Ping Scheller - Let's chat Obama

1. Amending Obamacare’s employer mandate, providing an unauthorized subsidy to congressional staff, and encouraging state insurance commissioners not to enforce certain requirements.

2 Inventing labor law “exemptions” in violation of the WARN Act so that workers would not receive notice of impending layoffs days before the 2012 election.

3. Waiving the mandatory work requirement under the 1996 comprehensive welfare reform law, which required able-bodied adults to work, prepare for work, or look for work in order to receive benefits under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.

4. Ignoring a statutory deadline and refusing to consider an application related to nuclear waste storage at Yucca Mountain, which activists sought to block for years.

5. Circumventing the Senate’s duty to provide advice and consent on appointments and instead making “recess” appointments in violation of Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution when the Senate was actually in session.

6. Deciding not to defend the constitutionality of the federal definition of marriage in court.

7. Implementing Common Core national standards through strings-attached waivers from the No Child Left Behind Act.

8. Intimidating Florida to stop its voter roll cleanup, which included removing ineligible voters such as noncitizens, before the 2012 election.

9. Imposing the DREAM Act by executive fiat under the guise of “prosecutorial discretion.”

10. Refusing to enforce federal drug laws in states that have legalized marijuana.

Click to expand...

By Alan Caruba
Thursday, February 27, 2014


It’s taken nearly five years, but Americans are finally aware that President Obama is opposed to anything that contributes to the economic growth of the nation. Along with a Democratic controlled Senate and its opposition to anything generated by the Republican House, Obama has saddled the nation with the highest debt in its history and squandered billions on failed alternative energy firms.

Click the image to open in full size.

The most dramatic example is Obama’s five-year delay of the implementation of the Keystone XL pipeline that would safely transport oil from Canada to refineries on the Gulf Coast.

There are approximately 55,000 miles of pipelines in the U.S. with another 30,000 to 40,000 smaller gathering pipelines that feed it to the major ones.

In a February 17 U.S. Chamber of Commerce advertisement in The Weekly Standard, its president and CEO, Thomas J. Donahue, wrote that “In the same time that the Keystone XL pipeline application has been under review by the Obama administration, the Hoover Dam, the New Jersey Turnpike, and the Empire State Building were built—a clear indicator of how cumbersome and political today’s permitting process has become.”

Donahue pointed out that “The Keystone XL pipeline would not only transport fuel safely, but it would boost economic activity along the way. Building the pipeline would create more than 42,000 new jobs while adding $3.4 billion to the economy. The pipeline would generate more than $5.2 billion in property taxes for communities on the route, pumping cash into state and city coffers for schools, law enforcement, and local projects.”

“Radical eco-zealots have chosen Keystone XL as the place to make their stand,” says Craig Rucker, the Executive Director of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) a free market think tank. “They claim this project is unsafe for the environment and the people it would pass near, and that it would greatly contribute to alleged ‘global warming.’”

The State Department is accepting public comment on the pipeline and CFACT has a petition for which it is seeking signatures to move forward on its acceptance. Take a moment to sign it.

Even Obama’s Secretary of Energy, Ernest Moniz, has gone on record saying that the nation’s railroad infrastructure was not ready to handle the huge increase in all oil production coming out of places like North Dakota’s Bakken Shale formation, urging that pipelines are the best option. “Frankly, I think pipeline transport overall probably has overall a better record in terms of cost, in terms of emissions, and in terms of safety.”

Keystone XL has become the environmental movement’s front line in its attack on the nation’s economic growth and political pundits commonly say that Obama’s refusal to permit its construction is based on his intention to keep their vote, but I am inclined to believe that it is part of his effort to convert the economy and political structure of the nation from a vigorous capitalist entity to one in which millions of Americans, unable to find employment and experiencing a reduction in their personal wealth are forced onto government doles of one sort or another.

Paul Driessen, a CFACT senior policy advisor, points out that “Most Americans are no longer fooled by empty hope and change hype. In December only 74,000 jobs were created (many of them low-paying part-time seasonal positions), while 374,000 more people gave up looking for work. Not surprisingly, recent polls have found that three-quarters of Americans say the country still appears to be in a recession, two-thirds don’t trust the President to make the right decisions for the country, and barely 30% say the nation is ‘heading in the right direction.’”

