Help fight the
liberal media

click title for home page
  
Be a subscriber

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
The stuff you won't see in the liberal media (click "Replies" for top stories)
Calendar Chat
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 6 of 7     «   Prev   3   4   5   6   7   Next
CAPTAINMACK

Registered:
Posts: 256
Reply with quote  #126 
Obama knows what he is doing will ultimately come crashing down on him. He is just trying to destroy America before the American people wise up and destroy him. When this is all said and done it is unlikely there is anywhere in this country he will be able to show his face.
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #127 

Obama and the Napoleon-Nixon gene

Robert B. Charles says like something from the Human Genome project, one feels like announcing discovery of the long-lost Napoleon-Nixon gene.  Obama apparently has the Napoleon-Nixon defensive, arrogant, and unaccountable gene -- albeit with none of Nixon's redeeming expertise in international power politics, and none of Napoleon's record for strategy and war. More worrisome is that Obama's lack of stature is now paired with an embarrassing preoccupation for proving he has some.  

What other president would ramrod an incompressible de facto nationalization of America's healthcare system (embodied in legislation he himself never read or permitted others to read) down the nation's throat, then turn around and break every single promise he offered to compel its party-line passage?

What president would fail to admit he had boldly lied about the law's intended effects (insert cameo of Nixon: "I will never tell a lie.") even when millions of Americans were being summarily stripped of their doctors, dumped from home health care, or bounced into higher deductible, lower coverage policies, often at higher premiums?  The travesty is only compounded by the president's audacity.  

What president in the history of this Republic would then turn on Americans as a whole, twisting down the screw by penalizing hardworking Americans who refuse to be shoehorned into a travesty, who refuse to put their families or their own healthcare in the hands of those who cannot even put up a website?  The average American -- it seems -- must ‘say uncle' or pay a sizable annual fine.  What American president, admitting no fault and dissembling to cover up a fraud in the inducement -- let us be honest, that is what this was -- would then have the temerity to unilaterally suspend major and minor provisions of the noxious law a full 27 times (that experts have so far counted, and we are still counting)?  Recall that a president must "faithfully execute the laws" which have been passed, even on a party-line vote that barred a reading by opponents.  Or was that Oath of Office just another piecrust promise, easily made, easily broken?

What president would have the gall to suspend a law he had forced on the American people, lied about and then penalized them under, in what was a transparently political way?  What president would intentionally delay business-crushing penalties until after the 2014 congressional elections?

While both Obama and Nixon abused the power inherent in the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), at least Nixon kept his ‘enemies list' short, and prosecutors out of the mix. Obama has put the entire Nation at risk of prosecution and is swinging the sword of Justice at journalists, anti-Obama moviemakers, and two Republican governors, one for acts legal in his state and the other for staff who closed a bridge.

Add the overreach of groundless White House directives, executive orders, and coercive guidance, including usurpation of a million acres of the state of Wyoming and repeated unilateral decisions not to enforce laws. What we have is a concept -- the executive, legislative, and judicial authority all rolled into one -- at least in Obama's mind.

And that is where the problem lies. When the U.S. Supreme Court, public opinion, and those in his own party complain that Obama has asserted authority to which he is not entitled, something is wrong.  From illegal recess appointments to suspensions of law, one is reminded of the headlong pitch Nixon took in the "Saturday Night Massacre."  You can only stiff-arm the American people so long.  Even calm protestations, such as "I am not a crook" and "I never promised…" go only so far. There is an eerie resemblance even in Obama's carriage and cadence to the tone deaf nature of the Nixon White House, until it cracked up. 

Only this is worse. Articles of impeachment for abuse of power, although possible, would die in the Democrat-controlled Senate. The Independent Prosecutor Law died in 1999. The sitting attorney general, against whom contempt has twice been voted, is deaf, period. The nation seems stuck, like Paris as Napoleon marched northward and America as Nixon denied wrongdoing.  At least Obama keeps his hand out of his waistcoat and curses the "establishment" in the residence.  Has he misread Lord Acton's warning that "if power corrupts, then absolute power corrupts absolutely" as a prescription? Perhaps the civil lawsuit, now signed by more than 100 members of Congress, will moderate Obama's Napoleonic march.  Maybe a heart-to-heart discussion by leading Senate Democrats will restore proportion and respect for law (i.e. ala Congressman Rodino's talks with Nixon). 

We know this: defensive, arrogant, and unaccountable does not play well with Americans -- and never has. It is no way to win midterms, boost standing in polls, correct catastrophic damage to a healthcare system, or reassure Americans that you know when to stop asserting prerogatives you never had.

To ignore the curse of this nasty gene and carry on with impunity, as if the White House needs reminding, ended poorly for both Napoleon and Nixon.  It surely would be a sad legacy, especially for someone so intent on finding one, to misread our Constitution for another three years.  Like the best laid plans of mice and men, second terms and second empires, it may be noted, often go astray.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #128 

Judge Jeanine Pirro blasts Obama's blatant executive power grab

In her opening statement on "Justice," Judge Jeanine Pirro exposes and defines Barack Obama's continued and unchallenged abuse of executive power.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #129 

Obama's lawmaking from on high 

Rich Lowry says we were told that Barack Obama would wield his executive power this year to defy Congress. Instead, he is defying his own health-care law.

