Dec. 8, 2009
The American Spectator
During the first year of the Obama administration, conservatives have directed much of their fire on the major legislation the president is pushing through Congress. This concern is justifiable, as Democrats are moving bills aimed at taking over the nation’s health care system, creating a national energy tax to limit carbon emissions, and enabling unions to rapidly add members by denying workers a secret ballot on unionization.
But as critical as it is for the right to expose the damaging consequences of such major legislation, conservatives must not lose sight of the fact that there is more than one way for the president to impose his vision on the country. Each day, throughout the executive branch, presidentially appointed bureaucrats who remain unknown to most Americans make decisions that have consequences for the entire nation. And in President Obama’s case, his appointments serve as a plan B, allowing him to realize the parts of his agenda that he is unable to enact through the legislative process. In some instances, Obama’s more radical appointees have withdrawn or resigned once their extreme views have come to light. One prominent example is Van Jones, who was forced to resign as the White House “green jobs czar” after the revelations that he once described himself as a communist and that he signed a petition of a group that raised questions about whether the Sept. 11 attacks were an inside job. Yet many other troubling Obama appointees have escaped major scrutiny. Some have had their nominations stalled in the Senate, while others are already hard at work implementing liberal policies.
“This administration is moving very quickly on the appointment side of things to put people in place that, because of the regulation state that has built up over the past 40 years, will have within their realm the power to affect every area of this country without our elected representatives having so much of a say in it,” Bill Wilson, president of Americans for Limited Government, told TAS. Wilson, whose group has been closely tracking Obama’s appointments, specifically highlighted labor and environmental policy as among the most worrisome areas.
Obama gave the first indication that he planned on handsomely rewarding unions for the role they played in getting him elected when he named California Rep. Hilda Solis to be secretary of labor. Solis was first elected to Congress in 2000 as a union candidate, and as a member of the House of Representatives from 2001 until her appointment this year, she racked up perfect or near perfect vote ratings from every major union. She also served as treasurer of American Rights at Work, a pro-labor group that maintained the “Shame on Elaine” attack website aimed at her predecessor, Elaine Chao. And shortly after being confirmed, she went to work reversing many of Chao’s policies to the benefit of her union allies.
While liberals look at the agency as an entity that only regulates businesses, under the leadership of Secretary Chao from 2001 through January 2009, the Labor Department also took its responsibility of regulating unions seriously. Chao beefed up the Office of Labor Management Standards (OLMS), which polices unions, and during this time, the division’s actions led to 929 convictions of corrupt union officials and to the recovery of more than $93 million on behalf of union members. Yet shortly after Solis was sworn in as the new secretary of labor, the Obama administration announced its intention to slash the OLMS budget by more than 9 percent, while at the same time boosting the budgets of the divisions tasked with regulating businesses. As a result, corrupt union bosses will have a much freer hand with which to bilk their members.
BUT THIS IS JUST a small part of Obama’s efforts to use the Department of Labor to pay back unions. He also tapped two women with close ties to unions — Patricia Smith and Lorelei Boylan — for other top positions within the department. While working for the New York State Department of Labor, Smith and Boylan spearheaded a controversial program in which the state partners with unions and other liberal community groups to police workplaces.
“Just as no one wants to live in an area riddled with crime, nobody wants to live in a neighborhood where workers are paid sweatshop wages,” Smith said when announcing the program in January 2009. “New York Wage Watch will increase labor law compliance by giving regular people a formal role in creating lawful workplaces statewide, and thereby improving the quality of life in their communities. It will also help law-abiding employers, who struggle to compete with businesses that undercut them by violating the law.”
But in practice empowering “regular people” actually means that the government is deputizing unions to help police workplaces.
“New York Wage Watch is labor law enforcement at the purest, most grassroots level,” boasted Stuart Appelbaum, president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, in the press release announcing the program.
Boylan, who runs the initiative, was nominated by Obama to head the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour division, but her nomination was withdrawn in October. Smith, who actually devised the Wage Watch program in New York, was appointed by Obama to be solicitor of labor. Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY) placed her nomination on hold, meaning that Democrats will need 60 votes to move it forward. Her status was still in limbo as of this writing.
Even more worrisome for the American business community is President Obama’s attempt to pack the National Labor Relations Board with union lawyers who would make rulings that would achieve many of the same results as labor-friendly legislation. The most obvious example of such legislation is the Orwellian-named Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA). The bill’s two major provisions would deny workers a secret ballot in voting on whether to unionize, and force employers into binding arbitration proceedings when negotiating contracts with unions. To this date, Republicans have succeeded in preventing EFCA from becoming law, but the bill’s legislative fate may not even matter if Obama gets several controversial nominees to the labor panel confirmed.