One is reminded of Obama’s claim that his $787 billion dollar “stimulus” program would help fund “shovel ready” jobs waiting to be filled. It utterly failed to do that, instead directing the money to alternative energy firms that went bankrupt while their owners pocketed much of that funding. Obama later admitted that there were far fewer shovel ready jobs than he believed existed. Government regulations have so slowed and delayed construction projects of every description that until they are removed, the economy will continue to stagnate.

The environmental claim that the pipeline will contribute to “greenhouse gas emissions”, primarily carbon dioxide (CO2), is utterly false because CO2 plays virtually no role whatever in affecting the Earth’s weather or climate. The claim is based on computer models, 95% or more of which have proved to be wrong.

Writing in The Wall Street Journal on February 20, Richard McNider and John Christie disputed Secretary of State John Kerry’s claims about “climate change”, pointing out that “When the failure of become clear, the modeling industry always comes back with new models that soften their previous warming forecasts…The models mostly miss warming in the deep atmosphere—from the Earth’s surface to 75,000 feet—which is supposed to be one of the real signals of warming caused by carbon dioxide. Here, the consensus ignores the reality of temperature observations of the deep atmosphere collected by satellites and balloons, which have consistently shown less than half of the warming shown in the average model forecasts.” McNider and Christie are professors of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and fellows of the American Meteorological Society.

Even Kerry’s Department of State’s own final environmental impact statement said that the Keystone XL pipeline would contribute little to global greenhouse gas emissions. Obama’s alleged climate policies ignore the science that disputes any connection between CO2 and the climate, but it is his primary instrument to delay and eliminate any economic growth.

Regrettably, on Feb 19, a Nebraska judge ruled that the law allowing the Keystone XL pipeline to be built across the State is unconstitutional, thus delaying the project still further.

The greenhouse emissions claims are a huge lie created to advance “global warming”, now called “climate change”, but the bottom line is that Obama is using them as a weapon against the nation’s capacity to grow the economy

We have a President who is doing everything he can to reduce jobs, reduce construction, eliminate coal-fired plants to produce electricity, and to wage an economic war on America.



Alan has a daily blog called Warning Signs. Alan can be reached at acaruba@aol.com

Click to expand...

Judge Andrew Napolitano
Feb 27, 2014


In the months since Edward Snowden revealed the nature and extent of the spying that the National Security Agency (NSA) has been perpetrating upon Americans and foreigners, some of the NSA's most troublesome behavior has not been a part of the public debate. This behavior constitutes the government's assaults on the American legal system. Those assaults have been conducted thus far on two fronts, one of which is aimed at lawyers who represent foreign entities here in America, and the other is aimed at lawyers who represent criminal defendants against whom evidence has been obtained unlawfully and presented in court untruthfully.

Investigative reporters at The New York Times recently discovered that the NSA has been listening to the telephone conversations between lawyers at a highly regarded Chicago law firm and their clients in Indonesia. The firm, Mayer Brown, has remained publicly silent about the revelations, as has its client, the government of Indonesia. But it is well known that Mayer Brown represents the government of Indonesia concerning trade regulations that govern exports of cigarettes and shrimp to the U.S. The lawyers on the other side of the bargaining table from Mayer Brown work for the federal government, which also employs, of course, the NSA.

Can the NSA lawfully tell lawyers for the government who are negotiating with Mayer Brown lawyers what it overheard between the Mayer Brown lawyers and their client? The answer, incredibly, is: Yes. Federal rules prohibit the NSA from sharing knowledge with lawyers for the federal government only about persons who have been indicted. In this case, Mayer Brown is attempting to negotiate favorable trade relations between Indonesia and the U.S., and the lawyers for the U.S. have the unfair advantage of knowing in advance the needs, negotiating positions and strategy of their adversaries. In the Obama years, this is how the feds work: secretly, unfairly and in utter derogation of the attorney-client privilege.

For 100 years, that privilege -- the right of lawyers and their clients to speak freely and without the knowledge of the government or their adversaries -- has been respected in the U.S., until now. Now, we have a lawyer who, as president, uses the NSA to give him advance warning of what his office visitors are about to ask him. And now we have lawyers for the federal government who work for the president and can know of their adversaries' most intimate client communications.