The Obama administration announced this week it is delaying and changing the law's employer mandate, the latest in a series of seat-of-the-pants revisions to ObamaCare.

Obama was eager to highlight steps he was taking to bypass Congress in his State of the Union last month, but left this one out. If he had demanded congressional action to delay the employer mandate, he surely would have gotten a bipartisan bill on his desk forthwith. His call for executive unilateralism should be amended: "Even if Congress will act . . . I still prefer to act on my own."

Congress long ago ceded too much authority to the regulatory apparatus of the administrative state, but this is different. This is the executive branch affirmatively rewriting law in defiance of our constitutional system and the rule of law.

ObamaCare is quite clear that the employer mandate "shall apply" after December 31, 2013. Nonetheless, the Obama administration delayed it for a year last July. The latest move is even more brazen. It creates a distinction between employers with fewer and more than 100 employees that doesn't exist in the law, and delays the mandate for another year for businesses with 50–99 employees. At the same time, it changes the obligation on employers with more than 100 employees.

These aren't waivers or delays, but detailed revisions. Last year, the Treasury Department justified the delay as "transition relief," a euphemism right up there with "shared responsibility payments," the administration's favored term for fines on employers.

The examples that the department cites of prior transition relief are so tiny that they are beneath notice. One provision of the Small Business and Work Opportunity Act of 2007 changed the standards that tax preparers had to follow to avoid penalties. The new rules went into effect in May 2007, but in June of that year Treasury said it would follow the old standards for returns filed before December 31, 2007.

What the administration is doing now is unilaterally changing a law four years after its passage to try to delay the economic and political pain past a congressional election.

Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute points out that the law authorizes waivers of the employer mandate only for states and, more specifically, "only if the state enacts a law that would provide equally comprehensive health insurance to as many residents, and only if that law would impose no additional cost to the federal government, and only if there is a ‘meaningful level of public input' over the waiver and its approval, and even then not until 2017."

Why did anyone bother to write this stuff? Just think of all the lawyering and negotiating that went into the provisions of the employer mandate -- the careful definition of terms, the precisely calculated fines -- only to be cast aside with a dismissive wave of the hand from on high.

Barack Obama seems to share something of the attitude of King James I of England, who once confided to the Spanish ambassador of Parliament, "I am surprised that my ancestors should ever have permitted such an institution to come into existence." But, he sighed, "I am obliged to put up with what I cannot get rid of."

What makes Obama's cavalier treatment of the legislature's handiwork in this instance so remarkable is that Congress did his bidding. It passed the law he desperately wanted. Yet he still treats it as a series of suggestions and little more.

Obama's hero Abraham Lincoln had a famously worshipful view of the rule of law. "Let reverence for the laws," he said in his Lyceum Address, "be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap -- let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges."

Obama's implicit rejoinder: "Whatever."


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #130 

Jonathan Turley on "dangerous" expansion of Obama's powers

And Turley is known as a "liberal" law professor.

Krauthammer says it's because the law only exists in Obama's head.



__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #131 

"The state, it is I" 

Michael Tanner says Barack Obama has apparently found a strategy that will prevent Republicans from using ObamaCare as a weapon against endangered Democrats in this fall's midterm elections. He will simply make the law disappear.

Earlier this week, Obama once again waved his hands and said the magic words, postponing implementation of the law's employer mandate for the second time.

The law itself imposes a specific statutory deadline for businesses with 50 or more employees to provide insurance to their workers or pay a penalty, "beginning after December 31, 2013." But Obama dispensed with such legalities last fall, postponing the mandate's effective date until January 1, 2015. Now he has changed it yet again.

Employers with 50 to 99 workers will now be exempt from the mandate until 2016, while businesses with 100 or more employees will be required to insure only 70 percent of their work force in 2015. In 2016, those larger employers will need to cover 95 percent of workers. How the mandate will be applied to midsize companies (50 to 99 workers) in 2016 is unclear. Some reports suggest that they will be subject to the 70 percent coverage requirement.

But who knows? Obama may wake up one day and decide it should be 45.327 percent of workers.

The news of this change overshadowed yet another possible presidential rewrite of the law. Last Friday, the Associated Press reported that the administration is considering a further change to regulations for individual policies as well. You may recall that, in response to the outcry over the cancellation of millions of current policies because they failed to meet ObamaCare's standards, Obama allowed people to stay on their current plans for an additional year if state insurance commissioners agreed and the insurance companies continued to offer those plans. Now the administration may extend the grandfathering of those plans for up to an additional three years. HHS claims that a final decision has not yet been made, but talks are underway with insurance companies to see if it can be done without worsening the adverse-selection problem already bedeviling the program.