Currently, there are only two members on the five-member NRLB — one is a Republican and the other a Democrat. To tilt the balance of the board, Obama tapped two union lawyers (Craig Becker and Mark Pearce). He also appointed a Republican Senate staffer, Brian E. Hayes, in hopes it would dissuade Republican senators from blocking the other two.
Becker, a longtime labor activist, is the associate general counsel of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). The left-wing magazine In These Times wrote that he “helped lay the intellectual foundation for the Employee Free Choice Act.” More relevantly, he wrote a law review article arguing that the major aims of EFCA could be achieved through rulings by the regulatory body to which Obama has appointed him.
“This is somebody who has announced ahead of time that he thinks he can do much of the left’s agenda through the regulatory process,” Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, said in an interview with TAS. “It’s one thing for him to say he intends to do something, but when you look at it, where are the guardrails? Who says he can’t? Who slaps him down?”
Norquist said that if Becker were confirmed, all that would need to happen would be for somebody to file a complaint arguing that the unionization process at a particular business was unfair, and the union-friendly board could decide in the person’s favor and set rules for unionization and collective bargaining along the lines of what is prescribed by EFCA.
Canada Free Press
By Dennis Jones Sunday, December 6, 2009
In the business world most executives get an annual performance evaluation that reviews the past year’s accomplishments or shortcomings and compares them to previously agreed upon goals and accountabilities. As 2009 draws to a close, the following is a recap and review that President Obama might receive for his performance over the past year starting with his previous experience:
Prior Relevant Experience
- 3 years in the US Senate (two spent running for President) – no major legislation authored, only credit taken for legislation introduced by others.
- 7 years in the Illinois state senate, a part-time calling that allowed him to serve as a part-time law professor.
- Three years as a “community organizer”.
Selected Domestic Policy Accomplishments
- Tripled the budget deficit to $1.4 Trillion (daily interest on the national debt is now over a billion dollars a day).
- Pushed for the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, aka the pork-laden Stimulus of $787 billion that he personally promised would keep unemployment from rising over 8%. In fact, unemployment been over 8% since the ARRA was passed in February and in the 10% range every month since August.
- Championed ill-conceived Cap and Trade legislation based on faulty and fraudulent science.¬† If passed, this legislation would amount to a substantial tax on every American and severely crimp the economy.
- Made health care the number one issue in America and socialized medicine the country’s priority when polls reflect that it is not the first priority of Americans.¬† Meanwhile 8 million jobs have been lost in the worst economic slump since the great depression, Iran and North Korea are accelerating their nuclear programs uncontested and both federal and many state budget deficits are unsustainable.
- Agreed to give Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, found by the 9/11 Commission Report to be the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks, and four other terrorists legal protection and potential not guilty verdicts via a civil trial nearby the site of the attacks.
Selected Foreign Policy Accomplishments
- Failed to get Russia to agree to sanction Iran for its nuclear programs at a cost of selling out Eastern Europe and giving up the anti-ballistic US missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic
- Apologized for America and expressed solidarity with Muslims in his Cairo speech during his four nation trip to the Middle East and Europe. “Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism—it is an important part of promoting peace,” he said.
- Schmoozed with dictators Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega at the 34-country Summit of the Americas and again apologized for America: “We have at times been disengaged, and at times we sought to dictate our terms. But I pledge to you that we seek an equal partnership. There is no senior partner and junior partner in our relations.”
- Accomplished absolutely nothing on his recent trip to Asia widely panned by the media of both the US and Asia.
- Pondered what to do in Afghanistan for 100 days and then committed more troops. General McChrystal advised him to commit more troops in his one five-minute meeting with Obama three months ago.
Miscellaneous Selected Accomplishments in Random Order:
- Ceded the most power to unelected officials in history creating he largest number of Czars, not elected and not confirmed by Congress, ever.¬† Their qualifications will be another column.
- Changed the image of the US from strength to weakness by his high profile bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia, to Vladimir Putin and to the Japanese Emperor.
- Scolded CEO’s for travel expenses then took Mrs. Obama to a Broadway show via presidential jet.
- Failed to bring the Olympics to Chicago after a very public personal effort.¬† Both he and Mrs. Obama jetted off to Copenhagen, on separate jets, in a highly visible lobbying trip that was unconvincing to the Olympic committee.
- Won the Nobel Peace Prize for accomplishing precisely nothing.
- Sold a flight on Air Force One that over-flew Manhattan and panicked the city.