This is profoundly unfair, as it gives one side a microscope on the plans of the other. It is unwise, too, as clients will be reluctant to open up to counsel when they know that the NSA could spill the beans to the other side. In the adversarial context, for the system to work fairly and effectively, it is vital that clients be free to speak with their lawyers without the slightest fear of government intrusion, particularly when the government is on the other side of the deal or the case.

If you have spoken to a lawyer recently and if that lawyer is dealing with the federal government on your behalf, you can thank the constitutional scholar in the Oval Office for destroying the formerly privileged nature of your conversations.

But that is not the only legal protection that President Obama has destroyed. In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in a case in which journalists in the pre-Snowden era challenged the government's spying on them. The government won the case largely because it persuaded the court that the journalists did not have standing to bring the lawsuit because, the court ruled, their fears of being spied upon were only hypothetical: They suspected that their communications with their sources were being monitored, but they couldn't prove it. In this post-Snowden era, we now know that the journalists in that case were being spied upon.

Nevertheless, during the oral argument in that case, government lawyers told the high court that should government prosecutors acquire from the NSA evidence of criminal behavior against anyone whom they eventually would prosecute and should they wish to use that evidence in the prosecution, the Justice Department would inform defense counsel of the true source of the evidence so that the defendant would have the ability to challenge the evidence.

Yet, last week, in a case in federal court in Oregon, the same Justice Department that told the highest court in the land last year that it would dutifully and truthfully reveal its sources of evidence -- as case law requires and even when the source is an NSA wiretap -- told a federal district court judge that it had no need or intention of doing so. If this practice of using NSA wiretaps as the original source of evidence in criminal cases and keeping that information from the defendants against whom it is used is permitted, we will have yet another loss of liberty.

Federal law requires that criminal prosecutions be commenced after articulable suspicion about the crime and the defendant. Prosecutions cannot be commenced by roving through intelligence data obtained through extra-constitutional means. That is the moral equivalent of throwing a dart at a dart board that contains the names of potential defendants and prosecuting the person whose name the dart hits.

For the past 75 years, federal prosecutors have not been permitted to use unlawfully obtained evidence in criminal cases, and they have been required to state truthfully the sources of their evidence so that its lawfulness can be tested. This rule generally has served to keep law enforcement from breaking the laws it has sworn to uphold by denying to its agents the fruits of their own unlawful activity.

Liberty is rarely lost overnight. It is lost slowly and in the name of safety. In the name of keeping us safe, the feds have spied on the lawyers who negotiate with them, lied to the lawyers whose clients they are prosecuting and misrepresented their behavior to the Supreme Court. As far as the public record reveals, they have not corrected that misrepresentation. They have done all of this in utter defiance of well-settled law and procedures and constitutional safeguards.

What will they do next?



Judge Andrew P. Napolitano is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. He sat on the bench from 1987 to 1995, during which time he presided over 150 jury trials and thousands of motions, sentencings and hearings. He taught constitutional law at Seton Hall Law School for 11 years, and he returned to private practice in 1995. Judge Napolitano began television work in the same year.

Click to expand...

Snobike Mike said:

Let's start with the first 6 minutes of this......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgHHnXCQUk0&feature=player_embedded

Click to expand...

Schneller said:

Why Obama? Because I'd never vote republican. Why?

Click to expand...

Schneller said:

Mainly because they are too aligned with religious fundamentalists. That's scary. I see little to no difference in the danger of Christian or Muslim fundamentalists. Both preach hate and intolerance.

Click to expand...

Schneller said:

To my core, I believe in the necessity to keep church and state separated. This alone is enough for me to dismiss the Republican Party.

Click to expand...

Schneller said:

In addition, the Republican Party is the party of big business and unfettered capitalism, with no social conscience. See how they oppose a national health care program.

Click to expand...

Schneller said:

More evolved humans are less selfish.

Click to expand...

Schneller said:

http://www.bet.com/news/politics/photos/2013/06/crazy-republican-quotes-on-rape-and-abortion.html#!052213-politics-wire-EW-Jackson

Click to expand...

Schneller said:

Republicans chose Sara Palin for a leadership position. She is as big a joke as Rob Ford is. I can't vote for a party that would choose her.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/sarah-palin-gaffes

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/sarahpalin/a/palinisms.htm

http://www.alternet.org/story/104034/the_11_dumbest_things_sarah_palin_has_said_so_far

Click to expand...