By now, none of this should come as a surprise. Since the law's enactment in 2010, Obama has postponed, altered, or done away with at least 26 parts of his signature legislative achievement. These include scheduled cuts to Disproportionate Share Hospitals, the Basic Health Plan option, out-of-pocket caps (in some instances), and small-business-exchange enrollment (Small Business Health Option Programs, or SHOP). He even repealed an entire program, the CLASS Act, although that action was subsequently ratified by Congress. And none of this counts the more than 3,000 waivers granted along the way to individual companies or unions.

If it seems like only the other day that an article in the Daily Kos was suggesting that opponents of ObamaCare who failed to fully implement every jot and tittle of the health-care law should be jailed for sedition . . . well, it was. But then, it's different when Obama does it. After all, as Obama told French president François Hollande, being president means "I can do whatever I want."

That is not to say that "whatever he wants" just means eliminating parts of ObamaCare. Sometimes it means creating new parts of the law. For example, the plain language of the law limits subsidies to insurance plans sold through the exchanges in the 17 states that chose to establish them on their own. The law provided no subsidies for plans on federally run exchanges. A technicality, Obama decided, and ordered the IRS to make the subsidies available anyway.

The health-care law was 2,562 pages and 511,520 words long. We could have saved 511,513 of those if Congress had just written: "Obama can do whatever he wants."

Someday, of course, Democrats may come to regret this precedent. After all, now that we know that laws can be written in disappearing ink, there is nothing, except maybe respect for the constitutional order, to prevent the next Republican president from doing whatever he wants -- such as, say, postponing the whole darn mess forever.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Longknife 21

Registered:
Posts: 2,024
Reply with quote  #132 
And he will put it off again until 2017 for the 2016 election. They will keep the crisis going, constantly usurping power to the bureaucracy, until they can solidify their control.

This is a flagrant violation of his duty to enforce the laws AS WRITTEN, and a usurpation of Congress's duty to amend laws. That is 'weapon' the GOP has.  Obama is a de facto DICTATOR now. The media applauds it, the Socialists Dems push for more illegal acts, and the RINOs snort and stamp their feet, but do nothing. This is Constitutional Crisis of massive impact, but only Krauthammer and the despised "Tea Party" even verbally recognize the fact. The Repub leadership are in denial because if they even recognize the truth as Krauthammer explained, they would have to DO SOMETHING!

For many decades I wondered why the German people allowed the Nazis to take over, now I know. A combination of ignorance and apathy, plus a moral laziness & inertia brought on by endless propaganda, promises, threats, and fear. Lord, help us! Though we don't deserve it. What has happened to America?
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #133 

Another ObamaCare mandate delayed

Keith Koffler says this one is huge. And nakedly, egregiously political.

Companies with 50 to 99 employees will not be forced to offer health insurance to their full time workers until the beginning of 2016, the Treasury Department announced this afternoon, ensuring that businesses will not be struggling to meet the onerous new requirement during the 2014 election.

Larger employers also get a break. They now only have to offer insurance to 70 percent of their full time employees in 2015 and then 95 percent in 2016.

But the mid-size firms are the ones that concern Democrats the most, since they might have moved to decrease their full time workforce to below the 50 employee threshold to avoid penalties.

Previously, following an extension last summer which took the start date from 2014 to 2015, companies would have been racing to afford the new requirement by trimming their payrolls, moving people to part time, and reducing benefits and pay during the final quarter of 2014, when control of the House and Senate will hang in the balance.

Now the issue will go away until the off-year of 2015, partially depriving Republicans of one of their most potent election-year weapons.

The White House made the move after it only last week sought to claim that the new rules would not affect how businesses treat their employees.

Related:  Obama’s new delay of Employer Mandate violates plain language of law

Cross-posted in the "ObamaCare" thread . . .


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #134 

Ben Carson says Obama officials are "acting like Gestapo"

Joseph Farah is reporting that Dr. Ben Carson, the brain surgeon turned popular political analyst, told WND Obama administration officials are "acting like the Gestapo" with the Justice Department indictment of Dinesh D'Souza coupled with the Internal Revenue Service's political targeting of the administration's critics.

"I believe we are dealing with an extremely corrupt administration," he said.

Dr. Carson himself became the subject of an IRS audit after criticizing Barack Obama's policies at the annual National Prayer Breakfast in Washington last year.

"I've always been someone who has been very careful about my finances and the way I take care of my business," said Dr. Carson. "I've never undergone this kind of scrutiny before, but then it comes after the prayer breakfast. They're harassing my family. They're harassing my colleagues. And they're not finding anything -- so that just makes them dig a little deeper."

In a telephone interview today, Dr. Carson, who is talked about as a potential new brand of non-politician presidential candidate himself in 2016, said he was also disturbed by Obama's comments in an interview with Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly before the Super Bowl game last week.

