After President Obama got finished attacking the First Amendment, he’s now on to the Second.

As Mitt Romney predicted during his presidential campaign against this president, Obama might have more “flexibility” in a second term when it comes to deals with Russian dictators, but he will have less need for it when it comes to dealing with people in his own country who don’t happen to share his views. Romney predicted, correctly, that, while Obama was accountable to the people, he would not go after people’s legal guns. But once he’s a lame duck — what a surprise — he attacks our Second Amendment rights.

How about we keep the president's daughters and apps that tell the kiddies to play at shooting people out of this?

Good grief. Even by the low standards of modern discourse, some folks do find ways to sink to new lows.

The Obama administration is weighing what kind of military support it can provide to France, which has launched an airborne and ground-based offensive in Mali against Islamist rebels linked to al Qaeda.

What is under discussion is the likelihood of a direct threat against the U.S. homeland, and therefore whether vital U.S. interests are engaged. The same considerations caused President Obama to “lead from behind” on Libya. Yet so far, on Mali, the U.S. response is even more timid. And while the policy discussions continue in Washington, North Africa is in flames.

Our president has unilaterally decided that he can rearrange the separation of powers, by simply ignoring the powers and authority of the legislative and judicial branch of our government.

This would normally be impossible, because the outcry would be tremendous. However, in the case of Emperor Obama, anything that he decides to do is sanctioned by the left-wing media, who are supposed to be the watchdogs of a free society. Instead, they have become the lapdogs of an impending dictatorship.

This is the year of Lincoln — so many books and movies, so little time. But to understand Lincoln and his America, it might be worth turning to the first words publicly put forth by his most effective public agent, William Lloyd Garrison: “Our country is the world. Our countrymen are mankind.” Without question, this speaks for Hollywood today and Bill Clinton and Amy Poehler and Tina Fey as well, who hosted the (world) Golden Globe awards, which The Washington Post said "our culture" (the world) deserves. The awards this year come with a touch of lament — possibly why Daniel Day-Lewis’s Lincoln appears to look so plaintively to the past, like that portrait of Whistler’s Mother. Because there is trouble here this year and this year, 2013, could be the year of big trouble.

It is not just because Hollywood has managed to lose China. Jackie Chan says we Americans are the worst people on earth. But Ang Lee has long cast America in cryptic and neurotic shadows. Hollywood is the dream that reflects our anxieties and dangers, and two issues could open this year that might haunt us for years, maybe decades. This year we might see executive orders on guns and the debt ceiling. President Obama will bring a challenge to America. America will accept the challenge.

In late February 2012, with the Republican presidential primaries in full swing, I told a reporter from The Hill newspaper that eventual nominee Mitt Romney should be more mindful of his words on the campaign trail, particularly as they related to immigration and unions. His divisive rhetoric, I said, could come back to haunt him in a general-election match-up with President Obama.
 
I went on about my day, confident I’d given an honest and accurate assessment. I had campaigned for John McCain in 2008 and saw then how the Obama campaign would dig up statements and use them at the most critical moments. And it’s not just the Obama campaign. In this age of YouTube and handheld cameras, candidates will be held responsible for every public utterance.

The Hill's A.B. Stoddard takes your questions on the debt-ceiling deadline and gun control. 

If America is faced with a national default because of Republican obstruction against raising the debt ceiling, in my opinion President Obama has authority under Article 4 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to act unilaterally if necessary to avoid a debt ceiling-induced default. If default is the only other option, the president should exercise this authority.

Unilateral presidential action to avoid a debt-ceiling default is the second worst option, and should be avoided if at all possible. Unilateral action sends an awful message to financial markets. While I believe such action would be reluctantly approved by a narrow Supreme Court majority after an inevitable challenge, judicial approval is not certain. Bipartisan and comprehensive budget, spending and revenue negotiations on all outstanding issues is a far more desirable outcome.

Yesterday during Obama's press conference he once again threw down the gauntlet to Republicans, emphasizing that, during the debt-ceiling debate, spending cuts were not going to be addressed. He also made it clear that if the Republicans tried making cuts an issue, they would be responsible for veterans and Social Security recipients not getting their checks, and more financial turmoil.

As with the fiscal-cliff debate, Obama is hoping that the Republicans will be frightened into submission and they will forget the fact that he also bears responsibility for any fiscal consequences that will probably ensue. Because of the allegiance of the mainstream media to the president, he feels he can always set the agenda and control the narrative; therefore, veracity is not necessary.