Schneller said:

So Mike, these are my opinions and I know yours are different. The best that we can hope for is to agree to disagree. No one is going to flip their views on deeply held beliefs like religion and politics based on posts in a casual Internet chat forum. Let's just have fun with it and politically poke each other from time to time in jest.

peace

Click to expand...

BY: Elizabeth Harrington
February 26, 2014 5:42 pm

Members of Congress and constitutional law experts testified before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, warning that the legislative branch is in danger of ceding its power in the face of an “imperial presidency.”

The hearing, “Enforcing the President’s Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws,” focused on the multiple areas President Barack Obama has bypassed Congress, ranging from healthcare and immigration to marriage and welfare rules.

Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, testified that the expansion of executive power is happening so fast that America is at a “constitutional tipping point.”

“My view [is] that the president, has in fact, exceeded his authority in a way that is creating a destabilizing influence in a three branch system,” he said. “I want to emphasize, of course, this problem didn’t begin with President Obama, I was critical of his predecessor President Bush as well, but the rate at which executive power has been concentrated in our system is accelerating. And frankly, I am very alarmed by the implications of that aggregation of power.”

“What also alarms me, however, is that the two other branches appear not just simply passive, but inert in the face of this concentration of authority,” Turley said.

While Turley agrees with many of Obama’s policy positions, he steadfastly opposes the method he goes about enforcing them.

“The fact that I happen to think the president is right on many of these policies does not alter the fact that I believe the means he is doing [it] is wrong, and that this can be a dangerous change in our system,” he said. “And our system is changing in a very fundamental way. And it’s changing without a whimper of regret or opposition.”

Elizabeth Price Foley, a law professor at Florida International University College of Law, agreed, warning that Congress is in danger of becoming “superfluous.”

“Situations like this, these benevolent suspensions as they get more and more frequent and more and more aggressive, they’re eroding our citizens’ respect for the rule of law,” she said. “We are a country of law and not men. It’s going to render Congress superfluous.”

Foley said Congress is not able to tackle meaningful legislation out of fear that Obama would “simply benevolently suspend portions of the law he doesn’t like.”

“If you want to stay relevant as an institution, I would suggest that you not stand idly by and let the president take your power away,” she said.

Panelists and members of Congress dismissed the idea of impeachment, and instead focused on lawsuits to challenge the constitutionality of the president’s unilateral moves.

Four House members testified on the first panel during the hearing to highlight legislation they have sponsored to thwart the administration’s executive overreach.

Impeachment would “surely be extremely divisive within the Congress and the nation generally, and would divert the attention of Congress from other important issues of the day,” said Rep. Jim Gerlach (R., Pa.).

Gerlach, who testified before the committee, introduced H.R. 3857, the “Enforce the Take Care Clause Act,” which would expedite the review and injunction process for federal courts to challenge executive actions. Such a challenge would have to pass a supermajority in both chambers in order to be fast-tracked.

“Given the growing number of examples where this President has clearly failed to faithfully execute all laws, I believe it is time for Congress to put in place a procedure for a fast-track, independent review of those executive actions,” he said.

Gerlach said he proposed the bill due to Obama’s repeated alterations to his signature law, the Affordable Care Act.

“The ACA has been revised, altered and effectively rewritten by the president and his administration 23 times since July,” he said.

“When we have these constant changes at the president’s whim think about what that does to businesses’ planning capabilities and hiring capabilities and their expansion capabilities,” Rep. Tom Rice (R., S.C.) said. “We shouldn’t wonder why our economy is struggling.”

Rice has proposed the “Stop This Overreaching Presidency (STOP) Resolution” as a remedy. The resolution, which has 114 cosponsors, would direct the House to file lawsuits against four of the president’s unilateral actions, including the employer mandate delay in Obamacare and deferred action program for illegal immigrants.

Turley said Congress must take action to regain their power as the “thumping heart of our system.”

“The fact is, we’re stuck with each other,” Turley said. “Whether we like it or not in a system of shared powers. For better or worse we may deadlock, we maybe despise each other. The framers foresaw such periods, they lived in such a period.”

Click to expand...

The chief watchdog overseeing the Environmental Protection Agency is accusing agency officials of obstructing investigations by refusing to cooperate, using bully tactics to silence lower-level workers and, in at least one instance, threatening an agent.