"What he said was that his administration was not guilty of any wrongdoing with regard to the IRS and he blamed Fox News for reporting it," Dr. Carson said. "I don't think he would be happy unless Fox News were shut down and there was no more criticism of his actions."

D'Souza was one of Obama's most visible critics in the 2012 election year when he released the extremely popular documentary "2016: Obama's America."

D'Souza was indicted by a federal grand jury on two felony counts for violating campaign finance laws. He was charged with making false statements to the Federal Election Commission and illegally contributing $15,000 to a Senate candidate. He could face up to seven years in prison.

Cleta Mitchell, an attorney specializing in campaign finance issues, told WND, "The decision to prosecute -- or not prosecute -- is always a matter of discretion. It was the prosecutor's decision -- indeed DOJ's decision -- not to prosecute widespread conduit contributions to the John Edwards campaign in 2008. Contrast that with this prosecution, which involved $15,000 (not $20,000 as claimed)."

Asked whether she believes the indictment was politically motivated, Mitchell said, "Do I think this is politically motivated? I think if a Republican appointee had done this, the press corps would be going ballistic. Just consider how outraged they were when Bush asked for and received resignations of all U.S. attorney appointees at the start of his second term, something that is customary. Imagine if his appointee had gone after a George Soros friend. Imagine the outrage."

Brent Bozell, founder and president of Media Research Center, cited former President Bill Clinton and Obama's own history of accepting highly questionable campaign donations.

"Let's assume Dinesh D'Souza is guilty, and I mean 100 percent guilty. What is he guilty of? Circumventing FEC dictates by directing [$15,000] to a Senate candidate of his choice. Big deal," Bozell told WND. "First, in a multi-million Senate campaign, this is a fraction of a fraction. It 'buys' a can of soda pop, and that's about it. Second, and more importantly, compare this 'crime' with Bill Clinton, who raised millions of dollars from questionable at best, and illegal at worst, sources, including felons and Chinese Communist generals. Compare it to Barack Obama, who raised millions upon millions from who-knows-who-or-where to this day. Nothing ever came of their fundraising abuses, abuses one thousandfold larger than anything attributed to D'Souza. And yet he was arrested and forced to post a $500,000 bond. It is astonishing. Given all the other abuses of power swirling around this administration, so many of them finding their origins in the ‘Justice' Department, do I see deliberate persecution against conservatives? I am not conspiratorial by nature, but I will say unequivocally, you better believe it."

Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., called the D'Souza indictment "100 percent" political.

"Of course it is," she said. "It is payback from the DoJ. Plus, it sends a signal to anyone else for 2016 who may be thinking of producing a movie. It is up to the candidate to return the money. This should have been found when the FEC filing occurred. I don't know the details, but this could cost Dinesh literally millions in legal defense fees, plus destroying his name and making him toxic to conservatives and Republicans. These are the goals of the political destruction machine at the DoJ."

Likewise, Rep. Steve Stockman, R-Texas, told WND, "Yes, I think it is political. It fits a pattern of abuse of power. As someone else said, President Obama is the president Nixon wanted to be."


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #135 

Obama has nullified the legislative branch of government

Rush Limbaugh:  You know, I did hit this pretty hard an hour ago. And I want to hit this again, because a lot of people are glossing over this, as I think a lot of people are glossing over a lot of big stuff, which may be understandable in the sense that most people feel powerless to do anything about it.  But, when among the people feeling powerless to do anything about it is the Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States of America, to me, that's big.

Now, the specific comment that John Boehner made regarding immigration reform, his announcement yesterday that it's dead for this year -- which nothing ever is there.  Anything can happen on a dime, reversals of fortunes take place, but for all intents and purposes, what he said was, "Look, I just don't have the votes.  We're not gonna get the votes." The Wall Street Journal picked up the refrain we shared with you, blaming talk radio primarily.

They gave a little bit of blame to the Heritage Foundation and Jeff Sessions, but primarily blaming talk radio, and actually blaming House leadership for being afraid of talk radio, was the Wall Street Journal.  What did Boehner say?  Boehner said that the primary reason we're not going to proceed with immigration reform is "widespread doubt that the administration can be trusted to enforce our laws." People said, "Oh.  Oh, okay.  Ho-hum."  Now, that's not a ho-hummer to me. 

That is major. 

If the chartered body in our government that makes the law decides not to because they don't think that it'll matter because the executive branch will just ignore it, I mean that's a breach of serious proportion.  That is a constitutional challenge and crisis that is very real, that nobody apparently has the courage to do anything about, because of the president's race.  If the Speaker of the House really believes that, if members of Congress -- and, by the way, there's every reason to believe it. 

The president does behave outside the Constitution.  I mean, Sheila Jackson Lee, in the House of Representatives, is saying that their job now is to write executive orders for Obama to sign. Not laws, but write executive orders! During his State of the Coup speech, when Obama announced that if they didn't do what he wanted, he's gonna go do it anyway, the Democrats stood up and cheered.

