Amnesty for Illegals - Does Anyone Have to Follow the President's Extra-Constitutional Executive Orders?

I just have to wonder why any federal department head would follow the edicts handed down by the president when they know the executive order is not lawful?

In my time in the US Army, I knew that I was under no obligation to follow unlawful orders, and could be prosecuted if did violate the law. Cabinet and department heads should know this as well.

The US Congress is the check on executive overreach. The US Congress should bring criminal charges against any department head who implements illegal orders handed out by their leaders.

PSU - College Promtes Free Speech, As Long As They Agree With The Message

Interestingly, when the Black Student Caucus at Penn State staged a protest, the Penn State President Eric Barron raises hands for student protest but when the Young Americans for Freedom a PSU student group wants to educate students on PSU's free speech policies on one of 12 small designated "free speech zones", they were told to pack up and leave by campus security. Student Activists Told To Remove Table From Penn State 'Free Speech Zone' (Video)

Progressive academia.  Penn State wins the Orwell award for proclaiming freedom while practicing restriction.

Petition the EPA - Daily Kos reveals their Naivete

The Daily Kos wants everyone to "sign" their petition, Titled, "Support the EPA's first-ever limits on carbon pollution from power plants" (Here), to limit CO2 emissions from power plants, claiming you can actually influence policy change.

Nonsense.

My first problem with this approach is that I see no money changing hands, so politicians and bureaucrats will most likely ignore it.

Second - when this kind of 'law' is implemented, only the wealthy and their politicians will be better off.  Just look to former VP AL Gore, who 'earned' hundreds of millions of dollars selling global warming fear.  Hard working Americans will pay more for energy, as we do now.

Third - their controls only affect American power plants and American power plants are the most efficient in the world.  Our coal fired power plants are heavily regulated already. Coal fired power plants in China have no visible pollution controls. China produces 40% of the worlds coal fired power generation about twice as much as the USA's total at 20.5% (reference).

Fourth - and probably the most important fact to remember is, that if this country does nothing more than we are already doing in the area of influencing climate change, the sea level may rise 2 to 3 feet in the next hundred years.

The question then becomes: Who does this affect?

Let's see, rising sea levels would affect coastlines, oceanfront properties, and lowlands, that would realize a loss of land mass.  So, if you own oceanfront or seaside property you may need to move it back a little - a very expensive proposition.  But, then you are probably wealthy and so I don't care if you have to build a dyke or move to higher ground.

If you live in a low land, you have no doubt experienced flooding in the past.  I know the folks who live along the Mississippi River and its many of its tributaries have. And yet you rebuild in the same place - usually demanding my tax dollars for their disaster relief.  Why do we keep paying people, essentially encouraging them, to repeat the mistakes that put them in such a bad place. I've heard them on the news being praised for their bravery when they claim they will rebuild in the same spot that was just washed down to the Gulf of Mexico. Time for some tough love, I'd say.

Everyone else will do as humans and animals have always done: adjust to the situation - dress cooler, get more efficient AC, move north, move to higher ground (except the stubborn ones - who would soon be extinct), etc.

Number five - If you sign this petition you will be on record as being a mind-numbed low-information follower of lost causes - i.e., a Kosian.

Climate change is mostly a non-issue and those who promote hamstringing the US economy - making more Americans poor so they can be rich - in order to see their dream come true are doing nothing but living in a child-like dream world where their little minds are accepted as forward thinking intellectuals - someone is watching too many Disney movies.

Media Matters - The Don Quixote of Media Reporting.

I receive emails from Media Matters (MM) for America - the leftwing merry-go-round that spins the news for delicate progressive egos.

In their latest they have discovered that Fox News Channel is affiliated with multiple local television news programs and warn you to beware of conservative distortions reaching broadcast markets.

They do this with all the seriousness they can muster.

"Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes' 21st Century Fox owns and operates 28 stations in major media markets around the country. These stations might seem independent, but Fox uses them to push misinformation to viewers like you." - Media Matters

They title their plea as "Fight Misinformation On Local News", but then provide no (that's zero) misinformation coming from local Fox affiliates.  This includes the video on their web page.  They urge you to  watch and learn, but there is no there there. It shows clips of local reporters talking about a few political issues - but no partisan slant - no information at all.  MM cuts the clips short and we only hear the topic - Benghazi, etc.

They want you to join their campaign to make everyone aware that the same rich guy that owns Fox news Channel also owns these local news programs and therefore his influence must be there - if only they could find something to backup their fantasy.

Sorry MM.  Nothing to see here.  So, back to the drawing board.

Edit: More Media Matters mayhem from the honorable folks at Breitbart.com
"Trigger Warning! Media Matters Scolds Roll Out Lies For Thanksgiving"

Letter to Representative Vern Buchanan - Extra-Constitutional Executive Orders

Sent 11/22/2014
Dear Representative Buchanan.

I fail to understand how members of congress, reporters and opinion makers,  believe the president can get away with bypassing the US Congress.  He needs to be stopped in his tracks.  To do so I would suggest charging anyone in this administration with a crime for trying to enforce or implement unconstitutional executive orders.

I spend 21 years in the US Army and I know that there is no rule or regulation that requires carrying out orders and directives that are unlawful. Anyone in a position of trust and responsibility should understand this as well.

If the head of DHS implements the president's change to immigration law, he should be brought before congress and forced to explain his unlawful actions. Hefty fines should be levied and other actions such as impeaching department heads. The same goes for any federal department head who violates the law.

The president's actions show a clear contempt for our representative republic.  His proclamations need to be nipped in the bud before the executive branch makes congress and the people irrelevant.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Best Evidence of Progressive/Liberal Expert Deceit - Professor Jonathon Gruber of MIT

It seems everyone wants/needs to trust experts, tenured professors and professionals to determine what is best for them. We also have a tendency to believe our elected representatives.  But it seems they cannot be trusted. That trust had little to do with the passage of the ACA (ObamaCare).  When it passed, the Democrats had control of both houses of Congress and the presidency -  with 60 votes in the US Senate, the GOP could not stop the disastrous ACA from passing. At that time, the only people who needed convincing were the Democrats is the US Congress.  (By the way, those Democrats were already convinced, they just needed to work out the details of who gets paid what amount in exchange for voting for this albatross)

The American people aren't "stupid".  We knew as much about ACA as President Obama and Rep. Nancy "we have to pass it to know what's in it" Pelosi, which is - to be gentle - not much.