EPA Inspector General Arthur Elkins Jr. made the allegations in a letter sent this week to Sen. David Vitter, R-La. The senator earlier had questioned both the objectivity of the IG office and whether EPA officials had interfered with investigations -- specifically asking about the case of John Beale, a former high-ranking official who was sentenced in December to 32 months in prison for bilking taxpayers of nearly $1 million by pretending to be a CIA agent.







The IG's office formally exposed the Beale fraud last year, but revealed to Vitter that, in this and other cases, its agents ran into resistance and even "intimidation" from the EPA ranks.

"Over the past 12 months, there have been several EPA officials who have taken action to prevent [the Office of Investigations] from conducting investigations or have attempted to obstruct investigations through intimidation," Elkins wrote.

In the Beale probe, Elkins confirmed that a staff attorney refused to be interviewed on a related audit following Beale's prosecution. Elkins wrote that auditors found indications she may have been aware of concerns about Beale's pay months earlier than she let on.

Separately, Elkins said an official in the agency's Office of Homeland Security approached one of their agents "in a threatening manner" during an investigation, preventing the agent from doing her job. The same official allegedly "issued non-disclosure agreements to EPA employees that prevented these employees from cooperating."

The case was apparently reported to the Justice Department, but it was never prosecuted, according to the letter.

Elkins said that yet another employee in the same office also refused to cooperate in an IG probe, and pulled the same move -- issuing non-disclosure agreements to employees to prevent them from cooperating as well.

It's unclear whether these other instances had anything to do with the IG's investigation into the Beale matter. Vitter's office said they suspect they are related at least in part, but are still working on their own investigations.

"We are starting to see proof of what we had already suspected -- John Beale's time and attendance fraud was the tip of the iceberg at the EPA," Vitter said in a statement. "The whole agency seems to be in complete disarray, which is exactly why we need to have a full [Environment and Public Works] Committee hearing on the fraud surrounding this case and other prevalent problems."

Vitter is the top Republican on that committee, which has been digging into how Beale was allowed to get away with his deception for so many years. Previously released documents have shown that some agency employees had suspicions about Beale for a long time, yet he kept receiving improper bonuses until 2013. Those bonuses totaled about $500,000.

Vitter had also raised concerns about the IG office's independence. But Elkins defended its work and its findings. He stood by a claim that EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy was the first senior official to report Beale. And he refuted claims that it viewed Beale's supposed CIA status as a human resources issue. The letter noted that other agency officials discussed the controversy in that context, but said "OIG was not part of these discussions."

Click to expand...

Obama Immigration Rules Favor Muslims over Christians

If any group was less deserving of the safety and security of the leader of the free world, it’s jihadists slaughtering non-Muslims. And yet this group is first on line.

Obama has opened the gates to a flood of terror-linked Muslim immigrants, the size of which will ensure poor vetting of backgrounds.
The effect of mass Muslim immigration.

What are the numbers of Muslims coming into the US from jihad nations under the Obama administration? And why aren’t the victims being given the opportunity to escape the vicious and bloody jihad by Islamic supremacists?

“Obama’s New Asylum Decree Favors Muslims Over Christians,” Investor’s Business Daily: Investors Business Daily, February 23, 2014
Immigration: As President Obama offers asylum to “minor” terrorists providing “limited” material support to terrorism, he’s slamming shut the door on thousands of Christians fleeing terrorism in Muslim lands like Egypt.

In another end-run around Congress, President Obama has unilaterally eased immigration requirements for foreigners linked to terrorism.
He ordered the State Department and Homeland Security to ignore a post-9/11 law barring entry to those giving political or charitable aid to Hamas and other known terrorist groups.

A dozen years after the horrific attacks on our nation by foreign Islamic terrorists, the Obama administration has decided a little support to foreign Islamic terrorists is OK.

Treasonous as it sounds, the president is following through on a little-noticed overture he made to Muslims in his Cairo speech of 2009, when he suggested he’d relax enforcement of material support laws involving “zakat,” or Islamic charitable giving.

He basically apologized for the Bush administration’s locking up the founders of the largest Muslim charity in America for sending millions to “zakat committees” linked to Hamas.

Of course, his move weakens, yet again, America’s security. By exempting five kinds of limited material support for terrorism, Obama instantly purges more than 4,000 suspects from the U.S. terror watch list and opens our borders up to both them and their families.
Not to worry, Homeland Security says, it’ll run additional security checks before letting them in.