- Gave high-profile thoughtless gifts, an Ipod to the Queen of England and to Prime Minister Gordon Brown a box of 25 DVD’s of classic American movies.¬† In contrast, the Prime Minister gave Mr. Obama a very thoughtful and symbolic gift—an ornamental pen holder made from the timbers of the Victorian anti-slave ship HMS Gannet that complemented the oak from the Gannet’s sister ship, HMS Resolute, carved to make a desk that has sat in the Oval Office in the White House since 1880.
- Achieved a record number of cabinet picks that subsequently withdrew due to tax other ethics problems.
- Building a cabinet with the least amount of private sector experience since 1900. Less than 10% of the cabinet members have private sector experience.
- Met with Andy Stern, President of Big Labor’s SEIU 7 times in a record 22 visits (the most frequent visitor according to white house logs) after pledging to keep lobbyists out of the White House.
Summary of Performance:
- Performance generally unsatisfactory.
- Ineffective, lacks leadership skills and experience.
- Has difficulty focusing on agreed-upon priorities.
- Not fiscally responsible or able to adhere to a budget.
- Exhibits poor judgment when dealing with peers and colleagues.
- Not suitable for rehire.
The Post & E-Mail
Dec. 6, 2009
Obama’s presidential campaign was hailed for its forceful imagery, but after 11 months the public has come to understand the undisputed facts about him, don’t fit the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.
(Dec. 4, 2009) — Georgia’s representative in the U.S. House, Nathan Deal announced in early November that he and 10 House colleagues were going to sign a joint letter, asking Obama to publicly reveal his birth certificate,.
The simple enough question was rebuffed and ridiculed by the Main Stream Media, and even the Savannah Morning News, as if a birth certificate was some sort of private journal or diary of past affairs.
The mere fact that the liberals and progressives ridiculed Nathan Deal — whose only interest is to quiet the nation — shows that they have no substantive reason to oppose the request. It further shows that they know that Obama cannot oblige Deal and his co-signatories, for in Democratic circles nothing is a secret.
What will Obama say to Nathan Deal?
The answer must come soon. Deal said that he was to send his letter after Thanksgiving. Any delay on the part of Barack Hussein Obama to oblige Deal, will only further erode his political influence in Washington, D.C..
Obama has been effectively checkmated by the concerted effort of public support, publicized lawsuits on the eligibility question, publicity campaigns such as those of World Net Daily and Charles Kerchner to put the issue in the face of liberals on a constant basis, and blogs and bloggers the world over.
If Obama obliges him, then the online image of a Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) provided by his campaign will be proven a forgery, according to the consensus of opinion of citizens who have studied the images posted on the net and found some images of the allegedly same document, contain a HI State seal and some do not.
If Obama does refuses, however, it will only further confirm that he has something to hide.
Palins remark that it is a valid issue and Ogden’s resignation as Deputy U.S. Attorney General in the same week, following the sending of Nathan Deal’s letter, appear to be diagnostic signs that the political establishment understands the risks and imminent crisis about to break. The publicity garnered by the testimony of the U.S. Marine, who goes by the nik, Race Bannon, only further tilt the Obama regime towards political implosion.
Even the pulse of Obama’s political support on the net tells the tale: a lull and quiet among them posting comments at opposition blogs is noticeable. There remain only the violent, the perverse and the somewhat mad to carry on the cheers of “Change,” which were the mind numbing drum beat of the Obama for American campaign, just 14 months ago.
The political momentum of the nation now follows diverse roads to the same destination, and the resulting fireworks are going to be much brighter and invigorating than those of any Fourth of July in many a year!
The Post & E-Mail
by John Charlton
(Dec. 2, 2009) — The Democratic National Party has a problem with its name and with its loyalty, and as a consequence members of the party are deserting it, in Texas at least.
The GOP of Texas announced yesterday that 5 more officials in Upshurt Country switched from Democrat to Republican party affiliation.
Their press release read as follows:
We’re pleased to annouce that several more Democratic officeholders have decided to switch parties and become Republicans. Five elected Democrats in Upshur County – County Judge Dean Fowler, Sheriff Anthony Betterton, District Clerk Carolyn Bullock Parrot, Constable Jason Weeks, and Justice of the Peace Lyle Potter – all announced today that they are now Republicans and will seek re-election as such. They gave various reasons for their decisions to switch, but it all boils down to one simple fact: The Democratic Party has become too liberal and too statist for Texas voters. The Democratic Party’s values are out of the Texas mainstream. The Democratic Party is too beholden to special interests, from MoveOn’s far left agenda to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the Washington Democrats’ drive to have the federal government take over more and more of what was once the private sector, while they drive up the national debt to unsustainable levels and continue to raise our taxes.