He in effect told members of Congress, "Screw you," and they gave him a standing ovation! They are totally willing to grant dictatorial power to one of their own, and they gave that premise a standing ovation.  So Boehner then says (paraphrased), "Well, I mean, why even do it?  He's not gonna obey whatever we come up with. He's not obeying the laws we have now.  He's not obeying his own law. 

"He sued the state of Arizona for coming up with the state law that mirrored federal law on immigration!"  What's the next logical step in a case like this? Whatever happened to be concerned with gridlock?  This is gridlock on steroids.  This is not even gridlock.  This is the president of the United States effectively nullifying the legislative branch of government, basically saying, "You know what?" and he has in practically these words and said this.

"You know what?  I got a pen and I got a phone, and if they don't do what I want, I'm gonna do it anyway."  But you can't impeach the first black president, no matter how corrupt or how lawless.  So, what'd Dr. King say?  He dreamt of the day when we'd judge men by the content of their character instead of the skin color -- and skin color is everything now, and it is acting as a paralyzing agent. 

So we can expect more executive orders, and on tap, right on schedule, the president announced that he wants to extend lawlessness for three more years, the lawlessness that would allow you to keep your current insurance plan, which is in violation of ObamaCare.  It is against the law.  Aspects of ObamaCare make your current plan illegal.  But, remember, Obama's given you a waiver.  He's not going to punish you for having an illegal policy. 

He's not going to have the authority pursue you, but you are still in illustration avow of the law, and he wants to allow you to continue to break the law for three years, because they don't have anything better.  Now, ObamaCare was supposed to be the panacea, the be-all, end-all. It'd fix everything.  It's done nothing but made things worse -- and so, to get past the 2014 midterms and the 2016 presidential, we'll just delay ObamaCare for three more years. 

We'll just delay the fundamental aspects of ObamaCare.  The president has decided, "You know what?  Let's just delay it so that we don't make it any bigger of a target," and the Republicans are saying, "Well, we can't do immigration reform or anything else because it doesn't matter. The president won't enforce the laws that we pass anyway if he doesn't like them," and there's nothing anybody is willing to do about it. 

In the midst of all this, the Wall Street Journal is editorializing against me.

Related:  Obama may illegally further delay ObamaCare provision


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #136 

Obama "expects his Cabinet to be forceful and to act" on climate change without Congress

Melanie Hunter is reporting that Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced Wednesday the establishment of "climate change hubs" in seven states -- and three sub-hubs -- that will assess and come up with a plan to help rural America deal with climate risks -- all without congressional approval.

"The president's been quite insistent in cabinet meetings and in private meetings that he expects his cabinet to be forceful and to act. We can't wait for congressional action. So pursuant to his climate action plan, we established a number of climate change hubs," Vilsack said during the White House press briefing.

The seven states are: New Hampshire, North Carolina, Iowa, Oklahoma, Colorado, New Mexico and Oregon. The sub-stations are located in California, Michigan, and Puerto Rico.

"These climate change hubs in the sub-stations are going to do a risk analysis of crop production and of forestry in terms of changing climates. It'll establish the vulnerabilities that we have in each region of the country, will determine from those vulnerabilities strategies and technologies and steps that can be taken to mitigate the impacts and effects of climate change as well as adapting to new ways of agriculture," Vilsack said.

That includes "the establishment of a new research foundation which will identify up to $400 million of additional resources to go into agricultural research," Vilsack said, adding to the $120 million already allocated for climate-related and agriculture issues.

It will provide the "opportunity to restore disaster assistance" for livestock producers that were unable to access disaster assistance because the programs under the previous farm bill expired. Those programs have now been restored, he said.

It will allow for the creation of "new market opportunities to use what is being grown and raised in creative ways,"

Vilsack said. "Manufacturing is going to come back to rural America," he predicted. It will lead to "the establishment of a bio-based manufacturing opportunity where we take crop residue and livestock waste, turning it into chemicals, polymers and other materials," Vilsack said, which will create new job opportunities in rural America.

Vilsack noted that "51 percent of the entire land mass of the United States is engaged in either agriculture or forestry."

"So combined with the new farm bill and the new opportunities it creates, these climate hubs I think will equip us to make sure that the 51 percent of land mass of the United States is protected against changing climates, allow us to maintain the economic opportunity that agriculture creates in this economy often times underappreciated and under-realized," he said.

The climate hub program will allow the United States to continue to be what Vilsack referred to as "a food secure nation."

"The United States is blessed, because we basically create and grow just about everything we need to survive as a people. Hardly any other country in the world can say that, so we want to make sure we continue to be in that strong position," he said.

Cross-posted in the "Obama and climate change" thread . . .


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #137 

If dreams came true

[ObamaConvict]


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #138 

Executive tyranny -- the problem's bigger than Obama

Bruce Thornton says Barack Obama is threatening to bypass Congress and use executive orders to achieve the policy changes he can't get through legislation. "We are not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we're providing Americans the kind of help that they need," he said during the State of the Union address. "I've got a pen and I've got a phone." Here seemingly is one more item in the indictment of Barack Obama's arrogant dismissal of the Constitutional order, and his contempt for mixed government.