Oh? Like the checks run on the Tsarnaev family, who also got into the country on asylum claims? Those security checks?
Forgive the survivors and the families of those who died in the Boston bombings if they’re not reassured.

Taking a chance on foreign nationals already suspected of aiding and abetting terrorists only puts Americans at greater risk. Yet the president is ordering immigration authorities to ignore red flags.
He suggests too many innocent Muslims seeking a better life here, including Palestinian “refugees,” have been “unfairly” excluded by Draconian post-9/11 immigration laws. Says who? Islamist lobbyist groups, such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, who claim Palestinian terrorists are “freedom fighters”?

At the same time Obama opens the floodgates to them, he’s closing our borders to Christians fleeing persecution by Muslims in Egypt, Iraq and other Mideast countries.

Displaced Palestinians have plenty of places they can resettle in the Mideast.

The options for Christians, on the other hand, are limited. The U.S. may be their best chance for refuge from violence and for religious freedom.
Yet the State Department has rejected virtually all of the 20,000 asylum applications from Coptic Christians trying to escape Egypt since the toppling of its pro-American regime.

Meanwhile, it’s welcoming terrorist supporters pushed out by Cairo’s renewed military crackdown on the Brotherhood.

Thanks to Obama’s new rule, these escaping Islamist troublemakers will be able to set up shop inside America and practice their jihadism with virtual impunity.

If the president doesn’t like rampant rumors he’s a “secret Muslim,” or that he’s doing the bidding of his Muslim Brotherhood-tied brother Malik, he should stop making sympathetic gestures that feed them.

Click to expand...

Have you paid attention to the Obama news of the past week? It's amazing. It’s mind-boggling. It was a week of unimaginable destruction.

Most people are so busy trying to survive the failing Obama economy, that they have no time to pay attention to the news. That is exactly the plan. Obama and his socialist cabal want you overwhelmed, mentally exhausted and distracted from the truth.

Well if you see it all put down in writing, in one place, it's frightening and shocking. It's also clear as day that the cloak is off. Obama is no longer hiding his plans to destroy America. For anyone who isn’t blind, deaf or very dumb, it’s now all out in the open.

The news of this past week proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Obama is accelerating the destruction of America.

Let's look at the facts:

This week the non-partisan CBO finally reported the truth – Obamacare is the perfect job-killing machine. Millions have already been downsized from full-time to part-time work and now we know from the CBO that an additional 2.3 million jobs will be eliminated. As I predicted from day one, this is exactly what Obamacare was intended to do- destroy the middle class and make us all dependent on government checks to survive.

Obama’s Kool-Aid drinking supporters are so far in the tank that when the CBO courageously pointed out that Obamacare makes it less likely millions of Americans will want to work, they called it “choice.” Obama’s propagandists painted it a wonderful development. But letting middle class wage earners and small businesses pay for all those who want to be freed from the need to work, so they can enjoy their free time and pursue their hobbies isn’t “choice.” It’s theft.

Folks, it is time to stop treading lightly and being politically correct. Let’s call it what it is. This is communism, pure and simple. Anyone who thinks “the American Dream” is to choose to stay home, not work, and collect a government check is reading directly from Karl Marx. Anyone who thinks some people (who vote 100% Democrat) should have a “choice” not to work, by stealing the money of others, is reading directly from “the Communist Manifesto.”

Personally, I think “choice” is great. You can choose to not work anytime you want. But if you need to steal my money to do it, that’s called theft, not choice. Middle class wage earners are being ripped off to pay for free-loaders. That means middle class people are having their “choices” taken away from them. I guess in Obama’s playbook one man’s choice is another man’s slavery.

But, that was only the start of the week. Next Obama illegally re-wrote his own Obamacare law- again.

Mimicking the traits of communist dictators and tin pot tyrants, Obama obviously believes he can change any law he wants, at any given hour, of any given day. One of the main chapters of my book was titled: “America the Banana Republic.” Just this week Charles Krauthammer said what’s happening under Obama “is the stuff you do in a banana republic.” Welcome to the club Charles. It’s nice to see D.C. establishment Republicans are finally seeing the light.

In America it’s a violation of the Constitution for the President to wake up on the wrong side of the bed and decide to make, arbitrarily change, or break laws. This is the behavior of Fidel Castro, or the late tyrant Hugo Chavez.