So now we have Professor Gruber happily telling folks that American voters are too stupid to understand the economics of ObamaCare.  Of course, again, we know as much or more about economics as President Obama, so I wonder if there isn't some underlying thought process going with Mr. Gruber that makes him direct his insults at the voters?  Of course, he does not have to get voters to like or support him, he just needs the politically powerful to pay him - and to heck with the rest.

But Mr. Gruber has done the country an invaluable service - He has outed the political elites with his too stupid message.  The voters needed to know that our beloved politicians are much more concerned with obtaining, expanding and retaining power, than they are with the concerns of the American population.  They will tell us anything - any lie - and tell it with conviction, just to keep their power.  Here is all the evidence you need to know that politicians lie, they do it deliberately - make no mistake, ObamaCare is about power and control.

From one of the "architects" of ObamaCare, Professor Jonathan Gruber.

"Democrats Who Once Praised ObamaCare Architect Gruber Now Can’t Run Away From Him Far or Fast Enough" - ijreview.com, 11/18/14 w/video mash-up from the Washington Free Beacon

GRUBER: "Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage." Jonathan Gruber, October 17, 2013, video posted by AmericanCommitment Published on Nov 7, 2014

Legislators Amused at Vermonters' Concerns Uploaded on Feb 20, 2011 by TrueNorthReports 

"Dr. William Hsaio and his team testify at House Health Care Committee hearing on February 18, 2011. Chairman Mark Larson (D-Burlington) reads a letter from a Vermont constituent concerned about a single-payer system."  Description by TrueNorthReports (Prof. Gruber mocks a Vermonter's question)

Obamacare Architect: No State Exchange = No Subsidies; Blatant Enough- Jonathan Gruber, January 18, 2012, video posted by AmericanCommitment

"What’s important to remember politically about this is if you're a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don't get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that's a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this." - Prof. Gruber

What else do we need to know that the political and academic elite in this country think the rest of us are stupid and need their wise counsel to live our lves because, you know, we are too stupid in their eyes.

28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Why Not

There is and email making the rounds calling for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would require any legislation that congress makes or modifies would apply fully to them as it would apply to anyone else. As circulated, it reads:

"Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States."

I believe this is a great idea and would be happy to give credit to the author, if that person were known. On the other hand, Snopes.com is dismissive of the idea"grading it "Mostly False", citing extraneous issues that have been lumped into the equal application of the law amendment.

Obama - Lazy Americans

Obama said. "We've kind of taken for granted -- 'Well, people would want to come here' -- and we aren't out there hungry, selling America and trying to attract new businesses into America." Story at ABC News

Dear Mr. President. Foreign businesses are not flooding the gates because someone continually demonizes successful businesses, won't lower the highest corporate taxes in the world, and keeps adding red tape and regulation to stifle the job creators.

Mr. President, I'm afraid the problem is not laziness. The problem is you, your ideology and the mindset of your political party.

Thank you for your support.

There psychological terms to describe this president, and they would not enhance his public image.

Defining a Successful Presidency

After the presidential elections back in 2008, Rush Limbaugh said that he hoped Obama would fail.  Of course this brought lots of negative comments that the legacy and new age media were happy to replay, reprint, misstate and all with their own special brand of opinion attached.  Mr. Limbaugh's comments were in response to President-elect Obama's promise to "fundamentally change America".

OK, so what would exemplify a successful or a failed administration?  It depends on your political or ideological reference. Let's look


Conservative on what a successful or failed presidency would entail

If you are a rank and file conservative, you would define a 'failed presidency' as one where ...
- we created more enemies around the world while giving them the impression that we can't or won't defend ourselves
- many Americans can no longer find gainful employment
- government must step in and "care" for more and more Americans
- government treats people unequally under the law
- illegal aliens are given a free pass with benefits
- our people are murdered in foreign countries with no subsequent response from us
- we go out of our way to illegally return 5 terrorists in leadership positions to fight against us
-  religion is removed from the public arena
- the Federal Reserve does not hand over hundreds of billions of unfunded taxpayer dollars to large, too big to fail, financial institutions and tacking the amounts to the national debt

While a successful presidency might be one where ...
- other nations and groups respected the USA, or at least were hesitant to launch attacks against us
- the leader of the free world built confidence among the people and gave them high hopes for the future.
- one where the proven strategies, traditions and common sense ruled over change for the sake of change and political expediency.
- people and groups were not persecuted for having opposing views.
- the economy didn't suffer due to ever more regulations and higher taxes.
-  the people didn't suffer because we were not being treated equally under the law.
-  government stayed out of individual lives as much as possible.
- and the church and private charities, rather than the government, were the charitable organization.


Progressive on what a successful or failed presidency would entail

A progressive might believe that the administration had failed if ...
- there are more wealthy Americans, an expanding middle class, and higher wages
- there are fewer countries appeared to be friendly towards us and our allies were unsure that we had their back
- there will be no universal healthcare
- he did not stop the use of fossil fuels
- we had to spend money on our military
- he did not make conservatives and religion irrelevant
- and if he does not turn all unused land and temporary bodies of water (puddles and ditches) into environmentally protected zones

On the other hand they might conclude that the presidency was successful if the president's administration ...
- did reduce the number of "rich" people and increase the number of governmentally dependent
- enacted a "living wage" requirement
- spend much more money on the "poor" and poor illegal aliens
- drastically reduced the size and budget of the military
- where more countries pretended to like us
- removed personal responsibility from everyone and made life one happy day after another with the benevolent government taking care of everything.