But once again, the problem isn't the ideology or personality flaws of Obama, as dangerous and extensive as those are. Obama is just a more extreme version of Progressive ideas permeating our politics for more than a century. The problem runs deep in our political order, and will require much more than just changing a few political personalities in order to restore the limited government and citizen self-government intended by the Founders.

The "imperial presidency" Obama that himself decried when George W. Bush was in power is a corollary of the expanded federal government that Progressives claimed was necessary to address the new economic and social circumstances brought about by an industrialized economy and social change. Only a big federal government could achieve the collectivist goals and utopian programs Progressives wanted to pursue, for as Progressive theorist Herbert Croly wrote in 1919,  "Only by faith in an efficient national organization, and by an exclusive and aggressive devotion to the national welfare, can the American democratic ideal be made good," and "under existing conditions and simply as a matter of expediency, the national advance of the American democracy does demand an increasing amount of centralized action and responsibility."

Such a centralized enlarged government requires a chief executive much stronger than the President designed by the Constitution. He must be a "leader of men," as Woodrow Wilson put it, and not just a political leader, but a transformer and creator of national opinion. Wilson's further remarks suggest an attitude towards leadership closer to the Italian fascism of Benito Mussolini than to the Constitution, and looks ahead to the messianic aura and rhetoric that has characterized Democrats like Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and worst of all, Barack Obama. "Whoever would effect a change in a modern constitutional government," Wilson wrote in 1887, "must first educate his fellow-citizens to want some change. That done, he must persuade them to want the particular change he wants. He must first make public opinion willing to listen and then see to it that it listen to the right things. He must stir it up to search for an opinion, and then manage to put the right opinion in its way." Rather than policy rising from the various interests of the people and communicated through their representatives, now it will be imposed from above by a wiser "leader of men" who better knows than the people do what "right things" are good for them.

This is a vision of Presidential leadership far different from the Constitution's chief executive, who ceded the law-making power to Congress, and who acted as a check and balance on the excesses of that branch of government. Wilson believed such a limited executive was unsuitable for the new challenges the country was facing.  It now needed a president more powerful than the Constitution's chief executive, who was limited to being "only the legal executive, the presiding and guiding authority in the application of law and the execution of policy . . . He was empowered [by the veto] to prevent bad laws, but he was not to be given an opportunity to make good ones." Now the responsibility of the president to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed," as the Constitution put it, must be revised and expanded to making the laws, according not to the people but to the powerful executive's notion of what defines good laws. Sounds pretty much like what Obama has been doing and threatens to keep on doing.

Equally foreign to the Constitution is Wilson's notion that government "is a living, organic thing, and must, like every other government, work out the close synthesis of active parts, which exist only when leadership is lodged in some one man or group of men." Further contradicting the Constitution's structure based on mixed government and on balancing and checking clashing passions and interests, Wilson writes, "You cannot compound a successful government out of antagonisms." Thus we must "look to the President as the unifying force in our complex system, the leader both of his party and of the nation." The Constitution recognized the various conflicting interests of the people, and sought only to keep one faction from dominating over another and limiting individual freedom by seizing control over the coercive power of the federal government. The Progressives, in contrast, want to aggrandize more and more central power in order to unify the national interests as they define it, and smooth out those messy, inefficient factional rivalries in order to achieve the improvement that "some one man or group of men" have decided is best for the country.

These un-Constitutional attitudes toward a powerful executive have been constant among Democrats and even occasionally some Republicans. What Obama has been doing during his presidency with his "pen and phone" is novel only in its brazen scope, nakedly political motivations, and blatant disregard for Congressional prerogative. But in spirit it is consistent with the Progressive movement's impatience and disdain for the Constitution, its belief that a giant federal government armed with coercive regulatory power requires a stronger, if not messianic, President, and its assumption that technocrats of superior wisdom and virtue are better placed to determine the people's best interests than are citizens and their representatives. Most Democrats today share the same assumptions, particularly Hillary "It takes a village" Clinton.

This history, moreover, reminds us just how far gone all of us are in accepting uncritically these assumptions. The Weekly Standard's Jay Cost, for example, recently offered advice for those seeking "an equality agenda." He says all the right things about the dysfunctions of a federal government held hostage to special interests and bureaucratic corruption. His solution is to "focus on empowering individuals directly, rather than via bureaucrats or interest groups. Block grants to state and local governments (where the citizenry can exercise greater control), vouchers, and easily accessible tax credits are all ways to level the economic playing field as well as the political one, for they all can empower individuals to make their own life choices."