But wait, it gets far worse. As part of the new illegal Obamacare directive to postpone the law for businesses with 50 to 99 employees, Obama put the IRS in direct control of critical U.S. business decisions. He demanded that businesses must “justify” hiring and firing decisions to the IRS to qualify for the exemption.

Plain and simple, putting government in charge of the decisions of a private business is the very foundation of communism. It is how communist economies like North Korea, Cuba, the old Soviet Union, and East Germany have always been run.

Still, Obama wasn’t done. To show his total disdain for Congress and the American people he unilaterally loosened the rules for citizenship to allow foreigners with only a “minor” connection to terrorism to become citizens. Dennis Miller once said on Monday Night Football, “there is no such thing as a minor groin injury.” Well there is no such thing as a “minor” terrorist either.

Why is our President desperate to open the borders and let in “minor” terrorists? It’s not like we have a surplus of jobs. What is the pressing need in a country with 92 million unemployed working-age Americans? Has corporate America put out an emergency request for “minor” terrorist employees? Or is this how Obama creates instant Democratic voters?

Much along the same lines, Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder announced this week how "unjust" it is to not allow felons to vote.

No Mr. Attorney General, the only thing “unjust” was the crimes these felons committed. What’s the emergency here? Is there a shortage of Democratic voters? Obama’s game plan is clearly to combine felons with radical Muslim terrorists in order to guarantee Democrat dominance for years to come.

This was just one week in Obama's America. The evil and terrible news is coming in waves. And it’s all coming from one man. A man no longer hiding the fact that he is a tyrant, dictator, radical Marxist, and hater of America, capitalism and Judeo Christian values.

Why the sudden rush? My educated guess is Obama and his Marxist cabal see the writing on the wall. The disastrous effects of Obamacare are hitting home. Obama can spew all the fancy talk and propaganda he wants, but this time the people are experiencing the devastating effects of Obama's policies- health insurance policy cancellations, huge price increases, trusted doctors no longer in the network, prescriptions no longer covered, deductibles raised by thousands, and jobs being killed by the millions.

Obama faces a middle class revolt. A GOP landslide like 2010. His internal polls show a disaster headed his way. Knowing Democrats can no longer get elected, or re-elected, Obama has decided to go it alone. Without regard for the law, the Constitution, or the American people, he has obviously decided to do the most damage possible to America during his final three years. He’s finally taken off the mask and shown himself to be the true communist tyrant he is.

Obama no longer cares to hide his radical Marxist ideology. It’s now clear it’s “pedal to the metal” towards the destruction of America.

But folks, this was only one week of damage. We have 3 more years to go. If someone doesn't stand up to Obama, we aren't going to make it.

And that is exactly what Obama is betting.

Click to expand...

FORBES
2/12/2014

This story appears in the March 3, 2014 issue of Forbes.


One question congressional and presidential candidates should be asked is how we should go about restoring the rule of law to our federal government. Not even during the world wars of the last century was the executive branch as brazen in assuming sweeping and unlegislated powers, changing laws without the consent of the legislative branch and ignoring laws it didn’t like.

Lawsuits are certainly one possible avenue to take, but a slow one–which is what the White House is counting on. It will do what it wants, and by the time an unfavorable decision is handed down, it will have done many other things. It will also find ways to circumvent such a decision or just ignore it altogether.

How will the Administration act when, as is likely, the Supreme Court delivers an adverse ruling concerning the President’s appointment of members to the National Labor Relations Board when the Senate wasn’t technically in recess? Obama’s appointees went on to make rulings that were harmful to business. Of course, the

Administration will promise to comply and will then pull who knows what cards it has up its sleeve to make an end-run around the decision.

The IRS got caught singling out conservative groups for harassment–and nothing was done. The President, with a straight face, told Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly that there wasn’t a “smidgen” of evidence of any corruption, and the Justice Department has made clear it’s deep-sixing any serious probe. But even worse is the fact that the IRS is readying regulation that will make it legal to deny tax exemptions to predominantly conservative groups, while it turns a blind eye to organizations more friendly to the Administration’s Big Government agenda.

To add insult to injury, the new IRS commissioner has decreed that the agency will pay $62 million in bonuses, declaring, “I firmly believe that this investment in our employees will directly benefit taxpayers and the tax system.”

The unending changes the White House has unilaterally made to ObamaCare have been well documented, the latest being the extension until 2016 of the employer mandate for midsize companies.