My Rating of the Obama administration's 6 years in office

I would grade the Obama administration as a failure due to their record of...
- the slowest job growth in the history of the country
- for encouraging twelve million adult Americans to give up on finding a job
- for touting millions of jobs created where almost half are part time jobs and many being entry level wage jobs with no benefits
- for leading from behind
- for constantly blaming others for the problems they cannot solve
- for losing the peace in the Middle East
- for bowing to foreign heads of state
- for adding more to the national debt than all the other 43 preceding presidents combined
- for increasing by half the number of families on government assistance
- for transferring trillions of dollars directly to the banks that caused the economic strife in 2008 while leaving the middle class hanging with lot jobs, homes and savings/equity - giving that to the banks as well (we wouldn't Wall Street to lose their bonuses)
- and for believing that they have to lie and hide what they are doing from the American people.

The Daily Kos - Hyper-liberal

The Daily Kos has decided what is real and what isn't.  They will claim that the President never lied about ACA (ObamaCare) and Benghazi and that he and his cabinet and appointees are only trying to help Americans.  To further this meme the Kos is laced with mischaracterizations, lies, fabrications and fairy tales - all sprinkled with a generous amount of name-calling, stereotyping and hate speech.  And yet, they are the open minded ones.

Maybe not so much. Look at this.

"The conservative movement has spent years designing an alternate reality for its membership. It's a universe in which climate change isn't real, but the terrorist attack in Benghazi was a full-blown cover-up. In this universe, Mitt Romney had the 2012 presidential election in the bag, the Affordable Care Act is still a massive failure, and every single conspiracy theory about the left isn't just a theory: it is simply known, with no citations necessary. As Paul Harris wrote after his encounter with the 2013 edition of CPAC:" - Daily Kos - Dante Atkins

Let's see - Alternate reality - It seems to me that this is exactly what the left does in order to maintain their belief system and their support among voters. Further, from my perspective it looks as though they project their own mindset and activities onto those who they oppose.  They labeled themselves as liberals - an Orwellian term when applied to their political ideology as liberals are the least open minded Americans that can be found.  If you try to talk to them about any topic that they oppose they will do whatever they can to shut you up.  They will expel you from commenting on their forums if you point out any facts that contradict what they are posting and they will try to marginalize you with slurs including racism, homophobia and even deride you if you are religious.

"a universe in which climate change isn't real"

 That is the standard line from progressives whenever the topic comes up. I know of no Republican or conservative who does not believe the climate is changing.  I believe the climate is changing.  I believe it is always changing.  To be clear, the problem is not believing it's changing, the problem is that progressives do not mind bankrupting this country, using apocalyptic scare tactics with no regard to the safety and security of everyone in the country and including those in foreign countries as well, to move forward with their expensive self-serving climate change agenda.

"the terrorist attack in Benghazi was a full-blown cover-up."

The fact is it was a cover up. Highly placed Whitehouse staff, and including State Department staff, deliberately scrubbed the narrative for Benghazi and then send Ms. Rice out to the Sunday news programs, instead of the scheduled appearance by the Secretary of State - Hilary Clinton, and sold a fabrication about some video that no one ever heard of - certainly no one in Benghazi, Libya - because there was an election coming up.  A terrorist attack would destroy the administration's "Al Quaida is decimated and on the run" narrative.

"Mitt Romney had the 2012 presidential election in the bag"

With President Obama's record Romney should have - and his campaign was keeping their spirits up until election day. But again, I know of no one who was betting that he 'had it in the bag' before election day.  That is a narrative created by the left for the express purpose of discounting and deriding - just as is being done at the Kos now.

"the Affordable Care Act is still a massive failure"

It is a failure if its actual intent was to save medical dollars and make it affordable for everyone.  Here is what it was said and what happened.
- It will lower insurance premiums - Premiums increased by 30% for those who were able to sign up and could afford the payments.
- More people will ave access to healthcare - there are no more people having access to healthcare than there was before.  The Whitehouse estimate of 12 million new ACA enrollees reflects the number of people who lost their insurance plan because of ACA rules.  In fact because of the extraordinarily high deductibles and limited doctor/hospital pool the plans allow, fewer people are likely to have access to healthcare providers.

lies:
- ACA will reduce premiums $2500 per average family - Oops, it went up by that much.
- Keep your doctor - Nope.
- Keep your insurance plan - Not so much.
- Won't increase  the national debt- Sorry, the mechanism that makes it affordable is supplementing the premiums with tax dollars. And they still cannot afford it.

"every single conspiracy theory about the left isn't just a theory: it is simply known, with no citations necessary."

Hmmm.  Does Mr. Atkins  realize that he has posted his conspiracy without any citations?  BTW: using the writings of other progressives, who themselves do not demonstrate any relation to facts or reality, are not qualifiable as legitimate sources.

As for his source, Paul Harris

"This is a world where it is seriously believed that the United Nations is trying to take over the US, and Obama is a Kenyan socialist, an Islamist, a Marxist or the biological son of communist-sympathiser Frank Marshall Davis. This is a world where Obama wants to take away all guns, where he has dictatorial powers worthy of an emperor and where the US media is a liberal conspiracy pushing abortions and being gay. This is the world where Glenn Beck, former Fox TV host turned popular publisher of The Blaze website, is hugely powerful and shock jock Rush Limbaugh is king. "

 Conservatives don't believe the UN is trying to take over the US, they are trying to drain us of as much of our value as they can.  Former General Secretary Kofi Atta Annan got away with Billions (Iraqi Oil for Food program embezzling by his son, Kojo) - all sent to the UN to help manage the world.  If the UN had a take-over plan, it would be for the entire world.  They are never described as leading a country, they are described as "The World Body".

We do not believe Obama is a born Kenyan, he is a Kenyan-American, born in Hawaii.  And there is much disagreement over describing Obama's political leanings (socialist, communist, Marxist, totalitarian, etc.).  Personally, I believe he is under someone's thumb who is trying to turn this country into a totalitarian utopia where government controls every aspect of human life, where the in-crowd lives high on the hog and the rest support their comfort.