All these ideas are infinitely better than anything Obama has proposed for solving income inequality. But why even concede that "income inequality" is a problem at all, or that an "equality agenda" is a legitimate concern of the federal government? After all, to paraphrase Ronald Reagan, the federal government doesn't "empower individuals," people, families, and civil society do. The federal government just needs to get out of the way, and leave people the freedom to rise to whatever level their talents, hard work, virtue, and luck can take them. And it is naïve to think that the feds will give states and people a dime without attaching their own conditions and rules. Jay Cost is one of the smartest political commentators around, but he cedes too much to the anti-Constitutional agenda to "solve problems" by amassing power at the expense of individual freedom.

Obama is just the extreme version of a widespread belief among many in both parties that an enormous, intrusive federal regulatory and redistributionist regime is necessary for "solving problems" that in fact are best left to individuals and state and local government. The only argument between the parties these days is over the amount and pace of expansion -- spending, for example, $800 billion on food stamps over the next decade rather than $808 billion. This belief in problem-solving big government is more insidious and thus in the long run more dangerous than Obama's "pen and phone."

Woodrow Wilson's comment, "Whoever would effect a change in a modern constitutional government must first educate his fellow-citizens to want some change. That done, he must persuade them to want the particular change he wants," is pure Alinsky.

The agitator's job, according to Alinsky, is first to bring folks to the "realization" that they are indeed miserable, that their misery is the fault of unresponsive governments or greedy corporations, then help them to bond together to demand what they deserve.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #139 

"Unbelievably unconstitutional"

Charles Krauthammer discusses Obama's threat, from his State Of The Union Speech, to use executive orders if Congress doesn't pass laws in accordance with his vision. "You can have executive orders that implement already existing laws," Krauthammer said. "What Obama has done, in the DREAM Act... essentially, he passed a law by executive order that the Congress had rejected, wouldn't pass."


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #140 

New legislation passes the White House

Keith Koffler says you’re not stuck on quaint notions like, Congress passes the laws, are you? Because there’s lots of good legislating being done in the White House and you – you are SO ungrateful – are hardly even noticing.

Take the new MyRA savings account. Even I thought this might be a good idea. And it is a good idea -- a good idea for subverting the Constitution.

How does a president create a whole new program, one that costs cash money, without it being appropriated by Congress?

I’m waiting for an answer.

Well, Barack Obama and his little shop of Socialist elves figured it out. I mean, when are Boehner and the rest of them going to make a serious move to call him on this stuff?

Eventually, we’ll get used to it. You read Animal Farm, right? Just incrementally up the Socialism until people realize too late that everything’s changed.

Sure, I’m being dramatic. But on a limited scale, that’s what’s happening here.

The new MyRA is a Roth-style savings account that allows you to earn interest tax free. That is, it’s a taxpayer gift, and therefor should be appropriated.

What’s more, as the Wall Street Journal points out, accounts like the MyRA that can be opened with as little as $25 and added to in $5 increments are normally not offered by private institutions because it costs more to service than it is worth.

But you are only too happy to service it, because you have no choice. You’ll be paying the processing costs -- even though your elected representatives didn't allocate your money for this purpose.

The White House is cleverly creating this brand new free stuff under the accepted right of Treasury to sell securities. But this right, as the WSJ points out, is awarded to provide Treasury with the mechanism to finance operations, not to create a new benefit. The joke here is that the White House is claiming this as just another method for the government to borrow money it has to borrow anyway.

See, this is how things will go. The administration will bend every rule, twist every law, and violate every trust to work its will. You want to challenge it? Okay, I hope you have the funds and are willing to wait for years while the case wends its way through the courts.

So throw out your kids’ civics books. Because all that separation of powers stuff -- that’s for losers.


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #141 

Krauthammer's take: If a Republican had done what Obama has done he'd be impeached


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #142 

Obama's legacy is the "establishment of lawlessness in the United States"

Related:  Obama's "consistent pattern of lawlessness" is "extraordinarily dangerous"


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Longknife 21

Registered:
Posts: 2,024
Reply with quote  #143 
The "Democrat Party" no longer exists, it has been infiltrated and hijacked by Fabian Socialists and Progressive Authoritarians for so long that it is a "Socialist Totalitarian Party" (Communist Party).  There is no intent, or even a pretence, to abide by the Constitution, the primary goal is to consolidate power to The Party, and brainwash or bribe Voters to support their programs until they have the power to declare a State of Emergency that will excuse their taking over the govt with a "Socialist Revolution".
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #144 

Obama is lawless


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Claudia

Registered:
Posts: 1,186
Reply with quote  #145 
So, in what essentially is a STATE decision, STATE'S RIGHTS ISSUES, the Feds have overruled and decided to TAKE AWAY STATES RIGHTS from the very people, that just a bit over a hundred years ago, they took away the right of Polygamous Marriages that Utah had previously allowed.....   What does the Fed want, an uprising of Utahan's like they had before, when they went to WAR against Utah over those same Polygamist Marriages....???  At the time of the WAR against Utah, just about 1/3 of the population of Utah fled and migrated to Mexico so that they could continue to live with their chosen families....  That is why George Romney was born in Chihuahua, Mexico -- father fled and George was born there after Miles Park Romney gathered his full family into the chosen location and built a community there.