The ways in which the EPA has waged its jihad against the eastern coal industry has also been well documented–and science be damned. Forbes.com columnist Larry Bell cites a flagrant example of the EPA’s ignoring inconvenient science: “A group within EPA’s own Science Advisory Board (SAB) determined that the studies upon which that regulation [setting CO 2 -emission limits for new power plants] was based had never been responsibly peer reviewed and that there was no evidence that those limits can be accomplished using available technology.”

The EPA is also set to ban production and sale of 80% of current wood-burning stoves. Who knows what aroused its ire against these innocuous devices? But this will impose a real hardship on people who live in remote areas, such as much of Alaska. The EPA has arbitrarily decided that stoves cannot emit more than 12 micrograms of fine particulate emissions per cubic meter of air. To put that silly limit in perspective, Bell notes that “secondhand tobacco smoke in a closed car can expose a person to 3,000–4,000 micrograms” per cubic meter.

By what authority did President Obama decree an increase in the minimum wage for workers on federal contracts? A clause in a 1931 piece of legislation that innocuously stated that the President should ensure that federal contracts are administered efficiently!

While we can take heart from the upcoming NLRB case, the courts are going to have to be more aggressive in going after executive branch abuses. Since the late 1930s federal courts have been very solicitous regarding acts of the federal government. An egregious example was the court’s acquiescence to the raw, politics-laden way the Administration unilaterally handled the bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler, shafting bondholders and giving sweetheart deals to the United Auto Workers union.

Federal judges should also consider throwing out such laws as Dodd-Frank, in which the language is so vague and ambiguous that it puts immense power in the hands of imperious regulators who are the ones deciding what the rules really mean. A healthy start would be to rule unconstitutional the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which has no accountability to Congress and can throw out regulatory thunderbolts, with very restricted opportunity for any judicial review. The agency gets its money not from Congress but from the Federal Reserve’s printing press.

Following the 2014 elections the Senate, which will then be Republican-controlled, can hold serious hearings on what this White House has been doing and can slash the budgets of recalcitrant departments and agencies (the GOP will also increase its majority in the House).

The election losses the Democrats will suffer will chasten a good part of the party, and many will work with Republicans to punish these breaches of trust by the White House. After all, wise Democrats will know that Republicans may well win the presidency in 2016, and they won’t want the new Chief Executive bending the rule of law the way President Obama has done out of habit.

Click to expand...

Mike Opelka


It was exactly one month ago that President Obama warned the Republican-controlled Congress, “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone.” That simple declaration was Obama’s indication that he was going to use executive orders to push his agenda forward without the approval of Congress.

However, a recently unearthed video from then-Sen. Barack Obama’s first presidential campaign in 2008 appears to show the candidate making a promise that he has been unable to keep. The statement was made during a town hall event in Lancaster, Pa.

First, he reminded the audience that he was a constitutional scholar.

“Ya know, I taught constitutional law for 10 years. I take the constitution very seriously,” he said.

Then, candidate Obama pledged to be very different from the man he hoped to replace: “The biggest problems we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m president of the United States of America.”

President Obama has violated his promise to “reverse” the problem of executive orders 168 times, issuing 147 executive orders during his first term. That compares to 173 orders in Bush’s first term. Bush ended his two terms with a total of 291 executive orders to his credit. Obama’s latest action puts his total at 168 orders with just less than three years remaining on his second term in the White House.

In terms of executive orders, Bush and Obama do not come close to Bill Clinton’s total of 364. But all presidents pale in comparison to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s 3,728 Executive Orders (573 came in the first year of his first term).

Click to expand...

Schneller said:

Some years ago I was on a motorcycle trip intoTennessee. I stopped in a small town coffee shop and beside the till was a collection box for a local resident who needed a kidney transplant but couldn't afford the operation and didn't have insurance that would cover it. I like Obama because he is trying to institute a national health care system to look after people like that. To make it happen, health insurance costs of wealthier citizens would go up a bit. I'm okay with that. That's how it works in Canada and in most every other first world nation.

Click to expand...

Schneller said:

Fundamentalist religious people are all about shoving their beliefs down others throats. The hate and intolerance they preach is against those with different beliefs, and sexual orientation. That can't be mixed with government because government has to represent all of a country's diverse population. This is the main problem in the Middle East.

Click to expand...