beholden to the Communists to finance all that wonderful spending by The One and his Democratic adherents in Congress that isn't doing anything to help the economy now and ruining the future economic prospects of America and Americans not yet born.
With all that he's doing, especially in light of the above revelations, what I'd like to know is how is Obama actually defending the Constitution as his oath requires?