Recall President Obama saying is the congress doesn't do something he would use his pen and his phone?  What do you think that means? I do not believe President Obama has actual "dictatorial" powers.  I do believe that he believes he has such power and the authority to use it.

These are M. Harris' beliefs, but they are simply wrong, but he and they don't care.  They have their narrative and they are sticking to it. They need to demonize their opposition in order to get any support at all.  If liberal politicians weren't distracting and blaming others, their own failures would be front page news.

Oh wait - the US media, Mr. Harris rightly states, pushes abortion and homosexuality instead of reporting the deconstruction of the country's heart and purpose by self-serving Democrats and compliant Republicans.  I call them the legacy media as they have become relics of the past who no longer live up to their charter, but instead, support politics that they agree with by their silence on issues that matter and their front-paging of issues and politicians they oppose.

Oh and by the way, Rush Limbaugh is the king of talk radio and nothing else.  If he were king of the Republicans, they wouldn't be compromising with mushbrained leftists for fear of being demonized in the press.

Leftist Juveniles: This Is What Passes for Progressive Political Speech

I inadvertently came across a blog entitled "Nameless GenX Blog" with a post titled "The Republican Party Platform for 2012 in One Tidy PDF"*. It is interesting in its complete lack of adult intellect and factual information. Closer to a juvenile rant against all things misunderstood and regurgitated with all the honesty that can be mustered by someone who is not only a propagandist and Cool Aid swiller, but has become the Cool Aid pitcher containing all of the available pseudo-juice.

I was filled such memorable lines as, "In Republican ‘merka, freedom applies only to white, male, Fundamentalist Christians and/or Fortune 500 Corporations to whom The Bush Supreme Court® has granted human status.

This sentence holds many misconceptions and revelations. 'Merka" leads by indicating a hatred for this country (America). When people use the letter "k" in place of the "c" in America I see their attempt to marginalize this country. These folks do not like what they see here, but become tongue tied when asked to show a better model (because there is none).

He then mistakenly claims that the GOP will deny freedom to anyone who is not a Caucasian Republican like them and their rich friends. Never mind that there are more wealthy Democratic Party Congresspersons than GOP has and the GOP is the majority in the US House. Additionally, he leaves out the fact that President Obama, has rich CEO's on his list of "czars" whose corporations pay very little in taxes (GE).

The reality is the GOP and the Democratic Party both take contributions from wealthy sponsors, lobbyists and PAC's. The history is that the party in power gets the most money and this, I suspect, is why there is such warlike partisan battles going on for every elected office.

He envisions as country where everyone other than Republicans will be denied rights as listed in the Bill of Rights. Of course, there is about zero evidence to prove that idea and he doesn't even know how to describe socialist government programs. His examples of socialist government programs include...

"(roads, bridges, tunnels, military to invade sovereign countries so as to confiscate their oil, police and fire protection for their walled estates, trash removal, snow removal, food tasting, etc.)"

If he should read this I would like to point out to him that roads, bridges, tunnels (infrastructure) and the military are not socialist programs, but are specifically listed as the responsibility of the federal government in the US Constitution.

The police, fire fighters and trash removal are not listed in the US Constitution but are left to the responsibility of local governments (state, county and city).

And we as taxpayers pay for all of it.

*The Nameless GenX Blog seems to have been changed since finding the linked story.

Rights vs. Power

Sometimes I wonder if anyone knows the difference between the terms rights and power as it is used when discussing the people's relationship to government these days.  Do you?  I think I know the difference and I'd like to share.

People and groups who want more from society and feel they need leverage always use the term "rights" when describing their issue, and always using it incorrectly.  This misuse of terminology confuses the issues and allows what would otherwise be dismissed out of hand, now are considered for action by serious minded scholars, political leaders, activists, and judges, along with all of their sycophants falling in line.

In this country people do have rights - protected rights.  We Americans revel in our personal freedoms and the exercise our constitutionally protected rights daily and without fear of reprisal.  But that is changing.  Special interest groups are defining their issues as rights when there is little proof that anyone's rights are involved. We want our rights to protect us, not to be bastardized and abused by special interest groups.

What groups?  Unions for starters, who claim the "right" to hold corporations hostage for personal profit and demand government support them.

I suppose I should define what a right is and how it should been seen and used.  If you read the US Declaration of Independence it says, in part,

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with inherent and [certain] inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness:"

What this says to me is that the protected rights, as defined in the US Constitution's Bill of Rights, do not emanate from the government.  The rights are with us long before government gets involved. and their involvement is limited to protecting those rights and sometimes, under certain conditions, place limits on the exercise of those rights.

The conditions? When people violate the rights of others.  This is what "protected" means.  Government did not create rights.  Government was created to protect rights.

Some argue that groups of people have rights, but until recently there was no law, no state or US Code that specifies any group should be afforded some right due to their group membership.  Politicians have been giving certain groups power, but not rights.  For instance, the government affords special protection to unions to ensure that businesses don't remove their power to organize. The legacy media will broadcast stories about labor union rights.  But I would submit that the labor unions and such rights as they may claim only apply as written in their contracts between the union members and the company where they are employed.  That makes it less of a right and merely a contractual relationship.

Gay groups claim a right to marry.  This is profound because no one possesses a government sponsored or protected "right to marry".  Individuals in the USA are free to pursue whatever pleases them with the government staying out of the way to "insure domestic Tranquility" (US Constitution preamble) as long as it does not interfere with the rights of other individuals. Government's involvement in marriage is pretty much limited to contract and common law that ensures family property considerations and settling disputes (such as property division during a divorce and inheriting (along with taxing) property).  There are no protected marriage rights except when settling disputes in a court of law or through arbitration. I discuss the Gay marriage case, Proposition 8, in another post *.

Government agencies have power, but no rights.  None, nix, nada, zero.  Government, although comprised of people who do have rights, does not have a right to anything. No property rights, no religious rights, no 5th amendment rights, etc. It has "just power". That  power is temporarily borrowed from the people for the express purpose to...

"establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

They can only exercise the power loaned to them by the people. When considering or election system, that power is only temporary for those in office. The same must be true of groups, such as unions and PAC's.  Though courts have assigned rights to a type of 'group' (corporations), but those are very limited. For instance, corporations have the right no right to vote, but they do have the rights listed in Amendments 4 through 8.

A quick search will reveal the misuse of the term "rights" has been deeply ingrained in our news and educational institutions. There are examples of this maddening trend everywhere.

ABC news asks, "How Does the President Have the Right to Target for Killing a US Citizen?" It goes on to say that the ACLU "sought to challenge the White House assertion that it had the constitutional right to kill Awlaki.

 Uh, no he does not.  He may have the "power" to target American born terrorists (another argument), but the president does not have the right to use his powers.  He has the power to use his powers..

Even PBS confuses the term with this, "Though the Constitution gave the president the right to veto bills from Congress," in a discussion of the history of the veto power of the president. (The power of the Presidency, The Veto).  Again, it's not his right, but it is within his specific constitutional powers - They even say it's a power - hello.

Anyone watching National Park Service Director Jonathan Jarvis' testimony on O'Reilly, along with Megyn Kelly's assessment of his testimony a short time ago (National Park Service under fire for helping 'Occupy', Jan 26, 2012), witnessed yet another mischaracterization of rights vs. power. I was surprised that Ms. Kelly, a lawyer, has fallen into the trap of using the word rights when she should use the word power. He is using the power afforded him by his job.

People have rights. Government has power. People who work for the government exercise that power in the performance of their lawful duties. Protected individual rights have nothing to do with it.

So why is it important to use the correct term?  The answer lies in the political nature of this country's bumper sticker politics and the sound bite news . The politicians may support some group, such as gays, and using the term "gay rights" carries much more weight among the voting public than it would by trying to sell "gay power".

Please use the proper terminology.  it will move this country a long way towards the freedom loving and prosperous country that we always have been.

A discussion of rights is located (here)


* CA Proposition 8 Declared Unconstitutional by Gay Judge.

African Americans Getting it Right - Democrats Have Never Worked For Your Success

I heard a political advertisement featuring an African-American telling like it is - and has been.  Elbert Guillory: "Why I Am a Republican", was very uplifting and more importantly - sites the honest and true history for the Democratic Party and the seemingly high minded goals that have done nothing but depress personal freedom in the Black community and the country in general.




There have been more African Americans revealing the truth of the Democratic Party's machinations just before this year's election day. Here is a story about the realization that Democrats and many African-American politicians are not looking out for you and your family. "Chicago Activists Unchained, Destroy Black Leadership" - Rebel Pundit - Direct link to video on You Tube.

There needs to be more people spreading the truth of failed policies that are sold as "help" for the people, but really only becomes help for politicians and bureaucrats.

President 'Twiddling His Thumbs' or Unilaterally Making Laws

Update, - September 23rd, 2014 - More Obama lawbreaking.

"Obama hits at companies moving overseas to avoid taxes" - WaPo, By Lori Montgomery September 22, 2014

Ms. Montgomery writes,

"The Obama administration took action Monday to discourage corporations from moving their headquarters abroad to avoid U.S. taxes, announcing new rules designed to make such transactions significantly less profitable.

The rules, which take effect immediately, will not block the practice, and Treasury Secretary Jack Lew again called on Congress to enact more far-reaching reforms. But in the meantime, he said, federal officials “cannot wait to address this problem,” which threatens to rob the U.S. Treasury of tens of billions of dollars." Continue reading...

The Obama administration has changed tax law without the benefit of the US Congress, your representatives. The Washington Post reports that in an effort to stop US companies from trying to escape their tax policies, they have unilaterally changed the law to penalize companies that relocate overseas.

The President of the United States, a documented constitutional scholar, believes he has the lawful power to make law without the benefit of congressional input, claiming...

“The American people don’t want me standing around twiddling my thumbs waiting for Congress to do something,” - MSNBC

This comes after a January Cabinet meeting where he says..

"We’re not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help they need. I've got a pen and I've got a phone, and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative actions that move the ball forward in helping to make sure our kids are getting the best education possible, making sure that our businesses are getting the kind of support and help they need to grow and advance, to make sure that people are getting the skills that they need to get those jobs that our businesses are creating."  - Whitehouse.gov

What disturbs me about it is not just that he believes he can do this.  My problem is how the US Congress, the media and some people, seem to believe it is lawful and that everyone in or out of the Obama administration would be required to follow any of his extra-constitutional executive orders."

The issue is not how many, the issue is legality.

Many Obama supporters, such as the Brookings Institute, will talk about the number of executive orders with emphasis on other presidents having issued many more than President Obama, while overlooking the legalities of any of them.

Factcheck.org is another Democratic Party support machine that routinely prints fringe statements and then grades them.  As with any good lie, there are elements of truth involved. In this one, they received a request to fact check an email from a third party.

"I am submitting the email below for analysis by your great organization."

The truth is the "email" was portions of a Western Journalism post from June 2012. Again the issue there was how many (which the author apparently overstated).  But still, the point was the number of signing statements -  oh, and Martial law rules (something all president sign) - which is an interesting but off point side note.

So are there any illegal executive orders and signing statements from President Obama?

Let's start with the Affordable Care Act.  The president has changed the law, without the benefit of a congressional vote, many times - each time the change was in response to failures of the law or complaints from affected parties, such as congressional staff employees, business owners, insurance companies and the states.  Among the 42 ObamaCare changes (as of  July 2014)  twenty-four were by "administrative action" ( iow's -EO & SS).  The US Constitution does not bestow the Executive Branch with the power to change laws that have been voted on by our representatives in congress.

Then there is the Bowe Bergdahl prisoner exchange.  The president signed an executive order authorizing trading 5 Gitmo prisoners for the deserter, Bowe Bergdahl, and then made the trade without consulting the US Congress. That was in violation of the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act (Section 1035(d), which was signed into law by the president. This law requires notifications 30 days prior to releasing Gitmo prisoners.

Does anyone have to follow these illegal orders?  