Scores of Democrats across Texas like the five who have switched parties today are not so much leaving their party. Their party, its leadership in Washington and its leadership here in Texas, has left them. We’re pleased to continue growing the Texas GOP by attracting those who share our conservative values of limited government, strong national defense and robust economic growth via the free market to join us.
Dec. 3, 2009
The billboard is located along I-70 between the Adams Dairy Parkway and the Grain Valley exits. The billboard reads, “How do you like your change now? Obama Nation. They are coming for you! The Taxpayer. First and Second Amendments are in jeopardy. Live free or Die.” There is also a hammer and sickle on the sign.
People said they might not agree with the sentiment of the sign, but they felt it was a matter of free speech. Others that KCTV5 talked to said it is offensive and should come down.
A pastor who drives by the sign during his daily commute to his church said he lived in England for years and he agreed with the message.
“We lived in a socialist society and I guess what I am seeing in America is that we are pushing to some of those ways now,” he said. “Especially the hospitalization. It’s taking away some of our freedoms as Americans.”
by John Charlton
(Nov. 25, 2009) — It is often asked whether the usurpation of the presidency by Barack Hussein Obama will ever have a remedy in the courts. But the fact is that there already is a remedy in the courts: the ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137 137 (1803).
That case was the first to expressly indicate that no action of Congress was valid if it contravened the Constitution. Since the U.S. Constitution requires that a President be a natural born citizen; and since the Supreme Court has in 4 cases used the term “natural born citizen” only in reference to one born in the U.S.A. of parents who were citizens at the time of his birth, it follows inexorably that Obama’s election as president by the Joint Session of Congress, on January 8, 2009, is null and void. Against this legal conclusion there is no argument.
Here is the crucial text of the Supreme Court’s decision in Marbury v. Madison.
The question whether an act repugnant to the Constitution can become the law of the land is a question deeply interesting to the United States, but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognise certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.
That the people have an original right to establish for their future government such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.
This original and supreme will organizes the government and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.
The Government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the Legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may at any time be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it, or that the Legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.
Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.
If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law; if the latter part be true, then written Constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.
Certainly all those who have framed written Constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be that an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void.
This theory is essentially attached to a written Constitution, and is consequently to be considered by this Court as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not, therefore, to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.
If an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the Courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory, and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.
It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.
So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law.
This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions. It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare that, if the Legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the Legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.
That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions — a written Constitution, would of itself be sufficient, in America where written Constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction. But the peculiar expressions of the Constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favour of its rejection.
Could it be the intention of those who gave this power to say that, in using it, the Constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the Constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises?
This is too extravagant to be maintained.
In some cases then, the Constitution must be looked into by the judges. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they forbidden to read or to obey?
There are many other parts of the Constitution which serve to illustrate this subject.
It is declared that “no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State.” Suppose a duty on the export of cotton, of tobacco, or of flour, and a suit instituted to recover it. Ought judgment to be rendered in such a case? ought the judges to close their eyes on the Constitution, and only see the law?
The Constitution declares that “no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.”
If, however, such a bill should be passed and a person should be prosecuted under it, must the Court condemn to death those victims whom the Constitution endeavours to preserve?
“No person,’ says the Constitution, ’shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”
Here. the language of the Constitution is addressed especially to the Courts. It prescribes, directly for them, a rule of evidence not to be departed from. If the Legislature should change that rule, and declare one witness, or a confession out of court, sufficient for conviction, must the constitutional principle yield to the legislative act?
From these and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent that the framers of the Constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the Legislature.
Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies in an especial manner to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!
The oath of office, too, imposed by the Legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words:
“I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States.”
Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States if that Constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him?
If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe or to take this oath becomes equally a crime.
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
The Obama File
Obama, the Putative U. S. President, was born a Kenyan citizen and British subject governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 — a fact he admits to at the bottom of this page. Obama is still a British Protected Person and/or a British subject to this day.
How can a person who was born a British subject be considered a “natural born” citizen of the USA?
Simple answer — he can’t. At the top of this page, in the big blue box, Obama’s own campaign identifies him as a “native [born]” citizen. They know. It’s been there all the time.
This situation was created when both major political parties ran ineligible candidates, who were not “natural born” citizens. Obama was ineligible because his father was a foreigner (Jus sanguinis), and McCain was ineligible because he was born in a foreign country (Jus soli). The U. S Constitution, applicable case law and historical and legal precedent have been ignored for political expediency.
We are now witnessing the biggest political cover-up in American history.