This could be the start of the REVOLUTION that they (Obama, Holder, and the whole Fed Gov that hates Americans) are so furiously preparing for and want so much to have happen so that they can INSTILL MARTIAL LAW..... only they will use it to make it NATION WIDE, rather than just one state involvement.
Beckwith

Super Moderators
Registered:
Posts: 23,051
Reply with quote  #146 

Obama ignores Supreme Court ruling

Caroline May is reporting that on December 20th, federal District Judge Robert Shelby struck down Utah's ban on same-sex marriages. Monday, the Supreme Court halted new same-sex marriages pending Utah's appeal of Shelby's decision. Between December 20th and Monday, hundreds of same-sex marriages were performed.

Wednesday, Utah Gov. Gary Herbert's office announced that recognition of the same-sex marriages performed during the short window would also be on hold pending the appeal.

Friday, however, the federal government said it would be recognizing them.

"I am confirming today that, for purposes of federal law, these marriages will be recognized as lawful and considered eligible for all relevant federal benefits on the same terms as other same-sex marriages."

"These families should not be asked to endure uncertainty regarding their status as the litigation unfolds. In the days ahead, we will continue to coordinate across the federal government to ensure the timely provision of every federal benefit to which Utah couples and couples throughout the country are entitled -- regardless of whether they in same-sex or opposite-sex marriages, and we will continue to provide additional information as soon as it becomes available."


__________________
A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
lawyer12

Registered:
Posts: 884
Reply with quote  #147 
Another example of lawless by these liberal judges to undermine the Rule of Law.

Couple who are just friends allowed to adopt, judge says in landmark ruling (NY)

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/friends-adopt-judge-landmark-ruling-article-1.1565408#ixzz2pcyaT5uZ

First California with admitting an illegal alien to be a California Lawyer, now New York judges are allowing "friends" to adopt children totally violating what is in the "best interest of the child" standard.  This is a blatant attack on the RULE OF LAW (Judaeo Christian law and principles that define the 50 states and 1 district and the U. S. Constitution).
lawyer12

Registered:
Posts: 884
Reply with quote  #148 
Also, the guy has to wait until his citizenship is granted before he can file to be admitted as a lawyer for the Bar.  Instead of trying to go to the California Bar process, he should have taken the same effort to get his citizenship.  It is not that difficult.  If he can pass a California bar where they are a community property state, SURELY HE CAN TAKE A CITIZENSHIP TEST AND BECOME A U.S. CITIZEN.  Something is fishy with this whole thing.
lawyer12

Registered:
Posts: 884
Reply with quote  #149 
Look with Obama and these DemocRATS and complicit Republicans (aka Progressives) as what Woodrow Wilson and FDR implemented in the extreme with this Usurper illegally placed name Obama, it is hard for any rational person to make sense out of this chaos.

All I know is this, God said the Word is alpha and omega, the beginning and the ending.  There is no way any California State Supreme Court can admit an ILLEGAL ALIEN to practice law.  The first requirement that all potential lawyer applicants are required to do is file an application indicating that they are a CITIZEN of the U.S. and resident of California.  Someone needs to look at this application and contest this.  His admission should be VOID.  Also, it is a slippery slope if they allow this illegal alien to be admitted in California.  If a person gets advice from this guy and he looses, he and the State of California could be held liable for improper rendering of legal advice.

You can't have one law for citizens and make a separate law for illegal aliens as its relates to the practice of law.  It directly violates Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and state constitutions.  To me, someone in CA Gov. Brown's office is doing this to get political points with illegals to pass amnesty on a national level.  This is going to cause more harm for California and the lawsuits are going to come out of the woodworks and CA is going to be held liable for putting this out.  Don't be surprised if a challenge legally to this miscue is done.

Lauriemar

Registered:
Posts: 28
Reply with quote  #150 
Hi lawyer12....all good questions.  I assume you are a lawyer, so hopefully, you will indulge on this subject.

http://www.calbar.org

I don't have the exact link to the opinion, but if you go on the California State Bar website I posted, you will find the opinion of the court. It will also take you to the briefs filed by the parties.

Would love to hear some feedback on what others, attorneys or laypersons, think about this opinion.  As it stands, it is unprecedented, but when I reviewed the issues before the court and the arguments, I could understand why they arrived at the decision they did.  I think because Garcia took the appropriate proper and legal steps to become a citizen, and to no fault of his own, the visa application process is so screwed up, the state could not strike down his claim.  He is unable to practice in the federal courts and unable to practice in any other state court.

Lawlessness?  Maybe, but this guy was not trying to avoid the radar, like the other millions that think they can come swimming in here and take advantage of government freebies.  He did everything he was required to do to access citizenship, it just wasn't "processed" yet.  And, the California Supreme Court felt that was enough.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Help fight the
ObamaMedia

The United States Library of Congress
has selected TheObamaFile.com for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscriber

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2017
All rights reserved