Uh, no. It's illegal;.  What part of illegal needs explaining?

Neither the president nor any of his supporters can show how changing laws without passing it through the US Congress is in any way legal or binding. The president has no legal authority to issue laws that have not been passed by the US Congress. As such - in my estimation - no one and no federal agency would be required to follow or enforce such unlawful edicts.

If any federal agency attempts to enforce an unlawful order, that institution and the offending employees should be prosecuted for violating the law.

--------

Dear Mr. President.  I agree the people do not want you standing around twiddling your thumbs, but they - we - do not want you disregarding the laws of the land either.

These laws are on the books to help protect the American people from the injustices that can occur in government: Not to help make the president's job easier.   We all realize the negotiating with congress is hard, but that is the only way to lawfully change or make laws for the federal government.  If you find that you are unable to deal with the requirements of the job, then I respectfully suggest that you find employment elsewhere and leave the job to those who would honor their oath of office.

Presidential oath of office.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."   - Library of Congress

Can the Leader of the Democratic party Win a War?

This morning, 08/30/2014, I woke up to a 1994 episode of Law and Order titled White Rabbit on the TV.  The plot involved prosecuting a former Vietnam War protester/killer. It got me to thinking about that war and those that followed.  It occurred to me that no Democratic Party President has won a war since WWII when FDR's government defeated the Germans and the Japanese at the same time.  Here is a quick list of Democratic Party Presidents and their foreign policy/war fighting records.

- The next war was in Korea (1950-1953).  This undeclared war was led by President Truman (D) and it still has not ended. We lost 30,000 troops, Truman fired his General (MacArthur) who was executing the war for him, and we never won the war. An armistice was agreed to and it has been in ceasefire status since 1953.

- Vietnam (1955-1975) - President Johnson (D) escalated the fighting in Vietnam throughout his time as president and is responsible for losing over 50,000 US lives.  It  seemed to me at the time that he didn't want to win it.  He just wanted to keep it going and only he knows why.  We left Vietnam as the losers with Nixon in inheriting a lost war and trying to get us out of there.

- Iran (1979- ongoing) - President Carter (D) fails to respond to Iran's declaration of war on the western world. On November 4th, 1979. in a direct assault against Americans, the US Embassy in Tehran was invaded and the Americans were taken hostage. President Carter responded to this act of war by doing nothing.  He did personally direct a rescue effort, but failed at that as well. The US Embassy personnel were released on the day that President Ronald Reagan was sworn in, 444 days later.  The thing that is hard to believe about this one is that no president's administration, Democrats or Republicans, have taken Iran's declaration of war seriously - treating it as an issue that may need to be managed, but not taken seriously.  Now Iran is developing nuclear weapons, supports terror networks around the world (including the new terrorist group, ISIS), and they are still calling for the death of the "Great Satan" (the USA for those who have not been paying attention).

- Somalia (1992) -President Clinton (D) takes office in January 1992 and decides to change the mission of our peace keepers, who were providing humanitarian aid in Somalia, to capture Somalian warlords.  The military requested more equipment and soldiers to accomplish the new mission, but the President refused.  Our brave men and women attempted the new mission anyway and now we have a movie named "Blackhawk Down", where we unnecessarily lost the lives of 18 soldiers and left Somalia with tails tucked in.

- Haiti (1995) - Next, To prove he is some kind of national defense hawk, President Clinton defends against the military juggernaut and looming threat to US security by declaring war on the country of Haiti.  Haiti.  That's right.  He sent in the 82nd Airborne but the operation was cut short by a last minute peace agreement with Haiti negotiated by former president Carter.

Throughout President Clinton's two terms, he was challenged by radical Islam with multiple attacks on the US military by terrorists (Al Qaeda) and heads of state (Saddam Hussein).  Instead of finding out where these terrorists were based and then wiping them out, he treated the whole thing as a law enforcement matter and even took a pass on killing Osama Bin Laden.

- Iraq and Afghanistan - Now we have President Obama (D) who was handed two victories from Bush and immediately started moving them into the lost column. Channeling Truman, he also fires his General (McChrystal). Deciding that he doesn't care for completing the mission in Iraq and in Afghanistan, he makes a huge tactical and operational security blunder by announcing not only that US Forces will be pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan and then reveals tentative dates for this to happen.  President Obama's decision has nothing to do with winning or leaving the battlefield with a credible defense capability in those countries.  He just wanted out.

President Obama's naivete in this area is astounding to me.  He shows no concern for the lives of his troops or anyone else that represents this country overseas.  Just look at a few of his tactical blunders.

- Seal Team 6 successfully kills Osama Bin Laden and recovers a "treasure trove" of information about Al Qaeda. Information that could be used to locate and neutralize Al Qaeda all over the world. But what does he do?  He immediately announces to the world that he has a "treasure trove" of information concerning Al Qaeda operations and makes it practically useless in less than 24 hours. Not only that, It cannot be shown, or hasn't so far, that he has acted on any of the information gathered.  So, Dear Mr. President, even the lowest Private in the US Army knows that one does not tell the enemy that he has information about their operations.  And do you know why, Mr. resident? Because if you tell them you know what they are doing they will stop doing that and do something else, making all of your treasure into plug nickles.

Now we are reaping the results of President Obama's political decisions concerning Iraq. A new group of terrorists has grown from the vacuum President Obama created. The president drew a "red line" in Syria and when it was crossed - he did nothing.  Syrian insurgents, calling themselves ISIS, have moved in Syria, fighting that regime and have spread into Iraq, where the met with almost no resistance.  They have taken over large tracts of land, cities, banks and military equipment left in Iraq by US forces.  Did president Obama improve conditions in these countries?  The answer is 'no, he did not'.

In contrast to the Democrats' records, GOP presidents have had striking successes in leading us in times of national security.

- Abe Lincoln (R) was victorious over the Confederacy.
- President Reagan (R) won in Grenada in less than 2 weeks.
- President George HW Bush (R-41) defeated Iraq's military in a matter of weeks.  Operation Desert Storm took about five weeks to defeat Iraq's Republican guard.
- In Afghanistan, President George W. Bush (R-43) forced the Taliban to flee the country in a mere 7 weeks.  "43" followed this by unseating Saddam Hussein in 21 days. Both were clear victories.

So the question is, do we trust US Presidents who are members of the Democratic Party to conduct foreign policy and direct the US military in combat operations?  I answer is "I don't think so Tim".

They have proven their inability to lead and to be effective commanders in chiefs.

War with ISIS?

I think there is a disconnect between how progressives and conservatives view war.  Progressives seem to believe that a war means the end of the world, that they would have to spend other people's money on soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and the military industrial complex - money that could be better spend buying votes and funding abortions, not to mention paying off their own wealthy supporters. To them, war means a breakdown in civil discourse and diplomacy - and diplomacy is the high calling that takes precedence over any other considerations.  Just ask the president.

To me, a conservative, war is the last thing you want.  The reason is that war always causes destruction and death - including the death of civilians and non-combatants.  The military is enlisted to break things and kill people.  War has only two outcomes - either you win or you lose - there is nothing in between that matters. If you do want to avoid killing innocent civilians, and that is more important than winning the war or saving the lives of your own military - then do not go to war. 

The military is not enlisted to win hearts and minds of the enemy or civilians in the battle zone. That kind of thinking is some new age mushbrained thinking that cannot be based in reality.  Just consider a foreign army invading your neighborhood - killing your neighbors, women and children - and destroying your property.  How can they become your friend after that?

Now, if some other party declares war on you and are actively killing your people, you no longer have a choice.  You must go to war and destroy the enemy.  In the case of ISIS, they are using US military equipment, along with others they have captured, to kill their perceived enemies and US civilians - all the while declaring war on the USA. How do we avoid war with them at this point?

President Obama has responded by public stating that he will not "put boots on the ground" (even though he already has).  Rather, he wants to "manage" the problem.  The president, to his credit, has authorized air support to slow ISIS down.  But slowing them down is not an option.  Why? - ISIS has stated their goal - a world wide caliphate slaving under Sharia law with them in charge, and including the destruction of the United States of America.

Just because President Obama does not want to go to war, doesn't mean he can avoid it.  This enemy will not allow that.  They are in it for the long haul - they have been dreaming of a world wide caliphate since the 6th century - and they almost did it, expanding through Europe and Asia until the crusades pushed back.  They seriously need pushing back again.

Should the USA be involved in a war with ISIS? Continue the War on Terror?  Of Course we should and we need to take the lead on this.  We do not need to put many "boots on the ground" for this, and I would not recommend it.  We should supply close air support, weapons, intel, and supplies to support indigenous fighters, such as the Kurds.

President Obama said ISIS is a cancer that is metastasizing and must be destroyed.  Well Mr. President, the longer you wait to get serious the harder it will be to destroy them and longer means a much higher body counts will result.

I heard a gentleman on the radio this morning said returning troops gave some real inside into the situation in Iraq.

In Iraq, the people wanted to US to defeat their enemies and then get out so they can impose their beliefs on the everyone there.  

That is precisely what Prime Minister Maliki did when we booted Saddam Hussein and handed the country over to him.  How'd that work for us?

Since we cannot win hearts and minds by killing the people, and we are only throwing away our blood and treasure when we destroy the bad guys for them, we should let them fight it out and help the ones that appear more USA friendly.

Daily Kos - Cannot Handle Nor Tolerate Different Viewpoints - Especially If Those Views Are True.

In January, 2014, I decided to help the folks who read and comment on stories posted at the Daily Kos (herein referred to simply as "Kos"), but it is to be no more.  I quickly found that this progressive diary/forum/news out cannot tolerate views that differ from their training.

It took only 37 posts for me to be to be banned from posting comments at the Kos.

I would believe that being banned would require such untoward behavior such as calling people names, swearing, posting libelous remarks, being a jerk or being just plain rude.  Of course in our enlightened times, there are many who believe that anyone who disagrees with them are rude or obnoxious, and are most likely stupid, superstitious, backwards and other labels that may or may not apply. The worst being "conservative" (followed closely by "Republican").

So what pushed the mods at the Kos to ban me from posting?

The very last post is unavailable at the Kos.  If you look at the list of my posts you will see this message when clicking on any of the last 3 posts.

"ERROR!
If this error doesn't make sense to you, please submit this error message to the helpdesk.Can't call method "comment_url" on an undefined value at /www/dk4-perl/current/lib/ScoopDK/Controller/Comment.pm line 150."

By the way, as an indication of how the brain trust at the Kos works, the last post, submitted on March 4th, is numbered "1" by the Kos, and my first post, submitted on January 1st, 2014, is numbered "37".

My next visit the Kos showed the "comment" button missing.  I sent a message to the mods and received notice that I'd been Banned.

I tried to see if I had posted anything that was actually rude or insulting, but I don't believe I posted any.

Well maybe this one because it was "Condemned for all eternity"

Here are some examples of my posts... and maybe a response.

Kos article: "Did Speaker Boehner just issue an impeachment threat over executive orders?"

My response:

Threaten? A bit late forthat. (0+ / 0-)We will just have to wait him out.This president started violating his oath of office from the starting gate when gave trillions to his supporters on wall Street while jetting off for date nights with the misses and letting the middle class lose their jobs, homes, and savings. 47 trillion latter and he is still in the jobs hole by over a million.by Mover on Sun Feb 02, 2014 at 11:08:49 AM PST

Note: It should read 4.7, not 47, in the last sentence.

Does that response imply anything other than an opposing opinion?  While I'm sure partisans on the left do not like their heroes being labeled as uncaring lawless supporters of the one percent, I don't see any vitriol in it.  Besides it happens to be true.

The truth, something Charles Krauthammer describes the Obama administration as having "an arms length relationship with". (Here)

A post in response to the article titled "Sociopathic stance on Obamacare would be fatal to GOP if successful"

My response, starting with quoting a line from the "diary":

    Sociopaths? Look to Washington (1+ / 0-)"Opponents of Obamacare seeking repeal and using fallacies to mislead Americans into supporting repeal can only be considered sociopaths."Wouldn't it be labeled sociopathic to blindly support a program that you can actually see hurting people?  Wouldn't it be sociopathic to see the harm and then deny it?"They are knowingly asking Americans to be "a weapon in a war against themselves."That would be a good point if it were true.  Here are some other considerations for the "Americans harming themselves' label.Allowing government free reign to selectively comply with the law.  To allow their friends and supporters a waiver for government programs they know are super expensive, such as ACA. How about encouraging our government in reduce our military strength in a time when the world is becoming more dangerous?  We have 11 aircraft carriers and only two at sea.  We have none to send to help the Ukraine as a bargaining chip.  The fact is we have no chips.You might enjoy this one.  When the government bailed out the Wall Street Fat-cats, those fat-cats kept their homes, their savings and their jobs - some even got bonuses, while millions of your neighbors lost their homes, their jobs, and their savings.  To add insult to injury, the government gave those same fat-cats those homes to sell again while allowing them to keep all equity and payments made by the families that were paying for them.   And while we're being insulted, the government is actually borrowing money from China and printing money to pay the those same fat-cats when they agree to refinance a home in foreclosure.  Question" How much money can the Obama Administration possibly give to the 1% at our expense?by Mover on Mon Mar 03, 2014 at 01:29:14 PM PST

Along with the typical response to my comment.

o     This guy is a RW troll. (7+ / 0-)Please look at his other comments.by jqb on Tue Mar 04, 2014 at 03:03:24 AM PST

Looking at the "scoring", Mine had one up-vote, while jqb gets 7 for labeling me as a "RW troll".

I say typical because this is the type of response conservatives, or anyone with a different perspective, will receive from Progresses and liberals. This can be seen in the media, who I label the "legacy media", because they support the Progressive agenda.

All of my posts, with the exception of those the Kos decided were unfit for human eyes (condemned) can be seen at the Kos, under the comment by me at this link.  If you think I should have been banned, let me know why.  I have always been open to suggestions.

Traditional Marriage is ‘Hate Speech'?

In another example of progressive reality twisting, we find this story: Stanford Calls Traditional Marriage Conference ‘Hate Speech’, Denies Funding.

Extolling the benefits of marriage can only be hate speech to those who do not believe in nor support traditional marriage.

It seems the left will leave no normalcy alone.  To them, anything that promotes personal responsibility, self-discipline, self-respect or self-reliance is anti-progressive and will attempt to tear it down.  After all, the progressive movement cannot stand in the light of an educated, disciplined and informed public.

Stealing the Election, One Lie at a Time

The 2012 election cycle turned into a real surprise to Americans with the following assets: common sense, a sense of honor, a reasonable grasp of world events and American history, along with some notion of how the American and global marketplace works.  

I mean common sense dictates that the presidential candidate with a proven record of success, experience, with no skeletons in his closet and a seemingly really nice guy, father, and grandfather would be a shoe-in over a candidate with a proven record of mediocrity, failure to keep his promises, top down governance (if you can call it governing), no practical experience, a worrisome lack of leadership and propensity to blame others for everything and anything that he should be responsible for.

If you're being honest with yourself  you have to wonder where 'the great uniter', 'the agent of real change', 'the one we've been waiting for', went after Mr. Obama was elected president in 2008.

He has been anything but a uniter.  He does not seek common ground with political opponents.  His record clearly shows him blaming and even preaching to Republicans when he's not ignoring them.  But that's no big deal, right?

So how did he convince 51% of the voters to reelect him?  Lies.  That's it.  Nothing but lies, redirection and delaying tactics.  The president's campaign against Governor Romney contained no factual information, but did include many big lies and deceitful adverting. 

For instance, Obama campaign ran an advert where a man, Joe Soptic, accused Romney of killing his wife.  The ad claimed Romney/Bain Capital bought the steel company the Mr. Soptic worked for and the man lost his insurance followed by his wife dying of cancer.  The problem is it was absolute fantasy linked with half truths.  Not a thing about the lady's passing was correct or factual other than the cancer.  The real story is the the wife had her own insurance that she had even after hubby lost his job.  Even left leaning Politifact rates it as completely false.

"She had no insurance because a shoulder injury caused her to leave a job that provided coverage. That was the immediate reason for her being uninsured, not the plant closure." - Politifact

Then there is the Benghazi murders a few weeks before the election.  The Obama campaign spun up a story to make it past the election.  His concern was that some news outlets would report his failure in protecting the ambassador and 3 others by claiming that the attack was spontaneous and a result of a bad video made in California.  He sent Susan Rice out to repeat the propaganda on five different Sunday news shows.  Of course that is total nonsense.  The attackers were Al Quaida linked terrorists who cared out a successful and planned attack against Americans in Libya.  And that is a problem because 'on top of the situation' claimed that Al Quaida was on the retreat.

The biggest lie, heralded as the "Lie of the Year" by Politifact, President Obama said that 

"If you like your health care plan, you can keep it," - President Barack Obama (Politifact)

An opinion poll was conducted on November 18-20, 2013 and found that 23% of Obama supporters would not have voted for him if they knew they'd be losing their insurance.

This all points to a need to clean up political speech.  While it is perfectly OK for politicians and their supporters to attack opponents' records and inflate their own, they should be disqualified for making up false narratives and passing them off as factual.  

The average American voter does not have the time or the inclination to fact-check political advertisements.  When they (we) see/hear political ads and assume the information is based on fact. 

When the falsehoods are so egregious as the Obama/Joe Soptic political ad, it's time for the Federal Election Commission to step up and do two things; 

1. Force the campaign to to correct the lie.
2. Disallow those producers, creators, writers and proponents of the lie filled campaign ad from participating in further campaign ads for the remainder of the the election cycle.

It is equally important that the major news outlets report the facts instead of supporting one political party or one politician over another.  The US Constitution gives the media special treatment to help keep the government from exceeding its authority, but that is not happening.